by Nancy Norell

Four hundred firearms civil rights activists met at the Airport Renais-sance Hotel in St. Louis, MO, on Sept. 17-19 for the 14th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC). The conference is co-sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). This GRPC was funded in part by: National Shooting Sports Foundation; MBNA America; Marathon Communications; Microsoft® Gun Club; NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA); North American Arms; Smith & Wesson; Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute; Talk America Radio Network, and Washington Arms Collectors.
The conference opened with a buffet reception co-hosted by the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Marathon Communications, Gun Week and the Washington Arms Collectors. Missouri lawmakers and candidates addressed brief remarks to the attendees.
The next morning, after a continental breakfast hosted by Smith & Wesson, John Barnett, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, called the conference to order. After the Pledge of Allegiance and an invocation, Barnett introduced Joseph P. Tartaro, president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and executive editor of Gun News Digest, and Alan M. Gottlieb, chairman of CCRKBA and founder of SAF, who shared a "State of the Nation" address.
Tartaro offered a historical perspective on the conference theme-"Expect to Win." He recounted a New York state victory in 1968 resulting from the unified response of sportsmen, firearms owners and supporters of individual rights to an overreaching legislative proposal championed by powerhouse Republican Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who was accustomed to getting his way with little or no opposition. Rockefeller, a formidable opponent, served four terms as New York's governor.
"Rockefeller was used to hearing even Democrats say, 'Whatever you want, we will immediately deliver,'" Tartaro recalled. "He came up with a bill that makes any anti-gun legislation being discussed on a federal level these days seem tame. Everyone had to turn in all of their guns-long guns and handguns alike-to state arsenals, where they would all be registered and stored. Owners would be allowed to withdraw a gun on a specific day, signing a form stating the specific purpose for withdrawing the firearm. When the specified time requested for the use was up, the guns had to be returned to the arsenal.
When word of the proposed bill reached an organization called the Conservation Council of New York State, members developed a course of action.
"It was the only time I can recall when every single firearm organization and individual gunowners viewpoint came together," Tartaro said. "Trap shooters who didn't normally worry about guns because 'they' were after the handguns came aboard. Muzzleloaders who normally thought they were not affected because they were shooting antiques came aboard."
"It was done at the state level by state people from every single organization.
"Because of this unity, the bill was soundly defeated, and never came back again," Tartaro said. "We have been successful in forestalling a lot of bad legislation since 1968, but we have never ever shown the same kind of unified fight that we did in '68."
He concluded, "when we responded in a unified fashion, we could deny the most powerful man in the state what he was used to getting-his way. We can always expect to win when you are as unified as we were in 1968."
Gottlieb was upbeat as he viewed the road ahead for American gunowners. He said that his experience in the past months doing radio and TV shows, and dealing with pollsters, convinced him that supporters of the Second Amendment need not fear the outcome of the 2000 elections.
"The day is coming," he quipped to an applauding audience, "when we will be able to say goodbye to an awful lot of 'assault' politicians who have been 'assaulting' our rights.
Gottlieb cited a Zogby International poll that showed that 57.5% of those people who plan to vote in the next election are likely to vote for a candidate who supports the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to carry. Only 36% would support a candidate who believes that a federal ID card should be required of all gunowners and that all firearms should be registered.
Our strength, Gottlieb said, is that "the public supports the right to keep and bear arms."
But, he said, "Our number one weakness is 'kids and guns.' It's not surprising that Handgun Control Inc. has a new slogan: 'Remember when a student packed a lunch instead?' they say as they hold up a handgun for the cameras. Our opponents are doing a great job of reaching out to those in the middle with sound bites."
The anti-gunners' success in this area must be counteracted, Gottlieb said. Pro-firearms rights groups must also reach out to those in the middle with sound bites, but "at the same time, we must make sure that our base of gunowners is energized while we reach out to those in the middle."
He emphasized that this "middle" was vital to the success of the movement. The firearms rights issue has become increasingly central in public thought.
"I've been fighting for gun rights for 27 years. I have never seen an attack like this in my life."
He said that polls showing that even many gunowners support gun control are to be taken seriously. "The problem is a lack of unity. Many shooters cannot see how everyone's rights are linked. For this reason, we must state our case properly," Gottlieb said.
Gottlieb cited an exchange he had with the Junior Statesmen of America; a group made up of promising young people from every background. First he asked them how many of them were anti-gun, and many hands went up. Then he asked, "If I gave all of you a gun, right now, how many of you would run out and commit a crime?"
Not one hand was raised. Gottlieb told the group, "We've just answered an important question. The availability of firearms doesn't cause firearms crime. All of a sudden, they were receptive to the message. It made sense to them."
He also contended that the multiple lawsuits by cities against firearms manufacturers and dealers had a positive side-the suits were viewed in a negative way by the great majority, both by those who saw it as a roundabout gun ban, and by those who were philosophically opposed to holding manufacturers responsible for the eventual misuse of a product.
"Now people in the middle are willing to listen to us because the other side looks stupid."
Next, John M. Snyder, public affairs director for CCRKBA and treasurer of SAF, opened the federal affairs briefing. Other panel members were: Lt. Gen. James Chambers, USAF (ret.), executive director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI); Neal Knox, an NRA board member and executive director of the Firearms Coalition, and Ted Deeds, chief operating officer for the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA).
Snyder asserted that in every area, firearms rights supporters have won the intellectual and philosophical argument on the issue. Attacks on Second Amendment rights could be attributed to bias on the part of those who would deny those rights, and who, Snyder said, "use the emotional responses generated by tragic events to undermine the rational arguments that have already been made."
Snyder challenged the audience: "It is up to us, here at this conference, to counter those emotional arguments. We must let Congress know that we citizens simply will not tolerate further unreasonable infringements on our right to keep and bear arms."
Snyder also lamented that a national right-to-carry law was not generating the interest that it deserved.
Chambers recounted his four combat missions in three wars. Now, he said, "I joined my fifth combat tour in my fourth war. And that war is on the side of the firearms industry against those who would do away with Second Amendment rights, which I have spent my life defending.
"My industry is faced with the fight of our lives right now; at present there are some 22 lawsuits filed against the major gun manufacturers and their associations.
"Their goal is to bankrupt my industry and your suppliers."
The suits have two general forms, Chambers said. One is the New Orleans model, which claims that firearms are unreasonably dangerous; they lack safety features; they contain inadequate warnings, and they can be fired by unauthorized users.
The second type is the Chicago model, which claims that manufacturers saturate the markets where gun laws are more permissive, knowing full well that this will lead to straw purchases and transportation to areas with tough laws. In both cases, the suits claim that the manufacturers are responsible-not the criminal behind the gun, or the irresponsible owner.
The audience applauded as Chambers vowed, "Unlike the tobacco companies, we are not going to fold. We will not settle piecemeal."
Deeds then focused on recent Second Amendment victories. In particular, he cited the Supreme Court's reversal of the Brady law, and the Emerson ruling on the Second Amendment in a federal district court in Texas.
These victories were important, Deeds said, because, "They affect the public's thinking and attitudes towards guns. It affects what legislators will feel comfortable with when they take a position."
To succeed politically, Deed observed, supporters of firearms rights need to "give politicians the cover and encouragement to go where we want them to go."
Knox granted that Snyder was correct in saying that the pro-firearms rights people had won the intellectual argument.
Knox explained that the more onerous early form of the Juvenile Justice bill was stopped by killer amendments that forced liberal, anti-gun Democrats to vote against their own gun control measures. He gave kudos to Michigan Democrat John Dingell for his part in shooting down the more anti-gun version of the House bill.
"Our job isn't to lose slowly. Our job is to hold on until the greediness of the other side begins to show up to the public. If we expect to win, we may take it on the chin for a little while. Things are going to get worse before they get better, but as they get worse, it wakes up more people," Knox concluded.
Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom, a trustee and secretary of SAF, moderated the state and local legislative session.
Slom began his comments by reminding conferees that, in many cases, state and local politics were more important, and more accessible than federal politics to firearms rights supporters.
"For most of us, thank God, the federal government is far away. Our own state capitols, city councils and our own local government is where we can-and must-make an impact."
He explained his own decision to run for public office. "I swore I would never run for office...But when the toilet backs up, and the plumber's not there, somebody's got to do the dirty work."
Richard Pearson, president of the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), shared the situation in Illinois with the conference. Firearms rights face many challenges in Illinois, he said. In particular, there is a new Cook County ordinance requiring fingerprints to own a so-called assault weapon, and Chicago Mayor Daley's suits against manufacturers and dealers.
Illinois is, culturally, three different states, Pearson said, suburban, urban, and rural. This makes the ISRA's job difficult.
"As a state association, we have to deal with the attitudes and political ideas of all of these areas."
One challenge was to make certain that rules concerning firearms ownership were legislative, not administrative.
"We want things in legislation. We don't want some bureaucrats deciding. The next bureaucrat can decide something else."
Pearson advocated educating legislators at the earliest possible level.
Alice Tripp, lobbyist for the Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA), shared her experiences in Austin during the past legislative session, which turned out to have a number of contentious issues.
She concurred with previous speakers that emotion and sound bites from the other side were winning the day.
To counteract this, Tripp said, the lobbyist is obliged to educate legislators.
"As lobbyists, we are educators. You all here take for granted that everybody else knows what you know-they don't! It's scary that high up and powerful people have no idea what they're talking about."
Tripp gave credit to Texas Gov. George Bush for his support of firearms rights legislation, in particular, his signature, which was not technically necessary, on a law to limit lawsuits on firearms manufacturers and dealers.
Brian Judy, the NRA-ILA liaison for the Northwest, also stressed the need for unity. He chose as an example the 1982 California anti-gun Proposition 15 fight. Although early polls showed that it was likely to win by 2 to 1, the figures were reversed at the polls, and it was defeated 2 to 1, thanks to the unified efforts of firearms rights supporters.
"When the grassroots get together and fight the same battle, we can win."
Judy said the gravest problems are in California, where up until recently, supporters of the Second Amendment were able to follow a fairly aggressive agenda, pushing for preemption, and range protection. But recent tragedies have left legislators, even in pro-firearms rights states, looking for political cover.
'Instant' Check
Peggy Tartaro, executive editor of Women & Guns magazine and board member of CCKRBA, moderated the next panel on the ABC's of Instant Check.
She said that the National Instant Check System (NICS) was supposed to work like a credit card. But in reality, what was supposed to be an opportunity for a federally-licensed dealer to vet would-be gun buyers-and an obligation for federal authorities to arrest prohibited persons trying to obtain a gun-has turned into something else.
On one level, she said, it is a hindrance to legitimate firearms commerce. The system is slow. In July, it was up and down for a week while the system was connected to an enormous upgrade. Then, in August, the NICS system was down again while the NCIC was hooked up to a huge digitized fingerprint system called the Automated Integrated Fingerprint Identification System (AIFIS). No sales by FFL holders could be completed during that time. This amounted to a de facto gun sale ban.
Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws in America and several other books on state law, focused on the use of words, urging the conferees to categorize themselves as "pro-rights."
He said, "We are in the biggest civil rights battle since Martin Luther King, and this resonates with liberals who might otherwise be against you.
"When they say 'junk guns,' tell them that is a racist, elitist move to deny guns to people of color, people who are poor, and people who are underprivileged."
Korwin also criticized the present Administration for not using the NICS system to arrest violent felons who break the law and attempt to purchase a firearm, calling this failure a dereliction of duty.
Korwin also referred to outages of the NICS system. "In a 7-month period, there have been 84 NICS outages. For a total of more than 10 business days, gun stores were closed, illegally, irresponsibly, without any Constitutional authority." There was no news coverage of this, Korwin said, although a five-hour outage at Amazon.com made headlines.
Joe Waldron, executive director of CCRKBA, a board member of the Washington Arms Collectors (WAC), and trustee of the Gun Owners Action League of Washington, moderated a panel on the future of gun shows.
The first speaker on the panel was Irv Benzion, a board member of the NRA and WAC. Benzion is also the author of NRA's How to Run a Gun Show Manual.
Under Attack
He told the conference that gun shows have been under attack since the early 1990s, and this was a part of the Clinton Administration scheme to demolish the firearms distribution system. The first step in this attack was the decimation of the number of FFL holders.
Gun shows are vulnerable, Benzion said, because they have been to a great extent self-policing. Certain areas need particular attention: prevention of firearms being traded or sold to criminals, prevention of illegal acquisition of firearms by juveniles, and prevention of gun shows from becoming part of the system for illegal transfer of firearms. Law enforcement is concerned because some types of sales make it difficult to trace firearms. Without proper ID from either buyer or seller, without receipts or bills of sale, the tracking of firearms at gun shows is impossible.
"One could argue that the disposition of firearms is a private matter, but I submit that any person who buys or sells a firearm without keeping track of who he bought it from or who he sold it to is taking a grave civil and criminal risk," Benzion said.
Dennis Walker, past chairman of the People's Rights Organization (PRO) of Ohio, shared with the conferees the importance of gun shows in supporting his organization's pro-gun activities, and some of the problems they face in Ohio.
He said, "We are currently suing the state of Ohio and the current attorney general over their illegal collection of Brady background check fees. Gun shows are our major source of income. The loss of this income would be devastating."
Walker outlined precaution PRO takes to make sure shows are on the up and up. "We check ID and make sure that anyone under 18 is accompanied by an adult, and anyone under 21 knows that they cannot purchase handguns. We remind dealers about straw purchases, to check ID, and to obey all laws.
"In particular, we warn private sellers not to resell firearms they purchase at the show during the same show."
Walker also argued for a "tag system" in which prohibited persons would have some kind of indicator on their drivers' licenses-a special background behind the photo, a magnetic strip, or some other device.
Waldron said that in Washington State, the proposal was made to have some kind of indicator on the drivers' licenses of those having concealed carry permits. This was countered by a suggestion much like Walker's.
"Everybody thought it was a great idea except the ACLU," Waldron said.
Waldron emphasized that not only were gun shows fun, but they presented an unparalleled opportunity for political activism. He encouraged everyone to take advantage of this chance to educate and energize firearms owners.
Awards Luncheon
Following a question and answer session, GRPC attendees moved from the meeting ballroom to the annual awards luncheon.
Featured speaker and a highlight of the lunch was David Guinn, the federal public defender, who is the attorney in US vs. Emerson, a case that is now before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and expected by many to provide an opportunity for the US Supreme Court to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment.
In an engaging presentation that delighted the luncheon crowd, Guinn provided a picture of the prevailing court and jury attitudes in west Texas where Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson was brought to trial on five counts of violating federal firearms laws as a result of a messy divorce proceeding. He explained how he was called into the case, and explained why Emerson was courageous in wanting to plead innocent and fight the charges.
Guinn also explained why Emerson did not wish to pursue a plea bargain and why the defendant's choice was so difficult. "The ugly reality is under the sentencing guidelines that district judges use to sentence people in federal court is you're sentenced for acquitted conduct as if you had committed it. You can have 25 counts, get convicted of one and not guilty of 24 and think you've won. Right up until you get all that time," he said.
The key issue in the case was that as part of standard court orders in a divorce case, the presiding judge issues a temporary restraining order (TRO). Such orders are "boiler plate," Guinn said, having little substance or meaning. But they led to charges of violating the Brady and Lautenberg prohibitions on gun possession in domestic cases.
Guinn explained some of the ramification of the TRO.
"When Tim walked out of the courtroom (in the divorce case), he didn't know it, the judge didn't know it, the other lawyer didn't know it, but he was a federal felon...And so would every one of you who's ever had a regular divorce, wherever it is you live, with standard restraining orders issued. Not protective orders issued over incidence of family violence, just standard old restraining."
The TRO issue became part of the defense when Emerson went to trial on the federal charges, and Guinn focused on that in the defense.
"On Feb. 28," Guinn reported, "we had a hearing at 1:30 in the afternoon in front of Judge Cummings. We brought in Judge John Sutton-by the way a life member of the NRA-who was the district judge who issued the temporary restraining order.
"Judge Sutton explained-one judge talking to another judge-to Judge Cummings," Guinn said. "When he signed the order, he didn't know, he didn't tell Tim Emerson, the divorce lawyer didn't tell anybody that they just made him a federal criminal. The order didn't say you can't have a gun. He didn't say, 'I'm signing this order. Oh, by the way, you better get rid of that stuff.' "
Then, Guinn said, "When the prosecutor stood up to argue after I did, I didn't make a long argument. Believe me I just said, 'judge you can read my motions.' "
Guinn reported, "The prosecutor stood up, he ran down his list of arguments. And then, and I know Bill, we're friends, he's a good prosecutor. It's just something about the way he said it, it just stuck with me and I happened to look at Judge Cummings and now I think it stuck with him. He said 'Judge, the Second Amendment...' (He spent all his time worried about the Fifth Amendment argument.) 'The Second Amendment argument, judge it's well settled that the right to possess firearms is collective, as long as we have a National Guard, as long as we have a militia, no individual has a right to bear a firearm.'
"I saw the judge kind of look at him, and I didn't put any hope in that, and he said all right, see you Monday morning for trial."
Guinn then told the audience that a few hours later, while he was working in the office on another case, he got word from Cummings' secretary that the judge was granting his motions.
Guinn then discussed how the legal process is governed by various provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and how various aspects come together in the Emerson case.
"Now we're off to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals," he concluded. "The first fight's been done and it's been won. The second's going to be hard and folks we need to win it at the Fifth Circuit. Because then we can get a circuit split and that gets a better chance of getting the Second Amendment looked at by the Supreme Court."
The government has and will file motions in the appeals court. Emerson will file motions, and there are expected to be a number of amicus briefs filed on both sides. No decision is expected before this winter, possibly not until early 2000.
Cummings' decision and the government's appeal brief are available of the Second Amendment Foundation website at www.saf.org/emersonviewoptions.html. (Amicus and related briefs will be posted on the same site when available.)
A panel of three experts on the moral and legal imperatives of self-defense addressed those issues with the activists during the first Saturday afternoon session.
The moderator was Kenneth V. F. Blanchard, president of African-American Arms & Instruction. He began by saying that the general morality of the country was at low ebb.
"From that point, we are going upstream. But we are on the side of right. Your decision to carry a firearm for self-protection has huge implications," Blanchard said.
Blanchard, who is from Washington, DC, said, "Self-defense is a right. Even an amoeba will try to fight back if you try to kill it. Like my pastor says, 'even lions have teeth.' In my city, I live about 10 minutes from the President . . . but I still have to lock the door."
Massad Ayoob, author of In the Gravest Extreme, director of The Lethal Force Institute and an SAF trustee, analyzed the difference between morality and ethics, saying that the pro-firearms rights movement was swimming upstream morally, although it held the ethical high ground. This seeming oxymoron is based on the difference between morals and ethics, Ayoob said.
"Morals-mores," Ayoob explained, "are the accepted practices of a society in a given time-they are culturally driven. Cultural approval, political correctness, the 'in' thing."
On the other hand, he said, "The root word of ethics is ethos-benchmark values that have existed throughout history of civilized human experience."
The difference between morals and ethics is the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se. The second means that a thing is evil in and of itself, the first is illegal only because it is against the law.
Throughout the history of law, he said, there exists "the clear delineation of justifiable homicide, or deadly force for the protection of the innocent, the right of those responsible to protect those children.
"Yet the other side has understood that if they can continue to blur the distinction between morals and ethics-that something that by definition is culturally driven is malleable for any generation-they can change the way society looks at a certain thing, a certain practice, or a certain class of people."
This distinction has allowed those who are anti-rights to control the debate about the "morality" of self-defense. To overcome this, Ayoob said, we must arm ourselves with knowledge of specific instances in which armed protectors saved the lives of others, especially children.
The next to address the conference was David I. Caplan, PhD., JD, an NRA board member and a trustee of its Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund. He said, "What do we mean by 'moral imperative?' We're not talking about moral relativism, because even though moral relativism is compelled by logic, as a logical necessity of thought it's incomplete. As all logic, it must be filled in with axioms. The axioms come from human experience. That's why ultimately, all morals are absolutistic in nature.
"Based on experience, as the late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, 'The life of the law is not logic, but experience.' "
Caplan turned to the Old Testament (Exodus, Chapter 22), which says that if a thief is breaking in and he is struck and dies there shall be no guilt on the one who strikes him, but if the victim had no intent to harm, he must not be killed.
If someone is a threat to the community, Caplan concluded, "It's not self-defense that's commended, but communal defense that is a moral imperative."
Right to Carry
The next panel, moderated by CCRKBA board member Michael Connelly, a Louisiana activist, focused on the continuing effort to pass or reform right to carry statutes in several states.
Opal Stout, secretary of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, shared her experiences fighting for Missouri's ill-fated Proposition B to set up a statewide right-to-carry system.
She told the conference, "Missouri was the first state where concealed carry had gone up for a public vote." Stout said that although the governor had promised to stay out of the debate if it were presented as a proposition, he was involved in a variety of actions that contributed to the proposition's eventual failure.
Stout said that it was vital to educate women about concealed carry. They need to know that self-defense should be an option.
Attorney John Trentes, counsel for the Ohio Constitution Defense Council and the League of Ohio Sportsmen, focussed on why concealed carry was worth working for. He cited the case of two young women who were abducted by a motorcycle gang in 1979. Both of them were raped. One was murdered by a shotgun blast to the head. The other woman lived, but the gang struck her in the face with the butt of the shotgun so hard that it ripped her face off.
Trentes said, "This is why we do this. We do this for the benefit of thousands of crime victims who didn't need to be crime victims. And they wouldn't be crime victims if they could have defended themselves."
He said that concealed carry was not legal in all 50 states because of "a failure to communicate." He then discussed the problem of factionalism among the various grassroots groups, in Ohio and elsewhere, between state grass roots groups, and factionalism among the national groups. "It's a wonder we're getting anywhere with this," he said.
Trentes illustrated with a recounting of what happened in Ohio, where disagreements among NRA, Gun Owners of America and Ohio state level activists ended up with three different concealed carry bills-all of which died in committee.
Learning from this mistake, Trentes said that a compromise bill was worked out. Although not everyone was happy with the resulting compromise, all factions agreed to support it. Had it not been for Columbine, the bill most certainly would have become law.
David Gross, another attorney who is treasurer of Concealed Carry Reform Now in Minnesota, told the conference, "Concealed carry reform has nothing to do with crime control. It has to do with victimization and the ability to choose to be able to protect yourself. Period. The End."
He sketched the history of concealed carry in Minnesota.
"Minnesota had a Vermont-style carry until 1975. The liberals were in control in the state legislature and they copied what was then New Jersey's law, and we became a "may issue" state with a provision that pretty much said, 'If you're politically connected enough, if you've got a politically correct reason, you can get a permit to carry.'"
Gross said that in Minnesota, the best way to obtain a permit is to go through the courts, rather than applying to a police chief. Opponents of concealed carry introduced legislation that would eliminate this method.
Robert Pruden, secretary-treasurer of the Kentucky Concealed Carry Coalition, outlined his state's successful campaign. In the 1995 gubernatorial race, the Republican candidate did not sign a pledge to support a concealed carry bill; but the Democrat candidate did, Pruden reported. The Democrat won by 24,000 votes, and Pruden said, "We'd like to think that 21,000 of those were the signatories of our concealed carry petition."
Pruden was pleased to share that Kentucky now has reciprocity, and what is known in Kentucky as "The Preacher Willie" bill, which would allow ministers and members of the governing body of a church concealed carry in a church.
Also, legislation was introduced that would require police departments to auction off surplus or confiscated guns to federal firearms licensees with the proceeds used to purchase body armor for police. But the police chiefs of Lexington, Louisville, and Covington opposed the measure.
Pruden pointed out, "There are 688 requests for body armor now pending at the Department of Local Government and they have no money because the chiefs of police of Lexington, Louisville and Covington will not sell the over half a million dollars worth of confiscated guns."
Jim Church, a former NRA board member and member of Brass Roots Inc. in Michigan, recounted for the conference the worst mass murder of school children in US history, which happened in 1927 in Church's home town of Bath, MI. A disaffected school board treasurer dynamited not only a church, but a school, killing the perpetrator, his wife, the school principal, two townspeople and 38 students.
Church said that Michigan's present-day restrictions on concealed carry resulted from an incident in 1925, when a black doctor and his family were defending their home from a mob. A shot was fired from the house and a member of the mob was killed. All 11 people in the house were charged with murder. After the trial ended in a hung jury, and another individual was acquitted, the Ku Klux Klan worked for the passage of a package of gun laws which included handgun registration, handgun purchase permits, and a county-by-county board made up of three people; the sheriff, the prosecutor and a representative of the state police with a "may issue" standard. The purpose was to keep firearms out of the hands of black people.
Church said, "We still have that today. I like to say to those who defend the status quo, 'Why are you defending the position of the Ku Klux Klan?' "
Greg Jeffrey, president of the Second Amendment Coalition of Missouri (SACMO), discussed the recent history of Missouri's unsuccessful fight to institute legal concealed carry. He stressed the strategic importance of the concealed carry issue.
"Concealed carry is about more than the right to carry concealed guns. What it is about is taking our issue out and talking about it-getting our voices heard," he said.
Jeffrey said, "We've learned that it's easy to sit at home and watch slanted or lying news and yell, 'Oh, you liars!" but the only people hearing you are your spouse or your neighbors. Your legislators aren't hearing you when you yell at the TV," he said.
"We found out that if you take that energy and just show up, you have a big impact, especially at an anti-gun rally. They say 'Uh-oh, there's somebody who's going to contradict me.' They are not used to having anyone contradict their viewpoints. The key is to be involved. Get off your butt. Get active. You'll be surprised."
Court Challenges
After a break, the conference continued with a panel entitled "Guns, Gunowners and the Courts," moderated by David LaCourse, public affairs director of SAF and author of such successful popular state anti-crime initiatives as "Three Strikes, You're Out" and "Hard Time for Armed Crime."
"Not only do we have a chance with the Emerson case to finally get a definitive reading of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment Foundation will be entering a damage action suit against those mayors suing gun manufacturers.
"It's a six part lawsuit," LaCourse said. "The first one is a complaint for the violation of civil rights. That means the Second Amendment, and the Emerson case has added a lot of credence to count one.
"Count two is conspiracy, and we have all sorts of memos, newspaper articles talking about how at the US Conference of Mayors had lawyers 'trolling for clients.' That's an actual quote. The Mayor of Philadelphia was recruiting other mayors to file lawsuits. We have a clear and convincing case of conspiracy and collusion.
"There are violations of the Commerce Clause, RICO statute violations, and abuse of process in unfounded civil proceedings.
Author and attorney Dave Kopel, a senior fellow of the CATO Institute and policy analyst for the Independence Institute, reviewed with the GRPC conferees some important legal issues and research of interest to supporters of the Second Amendment.
Kopel first mentioned Carl Bogus, a professor at Roger Williams Law School in Rhode Island and a board member for Handgun Control Inc., who has written an article entitled "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment." The article was published in the University of California Law Review. Bogus' articles claims that the Second Amendment to the Constitution was included in the Bill of Rights to gain the support of slave holders who feared an insurrection. Kopel admitted that there was a grain of truth in this argument, but that Bogus then continued, arguing that the Second Amendment has no meaning because the US Congress has complete control over everything.
"It is a very empowering article for the anti-gun people," Kopel said.
Unlike Bogus's selective analysis, Kopel's research on the Second Amendment examined its history in totality. His article in the Brigham Young University Law Review looked at the opinions of every legal scholar, and every known 19th century court opinion on the Second Amendment. With one exception, they all treat the Second Amendment as an individual right.
Kopel recommended an article written by Eugene Volokh appeared in the New York University Law Review.
Volokh's article showed the importance of "the phrasing of the Second Amendment with its introductory clause and then its main clause. Even though that phrasing is unusual in the Bill of Rights, it is not an unusual type of phrasing for constitutions written in that period, and in the 19th century. The beginning clause is what Volokh calls a 'purpose' clause and the main clause is the application of that purpose. Volokh explains that the 'purpose' clause does not negate the main clause. This unties the knot that scholars have been working at for a long time."
The next panelist, H. Sterling Burnett, senior policy analyst at the National Center for Policy Analysis, compared the lawsuits against tobacco companies to those against the firearms industry. He pointed out that some major differences.
"There were things you couldn't say about any other product that you could say about tobacco. No one claims that guns, cars or fast food is addictive. In fact, tobacco, is one of the few seriously addictive products that are legal," Burnett said. "It's doubtful that tobacco has a net social benefit. The pleasure that is derived from smoking-is that a net social benefit? The final nail in tobacco's coffin is that tobacco manufacturers lied under oath about its dangers."
"Guns are quite different," Burnett asserted. "Manufacturers never said guns weren't dangerous. They are not normally dangerous to anyone in normal use. Only 1% of guns are ever used to cause harm.
Making the public aware of the positive uses of firearms is absolutely essential, Burnett said. "Yet the side of guns that is not brought up in lawsuits is that there is an enormous net social benefit to gun ownership."
The next panelist to address the conference was attorney Chuck Michel, chairman, Legislative Committee, California Rifle and Pistol Association. He explained the background to the growth of the anti-gun movement in that state.
He said that other anti-gun groups composed of teams of mayors of cities throughout Los Angeles County are coming up with restrictions on a local level.
The future does not look good in California, the nation's largest state, and one that influences public policy decisions in other states and at the federal level, Michel reported.
"Next year we're looking at a law that would require the licensing of all gunowners and registration of every gun in the state, as well as eliminating preemption so that the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco, which have long wished to be able to ban handguns at least and probably all guns.
The final blow, Michel said, is the SKS buyback program.
"There is an amnesty program for some SKS owners where you can get $235 if you sell your gun back to the state. They know who you are because you registered. HCI sued and got a judgment from a sympathetic San Francisco court trial judge that the California DOJ did not have the authority to register 'assault weapons' after 1993. Sixteen thousand guns were registered by some 10,000 people. Originally it looked like all of those registrations were going to be invalidated until the DOJ realized it had accidentally registered about 10,000 'non-assault weapons' and only 2,000 of them were actually so-called assault weapons. They sent out letters to all those people telling them that their registered 'assault weapon' was now contraband, and they were now felons. Along with that they drafted a letter that they were going to send to every police department in the state telling them where those people lived who had registered their guns, in accordance with the law, paid their registration fee and who were now being told they were illegally possessing that gun. At least two sheriffs went on the news and said that they were going to go out door-to-door, 'knock, knock- gimmee your gun.'
"We're in court on that one as well," Michel said.
The last panel member was Paul Jannuzzo, vice president and general council of Glock Inc., one of the firearms manufacturers beleaguered by lawsuits.
Jannuzzo listed the many cities and counties bringing suit, as well as the NAACP. The allegations in all of the suits are similar, he said, namely, "that firearms are a public nuisance, we are negligent in the marketing and distribution of these firearms, in that we don't control the distribution, that we don't control our dealers sufficiently, and we don't monitor dealers sufficiently. They also allege negligence in design of the firearms, specific design defects-no magazine disconnect, no loaded chamber indicator, insufficient warnings with the firearms, and no smart gun technology."
"Class actions have been called legal blackmail by our highest courts," he said. "These suits are a sub-species of that blackmail. They are concerted, well coordinated conspiracies to extort the firearms industry without regard for the rule of law or a lawyer's duty to his profession.
"The plaintiffs freely admit that their litigation is unlikely to succeed. The reality is that it does not have to succeed to accomplish their goals. The sheer expense of defending these things is enormous. There are companies that are going to go out of business, and I guarantee you there will not be a firearm two years from now that costs what it does today."
When asked if winning these suits is important, one New Orleans City Councilman was instructive, Jannuzzo said.
The councilman said, "It doesn't make a difference if we win or not. If it doesn't do any more than make a moral statement it will be worth doing."
"Imagine that," Jannuzzo reflected bitterly, "millions of dollars of the taxpayers money wasted, people out of business, companies bankrupted, Constitutional guarantees threatened-so that they can make a moral statement.
Jannuzzo said, "I'm delighted that the NAACP has filed suit. If there is a judge contemplating a motion to dismiss in his jurisdiction, thinking, just how ridiculous can this get, just how absurd and how remote, will these suits become, he has no more to do than look at the NAACP suit."
"The plaintiffs have been successful in getting most of those remanded back to state courts because they were clever enough to name individual dealers and storeowners in particular cities.
"Two other unusual motions have been filed in Atlanta and New Orleans-both of those cities are in states where the legislatures have passed laws prohibiting this kind of suit. This will test those statutes," he predicted.
"We know we're right, we know we have the law on our side, but please keep your fingers crossed that we get a judge that will do the right thing," Jannuzzo concluded.
The GRPC program continued with a panel entitled "The Red Riding Hood Syndrome" which dealt with the fact that any firearm over 12 inches is labeled an "assault rifle" by its detractors and any gun under 12 inches is labeled a "Saturday night special."
Because the anti-gun media and politicians have recently focused on the .50 Browning caliber rifles, Marty Liggins, a Tennessee teacher and Gun New Digest correspondent, began by sharing his observations about the demonization of the .50BMG, and emphasizing the necessity for all supporters of the Second Amendment to unify.
Liggins set the mood by saying that the panel should have been entitled "The Continuation of Demonization of Certain Firearms by the Media and their Elitist Puppeteers."
He warned conferees that the media makes use of ill-advised statements by shooters, and of poorly thought out manufacturer advertisements to make certain firearms sound sinister.
"They will remember what we say," he said. "They take what's good in the eyes of the shooter and make it bad in the eyes of the beholder. What we say can and will be used against us in the court of public opinion.
"A lot of times we think, well if we play fair, they'll play fair. Wrong! They are out to hurt you. They are going to do it in the most underhanded and conniving way possible."
"We can't have sacrificial lambs-.50 caliber, 'Saturday night specials,' or other guns."
John Burtt, chairman of the Legislative Activities Committee of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association (FCSA), told the audience that the recent demonization of the .50 caliber rifle had changed his association from one that was primarily interested in enjoying and improving their sport to one that was preparing to fight to save their right to continue shooting long distances with extreme accuracy.
He concluded his remarks by challenging others to support their cause. "I have a funny feeling that the .50 caliber is going to be given up for an example. We are not enjoying the support we need from other organizations. We need your support."
Next to speak was Dan Shea, the founder of the Committee of 1776. Its members collect and shoot military firearms, including legal machine guns and destructive devices.
He said, "We're kind of the crazy old uncle of the gun world, but we're starting to get a little more company in the closet."
He enumerated the types of firearms that were under attack by the anti-gunners. "I can't figure out what a bad gun is unless I assume that they're all bad. One minute it's the small 'Saturday night special,' then it's big heavy pistols."
General ignorance about firearms has helped the anti-firearms rights crowd, Shea said. "People who don't know anything about guns wrote down the scary stuff-stuff that frightened them-bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips. They banned those characteristics, so we took them off our guns. Now they accuse us of trying to get around the law. No, we're not. We're trying to comply with the law. But you can't comply with people whose whole agenda is to get rid of all firearms."
Waco Redux
Next, John M. Snyder moderated a panel on issues to related to the notorious 1993 Waco incident.
Snyder explained the history of the broad-based coalition of civil rights and religious organizations who worked together to demand formation of a blue ribbon task force to review federal law enforcement practices and policies because of shared concerns raised by the fiasco and deaths at Waco. Snyder had been a key representative for gun groups to the coalition that met frequently in the offices of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Joe Waldron then examined broader policy issues related to the 1993 Waco incident.
He said, "I view Waco and Ruby Ridge as symptoms of a bigger problem; the militarization of law enforcement, and the law enforcementization of the military. The line between the two is becoming diffused.
"The use of the military for civilian law enforcement shows a deep misunderstanding of the military's role," Waldron said. "I spent 28 years in the Marine Corps, and I know what it's all about. The rules of engagement are very simple. They tell me what I can and can't do when I go in to kill someone or smash something. They don't tell me how I'm supposed to deal with US citizens who are protected by the Bill of Rights.
"When I go to Kosovo, I'm guided by the rules of engagement. The Bill of Rights doesn't mean squat to me. If uniformed personnel are used in the US in a support capacity, or in a direct action capacity, they sure as hell better understand what the Bill of Rights is all about."
Dave Kopel, co-author of No More Wacos, told the conference, "Shortly after the murders in Ft. Worth, TX, Attorney General Reno appeared on television, where she spoke with a great deal of passion about how wrong it is that people even in a church can't feel safe from criminal attack. My suggestion is that if she really cares about that what she ought to do is to take real responsibility for what happened at Waco. She ought to go to the nearest US Courthouse and turn herself in as an accessory after the fact." The crowd applauded.
That will not happen, Kopel said, because, "Despite her public displays of anger about Waco, she continues to obstruct justice about Waco.
He quoted Reno, who said, "The ghosts of Waco will haunt me forever."
"Pass this on to Reno, if you see her," Kopel said. "It's not just the ghosts of those 26 children who were murdered; you've got problems with living people as well. There are seven political prisoners, the Branch Davidians, who must be freed from prison, and the real perpetrators must be put in prison where they can't kill anyone else."
Next, Glen Voorhees, a trustee of the Second Amendment Foundation moderated a panel examining the strengths and weaknesses of the gun movement.
Voorhees first introduced Michael Saporito, vice president and general counsel of RSR Wholesale Guns, who is a former New York State prosecutor and judge. Saporitio touched on the unity issue examined in an earlier panel.
"First of all, we're fragmented," Saporito said. "The shotgunners are trying to give away the handgunners' rights; the riflemen are trying to give away the handgunners'; they all want to get rid of the black powder people; and now the .50 caliber people are saying, 'what about us?'
"If we organized into one group, we would be the most powerful in the world. There are 77 million of us! Seventy-seven million people are not 77 million voters. If we don't vote, we lose. If we do vote, we win."
"Get involved with politics," Saporito urged. "The anti-gunners are so enmeshed in politics they got one of their own elected to the presidency.
"Our strengths-our goal is a noble goal," Saporito said. "We armed citizens stand guard over the tabernacle in which liberty is enshrined. The First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments are all under colossal attack. We are believers; we are dedicated. We will do what we have to do. We are unified in principle; we fight for the same goal. We are truthful. There is nothing I hate more than someone who lies, who gives false statistics.
"When it comes down to the number of people who pull the levers, we count big."
Saporito concluded, "Yes, we do have weaknesses, but they are neither fatal nor insurmountable. We can't be satisfied with our strengths, either."
Prof. Michael Gordinier, PhD., of Washington University in St. Louis gave the conference his observations on the movement from the standpoint of a convert to firearms rights. When he first decided to purchase a gun, he felt extremely uncomfortable simply going into a gun store.
"I felt just like a Southern Baptist would going into an adult book store. Oh, my God, I'm in a strange and sinful land. What if someone sees me going in?"
Because of the changing culture in the US, in which many have had absolutely no experience with firearms, this uneasy feeling is common to millions of ordinary people, Gordinier said. The lack of positive experience with firearms as a means of defending oneself or one's family makes many view firearms use as simply a hobby-and a hobby that makes dangerous firearms available to criminals and lunatics.
Gordinier categorized complaining about press bias as unproductive.
And, he said, "Let's not call people anti-gun. Let's call them what they are: anti-choice, anti-option, anti-freedom, anti-self defense."
Richard Feldman, a firearms issues consultant, criticized the firearms rights movement for fighting on the enemy's terms, and failing to understand that the real battle is not over legislative and legal decisions-it is a cultural struggle.
"Understanding the nature of the fight is so important," Feldman said. "The cultural war that surrounds the issue is a weakness. It is not working for our benefit. We're good at focusing in on the narrow legislative and political battles but diffused cultural war we are losing."
Feldman drew on his years of work with the firearms industry to say, "For the first time, the firearms industry is heavily involved in the battle. As most of you know, the '68 Act had the fingerprints of the domestic firearms industry all over it."
The philosophical beliefs of the movement are a strength, Feldman said. "Our right to own arms shows the very nature of our relationship with our government. The government is not above us, they are below us, they are our servants, not our masters.
The evening reception hosted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation featured Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA).
A Greater Threat
Barr, who is also an NRA board member, told the conferees at the reception that a lack of understanding of the Constitution threatened not only the Second Amendment, but all other Constitutional guarantees as well.
"When we try to talk about the Second Amendment, we run into a brick wall of disinterest in the substance," Barr said. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms means that the people actually have a right. Also, because of its placement in the Bill of Rights, it means that it is an individual right. Those concepts are alien to many people in Washington."
Barr praised the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for their roles in educating political leaders about the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Barr said that President Clinton's comments in an interview with talking head Dan Rather showed how this administration has turned meaning on its head. When asked if it was a dishonor to be the first sitting president to be impeached, Clinton said, "Oh, no, this was an honor because it gave me the opportunity to defend the Constitution from these mean-spirited folks."
"It should not come as any surprise to us," said Barr, "that we have Members of Congress, learned judges, and high government officials who don't understand that the Second Amendment is a right secured to the people. Its codification in the Bill of Rights is simply a reaffirmation," Barr said.
He said that the Clinton Administration demonstrated a deep-seated animosity to the Constitution. Sweeping Presidential directives turn the notion of separation of powers on its head, Barr cautioned.
Barr shared a discussion he had with foreign parliamentarians who could not understand the importance of the Second Amendment to Americans. He told them that what had happened at Waco showed, "if the government has the power to take away a power that is expressly reiterated in the Bill of Rights, then there is absolutely nothing that the government cannot take away. There is no limit to its power. It is a question of whether or not we will have Constitutional government in our country."
Barr wound up his formal remarks by urging the members of the audience to contact their representatives to let them know of their support for the Second Amendment.
In a question and answer period Barr opened after his prepared remarks, the Congressman said, "Waco goes to the question of what sort of society we are going to have. If we don't know what happened, we cannot take steps to guarantee that it never happens again. Waco was the darkest day in American law enforcement historyGovernment witnesses are accountable and obstruction of justice still does matter to this country."
Barr questioned the value of the Department of Justice's Waco investigation. "Congress has to reassert its proper oversight role and insure that our laws are not misused and misinterpreted. Whatever the Administration does on Waco is suspect," he said.
The final day of GRPC opened with a panel designed to help gunowners take advantage of modern communications technology as we take gun rights into the new millennium
Joe Huffman, a Washington state activist and member of the Microsoft Gun Club, was the first member of this panel to address the conference.
Huffman said, "The Internet is probably as important as the invention of the printing press or human speech." It is an invaluable tool for the support of firearms rights.
Email allows ready-made notes of a conversation, Huffman said, and allows the sharing of information with dozens, even hundreds of individuals.
He shared an example of how speedy communication allowed firearms rights activists to squelch an anti-gun protest at a shooting range. He said, "The antis had called the media and there was a TV crew ready to set up about the same time we got there. They never got out of their truck. The media left before the anti-gun people got there. There was no anti-gun news on the news that night."
Huffman cautioned email users to be discrete in their email communications. "Anyone can tune into a website, make a copy and use it however it suits them. Our opposition can use what you say to scare the public. Our enemies create fear of private citizens with guns. Anything that you do that can be used to create fear will weaken us. He urged gunowners to associate a reduction of fear with guns-personal protection, safety, recreation, competition, even protection from tyranny.
The next panelist was Craig Peterson, a webmaster who is president of Gun Owners of New Hampshire. He discussed how computer communication was used to track the campaign appearances of an anti-gun politician. He also said that computer technology was important in getting out support for range protection.
Keeva Segal, who designs websites, said that computer owners who have Windows 98 or Windows 2000 can easily build their own website. He discussed the importance of the Internet for retrieving information.
Segal said, "When you are talking about the Internet, you are talking about rights. The Internet is the First Amendment in a pure, undiluted form. There is no editor between you and your audience. Government has certainly tried to control it. It is an unrestrainable, international resource."
Segal said he had created an organization to urge authorities to lock up felons with guns called "Lock Them Up." In less than 24 hours, he created an organization that was recognized by The Wall Street Journal, simply by using his computer skills.
He urged activists to make use of their fax modem-a piece of paper, he explained, has to be dealt with, whereas an email can simply be deleted.
Next, computer bulletin boards were defined by panelist Leroy Pyle as "basically a place to store and disseminate information." Pyle is a retired police officer, and founder of the Paul Revere Network BBS. He urged conferees to bring more people on line; to get people signed up.
The question, "Is Gun Control Dangerous to your Health" was discussed by three medical doctors in the next panel. The first speaker was Timothy Wheeler, MD, director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute in California.
"Most of what you hear on the media on the medical debate about firearms," Wheeler said, "casts gunowners in a negative light-suggesting we are intellectually dull, morally backwards. They suggest that guns are viruses that cause the disease of gun ownership. To get rid of the 'disease' of gun ownership, just get rid of the guns."
Wheeler said this view prevailed in many medical journals. He also said that although the medical community was turning to other political problems, it was still a threat to the Second Amendment.
Because of all the disinformation in the medical community, the Claremont Institute has published a 25 page booklet, for both medical professionals and the layman called Firearms, a Handbook for Health Professionals. It particularly discusses the work of Professors John Lott and Gary Kleck.
The next speaker was Joel Butler, MD, who has been pivotal in planning Mississippi's trauma services. Butler criticized a recent study on the cost of gunshot wounds in the US.
"It isolates information, and it ignores the benefits of firearms ownership. The media just takes the headlines without the qualifiers. Isolating information has a long tradition. The cost of gunshot injuries is one quarter of one percent of all health care spending."
He said, "With guns, the risks are tangible, and the benefits are not tangible to the average person."
Butler said that the organization of the trauma care system in Mississippi should result in the collection of some interesting statistics about the relatively small role firearms play in emergency room cases.
"We know that automobiles are far, far out in front of gunshot injuries," Butler confirmed.
David Oliver, MD, an NRA Board Member and Missouri firearms rights activist, outlined his work in obtaining support from the medical community for Missouri's concealed carry initiative.
"I've always thought that there were a lot of doctors out there who were closet gun owners, NRA members, who were afraid to become public. I would like to keep adding to our list of medical supporters." Oliver urged the audience to educate their own doctors.
"The more medical people we can get on our side, the more credible we will be."
Next, Julianne Versnel Gottlieb, publisher of Women & Guns magazine, moderated a panel focusing on children, women and safety, particularly for urban communities.
The first speaker was Jeff Jennings, who is on the editorial board of the New Hampshire Firearms Safety Coalition. Jennings said that this group began its existence as an anti-gun organization.
"The premise was to take HCI (Handgun Control, Inc.) and Public Health material and disseminate this to schools, public health organizations, and pediatricians," he said. "The woman who chaired the organization decided she wanted some pro-gun people-and pro-gun money. Our organization is unique because it has input from both sides. In New Hampshire we've found common ground. We took an issue that was initially anti-gun in tone and by our participation, turned it around to something that is value neutral."
The organization has produced a video tape that is designed and produced by middle school youngsters who are too old for NRA's Eddie Eagle safety program. The tape shows strategies for disengaging from a situation where there might be improper use of a firearm. It also takes young people out to a range and shows them how firearms behave in real life.
Jennings reported that the tape includes an interview with a New Hampshire school principal. Because of a program in place in his school, a student came forward saying that someone was planning a shooting and had a list of proposed victims. That shooting was stopped 20 minutes before it happened. The tape tells kids to assume that all guns are loaded. If an irresponsible person is talking about using a gun irresponsibly, young people are told to find a responsible adult, and turn the firearm over to them.
Copies of the tape will be available in shortly through Gun Owners of New Hampshire which can be reached on the internet at www.gonh.org.
Lt. Gen. James Chambers, outlined a new National Shooting Sports program called "HomeSafe." The safety program is aimed at the non-traditional firearms owner-those in urban areas or inner cities, who might have a firearm in the home for self-protection, but have not had the advantage of being raised with firearms. The program is presented in co-operation with law enforcement and city governments.
HomeSafe teaches common sense firearm safety-unload and lock, store firearms and ammunition separately, Chamber said. It shows firearms owners how to educate their own children, and it emphasizes the extreme importance of protecting other children who might come into your home.
Joe Tartaro, editor of Gun Week and president of SAF, next discussed the importance of closing the gap between gunowners and those who do not know about firearms or how they are safely and responsibly used.
Tartaro explained a new SAF program called "GunSafe," that was designed to be used to present basic firearms knowledge in free programs conducted in cooperation with public service groups such as the Kiwanis, the Lions' Club, or local law enforcement or government agencies.
Among the program tools is an 11x17 folder that explains the differences in firearms actions and how to open them to prevent them from discharging.
"By giving the history of firearms development and explaining how most guns work," Tartaro said, "we can demystify and correct what many people know about guns without getting into a political debate."
Tartaro concluded by observing that the program, which will include billboards, posters and a lesson plan for volunteer instructors, might help educate the media as well.
Julianne Gottlieb urged women to write to their legislators, and to the media to show that families who own guns are as concerned about firearms safety and misuse as anyone.
Tom Gresham, host of the nationally syndicated radio show "Gun Talk," moderated an Open Forum panel with John Barnett, executive director of SAF. Gresham scolded the conferees for using the terms "conservative" and "liberal."
"Every time you say 'conservative' you run off a bunch of pro-gun liberals who will help you."
He continued, "Public opinion drives all of the smaller battles we have won or lost in the last 30 years-and we have lost that battle. We have won the intellectual battle, but it doesn't matter."
A variety of speakers shared information and views with the conference from the floor during the open forum.
A woman from Arizona said that she was organizing a new group to educate women about self-defense and family defense. The organization is called "Mothers Arms," or "MA," and it uses federal grant money to defend women's rights to defend their children at home and at school. She said that www.gunlaws.com can be contacted for information on possible discretionary grants that come out of the Department of Justice.
John Hosford from Wyoming discussed AARP, the American Association of Retired People. He found that many gunowners were contributing to that organization, ignorant of the fact that AARP lobbies against firearms rights.
A professor, retired from the University of Illinois, told about how his organization put up pro-firearms rights signs modeled after Burma Shave signs. He gave an example. "Your brain. Is. The best. Safety device. Gunsavelives.com."
Another speaker announced a pro-freedom rally day on March 8, 2000 in the Missouri state capital Rotunda.
After this final panel, attendees discussed and voted on resolutions (See sidebar in this issue) before Alan Gottlieb and Joe Tartaro adjourned the 1999 GRPC and Barnett announced the date and location for next year's conference: Sept. 22-24, 1999 in Arlington, VA, across the Potomac from Washington, DC.