“FIREARMS & LIBERTY”

by Scott W. Ostrander

August 24th, 1995

PREFACE

This document reflects my personal views on gun control and issues concerning the encroachment of government on our liberties.

No part of any of this material should be used as legal advice. The reader must take full responsibility for the laws regarding issues addressed in this paper.

At no time does the author of this material accept any responsibility for the actions of others who follow suggestions or perceived suggestions in this article.

Any and all of this written material may contain errors, especially as time goes by and the laws change. As such, it is the responsibility of the reader to check with local authorities as to the laws which dictate topics covered in this article, in any situation.

Though I retain all rights to the material I have written here, permission is explicitly given to distribute this material in its entirety via the Internet and other computer networks. Permission is explicitly denied to publish this material in any other medium, including but not limited to CD-ROM, books, and magazines.

In order to gain permission to reproduce any part of this material in such a medium the person/organization wishing to publish said part of the material must obtain written permission from the author.

The opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and are not necessarily the opinions of anyone else.

Scott W. Ostrander

PRELUDE

It was a very difficult decision to make. When you have spent so much of your heart and soul on a project, especially one of such importance, you cannot seem to envision a day that it would come to an end. Yet, most of the time, things do come to an end.

I was fortunate in the sense that I found someone else who is willing and able to continue this important work. Gary Shade, of Shade’s Landing, intimate with the Paul Revere BBS, offered some time ago to carry on this torch should I be unable or unwilling to do so any further. I took him up on his gracious offer, and I thank him sincerely for it!

THE BEGINNING

When I first created what was to become the Firearms & Liberty page on the World Wide Web, it was a personal effort on my part for the fight to preserve firearms rights, part of the material I was allowed to include at the Center for Innovative Computer Application’s (CICA) Web site at Indiana University, because of my employment with them as a Systems Administrator. It helped me out as a learning tool, since I had never worked with Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) before. I experimented, hacked out and forged a collection of HTML documents devoted to the Second Amendment and liberty in general. It was just a personal project, and frankly, I didn’t expect much to happen with it.

But people found it. Many people found it. Almost a year ago, I was informed that my Firearms page had become part of CICA’s top ten most accessed Web pages. It was not a transient experience. The Firearms & Liberty page stayed in the top ten ever since the first week it made the list.

Suddenly, my personal project had become a very public kiosk for firearms rights. People were using my Web pages as a source of data for their own battles in their part of the fight to maintain firearms rights in the United States.

I agonized for several days on whether to continue the project or not. I was not searching for notoriety, and the sudden lunge into the public eye was a bit overwhelming. I’m not prone to be a public personality. But I made the decision that the material I was gathering together was too important for me to just let go, so I changed things around. I finished several documents which had been just lying around waiting for attention, and I put them on-line. I scoured the Internet for more data, further evidence of political mischief and anything which might lead to information that people could use to fight this good fight.

DARKNESS

As I searched and read article after article, a whole new world opened up to me. It was a dark world. A world where our own government was killing people over search warrants. Where people’s entire livelihoods were being stripped away under the assumption that their property committed a crime. Where common sense and rationality was thrown aside to make room for emotional drivel. It frightened me to no end, and it frightens me yet. I had opened a Pandora’s box which I could not believe even existed, nor could I let go of it. Once you truly see these things, it changes your perceptions forever.

I never considered myself particularly naive. I still don’t. But I had no idea just how true these new fears of government abuse were. I read with horror about Randy Weaver, who managed to survive a Federal attack that his poor son and wife did not. Now evidence is appearing that these agents may have been given orders to shoot on sight by the commander on the scene, Larry Potts. This same man is later one of the key people in charge of 51 day stand-off and a final raid on a religious compound in Waco, Texas, which resulted in over 86 deaths. Orders given by a man who until recently was serving his promotion to second in command of the FBI.

Then came Waco in 1993. Waco woke a good many people up. We watched the progression of passing horrors, all government funded and mandated, right on our television sets every night of the standoff. It felt like watching footage of Viet Nam or the Gulf War. It sure looked like a war. If it wasn’t a war, if the FBI with their tanks and helicopters were there “for the sake of the children”, why were they pumping psychological warfare noises and dangerous CS particulate gas (euphemistically called “tear gas”) into the compound? It doesn’t seem at all rational. Do rational people bombard children with noises of rabbits being slaughtered and loud Tibetan chants 24 hours a day? Do rational people pump “gas” canisters into buildings full of children, canisters which have warnings stating that it turns toxic in confined quarters? Do rational people serve up search warrants by busting in with dozens of men carrying sub-machine guns? What happened to knocking on the door? It was, after all, just a search warrant. A search warrant which was looking for automatic weapons which supposedly had not been properly taxed. Waco was all about the Federal government’s $200 tax stamp for fully automatic weapons.

Whether the FBI tanks started the fire – which killed over 80 people – accidentally or intentionally, or whether it was started by the Davidian’s themselves, we will not find the real answer here as to why it happened. We’re looking in the wrong direction. A no-knock search warrant via tax enforcement, served up by the Federal government through a violent, armed raid, was the initial spark which started the inferno at Waco.

To make things more frightening, it’s happening at a local level as well. Ask any of the people in the Lehkin’s neighborhood in Brunswick, Ohio. They’ll tell you about a small local army of police and firefighters who cordoned off the entire block to surrounded a single small house in April of 1995. How they took over the entire neighborhood and people’s homes as “command centers” causing thousands of dollars of damage through negligence. How they flooded the basement of Lehkin’s house so that it was uninhabitable. And how they rammed the house with an armoured personnel carrier (APC), built like a tank, so hard that they knocked the house right off of its foundation. They cut the power during that cold April night of the stand-off, and even received a phone call from Mrs. Lehkin inside the house, pleading for someone to come and rescue her because she was freezing cold.

All this action came about because two officers were unable to communicate with an emotionally distressed man through a closed door and so decided to bust in. Lehkin, for whatever reasons in fear for his life, shot the first officer, who survived to tell about it. I’m very glad for this, but I question his initial judgment. The officers were there because a nurse, who was helping Lehkin’s bed-ridden wife, filed a complaint about guns being in the house and that Lehkin was “acting out” with them. She was worried about guns being out in the presence of a 10 year old boy. I too, would question the wisdom of this, and I won’t defend this behavior, but the resulting events are simply unwarranted.

When Lehkin found out about the complaint from his wife, and was told that police might come to visit, he became severely paranoid and he believed that the police were going to come only to kill him. This is not the type of person to come busting in on, and the police were forewarned by Mrs. Lehkin as to her husband’s state of mind. The final death count was two, Lehkin and his son. Lehkin appears to have killed his son and then himself, but you have to wonder about some of the
particulars. It was a single story, small house, yet it took over twelve hours to find their bodies when the SWAT team finally went it. Why? They had cameras and optical feeds into the house, but yet they didn’t know where the bodies were, or that Lehkin had holed up in a small converted bathroom with oxygen equipment to last through gas attacks. A psychologist on the scene warned the officers that Lehkin might become suicidal if pushed, so they pushed harder. It seems like things got out of control, and again, it was all for the sake of the children.

We’re doing a lot of that in society today. We are told that we have to censor the Internet, for the sake of the children. We have to get rid of gun ownership, for the sake of the children. We have to have law enforcement storm in with guns drawn and shoot to kill, for the sake of the children. We have to take people’s property away from them without notice and without filing criminal charges if we think they might have substances the government has told them not to ingest, for the sake of the children. We have to continue a failed War on Drugs which is getting people killed over plants and such, for the sake of the children. Basically, we have to get rid of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, all for the sake of the children.

THE WAR ON DRUGS

What had been a fight for firearms rights, became a fight for rights in general, especially the right to be free from unnecessary government intrusion and force. It became very clear that a subject I had not really thought about before, the War on Drugs, was a key factor in the violence in which we seem to be drowning. The same violence which is driving state after state in the union, to passing new Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) laws.

We see it on the news every night and in our daily paper. Somebody is arrested for marijuana possession. Someone else for crack cocaine. Though some are violent in their pursuit of drugs, sometimes it is merely homes which only had a few friends together, trying to have an enjoyable evening. It suddenly becomes a den of inequity, and a common nuisance in the eyes of the law. Why? Because some of them were ingesting, of their own free will, substances which the government has declared illegal to ingest by banning their possession. Why are they illegal to ingest? Because the government says so. Who gave them that power?

That is a very good question.

It is the key question concerning the War on Drugs. It is a war, don’t let anyone convince you otherwise. It costs billions per year just for enforcement. It has made the United States first in the industrialized world for the highest per capita incarceration rate. We imprison more people than the former Soviet Union, or South Africa. The War on Drugs has killed people on all sides, and will continue to kill people until it is stopped.

It is a war which has it’s roots in the same tree as all other wars. Someone, somewhere, got the idea in their head that they should be able to determine what is right for the personal decisions of others, whether they like it or not. When it became clear that others would not follow simply by example, the issue is forced down their throats. Americans clearly reject the idea that others should be in control of their lives, yet how many reasonable, rational people will argue that the government is “right” to be waging this war against it’s own citizens? The arguments sound clear enough: “Drugs are bad for you”, “You’re damaging your brain and your body”, “It is a poison in your system which can kill you!”

Yet, people take drugs. Everyday you can walk the streets of any small town or large city, and you will run into people, probably more people than you realize, who have taken, are taking, or are at your moment of meeting them, on a drug of some kind. It can range from something as common as marijuana, to something less common, such as LSD. If you count alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, the count goes up by quite a margin. Curiosity usually leads people to these substances. People have an insatiable curiosity, and like the parable cat, it might kill them.

People have a tendency to want to leave reality now and then, get caught up in something interesting and new, if just for the moment. It helps to fight the petty drone of modern life, or even to escape some of the pain which is sometimes inflicted upon us. Some people choose film or theater to escape into another fictional reality, if just for a moment or two. Others escape into books. Others might want simple recreation, boating, bicycling, sport of all kinds. Others, want to leave the world and go into their own minds for that release.

We have one form of this last type of release, which is legal now, but once was not: alcohol. When the 18th Amendment was passed in 1919, it made alcohol an utterly illegal substance. Yet, the people – the same “the People” of the Constitution – disagreed, vehemently. The black market was suddenly presented a golden opportunity, literally golden. There was a giant source of money in the black market trade for alcohol. People went to elaborate measures to hide, transport and sell illegal alcohol. Why? Why money, of course. There is a grand profit to be made when an illegal substance is wanted by the people, but not by the government.

Inflated pricing, criminal assault, even murder, are all a part of the black market. It receives its power from the government itself, because the government is the one which has forced an unpopular “morality” upon the people by creating an illegal substance out of a product that was once considered common. It receives its power from the enforcement of these laws, which causes the trade of such products to be very risky, even to life itself. Such risks beg a price, which raise the monetary value of the substance in question. This raises the profit margin, because “business men” know that a reduced supply, means a greater desire, and greater desire means more people are willing to spend more money for the same thing they had yesterday, only at a greater cost.

It is a self feeding system. Risk produces cost, cost leads to higher pricing, higher pricing leads to increased criminal activity, increased criminal activity leads to violence. Violence from the black market, and violence from the government. The War on Alcohol, lead to some of the ugliest battles in civilian history.

The War on Drugs: Prohibition II, is doing exactly the same.

GUN CONTROL

This is where the gun control laws come in. As the black market grows, and disputes of territory grow more common, innocent people start to die. Usually it is a case of a stray bullet finding the wrong target. Sometimes it is a case of mistaken identity. Other times, it is cruelty beyond measure, from a human converted to the worst form of monster by simple deadening of their morality. When there seems to be no way out but violence, a person can become numb to morality which most of us take as internal law.

Government’s answer to violence in society, is to remove the guns from their hands. It doesn’t matter that more people are killed with hands and feet than firearms, the firearms are blamed for the violence. It doesn’t matter that only the law abiding, those who actually try to respect the law, are the only ones who obey gun control laws. It doesn’t matter that by disarming the populace, they give free reign to those who ignore the law to assault, rape, and even murder innocent, unarmed people. The answer is simple in government’s eyes, like a desperate parent trying to stop a child from hitting furniture with a stick – they want to take the stick away. Then, when they find out that other children have sticks too, and some are using them improperly, they want to take all the sticks away.

The problem with this simplistic and frankly, moronic level of thinking, is that the law abiding are the only ones hurt. Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. Criminals don’t care about restrictions, rules, and regulations. They don’t apply for carry permits in order to carry a weapon. They don’t turn in weapons which are suddenly made illegal. Criminals don’t give a damn about the law, any law!

Passing legislation to try to curb illegal use of weapons, by taking weapons away from law abiding citizens who are doing nothing wrong, is like spanking your eldest child for the crimes of the youngest. Little Johnny can’t play nice with his friends, so spank Timmy. I hate to resort to such simplistic language, but politicians haven’t been able to understand this situation when it has been explained to them in more complicated terms. Maybe they can understand it on this level.

In reality, its actually much worse. The Second Amendment, debated into the ground, says quite clearly that the People have a right to keep and bear arms. Those that do not understand this need to take a course in remedial English and re-read the Second Amendment. Better yet, read the Federalist Papers and other works from the Framers, and you’ll find that a personal right of firearm ownership is all our founding fathers ever spoke of. The right was not given to government or a collective. It is not the militia, not the government, not the YMCA who have a right to keep and bear arms, it is the People. The People – a phrase used everywhere else in the Constitution to represent each individual, not a collective. Yet, how many claim that the Second Amendment grants the National Guard the right to arms?

The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right of each individual, which no one can touch – not granted, but enumerated by the Constitution. Such a right is on par with the right to life itself, or so the Framers of the Constitution thought.

So if we punish those who legally own arms, who have a right to own arms, we might as well be punishing them for breathing. That we do it because someone else is doing something wrong, makes it even more intolerable!

Government’s answer to violent crime, is to take away law abiding citizen’s guns. At the same time, government is arresting people for ingesting substances that the government doesn’t want them to, and locking them away under mandatory sentencing guidelines and letting violent criminals out on parole or early release to make room for them! It doesn’t make any sense, it never will make any sense, and it has to be stopped!

THE WAR ON PEOPLE

So I searched for data far and wide, joined mailing lists. I cringed when I read material describing raids on “suspected drug users” where people were being shot and killed by police acting on “anonymous” sources. Many of these people were not even taking drugs in the first place. I read story after story of people’s livelihoods and all their property being carted away under civil forfeiture laws, without ever being charged with a crime. This type of behavior reminded me of Nazi Germany, where those in “law enforcement” simply did what they wanted. If the law didn’t support it, they made a new law which would.

But you just can’t do that in the United States! We have a supreme law of the land, called the Constitution. It was written for government, by the people, not the other way around. It is a contract, where we allow government to exist within its confines, and not outside of them. The moment government steps out of bounds, it acts illegitimately and is on the road to tyranny. Once government ignores the Constitution altogether, we will either have to accept dictatorship, or fight.

So these were the conclusions that I reached, and just some of the ugly material I found as I forged my firearms page. The entire Bill of Rights was under attack, not just the Second Amendment, and most of it was being done through the War on Drugs. Many have said, and I agree, that it is really a War on People.

We obviously need to fight crime. Crime is when someone violates the rights of another: a victim is involved. Someone using drugs, of their own free will, has not been a victim of any crime, and really isn’t committing a crime because they are not infringing on the rights of anyone else. The government has declared some substances contraband, without ever having the authority to do so, and as such, has created criminals out of innocents.

This might sound like a brash statement to make, but it doesn’t add up any other way. The Ninth Amendment states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This seems clear enough. If a right has not been enumerated in the Constitution, this does not mean that the right does not exist. The Framers believed in many natural and civil rights, but wanted to make absolute sure that a few of them were listed explicitly, hence the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, was designed to make Federal rights rigidly limited, but personal rights unlimited.

When you take a look at the animals, one of the rights that they have by simply being a biological organism, is the right to determine what they do or do not ingest. Some of these things are good to ingest, some are not. A dog might eat a rabbit that it manages to catch in the back yard, it might also drink anti-freeze off the garage floor and die. Other than draconian measures of prevention, where the dog is imprisoned and fed only what others choose, there is no authority in the world which will change a dog’s eating habits. A dog will eat what it feels like eating. So will every other animal on Earth. It is a natural right given to us by simply being an animal.

The Tenth Amendment then goes on to talk about government authority:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

This is also quite clear. Authority not delegated to the United States government, by the Constitution, does not exist for the government – period. They cannot take that power, they cannot claim that power without having Constitutional authority to do so. If it is not explicitly given, then it is reserved to the states, or to the People.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This says that a state cannot infringe on privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Quite clear, really. If the Federal government does not have the granted authority to over-ride the natural right to determine ingestion, than the states cannot either.

So there you have it, quite simple really. The War on Drugs is un-Constitutional. By banning the possession and distribution of certain consumable materials, the Federal and state governments have violated the ability for the People to exercise their natural right to determine what they put in their own bodies.

Further evidence that congress once understood all this, can be taken in the 18th Amendment. The Federal government, lead by people riding moral high-horses, decided that they would take away a right from the people to ingest a certain substance, by giving that right to the Federal government via an amendment to the Constitution. Just for the record, here it is, the one and only time that government had the power to tell people that they could not ingest a particular substance, in this case, alcohol:

18th Amendment (1919)

Section 1.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors
within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the
jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures
of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years of the date of the submission hereof to the States by
Congress.

This is the only time government in the United States has ever had this power, and it was soon removed. The People, the same the People of the Constitution, simply grew fed up with this ridiculous law, and stopped prosecuting alcohol cases. Juries simply refused to put people away for drinking or selling alcohol. The government finally gave in. In 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.

So one might ask, if alcohol – merely one substance – could only be banned from consumption by Constitutional amendment, then how did they ban other drugs? Why, taxes of course.

In 1937, as hundreds of federal agents were about to lose their jobs after alcohol prohibition was canceled, the government passed their first prohibition legislation in the drug war. It was the Marijuana Tax Act. The only previous restrictions had been the Harrison Act, in 1914, which controlled the sale of opium, opium derivatives and cocaine. These substances had to be dispensed by prescription from a doctor. Not much happened with the Marijuana Tax Act, other than hysteria in the form of “Reefer Madness” and other nonsensical propaganda. It was hype then, and hype now.

It wasn’t until our nation had an emotional break-down in the sixties, that the government decided that it had to act again, in force. Nixon declared a “War on Drugs” in 1973, and Reagan re-claimed it and fed it most of the un-Constitutional force it now has during his term in the 80′s. Then Bush added more enforcement power, and now our illustrious non-inhaler himself has re-declared it.

And this war costs us plenty more than money.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS, R.I.P.

Perhaps the best way to understand the true costs of the War on People, is to take a look at something we all should be worried about, the Bill of Rights, part of our Constitution.

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Well, it is somewhat intact for now, unless you count the Exon bill and other attacks on free speech on the Internet. Just remember that it’s for the sake of the children, and you’ll feel better when they arrest you for distributing contraband information and grab everything you own. Some nice organizations, like the ACLU, might help you out if you have a grievance.

2nd Amendment

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Just about gone, if it were not for efforts to pass CCW legislation across the state governments. The National Rifle Association (NRA) does a fairly rabid job of talking and asking for money, but spends a lot of time compromising on gun control laws. You can’t compromise on a right and win, for each compromise takes away part of a right, which should never be touched at all. Maybe someone could explain this to the NRA sometime. Don’t count on the ACLU for help, they try to pretend that this amendment doesn’t exist.

3rd Amendment

No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The argument can be made that the police, becoming ever more paramilitary due to the War on Drugs, taking over people’s houses as command centers and trashing people’s property, pretty much has butchered this amendment. It is also interesting to note that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which bans the military from being used in law enforcement, can be called in if drugs are involved. When FBI agents lied about a drug lab at Waco, they were able to bring in tanks and helicopters from the military. This is just another example of an abuse of power via “suspicion” of drug activity.

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Unless you are suspected to have drugs via anonymous tip, then the government can come in and confiscate everything you own, without ever charging you with a crime. Don’t expect to live through it, either. The police and federal against like to serve up search warrants with tanks these days. Ask the 80+ people in that church in Waco.

5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war, or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Again, taking everything someone owns under civil forfeiture pretty much cuts this amendment up as well. When punishment for “criminal” activity can be served up without even charging you with a crime, then we might as well cross this amendment out.

6th Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Unless you don’t live through the search warrant, when they bust in with sub-machine guns. Federal agents in particular, and police departments more and more, have forgotten how to knock on the front door or ring the bell. The battering ram has become the warrant, because they are worried that the person inside might dispose of the substances that they don’t want them to ingest. Add to this that anonymous informants often get away without being confronted by the accused, and that the impartial nature of juries disappeared with hype-television and what do you get – another dead amendment.

7th Amendment

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.

Again, cross this one out. They take everything you own, and you are never charged.

8th Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

Again, civil forfeitures violate this as well.

9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Government simply ignores this one. This is how they ban substances without having the authority to do so.

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

And ignores this as well. It is more expedient to do so. How many restrictions on state powers have been made through the Federal guidelines on interstate commerce? (Interstate commerce is used as an excuse to tell the states what to do, as the topic at hand is supposedly affecting each state in contact with the one in question.) We have the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Act, and until it was recently declared un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court, the Gun Free School Act. All of these laws were put into power, because the Federal government claimed that firearms were affecting interstate commerce and education. This certainly does not add up to the “nor prohibited by it to the states,” portion of the Tenth Amendment. The states are supposed to be in control of the Federal government, not the other way around.

So there you have it: The Bill of Rights – Void where prohibited by law.

If you haven’t seen it by now, most of this damage has been created by excuses from government in their pursuit of contraband drugs. We have to have civil forfeitures, because this is the only way that they can get drug users. We have to have no-knock warrants, because they might get rid of the evidence down the toilet if we don’t. We have to butcher the Bill of Rights from top to bottom, because we have to stop these people from ingesting these substances that we don’t want them to ingest, even if we have to kill them to do it.

THE END

Two years passed, and I found myself drowning in stories of government abuse. Some were verified, others were not. Rumor was circulated with fact and printed as if they were one and the same. It was a part-time job just keeping up with what was real and what was fantasy.

I remained diligent for a while, and then it started to creep up on me. I was burning out. I was, in a sense, becoming numb with the endless fight and endless stories. It actually reached a point where I was becoming paranoid about government action and was wondering what, if anything, was going to come my way because I had painted a great big target on myself with the firearms pages.

The coupe de grace came with an invitation to join a temporary mailing list, which was composed of Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) activists on the Internet. The goal was simple enough, exchange information and ideas on how to best fight the good fight, and get the word out so that people could see what was going on and act on a grass-roots level.

What I encountered was a series of e-mail letters which struck deep into paranoia. Endless conspiracy theories, from United Nations invasion plans to Satanic influences on world powers, were behind the United States gun control laws. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I refused to let myself fall into this pit of paranoia, and I contributed nothing to the list. I really couldn’t decide whether I even wanted to be associated with some of these people, even in a passing reference.

It killed my urge to dive further into the stories and rumors which were flying about. I wanted to simply get out, and leave it all behind.

But I couldn’t do that. The information I had gathered together was far too important, and it was enough to say what I felt needed to be said. I couldn’t and wouldn’t do the job anymore, but I had to find someone who would. Fortunately, I did.

FAREWELLS AND WARNINGS

I haven’t lost the will to fight gun control and other abuses of liberty. I’ll still be writing now and then. What I have lost is the will to keep up on current events like a news service. I’ve seen enough, enough to know how vile some government actions are, and that they must be stopped. My hope is that it can all be stopped, gun control, word control, ingestion control… I won’t lose that hope, until it is obvious that government has strayed into complete tyranny. I’m not convinced that this will happen, like the more paranoid folks out there are, but people like Newt Gingrich have not made me overly optimistic. He comes out one week in July of 1995 stating that we either have to end the War on Drugs, or resort to draconian tactics. The next week he makes it clear that he wants the draconian side, as he advocates killing people who import drugs into the country.

If government is going to go this far, where they are willing to shoot on sight people suspected of drug trafficking or drug use, you will see tyranny in it’s full form. The apology letters to families of the innocent victims shot by mistake, will probably be delivered on post cards to meet Republican spending cuts. If the Democrats are in charge during this phase, it will be on Presidential letterhead, and three new federal offices will be started up to handle the printing, including an armed contingency to add to the 140 existing Federal agencies which are already armed. (If you don’t believe me, take a look at what information came out during the congressional Waco investigation. 140 armed agencies to enforce 4,100 Federal laws!) If the Printing Office can have an armed wing, why can’t a new Drug War
Death Notification Department?

If we are smart about all of this, we are going to have to start the road to recovery by ending the Drug War. This country was nearly up in arms when President Clinton’s health plan tried to tell us what we could and could not eat in order to receive health care. If people could only come to understand that the War on Drugs violates the same principals, perhaps we can turn things around. When cities like New York find that 78% of their violent crime involves black market drug activity, it certainly seems to me that removing that black market would go a long way to solving our violent crime in the inner cities as well. We cannot be proud in the highest incarceration rate, or the highest murder rates, or the stripping of our Constitutionally enumerated and non-enumerated rights. We have to stop the assault on the Bill of Rights, and it has to start with ending a failed War on Drugs.

It is not only a matter of rights, it is a matter of common sense.

Copyright 1995, Scott W. Ostrander