by W.J. Bethancourt III
© copyright 2001
PAGE TWO
"The test for whether one is living in a police state is that those
who are charged with enforcing the law are allowed to break the
laws with impunity."
-- Jon Rowland
This page reads best with Internet Explorer
The bias against handguns
By Cathy Young,
Boston Globe,
3/18/2002
Consider, for instance, the fact that our nongun homicide rates exceed total homicide rates in many nations. In 1998, the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate in the United States was 6.3 per 100,000 people, and firearms were used in about two-thirds of these killings. Even if we had somehow gotten rid not only of handguns but of all guns, and even if, improbably, none of the killers who used guns would have substituted some other weapon, we still would have been left with 2.1 murders for every 100,000 people - about four times the average annual homicide rate in Japan (0.5 per 100,000) and higher than the homicide rates in Great Britain (1.2) or Sweden (1.4). Obviously, access to guns isn't the only factor.
Consider, too, countries where guns are common and crime is rare. Switzerland boasts a heavily armed population and a thriving gun culture (shooting contests for children are a popular tradition). Yet its homicide rates are comparable to Great Britain's. Israel, where most adults are either on active military duty or in the reserves and almost every home has a weapon, also has a low murder rate, on a par with most of Western Europe.
What's more, more than half of gun deaths in this country (about 55 percent) are not homicides, but suicides. Am I saying that we needn't be concerned if people merely shoot themselves rather than shoot others? No. But in this case, blaming the guns for the deaths is especially dubious.
Curiously, when it comes to suicide, we don't see many comparisons with all those countries that so wisely keep guns out of people's hands - maybe because old gun-crazy America wouldn't look so bad by comparison. In 1996, the suicide rate per 100,000 people was 11.8 in the United States, 13.4 in Canada, 17.9 in Japan, 20.9 in France and 25 in Finland.
While exaggerated claims about the evil of guns generally get respectful treatment in the media, no such attention is accorded to facts which suggest that the case for guns as a means of crime prevention may be more than a National Rifle Association myth. John R. Lott, an economist who is now a senior research scholar at Yale Law School, has published studies that conclude that state laws allowing any citizen with no criminal record to obtain a concealed weapon permit lead to lower rates of violent crime, including murder.
|
Virgin Residents With Guns
Utah Town Requires all Households to Own Guns
The Associated Press
S AL T L A K E C I T Y, Utah, Nov. 5 - A tiny southern Utah town has passed an ordinance that requires
every household to own a gun and ammunition so residents can protect themselves against aggressors.
Jay Lee, the mayor of Virgin, a town just north of the Arizona border, told KSL-TV that most of the 350
residents already own firearms so there's lots of support for the initiative.
The town council passed the ordinance after residents expressed fear that their Second Amendment right
to bear arms was under fire.
The move has some Utah residents perplexed.
"The state legislature hasn't addressed guns on any basis," said Kim DeMille, of Utah's Safe
to Learn, Safe to Worship Coalition, which is fighting to keep guns out of schools and churches.see note below
"I don't know why they would think their Second Amendment rights are being taken away." Virgin residents
who don't comply will not be punished, the mayor said.
Also, exceptions will be made for the mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious objectors and people
who cannot afford to own a gun.
Town leaders say they got the idea from a city in Georgia that passed a similar law about 12 years ago.
NOTE: "fighting to keep guns out of schools and churches" is purest BS! There
already is a FEDERAL law prohibiting firearms in schools!
Crooks see an unarmed populace as a target-rich environment for crime. It's no surprise that about a fourth of the gun murders in the United States occur in New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C., which have Draconian gun laws and, according to the National Rifle Association, less than 5 percent of the nation's population.
Anti-gun groups point to Texas, with more than 212,000 permit-holders, and tsk-tsk about crimes allegedly committed by them without noting that only about 1 percent of those with gun permits were busted in more than four years. They fail to mention that only 29 percent of the arrests resulted in conviction, 26 percent were dismissed and the remainder were unresolved. Or that permit-holders are 5.7 times less likely to be busted for a violent offense than the general public, according to a Dallas Morning News article. For the purposes of this debate, I won't delve into the racist roots of U.S. gun-control - from the post-Reconstruction South's "black codes" that banned firearms ownership by African-Americans to New York's Sullivan Act, passed when teeming hordes of swarthy Southern and Eastern European immigrants frightened "old growth" New Yorkers early in the last century. (Don't get too smug: In the early 1970s, Denver's establishment banned open carry after Black Panther leader Lauren Watson stopped their hearts by openly packing heat.)
Central to the debate about self-defense is an obscure 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision, DeShaney vs. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, a child abuse case that essentially absolved the state of any responsibility to protect a person from private violence.
Translation: Ultimately, each of us is responsible for our own safety and that of our families, and, if necessary, should be able to get a permit to carry concealed weapons without having to depend on the whim of public officials. Survival is a right - not a privilege.
- Peter G. Chronis
Denver Post
It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control:
That the more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals. That Washington
DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000
is due to the lack of gun control.
That "NYPD Blue" and "Miami Vice" are documentaries.
That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will
get angry and kill you.
That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan
and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.
That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas
as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN
arms control summit.
That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal
when the weapon is removed.
That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and
Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge,
a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be
secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others
retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and
to the people," refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers
to the states.
That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act
of Congress in 1917.
That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government,
using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.
That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military
has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.
That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using
an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.
That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people
for possessing marijuana.
That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a gun.
That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of fascism, but
door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the "gun problem."
That the first amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn't
apply to manuals on gun repair.
That Illinois' law that allows any government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is
reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million-dollar
jewelry business, is reasonable. And it isn't a sign of police stateism.
That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense
only justifies bare hands.
That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school
doesn't encourage kids to have sex.
That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks,
infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school
shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store,
gas station, and by mail order.
That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and
anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that cities can sue gun manufacturers
because people aren't aware of the dangers involved with guns.
That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is
propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control and the increase in crime requires
more gun control.
That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives,
and 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble
motives.
That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing
murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards,
and we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution,
thereby becoming an oppressive government.
That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant
criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.
That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple
to use that they make murder easy.
That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at gun shows.
That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.
That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns, and can confiscate them, thereby violating
the 5th amendment of that constitution.
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men and a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting
to happen".
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women
are "preying on their fears."
That a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as
opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used
to support owning slaves.
That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate
the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self-loading small
arm as a "weapon of mass destruction" and an "assault weapon."
That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun-toting guards.
That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide
by, because they can be trusted.
That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun
and a dead rapist at her feet.
That guns should be banned because of the danger involved, and live reporting from the battlefield,
which can keep the enemy informed of troop deployments, getting thousands of troops killed and perhaps losing a
war, is a protected act that CANNOT be compromised on.
That the right of online child pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally
protected extension of the Bill of Rights, and the claim that handguns are for self defense is merely an excuse,
and not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the
NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians,
who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition.
That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not
fair that poor people have access to guns too.
That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops beer instead of guns.
That police and soldiers are the dregs of society who were unfit to get any real job, which perfectly
qualifies them with the high moral standards and keen intellects to handle these complicated tools and be our guardians.
And isn't it just fascinating that not long after the British Government confiscated their citizens'
firearms (and a 16% RISE in violent crime has followed that action...... ) they have instituted a
draconian piece of legislation that gives the government the power to read their citizens' e-mail and to compel
their citizens to turn over their e-mail encryption programs? And makes it ILLEGAL to reveal that the
government of "Great" Britain has your encryption code?
And as if that wasn't enough, now they want to be able to monitor
their citizen's Internet activities and telephone calls, too!
Can you say "Police State" boys and girls? I knew you could!
"U.S. COPS ARE CANADA'S LATEST VICTIM
Yet another consequence has emerged from Cananda's latest draconian gun law - a new gun "turn in" program that doesn't effect Canadian citizens,
but instead targets American police officers. It seems that U.S. law enforcement officers, after legally declaring their department issue firearms while on
official business in Canada, are having their guns confiscated by by Canadian Customs Officials. 'Some U.S. police forces have firearms that are considered
prohibited in Canada. The weapons will be confiscated and destroyed,' said a Canadian customs official quoted in the February 22 edition of the Toronto
Star. According to the report two Canadian customs officials are actually being probed after returning two handguns to U.S. cops."
"A customs union offiicial quoted by the Star summed it up pretty well: 'We think it is a stupid law....' "
"We couldn't agree more."
American Rifleman, May 2001, page 16:
A Second Amendment Victory
BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, October 17, 2001 1:23 p.m. EDT
The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms. In the case, U.S. v. Emerson, the court reinstated the indictment of Timothy Joe Emerson, the husband in a Texas divorce case, who was under a restraining order not to own firearms. But while the court held that the order was not a violation of the Second Amendment, it clearly rejected the notion that the Second Amendment is a "collective right":
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller."
Miller refers to the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Miller, which held that possession of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" is not protected by the Second Amendment because it lacks a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
Glenn Reynolds catches the New York Times in a bit of biased reporting. The Times' William Glaberson, addressing the individual vs. collective rights argument, writes:
"Recent scholarship, some of it sponsored by the National Rifle Association, has suggested that those earlier readings got history wrong. The newer research, cited by the court yesterday, argued that at the time the Second Amendment was written there was great interest in giving individuals access to firearms. "
As Reynolds notes:
"Only a tiny fraction of scholarship supporting an individual right to arms was "sponsored by the National Rifle Association." However, most pro-individual right writings were written by people like me (full disclosure!), Sanford Levinson and Scot Powe of the University of Texas, William Van Alstyne of Duke, Laurence Tribe of Harvard, Eugene Volokh of UCLA, Akhil Amar of Yale, Daniel Polsby of Northwestern and George Mason University, etc., etc. I rather doubt that any of these people got any money from the NRA for writing their articles--God knows I didn't."
"Meanwhile, if you look at footnote 9 in the opinion, you see the court cite numerous articles from the Chicago-Kent Law Review's symposium on the Second Amendment (including one by debunked historian Michael Bellesiles)--which was funded by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation and which paid the authors of these articles, which all oppose an individual right, a whopping $5000 honorarium for writing their pieces. This is an enormous honorarium (I got $500 for speaking at a Stanford symposium on the Second Amendment last year--that's more typical) and you can bet that anti-gun groups would be howling if the NRA paid anyone anything like that. But Glaberson--who knows this, or should--doesn't mention that."
|
Most Americans have been brainwashed into believing that we're the most violent and crime-ridden people on Earth. Not so. In fact, a new survey involving 34,000 people in 17 industrialized countries published by the Dutch Ministry of Justice shows the opposite. You can be sure America's anti-gun news media will not give this study much publicity.
The nations that report the highest percentage of crime victims are indeed those that have virtually banned private gun ownership. In descending order they are Australia, England and Wales, Scotland, Finland, Northern Ireland, France and the Netherlands.
The United States ranks eighth out of 17.
As legitimate scholars have shown time and again, there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime except often an inverse one -- the fewer private guns, the more crime.
As for gun safety, the disarmers have grossly exaggerated that. The facts are that the National Safety Council has shown that in 1998, accidental firearm deaths for children from birth to 4 years old was 30; for children 5 to 14, there were 80 deaths. Accidental firearm deaths are at the bottom of the list of children's fatalities. The obvious answer is safety instruction, but you will notice that most of the gun-control crowd opposed gun-safety instruction. Ask yourself why they do that.
As for those numbers they cite, so many kids killed every day by guns, they get those by counting everybody 19 and younger as a "child" and by including accidents, suicides and crimes. Gang-bangers who shoot each other are "children who are victims of guns."
Charley Reese, Orlando Sentinel
|
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving
a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K.
Gandhi, page 446
CONSIDER THIS, IF YOU ARE A LIBERAL:
The world is more complicated that than liberal versus conservative labels would indicate. For years, there has been strong liberal opposition to gun control. Leftist support for the RKBA has been based on a number of interesting arguments about the relationship of people and their government.
First, liberal pro-gunners often embrace the theory of US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas that the Bill of Rights is an interactive system of liberty, not just a list of privileges. These progressives are not at all surprised when the enforcement of gun control not only offends the 2nd Amendment but also infringes the 4th, 5th, and 7th as well. (Conservatives have problems with this theory because it is one of the justifications for Roe v. Wade's finding of a constitutional right to abortion). I understand that Professor Lawrence Tribe, perhaps the most liberal legal thinker around, accepts an individual RKBAs based on this analysis.
 Second, liberal concern for the oppressed among us often finds expression in the RKBA. Some deep-thinking liberals argue that allowing the poor to be armed is important because it creates an important incentive to make their lives bearable. The thought of armed poor people with nothing left to lose can change your opinion about the need for a "social safety net."
Likewise, a very good answer to the so-called hate crimes is extending the RKBA to the potential victims.
These liberals are also concerned that any gun control scheme will be enforced selectively, and upon those who already get extra attention from the police. Young black men, political dissenters, cult members, and other disfavored groups are likely to be first in line for actual enforcement of gun confiscation. Wealthy Caucasian males with mainstream values will either get special privileges and/or will be a very low law enforcement priority.
Third, some liberals are First Amendment absolutists who define "expression" broadly enough to include participating in hunting and the shooting sports. They are particularly concerned that the "gun-free" society will censor "the celebration of violence" in art.
Finally, there are also liberals who accept the argument that gun control will end up making outlaws of us all. They note that when you regulate something, you have control of it. Once you ban it, you have lost control.
These liberals point to the failed Drug War and argue that some level of gun control is good, but outright gun confiscation would transform large numbers of previously law-abiding citizens into outlaws. Once transformed, they would discover that the gun laws are not the only ones they can violate with impunity.
There are even some outright socialists who accept this analysis and oppose gun confiscation because it would transform gun owners into an armed outlaw class. They point to the Prohibition of alcohol as an example of well-intentioned social engineering that went horribly wrong.
|
TRUE STORY
Where We're Headed
By Robert A. Waters - 06.23.00
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell
into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you
raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second
man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns
were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.
Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder
and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will
probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies,
as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the
lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir
boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article,
authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline
says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career
criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks
it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that
you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in,
you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you
were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently
predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint
a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.
In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
Amusing little sidebar to this; the dead burglar's family, who are bringing suit against Martin
for compensation, are professional criminals, well known to the police &c &c, and therefore don't have
regular jobs and regular incomes; therefore they qualify for 'legal aid' (ie the Government pays all their legal
costs in their civil suit against Martin).
Because Martin owned the house he lived in, he's "too wealthy" for legal aid (even though
he's in jail, with zero income); accordingly, if he wishes to contest the civil suit, he'll have to sell his home
to pay the legal costs, since he has no cash savings. If he doesn't contest the suit, his home will be confiscated
and sold to pay damages to the burglar's family.
This doesn't actually matter a damn, since Martin will never leave jail alive; but it does perhaps
help explain why the UK's crime rates are soaring (just as the 'shall issue' laws in the States help explain why
crime rates are falling over there)
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors
or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration
of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.
Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.
When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even
tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16
children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now
the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media
gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months
later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion
that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense
was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while
the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people
take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely
injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques,
had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over
to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited
by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd
taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like
cars.
Sound familiar?
UPDATE:
Fury as Martin farm burglar is consulted over release date
By Daniel Foggo (THE TELEGRAPH)
THE burglar who was shot by Tony Martin as the Norfolk farmer defended his home is being consulted by the Home Office about how long his assailant should stay in jail.
Brendon Fearon has been declared a "victim of serious crime" by the Home Office counselling service and asked for his views on Martin's release date, The Telegraph can reveal. Martin is serving a life sentence for wounding Fearon and killing his teenage accomplice, Fred Barras, with a shotgun in an attempt to defend his property.
The Home Office has ruled that as a "victim" Fearon, who has 34 convictions for burglary, theft and handling stolen goods, and is currently serving three years for the break-in, must be consulted about Martin's parole.
Last night, the consultation decision was criticised by MPs. Ann Widdecombe, the shadow home secretary, said that it was "madness". "Whatever the rights and wrongs about the degree of force Tony Martin used, it's turning common sense upside down to consult a burglar about the liberty of his victim."
Gerald Howarth, a member of the Commons home affairs select committee, called it "utter lunacy". "There's no doubt in the mind of the British public that the criminals in this case are the ones who broke into Mr Martin's premises and the idea that one of them should have any input into his parole whatsoever is a farce.
"I will be writing to the Home Secretary to ask him to make sure that on no account should this man's views be taken into consideration." In a leaked memo last year Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, referred to the Martin case as an example of how the Government was being seen as "out of touch" on law and order.
Mr Blair wrote: "The Martin case - and any lack of response from us that appeared to empathise with public concern and then channel it into the correct course - has only heightened the problem [of being seen as out of touch]." Fearon revealed that he had been asked about Martin's parole in a letter he sent to the Norfolk farmer.
It said: "I have since been visited by the Victim Support Group in relation to my feeling about you gaining parole in the future. I was, therefore, forced to think about how remorseful you may be. Judging from the cold words of your distorted truth in the paper reviews, my thoughts are not overly optimistic."
Fearon suggests that Martin will only be at peace with himself once he has admitted his crimes, adding that he himself has done just that. He says: "I feel you will gain your sense of truth in time, as you and I know what happened that fateful night. Reconciliation will not occur until you face up to your doings as I myself have done so."
However, Fearon, 30, who was jailed in January last year after admitting conspiring to burgle Martin's home on the night of August 20, 1999, undermines his claim to have come clean by adding: "We was [sic] not there to take your belongings merely to escape your dogs and didn't mean to be intruders."
Referring to Barras, who had 29 convictions for crimes including burglary and assaulting police officers, Fearon insists: "Whatever the reason may have been for us being there, that shouldn't have led to a little boy dying as there is no making amends for that little boy.
"What is so sad is that you haven't even stressed your sorrows for taking a human life and given the little boy's family a second thought as they have received a life sentence which there is no going back from (so sad)." He ends by saying: "I hope you feel remorse as it's the only way forward."
The typed letter was written by Fearon in his cell at HMP Stocken in Leicestershire, only 30 miles from Gartree jail where Martin is held. Martin, who is appealing his convictions, is understood to have been upset by it and has not replied.
Fearon, whose brother Neil was jailed last year for five years for cheating elderly women out of £40,000, was the leader of the expedition to raid Martin's farm in the village of Emneth Hungate. Together with another man, who did not enter the property, Fearon and Barras drove 60 miles from their home in Newark, Nottinghamshire, to the isolated farmhouse hoping to find antiques.
Martin, who claimed he was lying in bed upstairs, heard them break in through a window and fired his pump action shotgun repeatedly into the downstairs darkness, hitting both intruders. Barras managed to crawl outside before dying while Fearon staggered to a nearby property where the owners raised the alarm.
When interviewed by police he changed his story repeatedly rather than admit why they had really been at the house. At Martin's trial a year ago Fearon claimed that he and Barras had broken into the property "almost accidentally" while trying to escape the farmer's rottweiler dogs and said that he had suffered post-traumatic stress as a result of the shooting.
A Home Office spokesman said: "Under the Victims' Charter all victims of serious crime are asked to offer their views on the offender's release conditions. If particular concerns are raised the offender may be subjected to conditions on their parole such as a restriction or exclusion order."
The charity Victim Support, which is Home Office funded, said: "We liaise with the Probation Service to help canvass victims on offenders' parole."
UPDATE 2:
Burglar 'to drop case' against Tony Martin
By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent
TONY MARTIN, the farmer jailed for killing a 16-year-old burglar, will be freed today to find the international media camped outside his home, a police guard at the bottom of the lane and the news that his second victim is no longer suing him.
Brendan Fearon, 33, who was wounded in the same burglary at Martin’s farm in West Norfolk, had been granted legal aid to pursue a claim for £15,000 for injuries and alleged trauma. But his brother Joe, speaking outside Mr Fearon’s home in Newark, Nottinghamshire, said yesterday that he had abandoned the claim.
“Brendon is not claiming a penny,” he said. “His mum and dad are ill, and all this is killing them. People will find out soon that he’s not claiming a thing any more — it will be official in a couple of days.”
It is understood that Martin, 58, will not return to his farm for days, if not weeks. He is expected to be taken from a police station, where he has been kept for the past few days of his sentence, by journalists from a national newspaper, understood to be the Daily Mirror, and put up at a hotel.
Martin was jailed for life at Norwich Crown Court, three years ago for shooting Fred Barras during a break-in at his isolated farm at Emneth Hungate. The farmer’s sentence and conviction for murder were overturned on appeal and replaced by a five-year sentence for manslaughter.
He is being released after serving two thirds of his sentence and twice having parole requests rejected. He was taken from Highpoint prison into police custody last week to avoid his formal release today being turned into a media circus outside the jail.
The move was supervised by police and probation officers and Martin will finally be free early today. Staff at the Daily Mirror refused to comment on any deal with Martin’s representatives, but it is understood that arrangements were finalised last week which will involve telling his story and new photographs of him.
Then, according to friends, he will return to his home, Bleak House, to attend to the backlog of work on his apple trees and land since he was first arrested more than three years ago. There are also reports that he may write a book and join a campaign to change the rights of homeowners to defend their homes.
Malcolm Starr, a friend who spoke to him over the weekend, said that Martin wanted to lead a simple life getting back on to his tractor, looking at his apple trees to see how they need pruning and his wild animals, his peacocks and deer. But Martin will have to put up with media interest for weeks to come. There will be a 24-hour police guard based in a temporary police station outside his home, CCTV cameras and intruder alarms.
As Martin celebrates his release, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, will be reading an urgent report from the Prison Service on how Mr Fearon came to be freed on Friday after serving 5½ months of an 18-month sentence for heroin dealing. He will have to wear an electronic tag and stay indoors at night. He stayed inside his home until lunchtime before emerging and running down the street, telling reporters: “If you follow me, I’ll do you.”
Supporters of Martin have condemned the release as a blunder and a deliberate attempt to “put the boot in” because of Home Office anger over Martin’s outspoken defence on his action. But Paul Goggins, the Prisons Minister, said that there was no reason to suspect that Mr Fearon’s release was handled improperly.
Meanwhile, the family of the dead burglar insisted last night that they had no wish to see the farmer murdered in a revenge attack. Two men bragged at the weekend that a professional hitman would kill Martin. Tony Joynes, Barras’s uncle, said yesterday: “I have never heard of these people. It’s nothing more than stupid talk, and they are clearly spouting off the top of their heads.”
Martin must not profit from any Daily Mirror deal, according to the rules of the Press Complaints Commission, the newspaper industry watchdog. However, a newspaper could make a donation to a charity of Martin’s choosing.
ISN'T THAT JUST SPECIAL?
Now, check this out ......
Crime is rising in Britain, and becoming more violent.
(Florida Times-Union)
That is bad news for Britons, whose only defense against armed criminals is the unarmed police force.
Well-intended people in Britain have disarmed the public. But, of course, the laws banning guns are ignored by the criminal element, who now are stockpiling weapons. Those are the tools that make their work easier.
Under the liberal government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, Britain also is experiencing "an alarming growth in organized crime," the Economist reports.
In desperation, Blair is considering a law similar to the Racketeer Influenced, Corrupt Organizations Act in America.
That could be a mistake if they follow the U.S. pattern too closely.
The RICO law in America was intended to help the law reach the Mafia dons and other heads of criminal organizations, who seldom could be caught committing the murders and other crimes that were at the source of their huge profits.
By some accounts, RICO was useful for that purpose. However, it was written so badly that people have used it in civil actions aimed at competing businesses and even, in at least one case, a dispute between religious congregations.
In America, crime is declining, but not because of the RICO law. Private ownership of guns is high in America, as is the prison population. Britons must be wondering if the opposite trends in their nation might be correlated with increased crime.
And to add insult to injury, this from the Times of London, 23 December, 2002:
Gun blast burglar to sue
The burglar injured by Tony Martin after he breaking into the farmer's remote home is suing him for £15,000 compensation for loss of earnings. Brendon Fearon, 32, wants the compensation because he has supposedly been unable to find a job since suffering the gunshot injuries in the raid on Martin's Norfolk home, according to the Daily Mail. Martin's mother, Hilary, described the idea as "absolutely ridiculous" and condemned laws that would allow Fearon to target her son for money in this way.
FREE TONY MARTIN!
And now, read this from CBS News ..........
Government Crackdown Prompts Civil Rights Concerns
Could End Right To Jury Trial, Protection Against Double Jeopardy
Legal Traditions Date Back 800 Years, Forged America's Own
RUNNYMEDE, England, May 3, 2001
(CBS) The British government's tough as nails reaction to a rise in violent crime is raising worries that a pillar of civil rights, the jury trial, might be sacrificed to satisfy a concerned public.
CBS News Correspondent Tom Fenton reports incidents like the stabbing death of black teen-ager Stephen Lawrence have helped to harden opinion against aspects of the legal system.
The young men accused of the crime were set free on a technicality, outraging the British public. The police were heavily criticized for mishandling the investigation, and the Lawrence case became a symbol of a wider problem, as an increase in violent crimes began to make the government look weak on law and order.
"There is a real crime problem in Britain," said Geoffrey Robertson, a trial lawyer. "London is more dangerous these days than New York."
Last year, CBS News reported that the government's own crime statistics revealed that Britain is an increasingly violent society.
Robertson, one of Britain's leading trial lawyers says the shocking crime statistics panicked Prime Minister Tony Blair's government into going for a quick fix.
"The quick-fix solution is always the populist one: Let's get rid of jury trials. Let's abolish the rule against double jeopardy. Let's confiscate the assets of criminals without trial," he said. "But this doesn't help to detect crime."
And all of this is happening in the country that gave America its basic concepts of justice. One of those legal rights that the government is now chipping away at, trial by jury, was guaranteed, on the banks of the river Thames at Runnymede, when King John signed the Magna Carta nearly 800 years ago.
That historic document held that, "No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land."
Tired of excessive royal power, English barons rebelled against the king and forced him to sign the decree in 1215.
Civil rights lawyer Mike Mansfield believes the government couldn't care less about Magna Carta and is manipulating British law for political reasons — to make itself look tough.
What shocks him most is a plan to abolish the double jeopardy rule, which prohibits trying a person twice for the same crime.
"It's all about image," he said. "The moment you allow a second bite of the cherry, then the first time around the police relax. They don't necessarily do the investigation that they should have done."
In other words, some say, it encourages bad police work.
"I think it's fair to say that Britain has perhaps the stupidest police force in the advanced world," said Robertson.
Civil rights advocates believe that the British police are largely responsible for the government's poor record on crime, and that changing the law will only make things worse.
With the Blair government looking weak on crime and facing an election, there are fears that it is about to ride roughshod over some of this country's ancient freedoms, and that Magna Carta may soon be relegated to the role of just another British tourist attraction.
ISN'T IT OBVIOUS TO YOU BY NOW?
If it isn't, go see the latest news about the eroding of civil rights in the nation that gave us the Magna Carta!
Gun Ownership and Good Manners
Soapbox commentary by AOL member Smiley1Eye
I have always wanted to go through a normal day in my life wearing a gun. Go through my normal routine:
breakfast at a coffee shop, go to class, have lunch at the dining hall, go to work, go to the store, and stop by
the local bar for a cold one, all with a large frame handgun hanging defiantly from my belt.
I'd love to see how far I get -- maybe half way through the coffee shop door before some woman screams
bloody murder and the cops come drag me away. Why is this? I am not a dangerous person, and I don't think I look
dangerous. I have no criminal record, I am not insane. And yet who can tell me that what I have said would not
happen if I tried my little experiment?
What really gets me thinking is the fact that such behavior was so common only a hundred years ago.
If what I see in the movies is correct, EVERYBODY had a gun, and nobody cared. And that was back when there was
very little in the way of police; one would think that with the number of cops we have around today, it would be
OK for everybody to have a gun on them, maybe two or three.
Of course this is just hypothetical. I would never want people to have guns like that. But it gives
you something to think about, particularly when you consider a thought a history professor I once knew used to
talk about. He noted how generally obnoxious people are to each other these days, and suggested that manners are
a throwback to a time when everybody was armed. Now that idea is worth some consideration, and it makes sense:
a person would have had a lot more incentive to treat people with respect, not bully them, and not to try to cheat
or steal when faced with the reality of having to answer for his actions with his life.
Once again, I am NOT saying that this means the police should start distributing guns to every man,
woman and child in the U.S. However, this is an overwhelmingly good point against one of the anti gun crowd's favorite
rallying cries against gun owners -- what would the world be like if everybody did have guns? Well, it would encourage
people to consider being respectfully to each other. I think we can say that.
However, there is NO ONE in the pro gun crowd that is saying we need absolute saturation with firearms.
There are a lot of wackos out there, as we see very regularly in the headlines about once every two weeks.
Some people would try to make you believe that gun violence happens because of guns. This is not so.
It happens because of PEOPLE. Take a gun away from somebody who has their heart set on killing and they will find
another way. There are plenty of ways to kill people. You can stab someone with a knife, hit them with your car,
or beat them with a tube sock full of marbles. They are still just as dead! People WANTING to kill is why gun violence
happens.
Can gun control keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals? NO! You are never going to be able
to get guns away from criminals. You can ban guns, stop selling them, and round up the registered ones that are
on the books, and the only people you will have affected are honest gun owners who go to reputable shops (that
have background checks), take care of the guns they have (lock them up, etc.), and register their guns (criminals
don't do that, FYI). There are still going to be plenty of guns around, and plenty more smuggled in.
Excessively restricting the legitimate gun trade simply guarantees law abiding people will not have
access to guns and criminals will. Don't believe me? How many gun crimes do you think are carried out by people
who take classes, obtain permits, and keep their guns locked up safe? Not to freaking many, that's a fact. The
fact is, reasonable gun laws combined with responsible gun ownership remains the best way to go.
NOW GO READ THIS. AND PRAY THE AUTHOR
IS WRONG.
The Parable of the Sheep
by Charles Riggs
Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They
were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack
of wolves would prey upon the flock.
One day a group of sheep, bolder than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. "Our dog is good, and
vigilant, but he is one and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges
and releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand. What can we do? We are sheep, but we
do not wish to be food, too!"
One sheep spoke up, saying "It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so terrible to us. It is
his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it, but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If
we had such teeth, we could fight back, and stop this savagery." The other sheep clamored in agreement, and
they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and
claw and made them into weapons.
That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them,
crying, "Begone! We are not food!" and drove off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become
so bold and so dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth? It was unthinkable!
The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached the flock to pronounce their
discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out, "Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things!
You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!"
The brave sheep stopped, amazed. "But we are your brethren!" they cried. "We are still
sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws protect us and have saved us from slaughter.
They do not make us into wolves, they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!"
"Baaaaaaad!" cried the flock, "the things are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them.
You cannot bring them into the flock!" So the armed sheep resolved to conceal their weapons, for although
they had no desire to panic the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to those nights
of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.
In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had no stomach for fighting sheep
who possessed tooth and claw even as they did. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to
leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from which more than one wolf did
not return.
Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep's weapon slipped from the folds
of her fleece, and the flock cried out in terror again, "Baaaaaad! You still possess these evil things! We
must ban you from our presence!"
And so they did. The great chief sheep and his council, encouraged by the words of their advisors, placed
signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested
before the council, saying, "It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! When can you say we have
caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!" But
the flock drowned them out with cries of "Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear your clever words! You and your things
are evil and will harm us!"
Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock,
trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but
meeting with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back
their eyes and flee, crying "Baaaaddd! Bad things!"
That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep's totems and signs, and said, "Truly, these sheep
are fools! They have told us they have no teeth! Brothers, let us feed!" And they set upon the flock, and
horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places
at once, but even he could not halt the slaughter.
It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, only to remain on the
edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would
be so again. This they did, and do still.
In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, "See? If the wolves know you have no
teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!" But the flock
cried out, more feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, "Baaaaaaaad! These things
are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaad!"
So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and
loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that
as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.
They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!
© 1997 Charles Riggs
As long as the Democratic Party of the USA continues to support attacks
on the Bill of Rights, I will NOT vote for ANY Democrat for ANY office whatsoever, no
matter how small or ineffectual the office may be.
|
The Lord, He made men short and tall,
In stations low and regal.
The Lord, He made them large and small;
Sam Colt -- he made them equal.
|
