Address to the Los Angeles Police Commission
by J. Neil Schulman
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
Address to the Los Angeles Police Commission
July 16, 1991
by J. Neil Schulman
[After Schulman identifies himself as speaking for the Committee
to Enforce the Second Amendment]
Madam President and Members of the Commission, I do not sit
before you seeking to make it easier for criminals and mental
incompetents to carry firearms. They find it too easy already --
far easier than I do, for they are not afraid of the law, and I
am.
But the Los Angeles Police Commission's guidelines for
issuing licenses to carry concealed firearms is in clear
opposition to the words of the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
Let me quote both:
The independent clause from the fourth paragraph of the
"Board Policy Concerning Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons"
states, "[I]t is the policy of this Board that 'good cause' for
the issuance of any concealed weapons license would exist only in
the most extreme and aggravated circumstances."
And, the independent clause from the Second Amendment is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment does not say the right of the militia, or police, or the National Guard. It says "the right of the \people\."
The Founding Fathers, in their good sense, knew that a free
society requires its citizens -- the people themselves -- to take
responsibility for the defense of themselves, their loved ones,
and their neighbors, and that such responsibility requires being
armed to fulfill it.
We live in a city where violent crime is epidemic and the police are incapable of protecting the citizens from it. Your own former police chief, Ed Davis, said as much in a well-publicized speech.
When you deny a citizen a firearms permit because in your
opinion there is no "extreme and aggravated circumstance," you
take upon yourself a discretion that the Constitution does not
permit you. The Constitution says you may not infringe the right
of the people to keep and bear arms. I think we can agree that
leaves out convicted criminals and mental incompetents. Use your
discretion all you can to keep \them\ from getting and carrying
guns.
But the Constitution forbids you from denying the right to
carry firearms to the people -- we honest, law-abiding citizens.
California Penal Code Section 12050 authorizes you to issue
a license to carry a concealed weapon provided that the person is
of good moral character and that good cause exists for issuance
of the license. The "good cause" is the requirement of the
Second Amendment that the people's right to carry arms not be
infringed.
I am calling upon you to fulfill your obligation under
California law, and most specifically the highest law of the
land, the U.S. Constitution, to revise your policy for issuing
licenses to carry firearms, so that any sane, adult citizen may
carry firearms for the protection of her or his life, loved ones,
and neighbors.
Thank you.
*****
A Conversation with An Expert on English Usage
By J. Neil Schulman
I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial
Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles
Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement
English for several years at Van Nuys High School, as well as
having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin. I was referred
to Mr. Brocki by Sherryl Broyles of the Office of Instruction of
the LA Unified School District, who described Mr. Brocki as the
foremost expert in grammar in the Los Angeles Unified School
District -- the person she and others go to when they need a
definitive answer on English grammar.
I gave Mr. Brocki my name, told him Sherryl Broyles referred me,
then asked him to parse the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall
not be infringed."
Mr. Brocki informed me that the sentence was overpunctuated, but
that the meaning could be extracted anyway.
"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a
participial phrase modifying "electorate"
The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of
the people"
"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an
adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"
"to keep and read books" is an infinitive phrase modifying
"right"
I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it
clearer. Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well-schooled electorate is
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to
keep and read books to a well-schooled electorate -- say,
registered voters with a high-school diploma?" He said, "No."
I then identified my purpose in calling him, and read him the
Second Amendment in full:
"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."
He said he thought the sentence had sounded familiar, but that
he hadn't recognized it.
I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same
as the sentence I first quoted you?" He said, "yes." I asked
him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer. He transformed
it the same way as the first sentence: "Because a well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in two hundred
years. He said, "No."
I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted to
restrict the right to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated
militia." He said, "no." According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence
means that the people \are\ the militia, and that the people
have the right which is mentioned.
I asked him again to make sure:
Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right
can be restricted to "a well-regulated militia?"
Brocki: "No, I can't see that."
Schulman: "Could another, professional in English grammar or
linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."
I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his
professional reputation on this opinion, and be quoted on this.
He said, "Yes."
At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion
on the Second Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and
bear arms.
J. Neil Schulman
July 17, 1991
*****
The Equal Protection Act of 1991
Premise: The purpose of this act, when enacted into law either
by legislation or proposition, is to provide adequate means of
protection against violent crime to those who are most victimized
by it: women, the elderly, minorities, the physically
handicapped, children, residents of neighborhoods where there is
persistent gang presence or drug-related violence, or anyone who
lives or works in a municipality where city, county, state, or
federal police presence is inadequate to prevent or protect the
citizenry beforehand from any of the following crimes: rape,
child molestation, mugging, hate crimes, murder, attempted murder,
assault, mayhem, armed or unarmed robbery, burglary (including
automobile burglary), grand theft (including grand theft, auto),
extortion, drive-by shootings, purse snatching, or any other attack
or threat of attack against the persons or personal property of
peaceful citizens.
The Act:
Upon passage of this act (or proposition), anyone who
satisfies the following criteria:
I. A citizen or legal resident of the United States; and who is
II. Eighteen years or older (unless a member of the armed forces,
or a cadet training for the armed forces,in which case the age
requirement is waived); and who has
III. Never been convicted of a violent crime or never pleaded
not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity to a violent crime, or has never
been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for having
committed a violent crime;
IV. And can satisfy being in one or more of the following
categories:
A. A woman;
B. A member of any race, religious group, sect, nationality,
or other minority for which there is a history of hate
crimes;
C. Over 50 years of age (the minimum membership age for the
American Association of Retired Persons);
D. Physically handicapped, or suffering from any physical
condition which would tend to make one a target for
criminal assault, attack, robbery, or violence;
E. The parent or legal guardian of a minor child, or a
person \in loco parentis\ for a minor child;
F. A person who has ever been the victim of any of the
following crimes: rape, child molestation, mugging, hate
crimes, attempted murder, assault, mayhem, armed
or unarmed robbery, burglary (including automobile
burglary), grand theft (including grand theft, auto),
extortion, drive-by shooting, purse snatching, or any
other attack or threat of attack against one's person or
personal property;
G. A person whose residency or work places them in a
municipality where there is persistent gang presence or
drug-related violence, or anyone who lives or works in a
municipality where city, county, state, or federal police
presence is inadequate to prevent or protect the
citizenry beforehand from any of the following crimes:
rape, child molestation, mugging, hate crimes, murder,
attempted murder, assault, mayhem, armed or unarmed robbery,
burglary (including automobile burglary), grand theft
(including grand theft, auto), extortion, drive-by
shootings, purse snatching,or any other attack or threat
of attack against one's person or personal property;
H. Can demonstrate circumstances in which one is escorting or
otherwise responsible for the safety of anyone in the
previous categories;
will hereafter be granted an unlimited license to carry,
concealed or unconcealed, loaded firearms, of any sort legally
carried by any police officer, sheriff, judge or justice of the
peace, elected or appointed public official, civil servant,
government employee, or member of the organized or unorganized
militia.
-- J. Neil Schulman
August 3, 1991
Discussion of the Act from CESA topic on GEnie:
Category 8, Topic 14
Message 120 Mon Aug 05, 1991
B.YOKEM [Bazooka] at 22:53 EDT
Regarding the provisions of The Equal Protection Act. The
'limited' number of people this benefits appear to be nearly
everyone. The section regarding women, minorities, etc. has so
many different subsections that nearly anyone can qualify, and
even if you don't, the act does't PROSCRIBE you from carrying.
You can still be allowed under other laws. Gang members, most of
whom have criminal records, would be excluded by the conditions
of the act, not permitted. It appears evident to me, the
gender/racial conditions, etc. were added to get it to pass, or
force the politicians to make some tough choices regarding support
of minorities women, and handicapped, etc. vs opposition to
firearms. Also, if the act does pass, and is successful, then
who says it has to stop there? More provisions can be amended
to the act to include anyone else, this would be a great foot in
the door for private firearm ownership and personal protection.
Category 8, Topic 14
Message 121 Tue Aug 06, 1991
KURTAMESBURY [GUNNER] at 00:21 EDT
Who drafted the act?
Kurt
Category 8, Topic 14
Message 122 Tue Aug 06, 1991
SOFTSERV [NeilSchulman] at 01:39 EDT
Kurt, I've read the Levinson article, and it's terrifically
useful.
Bazooka, you understood the purpose of the act \precisely\. It's
intended to expose the hidden agenda of the anti-gunners: they don't
care about crime or victims; all they care about is making sure that
the only armed people are subject to \their\ orders. By turning their
own rhetoric against them -- focusing on the \actual\ victims who
need to be afforded protection which the police can't give them --
we expose their rhetoric for being empty and, hopefully, force them
out into the open, where people can see the issue more clearly.
Confusion to the enemy!
As a general principle, when debating someone (I) Find out what
their political bias is; (II) then be a more extreme advocate of
it than they are. No point arguing conservative premises to a
liberal or liberal premises to aconservative. Out-conservative
the conservatives by making them be consistent to their desire for
a crime-free society; out-liberal the liberals by demanding that
they recognize the principle that innocent people cannot be
lumped in with criminals by the law.
Kurt, I drafted the Equal Protection Act. (I now take a bow or
duck, depending on whether those are roses or tomatoes being
tossed at me. <grin>)
------------
An electronic letter about the Act:
Item 8112696 91/08/05 18:10
From: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
To: R.COHEN27 Richard M. Cohen
S.HENRY8 Steve Henry
cc: SOFTSERV J. Neil Schulman
Sub: Equal Protection Act
Regarding your comments in the CESA topic:
To be excluded from the right to carry firearms, one would have
to be:
1) An illegal alien;
2) Under 18 unless in the military, ROTC, or military academy;
3) A person convicted of a violent crime, or legally criminally
insane;
\or\
4) A physically perfect single, unengaged, non-cohabitating male
under 50 with no children, minors, or senior citizens in his
family or under his care, \and\ whose ancestry, religion, sexual
preference, race, color, national origin or creed has never
suffered from a hate crime (which includes White-Anglo-Saxon-
Protestant-Americans, African-Americans, Native Americans,
Jewish-Americans, Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, German-
Americans, Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Gay Americans,
Catholic-Americans, Armenian-Americans, Cambodian-Americans,
Vietnamese-Americans, Arab-Americans, Lebanese-Americans, Greek-
Americans, Turkish-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Muslim-
Americans, East-Indian-Americans, etc.), \and\ who has never
personally suffered from any sort of crime, \and\ who never
lives, works, owns, or rents property in a city or town where
the public police can't prevent crime \before\ it happens, \and\
who is \never\ responsible for the safety of any woman, child,
person-over-50, physically-imperfect individual, discriminated-
against minority, crime victim, crime-ridden-city-or-town-dweller
or worker.
And if you can find one, this guy doesn't \need\ a gun, anyway.
Neil
ABOUT J. NEIL SCHULMAN
J. NEIL SCHULMAN is the author of two novels, much short fiction
and nonfiction, and screenwritings, as well as being the founder
and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing
company to distribute "paperless books" via personal computers
and modems.
Schulman's first novel, ALONGSIDE NIGHT (Crown hardcover
1979, Ace paperback 1982, Avon paperback 1987, SoftServ 1990), a
prophetic story of an America beset by inflation and revolution,
was endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel laureate Milton
Friedman, and received widely positive reviews, including the Los
Angeles Times and Publisher's Weekly. The novel, published in
1979, anticipated such 1980's and 1990's problems as increased
gang violence and homelessness, economic chaos such as the recent
stock market crash and S&L crisis, and political trends such as
the economic and political unification of Europe in 1992. In
1989, ALONGSIDE NIGHT was entered into the "Prometheus Hall of
Fame" for classic works of fiction promoting liberty.
THE RAINBOW CADENZA (Simon & Schuster hardcover 1983, New
English library paperback 1984, Avon paperback 1986, SoftServ
1989) was his second novel, winning the 1984 Prometheus Award,
and was the basis for an all-classical-music LASERIUM concert
which played for several years in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and
Boston. It's the story of a young girl in the 22nd Century who
must fight the sexual exploitation of her era to pursue a career
as a performer of "lasegraphy," a classical form of visual music
evolved from the current laser shows. The book received
favorable comments from such diverse authors as psychologist/
bestseller Nathaniel Branden, British author Colin Wilson, and
the late Robert A. Heinlein.
Schulman also wrote the "Profile in Silver" episode,
exploring the JFK assassination, for The Twilight Zone TV series
on CBS, which was run three times in network prime time in 1986
and 1987, and which can now be seen in syndication.
Schulman's novels, collected writings, and screenwriting
are appearing in SoftServ editions. His latest book, THE ROBERT
HEINLEIN INTERVIEW AND OTHER HEINLEINIANA, was just released by
SoftServ.
Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce
the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the
individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a
constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the first,
fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments.
|