From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #83 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Saturday, March 7 1998 Volume 02 : Number 083 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:34:57 -0500 From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Re: CA, FL, IL, NY, TX: test 'worker-authorization program' Re: "Worker Authorization": I work in a Personnel office. I see first hand just how terrible our Government has become. There are 3 forms a new employee has to fill out - 2 of them are government forms. There's a third form that is out there that is state, but we do not require our new employees to fill it out, we just report the information as ordered. All employers must check "employment authorization" of all new employees (this is a law that has been in effect since 1985) with the "Federal I-9 form". I'm routinely rejecting people for insufficient documentation and refusing them employment. Why? Because they never needed to carry around their social security card before. Now let's think about this. When I went to the "new hires program" seminar on how to report all new employees to the "deadbeat dad/mom database", I was told that "estimates range that as much as 10 percent of the Social Security Administration information is wrong, and this is why we also ask you to report the date of birth of a person". 10% - that's a big number in my opinion. So that means that about 10% of the people that are *legal* will be unable to secure employment because of SSA errors. Wow, we're screwed. sigh, Rachel ************************************************************** * "Just when you think you've got me figured out * * The season's already changing..." -- Meredith Brooks * * mestetsr@post.drexel.edu * ************************************************************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 10:10:42 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Not So Pro-Gun Nominees I've been active in NRA for several years now. I'm president of a citizen lobbying group that runs an NRA recruiting table and have been area chair in my district of the GOP for several years. Lots of people complain, and rightly so, about how the Republicans "eat their young" with criticism and rhetoric that seems aimed more in the party then at those outside it. But for a long time I've been even more disconcerted at this sort of thing in the RKBA community. After all, as RKBA activists we are centered on a goal that's about ethical behaviour. Allowing people the freedom to self defend isn't comparable to selling guns or running candidates it is (as Wilford would say ; ) The Right Thing To Do. So when we attack each other we are not just doing the wrong thing, but attacking the movements ability to get more people to do the right thing. Because of that I haven't taken sides in the NRA shenanigans in the past. - -BUT-, I hope everyone reading up on this will look closely at who's yelling the most shrilly, who is it that started the full page candidate ads, and who's using the most emotion loading in their wording. It seems pretty obvious to me that theres room for a little reform in Virginia. Before you flame me, please bear in mind that Chris Behana and I weren't on "typing terms" for some time because of replies I sent him on this list defending NRA practices. And I will continue to work hard for NRA and hope for unity and effectiveness. I'm not interested in throwing the baby out with the bathwater but there comes a time when the water needs changing and baby needs a "time out". Flame on. Boyd "Freedom needs -more- allies" Kneeland NRA, ACLU, fan of Knox and Metaksa and anybody else working for Liberty. At 6:38 PM -0600 3/3/98, Brad Alpert wrote: >Not So Pro-Gun Nominees by NRA NOMINATING COMMITTEE > >PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, AND PRINT OUT AND SHOW TO >YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN >YOUR MAILINGS, SPREAD THE WORD! > >Not So Pro-Gun Nominees by NRA NOMINATING COMMITTEE >>From Behanna & NRA Director Dr. Fiora > >Mike Haas said in reguard to this year NRA Nominating >committee Selections: Some great people here... Rep. Bob Barr, >Sen. Larry Craig, John Milius, and of course, the others... now >this is a SLATE TO BEAT ANTI-GUNNERS! > >Chris Behanna Replys: Slight problem: Larry Craig *IS* an >anti-gunner: he voted for the Lautenberg gun grab as a snip > Note that they even turned against us the notice of the >lawsuit by not stating that the judge order the NRA (all of us) >to follow the membership mandated Bylaw. The announcement will >appear to the uninformed member as an attempt by Fezell et al >to undermine the normal process of publishing the Nom. Com. >report. Members expect to see it since it has been published so >regularly. >1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action >candidates: > >Jerry L. Allen Michael >J. Beko James A. Church >William Dominguez >Howard J. Fezell >Daniel B. Fiora >Arnold J. Gaunt >Fred Griisser >Wesley H. Grogan Jr. >David M. Gross John >Guest Fred Gustafson >Don L. Henry >William B. Hunt >Phillip B. Journey >Michael S. Kindberg >Jeff Knox >John C. Krull >Robley T. Moore >Larry R. Rankin >Albert C. Ross >Frank H. Sawberger >Thomas L. Seefeldt >Kim Stolfer >John H. Trentes >Glen I. Voorhees Jr. > >2. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the >internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) >distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and >shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE >SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. > >3. A few dollars go a long way when they tell the truth. >Please send your donation to: Second Amendment Action, 100 >Heathwood Drive, Liberty, SC 29657. > >4. Visit our web sites: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains >Heston interview) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html >http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) > > > > >- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:59:11 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Gorbachev and Clinton laud FDR - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Wednesday March 4 6:44 AM EST Clinton, Gorbachev, Spielberg Laud Magazine By Chris Michaud NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Clinton joined luminaries ranging from Mikhail Gorbachev and Toni Morrison to Steven Spielberg and Muhammad Ali Tuesday for a gala celebration marking the 75th anniversary of Time magazine. The magazine, which published its first issue on March 3, 1923, threw a lavish cocktail and dinner party at Radio City Music Hall for some 1,200 guests from the worlds of politics, communications, entertainment, sports and business. The evening was constructed around a series of tributes from leaders in various fields to the preeminent figures of the 20th century, culminating in Clinton's tribute to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he said was the "one man above all others (who) is the personification of 'the American century'. "When our children's children look back they will see that above all else that the story of the 20th century is the story of the triumph of freedom ... the advance of freedom has made this the American century," and FDR its driving force, Clinton said in the final speech of the evening. He called for the application of FDR's embrace of "bold, persistent experimentation" to meet the "challenges and unrivaled opportunities of this era." Clinton also paid tribute to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his recent mission to Iraq, which staved off U.S. military action. "Iraq must match its words with its deeds," the president warned. "In the tradition of FDR, Americans must make sure that happens," he said. After an extended cocktail party in the lobby of Radio City and opening remarks by Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin, a series of Time's cover subjects was screened, with Joe DiMaggio, Gorbachev and Ali receiving especially sustained applause. A series of informal toasts followed, in which guests rose at their tables -- tiered platforms were built over Radio City's 3,000 seats for the event -- and paid tribute to some of the century's indelible figures. First was actor Tom Cruise, who saluted boxer Ali. "He elevated exaggeration to new heights, and yet that exaggeration is as American as Mark Twain," he said. "We've had many kings in history, but only one Ali." Former Sen. Bill Bradley then honored Rev. Billy Graham, followed by writer Jay McInerney toasting Norman Mailer and Sharon Stone feting feminist Betty Friedan. Stone began with a joke about a male and female brain for sale with a punch line about the female one being cheaper "because it was used," at which point Clinton gave his wife Hillary a knowing smile. Other tributes were paid by Kevin Costner to baseball legend DiMaggio, Tom Hanks, who played an astronaut in "Apollo 13" to former astronaut, Sen. John Glenn -- "the pride of Zanesville, Ohio" -- and John F. Kennedy Jr. to former Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, Robert McNamara. The formal tributes included Morrison saluting Dr. Martin Luther King and "the gift that his life truly was", and Spielberg's ode to director John Ford. Gorbachev spoke at length about the significance of FDR, Gandhi and Lenin on the century and Microsoft founder Bill Gates honored the Wright Brothers, Wilbur and Orville. A lighter note was struck when Mary Tyler Moore spoke lovingly of comic actress Lucille Ball, noting that when the legend told Moore "You're very good" at a taping of the old Dick Van Dyke Show", it made her feel she "had better be very, very good." The final tribute to Duke Ellington took place in the form of a dance program by the Alvin Ailey Dancers. Time, the nation's first news weekly magazine, was founded by Yale classmates Henry Luce and Briton Hadden. The first, 32-page issue featured pieces on Negroes, prohibition, women and labor, and ads for the White Star Lines and Bankers Trust. It was also a time when the fact that a man with a strange name in a Detroit court case turned out to be Hindu was considered newsworthy. Its annual Man of the Year honor has entered the popular lexicon, with many of the choices present Tuesday, including Gen. William Westmoreland, Henry Kissinger (shared with Richard Nixon), Dr. David Ho, Gorbachev and Clinton. Some 90 of its cover subjects also attended. Reuters Limited - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 07:37:52 -0500 From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Fwd: Check This Out! >From: OWOWRITER >Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:58:59 EST >To: Bearflury@aol.com, SGill49685@aol.com, Foolery@bright.net, > UZIFORME@aol.com >Subject: Fwd: Check This Out! >X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58 > >From: Arvidson C >Return-path: >To: OWOWRITER@aol.com >Subject: Check This Out! >Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:52:02 EST >Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > >Subject: Heston Anti-gun???? >Date: Mon, Mar 2, 1998 15:58 EST >From: BBHOOVER >Message-id: <19980302205800.PAA00636@ladder03.news.aol.com> > > > >The following is from: > >The American Rifleman >October 1968, Page 10 > > Stars Fall From Anti-gun Bandwagon > >In the heat of summer and apparently in hot pursuit of publicity, >scores of movie and television personalities hopped on the gun >control bandwagon -- briefly. When the furor died down, they quit. > > Actor-Producer Tom Laughlin, chairman of a Hollywood anti-gun >movement billed as "Then Thousand Americans for Reasonable Gun >Control", admitted defeat and dejection in a news report in "Film >and Television Daily." Laughlin was quoted as terming the quitting >actors "summer soldiers" and lamenting: > > "We'd put them all on network shows. We built the campaign, >and then everyone just became uninterested. When the failure set >in in Washington, when it was clear that there was a need for a >sustained, organized effort, everyone became disinterested. > > "They were all hepped up for 2 weeks. The commitment couldn't >last any longer than that. It's frightening to me." > > Laughlin cited as diehards who stuck with his anti-gun >movement a "little more than a handful" including Producers Richard >Zanuck and Robert Blumoffe, Producer-Director Robert Wise, and film >stars Warren Beatty, Candice Bergen, Marlon Brando, CHARLTON >HESTON, Hugh O'Brien, Jill St. John. > >emphasis added. > >Neal Knox has my vote! >MJH > >I'm interested in seeing what JASPAR puts out later this week! > > -Carl > - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 15:32:14 -0800 (PST) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Fwd: Check This Out! > >The following is from: > > > >The American Rifleman > >October 1968, Page 10 > > [***] > > Laughlin cited as diehards who stuck with his anti-gun > >movement a "little more than a handful" including Producers Richard > >Zanuck and Robert Blumoffe, Producer-Director Robert Wise, and film > >stars Warren Beatty, Candice Bergen, Marlon Brando, CHARLTON > >HESTON, Hugh O'Brien, Jill St. John. > > > >emphasis added. > > > >Neal Knox has my vote! > >MJH In defense of Heston, if, in fact, the above is accurate: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:34:46 CST From: Brad Alpert <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: NRA Director Voorhees' open letter to Charlton Heston and the NRA Membership PLEASE READ, FORWARD, CROSS-POST, AND PRINT OUT AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS, SPREAD THE WORD! Open letter to NRA voting members from Glen I. Voorhees, Jr. I have been on the Board of Directors long enough to know that in order to operate properly, the Board of Directors must work together. A strong President is necessary to help the different factions work for the good of the NRA. With that in mind, I tried to reach Charlton Heston shortly after the annual meeting in Seattle. It was obvious that Mr. Heston knew nothing about some of the problems that have plagued the Board. It was even more evident when he stated that the Board of Directors needed to be purged of extremists, without finding out what the problems were. He was listening to only one side. Anyone in a leadership role knows that you can't make an informed decision without hearing all arguments. I felt that Mr. Heston might have a better idea of what has been going on if he were to hear our side of key issues. Keep in mind he had never been to a Board Meeting before he was elected to the Board of Directors on Saturday, May 3rd. On the 5th he was elected 1st Vice President. To get to that level takes several years for those of us who have worked hard as directors. With no experience he was now in a position to help command a Board of Directors that he had no personal knowledge of and no background information. My purpose in reaching him was to offer to go to California at MY own expense so that I could relay some of my concerns to him. I first tried to get Mr. Heston's phone number from Mr. Jim Land, NRA Secretary. I was refused that request but told that he would contact me. I next heard from a Ms. Carol Lanning who wanted to know what I wanted with Mr. Heston. When I informed her that I wanted to discuss NRA business and a possible meeting with him, I was told that he is very busy, but will get back to you soon. I have on four other occasions tried to reach him through Mr. Land's office and have never received one word from him. I have had the occasion to serve under some great, some not so great, and one very poor president, but I have always been able to get in touch with the NRA President. We have enough troubles on the Board of Directors without adding a non-responsive president to our woes. I AM NOT AGAINST having Mr. Heston on our Board of Directors. He can be a great asset to our poor image. I am against having a President who is non-communicative with his Board of Directors. He certainly can't gain respect from his peers if this is his style of administration. I would like for Mr. Heston serve as a member of the Board of Directors for a time before stepping into the Presidency. Why should he be led to the front of the pack without any experience? It seems to me we are again courting disaster. Those of us who ask questions of our officers are not extremist. We WANT the NRA to function to its greatest capacity, and it can only do that if the Board of Directors is free to question and disagree without fear of retaliation. Ms. Hammer is a master at that tactic (retaliation) and it is my hope that if Mr. Heston is aware of some of our concerns, he won't follow in her foot steps. Respectfully, Glen I. Voorhees, Jr. - Member NRA Board of Directors 1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen Michael J. Beko James A. Church William Dominguez Howard J. Fezell Daniel B. Fiora Arnold J. Gaunt Fred Griisser Wesley H. Grogan Jr. David M. Gross John Guest Fred Gustafson Don L. Henry William B. Hunt Phillip B. Journey Michael S. Kindberg Jeff Knox John C. Krull Robley T. Moore Larry R. Rankin Albert C. Ross Frank H. Sawberger Thomas L. Seefeldt Kim Stolfer John H. Trentes Glen I. Voorhees Jr. 2. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. 3. A few dollars go a long way when they tell the truth. Please send your donation to: Second Amendment Action, 100 Heathwood Drive, Liberty, SC 29657. 4. Visit our web sites: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains Heston interview) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 18:43:10 -0500 From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: FW: PFAW Special Alert: Istook Puts Religious Liberty At Risk Forwarding along - no association, no affiliation, just on an email list where it was posted.... >March 5, 1998 > >A Special Alert from People For the American Way President Carole >Shields: > >Every person who cares about religious liberty needs to know what >happened this week. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee took a >dangerous step toward eroding the religious liberty of all Americans. >By a vote of 16 to 11, the committee approved the misnamed "Religious >Freedom Amendment," sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Oklahoma. A >vote on the Istook Amendment could occur on the floor of the U.S. >House as early as next week. > >Istook's amendment would dismantle the wall of separation of church >and state. Americans would no longer be able to rely on the First >Amendment to protect their religious liberty. The Istook amendment >would subject public school children to sectarian prayer, and permit >taxpayers to fund religious schools. > >We know the Christian Coalition is pushing for a vote so that they can >target members of Congress with their distorted voter guides. They've >pledged to distribute 45 million voter guides this year. That's what >this is about. > >Please call your representative in Congress and tell her or him to >vote "No" when the Istook Amendment comes up for debate. Religious >liberty -- not religious coercion -- is the American way. > >Congressional telephone numbers: >http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/mbrcmtee.htm > > >Thank you, > >Carole Shields >President >People For the American Way > >====================================== >For those readers that have not yet subscribed to Attacks on the >Freedom to Learn Online, you may obtain your own subscription by >sending a message to: MAISER@PFAW.ORG with no subject and the message: > SUBSCRIBE AFLO. To unsubscribe, send a message to: MAISER@PFAW.ORG >with no subject and the message: UNSUBSCRIBE AFLO An archive is >maintained at http://pfaw.org/aflo >====================================== >People For the American Way >2000 M Street NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20036 >202 467 4999 | Fax: 202 293 2672 >http://pfaw.org | pfaw@pfaw.org > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Mar 98 17:09:11 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: FW: PFAW Special Alert: Istook Puts Religious Liberty At Risk On Mar 6, mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu wrote: >Forwarding along - no association, no affiliation, just on an email list >where it was posted.... Next time how about posting the pertinant text as well? In any case, feel free to forward this reply back to them. >>March 5, 1998 >> >>A Special Alert from People For the American Way President Carole >>Shields: >> >>Every person who cares about religious liberty needs to know what >>happened this week. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee took a >>dangerous step toward eroding the religious liberty of all Americans. I haven't even seen the text, but considering the rest of this post, I doubt it. >>By a vote of 16 to 11, the committee approved the misnamed "Religious >>Freedom Amendment," sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Oklahoma. A >>vote on the Istook Amendment could occur on the floor of the U.S. >>House as early as next week. >> >>Istook's amendment would dismantle the wall of separation of church >>and state. What wall is that? So far it only exists in the so called minds of certain Socialist Judges as a tool _against_ Religion. >> Americans would no longer be able to rely on the First >>Amendment to protect their religious liberty. Seems to be the case allready with the above mentioned Judges, but again, considering the rest of this, I doubt it. >> The Istook amendment >>would subject public school children to sectarian prayer, As long as they all have an equal chance at it, who cares? It's called _Education_. >> and permit >>taxpayers to fund religious schools. Something wrong with supporting schools that teach something as opposed to those that can't/wont? >>We know the Christian Coalition is pushing for a vote Then I guess Religious folks must like it after all, huh? >> so that they can >>target members of Congress with their distorted voter guides. Distorted how? Lets be more specific and less pejorative, hmmm? >> They've >>pledged to distribute 45 million voter guides this year. That's what >>this is about. Gosh that's an awfull lot of Religious folks that seem to be _for_ this. Maybe it's better than you think after all..... >>Please call your representative in Congress and tell her or him to >>vote "No" when the Istook Amendment comes up for debate. Religious >>liberty -- not religious coercion -- is the American way. What coercion would that be? Seems to me putting this stuff out without any actual details of what they're trying to do is more akin to it. Lets get a whole lot more specific shall we? >>Congressional telephone numbers: >>http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/mbrcmtee.htm >> >> >>Thank you, >> >>Carole Shields >>President >>People For the American Way >> >>====================================== >>For those readers that have not yet subscribed to Attacks on the >>Freedom to Learn Online, you may obtain your own subscription by >>sending a message to: MAISER@PFAW.ORG with no subject and the message: >> SUBSCRIBE AFLO. To unsubscribe, send a message to: MAISER@PFAW.ORG >>with no subject and the message: UNSUBSCRIBE AFLO An archive is >>maintained at http://pfaw.org/aflo >>====================================== >>People For the American Way >>2000 M Street NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20036 >>202 467 4999 | Fax: 202 293 2672 >>http://pfaw.org | pfaw@pfaw.org - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 02:43:09 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: big bro takes another bite ...and this is from our Republican "friends," no less. bd - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [while discussing the scanner ban] On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 06:20:39PM -0800, Tim May wrote: > > (Even with guns, in the U.S., there have historically been > "grandfatherings" of existing guns. Not always, as with certain machine > guns. And not with gold, which was declared contraband by the Reichsfuhrer > in 1933.) > > Could possession of PGP be still legal, but _use_ declared illegal? > > (Not addressing the First Amendment issues, which are even stronger, but > just the issue of retroactive contrabanding of something which was acquired > legally, and by hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens.) > The House has just done this yesterday as mentioned in several items posted to this very list: From HR2369, the Wireless Communications Privacy Enchancement Act of 1998, passed by the House 414 to 1.... "(4) Any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies, imports, exports, sells, or distributes any electronic, mechanical, or other device or equipment, knowing or having reason to know that the device or equipment ..." .... clause concerning satellite piracy gear omited ..... " , or is intended for any receipt, interception, divulgence, publication, or utilization of any communication in violation of subsection (a), shall be fined not more than $500,000 for each violation, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years for each violation, or both. For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of this paragraph, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate violation." Subsection a: " ....... No person not being authorized by the sender shall intentionally intercept any radio communication *or* divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person..........." [note that *and* was changed by this bill to *or*, making interception itself criminal] The only exception being : "Nothing in this subsection prohibits an interception or disclosure of a communication as authorized by chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code." [which covers broadcast, ham, marine, aviation. governmental, and communications readily accessible to the general public, whatever that means] While this doesn't exactly retroactively ban *possession* of radio gear capable of intercepting banned radio communications, it provides extremely stiff felony level penalties for manufacturing, assembling, modifying, importing, exporting, selling, or distributing any radio receiving gear that might be construed to be intended for receipt or interception of any radio communications not on the allowed list. And these penalties apply to each individual sale. Thus selling an old scanner at a Saturday morning hamfest to a stranger for cash - a scanner legally purchased from Radio Shack in the era before cell phone frequencies were outlawed on scanners - could conceivably result in a $500,000 fine and a five year jail term. And Lord knows what horrible penalties could be assessed against innocent people selling the sort of oddball specialized communications gear and test equipment that are the stock in trade of many of the more interesting ham fests and swapmeets [MIT's monthly fleas for example]. Perhaps such informal personal sales will never be prosecuted, but most sales of gear at hamfests and the like are anonymous cash transactions between total strangers with every possiblity that the guy a table over with the video camera is filming your sale for evidence. And for those who like to hack, tinkering quietly in their basements with communications monitoring and decoding software and hardware, manufacture and assembly have been defined in other federal cases to include merely writing software for one's own use. Surely this would apply to creating cryptanalysis software for any form of radio communications at all, since it is not legal to intercept any radio communications that are "scrambled or encrypted". And there is no exception made for research and development or academic purposes. So yes, they have done at least as bad a thing to people who merely want to tinker with their radios and occasionally explore what is out there in the ether by passively and in private receiving radio signals as they have to gun owners, who at least possess a weapon capable of doing some serious harm. And there is not a single sentance in the legislation providing any kind of encouragement for the use of cryptography to protect the privacy of openly broadcast signals receivable for miles around, let alone mandating it. - -- Dave Emery N1PRE, die@die.com DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass. PGP fingerprint = 2047/4D7B08D1 DE 6E E1 CC 1F 1D 96 E2 5D 27 BD B0 24 88 C3 18 - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 09:05:44 -0500 (EST) From: Brad Subject: more from the crackdown on crime More from the "crackdown on crime" ... Note how drugs made a nice pretext to kick a guy's door in, said guy eventually being charged with (only!) possession of a firearm. bd - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- a couple more... 3. Newt Gingrich Calls for Lifetime Ban of Drug-Using Athletes Who Refuse to Snitch Speaking at a news conference on Thursday, Feb. 26, House Speaker Newt Gingrich called upon all sports leagues and associations to ban for one year any athlete who tests positive for drugs, with the added proviso that they be forced to reveal where they got the drugs, or be banned for life. Brian McIntyre, spokesman for the National Basketball Association, told the L.A. Times, "We thank the speaker for his thoughts, but as it relates to the NBA, we think that this is an issue that is best addressed solely by the NBA and its players." The various professional sports leagues, of course, negotiate their drug policies within the framework of collective bargaining agreements between the leagues and the players unions. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- 4. Violent Week in Giuliani's Drug War In New York City, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's new "zero-tolerance" Drug War claimed the life of one suspect and nearly claimed the life of a cop in a "buy and bust" operation in Brooklyn. Also, police acting on an anonymous tip kicked in the door of the wrong apartment in the Bronx and fired over 30 shots. Fortunately, no one was injured. Police taking part in a "buy and bust" operation, which netted a single $20 vial of crack-cocaine, walked into a narrow hallway where one suspect was confronted. In the ensuing struggle, apparently over the officer's gun, the suspect was killed, and the officer, 13 year-veteran Sgt. Dexter Brown, was shot in the lower back by a bullet from the gun of a backup officer. Brown's life was saved by his bulletproof vest. He was hospitalized but is expected to recover fully. Mayor Giuliani told the Daily News that it was an "'excellent job' by officers exposed to 'tremendous danger'". In the Bronx, 44 year-old Ellis Elliot was asleep in his bedroom at 8:15 Friday morning (2/27), when he heard his door being kicked in. Assuming that he was being robbed, Elliot grabbed his (unlicensed) gun and fired once in the direction of his bedroom door. That shot was answered by a barrage, possibly as many as 30 shots from the police. After the barrage, Elliot told The New York Post, the police finally identified themselves, at which time Elliot came out with his hands up. At that point, he was cuffed and, still naked, dragged from his apartment through the new hole in his front door and into the street. Elliot told the Post that while he was being cuffed and dragged from his home, police cursed at him, called him "nigger", and refused to let him put on clothes. When police finally went back into the house to retrieve clothes for Mr. Elliot, officers brought out pants and a blouse belonging to Elliot's girlfriend. Elliot was forced to wear the woman's clothing to jail. Elliot, who has no criminal record, is being charged with possession of his unlicensed firearm. The New York City Police Department has indicated that it will reimburse the building's owner for the damage to the apartment. The Week Online called the New York City Police and spoke to a representative in their press office. That office indicated that the police, out of the Bronx Narcotics Unit, were executing a search warrant at the time of their entry, but could not confirm what exactly was being searched for. We then asked whether it was standard procedure to execute warrants at an hour (8:15 am) when it was likely that any children in a given home would be awake and preparing for school, the press rep responded, "er, no. I mean, you execute it when you think... when you do. I mean, did this guy have kids?" (Editor -- He might just as easily have had kids, since they broke down the door of the wrong apartment.) 8. California Inmates Get Ruling -- but no Justice -- in Sexual Assault Case - - Barrington Daltrey for DRCNet The war on drugs continues to exact its toll on the humanity of our system of justice, the civil rights of individuals, and on taxpayers' pocketbooks. On March 3, 1998, Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District Court in San Francisco was presented a settlement of a civil rights suit against the United States Bureau of Prisons brought by three women prisoners, two of whom are in federal prison on drug charges. According to their lawyers, Michael Bien and Geri Lynn Green, the three were victims of sexual assault and rape while housed in the J-2 Segregated Housing Unit of the otherwise all male Federal Detention Center in Dublin, California. The attacks occurred in the fall of 1995. "We are incarcerating people at alarming rates," said Green, "The prison systems are not set up to handle the huge increases. Even in women's prisons, men staff the units. They read the prisoner's mail and listen to all phone calls. There exists no safe and secure method of reporting abuse, meanwhile there has been a steady erosion of prisoners' access to the courts, legal representation, and the press. These attacks and the resulting retaliation occurred because we have a prison system that is accountable to no one. The prison system thrives on cover-ups and retaliation, breeding malfeasance and misfeasance by prison personnel without redress." The settlement requires changes in operating procedures at federal prisons throughout the country, and the women will share in $500,000 in damages to be paid by the federal government. The attacks reportedly occurred repeatedly late at night, when a correctional officer would open the women's cell doors, giving access to male inmates. When two of the women got word out to the regional director requesting help, they received no assistance. Instead, word of one victim's under oath identification of the correctional officer and an attacker was leaked to the male inmates, and subsequently her door was again opened. Three men entered, handcuffing her, brutally beating her and sexually assaulting her. The attackers made clear this attack was retribution for her reports to authorities. Despite polygraph tests validating the victims' statements, the U.S. Attorney's Office sat on the case for two years and refused to bring it before a grand jury. Ultimately the case was closed without action being brought against the correctional officer or anyone else for the violent crimes, the cover-ups, the acts of retaliation or the obstruction of justice. Enforcement of even the civil settlement will be difficult. "In 1996, a new federal law was passed which greatly restricts the power of the federal courts to protect prisoners from serious violations of their Constitutional rights, such as the rape and sexual assault of my clients," said Bien. "Because of this law, plaintiffs will not be able to enforce the settlement of this case by seeking relief from Judge Henderson. There is no reason that the operation of the federal prison system should be beyond the scrutiny of the federal courts. The law is bad policy and is unconstitutional." - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 98 17:05:58 -0700 From: jaspar Subject: "Just Say No" to Bylaw Amendment From Joel Friedman "Just Say No" to Bylaw Amendment I have been asked by several people what I think about the current Bylaw Amendment now before the voting members of the NRA. For clarity, I will break out portions of the Bylaw Amendment (BL), and add my comments under the heading "plain speak" (PS). While I am not an attorney, I am willing to use some simple logic to attempt to translate what I believe each part of this Amendment means to our organization, our leaders, and, ultimately, to all of us. There is one point I would like to make before I analyze the Amendment piece by piece. The proposed Bylaw Amendment is said to be about fiscal responsibility. I am not going to delve into whether or not " fiscal responsibility" is the real purpose of the Amendment. I will attempt to deal only with the Amendment itself, and not the politics of the people who created, distributed, and endorsed this Amendment. Each member should make up his or her own mind regarding this point. [BL] Article IV, Section 5. Financial Disclosure and Good Conduct of Directors, Officers, and Members of the Executive Council. (a) All Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, and Members of the Executive Council shall provide the Association Secretary with their individual, signed statement, sworn or affirmed as being true, correct and complete in every respect before a notary public, no later than 20 (twenty) days preceding each Annual Meeting of Members which fully discloses: All business, financial, political, or other transactions and ongoing business, political or professional relationships currently engaged in or having occurred within the preceding 36 (thirty-six) months, whether paid or un-paid, with The National Rifle Association of America, its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, employees, vendors or employees of vendors, which directly or indirectly benefits or affects him or his immediate family in any way. [PS] For me, this means that the old and new Directors, and all the past Presidents must write down any business dealings, contributions (like to the foundation or the legal trust) even it is for a single dollar. They must also document any and all political activities and transactions of any kind. This means that if you or I fall into this category and we were to buy a coffee mug or a tee shirt from the NRA, we must mark it down (for the last 3 years). I also understand this section to mean that if any of the affected people says anything about the NRA, they must also write it down and submit it. As an example, this seems to mean that if person X happens to be an employee of a vendor who sells the NRA trash liners, and X happens to know someone who was just elected as a Director (Y), and two years ago X invited his old friend Y (now a newly-elected Director) to his house for dinner, and during dinner X sold a firearm accessory to Y, there would be two transactions that benefited Y (the new Director). One benefit is the accessory, and the second is the dinner itself. As I understand this section, if all these occurrences are not written down, the new Director Y is in violation of the Bylaw and subject to possible suspension of his membership, or, at the least, he/her is subject to a hearing on the matter. Think this could not happen? According to this section of the Bylaw, it is possible. I also notice that if an NRA Director is also a director of any type of affiliated organization, this person is not only subject to the criteria and circumstances mentioned above, but must also perform the same record-keeping chores in all dealings with the affiliated organization, which actually means tracking ALL contacts and dealings with all the people and businesses that he/she has had anything do with. I keep saying "ALL" because the Bylaw states, "which directly or indirectly benefits or affects him or his immediate family in any way." Unless I am mistaken, "all" or everything we do as people affects us directly or indirectly in some manner. Also consider that the Bylaw Amendment says, "whether paid or un-paid." If something is "un-paid", what kind of fiscal impact does that "something" have? [BL] (b) The Executive Vice President, Treasurer, Executive Director of General Operations, Executive Director of National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action , and NRA/ILA Fiscal Officer, acting on behalf of the Association, shall each provide the Association Secretary with a signed independent statement, sworn or affirmed as being true, correct and complete in every respect before a notary public, no later than 20 (twenty) days preceding each Annual Meeting of Members which fully discloses: All business, financial, political, professional and other transactions or business, political or professional relationships, whether paid or un-paid, between all Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, or Members and the Executive Council currently holding or having held such office within the preceding 36 (thirty-six) months and the National Rifle Association of America, its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, employees, vendors or employees of vendors, which directly or indirectly benefited or affected in anyway the individual in question or his immediate family during the preceding 36 (thirty-six) months, and all infractions of paragraph (e) of this section, occurring currently or during the preceding 36 (thirty-six) months. [PS] Currently this section applies to the following people: Wayne LaPierre, Woody Phillips, Creg Sandler, Tanya Metaksa, and Mary Rose Adkins (I'll use the acronym "WWFTM"). I find it extremely interesting that the other officers in the NRA and the other Division Directors are not mentioned. If the purpose of the Bylaw Amendment is "to better the organization," why doesn't the Amendment simply name ALL the Officers and Division Directors? As it is written, it certainly appears as if this section was written not "to better the organization," but to go after only the people-- "WWFTM"--named in my first sentence. Additionally (if I understand this section correctly), if person X = were to become a Director in either the NRA and/or an NRA-affiliated organization, and sometime during the last 3 years any of WWFTM paid for a cup of coffee (or even offered Director X a glass of water) while they were talking about firearms rights in their state, WWFTorM would have had to write it down or be held in violation of the Bylaw and subject to a hearing, or the loss of membership, or the loss of their job, or--in the case of Director X--risk losing the affiliation of his organization (Section a). If WWFTM were to ever say anything about a person, good or bad, or even make an offhand comment, and that person within 3 years became a Director of the NRA or an NRA affiliate, then WWFTM are required to write it down or be subject to some type of sanction. Another possible scenario might go like this: One of these people (WWFTorM) has an adult child that lives on their own. A son or = daughter gets a job with a vendor that does some business with one of NRA-affiliated organizations. The adult child works for the vendor, but the child and WWFTM are unaware that the child=B9s employer does business with the NRA affiliate; or WWFTM does not know the adult child is even working for the vendor. The child works there for several months and leaves the job for another career. If WWFT(or)M does not report this, they are in violation of the Bylaw. This could also be the case if the child merely helped without pay a friend who is employed by a vendor who does business with an affiliated organization. Remember, the Bylaw states, "other transactions," "whether paid or un-paid," "which directly or indirectly benefited or affected in = anyway the individual in question or his immediate family." As these people (WWFTM) interface with thousands and thousands of = people each year, I wonder how they will be able to remember everything they have said and done, minute by minute. I also wonder how they are going to know about everything that every affiliated organization does, and with whom these organizations work. For me, this segment is a plainly stupid idea that defies good common sense. [BL] (c) The Association Secretary shall compile all such statements into a single report and distribute it to every Director and every Director Elect no later than 5 (five) days preceding the beginning of each Annual Meeting of Members. The Board shall review the statements contained therein of any Officer candidate prior to the election of Officers. This report shall not be considered confidential. Within 10 (ten) days of receipt of a written request and payment the Association Secretary shall provide this report to any Member entitled to vote under the Bylaws for an amount no greater than the net cost to the Association of reproduction and delivery. [PS] The above segment mandates that the Secretary has only 15 days to compile all this information into a report--2 1/2 weeks before the annual meeting (which is the busiest time for the Secretary's entire office). Of course, the Secretary can probably request and receive the necessary budget adjustment to hire extra people to compile this report. But if these temporary people make a mistake because of their lack of understanding or experience, will the Secretary be held libel for these mistakes? Will the Secretary be required personally to review the packet page by page? Will this cause the Secretary to assign other work to these temporary people? Will the results of their work benefit or harm the NRA? [BL] (d) No Officer of the Association or Member of the Executive Council shall campaign, or allow his name or likeness to be used in any campaign for or against a Director in a Board election or in any matter to be voted upon by the Members. [PS] This segment of the Bylaw is especially disturbing. Our organization = is supposed to stand for protecting the Bill of Rights. We have been fighting campaign finance reform in the Congress because "reform" would eliminate the NRA's ability to tell its members where we stand on legislation and on candidates for elected office. Now we are being asked to vote for a Bylaw Amendment for our own organization that will make it a violation for our leaders to speak to us about matters that we will vote on. The Bylaw states, "No Officer of the Association or Member of the Executive Council shall campaign," (speaking for or against something to be voted on is campaigning) "in any matter to be voted upon by the Members." Who will be able to talk to us? The mainstream media? By itself, this single aspect alone is scary! Personally, I WANT to hear what our leaders have to say. For me, a leader=B9s opinion is a critical part = of the process of making an informed decision. After I have heard or read our leaders' advice, I can then look further and ask more informed questions, if I choose to do so. I am thus enabled to come to an independent decision using ALL available resources. [BL] (e) The Executive Vice President, Treasurer, Executive Director of General Operations, and Executive Director of National Rifle = Association Institute for Legislative Action shall ensure that the Association = does not conduct business with any vendor or subsidiary thereof for a period of 36 (thirty-six) months following any election in which such vendor, subsidiary thereof, or any employee or agent of such vendor, campaigned for or against any Director Nominee in a Board election or campaigned for or against any matter which has been or will be put before the Membership for vote either by mail or at any meeting of Members. Provided however, no existing contract, executed in compliance with Board policy, having a term of less than 12 (twelve) months remaining as of the date of the adoption of this Bylaw provision, shall become void solely by reason of this Bylaw provision. [PS] Please review my comments in the PS you just read above this one. Then imagine this scenario: You work for a company that is owned by a company that does business with the NRA. You are an active member of the NRA. But now you are prevented from speaking your mind concerning ANYTHING that will be voted on at either the Annual Meeting or by mail. You have just lost your First Amendment rights!--Or you must sacrifice a customer for your company's parent company. The Bylaw says, "vendor, subsidiary thereof, or any employee or agent of such vendor, campaigned for or against", "any matter which has been or will be put before the Membership for vote either by mail or at any meeting of Members." [BL] (f) Prior to engaging in any activity reportable under this section of the Bylaws, the individuals involved must fully disclose the matter to the Board of Directors. The activity may not commence without the prior authorization by a majority roll call vote of the Board of Directors in accordance with Article IV Section 3(d). Violation of this Section by an Officer or Member of the Executive Council shall be cause for removal by a majority vote of the Board of Directors present and voting at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors. Violation of this Section by a Director shall be cause for removal by a majority vote of the Members present and voting at an annual meeting of Members. [PS] If I understand this section correctly, it says that 3 years prior to anyone in the firearms rights movement becoming a Director in the NRA and/or one of it affiliates, Officers and Directors must keep a log of ANYTHING they say, or do, as it relates to the firearms movement. Additionally, all affected people (officers and Directors) must find out prior to talking to someone if that "someone" is considering becoming a board member of the NRA or one of its affiliates. These same affected people must also know what every member of their immediate family is doing and saying BEFORE they say or do it. Additionally, anything planned that has to do with anyone who might in 3 years become a Director, must wait until the board meets (3 times per year). If the meetings aren't soon enough, then the plan just can not be done no matter how important it is. NO EXCEPTIONS! There will never be a legislative matter, business dealing, or a political matter that is important enough to override this rule. I sincerely believe that this section of the Bylaw Amendment will cause projects not to get done, and will cause opportunities to be missed--because of uncertainty and fear of possible sanctions. [BL] (g) The Membership directs that the certificate of incorporation be amended as necessary to insure that this section of the Bylaws complies with all applicable law. The provisions of this Bylaw section control over any conflicting Bylaw and are in effect upon passage. The disclosure and reporting requirements of this Bylaw section shall be complied with prior to the 1998 Annual Meeting of Members. The provisions of this section are declared to be severable and the Membership hereby states that they would have adopted such provisions of Article IV, Section 5, which can be lawfully given effect regardless of the possible invalidity of any other provision. This Bylaw section may only be amended by mail by the Membership in accordance with Article XV, Sections 4 and 5. [PS] It is my interpretation that this segment will cause all the Directors and other affected persons to stop all the work they are currently doing and begin to compile the required list. Even if they finish a list, it will not be "complete" because it is NOT humanly possible to remember everyone they have come in contact with and what was said. Additionally, if the Bylaw Amendment passes, most of the officers of the NRA will be subject to the sanctions as described in section (f). While I do not believe this is legal because it makes something a violation that happened before the rule came into effect, I am not a lawyer. However, I have been in business long enough to know that if these officers are sanctioned, there is an excellent chance we will see some employment suits against the NRA. Perhaps you are now thinking that I have been overstating the case, or that I am just being slightly too picky. Keep in mind I am not the one who wrote and distributed this Bylaw Petition. I am only reporting on what I have read, and what I can see, and what it could mean if someone--anyone--decided to use this Bylaw Amendment in the same manner as the examples I have described for you. In summary, I will say again that this is one person's opinion--mine-- and that I am NOT an attorney. But if I am only half right, this Bylaw Amendment is something we do not need now--or at anytime. [end.] - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #83 ************************