goa nl 11-4-04 · erich pratt, goa:absolutely not. continued on page 4 continued on page 2 volume...

Gun OwnersTHE

31 YEARS OF NO COMPROMISE – 1975-2006

by Erich PrattIt’s quite ironic when you think

about it.Millions of Americans were cele-

brating our nation’s independence thispast July, when United Nations dele-gates were discussing global gun con-trol in the Big Apple.

To hear their stated goal, they onlywanted to get firearms out of thewrong hands.

“Our targets remain unscrupulousarms brokers, corrupt officials, drugtrafficking syndicates, criminals andothers who bring death and mayheminto our communities,” said UN Sec-retary-General Kofi Annan.

Like the Brady Campaign in ourcountry, Annan says they’re onlygoing after the bad guys. But this isfar from the truth.

Talk show host Cam Edwards cov-ered the UN conference and posted sev-eral excellent articles on www.town-hall.com — many of them documentingthe real agenda at the UN this pastIndependence Day.

According to Edwards, some dele-gates were crystal clear about theirintentions. The representative fromIndonesia unashamedly stated that,

We believe that no armed group out-side of the State should be allowed

to bear weapons... In our view, theissue of ammunition should also beaddressed in the context of the Pro-gram of Action because in theabsence of ammunition, small armsand light weapons pose no danger.

There you have it. No private arms.No ammunition for those guns. Onestarts to get the idea that keeping gunsout of the “wrong hands” is code fordisarming anyone who is not associatedwith the government.

Of course, most delegates weremore judicious in their word choice.The representative from the EuropeanUnion described the Program ofAction, which they were discussing,as “the key starting point for furtheraction on small arms.”

The Brazilian delegate told his fel-low colleagues that they should not“limit ourselves” to the current pro-gram, but rather they should “addressthe Program’s shortcomings” and“strengthen” it.

Doesn’t this sound reminiscent ofwhat we used to hear from the BradyBunch in the 1990s? Anytime theypassed new gun control measures, wewere always told, “This is a good firststep!”

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) hit the nailon the head when he said,

The stated goal of the conference isto eliminate trading in small arms,but the real goal is to advance aworldwide gun control movementthat ultimately supersedes nationallaws, including our own 2nd Amend-ment. Many UN observers believethe conference will set the stage incoming years for an internationalgun control treaty.

Questions & AnswersWhat is the UN Agenda Regarding Gun Rights?

GOA Fighting UN Gun Grab

The following interview took placebetween GOA’s Communication Direc-tor Erich Pratt and the Coalition forConstitutional Liberties (COCL), a pri-vacy rights organization in the nation’scapital. COCL published the interviewon the advent of the UN gun controlconference this past June.

Q: You recently noted [in a GOAemail alert dated 6/7/06] that SenatorHerbert Kohl (D-WI) had written aletter stating that the United Nationswas not intent on costing Americanstheir Second Amendment rights.Should defenders of the SecondAmendment believe statements like

those of Senator Kohl which are reas-suring that our Second Amendmentrights will not be infringed upon bythe UN?

Erich Pratt, GOA: Absolutely not.

Continued on page 4

Continued on page 2

Volume XXVI, Number 3 • August 14, 2006

GOA on Capitol Hill

In June, Executive Director Larry Pratt (left)and pro-gun Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) discusseddifferent options for dealing with the increasingthreat the UN poses to American gun owners.

August 14, 2006 • The Gun Owners /

GOA lobbies to cut off tax-payer funds to anti-gun UN

In the days leading up to the con-ference, Gun Owners of America acti-vated its grassroots network, generat-ing thousands of messages into Sen-ate and State Department offices.

GOA used the mail, radio, andInternet for several months, urginggun owner support for legislationintroduced by two Louisiana Republi-cans — Sen. David Vitter and Rep.Charles Boustany.

These bills, if passed, wouldinstantly cut off US funds to the Unit-ed Nations. Monetary paymentscould only resume if the U.S. Presi-dent were to certify that the UN hasNOT acted to disparage our SecondAmendment rights.

An honest President would have adifficult time making that case.

In addition to contacting the Con-gress, GOA also urged gun owners tocontact the State Department delegationwhich attended the UN conference.

Rep. Paul, in a column appearing onthe day before the conference was tobegin, praised gun owners for havingresponded to the call to action with “anavalanche of letters” to the Americandelegation, asking that none of our taxdollars be used to further UN anti-gunproposals.

US position mixed, support forsome gun controls put forward

Ultimately, the U.S. Congress mustpass the Vitter-Boustany legislation (S.1488 and H.R. 3436) because gun own-ers will be very disappointed if ourrights are left in the hands of StateDepartment officials.

Listening to Robert Joseph, the StateDepartment spokesman at the recentUN conference, one can only concludethat our nation’s position is somethingof a gun control “lite.”

On the positive side, Joseph did talkabout our Second Amendment rightsand promised that the U.S. would notsign on to any agreement that infringedthose liberties. He also stated thatrestrictions on ammunition were“beyond the mandate” of the UN. Thispart was excellent.

But having sounded, briefly, likeJohn Wayne, Mr. Joseph then contra-

dicted his earlier support for the SecondAmendment when he laid out therestrictions that the United States wouldsupport:

• Stemming the “illicit trade” in small arms

• Marking and tracing of weapons(that is, registration)

• Placing “effective controls” onweapons transfers (both import and export), and

• Destroying government-declared surplus and illicit weapons.

The underlying premise behind all ofthe U.S.-supported restrictions is thatlimiting access to firearms will some-how make people safer. Of course,isn’t this the assumption that drivesevery gun control proposal the BradyBunch supports?

Gun control makes mandatory victims

Sarah Brady & Co. is always talkingabout “limiting access to firearms.”They want to reduce the “easy availabil-ity” of weapons. The reality, however,is that limiting access to guns onlyendangers people’s lives.

This is not only true in our country— such as in our nation’s (murder) cap-ital — it is also true around the world.

In 1943, the Jews in the WarsawGhetto would have loved to have hadaccess to firearms — legal or illegal! Infact, the guns they used to ward off theNazis for several weeks were certainlyunlawful.

The Tutsis in Rwanda would haveloved to get their hands on some illegalguns in 1994 to avert the massacreinflicted by the Hutus. Same with thevictims of genocide in Bosnia (1995)and Darfur, Sudan (2004).

It’s a good thing that there was noUN in 1776 that was actively workingto outlaw “illegal guns” from civilianpossession. King George III did try toconfiscate our Founders’ guns, butthankfully, they were astute enough toknow that disarmament was the firststep towards slavery, and so theyrefused to hand over their firearms.

Of course, the biggest fallacy in the“let’s limit access to firearms” ideologyis that private citizens are not the great-est danger on the planet. No, that’s farfrom being the case.

The majority of murders committedevery year are not from guns in privatehands, but from guns in the hands ofoppressive regimes! While UN officialslove to claim that armed, private citi-zens commit about one-half millionyearly murders (around the globe), theyignore the fact that tyrannical govern-ments have killed almost two millionpeople every year.

According to R.J. Rummel, a profes-sor of political science at the Universityof Hawaii, that’s nearly two millionnon-combatants every year who havebeen murdered by their own govern-ments. Add up the genocides and theholocausts from the 20th Century, andyou find that brutal regimes have beenmuch more deadly than private citizenswith guns. (See R.J. Rummel, Deathby Government, 2000.)

UN small arms conference ends in “total meltdown”

One should not expect the bullies atthe UN to suddenly realize that the gov-ernments they represent are the greatestthreat to individual liberties. Moreover,they are not only a threat to their ownpeople, but to us as well.

Rep. Paul has even stated that the“biggest threat” to gun rights in Ameri-ca today comes “not from domesticlawmakers, but from abroad.”

How can he make such an outra-geous statement?

Well, consider that many anti-gunDemocrats in Congress have stoppedpushing extreme gun control measuresafter heavy electoral losses to their

GOA Fighting UN Gun GrabContinued from page 1

The Gun Owners is published by Gun Owners of America, Inc. 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 (703) 321-8585

Continued on page 6

GOA in the News

“Groups like Gun Owners of America ... [are]heavily lobbying against the symposium here atthe U.N.” — Reporter Eric Shawn, Fox NewsChannel, June 26, 2006



Good news out of California!

In June, San FranciscoSuperior Court Judge JamesWarren overturned voter-approved Measure H, a cityordinance that banned the pri-vate possession of handgunsand the sale of all firearms inthe city.

Gun Owners of America —and Gun Owners Foundationalong with Gun Owners ofCalifornia — underwrote thecosts of filing a friend of thecourt (amicus) brief by thefounder of Gun Owners, Cali-fornia state Sen. H.L.Richardson (ret.).

Sen. Richardson’s amicusbrief was important in thiscase because, while in his ser-vice in the California Senate, he spon-sored the law that prohibits what thevoters of San Francisco recently did.California state law preempts, thanks toRichardson, any local measures banningor registering firearms.

Gun Owners is thankful that the

courts did not disregard the preemptionlaw Richardson enacted. We all knowthat courts frequently have a problemfollowing the law and seeking guidancefrom the record of those who made thelaw.

Richardson’s preemption law has

been upheld in previous cases,so with the obvious meaning ofthe law and the history of judi-cial rulings supporting it,prospects for overturning theplebiscite looked good all along.

Victory in court now frees the42 percent of San Franciscanswho voted against violating aconstitutional right to own ahandgun in the city.

The city has alreadyannounced it will appeal the rul-ing, even though S.F. MayorGavin Newsome has reportedlysaid that this effort was contraryto state law. Interestingly, theSan Francisco Police OfficersAssociation opposed the ban,saying the law nullified “thepersonal choice of city residentsto possess a handgun for self-

defense purposes.”GOA would like to thank all of those

who have contributed to Gun OwnersFoundation, which makes lawsuits likethis possible. Gun Owners Foundationis part of the Combined Federal Cam-paign — Agency Number 1054. !

GOA Helping Illinois Freedom Fighters

From left to right: John Horstman, GOA’s Larry Pratt, andShaun Kranish, the founder of www.ICarry.org. Horstmanwas prosecuted for carrying a pistol in Illinois and has alreadybeen vindicated. Kranish is now facing a felony for the samething — he legally carried a pistol in Illinois with the magazineoutside the gun, which was concealed in a fanny pack. GOA’sfoundation (GOF) has contributed to Kranish’s legal defense.

GOA wins battle in San Francisco courts!– Thanks contributors for making battles like this possible

1054



The United Nations has alreadytried to impose mandatory guncontrols upon countries likeours. Former Rep. Bob Barr(R), who has attended severalglobal conferences, has notedhow many countries are tryingto impose binding restrictionssuch as gun owner registration.And Lawrence Auster, who wasa reporter at the first globalconference in 2001, recountedthat the disarmament agenda atthe UN is so blatant that they“unembarrassedly” admit theywant to strip small arms fromanyone who is not associatedwith the government becausethe possession of such weaponsallows people to oppose the UNitself.

Ireland’s delegate, Austerreported, even went so far as to say thathe wants no private weapons of self-defense to exist anywhere in the world.“All states must suppress private owner-ship of small arms and light weapons,”the delegate is quoted as saying.

Q: How long has the UN been pursu-ing an anti-Second Amendment agen-da?

Pratt, GOA: The UN has been pursu-ing an anti-gun agenda at least since2001 — that’s when more than 140nations embarked upon a series of guncontrol conferences to hammer out vari-ous firearms restrictions.

In recent years, the UN has produced avideo entitled Armed to the Teeth whichis openly supportive of gun banning. Itincludes a scene showing Americanschool students taking a pledge to nevertouch a gun. But the UN’s anti-gunbias goes back much further.

The UN has a long history of support-ing oppressive governments, while atthe same time, pressing for the disarma-ment of anyone who opposes thosetyrannical regimes. Consider UN Reso-lution 713 which made it illegal for anycountry to help arm the Croatians orBosnians against Milosevic and his

invading Yugoslav army in 1991-92. Itwas not until the massacre of thousandsof people (including children) at Sre-brenica in 1995 that the UN finally sawthe error of its ways and rescinded theirresponsible resolution.

And don’t forget Rwanda, where theUN helped arm the Hutu government,but then sat idly by when the Hutus dis-armed and then massacred the defense-less Tutsis in 1994. About a millionTutsis died, as they were packed intochurches and slaughtered, or herdedinto stadiums for mass executions.

Q: Who is behind the organizationIANSA — the International ActionNetwork on Small Arms? How muchclout do they wield within the UnitedNations and with politicians and lob-bies within the United States?

Pratt, GOA: IANSA is the equivalentof the Brady Campaign at the globallevel. Founded in 1998, the organiza-tion is lobbying the UN for stricter guncontrols all around the globe. IANSAis made up of over 500 organizationswhich are located in nearly 100 coun-tries.

The IANSA website boasts the organi-zation is recognized by the UN as an“important global NGO network with

valuable expertise,” and its offi-cials claim they were “instrumen-tal” in harnessing global supportfor the UN Small Arms Confer-ence in New York (2001).

IANSA has been funded by thegovernments of the United King-dom, Belgium, Sweden and Nor-way, as well as by private organi-zations in the United States(including the Ford and Rocke-feller Foundations).

Q: What can defenders of theSecond Amendment do to pro-tect this important right frombeing infringed upon by theUnited Nations?

Pratt, GOA: Gun Owners ofAmerica has generated thousandsof letters, emails and phone callsto Capitol Hill — all from pro-gun Americans who are con-cerned about the global threat to

their gun rights. People who are con-cerned about this threat can go towww.gunowners.org for more informa-tion.

Q: Members of the news media inour country are often not supportersof Second Amendment rights. Theybelieve that controlling guns leads tocontrolling crime and fewer deaths.Any tips on how to make them moreappreciative of the Second Amend-ment?

Pratt, GOA: The liberal media contin-ues to lose the clout it once had. WhileI don’t discourage efforts to “convert”the media, I think our energy is bestspent in bypassing them. Thank Godfor the Internet and for Talk Radio,because Americans are not as depen-dent on the liberal media as they were20 years ago.

In the 1980s, Gun Owners of Americacould issue a press release, but we werevirtually dependant upon the media tospread our point of view. It just didn’thappen. But because of the Internettoday, we can — in the blink of an eye— alert hundreds of thousands ofAmericans to the threats against theirSecond Amendment rights and get mul-tiple thousands of people to call theirrepresentatives in Washington. !

Questions & AnswersContinued from page 1 GOA at the UN

GOA members were on hand to protest the UN and giveinterviews to the New York Times on the opening day of itsconference this past June. “Tyrannical politicians thriveon gun control laws,” said Ralph J. Rubinek, who isGOA’s Public Affairs spokesman in New York. “In theend, only tyrants and the very criminals they seek to dis-arm will have all the guns, and no lives will be saved.”(New York Times, June 27, 2006.)



Picking the right horseby Tim Macy

There’s an old saying in politics thatgoes something like this — “How comeit is that every time we elect one of us,they ain’t one of us anymore?”

It’s more than frustrating to helpelect a “good candidate” only to watchthem vote wrong on critical legislation.

There are plenty of reasons why they“ain’t” one of us anymore:

• They never were.• They quickly became one of the

members of the “club” in the Congress,allowing their colleagues to bend theirpositions and votes on many issues.

• They began getting attacked by theliberal press and liberal groups to thepoint where — horror of horrors —they began to worry they might losetheir next election because they actuallystuck to principle.

That’s why Gun Owners of Americahas always tried to do our homeworkand pick candidates that would hold toprinciple against all odds in battles toprotect the Second Amendment.

We have several fine examples ofstrong-willed members of Congresswho have not only held to principle, buthave helped lead the fight for GunOwners.

Senator David Vitter, who GOA sup-ported in the 2004 U.S. Senate race inLouisiana, has been named our Legisla-tor of the Year for 2006 because he iscarrying two different pieces of legisla-tion to protect our guns.

The first bill will withhold fundingfor the United Nations if the UN contin-

ues to try and take away our right toown firearms as guaranteed by the Con-stitution.

The UN has been trying to infringeupon the right to own firearms, espe-cially handguns, for years and it’s timeto tell them to stop attempting todestroy the U.S. Constitution.

The next Vitter bill says governmentcannot use disasters such as HurricaneKatrina as an excuse to disarm honestcitizens. He also introduced his bill as

an amendment to a spending bill inJuly.

You may have seen our video of citi-zens who are doing nothing but tryingto protect their homes and property,having their guns taken away by lawenforcement officials, rendering thesehonest citizens defenseless against rov-ing bands of hoodlums in the days afterthe hurricane passed through the GulfStates.

Senator Vitter has proven to be more

than just a “good vote.” He’s a leader toprotect the Constitution and our individ-ual rights.

On the House side of Congress wehave Representatives Rick Renzi andSteve King.

Congressman Renzi has been a realfriend of gun owners ever since we firsthelped him in 2002. It was a very hardfought victory and well worth the effort.

Renzi has introduced legislation thisyear to allow honest citizens to buy

firearms in any state across the country,as long as they abide by the laws of thatstate before they pick up the gun.

Many people believe they can buy agun anywhere in the country, but this isnot the case — at least, not untilRenzi’s bill passes and is signed intolaw.

Congressman Steve King is alsoleading the fight for gun owners byintroducing legislation to reverse thelaw forcing gun dealers to sell a triggerlock with any gun purchased.

We at Gun Owners believe the trig-ger lock law puts America one stepcloser to forcing people to always havetheir guns locked up, rendering honestcitizens defenseless against criminalswho will never lock up their guns.

That’s why both Congressmen Renziand King have received the Gun Own-ers “Defender of Freedom” award for2006.

Picking the right candidates at elec-tion time is critical to protecting andpreserving the Constitution. These threemembers of Congress prove the pointand they deserve all our help in everyelection they face. !

Tim Macy is the Vice Chairman ofGun Owners of America.

GOA Picks Legislator of the Year

GOA’s Tim Macy (left) and John Velleco (right) presented Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)with the Legislator of the Year award in June.

“Picking the right candidates at election time is critical toprotecting and preserving the Constitution.”



Add to the census and redistricting games the Motor VoterAct, and vote fraud rises to an even higher level. The federalMotor Voter Act unconstitutionally tells states how to conductelections without paying them for the trouble. People must beoffered a chance to register when applying for a driver’s licenseor welfare. It is illegal to ask for proof of citizenship.

Many people get registered who could not care less aboutvoting. As a result, there is a large universe of non-voters whocannot be purged from the voter rolls for eight years. Thismakes it rather easy for enterprising vote thieves to use thenames of non-voters to vote on behalf of the non-voter.

As John Fund points out in his book Stealing Elections, thereis “accumulating evidence that Motor Voter has been registeringillegal aliens, since anyone who receives a government benefitmay also register to vote with no questions asked. An INSinvestigation in 1996 into alleged Motor Voter fraud in Califor-nia’s 46th congressional district revealed that ‘4,023 illegal vot-ers possibly cast ballots in the disputed election betweenRepublican Robert Dornan and Democrat Loretta Sanchez.’Representative Dornan lost that election by fewer than 1,000votes.”

In other words likely vote fraud took a pro-gun vote in theU.S. House of Representatives and replaced it with an anti-gunvote. Redistricting, counting by puffed up estimates of Democ-rat voters and voting by ineligible voters makes it so that a pro-

gun conservative Republican needs a bigger and bigger marginjust to win by a hair.

All Americans are disenfranchised by vote fraud, but it looksas if gun owners are especially at risk. !

Using the Census to Achieve Gun ControlContinued from page 8 Failure of International

Gun Control

Appearing on Court-TV in May, GOA’s Larry Prattexplained how England’s gun ban in 1997 has done nothingto lower the crime rate in that country. To the contrary,crime has escalated to the point that England has the highestcrime rate among western industrialized nations. To see thisdebate, go to www.gunowners.org/svtb.htm.

party over the last 12 years. And yet at the global level, Paul says,

Kofi Annan has called on the UN toaddress the “easy availability” of smallarms, by which he means “all privatelyowned firearms.”

Thankfully, the U.S. delegation has— for the second conference in a row— thrown the proverbial “monkeywrench” in the cog wheel. First, it wasthe 2001 conference when the hero wasour very own John Bolton, who at thattime was an undersecretary for armscontrol at the State Department.

Bolton, who is now the US ambas-sador to the UN, said that our countrywould not support any language thatconflicted with the constitutional rightof our citizens to keep and bear arms.Without US support for mandatoryrestrictions, the agreement became a“voluntary” one and all hopes for abinding treaty were dashed.

Then there was the recent conferencethat ended in early July. According toReuters, the conference ended in a“total meltdown” and “chaos.” No for-mal paper was adopted, and no plan for

future action was agreed to.The chief reason for this chaos was,

arguably, the testimony of RobertJoseph in the opening days of the con-ference. According to Reuters, Joseph“set the tone from the start when... [he]laid out a long list of proposals thatWashington would not accept.”

Of course, even Reuters recognizedthat Joseph was “willing to endorse aset of global principles” aimed at get-ting guns out of the wrong hands(ignoring the fact that this leavesoppressive regimes as the ones who getto define who are the “wrong hands”).

Despite U.S. support for certain guncontrol measures, it was not enough toplacate a number of other nations. Theleading organization pushing for globalgun control is IANSA (InternationalAction Network on Small Arms).IANSA blamed Cuba, India, Iran, Pak-istan and Russia as the main playersblocking the agreement.

So gun owners can be glad that wehave dodged a bullet for the moment.Gun rights author, Dave Kopel, notesthe devastating consequences thatwould have ensued from a globalfirearms treaty:

With a Presidential signature on sucha treaty (even if the treaty werenever brought to the Senate floor forratification), the principles of theanti-gun treaty would be eroding theSecond Amendment, through Execu-tive Orders, and through the inclina-tion of some courts to use unratifiedtreaties as guidance in interpretingthe U.S. Constitution.

This is why gun owners need to keepfighting these global attacks. UN dele-gates are hoping the General Assemblywill take up the issue in the fall, soGOA will continue to keep you updat-ed.

Meanwhile, let your Representativeknow that it’s time to cut off funds tothe United Nations. Support H.R. 3436and S. 1488! !

Gun Owners Foundation recentlypublished a paper authored by its attor-neys, William Olson and Herb Titus,entitled “Assessing the Threat to Sec-ond Amendment Rights posed by theU.S. Supreme Court’s Use of ForeignLaw in Constitutional Interpretation.”This paper can be viewed atwww.gunowners.com/fs0603.htm

GOA Fighting UN Gun GrabContinued from page 1

May 29, 2006 • The Gun Owners /




by Larry PrattDemographers say that the

red states are growing faster thanthe blue states, and that goes forthe red counties within the bluestates as well. So, conservativesin general, and gun owners inparticular, only need to sit backand keep having babies, right?

Not necessarily. Ever hear ofrotten boroughs? They were

election districts in 18th century England that weredesigned geographically but had experienced huge losses ofpopulation so that only an old rotten, barely inhabited bor-ough was left for some members of Parliament to represent.Other districts, of course, represented many, many morevoters. Yet all members of Parliament had the same vote.Not very fair, most would say (except the members fromRotten, of course).

Well, the United States has its own rotten borough sys-tem in spite of the Constitution’s requirement to count allpersons for apportioning the vote for the House of Repre-sentatives and then divide by the number of members cur-rently established for the House.

That’s the theory. It doesn’t always work that way inpractice. Gerrymandering is a term that dates back to Mass-achusetts Governor Eldridge Gerry who used the older rot-ten borough practice to favor his Republican party over theFederalist party in our early Republican era. Had it not beenfor Gerry we might use the term rotten boroughing insteadof gerrymandering.

Modern advances in gerrymandering have been devel-oped by a designer of legislative districts, Michael Berman,who was retained by California Democrats in 1980. Theelections for the House in the next election (following thedecennial census of 1980) resulted in six additional seats forthe Democrats from the state of California alone. Perhaps itis worth noting that Michael’s brother Howard won his seatfirst in 1982 which he still holds in 2006.

Business has only gotten better for Michael Berman. In2001 California Democrats paid him $1.36 million to drawthe state Senate and U.S. House districts. Democrat mem-bers of Congress from California paid Berman $600,000($20,000 each) for his services. One satisfied customer,Rep. Loretta Sanchez chirped: “I spend $2 million [cam-paigning] every election. If my colleagues are smart, they’ll

pay their $20,000 and Michael will draw the district theycan win in. Those who have refused to pay? God helpthem.” (Stealing Democracy: How to Rig Elections bySpencer Overton; Norton: 2006, pages 19 and 20.)

Keep in mind that these Democrats are tireless enemiesof the Second Amendment and self defense. Berman’s dis-tricts tend to produce those on the far end of the politicalspectrum.

As clever as folks like Berman and his geek brigade are,they should not get all the credit for this massive electionfraud.

The Census Bureau was used by the Clinton administra-tion to put even more oomph into the vote grabbing for hisparty. The Census Bureau is in the Commerce Departmentwhich at the time was headed up by William Daley, son ofthe infamous rigger of Chicago elections, Mayor RichardDaley.

“Census sampling” was the term used by Secretary Daleyand President Clinton to put lipstick on a pig, or in otherwords, to make vote fraud sound acceptable. The allegedproblem was that illegal aliens were being undercountedbecause they try to be invisible. The problem with this argu-ment is that it is an hypothesis, not a fact. The existence ofinvisible, uncountable persons was never proved.

But once the hypothesis was accepted as fact, “samplers”were free to pull estimates out of the air. For Democrats, theconvenient thing about sampling was that it was assumed tobe needed only in areas around hard-core, left wing bluejurisdictions. Fewer real persons who had actually beencounted could be artificially inflated to equal the numberneeded for a congressional district population.

Voila! Rotten boroughs. Gerrymandering can be soembarrassingly obvious when population centers are con-nected by interstates and other equally heavily populatedareas. But “sampling” avoids all those obvious signs of ger-rymandering, as well as actually adds to the numbers of leftwing Representatives more than the Democrats would haveactually been entitled to.

Once we understand how the Democrats have been beat-ing the population trends that are unfavorable to them, werealize what chutzpah Al Gore displayed in 2000 when hecomplained about voting irregularities — in Democrat runcounties of South Florida! The next time you hear that“Bush stole the election,” you should find that so funny thatyou laugh out loud.

Using the Census to Achieve Gun Control

Continued on page 6

Sen. H.L. Richardson (Ret.)Founder and Chairman

Tim MacyVice-Chairman

The Gun Owners publication is not copyrighted.Copies may be made freely, but it is requestedthat attribution be made together with GOA’saddress, phone number and web site location.

GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102Springfield, Virginia 22151703-321-8585Web Site: http://www.gunowners.org

Larry PrattExecutive Director

Erich PrattDirector of Communications

John VellecoDirector of Federal Affairs

goa nl 11-4-04 · erich pratt, goa:absolutely not. continued on page 4 continued on page 2 volume...

Documents