From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #317 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Saturday, February 12 2000 Volume 02 : Number 317 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 00 08:12:34 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: AMERICANS Please read this (fwd) On Feb 9, Weldon Clark wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] AMERICANS Please read this Citizens Of America a unique organization performing an essential function in the war to retain our firearms rights is in danger of having to shut down operations. Q: Why should you care if COA is forced to shut down? A: Because the work Citizens Of America (COA) has accomplished is in jeopardy of vanishing. And COA or its duplicate is CRUCIAL to the gun-rights war. Q: Why is COA crucial? A: Because other gun rights organizations communicate almost exclusively with their membership. COA is running a national pro-gun, pro-gun rights public media campaign. Because COA says what needs to be said, and doesn't fear media attacks COA is prepared to use such attacks to benefit gun owners. Because COA reaches out to ALL Americans regardless of age, race, religion, or sex. And until ALL Americans grasp what is happening and change their minds about firearms, we are going to continue to lose our rights, piece by piece. Q: What are COA's tactics? A: COA's primary tactic is to use the mass communications media to convince ALL Americans by touching their HEARTS and MINDS that - -- more guns in the hands of citizens means less crime - -- anti-gunners are anti-self-defense - -- anti-gunners are usually brazen hypocrites - -- anti-gunners are harming you personally and America in general. Q: What has COA accomplished? A: In just over FOUR months, COA has produced and disseminated across the country FREE OF CHARGE 13 pro- gun rights radio ads. Are the ads good? Good enough that people are: - -- paying out of their own pockets to run our ads in their locale - -- placing the ads or links to COA on their own pro-2A websites - -- sending out COA updates and notices on their own email lists - -- volunteering (via our new program) to be the collection points for pooling funds to run ads in their own cities - -- volunteering not just money but time, skill, and services to help us - -- notifying us that when our first print ads to appear they will pay to run them in newspapers and other publications. - -- calling radio talk show and requesting that they interview us, which has resulted in COA officers giving 11 talk show interviews in the last three months (since Oct.) with more scheduled. Some interviews were on nationally syndicated shows (Steve Wolf's Crime Talk, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, Jeff Rense's Sightings, and Ron Engelmans Engelman Overnight) What else? Radio station managers are running COA ads free of charge as public service announcements. And COA has been the subject of a positive WorldNet Daily article by columnist Jon Dougherty. Q: So why is COA having funding problems? A: First, because COA started operations without extensive financial backing-- just a small grant of a few hundred dollars to build a website. And Second, because COA is still too new to have established a large donor base to support it. From the beginning, COA founders counted on public support to achieve its goals and to grow. In just four months COA's dedicated staff, its ultra-low overhead, and its care in spending donations, along with grass-roots help from individuals all across America, have already enabled it to have a national reach and impact. But we have hit a financial wall, and we need your help to break through. In fact we are unable to maintain even a status quo regarding day-to-day operations. Without immediate help we will be forced to cease all planned projects and perhaps shut down completely. But with your support we can instantly proceed with our plans to reach ALL Americans with our pro-gun, pro-gun rights messages. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS: This email posting reaches several thousand people. If every recipient contributed just $20, COA's ultra lean operational budget for the coming year would be met. More than $20 if you can afford it would be appreciated, of course! You can contribute by credit card or e-gold on our website, http://www.citizensofamerica.org Or by check to Citizens Of America, 2118 Wilshire Blvd. #447, Santa Monica, CA 90403. To those who have contributed THANK YOU! ************************************************************* >From The 2ndAmendmentNews Team If you received this as a forward and wish to join please send: E-MAil to listserver@frostbit.com with the following text in the message body: SUBSCRIBE 2nd-Amendment-News We have had a computer error. If you want to be removed send a message to the list administrator, send E-mail to luz.clark@prodigy.net If you know anyone who would appreciate these alerts, please let us know and we'll enroll them on a trial basis. Also, feel free to forward our alerts. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 00 18:09:01 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Internet Taxes, how much are they? (fwd) On Feb 10, The McGehee Zone wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] - ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Williams To: KL7DW Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 3:47 PM Subject: Internet Taxes, how much are they? Internet Tax Could Doom Web's Freebies By David Ridenour National Policy Analysis Paper #278 published in February 2000 by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 777 North Capitol Street NE #803, Washington, D.C. 20002-4239, 202/371-1400, Fax 202/408-7773, E-Mail info@nationalcenter.org, Web http://www.nationalcenter.org. Reprints permitted provided source is credited. Freebies that many Internet surfers now take for granted could be eliminated or scaled back if advocates of Internet sales taxes get their way. Over the past several years, some of the nation's governors and big-city mayors have been pushing hard for new taxes on the Internet. Sales over the Internet are currently treated as ordinary mail order sales, which are exempt from most sales taxes, much to the displeasure of these politicians. Under a 1992 Supreme Court decision, Quill v. North Dakota, mail order businesses do not have to collect sales taxes from customers living in states where the business has no "physical presence," such as a retail store or office. As virtual retail stores without a "physical presence" in most states, Internet-based businesses are thus also exempt from most state and local sales taxes. The Internet, which many regard as a key engine for future economic expansion, is already significantly taxed as it is. Notes Americans for Tax Reform's Grover Norquist, "The building blocks of the Internet - - phone lines, cable, all telecommunications - are already one of the most heavily taxed parts of the American economy." Indeed, in addition to a federal excise tax, state and local excise taxes average 14.1 percent and are as high as 28.6 percent in Texas and 24.5 percent in Florida. Some state and local officials apparently don't believe this is enough. The reason? Private studies estimate that Internet sales doubled from 1998 to 1999, growing from $10 billion to $20 billion. State and county governments are no doubt eager to get their hands on a piece of this business by assessing taxes. They want to do so despite the fact that state taxes already represent nine percent of Gross Domestic Product. Critics of the Internet sales tax proposal argue that these taxes threaten to kill a key economic engine of the future, the Internet. A June 1999 study by Professor Austen Goolsbee of the University of Chicago Business School backs this up. Goolsbee's study found that taxation of electronic commerce would reduce Internet sales by 24 percent or more. Just imagine what this could mean for the stock market. Millions of investors have paid inflated prices for shares of as yet unprofitable Internet companies on the assumption that profits are on the way. A 24 percent drop in Internet sales could kill many of these enterprises. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Many of the free services that many of us take advantage of on the Internet could disappear or be significantly scaled back if sales taxes are imposed. Much of the free stuff we get on the Internet is offered for the explicit purpose of increasing traffic for web pages to make them attractive to advertisers. Fewer Internet sales would mean fewer advertising dollars devoted to the Internet, and many of these free services could disappear. A good case in point are Internet search engines that make the Internet such a useful research tool. Companies such as Yahoo! and Lycos provide these services - which can be quite expensive to maintain - only because they make money on the advertising. A dip in e-commerce could make a big difference for these firms' bottom lines. Yahoo! only began showing a profit two years ago - and then just eleven cents a share - while Lycos has yet to show a profit. Last year, Lycos lost 60 cents per share and its executives are no doubt hoping continued Internet growth will reverse their fortunes. OnLineNow is another good example of a free service made possible by advertising. Launched in 1997 from a rental shed in Idaho, OnLineNow offers a quick, easy and completely free way for people to find business information on the web. Called by some a "global yellow pages," visitors to OnLineNow's web page can get the business contact information they need in seconds simply by entering a business category and city or country on the OnLineNow web page. The web page receives over one million hits per day. This valuable service could be in jeopardy, however, if sales on the Internet slow due to the imposition of sales taxes. But that's not all that's at risk. A good corporate citizen, OnLineNow has donated a million dollars worth of Internet advertising to Kid 4 Tomorrow, a charity founded by former NFL stars L. Rayfield Wright, Andy Livingston and Earl Edwards that offers assistance to "at-risk" students. Among other things, the organization provides drug and alcohol prevention training and peer leadership programs. This and other philanthropy by Internet-based business could be at risk if the Internet's growth is stymied by taxes. Some advice to state and local politicians: Keep the economic engine of tomorrow going. Keep the Internet free for all to use. Keep your hands off the Internet. # # # David Ridenour is Vice President of The National Center for Public Policy Research, a non-profit, non- partisan educational foundation based in Washington, D.C. Comments may be sent to DRidenour@nationalcenter.org. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 00 18:53:26 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: WHO'S MISREPRESENTING WHOM? (fwd) On Feb 11, The McGehee Zone wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] How many of John McCain's enemies in the Washington establishment are members of the liberal-biased Washington press corps? How many are liberal Democrat members of Congress? How many are members of the Clinton administration? All those I ever hear about are members of the Republican congressional majority. Granted, that bunch hasn't done a whole heckuva lot that we want it to do, and quite a bit we'd rather it didn't -- but I still trust them a d@mn sight more than I trust all of those people in Washington who DON'T hate John McCain. Kevin McGehee Newnan, Georgia mail@mcgeheezone.com http://www.McGeheeZone.com/ - ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Williams To: Dave Williams Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 6:34 PM Subject: WHO'S MISREPRESENTING WHOM? Washington Bulletin: National Review's Internet Update for 2/11/00 http://www.nationalreview.com/ by Ramesh Ponnuru and John J. Miller WHO'S MISREPRESENTING WHOM? One of the most irritating features of this primary season has been how often candidates have gone negative by decrying their rivals' negativism. Today, for instance, the McCain campaign sent out a press release accusing the Bush campaign of making a 14-year-old boy cry with its negative "push polling." This same release announced a new ad suggesting that, just as the communists tortured McCain in Vietnam, now the special interests are "coming after him here in South Carolina because John McCain will take the government away from the special interests and give it back to you." Accusing Bush of making children cry and linking him to evil special interests, we guess, isn't negative. But what difference does it make whether an attack counts as "negative," or who went negative first? The campaigns' focus on negativism - Bush is guilty of it just as McCain is - distracts attention from the important question: Which charges are true? Let's run through them one by one. McCain Charge # 1: Gov. Bush sets aside no money for Social Security. Actually, Bush sets aside excess payroll-tax revenues for Social Security. At a projected $2 trillion over the next ten years, that's a nice chunk of change. So now McCain is saying that those $2 trillion are already supposed to go to Social Security; Bush's sin is not setting aside any "new" money from income-tax revenues, as the senator proposes. Some of McCain's premises here can be disputed, but the bottom line is that his ads and rhetoric are misleading: Bush is hardly endangering Social Security by not feeding it money that isn't slotted to go to it now. McCain Charge # 2: Bush doesn't reduce the national debt. When money is set aside "for" Social Security, what that means in practical terms is that it is used to retire debt. Again, McCain is misleading. Bush Charge # 1: McCain favors public financing of political campaigns. The McCain campaign hotly disputes this, but the Bush campaign dredged up 5 votes by McCain for bills including public financing. McCain spokesman Howard Opinsky told the Associated Press, "This is the same old Washington Clintonian politics that voters have become so cynical about, trying to twist John McCain's 17-year record of reform and consistent opposition to public financing to Governor Bush's advantage." McCain's votes were all on procedural motions, he said, to keep debate on campaign-finance reform going. According to the Senate records, however, Opinsky is wrong: McCain was voting for bills, not motions. Whatever McCain's theoretical opposition to public financing, it stopped well short of making him actually vote against it. Moreover, McCain has just endorsed Ron Unz's campaign-finance initiative in California, which includes public financing. Bush Charge # 2: McCain would raise taxes on contributions to churches, charities, and colleges. The provision of the McCain tax plan in question concerns the donation of assets that have grown in value since originally being purchased - say, a stock. Under McCain's plan, only the original cost of the donation would be deductible, not the current value. Here's McCain's press-release explanation of why this must be done: "The McCain tax plan does not tax charitable contributions. Under current law, a wealthy taxpayer can buy a painting for $10,000, have a 'friendly' appraiser estimate its value at $100,000 and claim a deduction for the higher value by donating it to a charitable institution. This practice unfairly shifts the tax burden to middle income taxpayers." The scenario McCain describes is already illegal as a form of tax fraud. His solution is indeed a $9 billion tax increase on charitable contributions. In these and other cases, figuring out who's telling the truth requires some attention to policy details. In the Wall Street Journal yesterday, poor Lawrence Lindsey went deep into the thickets to make the case that McCain's numbers don't add up. Maybe it's a pointless exercise: McCain knows that he can wing it and then spin his way out of trouble because voters aren't thinking about issues. It would be nice if a few journalists were. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 00 09:21:36 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Gun Owners Bush Over McCain (fwd) On Feb 12, Weldon Clark wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Gun Owners Bush Over McCain Now it's just Bush vs. McCain Feb. 9 Neal Knox Report -- After a third-place finish in yesterday's Delaware contest, Steve Forbes is withdrawing from the Republican Presidential contest. With pro-gun stalwart Alan Keyes hanging by a thread, the GOP nomination is now a two-man race. George W. Bush is rated a B by the Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association, while their own senator, John McCain is rated a C-minus. I concur with those ratings. Bush has taken a lot of heat from the press over his signing the Texas concealed carry licensing law, improvements to that law, and signing the law prohibiting Texas cities from suing gunmakers for acts by criminals. Though a lot of gunowners aren't fond of him (perhaps remembering the betrayal by his father), his support for gun show background checks and other gun bills are basically in line with NRA's positions. McCain is generally described by the media as "opposed to gun control" but when the Senate was considering the Juvenile Justice bill last May it was McCain who threatened Senate gun rights leaders with leading four other Senators to vote for the original Lautenberg gun show bill if they failed to bring up a mandatory gun show background check bill. The Republicans did, throwing their party into disarray and causing eventual passage of a slightly softer version of Lautenberg's gun show bill. McCain also was chief co-sponsor of a "campaign finance reform" bill that would have destroyed the ability of NRA and other pro-gun groups to inform gunowners of a candidate's gun record during the last two months of a campaign. He thanked now-NRA Vice President Sandra Froman and me for what NRA accomplished in the 1994 Arizona elections. "Unlike most politicians, I will never forget." Yet his bill would have prevented NRA from doing that which so pleased him. Since my old friend Alan Keyes has shown no ability to win any primary, if I were voting in the South Carolina primary it would be against McCain -- which means for George W. Bush. To paraphrase that great lawman Bill Jordan, in gunfights and politics there are no second place winners. ***************************************************************** Letter from Bush Campaign signed by Jeff Young the legislator who sponsored concealed carry in South Carolina and others. As fellow sportsmen, we are writing to you about the Republican presidential primary on February 19th. We strongly support Governor George W. Bush and encourage you to do so as well. George Bush has demonstrated a strong commitment to sportsmen's issues. He has shown himself to be a leader in the fight to protect the Second Amendment and an advocate for wildlife, land preservation and conservation. As Governor of Texas, George Bush has proven himself to be a champion of the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. In 1995, Governor Bush signed legislation allowing law-abiding Texans to carry concealed weapons after passing a background check and handgun training. While other Governors and municipal officials bowed to the pressure of gun-control advocates and the liberal media to sue the firearms industry, Governor Bush not only stood firm, he signed legislation prohibiting frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He sent a very clear message that gun manufacturers and law-abiding citizens are not responsible for crime. Criminals are! Governor Bush believes that the criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime should be severely punished. That's why he helped launch "Texas Exile," an initiative aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals through the enforcement of existing Texas laws. Convicted criminals caught committing a crime with a gun are prosecuted under a statute which provides for a mandatory five-year sentence in a federal prison. Governor Bush opposed the Clinton-Gore Administration's push for government mandated registration of private firearms and he would reverse the Clinton-Gore manipulation of the Brady law to maintain a registry of gun owners. Make no mistake: As president, George W. Bush will do everything in his power to ensure that criminals and children do not have access to handguns. At the same time, his commitment to our Second Amendment rights, our heritage and our freedom is unwavering. He will never bow to the knee-jerk hysteria that the anti-gun lobby and its forces in the media periodically create. It's no accident that the Republicans who know John McCain best -- his colleagues in the United States Senate -- overwhelmingly back Governor Bush. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, a member of the National Rifle Association Board of Directors, believes Second Amendment rights are not rights determined by last night's polls. And Senator Craig has enthusiastically endorsed Governor Bush. Additionally, Governor Bush and Senator Craig are united in their opposition to the Clinton-Gore land grabs, an abuse of executive power which would close millions of acres of public land to outdoor recreation and possibly hunting. George Bush's track record of working effectively with the Legislature in Texas, bodes well for his ability to work with Congress to balance the protection of our natural resources with the public's right to enjoy our land. As an avid outdoorsman whose favorite pastime is fishing on an East Texas lake, Governor Bush is personally committed to the good stewardship of America's outdoor heritage. He will continue to ensure that we protect natural resources for future generations of hunters and fishermen. Safari Club International, an organization dedicated to wildlife conservation and hunting advocacy, has recognized Governor Bush's efforts, naming him SCI's "Governor of the Year." Governor Bush has championed the rights of Texas Sportsmen and private landowners while promoting natural resource conservation through cooperation, not confrontation. He has worked with federal agencies, local communities, private landowners and conservation groups in protecting wildlife and habitats. The Governor is committed to building conservation partnerships between federal and state governments, local communities and private landowners to preserve our outdoor heritage. He will fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and believes that half that fund should be guaranteed for state and local conservation initiatives. We are confident that George W. Bush is the best choice to lead our nation. He is the most solid and principled conservative in the race and a true advocate for Second Amendment rights. Your support for Governor Bush in this critical South Carolina primary will help increase the sportsmen's voice in this election. Please join us in backing Governor George W. Bush for President and put a true outdoorsman in the White House. Sincerely, Jeff Young legislator who sponsored concealed Carry in South Carolina ************************************************************* >From The 2ndAmendmentNews Team If you received this as a forward and wish to join please send: E-MAil to listserver@frostbit.com with the following text in the message body: SUBSCRIBE 2nd-Amendment-News We have had a computer error. If you want to be removed send a message to the list administrator, send E-mail to luz.clark@prodigy.net If you know anyone who would appreciate these alerts, please let us know and we'll enroll them on a trial basis. Also, feel free to forward our alerts. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 00 09:20:53 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: "It can't happen HERE...!" (fwd) On Feb 11, Doug Spittler wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The Assault at San Gabriel Lessons in Gun Registration A Sierra Times Special Report By J.J. Johnson - Sierra Times Reporter February 7, 2000 It would normally be surprising to find the latest example of Jack-booted thuggery in the halls of a public transportation administration; but after all, this is California. The place: San Gabriel. This city in Los Angeles County is the home of Ruben and Denise Gonzalez. On January, 5 2000, their home was raided - not by the FBI, ATF, or DEA, but by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. MTA for short. The Gonzalez' are traditional Catholics who practice their faith based on the Council of Trent. According to Denise, both take their religious faith very seriously. That faith was tested back in 1995 and what followed was a pattern of events that led to the Terrorization of the Gonzalez family one month ago. About four years ago, columnist Charles Cherniss of Pasadena Star News labeled the MTA as "a classic example of regional socialism." Living true to form, the MTA decided receiving federal funds was more important than protecting the rights of their own employees. AOL did something similar, but we'll get to that later. The issue in question was and still is - mandatory, random drug testing of employees. This policy remains a controversy, even though its constitutionality has been tested in numerous courts. The MTA is a public entity, and according to Constitution attorney Nancy Johnson, "government agencies do not have the right to violate the forth amendment rights of civilian employees without basis." Yet the MTA insisted on going forward with the policy back in 1995. Enter the Gonzalez,' employed by the public transportation outfit for over 20 years. They filed suit against the MTA for their random drug testing policy. "I was ordered away from my job duties and forced to go to a medical center," Denise Gonzalez said in a press release in 1995." The Gonzalez' said theirs was not only a violation of the God-given right to be free from illegal search and seizure, it violated their faith as well. " We are made in the image of God; our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Ghost and are therefore inviolate," Denise said. Both Ruben and Denise always tested negative for any drug use. Both Denise and Ruben said they suffered trauma from what they consider to be an assault and an affront to their deeply held religious convictions. This led to both seeking medical care. It was obviously her forthrightness that got the attention of her higher-ups. She stated, "Random testing is immodest, indecent and immoral. It is Marxist. It is the Mark of the Beast. Random testing of human beings is just as much a desecration as vandalism of a church or temple. In fact, it's much worse because it is an assault against a person; it strips you of your dignity and dehumanizes you." On Janurary 5, 2000, The Gonzalez family got an even more bitter taste of "dehumanization." The Gonzalez' were already active in protecting their freedoms. She was the block watch captain for her community, as well as notary public. Ruben's an officer in the American Legion. They keep a clean home and have no past criminal records. Their "crime" was only having the courage to fight back. Denise was under a doctor's care for a year but the MTA refused to allow her to return and charged her with being absent without permission, even though she had followed all the company rules concerning medical leave of absence. This lead to a lawsuit that was filed in the Los Angeles District Court in April of 1996. The charge: Gross discrimination based on religion and wrongful termination.. This was an additional charge laid against the MTA. Without merit, you ask? Well, take a look at an excerpt from the Motion to Dismiss filed in 1997 by MTA's legal counsel Sharon Sanders. Sanders asserted that the Gonzalez' faith was nothing more than a "personal religious creed," and that Roman Catholics observe nothing more than "personal preferences." According to the Sander's affidavit, Denise Gonzalez had "unique personal and moral preferences" that are "beyond the parameters of the concept of religion as protected by the Constitution." No doubt this lead to tempers flaring on both sides. Federal Judge James Ideman dismissed the Gonzalez lawsuit in 1997 but his ruling has recently been overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in March of 1999. In October, 1999, and in spite of the pending lawsuits; and despite the injury and emotional distress the Gonzalez' have been subjected to, MTA ordered Ruben to undergo yet another random drug test. In the wake of this more recent assault against him, the MTA claims to have received threats from supporters of the couple and from Ruben and Denise themselves. The Gonzalez' deny these accusation. "These protests that were sent to MTA were within everyone's first amendment rights," said Denise Gonzalez in an interview with the Sierra Times. The case is still pending, but since the reversal of Judge James Ideman's ruling last year, the Gonzalez' were obviously marked. The MTA claims they have received e-mail threats, such as "...if this was 1776, you'd be hung for treason...," from one writer; and "..if you tried to force me to submit to an illegal search & seizure, I'd put my .44 to your head," from another. Citations from the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers were quoted. Some letters just questioned the intelligence of "randomly" drug testing innocent employees. Especially repeated testing of middle-aged, Catholic employees of veteren status with no incidence of drug use in the past 20 years. These "threats" did not come from the Gonzalez,' but no matter. They were the most vocal, and they would pay. A few calls were made in order to lock down the location of these "subjects" who dared to speak out for their constitutional rights. One call of note was to American Online, that gallant defender of the first and forth amendments. Without even a warrant or probable cause, they were asked to supply the MTA with the locations of where the e-mails came from. AOL's response: "You've got mail!" Then the accounts were cancelled. To this date, and in spite of numerous inquiries, AOL representatives have not bothered to explain to the Gonzalez' why their account was cancelled. Now comes the dark, ugly side of gun registration. It just so happens that the Gonzalez' owned weapons, and being law-abiding citizens, they followed the California guidelines and had them registered. Eyebrows raised yet? Well, they were at the MTA as well. This gave MTA the brass nuggets to send the "transit police" to obtain a search warrant for (get this) "electronic terrorism" from one Magistrate Ronni B. MacLaren in Los Angeles Superior Court. The co-conspirator was Officer James A. Grimes (#34090), who at least did not request a night search warrant. That was January 4th, 2000 at about 2:35 p.m. January 5th, 2000 - 7:54 a.m. With the sun just making it over the Los Angeles basin's clear, cool sky, Denise Gonzalez' suddenly heard a God-awful noise downstairs - a noise that woke up her and has never allowed her to sleep soundly ever since. It was the sound of her front door leaving its hinges. "I had made it halfway down the stairs when they burst in like storm troopers. There I was, a middle aged, unarmed woman, in a long flannel nightgown, standing on the stairs. Two of them came through the door and pointed their guns at me," said Denise. "They were in black jackets, but not the helmets or ski masks." Most of them, in her words, "weren't jack booted thugs." But there was one in particular. Detective Doug Raymond who insisted that he knew more about the law and the Constitution than any other human being on earth, according to Gonzalez'. Denise suggested that he read the Constitution rather than the Communist Manifesto. "Do you think the Second Amendment is to be used to defend against Forth Amendment violations?" asked Detective Raymond. Denise replied, "Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. And so did the founding fathers." According to the search warrant obtained by the Sierra Times, the mission was to grab such deadly weapons as: "...Any computing or data processing devices and associated peripheral equipment such as computer units, central processing units, external drives and/or external storage devices, tape and/or other disks, modems . . . ." What about real weapons, you ask? They didn't forget them, even though the accusation was about "electronic harrassment." The warrant included: "Handguns, rifles, and shotguns of any caliber/gauge and any ammunition for any handguns, and shotguns, any miscellaneous gun pieces or parts, any photographs of guns, or paperwork... purchases, storage, disposition, or dominion and control over any of the above items. . . ." You get the drift. It took about 4 hours, but the Gonzalez' were cleaned out and left with the threat of a possible arrest in the future. Sierra Times will not disclose what was taken. But we can say this: They even took the crossbow. To date, there have been no criminal charges. But the damage has already been done. During the search and seizure, Denise was asked, "Where are the guns? We know you have them because we found registrations issued to Ruben Gonzalez.." Get it? The Gonzalez' opened their hardened safe as an alternative to the MTA police opening it - by force. They were even asked if they had any knives. Ruben, who was not home when the raid first started to take place (but arrived about an hour later after Denise called him to come home) has sought counseling to deal with the fears that both he and his wife endure nightly. Both live with the emotional scars of wondering when they may come back again. Denise said, "The police officers left with all our property. They violated our Fifth Amendment right; we were denied due process. They left us with a broken front door with no means to secure it; and with no means of self-defense." It also cost Denise her desktop publishing business. All because of "a court system and police body that is out of control," according to Denise Gonzalez "The MTA lied to get the search warrant. They failed to mention that we have a pending lawsuit against them and that we've been subjected to intimidation, harassment and terrorism by them for five years. Five years!" She finished by stating, "We are not the terrorists. We were terrorized by state-sanctioned terrorists." Both are hoping something can be done, as they are going broke due to legal bills. Perhaps nothing can be done, but Sierra Times will be seeking information from the men of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in Los Angeles County, California who all left business cards at the Gonzalez' home. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:44:51 -0800 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: Gun Owners Bush Over McCain (fwd) The usual BS. "Basically in line with the NRA's position" is precisely the problem. The NRA is middle-of-the-road Repub tacticians. They don't believe in the Constitution either -- pragmatic position, I guess. "No second-place winners" is code for "best of 2 evils short-run, lose in the long-run". Throw away your votes -- vote for someone who doesn't even pretend to believe in the Constitution. Feel good that your 'side' 'won'. I don't see any difference in Dems vs Repubs, myself. McCain vs Bush vs Bradley vs Gore doesn't make a damn bit of difference in the long-term for the Constitution -- we just continue losing it slightly faster or slower. How can you expect any politician to change unless there is a reason? Not one will try for an A rating on any Constitutional issues as long as C is good enough. When enough of us only vote for As in Constitution, we will begin to get choices of Bs consistently, B+s a lot, and As at least some of the time. If we vote for Bs, we get Cs and worse. If you want to turn things around, make your votes real clear: vote Libertarian. They are the only national party which believes in the Constitution. Too radical for you? Then you don't believe in the Constitution yourself. Lew Glendenning The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the CONSTITUTION! > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Vance > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 9:22 AM > To: roc%xmission.com@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Gun Owners Bush Over McCain (fwd) > > > On Feb 12, Weldon Clark wrote: > > [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows > --------------------] > > Gun Owners Bush Over McCain > > Now it's just Bush vs. McCain > > Feb. 9 Neal Knox Report -- After a third-place finish in > yesterday's Delaware contest, Steve Forbes is withdrawing > from the Republican Presidential contest. > > With pro-gun stalwart Alan Keyes hanging by a thread, the > GOP nomination is now a two-man race. > > George W. Bush is rated a B by the Arizona State Rifle and > Pistol Association, while their own senator, John McCain is > rated a C-minus. I concur with those ratings. > > Bush has taken a lot of heat from the press over his signing > the Texas concealed carry licensing law, improvements to > that law, and signing the law prohibiting Texas cities from > suing gunmakers for acts by criminals. > > Though a lot of gunowners aren't fond of him (perhaps > remembering the betrayal by his father), his support for gun > show background checks and other gun bills are basically in > line with NRA's positions. > - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #317 *************************