Combat Arms
                                 2869 Grove Way
                      Castro Valley, California 94546-6709
                            Telephone (415) 538-6544
                               BBS: (415) 537-1777
                                  March 5, 1991


          The following is an extract from an article appearing in the
          January, 1991 issue of the "American Rifleman" and was
          supplied by Tom Wilkes through the RTKBA Echo.

                         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

          On November 8, 1990 the Indiana Supreme Court handed down a
     decision that may be one of the most valuable pieces of case law to
     date for gun owners.

          The case originated ten years ago and involved the then-Mayor
     and Police Chief of Gary Indiana. In defiance of state law the Mayor
     and Police Chief, in January of 1980, declared that further carry
     permits for handguns, would not be accepted.

          Several persons, who had been refused permits, filed a civil suit
     against the Mayor and Police Chief.

          One of the plaintiffs attorneys, Michael Katz, commented that
     "One of the most important aspects of this case is that power-hungry
     officials now act at their own peril." Katz also estimated that the
     damages awarded would be over half a million dollars. The defendants
     will be liable for the damages, not the city of Gary or the State of
     Indiana.

          Indiana has a right to keep and bear arms clause in their
     constitution; however, it is of utmost significance that the Court
     ruled the right to be a liberty and property interest, protected both
     under the Indiana Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
     U.S. Constitution. The Court stated, in part, "This interest is one of
     liberty to the extent that it enables the law abiding citizens to be
     free from the threat and danger of violent crime. There is also a
     property interest at state, for example, in protecting ones valuables
     when transporting them, as in the case of a business man who brings a
     sum of cash to deposit in his bank across town."

          Katz used Section 1983 of the U.S. Code to win the case. This
     section states, "Every person, who under color of any statute,
     ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or territory,
     subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
     or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
     of any civil rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
     constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
     action at law, suit in equity, or other property proceedings for
     redress."

          This code is almost identical to a law enacted in 1871 to enforce
     the Anti-Ku Klux Klan Act, of the same year. A primary intent of this
     Act was to stop the systematic disarming of freed slaves, by local and
     state governments, as well as organizations (KKK).

          This same section of U.S. Code was used in the successful
     prosecution of Orange County, Calif. sheriff Brad Gates in September of
     1990. Gates was found to have been guilty of issuing carry permits only
     to friends and campaign contributors.

          Anyway, while it surely is not of the importance of a US Supreme
     Court ruling that the Fourteenth applies to the Second Amendment, it
     does provide all-important case law, establishing the right to keep
     and bear arms as a civil right; and thus a right that politicians can
     be personally prosecuted for violating.

                              -= END OF ARTICLE =-