Day: January 17, 2002

Here’s a Surpise — Gun Control Advocates Distort Facts

Americans for Gun Safety recently released a report claiming that as many as 10,000 felons were allowed to buy guns because of inadequate systems to conduct background checks. But, not surprisingly, this claim relies on a sleight of hand.

In Kansas, for example, Americans for Gun Safety claimed that 375 people who were either felons or otherwise disqualified from buying guns were nonetheless able to buy a weapon because the background check took longer than the required three days. But as The Wichita Eagle pointed out, this simply is not true.

The figures come from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms statistics on the number of background checks that took more than three days. But as a BATF official told The Witchita Eagle, just because a background check takes more than three days does not mean that the person trying to buy a gun was a felon, nor does it mean that the person in question was actually able to buy a weapon.

ATF spokesman Larry Scott told the Eagle, “We check all those out. And in a great many cases, it turns out the person shouldn’t have been blocked anyway. They may just have had the same name (as someone with a criminal record).”

In fact, if the report eventually comes back that the person indeed had a felony, the BATF will dispatch agents to seize the gun.

If his academic career should end prematurely, maybe Michael Bellisles could go to work for these folks at Americans for Gun Safety.

Source:

Officials dispute that felons buy guns. Ron Sylvester, The Wichita Eagle, January 17, 2002.

Is Tom Ridge Calling up the Psychic Hotline?

New York Magazine reports on a number of psychics who claim that the Federal government has contacted them for help in the ongoing terrorist investigation. If this sort of claim had been made say 10 years ago, I’d have dismissed it out of hand, but the reality is that until 1995 the CIA was throwing American tax dollars at psychics as part of an exploration of the potential intelligence uses of “remote viewing,” so it’s not inconceivable that this could be going on.

Psychic Prudence Calabrese claims that she has been in contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but then again Calabrese also claims she has been in contact with 3-foot-tall alien as well. The FBI denies using Calabrese, but New York Magazine quotes an unnamed former Justice Department lawyer as claiming that Calabrese has been taken seriously by the government before.

Lyn Buchanan, who was one of the psychics involved in the CIA research, claims that the CIA renewed its contacts with him after the 9/11 attacks.

(And aren’t you glad the CIA spent that money on psychics rather than trying to apprehend Osama Bin Laden in the 1990s?)

Tony Blair Says He Supports Huntingdon Life Sciences

The Financial Times (London) reported today that British Prime Minister Tony Blair condemned in strong language the violent campaign against |Huntingdon Life Science| by animal rights extremists.

Responding to Huntingdon Member of Parliament Jonathan Djanogly, Blair said that animal rights terrorists are “totally and utterly beyond the pale.” Blair went on to say,

These are criminal acts, for that very reason we are tightening the law in order ot make sure that we deal with these people in a more satisfactory and quicker way. . . . People are perfectly entitled to their strong views on animal welfare but I think it would be deeply regrettable if we lost any part of the scientific endeavor in this country, and certainly that company will have our full support in making sure that the actions of these people do not succeed.

Source:

Blair backs research lab. Robert Shrimsley, The Financial Times (London), January 17, 2002.

Police in Great Britain Investigate Anti-Hunt Group

Police in Great Britain are investigating the Surrey Anti-Hunt Campaign after it allegedly sent letters that could be interpreted as attempts at intimidation and/or blackmail.

There has been an active and very violent campaign against hunting in Surrey County. In 2001, for example, activists set fire to two vehicles that belonged to a Dr. Richard Cockerill. Cockerill was not a hunter, but his name ended up on a list of fox hunters that was circulated by Surrey Anti-Hunt Campaign. In October, a hunting supporters jeep was fire bombed. In October 2000, an incendiary device was detonated in a van owned by a hunt supporter, and another device was found in the car of another hunt supporter (though the device was discovered before it went off).

Recently hunting supporters received letters in the mail which were clearly a veiled threat. Signed by Andrew Batchelor of the Surrey Anti-Hunt Campaign, the letter read, in part,

We are led to understand that a number of supporters [of hunting] are intending not to renew their subscriptions to the hunt or be involved with them in any way. If you are on of those people we commend you (sic) decision to dissociate yourself from the history of trouble this hunt has been connected with. To prevent misunderstandings, we are requesting that you detach and return the slip below, stating whether you have severed your connections with the Old Surrey and Burstow with West Kent Hunt or whether you will be continuing as a supporter.

Several hunt supporters turned the letters over to police who are investigating the matter.

Source:

Hunt saboteurs are accused of blackmail over ‘amnesty’ offer. Charles Clover, The Daily Telegraph, January 17, 2002.

SHAC Wants to Force Stephens Group to Continue Lawsuit

When Stephens Group originally filed its multimillion dollar lawsuit against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, SHAC and other animal rights groups accused the company of trying to suppress free speech. Now Stephens is trying to drop its lawsuit while SHAC plans on asking a court to force Stephens to proceed with the lawsuit.

In a joint action in April 2001, Huntingdon Life Sciences sued SHAC seeking $2 million in damages and Stephens sued seeking $7 million. The lawsuit accused SHAC of violating the |Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations| statute and sought compensation for the poor performance of HLS.

Stephens recently announced that it had sold its investment in HLS to an as-yet undisclosed buyer. SHAC’s Kevin Jonas told The Financial Times (London) that it had been notified by Stephens that the company plans to drop its lawsuit. Jonas said that SHAC will seek to have the lawsuit proceed.

“We want this suit against us to proceed,” Jonas told The Financial Times. “The whole basis for it conflicts with Stephens’ argument for selling out last week. . . . We want Stephens to go against us in court, because we belive they will be forced to disclose the exact nature of their relationships with HLS.”

Jonas and SHAC seem to think that Stephens Group is maintaining some sort of business relationship with HLS. If so, SHAC seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth, on the one hand claiming credit for driving Stephens to sever ties with HLS, and on the other hand seemingly claiming that Stephens really hasn’t cut ties with the company at all.

HLS will, of course, become Life Sciences Research sometime this week, and under Maryland law (where Life Sciences Research is incorporated), investors with less than a 5 percent stake can remain anonymous.

Source:

Protest group in court move. Patrick Jenkins, The Financial Times (London), January 15, 2002.

Terrorist Supporters Call for Day of Protest in Support of Craig Rosebraugh

On February 12, former Earth Liberation Front/Animal Liberation Front spokesperson Craig Rosebraugh is scheduled to make an appearance before a Congressional subcommittee investigating ecoterrorism.

The Congressional Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health subpoenaed Rosebraugh to testify before it, presumably to ask Rosebraugh questions about his knowledge of and participation in Earth Liberation Front activities. Rosebraugh has been subpoenaed by federal grand juries seven times and had his house raided twice in 1997, though so far he has yet to be indicted for participation in any crime.

According to a press release from the Frontline Information Service, Rosebraugh will not cooperate with the subcommittee. The press release claimed that activists in Washington, D.C., Boston, Los Angeles, and Portland will protest on behalf of Rosebraugh on Feb. 12, and adds that protest organizers “have made an open call for direct action on or around February 12.” Direct action, of course, being an animal rights euphemism for terrorism. Or as a web site set up by the protesters admonishes,

This February 12, 2002 Show your support for Craig Rosebraugh, the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, and those that risk their freedom to stop the destruction of life. Take direct action by any means necessary against the rotten imperialist U.S. system.

Another part of the site urges activists to “Follow your conscience and take direct action and any action necessary to stop the destruction of animals, humans, and the natural environment.” Of course, assuming that folks who carry out ALF actions have much of a conscience is a pretty big assumption.

Source:

National day of protests called against Congressional hearing on ecoterrorism. Frontline Information Service, Press Release, January 14, 2002.

ProtectCivilLiberties.Com. URL:http://www.protectcivilliberties.com/ Accessed: January 17, 2002.