From: roc-owner@xmission.com To: roc-digest@xmission.com Subject: roc Digest V2 #19 Reply-To: roc@xmission.com Errors-To: roc-owner@xmission.com Precedence: roc Digest Tuesday, 9 July 1996 Volume 02 : Number 019 In this issue: Any chance of getting the list removed from the Reply-To: field? Re: FAXALERT: Campaign Finance Reform Re: your mail Re: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black Re: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black RE: FW: What new world order? (off topic) junkmail & boydk do not mix RE: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black RE: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black RE: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black Cheering (fwd) BATF to Have Computerized System for Tracking Guns (fwd) RE: NAFTA Requires Electronic Tax Payments! (fwd) (fwd) Project LEAD!!! (fwd) See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the roc or roc-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 96 04:10:39 PST Subject: Any chance of getting the list removed from the Reply-To: field? It's a big hassel when you want to use point to point email. - -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------ From: Brad Dolan Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 10:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: FAXALERT: Campaign Finance Reform On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, NRA Alerts wrote: > NRA-ILA FAX ALERT > 11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA 22030 > Phone: 1-800-392-8683 * Fax: 703-267-3918 > Vol. 3, No. 28 7/3/96 > DOWN, BUT NOT OUT: > "CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM" & NCIPC STILL ALIVE > > It appears that lawmakers in the House will not follow the > lead set by their colleagues in the Senate on the issue of > campaign finance reform. You'll recall that last week, the > Senate decided not to bring to a vote proposed "campaign finance > reform" legislation which would have severely limited your > ability to participate in the political process. But the word on > Capitol Hill is that despite the Senate's proper rejection of > this ill-conceived bill, the House will soon take up legislation > bearing a strong resemblance to the Senate's version, including > limits on the ability of citizens to join together in support of > political candidates, as NRA members currently do via NRA's > Political Victory Fund. Needless to say, NRA will oppose any > attempt to limit the participation of ordinary Americans in the > political process, but another tough fight is anticipated in the > House. Members: Please call your Representatives at (202) > 224-3121 and urge them to oppose any "campaign finance reform" > legislation that locks you out of the political process. > Let's see. Who controls what legislation comes before the House? With friends like these, who needs enemies? bd ------------------------------ From: Brad Dolan Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 11:00:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: your mail On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Larry A. Tate wrote: > BTW, Happy Independence Day everyone! > > ---------------------------------------------- > Larry Tate > ltate@computek.net And a good one to you, too. Thought some list members might find the following of interest: From Compuserve's logon announcement screen: What's New(FREE) NEW 1 TIME: Russian Voting Underway [...] 9 Fourth of July: What is Patriotism? Fourth of July: What is Patriotism? It's the Fourth of July! This red, white, and blue all- American holiday is packed with parades, picnics, and patriotism. While you're waving the flag as the parade passes and enjoying the summer picnic food, do you ever wonder what patriotism means to you? Is patriotism a good thing, or just another form of tribalism on a grander scale? ... Cheers, bd ------------------------------ From: "Ken L. Holder" Date: Thu, 04 Jul 1996 19:56:31 -0700 Subject: Re: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black At 02:50 AM 7/4/96 -0500, Larry Tate wrote: > I find it >strikingly profound, however, that the documents of freedom (the >Declaration and the Constitution) make no specific exclusions to >"slaves" or other "non-white" peoples. Oh really? My copy of the Constitution counts a slave as 3/5ths of a person (under the euphimism of "all other persons"). In addition, there is a reference to "Indians not taxed". This is in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, with the note "modified/ superseded by the 14th Amendment. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken L. Holder kholder@liberty.com http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/ "The government should be confined to those who carry arms." - -- Aristotle, "Politics", XIII - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Kenneth Mitchell Date: Thu, 04 Jul 1996 23:02:42 -0700 Subject: Re: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black At 07:56 PM 7/4/96 -0700, Ken L. Holder wrote: >At 02:50 AM 7/4/96 -0500, Larry Tate wrote: >> I find it >>strikingly profound, however, that the documents of freedom (the >>Declaration and the Constitution) make no specific exclusions to >>"slaves" or other "non-white" peoples. > >Oh really? My copy of the Constitution counts a slave as 3/5ths >of a person (under the euphimism of "all other persons"). In >addition, there is a reference to "Indians not taxed". This is >in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, with the note "modified/ >superseded by the 14th Amendment. Hmmm. This is a misinterpretation. The "three-fifths" rule applies only to apportionment of Congressional seats and direct taxes. The Southern slave-owners wanted slaves to count for Congressional representation even though they wouldn't be allowed to vote; Northern abolitionists didn't want to count slaves AT ALL, since counting them would give the (otherwise) less populous southern states an advantage in the number of Representatives each would get. It is a bitter irony that a statistical artifice employed by the Founding Fathers to _minimize_ the power of slave-owing Southern plantation owners should now be viewed as evidence of their own bigotry and racism. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell |"The Arkansas phase of Whitewater is relevant 8037 Stone Canyon |because this is where the Clinton people learned Citrus Heights, CA |to behave this way. .... In its broadest sense, 95610 |from the Ozarks to the White House, WhiteWater kmitchel@netcom.com |is an endless web of lies and deceptions, abuse 916-449-9152 (vm) |of prerogatives and casual obliviousness to the 916-729-0966 (fax) |law." Wall Street Journal editorial Finger for PGP | public key |Number of times that Hillary said "I don't |remember" (or variations) during Congressional |Travel Office hearings: 57. - -------------------http://www.vpm.com/kmitchel/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------ From: boydk Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 08:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RE: FW: What new world order? On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Larry A. Tate wrote: > On Tuesday, July 02, 1996 4:25 AM, boydk wrote: > The author of the post that I was responding to stated: > > >>> Libertarian goals / freedom are best and probably only found in the > >>> smallest structures: maybe even only a single individual. I'm sorry, my mistake I had completely missed this. Maybe I ignored it because I didnt like that last part ; ) > I have seen a lot of posts on this, and other lists that are from > advocates of "anarchy." I, and others, have used the term "anarchy" to > describe a philosophy that is referred to as "anarchy" for lack of a > better term. Jack (Jack@minerva.com) did not use the term "anarchy"... Ah yes, I've seen that in -many- uusenet forums and also some lists. Perhaps that's why I kinda boiled over about it on you (sorry). It's just wrong. I really think it's a word-use propagated by those afraid of freedom, because it blurs the distinctions (wich are enormous) between dictionary Libertarianism and dictionary anarchism. I've met people who are anarchists, didnt like 'em & don't wanna be likened to them. Sorry if I pegged all that on you, you're certainly right that it's a fairly common usage, but it is nonetheless quite wrong IMO. snip > with a term for the patriots formerly known as anarchists who are > libertarians who believe that absolute individual sovereignty is the > ultimate answer. Gentlepersons, if you believe that the initiation of force is wrong (and gen'ly that individuals come first) as I do, then we are Libertarians. snip > (the following definitions are from Microsoft Bookshelf '95.) > > > lib.er.tar.i.an > > lib.er.tar.i.an (lib?er-tar?e-en) noun > 1. One who believes in freedom of action and thought. > 2. One who believes in free will. > > > an.ar.chy > > an.ar.chy (an?er-ke) noun > plural an.ar.chies > 1. Absence of any form of political authority. > 2. Political disorder and confusion. > 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. > > sov.er.eign.ty > > sov.er.eign.ty (sov?er-in-te, sov?rin-) noun > plural sov.er.eign.ties > 1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state. > 2. Royal rank, authority, or power. > 3. Complete independence and self-government. > 4. A territory existing as an independent state. > ---------------------------------------------- > Larry Tate > ltate@computek.net > > "Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. > It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave." > -- William Pitt, 1763 > ---------------------------------------------- Boyd Kneeland ------------------------------ From: boydk Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 20:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: (off topic) junkmail & boydk do not mix Over the last week I averaged -3- marketing oriented messages a day. This is a tremendous increase, more then I used to get a month, so in case there are folks who've seen me post here who arent aware that unsolicited marketing is a net no-no I just thought I'd mention it. Do not send me unsolicited mail -offering- me anything, free or not. Phrases like: "Quick fix for Arthritis, Diabetes, Hypertension, Ulcers, Alzheimer's, Osteoporosis, Menopause, PMS, Wrinkles, Gray Hair + many more." Are -non-starters- w/me. Sorry to take up list time with this, I consider most folks here, heck everyone I can think of, to be my online friends and trust you not to junk mail me. The latest one though has a rather gun-like domain name so I just wanna be clear. - -Thanks for your patience. Boyd Kneeland - ------------ hostprompt 24: whois 357.com Fresno Public Access (357-N-DOM) 2037 W Bullard Ave #124 Fresno, CA 93711 USA fresno, CA 93711 US Domain Name: 357.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Berz, George (GB1073) Postmaster@357.COM 209-276-1707 Record last updated on 23-May-96. Record created on 20-May-96. Domain servers in listed order: NS.QNIS.NET 206.171.190.2 NS2.QNIS.NET 206.171.190.3 hostprompt 25: finger tapeman@357.com [357.com] connect: Connection refused hostprompt 26: traceroute 357.com traceroute to 357.com (206.171.182.2), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 router.wrq.com (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) 3 ms * 2 ms 2 199.238.200.101 (199.238.200.101) 4 ms 6 ms 3 ms 3 199.238.200.66 (199.238.200.66) 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 4 seattle3-gw.nwnet.net (198.104.195.130) 6 ms 6 ms 9 ms 5 seabr2-gw.nwnet.net (198.104.207.97) 6 ms 7 ms 6 ms 6 mci-cpe-fddi.nwnet.net (192.147.179.3) 58 ms 10 ms 8 ms 7 borderx2-hssi2-0.Seattle.mci.net (204.70.203.117) 24 ms 11 ms 11 ms 8 core2-fddi-1.Seattle.mci.net (204.70.203.65) 9 ms 12 ms 8 ms 9 core3.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.4.17) 170 ms 24 ms 25 ms 10 mae-west-nap.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.1.14) 26 ms 25 ms 26 ms 11 mae-west1.agis.net (198.32.136.63) 27 ms 29 ms 27 ms 12 206.185.145.78 (206.185.145.78) 33 ms 32 ms 31 ms 13 snfc21-agis2.pbi.net (206.13.4.5) 31 ms 37 ms 29 ms 14 206.13.20.58 (206.13.20.58) 291 ms 343 ms 237 ms 15 ascend.qnis.net (206.171.190.45) 277 ms 256 ms 200 ms 16 206.171.182.1 (206.171.182.1) 416 ms 666 ms 400 ms 17 206.171.182.2 (206.171.182.2) 254 ms 428 ms 342 ms ------------------------------ From: "Larry A. Tate" Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:45:38 -0500 Subject: RE: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black >I'd like to open a new topic that is related to this arguable >hypocrisy. I've just recently browsed some of the Internet offerings >of the ACLU. There is an air of discontent within the ACLU >regarding the Framers of the Constitution. My analysis of their >position is that they think the Framers were hypocritical because >they were slave owners. They imply that the Framers never intended >the constitution to apply to "blacks", "American Indians", etc. It >is a fact that the Framers were slave owners and that they discounted >any claim that the original inhabitants had to the land. I find it >strikingly profound, however, that the documents of freedom (the >Declaration and the Constitution) make no specific exclusions to >"slaves" or other "non-white" peoples. > >This exclusion could mean that these wise men realized that the >practicalities of their time should not soil their intent. On the >flip-side, it could also mean that they thought that "non-whites" >would never be seen as "people". > >This second supposition is ridiculous due to the fact that the >argument about slavery was hot at the time (however legal). These >men would have been fools had they intended to exclude "non-whites" >implicitly and NOT explicitly in the Declaration and the >Constitution. These men were not fools. Therefore it is my opinion >that they intended to NOT exclude those who's rights were, at the >time, non-existent. This, in my opinion, is indicative of the >amazing extent of these men's vision. I've spent a lot of time reflecting on the responses given to this post. I can think of no other response than to repost the original (and to expound a little). It is a well-known fact that Thomas Jefferson reflected heavily upon the practicalities of his time during his contemplations of the philosophy that molded our country. It is a fact that he (and others of his intellectual kind) pondered the contradictions that he found obvious in his battle for human freedom and his ownership of slaves. This contradiction, and its obvious conclusions, indeed guided his actions in forging the Constitution and in later life. The fact is that racial consideration is absent from the "major" documents. This fact is extraordinary. Anyone who argues that the primary documents are "racist" are fighting a battle that will lead to the acceptance (if they get their way) that the documents are racist and that the battle against racism will not be protected by these fundamental documents. What I am saying is that the ACLU happens to fight for just causes by accident because their "platform" states that "The framers of the constitution were racist, therefore we can pick and choose which of their principles we will defend." This is bullshit. I find the documents "as written" (regardless of those who would, at the time, have seen it otherwise) pristine and perfect. Some of those who ratified, perhaps, would have liked to have seen language such as "all free white men are created equal". This was not the case, as the logical philosophists were able to see to. This occurred despite the practicalities of their time. How many politicians today, either left or right, would have had the courage to ignore (so radically) the prevalent practicalities? - ---------------------------------------------- Larry Tate ltate@computek.net "Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave." - -- William Pitt, 1763 - ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: "Larry A. Tate" Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:46:01 -0500 Subject: RE: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black On Thursday, July 04, 1996 6:53 AM, Bill Vance[SMTP:roc@xpresso.seaslug.org] wrote: >In <01BB6953.9125DB80@ltate>, on Jul 4, Larry A. Tate wrote: > > >That should be "soul", not "sole". > You are right of course. I consulted the publishing company that is responsible for my posts and they had no explanation for this faux paux (my attorney is also checking on the spelling of this french phrase which was cleared by my publisher). I will inform you of the result of any pending litigation. ;-) >>(By the way, I don't know if it is ACT or ROC, but a lot of replies >>to posts that were intended to be posted to the list are getting >>posted to the author instead. When a message that is received from >>a list is replied to using the "reply" option of a list user's mail >>software, the "recipient" is set to the author. This does not happen >>with the other lists I participate in. Can we fix this? BTW, I know >>I am not the only one having this trouble.) > >It ain't broke so please don't "fix" it. You would trade a minor >inconvenience for a lot of unecessary work. > Well, here again I am in the minority (I feel your pain!). Again I made the mistaken assumption that logic would rule. Since the lists are public "list type" affairs, I just assumed that responses should be defaulted as such. Don't worry, I will honor the majority opinion however convoluted and strange it may seem to me. If I want to communicate to my "buddies" then I don't post it to the lists. If I want to communicate on the lists then I post to the lists. Somebody please explain this "reply to the poster rather than to the list logic". - ---------------------------------------------- Larry Tate ltate@computek.net "Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave." - -- William Pitt, 1763 - ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 96 11:48:16 PST Subject: RE: ACLU Calling the Kettle Black In <01BB6ACD.32AA92A0@ltate>, on Jul 5, Larry A. Tate wrote: >>>(By the way, I don't know if it is ACT or ROC, but a lot of replies >>>to posts that were intended to be posted to the list are getting >>>posted to the author instead. When a message that is received from >>>a list is replied to using the "reply" option of a list user's mail >>>software, the "recipient" is set to the author. This does not happen >>>with the other lists I participate in. Can we fix this? BTW, I know >>>I am not the only one having this trouble.) >> >>It ain't broke so please don't "fix" it. You would trade a minor >>inconvenience for a lot of unecessary work. > >Well, here again I am in the minority (I feel your pain!). Again I made the >mistaken assumption that logic would rule. Since the lists are public "list >type" affairs, I just assumed that responses should be defaulted as such. Don't >worry, I will honor the majority opinion however convoluted and strange it may >seem to me. > >If I want to communicate to my "buddies" then I don't post it to the lists. If And when the "Reply-To:" forces your mailer to address your reply to the list, rather than your "buddies"? Ever raced an hourly dial up to edit the addresses in both email _and_ control files? >I want to communicate on the lists then I post to the lists. Somebody please >explain this "reply to the poster rather than to the list logic". It has to do with default settings. The idea is to reduce bandwidth as the default, "broadcasting" only when needed. Most mailers, elm included, don't seem to have any options for overiding "Reply-To:" lines in the header, which makes everyone go way around the barn if they want to do a point to point reply. I'd much rather have an easy choice than be forced into extra unecessary monkey motion make work, with no choice, anytime. - -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------ From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Date: Mon, 08 Jul 1996 08:33:58 -0500 Subject: Cheering Audiences all over America cheered when aliens destroyed Washington, DC. Too bad it was only a movie. Bob Knauer - -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------ From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:40:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: (fwd) BATF to Have Computerized System for Tracking Guns (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: solarr@aol.com (Solarr) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Subject: BATF to Have Computerized System for Tracking Guns SOURCE: New York Times, July 8, 1996 Federal Program Will Track Sales of Guns to Youths By FOX BUTTERFIELD President Clinton will announce Monday the creation of a federal computer system to track the illegal sale of guns... On Monday, police chiefs and prosecutors from 17 cities... are to sign an agreement at the White House voluntarily pledging to provide information on every gun they seize from a juvenile during a crime. The data will be entered into the federal computer system, run by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Each gun will be traced to its original seller through documents and serial numbers to try to find who is selling guns to juveniles. The gun traffickers will then be prosecuted. Eventually, federal officials say, the goal is to have all cities in the nation join the program, giving the bureau more information with which to identify illegal gun dealers. "I've been in law enforcement for 25 years and this is the most powerful law-enforcement tool I have ever seen," said Joe Vince, the chief of the bureau's firearms enforcement division. The computerized data base and a new software program, called Project LEAD, represents an "astonishing" change in attitude and tactics by the police, said David Kennedy, a senior researcher at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, who helped devise the project in Boston... The 17 cities in the program, all of which have shown an interest in gun tracing, were selected in part to have participation from cities of various sizes and from various regions. In addition to New York and Boston, the cities are Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Ala., Bridgeport, Conn., Inglewood, Calif., Memphis, Cleveland, Jersey City, Milwaukee, Richmond, St. Louis, Salinas, Calif., San Antonio, Seattle and Washington. It is already illegal under federal law, and the laws of most states, to sell handguns to juveniles, a factor that makes the president's program easier to implement because it does not require the passage of new legislation that could lead to a debate about gun control. Law-enforcement experts say there are other reasons they expect the computerized gun-tracking system to be successful. For one thing, all guns manufactured in the United States or imported from abroad must bear a serial number and can be sold initially only by federally licensed firearms dealers. This means that identification numbers and paperwork already exist to tell where the gun entered the market. ...With encouragement from the Clinton administration, the firearms agency three years ago began pushing the development of software to analyze the records it had long been assembling on illegal guns. - -- ------------------------------ From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 08:04:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: NAFTA Requires Electronic Tax Payments! (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 18:52:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Gerhard Holford To: list ACT , "NEW PARADIGMS. list" Subject: RE: NAFTA Requires Electronic Tax Payments! I received the following e-mail from the owner of a small business. Repeat after me: "you MUST"; "you WILL BE REQUIRED"; "you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO"; "you MUST"; "you WILL BE REQUIRED"; "you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO"; "you MUST"; "you WILL BE REQUIRED"; "you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO"; ... There. Does that help you understand who's boss? G. Holford - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 16:00:10 -0400 From:DaleWarner@aol.com To: TGHolford@aol.com, Holford@vnet.ibm.com, germanic@netcom.com Subject: FYI I received a letter today in the mail from the IRS having to do with deposits of quarterly withheld employee tax payments. Today we simply take a check to the approved bank for the exact amount, and deposit it to the credit of the US government on the spot. In the future it will be different, and I thought you and your friends might find this of interest. Portions of the letter follow: June 1996 Dear Taxpayer: YOU MUST ENROLL AND DEPOSIT ELECTRONICALLY Beginning January 1, 1997, you will be required to make your Federal Tax Deposit (FTD) payments by electronic funds transfer (EFT). This requirement is a result of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (NAFTA). NAFTA mandates that businesses making deposits of more than $50,000 in employment taxes for calendar year 1995 make all Federal Tax Deposit payments electronically. The Internal Revenue Code requires you to use the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) to make your tax deposits electronically.... To use EFTPS, you must first enroll. Since the enrollment process can take up to 10 weeks to complete, we encourage you to enroll now. As of January 1, 1997, you will not be able to deposit these taxes with a check and Form 8190 without incurring a penalty of 10% for the taxes deposited. Delaying your enrollment may prevent you from making your required EFT payment.... In addition, please share this letter with each department in your organization which is responsible for paying depository taxes. We hope you will find that making payments through EFTPS is simpler and faster.... ************************************************************ The reason this is of interest is that it is the result of NAFTA-related legislation about which we were told nothing at the time of passage. What else is in NAFTA? ------------------------------ From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:11:02 -0500 (CDT) Subject: (fwd) Project LEAD!!! (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 07:51:07 CDT From: Wade A. Smith To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Subject: (fwd) Project LEAD!!! Posted to texas-gun-owners by wasmith@rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com (Wade A. Smith) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ANYBODY seen this? It dont look good folks, especially where I marked with '<<<>>>' - ----- Begin Included Message ----- PRESS BRIEFING BY UNDER SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY RAYMOND KELLY ____________________________________ For Immediate Release July 8, 1996 PRESS BRIEFING 1:24 P.M. EDT UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: Thank you. Any questions? Q Memphis received a grant of $170,000 a year ago from Justice to start tracking this same very thing. They interviewed over 400 juveniles. So far there have been two indictments of people for transferring guns to juveniles. That doesn't sound like a big dent in the gun traffic. And I'd really like you to address how you're going to -- what do you do in situations when guns are stolen? It doesn't seem to me how your tracking it back to the dealer is going to help. UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: Well, maybe that's a question more appropriately for Justice, but I think what's changed here is a whole new technological approach. Software is developed -- Project LEAD, which enables now the -- enables ATF to aggregate information that prior to this was put through a tracing system, but no real trends were able to be developed. So I think what we're saying is the process that you're talking about is now going to be much more efficient, it's going to be speeded up. And as you build this information base, we go back to federal prosecutors and local prosecutors, and then they carry the ball. So I can't speak specifically about what happened in Memphis, I just see this as a very positive move. We are gathering this information. We are increasing the information base. What's significant that happened today -- it happened with this conference -- is you have a signing-off, you have a contract, in effect, by local police, by federal prosecutors, and by state prosecutors that they are going to take every crime gun and put it into the national tracing system. Prior to this it was voluntary, and it was, quite frankly, spotty. Now you have this commitment that it is going to happen with every gun. What does that do? Again, it just increases the information base. And with the new software of Operation LEAD, you then take that base and you analyze it and you're able to get information. And from what I've seen so far, it's really quite amazing as far as the identification of where guns are coming from. Q And if the gun is stolen you can't prosecute anybody, is that correct? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: If the gun is stolen, we can't prosecute anybody? Q If somewhere in the chain somebody reports that a gun is stolen and it winds up in the hands of juveniles, you can't go back and prosecute -- even if you know who sold the gun originally you can't go back and prosecute that individual, correct? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: It depends on the individual case and the facts. I think what this says is -- and there is an example of a case in St. Louis where an individual licensed firearms dealer had illegally sold 450 guns. A very laborious, labor-intensive investigation brought that information to the fore, and there was an arrest and a conviction, and this person is in jail. Now this new technology package enables you to do that identification of who is providing these guns I think much more efficiently. As far as who -- if a gun was stolen, you have to be able to show the appropriate frame of mind, and if it was stolen, is there any liability, criminal liability? I don't believe so. Q Why would not a police department investigating an illegal use of a handgun want to trace the owner before this program existed? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: To a certain extent it was perhaps apathy. And I think just in the last couple of years have guns begun in large numbers to go to the tracing center. I believe it went from 80,000 two years ago to 120,000. And probably a belief that maybe not much could be done as far as tracing a gun. Now, I believe that's changing, and now we have this signed commitment on the part of people to submit every gun to the National Tracing Center. Q Did that attitude exist when you ran the New York City Police Department? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: No. As a matter of fact, New York City is a leader. I started a task force with ATF in 1990. Not because I was there, but I can tell you that New York, percentage-wise, is the biggest participant in this pilot program and it has proven to be successful there. Q Sir, I understand that most of these guns now that you're working on handguns in the hands of gangs, what do you think causes gangs to be formed and get started? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: I think that's a very complex question. For instance, there are cities in this country that have major gang problems and there are other cities that have no gang problem at all. And some gangs form around drugs and the drug trade. New York, for instance, the city that I'm most familiar with, has some drug gangs, but relative to other big cities, obviously New York being the biggest, in relation to the size, New York has a relatively small gang problem. So I don't think there's an easy answer to that question. Q I'm still a little foggy about what's new here today. Isn't this a program that's already been in place? I talked to somebody in the District, this has been going on in the District and you said New York City. I mean what has changed as a result of today's events? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: Okay. In 1993, 1994 an announcement came out saying that the ATF is going to trace guns -- juveniles. But, again, ATF can only do that based on the compliance and the willingness of local police agencies to submit their guns to ATF, to go through the National Tracing Center. So during this next two-year period, software is developed called Operation LEAD, a project. What that software enables ATF to do is look at this universe of tracings and analyze them and aggregate them and take a look and see what dealers are involved, see more information as far as, perhaps, involved with gangs or with drugs. So that comes on-line or is developed in '95. It's then -- you start distributing this in, I believe, February '96 to 17 ATF offices. Now, again, prior to this we still had -- it was still based on the voluntary cooperation of local police agencies. Today what you have are representatives from those 17 cities, representing the police, the federal prosecutors and the state prosecutors, all signing on saying, yes, they're going to submit all of their guns - --every crime gun that's seized will be put through the National Tracing Center process. Now, it's been used in the past to link a gun to a specific crime. Now what we have is the use of that universe of information to analyze where guns are coming from, and a commitment on the part of the localities to submit their guns through this system, through the process. Q Have you had a problem with local cities not reporting the guns even though they had the software and were in this program? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: To the best of my knowledge, the 17 cities have been cooperative and are enthusiastic about it and it hasn't been a problem in that regard. What we want to do, of course, ultimately -- hopefully this will be successful, we want to get other cities on board to do the same thing. We want cities now who are not in this project, of course, to submit their crime guns to the ATF National Tracing Center. Q All that happened today was 17 cities signed these voluntary compliance agreements, but they have, in fact, already been complying for months; is that right? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: I don't know to what degree. I can tell you they have been enthusiastic. But now not only is it the police department, it's the federal prosecutor and the state prosecutor, local prosecutor signing on. As you can well imagine, when you have three jurisdictional levels, there may have been some turf issues, and I'm only speculating, there may have been some lack of cooperation. Here we have, in essence, a contract in these 17 cities to go forward with. Q What percentage of all gun crimes are committed by juveniles? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: That's a difficult question. Anybody have an answer along those lines? Q Well, the reason I ask that, I'm wondering why this is called a youth gun initiative. UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: Well, it's called -- <<<>>> Q -- mean that this would be applicable to all gun crimes, would it not? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: It is applicable to all gun crimes, but there are finite resources. And the murder rate, as was said before, has gone up significantly for young people in the last 15 years. Indeed, murders of juveniles have gone up threefold in the last 15 years. And homicides, killings by juveniles have quadrupled in the last 10 years. So this is the -- appears to be the population sector most at risk. So what you have here is this program -- yes, it's applicable to guns used by anybody, but the difference here is since you have finite resources, funds have been made available to do intensified investigations, if you will, on the part of ATF and hopefully in cooperation and collaboration with localities when it appears that guns are being used by young people. This is a process whereby the ATF SAICs, the office heads, go back to headquarters and say we have this preliminary information that indicates that there are young people involved. Then that turns on the spigot for this fund of money. Q But you wouldn't pay that same amount of attention to a gun that was in the hands of an adult that had killed somebody? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: What we're saying is, yes, there are some limitations in terms of how much of an in-depth investigation you can do about a gun. We are focusing on those guns involved with juvenile population. Q I understand youth crime is on the rise, but you can't tell me what percentage of youth crime is in relation to the ration between youth crime and overall gun crimes? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: I can't tell you, but I think it's something we believe to be significant and we can get you that number. Q I'm still a little confused as why a crime committed by a youth holding a gun is more significant or would receive more attention from the Justice Department in terms of tracing that weapon than would a gun used by an adult. UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: Well, I think what you said is the homicide rate is skyrocketing. I think probably the most violent sector of our population, whatever age you want to start at 13 to 14 to 19 years of age, that's where violence is occurring and it's occurring among young people. Finite resources available; where do you focus? Where do you look? Where do you put your money? In this case it's $2 million. And the decision has been made to create a process whereby you go if, in fact, we can establish that there are young people involved in this particular crime or series of crimes then that's going to unleash or release additional funds for ATF and localities to do investigations there. So it's a question of making a judgment, where do you put your emphasis. Q Do you have any reason to believe that guns used by kids are newer or easier to trace than guns used by older criminals? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: Yes, there is. And there is --a kind of a trend indicates that young people want newer guns, it's a status symbol, and that there are better records being kept on guns that are just, let's say, in the last two to three years that have been purchased during that period of time. So an indication of both a desire on the part of juveniles for newer guns and also the ability to trace, I think, in a more effective way with newer guns. Q How did you pick these 17 cities and why not more? I mean, 17 is only a handful. Obviously, they are fairly large cities -- UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: The cities were picked based on their level of cooperation and enthusiasm. Of course, they all have ATF offices there, SAIC offices. And I think that was a major factor. Q Sir, can you say what happens -- drugs are largely the cause of this; who gets the drugs into this country and into the hands of the youth, how do these drugs importers get in touch with the youth? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: Well, I think we know that drugs come in a lot of different ways. They come by air and ship and people driving through. U.S. Customs, among others, has a major Southwest border initiative, for instance, to attempt to stop the flow. It's been, from what I can see, somewhat successful, but it's still a major problem. And drugs are coming in in a variety of ways. Q Can you give us an idea of how much this program costs and how much it costs to develop the software? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: It's about $2 million in funding available. About $300,000 of that is for a research component that will involve NIJ -- National Institute of Justice -- and ATF to do a more in-depth examination, particularly as far as young people are concerned. So there's $1.7 million that has been freed up through forfeiture funds to allow for the additional funding that I spoke about to -- Q Is that for a year? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: Pardon me? For youth? Q For a year, or how long -- UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: I believe it's for a year. And we'll see -- Q -- the cities or law enforcement -- UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: It goes to the ATF offices themselves, the ATF investigators themselves. Q Does the Brady Bill deal with any of this? Doesn't it help track weapons already? UNDER SECRETARY KELLY: The Brady Bill, the information gathered from the Brady Bill, is helpful. That's the type of source information that we need. But some of these weapons, of course, were coming down the pike before the Brady Bill. THE PRESS: Thank you. END 1:40 P.M. EDT ************************************************ - ----- End Included Message ----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------ End of roc Digest V2 #19 ************************ To subscribe to roc Digest, send the command: subscribe roc-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@xmission.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-roc": subscribe roc-digest local-roc@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "roc-digest" in the commands above with "roc". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in pub/lists/roc/archive. These are organized by date.