Sarah, Jane ‘n Me

Or How I Almost Got Arrested For Trying to Ask a Question

[This originally appeared in a newsletter I was producing for the Westside Los Angeles NRA Members Council, 2nd Amendment West, Vol. 5, No.4, September/October 1996. I'm dusting it off because it's never appeared on the internet, the example of imperial arrogance it illustrates still holds true, and because the question of just who has the authority to declare someone a "journalist" is still being usurped.]

HARMAN AND BRADY STIFLE FREE SPEECH AT "PRESS CONFERENCE"

Shamelessly exploiting the memorial site of slain Manhattan Beach police officer Martin Ganz, Congresswoman Jane Harman and Handgun Control, Inc.'s Sarah Brady staged a "rally" on Sept. 5 to malign gun owners and to spread further distortions about your right to keep and bear arms.

Ostensibly held to announce Ms. Brady's support of Ms. Harman, the event quickly degenerated into a blatant propaganda festival, replete with a mock check from the NRA to Harman's opponent, Susan Brooks, and a display table full of "assault weapons." Both Jane and Sarah then went on to speak out against gun rights by decrying the need for hunters to use "weapons of war" (!), by somehow holding us responsible for the criminal actions of, er, criminals, and by trumpeting the absurd claim that the Brady Act has stopped over 100,000 felons from purchasing guns.

Fortunately, pro-gunners from the South Bay and Westside got wind of the event, and showed up in substantial numbers to protest both the anti-gun rights lies being promulgated, as well as Rep. Harman's abysmal attendance record (she has the worst in the California delegation, being "AWOL" from her duties about one day out of ten- imagine what your boss would do if you had an absenteeism rate of 10%).

Not content to repeal the Second Amendment, Ms. Harman and Ms. Brady also tried to squelch that pesky First, by not allowing questions from the crowd. That's right, public figures holding a public forum on public property would not entertain the concerns of the public! They would only take questions from the "media," and if we had any private concerns, they would have to be asked afterwards, one-on-one (i.e., out of earshot of the crowd, to avoid public exposure of their falsehoods). And knowing the media's antagonism to our rights, we're supposed to trust their objectivity?

I attempted to ask a question anyway, challenging Ms. Brady to disclose the author of the study resulting in the claim that 100,000 felons have been denied guns due to the Brady Law, to reveal the source of her data, the statistical methods used to collect and tabulate the data, and to publish the study and its conclusions in their entirety for peer scrutiny.

An unidentified man in a suit approached me from a group of Jane-and-Sarah-loving law enforcement honchos, and opined that what I was doing was "not free speech."(!!) He told me that questions were reserved for the press.

I responded that I was editor of this modest journal. He told me I did not have "legitimate credentials."

I countered (loudly, so that I would have witnesses) that I was not aware that I needed a permit to exercise my First Amendment rights under the Constitution, and challenged him to cite the law requiring a citizen to get permission to ask a question at a public event.

Seeing that his attempt at intimidation had failed, he turned around and walked back to the cadre of police officials he had emerged from. Still, I could not help feeling that his tactics were worthy of the KGB, and probably portend the shape of things to come if those who love control more than liberty prevail.

Refreshingly, challenger Susan Brooks held a press conference of her own following the Harman/Brady travesty, but one with two distinctive differences; anyone there was welcome to ask any question they wanted to, and (surprise!) the tv cameras somehow didn't make it to the Brooks event. It would seem the "credentialed" media, like my unidentified friend, aren't really very interested in presenting both sides of the issues. Surprise, indeed.