

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

bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.

------------------------------------------------



     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 bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)





