NRA Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACTS:

Jason Sorens, President Free State Project, Inc. Phone: (828) 225-1951 Email: info@freestateproject.org Website: www.freestateproject.org

Timothy Condon, Esq., Director of Member Services Free State Project, Inc. Phone: (813) 251-2626 Email: tcondon@freestateproject.org

NRA HAS OWN MEMBER ARRESTED AT NATIONAL CONVENTION

April 29, 2003 – The National Rifle Association apparently had one of its members, a pro-gun activist, arrested at its national convention on Sunday, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out pro-gun freedom literature from the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project. He was arrested by the Orange County Sheriff's Department Sunday for "trespassing" outside the Orange County Convention Center when he refused to leave or cease handing out the Free State Project literature (see sample).

"I believe there is a First Amendment problem with prohibiting people from passing out political literature on public property where there is no problem caused by it," said Condon, who also happens to be an attorney who practices law in Tampa, Florida. "What is even more bizarre to me is that the National Rifle Association would have one of its own members arrested for passing out literature that supports the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."

Condon, who was attending the NRA convention himself, was held for 10 hours at the Orange County Jail before being released on bond. Jason Sorens, founder and president of the Free State Project, vowed to explore legal action against the National Rifle Association. "This is just outrageous," said Sorens. "It appears that the NRA only supports the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution if it's done according to their orders. I really think members of the NRA need to question their loyalty to an organization that would have one of its own members arrested for passing out pro-gun literature at its own convention."

Condon, a longtime NRA member, vowed to plead not guilty to the charge of trespassing, and said he is considering canceling his membership in the organization. "It looks as if the Free State Project is a stronger supporter of the Second Amendment, not to mention the First Amendment, than the NRA," he quipped.

END

NH Reforms Nonresident Carry Rules

Original article:	www.gunweek.com/briefs.html
Date:	12/01/04
Title:	NH Reforms Nonresident Carry Rules
Author:
Publication:	Gun Week

---

NH Reforms Nonresident Carry Rules

12/01/04

The New Hampshire legislature's Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules approved revised gun licensing regulations that make anyone with a valid license to carry from any state, not just their own home state, eligible for a concealed carry license in New Hampshire.

Previously, only home state licensees were eligible. Evan Nappen, vice president of the Free State Project (FSP), reported that the link to the new "Chapter Saf-C 2100 Nonresident Pistol/Revolver License" rules as: www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/saf-c2100.html

For example, Nappen noted, Florida offers a "shall issue" carry license to any US citizen. With one of those licenses anyone can get a New Hampshire carry license, even if one's home state does not issue (such as New Jersey). The application for a "New Hampshire Non-resident Carry License" may be downloaded from the following link: webster.state.nh.us/safety/nhsp/documents/dssp260.pdf.

"Gun Owners of New Hampshire (GONH)-- www.gonh.org, the National Rifle Association and individual Free State Project (FSP) members working together can take credit for this change," Nappen said. Specifically GONH President and state Rep. Elbert Bicknell (R-73), GONH Director Sam Cohen, and NRA Board of Directors Member Scott Bach, Esq. (NJ) were the primary movers of this important change and deserve thanks, said Nappen, who also directly participated in the request for the change. This change greatly affects FSP participants who come from home states which do not offer a license to carry. Important thanks and credit are also due to New Hampshire Department of Safety Assistant Commissioner Earl M. Sweeney, Nappen noted.

This article is provided free by GunWeek.com.

---

More media articles about the FSP

These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by The Free State Project, a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship, and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107).

Target practice

Original article:	www.orlandoweekly.com/news/story.asp?ID=3945
Date:	05/15/03
Title:	Target practice
Author:	William Dean Hinton
Publication:	Orlando Weekly News

---

Target practice

By William Dean Hinton • 05/15/03

Someone didn't like Condon's message

It was the third day of the National Rifle Association's annual conference, April 27, and Tim Condon thought he was home free. He had already survived two days of sore feet, meddlesome security officers and zealous members of the Million Mom March yelling anti-gun slogans through a bull-horn.

Condon, a 53-year-old Tampa attorney, traveled to the Orange County Convention Center to hand out fliers and brochures promoting an idea both radical and conservative. Condon is a charter member of the Free State Project, a nonprofit organization that wants to enlist 20,000 Libertarian volunteers to relocate to one of the least-populated states, probably Wyoming or New Hampshire. The Libertarians, who are so conservative they don't believe in fighting the war on drugs any more than the war on Iraq, would then have a large enough voting block to dominate local and state governments. Free State advocates hope they can create their own kind of utopia – a state that will appeal to gun owners as much as pot smokers and low-tax fanatics. Already 3,500 people have agreed to relocate.

But day three of the conference, security guards suddenly took an interest in Condon, who was standing underneath a covered walkway outside the Orange County Convention Center. According to Condon, the guards asked him to cease and desist. He refused, so they contacted an Orange County deputy, who wanted to know what Condon was distributing.

The deputy also asked Condon to stop handing out pamphlets, but he refused, citing the First Amendment and the fact that the Convention Center is a well-traveled, public building. Condon was told to move to the sidewalk, a half-mile strip along the Convention Center where protesting is often conducted. But he says the sidewalk afforded no opportunity to interact with NRA members who were getting off shuttles and going in the front door. The deputy called his supervisor who, according to Condon, called another supervisor. By this time, about eight security guards and several deputies surrounded Condon.

Finally, one of the deputies verbally warned Condon he was trespassing. When Condon kept handing out fliers, the deputy gave him a written citation. When Condon continued his distribution, deputies put him in handcuffs and marched him through the Convention Center. Twelve hours later, he was released from the 33rd Street jail on a $500 bond.

The arrest is absurd for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the authority providing for it, the state's trespassing law, pertains to "a person who, without being authorized or invited, willfully enters or remains upon a property."

Condon is a member of the NRA. He registered for the free convention two months ago. He was distributing information to members of his own clan. "How can you be guilty of trespassing on a piece of property you were invited to come onto?" asks Frederick W. Vollrath, Condon's attorney.

Vollrath says the case will likely be thrown out as soon as an Orange County prosecutor is assigned to it. He's prepared to point out the large number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions showing that Condon had a right to distribute information on the very spot he was arrested.

Condon, meanwhile, blames the NRA for his arrest. He says legislative-affairs director Glen Caroline warned him to stop distributing fliers and that a security officer told him the arrest was approved by NRA leadership.

"Somebody decided to make a decision," Condon says. "The idiots at the NRA had one of their own members, a pro-gun rights advocate, arrested."

The NRA failed to return phone calls. But the Convention Center's manager of security and transportation, Greg Forehand, agrees with Condon, saying he was arrested "on behalf of the NRA management staff."

"We don't like to trespass anyone," Forehand says. "It's not what we are all about here. We believe in family. We believe in hospitality. These things are very important to us."

---

More media articles about the FSP

These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by The Free State Project, a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship, and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107).

Gun Rights

• Evan Nappen – FSP "Gun Rights" Community Liaison
  
  

• Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms – "The Common Sense Gun Lobby"

• Firearms Coalition

• FirearmNews.com – "The Pulse of the Pro Rights Community"

• Geeks with Guns – "This ain't your fathers 2nd amendment website!"

• Gun Owners of New Hampshire

• Gun Owners of America – "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."

• Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership – "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership"

• National Rifle Association – "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

• National Shooting Sports Foundation

• Pink Pistols – "Armed gays don't get bashed"

• Second Amendment Foundation – "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."

• Second Amendment Sisters – "Self Defense is a basic human right"

The Female Advantage in a Force-Free Society

"The position of women in a society provides an exact measurement of the development of that society." -- Gustav Geiger

Converse: The development of a society is a result of the position of women in that society.

 

The Difference a Chromosome Makes

Another meeting in the corporate world, another round of hooting, grunting, chest-thumping, and excrement-slinging-an endless supply of Dilbert material. But I leave the meeting struck by the disproportionate share of competitive, aggressive behavior that is exhibited by males. At least on the surface, the women seem to be more cooperative, looking to achieve a group solution, whereas each guy seems to think it more important that the solution chosen be his.

Competition among human males is nothing unusual: male primates of all sorts do it, frequently with violence, frequently for access to mates. There is a strong correlation between a polygynous species' harem size and the male-female size ratio: the more females a male can win, the more it pays to be big, strong, and aggressive. The winner wins big, the loser wins nothing. Comparing the human animal's male-female size ratio with that of other primates suggests an average number of mates of something over 1 but less than 2, which corresponds with casual observation. Human males should have a moderate tendency toward aggression (not only for mates, of course), which is unquestionably the case.

If, as Robert Wright suggests in his book Nonzero, the history of progress consists not only of improving technology but an improving ability of individuals to cooperate and unlock potential synergy, might women, less disposed to violence, have an increasing advantage in modern times?

Selecting a Strategy

When does it make sense to choose a violent strategy? A strategy is useful when it maximizes an individual's expected gain and/or minimizes his expected loss, and evolution encodes in our genes the capacity for such strategies, moral or not. Violence is a logical choice when

1. enough other people in the environment are already initiating force
2. enough other people in the environment are incapable of retaliating with force
3. illegitimate use of force is not punished, e.g. reputation is not being tracked, so that one's history of violence will not be counted against one

The first condition makes force a necessary defensive strategy, minimizing expected loss, since one will not want to be at the mercy of others who use force. The second condition makes force a winning offensive strategy, maximizing an individual's expected gain. Since men are better equipped by nature to use force, in a state of nature they will be tempted to use it against women. The third condition reduces the cost of illegitimate force, since the collective is not paying attention and sanctioning wrong-doers.

In terms of game theory, e.g. the Prisoner's Dilemma, players have the two options of Cooperate (don't use force) or Defect (use force). Depending on the expected payoff and cost, it makes sense for some percentage of a population to follow an aggressive strategy instead of peacefully cooperating. The way to decrease the number of defectors is to increase the cost, e.g. by increasing the retaliatory capability of the population, giving the doves some teeth.

Women's Welfare in a Less Violent Society

Throughout history, societies have always provided the conditions for the successful use of force, but the trend over time has generally been toward reducing them. Force in some societies remains a viable strategy, in others it has been greatly reduced, and in others it has made a comeback. If women are more poorly equipped for violence than men, we would expect to see their relative welfare vary according to the relative value of violent strategies in a society. That has certainly been the case.

In most third-world countries, rates of violent crime are high, stability is low, and the status and condition of women is low. Women in burkhas cannot fully participate in society, and they remain poor. In stable, peaceful Scandinavia, it is often said that women are the stronger sex, and their economic position is equal to that of men. It is no coincidence that in primitive societies women are treated like property, and forbidden from owning property, because in such an environment they in fact are property. Property, including one's own body, must be defended, and in primitive societies it is only men who are capable of adequate self-defense. In such an environment, a woman loses her individuality, becoming an extension of a man, incapable of independent life. Throughout her life she is controlled and exchanged by men-first by her father, then by her husband.

A worrying modern trend is that in most industrialized countries, the role of the government is increasing. Since government is by definition the agency with a monopoly on the use of force, the role of force in modern societies is now growing after centuries of reduction. Modern statists have faith that this "good" force will remain chained in service to the will of the majority, but there is good reason for doubt. Millions of years of evolution have equipped Man, and especially men, with the ability exploit force-based strategies whenever possible. Surely a safer (not to mention more moral) approach would be to eliminate entirely the initiation of force as an available and acceptable strategy? Indeed, while in the United States rates of violent crime have been falling (outside of the illegal drugs industry), in Europe they have been rising. France, which has glorified and institutionalized violence as a means of protest and dividing the spoils of government power, has seen enormous increases in crime, resulting in the high level of support for right-wing Le Pen in the recent French presidential election.

The converse rule may also be true: greater female influence is credited with creating a more peaceful society. Lacking a comparative advantage in violence, women with influence would certainly exert it to reduce its prevalence. Furthermore, an improved female position creates a more prosperous society. How much of the industrialized world's wealth depends on the increased contributions of women, and how much of the third world's poverty results from their absence? Over time, economies in which women are full participants will outpace those in which they are shackled.

Armed Women in a Libertarian Society

Women can reduce the expected payoff of force-based strategies by arming themselves, acquiring retaliatory capability and increasing the cost to aggressive men. It is therefore imperative that women have the right to bear arms sufficient to equalize themselves with men. This clearly means the right to bear firearms, as anything less requires close range and physical strength, leaving the advantage with the male aggressor. It is not necessary for every woman to have a weapon: if aggressors know that enough women are armed, but are uncertain as to exactly who, the protection will be a public good that extends to all. A potentially armed civilian woman might be a greater deterrent to criminals than a probably absent uniformed policeman.

Why Feminists Should Move to the Free State

The Free State Project is a plan in which liberty-minded people will gather in a single state to secure a free society. Why should women in particular join such a project? In a society where all relationships are based on mutual consent, women will be able to use their innate cooperative abilities to full advantage. In a society where the use of force is limited to self defense, and individuals have the right to arm themselves to deal with aggressors better endowed by nature, men's comparative advantage in using violent strategies will be nullified. Cooperators will be maximally rewarded, predators maximally punished, necessary factors for long-term peace and maximum prosperity.

---

June 28, 2002

The views expressed in this essay do not necessarily represent those of Free State Project, Inc., its Directors, or its Officers.

Back to Essays