Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0/Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO/tezcat/Guns/CCW_Case.txt

Text File | 1996-07-08 | 31KB | 638 lines

From the Radio Free Michigan archives

ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
[e-mail].
------------------------------------------------

     The Case For a Concealed Weapon's Permit in Los Angeles

 A Refutation of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners'
      Policy Concerning Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons

                       by J. Neil Schulman


     The Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners takes the
position that the private citizen can be adequately protected on
the streets of Los Angeles without the need for carrying firearms
for personal protection.  This position is reflected in the Board
Policy Concerning Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons, which
reads as follows:

     "By operation of California law, Penal Code Section 12050,
     the Board of Police Commissioners has the discretionary
     authority to issue a license to carry a concealed weapon to
     a resident of the county provided that the person is of good
     moral character and that good cause exists for issuance of
     the license.

     "However, experience has revealed that concealed firearms
     carried for protection not only provide a false sense of
     security but further that the licensee is often a victim of
     his own weapon or the subject of a civil or criminal case
     stemming from an improper use of the weapon.

     "It is the Board's considered judgment that utilization of
     standard commercial security practices furnishes a security
     which is both more safe and more sure than that which
     obtains from the carrying of a concealed weapon.

     "For these reasons, considering the dangers to society
     resulting from possession and use of concealed weapons, it
     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."

     First, I will argue that the Board's policy regarding what
constitutes "good cause" under PC 12050 is based on a set of
incorrect facts and assumptions in general; and in specific, that
the Board's prior requirements regarding "good cause" are further
inapplicable following the riots, murders, lootings, and
torchings following the Rodney King beating verdict;

     Second, I will demonstrate that the Board's policy proceeds
on a misunderstanding of the discretion regarding "good cause"
that the Board is allowed under PC 12050, as that law must be
interpreted according to the California Constitution; and

     Third, I will demonstrate that for the average person there
are no reasonable alternatives to firearms for defense.


                               I.

     In satisfying my first argument, let me analyze the Board
Policy in detail.

     A. The Board Policy states, "However, experience has
revealed that concealed firearms carried for protection not only
provide a false sense of security but further that the licensee
is often a victim of his own weapon or the subject of a civil or
criminal case stemming from an improper use of the weapon."

     The first statement is that concealed firearms carried for
protection provide a "false sense of security."

     A study by Gary Kleck, Ph.D., a criminologist from the
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, Florida, which he summarized at the
August 29 through September 1, 1991, Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, states: "Each year about
1500 - 2800 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding
American civilians in justifiable or excusable homicides, far
more than are killed by police officers.  There are perhaps
600,000 - 1 million defensive uses of guns each year ... People
who use guns for self-protection in robberies and assaults are
less likely to have the crime completed against them (in a
robbery, this means losing their property), and, contrary to
widespread belief, are \less likely to be injured\, compared to
either victims who use other forms of resistance or to victims
who do nothing to resist.  (Criminals take the gun away from the
victim in less than 1% of these incidents.)  The evidence does
not support the idea that nonresistance is safer than resisting
with a gun."

     The Board's position can additionally be refuted by
reference to three incidents involving individuals I have
personally interviewed where concealed firearms carried for
protection have provided real protection, rather than a false
sense of security.

     The first case is that of Montebello, CA Reserve Police
Officer Justin Feffer.  After changing to plainclothes and going
off-duty, in a 1991 incident, Officer Feffer drove to his home in
Los Angeles County when he was attacked by a gang of "follow-
home" robbers who did not know that he was a police officer and
was carrying a concealed .45 caliber semi-auto pistol.  Officer
Feffer was confronted by the robbers, and successfully defended
himself against them by drawing his weapon and firing at them,
fatally wounding one of the attackers, and driving the others
away.  I have interviewed Officer Feffer, and it is his judgment
that his police training gave him no special advantage over any
private citizen who is trained in the use of firearms, in the
circumstances of defending himself against attack.

     The second case is that of Thomas Glenn Terry, a postal
clerk, who on December 17, 1991, successfully used his .45 semi-
auto pistol, which he carried under a concealed-carry weapons
permit, to defend himself, his wife, and twenty customers and
employees of a Shoney's Restaurant in Anniston, Alabama, from
two armed robbers who had begun robbing the restaurant and had
taken Mr.Terry's wife and the restaurant's other customers and
employees hostage in the restaurant's cooler.  When the armed
robbers in turn drew their guns on Mr. Terry, he fired at
them, critically wounding one of them, and killing the second.

     The third case took place at midnight on Friday, September
18th, 1992, when former top-ranked boxer Randy Shields was
sitting at his usual table at the 4 & 20 Pie Shop in Studio City,
writing a screenplay.  Suddenly, two masked robbers burst in with
a shotgun blast and handgun fire.  Shields dropped to the floor;
the robbers immediately shot at him, winging his leg.  Dragging
himself into the darkened back room, Shields watched as the
robbers pistol-whipped a busboy to get him to open the cash
register, then shot through his shoe when he couldn't do it.
"Somebody's gonna die tonight!" one of the robbers yelled, then
opened fire toward several customers and waitresses, ordering
them to hand over their wallets.  Shields saw his opportunity to
fire without endangering bystanders.  He pulled out his
concealed .380 Walther PPK/S pistol, which he carries licensed as
a part-time private bodyguard, and opened fire on the robbers,
wounding them.  They ran out to the parking lot where their
driver was waiting; Shields put a couple of bullets into the
getaway car, then ran out of ammunition.  The robbers opened fire
on him again and he dived back into the restaurant.  The robbers
squealed out to Laurel Canyon then pulled a U-turn so they
could fire a few extra rounds into the restaurant.  Aside from
Randy Shields's minor leg wound, and the busboy's bruises, none
of the restaurant's employees or customers were hurt.  The
robbers called an ambulance to treat their gunshot wounds,
claiming to be victims of a drive-by shooting.  But the bullets
Randy Shields put into their getaway car -- and a bullet hole
Shields had put in a wad of money from two previous robberies
they'd committed that night -- were enough for police to make an
arrest.

     Numerous other examples of successful use of a firearm in
self-defense have been compiled by the National Rifle
Association, drawn from published newspaper accounts, and
republished in the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column in \American
Rifleman\ and \American Hunter\.  Since 1977, the "Armed Citizen"
column has begun with the following statement, which is verified
by the thousands of accounts that column has published, "Mere
presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime
in many instances as shown by news reports sent in to The Armed
Citizen.  Shooting usually can be justified only where crime
constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life or limb, or in
some circumstances, property.  The accounts are from clippings
sent in by NRA members.  Anyone is free to quote or reproduce
them."  Many of these accounts have also been republished in the
book \The Armed Citizen\, edited by Joseph B. Roberts, Jr.

     Finally, in sworn testimony to a legislative committee of
the Texas legislature, Dr. Suzanna Gratia, a survivor of the
restaurant massacre of 23 people in Killeen, Texas on October 16,
1991, who lost both of her parents in that massacre (as reported
by the \San Antonio Express-News\ of Feb. 13, 1992) said,
"I'm not saying that I could have stopped this guy, but I would
have had a chance."  According to the \Express-News\, Dr. Gratia
had left her gun in her car because it was a crime to carry it in
her purse and she didn't want to be arrested.  "The point of this
is," Dr. Gratia said, "someone legislated me out of the right to
protect myself and my loved ones."

     B. The second claim in the Board Policy "that the licensee
is often a victim of his own weapon or the subject of a civil or
criminal case stemming from an improper use of the weapon," is
likewise false.

     The Kleck study provides the first refutation.

     Since the City of Los Angeles has not issued a license to
carry a concealed firearm since 1967, it is impossible to provide
current statistics for Los Angeles, beyond the clear statement
that with no licenses available, there has been no possible
licensed use of concealed firearms by private citizens, proper or
improper.  Similarly, since so few licenses are issued by other
similar-sized municipalities in California -- Santa Monica has
also issued no licenses for over 25 years, and the County of Los
Angeles currently has fewer than 400 licenses out -- one must go
to another populous state for a sizable database, which disproves
the Board's claim.

     For the past five years, Florida has had a liberal policy on
issuing concealed-carry-weapons permits: a citizen who can pass a
background check and prove competency in firearms safety and
usage, can get a license.

     According to the Division of Licensing, Florida Department
of State, out of 133,852 applications received between October 1,
1987 and July 31, 1992, 476 were denied for criminal history
and 93,541 licenses were issued.  Revoked for crime after
licensure: 84 (9 one hundredths of 1%).  Revoked for a crime
utilizing a firearm: 17 (2 one hundredths of 1%).  Revoked for
"other": 12 (1 one hundredth of 1%).  These statistics show that
there is no significant danger to the public from the misuse of
firearms by holders of concealed-carry weapons permits in
Florida, and it would be odd indeed if the Board were to hold
that the citizens of Florida are in any sense more prudent or
careful than the citizens of California.

     C. The Board policy claims that, "It is the Board's
considered judgment that utilization of standard commercial
security practices furnishes a security which is both more safe
and more sure than that which obtains from the carrying of a
concealed weapon.  This judgment is in accord with the view of
the California Peace Officers Association -- expressed formally
on two occasions in 1968 and 1973 'that all permits to carry
concealed weapons by private individuals in the State of
California be revoked and that the legislation authorizing the
issuance of such permits be repealed.'"

     "Standard commercial security practices" are entirely
inapplicable and inappropriate to the discussion of individual
self-defense, in that (1) it presumes that a private individual
has the resources to hire an armed, uniformed guard to provide
security to an individual while on the street; (2) such a
presumption could only apply to the wealthy businessperson who
could afford, or whose company could afford, to provide such
protection, and such presumption is discriminatory against all
but the wealthy; (3) it presumes that armored vehicles capable of
withstanding armed assault are possible or appropriate
transportation for private citizens, which is discriminatory
against all but the wealthy; and (4) it presumes that any
emergency response system which is capable of summoning either
police or armed guards is available to a private citizen who is
alone on the street, and that even with an available telephone, a
private person on the street would be able to evade an attacker in
order to call for help, or persuade an attacker to cease attack
while the victim calls police for help.  All of these assumptions
are highly improbable and useless for a realistic discussion of
personal defense of the ordinary person against violent
attackers.

     Regarding the opinion of the California Peace Officers
Association from 1968 and 1973, it is not in accord with the
views of police officers as collected in a survey conducted in
1991.

     In a survey of 25,000 subscribers to \Law Enforcement
Technology\ Magazine, the results of which were published in the
July/August 1991 issue of that magazine, 92.7% of chiefs,
sheriffs, and top police management, 91.1 percent of police
middle management, and 94.5% of street officers, responded "Yes"
to the question, "Should private citizens use handguns for
personal protection?"  In addition, 60% of chiefs, sheriffs, and
top police management, 68% percent of police middle management,
and 73% of street officers, responded "No" to the question, "Do
you support a ban on concealed weapons?"

     D.  The Board's policy has presumed either that violent
criminal attack is infrequent enough that the ordinary person is
unlikely to need protection or that in the event of an attack
that the ordinary person can safely rely on the emergency
response system to summon police quickly enough for effective
protection against such an attack.

     1. Starting with the general and moving to the more
specific, the report of the 4th National Poll of America's Police
Chiefs for the Year 1991, which polled every sheriff and chief of
police in the United States, provided the answer that 72.3% of
those police personnel polled responded "Yes" to the question,
"Would you agree with the statement that because of a lack of
police manpower that you can no longer provide the type of
service and crime prevention activities that you did ten years
ago?"

     2. Moving the question specifically to Los Angeles, 64% of
Los Angeles residents felt that their city was unsafe, according
to a Gallup poll conducted in 1990.

     3. Los Angeles has 229 police officers per 100,000 residents
-- lower than Washington D.C., (658), Detroit (458), Chicago
(396), Philadelphia (379), Atlanta (356), Boston (352), New York
(351), Dallas (248), or Houston (239), and in 1989 (latest
available statistics) had 9,272 crimes per 100,000 residents
(sixth in the nation), including 25 homicides per 100,000 (ninth
in the nation).

     Clearly, Los Angeles residents have had a reason to feel
unsafe on the streets.  An increase in violent crimes such as
follow-home robberies, automobile theft at gunpoint, and crimes
where individuals were robbed when auto accidents were staged
requiring victims to exit their vehicles to exchange licenses,
speaks clearly to that lack of safety, even during "normal"
times.  The Board's underlying assumption about the lack of
necessity for concealed weapons was questionable even before the
riots, looting, and hate crimes following the Rodney King beating
trial verdict caused the city to erupt into civil unrest.

     After the events following the Rodney King beating trial
verdict, there can be no further question.  As of May 3, 1992, we
saw thousands of buildings either burned or destroyed by
looting; we had over 50 deaths, most by gunfire, and several
thousand injuries -- several hundred of them critical injuries.

     It took four nights of city-wide curfews, 5,000 of Los
Angeles Police, 2,370 California Highway Patrol, 2,195 outside
agency law-enforcement personnel, 7,000 National Guard, 1,000
Federal law-enforcement personnel, and 4,500 U.S. Army and U.S.
Marine Corps troops -- an armed force of approximately 22,065 to
pacify the city.  But for the first two days of violence, police
and National Guard manpower was almost entirely incapable of
providing any sort of protection of life or property to the
population of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Compton, and other areas
of Los Angeles County.

     A significant number of the attacks were racially-motivated
hate crimes.  Matthew Haines of Long Beach, described in a \Los
Angeles Times\ report as a "white 32-year-old mechanic," was,
according to the \Times\, "gunned down after he was stopped by a
mob of black men and teenagers as he and his nephew, Scott
Coleman, 26, rode Haines' motorcycle to a friend's apartment in
Long Beach."

     Reginald Denny, a trucker, was pulled from his truck and
beaten to within an inch of his life by a mob in South Central
Los Angeles.  Denny was white, the mob was black --there is no
question that it was a hate crime.  It was only by the
intervention of black good Samaritans that Denny was not killed.

     A list of fatalities published by the \Los Angeles Times\ of
Sunday, May 3, 1992 (Page A-10), includes the following:

                              ***

     Wednesday:

     8:15 PM: Louis Watson, 18, of West 43rd Place was fatally
wounded by a gunshot to the head at a bus stop at Vernon and
Vermont Avenues.

     Moments later: Dwight Taylor, a 42-year-old black man, was
fatally shot at 446 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

     9:00 PM: Arturo Miranda, 20, of West 120th Street was
fatally shot in his car at 120th Street and Central Avenue.

     9:26 PM: Edward Travens, a 15-year-old white youth, was
killed in a drive-by shooting at San Fernando Road and Workman
Street in the San Fernando Valley community of Mission Hills.
Coroner's officials said they had reason to believe it was linked
to racial unrest.

     10:40 PM: Anthony Netherly, 21, a black man, was fatally
shot at 78th and San Pedro Streets.

     11:15 PM: Elbert Wilkins, 33, a black man, died at Martin
Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center after being shot in the back
at 92nd Street and Western Avenue.

     11:45 PM: Ernest Neal Jr., 27, a black man, died after being
shot in the head in the same incident at 92nd Street and Western
Avenue.

     Thursday:

     12:10 AM: Ira McMurry, 45, a white man, was fatally shot at
102nd Street and Avalon Boulevard.  McMurry was shot in the head
when he tried to stop looters from burning the liquor store next
to his house.

     12:30 AM: Deandre Harrison, a 17-year-old black youth, was
shot at 114th Street and Slauson Avenue and later died at Martin
Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center.

     12:30 PM: An unidentified black man died of gunshot wounds
at Rosecrans and Chester Avenues in Compton.

     1:30 PM: After flying to Los Angeles to inspect his machine
shop, Howard Epstein of Orinda, Calif. was shot to death near 7th
and Slauson Avenues and his car was ransacked by looters.

     1:35 PM: Jose L. Garcia Jr., 15, died of gunshot wounds at
Fresno Street and Atlantic Avenue.

     5:00 PM: Patrick Bettan, 30, a white male, died of gunshot
wounds suffered at 2740 W. Olympic Boulevard.

     5:32 PM: A 49-year-old Latino male was gunned down at 3rd
Street and Vermont Avenue.

     About 6:30 PM: Matthew Haines fatally shot.

     9:37 PM: Eduardo Vela, a 34-year-old Latino male, died of
gunshot wounds, suffered at 5142 W. Slauson Avenue.

     Time unknown: A man was found shot to death at Willowbrook
Avenue and Alondra Boulevard.

     Time unknown: A man was shot to death at Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard and Rhea Street.

     8:21 PM: A 32-year-old male Latino was stabbed to death at
2034 W. Pico Blvd.

     Friday:

     12:52 AM: A 25-year-old Latino male died of gunshot wounds
suffered at Vermont Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard.

     1:10 AM: Kevin Evanahen, 24, died while trying to put out a
fire at a check-cashing store at Braddock Drive and Inglewood
Boulevard.

     4:45 PM: Meeker Gibson, 35, a black male, was shot to death
at Holt Street and Loranne Avenue in Pomona.

     Time unknown: A 19-year-old Latino male was shot to death at
4028 Santa Monica Boulevard.

     Time unknown: A black male was shot to death at 614 S.
Locust St. in Compton.

     Time unknown: A male Latino was brought dead on arrival to
County-USC Medical Center with a gunshot wound.  The location of
the shooting was not known.

     1:58 PM: Lucie Maronian, 51, a female Anglo, was stabbed to
death on East New York Drive in Altadena.  The coroner said
sheriff's investigators considered the case to be riot-related.

     Early evening: A 68-year-old white male was strangled at a
looting scene at 11690 Gateway St. Coroner's officials said the
man might have been a store proprietor trying to stop looting.
.pa
     8:19 PM: A 32-year-old black man died of a gunshot wound at
Daniel Freeman Memorial Hospital.

                              ***


     In Koreatown, merchants unable to get any police protection
found themselves, and their firearms, the only thing standing
between gangs of arsonists and looters and their stores.

     Elsewhere in Los Angeles, citizens blocked off neighborhood
streets and stood armed guard to prevent looters and arsonists
from entering.

     Clearly, the ordinary police force available to the City of
Los Angeles to provide protection to the public is inadequate to
extraordinary times ... and we are living in extraordinary times.


                              II.

     I will now demonstrate that the Board's policy proceeds
on a misunderstanding of the discretion regarding "good cause"
that the Board is allowed under PC 12050, as that law must be
interpreted according to the California Constitution.

     Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution reads as
follows:  "All people are by nature free and independent, and
have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of
enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing,
and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety,
happiness, and privacy." (as amended 7 November 1972.)

     The California Constitution, itself, defines "good cause"
for the purposes of PC 12050: good cause for carrying a firearm
is defined as "defending life and liberty," "protecting
property," and "pursuing and obtaining safety."  The discretion
mandated by PC 12050 to the Board is therefore on the question of
"good moral character."

     Further, not only do the people of California have these
rights to defend and protect ourselves defined under the
California Constitution, but the California Government Code
specifically relieves all government entities and employees from
any responsibility for protecting the public.

     California Government Code, Section 845, states, "Neither a
public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to
establish a police department or otherwise provide police
protection service or, if police protection service is provided,
for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

     Section 846 states, "Neither a public entity nor a public
employee is liable for injury caused by the failure to make an
arrest or by the failure to retain an arrested person in
custody."

     Section 845.8 states, "Neither a public entity nor a public
employee is liable for (a) Any injury resulting from determining
whether to parole or release a prisoner or from determining the
terms and conditions of his parole or release or from determining
whether to revoke his parole or release.  (b) Any injury caused
by (1) An escaping or escaped prisoner; (2) An escaping or
escaped arrested person; or (3) A person resisting arrest."

     Section 845.2 states, "Except as provided in Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 830), neither a public entity nor a
public employee is liable for failure to provide a prison, jail
or penal or correctional facility, or, if such facility is
provided, for failure to provide sufficient equipment, personnel,
or facilities therein.

     Clearly, California law provides no responsibility for the
police to provide protection to the public, nor any liability
whatsoever for failure to do so and just as clearly, the
California Constitution defines the people themselves as the
holder of both that right and the resulting responsibility.


                             III.

     My exploration of alternative methods of defense prove them
completely inadequate to defense against violent hate crimes or
vicious attack.

     Here are some of the alternative methods of defense I have
looked into:

     1.  Martial Arts.  Martial arts training requires that an
individual, to be successful, must be physically fit and trained
to such a high degree that one is capable of taking on several
opponents at once.  Even Los Angeles Police Officers are not
professionally trained to that degree, and the martial artist who
can be so trained, and maintain such a skill level, is rare.
Further, Dr. Keith Kato, a second \dan\ Black Belt in karate with a
doctorate in physics, who has written a thesis on the physics of
martial arts, has concluded that martial arts are of virtually no
use against an attacker armed with a firearm, since the firearm
can be successfully fired before the martial artist can come
within range to disarm the attacker.

     2. Mace.  Mace requires a direct hit on the upper body of an
attacker, and even in the undiluted strength available to police
officers, Mace is frequently ineffective at stopping an attacker.
Mace must be used at the range of several feet distance, and at
that range, an attacker can frequently disarm the victim of the
Mace before it can be used.  Further, even if the Mace hits the
attacker under optimal conditions, an attacker who is full of
adrenaline, or stimulants such as crack cocaine or PCP, or de-
pressants such as alcohol or heroin, will be largely immune to
the effects of Mace.

     3. Stun Guns.  As we saw in the Rodney King beating
videotape, even under conditions used by a trained professional
such as Sergeant Stacey Koon, a Taser gun will not necessarily be
effective in incapacitating the recipient of the Taser darts,
and a Taser is a more powerful stun gun than is available to the
public.  As for stun guns requiring close-range contact, they
require allowing an attacker to get close enough to attack before
such a device can be brought into use.

     4. Knives.  Knife-fighting is a high art, like martial arts,
and unless a knife-fighter is so trained, she or he is more
likely to be disarmed or defeated by an attacker than be able to
use a knife successfully in a self-defense.  Knife-fighting is
effective only in close-range hand-to-hand combat, and the
outcome of such combat is highly dubious for anyone who is not
both in top form and in top physical condition.  Further, private
citizens are restricted from carrying a knife as a defensive
weapon.

     The Kleck study confirms this analysis with statistics
regarding the successful use of firearms in self-defense, as
opposed to all other strategies, including complete non-
resistance, and concludes, "People who use guns for self-
protection in robberies and assaults ... contrary to widespread
belief, are \less likely to be injured\, compared to either victims
who use other forms of resistance or to victims who do nothing to
resist.  (Criminals take the gun away from the victim in less
than 1% of these incidents.)  The evidence does not support the
idea that nonresistance is safer than resisting with a gun."


                              IV.

     We have seen that there is a clear and present danger to
the lives of the citizens of Los Angeles from both epidemic
daily crime and the extraordinary dangers from criminal attacks
in the aftermath of the Rodney King beating trial acquittal.

     Further, we have seen that the citizenry cannot rely upon
organized law enforcement for protection or defense against such
crime; that by law the people have the right to defend
themselves; that there is no responsibility under the California
Government Code for any public entity to provide protection to
the public, and no liability to any public entity or employee
for failure to protect the public.

    We have strong evidence -- both statistical and from case
studies -- that firearms in the hands of private citizens
provide a defense that is superior to available alternatives,
and that firearms in the hands of those licensed to carry them
after a background check and minimal training represent no
statistically significant threat to public order or safety.

     No other conclusion can be reached than that the Los
Angeles Board of Police Commissioners' Policy Concerning
Licenses to Carry Concealed Weapons is in error, and that
the Chief of Police of the City of Los Angeles, as charged
under PC 12050, must immediately resume issuing licenses to
carry concealed weapons to citizens of Los Angeles County
who can pass a background check showing good moral
character.

     -- J. Neil Schulman
        Founder and Chair
        The Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment


------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.


All files are ZIP archives for fast download.

 E-mail [e-mail])