From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Today's Washington Times Article Date: 01 Jun 1999 12:22:15 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:52:46 -0600 Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA27594; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:33:42 -0600 Received: (from petidomo@localhost) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27824; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:46:40 -0700 Received: from dub-img-11.compuserve.com (dub-img-11.compuserve.com [149.174.206.141]) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27821 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:46:39 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by dub-img-11.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.18) id NAA05496; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:44:21 -0400 (EDT) Gary Akers <3AKERS@worldnet.att.net>, Brett Feinstein , Hank Ford , "INTERNET:CWRHOADES@aol.com" , Warren B Jones , NRA-ILA-EVC List Message-ID: <199906011344_MC2-77C0-6CBE@compuserve.com> Reply-To: NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com Sender: NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com Precedence: list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Thought you would be interested in this. David Adams NRA-ILA-EVC, VA 7th http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/ ____________________________________________ NRA sets sights on gun-show measure ----- By Joyce Howard Price THE WASHINGTON TIMES ----- The National Rifle Association is proposing legislation to require background checks on every gun sold at gun shows, which it says will eliminate "the red tape" in the gun bill passed by the Senate. James J. Baker, the NRA's chief lobbyist, says as many as 211 House Republicans and between 30 and 55 Democrats could support the NRA's legislation. "I'm cautiously optimistic," he says in an interview. The NRA was "disappointed with the results" of the May 20 Senate = vote, Mr. Baker says, but cites only two provisions of the legislation that the NRA opposes. One is the Lautenberg amendment that the NRA chief lobbyist says = would be a "bureaucratic nightmare" and would shut down most gun shows because = of the paperwork the law would require. "The other issue we oppose is the large-magazine issue, which would ban importation of ammunition-feeding devices containing more than 10 rounds," Mr. Baker says. Currently, there are no analyses suggesting there is more crime from larger magazines, he says. But Mr. Baker says the magazine issue may be "tougher" to derail than the Lautenberg amendment, so named for its sponsor, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat. "It's more of a marginal issue that has less impact on the average gun owner." The NRA opposes the Lautenberg amendment, which passed the Senate on Vice President Al Gore's tie-breaking vote, because it "registers gun owners, gun collectors, and gun-show promoters," "penalizes gun-show promoters" and "invades the privacy of honest citizens." Under this measure, the NRA argues, a "person sitting at home discussing the sale of a personal firearms collection of 50 or more firearms would be required to have first registered his home as a 'gun show' with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" and pay a registration fee set by the bureau. The NRA also objects to the "massive record-keeping" requirements the amendment would impose on gun-show promoters. "In addition to being required to register and pay a fee to hold a gun show, gun-show promoters would also be required to check the identification of every show attendee who even discusses a gun sale," NRA spokesmen say. The NRA says the Lautenberg amendment "penalizes gun-show promoters" by "forcing them to pay fees with no set limits, forcing them to register with the government, forcing them to perform duties for the government, = and exposing them to civil liability for acts by third parties over [whom] = they have no control." The 2.8 million-member gun-rights organization holds that the legislation would invade privacy, since it would allow the federal government to retain for 90 days information about a person who clears an instant check. "Current law demands that information be destroyed immediately," the NRA says. "And it would be another handoff of legislative responsibility to the Treasury Department," because registration regulations would be promulgated= by the Treasury secretary, Mr. Baker says. The NRA, he says, is promoting a "much more reasonable provision to substitute" for the Lautenberg measure that "still provides background checks on every firearm sold at any gun show" --whether the purchaser is a dealer or a private individual. "We think we have a better way to do this without all the bureaucracy"= and "without the additional red tape that would be put on law-abiding people," he says. House leaders have said the House will take up the gun-control bill = in mid-June, and the NRA says its lobbying efforts already are well under = way. "We talked to a lot of members before the recess, and NRA members = will be talking to them at town meetings they hold in their districts," says = Mr. Baker. In addition, he says, the NRA mailed requests to all its members, asking that they write or call House members and express their opposition to the Lautenberg amendment. Mr. Baker scoffs at speculation that the NRA has lost its influence with Republicans in Congress. "Our obituaries have been written for 10 years, maybe 20 years," he says. Members of Congress "respect the voice of constituents who own firearms" and who are concerned about excess bureaucracy and regulation = and more executive-branch control," he says. He counts "at least 11 Republicans= in the House that we might lose" in its fight against the Lautenberg amendment, based on their prior voting records. He declined to identify all but Rep. Constance A. Morella of = Maryland. "She's a Republican who votes with the Democrats on a lot of social issues," he says. He thinks the NRA legislation can pick up 30 to 55 Democrats, based = on previous voting records of Democrats. NRA spokesmen will appear on talk radio to increase pressure for their legislation. ****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege**** The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20 official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20 a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20 jim@telebyte.com *********** Established 1998 *************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Cook's Office Date: 01 Jun 1999 12:51:57 -0600 Just got off the phone with Ray at Cook's office, these guys are getting = hammered by the calls expressing outrage at Cook's comments in the Trib = over the weekend that he will support the latest round of gun control. Ray even admitted that he didn't know why Cook had turned around and = decided to vote for more gun control when all along Cook has been saying = that we aren't enforcing the existing laws, so why pass more laws. Please take a minute to call Cook's office at 524-4394, let Rep Cook know = how you feel about him voting for more gun control. The fax number is = 524-5999. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: The Back Door Date: 01 Jun 1999 14:06:48 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 31 May 1999 13:35:03 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA26476; Mon, 31 May 1999 13:16:01 -0600 Received: from (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA04755; Mon, 31 May 1999 15:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.net Reply-To: JASPAR@aol.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline WHERE'S THE BACK DOOR? We all know there are two powerful things that always=20 get a politician's attention: money, and votes. But there's a third item, not discussed as often, called the "Back Door." It's a very useful tool as well as a powerful metaphor. It is an ingredient that has been MISSING in our battle against the latest wave of gun control. When this item is missing, it's like a gun without ammo --=20 it invariably guarantees we're going to lose.=20 Simply put, a back door is the excuse(s) or reason(s) a=20 politician gives when he/she votes for or against=20 something that will upset a segment of their constituency. A number of Republicans are now writing gun control laws,=20 and voting for them. They could not do this unless they had=20 a back door: they use the excuse of Littleton and Georgia, and they also use the back door that these new laws are "reasonable" and "appropriate." Another back door=20 is that "the people want it."=20 A lot of politicians are so dumb and lazy that you have to explain in full detail the back door they can use before they=20 will consider voting the way we want them to. The old back doors that "gun control doesn't work" or that "we already have enough laws" were beaten out by our opponents' arguments: "In the wake of Littleton,"=20 or "Let's do it for the children," or "How many more have to die?" Powerful, emotional cliches repeated over and over. For weeks the public was shown thousands of=20 images of anguished, hysterical faces, and then shown=20 images of guns -- on tables at gun shows, or lining the walls of gun stores. Logic went into meltdown. Fear ruled. The "connection" or "link" between guns and unbearable pain=20 was seared into the collective conscious.=20 So what can we do? Well, we can start searching for and=20 hopefully find a fresh, good, and usable new back door for=20 the Republicans who are now pushing gun control. If we can find and deliver one, some of these Republicans might change=20 their position. We might even persuade a few Democrats, too.=20 We should also keep in mind that the best back doors may not be=20 waiting to be un-covered or dis-covered; they might have to=20 be "invented" from scratch. A great back door is, of course, also a great sound bite. Too many Republicans who have decided to vote for gun=20 control are saying, "Littleton clinched it for me," followed by,=20 "We have to do something -- anything."=20 Bottom line: Our side has failed to come up with the=20 sound bites/back doors that could beat our opponents'=20 "arguments." Voting against gun control by saying "The=20 Constitution clinches it for me" is not enough (even=20 though it should be enough). The back door that the Colorado killers already broke about 20 gun laws clearly did not cut it. The back door that none of the new batch of proposed laws would have affected the Littleton tragedy also is insufficient. And, sorry, but the NRA's back door that all the current laws are just not=20 being rigorously enforced doesn't have enough juice, even=20 if it is absolutely true. Basically, the Republicans who go on TV and face the=20 nation have been *disarmed.* By default, they only have an=20 excuse or reason to vote FOR gun control, not AGAINST it.=20 We did not give them an obvious, viable, and believable=20 back door, and they certainly were not able to figure one out for themselves.=20 Personally, my response has been to use the old method:=20 I e-mailed, snail-mailed, and phoned my party's politicians=20 and officials to let them know I am withdrawing my=20 VOTE and my MONEY. For me, the back doors my elected officials are using are=20 stupid, unreasonable, and emotional -- they are=20 patently absurd excuses to pass even more laws that=20 can only affect people who obey the law in the first place.=20 But I failed. WE failed. Our side is FAILING.=20 We were unable to offer them what they really needed. I could not give them what might have worked and made the=20 difference: I could not offer them a powerful back door. I don't know what this new back door might look like. I have no idea of its shape or color. But I know that I don't know, and that's a good start. If we don't know that something is=20 missing, we're not going to be able to solve the problem.=20 I am saying the back door is missing. But I am also wondering to myself what I am trying so hard NOT to say. =20 It is very obvious to me that next time there is another Littleton -- and it is inevitable -- we had better have a=20 brilliant, slam-dunk new back door figured out and already=20 in place. =20 If we don't, I am afraid that the next Littleton and subsequent=20 wave of gun control may well be the last. --jaspar@aol.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Re: SEE THE FUTURE? Cal DOJ SKS "buy back" Date: 01 Jun 1999 16:29:01 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 01 Jun 1999 00:52:26 -0600 Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA26916; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:33:19 -0600 Received: (from petidomo@localhost) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07207; Mon, 31 May 1999 23:47:04 -0700 Received: from aesir.community.net (aesir.damerica.net [206.14.37.8]) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07204 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 23:47:02 -0700 Received: from p2i4o9 (n163.coco.community.net [140.174.226.163]) by aesir.community.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id XAA08630; Mon, 31 May 1999 23:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990601093850.006dce24@community.net> program begins Cc: NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com, "Member Council List" Reply-To: NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com Sender: NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com Precedence: list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline #1-- To the EVC list members this is what happens when the socialists win elections!! #2-- MCers in Calif -- We need to make BIG POSTERS [yes I'm shouting] WITH THE AUSTRALIAN gun confication pics and get them out!! Themes to be discussed on MC General. #3-- Fairfax -- Can U help with #2?? Or shall we wing it?? #4 -- N.Cal KSFO fans - I left a message with Geoff Metcalf -- So Cal contact your talk show hosts. #5-- Those in other states wish us luck -- we need it! Regards Ron Babcock -- Pres. MC Vallejo -- EVC Ca. CD-01 At 05:44 PM 5/31/99 EDT, CDMichel@aol.com wrote: >DOJ has begun the implementation of the SKS Sporter confiscation program. = =20 > >See it for yourself at the DOJ website: > >http://www.sksbuyback.org/content.html > >Need any more reasons to become politically active?! > >Chuck Michel > > > ****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege**** The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20 official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20 a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20 jim@telebyte.com *********** Established 1998 *************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Paul Harvey on Littleton Date: 02 Jun 1999 10:06:56 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 02 Jun 1999 06:53:03 -0600 Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA28805; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 06:33:55 -0600 Received: (from petidomo@localhost) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11877; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 05:47:40 -0700 Received: from hpdmgaaa.compuserve.com (dh-img-1.compuserve.com [149.174.206.131]) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA11874 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 05:47:40 -0700 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by hpdmgaaa.compuserve.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/HP-1.4) id IAA29436; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:45:03 -0400 (EDT) "INTERNET:Gail5227@aol.com" , NRA-ILA-EVC List Message-ID: <199906020844_MC2-77E5-2396@compuserve.com> Reply-To: NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com Sender: NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com Precedence: list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline PAUL HARVEY ON LITTLETON Paul Harvey read this Letter to the Editor on his news cast a couple of weeks ago. It was tracked down on the Internet through the San Angelo Standard - Times; give them full credit for this article. 4/27/99 How can we blame it all on guns? For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton, Colorado. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must have been the guns. It couldn't have been because of half our children being raised in broken homes. It couldn't have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. After = all, we give our children quality time. It couldn't have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets = as children. It couldn't have been because we place our children in day care centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the = law of the jungle while employees who have no vested interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is spilled. It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch, on the average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn't fit for adult consumption. It couldn't have been because we allow our children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most sadistic way possible. It couldn't have been because we have sterilized and contracepted our families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so = spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of the material with love. It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have been = seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time. It couldn't have been because we give two-year prison sentences to teenagers who kill their newborns. It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud by teaching evolution as fact and by handing out condoms as if they were candy. It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that = actions don't have consequences. What the heck, the president gets away with it. Nah, it must have been the guns. ****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege**** The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20 official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20 a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20 jim@telebyte.com *********** Established 1998 *************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Rush Limbaugh Advertizement Parody Date: 04 Jun 1999 10:58:28 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 04 Jun 1999 07:09:44 -0600 Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA01970; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 06:50:35 -0600 Received: (from petidomo@localhost) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29444; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 06:03:22 -0700 Received: from dub-img-9.compuserve.com (dub-img-9.compuserve.com [149.174.206.139]) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29441 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 06:03:19 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by dub-img-9.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.18) id JAA11329 for NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:00:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <199906040900_MC2-782B-6E82@compuserve.com> Reply-To: NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com Sender: NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com Precedence: list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_C99FABCB.62036D6C" --=_C99FABCB.62036D6C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I have a feeling that many of you have heard this on Rush but just in = case, I thought you might enjoy it. You must have "RealPlayer 5.0 to open the file (which only runs on Windows 95 and Pentium or higher processors).=20 RealPlayer can be downloaded from the web free if you have not already retrieved a copy. If you have a hard time opening the attachment, go to: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/9693/parodies/rush.html and scroll down to Second Amendment to play it. Rush has spent a lot of time on our issue since this began in mid May, = more than I think anything other than impeachment. Enjoy David Adams NRA-ILA-EVC, VA 7th http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/ --=_C99FABCB.62036D6C Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="C:My DocumentsRushfilessecond.ram" http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/9693/parodies/files/second.ra --=_C99FABCB.62036D6C-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: TESTIMONY OF FATHER OF VICTIMS Date: 04 Jun 1999 15:14:21 -0600 TESTIMONY OF DARRELL SCOTT FATHER OF TWO VICTIMS OF COLUMBINEHIGH SCHOOL = SHOOTING LITTLETON, COLORADO BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEEON CRIME HOUSE = JUDICIARY COMMITTEE UNITED STATES HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES.THURSDAY, MAY = 27,19992:00 P.M. 2141 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDINGSince the dawn of = creation there has been both good and evilin the heart of men and of = women. We all contain the seedsof kindness or the seeds of violence.The = death of my wonderful daughter Rachel Joy Scott, and thedeaths of that = heroic teacher and the other children who diedmust not be in vain. Their = blood cries out for answers.The first recorded act of violence was when = Cain slew his brotherAbel out in the field. The villain was not the club = he used.Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The = truekiller was Cain and the reason for the murder could only be foundin = Cain's heart.In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed = athow quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA.I am = not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even owna gun. I am = not here to represent or defend the NRA - because Idon't believe that they = are responsible for my daughters death.Therefore I do not believe that = they need to be defended. If Ibelieved they had anything to do with = Rachel's murder I would betheir strongest opponent.I am here today to = declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -it was a spiritual event = that should be forcing us to look atwhere the real blame lies!Much of that = blame lies here in this room. Much of that blame liesbehind the pointing = fingers of the accusers themselves..I wrote a poem just four nights ago = that express my feelings best.This was written way before I knew l would = be speaking heretoday. Your laws ignore our deepest needs Your words are = empty air. You've stripped away our heritage. You've outlawed simple = prayer. Now gunshots fill our classrooms. And precious children die. You = seek for answers everywhere. And ask the question "WHY"? You regulate = restrictive laws. Through legislative creed. Add yet you fail to understand= . That God is what we need!Men and women are three part beings. We all = consist of body, soul,and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third = part of ourmakeup, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and = hatredto rush in and wreak havoc.Spiritual influences were present within = our educational Systemsfor most of our nation's history. Many of our major = colleges beganas theological seminaries. This is a historic fact.What has = happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor Godand in doing so, = we open the doors to hatred and violence.And when something as terrible as = Columbine's tragedy occurs,politicians immediately look for a scapegoat = such as the NRA.They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws = thatcontinue to erode away our personal and private liberties.We do not = need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would nothave been stopped by = metal detectors. No amount of gun laws canstop someone who spends months = planning this type of massacre.The real villain lies within our OWN = hearts. Political posturingand restrictive legislation is not the = answers.The young people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritualaw= akening taking place that will not be squelched!We do not need more = religion. We do not need more gaudy Televisionevangelists spewing out = verbal religious garbage. We do not needmore million dollar church = buildings built while people with basicneeds are being ignored.We do need = a change of heart and an humble acknowledgment thatthis nation was founded = on the principle of simple trust in God.As my son Craig lay under that = table in the school library and sawhis two friends murdered before his = very eyes. He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or = politician to denyhim that right!I challenge every young person in America = and around the world torealize that on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High = School - - prayerwas brought back to our schools. Do not let the many = prayersoffered by those students be in vain.Dare to move into the new = millennium with a sacred disregard forlegislation that violates your = conscience and denies yourGod-given right to communicate with Him. To = those of you who would point your finger at the NRA - I giveto you sincere = challenge. Dare to examine your own heart beforeyou cast the first = stone!My daughter's death will not be in vain. The young people of = thiscountry will not allow that to happen. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Australia Shamed! Date: 06 Jun 1999 14:19:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- " IF WE OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE THEM!" (http://communities.msn.com/outdoors/magazines/firearms/1/australia.asp) Australia after Gun Confiscation The following is a synopsis of an interview conducted by Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association. One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in... A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond, "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see..." OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA: * Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2% * Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6% * Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT) * In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%. Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months) * Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months) * There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly * At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm" * From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard. * The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions * The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected. * Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer". "...The best organization you've got there, the biggest organization you've got there is the NRA. We don't have an organization that size. We didn't have an organization that size, and as a consequence, we suffered. And we hope that you don't suffer..." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: SO YOU REALLY WANT TO SHOOT THAT GUN!!! 1/2 Date: 06 Jun 1999 14:19:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- SO YOU REALLY WANT TO SHOOT THAT GUN!!! It is September, 1998 in Anytown, Canada. You walk past the local gun store, and, acting on impulse go back, step in and fall in love! There, locked behind glass, is the gun of your dreams. That special handgun you KNOW is going to make you look good on the range. And the price is just too good to be true! It feels custom-made for your hand, and with a great deal of joy you say, "Wrap it up, I'll take it!" Thus you have unknowingly taken the first step in a road becoming less and less traveled.... The first thing you are asked is, "Can I see your FAC?" While you look blankly the salesman, he says again he wants to see your Firearms Acquisition Certificate. While you are still looking blankly at him, he starts explaining to you. "A firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) is required before you can purchase any firearm here in Canada. If you don't have a valid FAC, you must get one, and when you have it, you come back and I will sell you the gun. By the way here is a list of instructors." Feeling a bit let down, you take the paper and mumble your way back home, and start phoning. FAC Instructors and Examiners are certified by the Federal Government to teach and test for FAC's. You discover that you have to take a minimum of 12 hours of classes, and two tests, one written and one practical to prove you have basic firearms knowledge, and supposedly some safety knowledge as well. Cost $100-125. Finally you find someone who is putting on a course in the next week who has an opening, so you leap at it. After all, you don't know enough about the current legislation to challenge the course, so feel this is the best plan. Time passed since you saw the gun - 1 week. You take the course, think it's interesting, but seems to be too repetitive and doesn't really attend to safety too much, but what the heck, now you can go get your gun. Wrong! Course takes two weeks spread out over several evenings - Cost to date: $125.00 - time passed 3 weeks. You make your first trip to your local police department to get the forms you need to fill out to apply for the FAC. This four page triplicate form is an imposing 8.5"x14" and asks such questions as what colour are your eyes, blue green, gray, hazel or maroon? **Maroon? Just where do they think you come from?** They ask about your private life, family life, health, finances, relationship breakups, prior brushes with the law and about medications you may be taking. Severe penalties are dispensed if you lie on this form, it warns ominously. You also have to acquire the oaths of two people who have know you for more than three years who think it's ok if you have a gun... BUT... they must be of certain "Classes" of people.. Doctors, lawyers, military officers, tribal band leaders, fellow employees, hair dressers, clergy or your (married to you) spouse (common- law, while good enough to ding you for taxes is not good enough to sign as a character witness). There goes another week! Time passed - 4 weeks. So you take your recently acquired certification of course completion; two passport photos of yourself ($12.00); the fee for an FAC application which is non-refundable ($50.00) and the completed application form to your local police department. Again, you get excited thinking the gun is now yours. Wait!! The police officer takes your money, application, etc. and says "OK it'll come in the mail if you qualify. We keep it here for 28 days before we even start to process, most are taking 6-7 months to come back" SIX TO SEVEN MONTHS!! In that time frame the police will contact your two endorsers and grill them about you, they will check your neighbours to see what they think of you (**nothing like letting the whole neighbourhood know you will have guns on premises) they will call your employer, and lastly, but not least they call up any ex's in your last two year time frame and ask them if they feel alright about your owning firearms!!! But it's the law.. What can you do? (Cost to date: $187.00 +14% tax). You are one of the lucky ones, your FAC arrives in a speedy six months. Full of joy you rush down to the gun store to finally buy your gun. With a flourish you present your FAC and plunk your money down, drooling over your new toy. The salesman carefully writes down reams of information on his receipt book, name, address, gun stats, numbers, and on and on, and you bounce from foot to foot in anticipation. You sign a big legal book stating you have actually purchased this firearm, the salesman takes your money and hands you the sales slip and smiles. "When you get your Permit To Register come back and we will give you your gun." Stunned you once more go to your local police department. Of course you don't live near the gun store, and have to go to the police in your jurisdiction so waste another day or two there, but we won't count those. Time passed - 7 months. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: SO YOU REALLY WANT TO SHOOT THAT GUN!!! 2/2 Date: 06 Jun 1999 14:19:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] The police take your sales slip and tell you to come back the next day or so, and they will have the Permit filled out for you. Getting really frustrated you come back two days later, and they ask what time you want on the Permit. They guestimate it takes 1 hour from the gun store to the police department.. So they give you a specified time span of 1.5 hours to complete the task. To the cop shop? "Yes, you have to bring the gun back here for verification." So off you go to the gun store, show the salesman the Permit and he says, "OK, where's your case and locks?" Numbly you hand over money for a small gun case; one trigger lock and one case lock. ($40.00) You notice the time and drive through heavy traffic and get to the cop shop barely within the specified time. You open the case, and the officer carefully inspects the firearms verifying all the numbers. You are planning some weekend shooting tomorrow. Wrong. The officer smiles, locks the case and walks off with it saying, "When you Registration Certificate comes in the mail from Ottawa, phone us and let us know and we will start the next step.. Have a nice day!" Cost to date: $227.00 +14% tax (not including the firearm), time passed (and now we will count those days last week.. 7 months, 1 week! And you are getting REALLY ***** *** (angry). Patience has worn extremely thin by now, but at this point you have invested quite a bit of money, so you wait... and wait... and wait. Finally anywhere from 3-6 months later, your green registration slips arrive from Ottawa (we will use 3 months in our count). Ecstatic, you race down to your local police department to claim your gun... finally! Time passed: 10 months 1 week) There you are informed that before you can pick up your gun, they must do one more check and make sure there are no restraints against you... after all it has been months now!! The next day, getting really cranky, you go down to the police and FINALLY, you can take you gun home with you on a Permit to Transport... but again it has a very short time span. As you are leaving, you comment that "Finally I can go shooting!!" "Wait", says the officer, "do you have a valid Permit to Carry? Firearms Licence? Club Membership Card? Need those before you can go out and use that thing!" WHAT????? As ****** ** **** (more angry) you slam into the house, chuck the locked case in the gun safe and start dialing your local gun club. Yes you can get a membership for $50, and yes they will sign an application for a Permit to Carry stating you are a member in good standing... but not until next month's meeting. It will take about 3 month's to get the Permit back, and you can not go to the range without one, they remind you the penalty is 2 years in jail and a hefty fine!!! Livid you go to a sporting goods store and buy the Firearms Licence issued by the Provincial Government (**knowing damn well it is just a tax grab), and they nail you another $21.00. By now you are furious. At the club meeting 3 months later you finally get your Permit to Carry. Time passed: 13 months - Cost: $298.00 + 14% taxes NOT INCLUDING ANY FIREARM OR AMMO. Finally you can go to the range. But somehow, the thrill of discovery 13 months ago just isn't there. ___ *** ___ *** ___ *** ___ On October 1, 1998 the Firearms Act came into effect in Canada. It is supposed to decrease the time and trouble to acquire all the above. It is all computerized, fast, fool-proof and efficient. **and if you believe that, I have a bridge for you. In the next installment, I will tell you what's new, what's not working, and what's coming down the chute. DON'T THINK FOR A SECOND BECAUSE YOU ARE IN AMERICA YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS STUPIDITY... YOU ARE NOT!! ALL THIS IS HEADING YOUR WAY..Ms. Brady et.al. Are out to get you. It is vital you fight for your rights. You will soon see there is more to this than losing your guns... YOU ARE LOSING YOUR FREEDOM!! DON'T STOP FIGHTING.. EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. WRITE TO YOUR LEGISLATORS.. The only thing they fear more than an armed citizen is a lost vote. Tell them how you will vote... many times over. JOIN THE POLITICAL PARTY OF THOSE DOING THE MOST HARM TO YOU.... fight them from the inside. WRITE LETTERS... remember each letter is one count, multi signed letters, even with ten signatures is one count. Send ten letters! JOIN GROUPS THAT SUPPORT FOREARMS OWNERSHIP ... (even if they ticked you off in Littleton by backing off).. they are all you have. You will see in the next installment, it get's worse. So fight, fight, fight!!! Northy in Canada - and yes, I'm female. :) E-Mail to majordomo@iList.net with the word "help" in the message body. Go to http://www.GOA-Texas.org/Email.htm for subscriber information. NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Our Website is http://www.GOA-texas.org The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of Gun Owners Alliance. We do not officially represent Gun Owners of America. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: GOUtah! Alert #15-1 June 1999 1/2 Date: 06 Jun 1999 14:19:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. Visit our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! GOUtah! Alert #15-1 June 1999 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "The freemen of America will remember, that it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary, despotic, or military one: but it is very difficult, almost impossible to reverse the matter - very difficult to regain freedom once lost." -The Freeman's Journal Philadelphia, March 5, 1788 If you wish to continue to receive this information under the GOUtah! banner, you need to do nothing. If you wish to be added to or taken off the GOUtah! list, please log onto our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! or send an e-mail to GOUtah3006@aol.com or send a fax to (801) 944-9937 asking to be added to or removed from the GOUtah! list. If you wish to forward or share this copyrighted information with others, you are welcome to do so, on the condition that you pass along the entire document intact and unmodified, and that GOUtah! is clearly indicated as the original source of the material, unless otherwise noted. Gun Control Bills Now Move To The U.S. House. Utah's Republican Representatives Need To Be Contacted Today! The stridently anti-gun Juvenile Crime bill has passed the U.S. Senate and now will be debated in the U.S. House of Representatives. The leadership of the Republican-controlled body have indicated they intend to support much if not all of the Senate anti-gun measures and add a few of their own. It sounds like 1968 all over again. Orrin Hatch, as the bill's Senate floor manager, was also the leading Republican Senate compromiser, inviting the anti-gun forces in both parties to load the bill with additional gun control measures, including Brady background checks on private party sales gun shows and pawn redemptions, stepped up enforcement of federal gun laws, huge budget increases for BATF, ammunition magazine import bans, mandatory gun locks, prohibitions of juvenile possession of some types of firearms and similar draconian restrictions. It is critical that you contact your U.S. Congressional Representatives and demand that they vote against any further restriction on your rights to keep and bear arms. Make it clear to them that if they choose not to protect your rights, there will be a heavy political price paid at the polls in the next election. Please call early and often on this issue. You may reach Utah's U.S. Congressional Representatives at the following addresses, telephone and fax numbers, and by e-mail: Congressional District 1: Northern and Western Utah, except Salt Lake Metro Rep. Jim Hansen (R) 242 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone (202) 225-0453 Fax (202) 225-5857 E-mail: www.house.gov click on Members and select Jim Hansen Local Office: 324-25th Ave. Ogden, Utah 84401 Utah Phone: (801) 451-5822 Utah Fax: (801) 621-7846 Congressional District 2: Salt Lake Metro Area Rep. Merrill Cook (R) 1431 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0001 Phone (202) 225-3011 Fax (202) 225-5638 E-mail: Cong.Merrill.Cook@mail.house.gov Local Office: 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 Utah Phone: (801) 524-4394 Congressional District 3: Central and Eastern Utah Rep. Chris Cannon (R) 118 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-4403 Phone (202) 225-7751 Fax (202) 225-5629 E-mail: Cannon.ut03@mail.house.gov Local Offices: 51 South University Drive Provo, Utah 84606 Utah Phone: (801) 379-2500 Utah Fax (801) 379-2509 Congressman Chris Cannon Proposes Pro-Gun Amendment Utah's Chris Cannon (R-3rd Dist) intends to propose a pro-gun amendment designed to force the Department of Justice to "immediately" destroy all records of Brady background checks for those individuals who have no disqualifying background and pass the check. Currently the FBI is reported to be retaining all Brady records for some 6 to 18 months for 'audit purposes.' Cannon's amendment also limits the time period for a law enforcement response to a blocked sale from 5 to 3 working days. GOUtah! has been in discussions with Congressman Cannon's staff and have also suggested that his amendment address the following points: -Create a permanent, independent oversight and audit board to review and insure Federal compliance with record destruction on an ongoing basis, comprised of the GAO, along with gun rights and civil liberty organizations, which will report to Congress on regular intervals, not to exceed every six months. -Prohibit the use of any funds, public or private, for developing or maintaining any such gun records in violation federal law. Create a budget 'defunding' penalty equal to twice the amount any federal agency might spend on such record keeping programs in violation of federal law. Create specific civil and criminal penalties for any federal employee, agent or appointee who directs or implements any such record keeping in violation of federal law. -Prohibit the creation or maintenance of any federal database of gun owners or firearms owned, based in whole or in part on the 'out of business' records of the hundreds of thousands of FFLs who were driven out of business by the current administration's anti-gun policies. Order the destruction of any central online database based on these records which may currently exist. GOUtah! asks you to contact Rep. Chris Cannon and encourage him to adopt the points listed above in his amendment as it works its way through drafting and into the committee and floor process. Gov. Leavitt Calls For Special Gun Session In Fall Of 1999 Governor Leavitt intends to call for a special session of the Utah Legislature to consider Utah gun laws in the Fall of 1999. If he cannot get a majority of Utah legislators to support the special session, it will not take place. GOUtah! asks every Utah gun owner and concerned citizen to immediately and repeatedly contact their state representatives and senators at home and again urge them to take a measured and rational approach to these issues, rather that blame peaceable gun owners for the deep seated ills of our society. We must now work overtime to avoid a special session of the Utah Legislature, which would likely devolve into a free-for-all legal and media circus which will ride roughshod over our gun rights. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: GOUtah! Alert #15-1 June 1999 2/2 Date: 06 Jun 1999 14:19:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Please remember to attend the Utah Interim Legislative Committee hearings on Wednesday, 16 June 1999 at 2:00PM in Room 303 of the Utah State Capitol. It is critical we be there in force! Make your voice heard to protect your rights! Reviewing the Lessons of Gun Control History Submitted by GOUtah! Activist B.D. The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Those who do not learn from the lessons of history are bound to learn those same lessons first-hand. GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch "I urge you to trust and believe in your local law enforcement officers and to trust and believe in the courage of following your heart and surrendering your fear and anger.'' -- Actress Sharon Stone, urging Americans to follow her lead by giving up their privately owned firearms,Yahoo! News Oddly Enough Headlines Notable Quotes, Friday May 21, 1999. Submitted by GOUtah! Webmaster Martin Glantz. "Fear is the path to the dark side...fear leads to anger...anger leads to hate...hate leads to suffering." --Jedi Master Yoda, the fictional character in the newest "Star Wars" movie as quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune, 15 May 1999. (Perhaps Ms. Stone was taking the Star Wars fictional character's advice just a little too literally...Yoda is just an animated puppet, Ms. Stone, not a moral sage for the ages.) "Freedom-loving Americans better wake up to the fact that we're fighting against a wave of massive government intrusion." --Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association. as quoted in the NRA American Guardian Magazine, February 1999 "They ought to take him out and shoot him with a .44 Bulldog." --Spike Lee, the well-known African-American film director, quoted as advocating the destruction of the National Rifle Association, and apparently the deliberate, cold-blooded murder of its elected president, Charlton Heston, in comments made to reporters at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival. "Nowhere else do I see them trying to exploit the tragedies (in Littleton, Colorado and other recent shootings) as much as they are in Utah. It seems to be coming from the Governor's office." --Brian Judy, NRA/ILA state liaison to Utah, in an interview published 31 May 1999 in the Salt Lake Tribune. I'm not one who wants my child going to a school where the way we protect children is to arm teachers." --Governor Michael O. Leavitt, describing himself as a "very strong defender of the Second Amendment" as quoted in the same article published in the Salt Lake Tribune, 31 May 1999. "The fact that I support these measures in no way detracts from my ardent support of the right of an American to own and even operate a gun." --Rep. Merrill Cook, the Republican Congressman for Utah's 2nd District, explaining why he intends to vote in favor of drastic gun control measures, including mandatory background checks on all gun buyers, along with child safety locks on all handguns and raising the minimum age for firearms purchases to 21, as quoted in an interview in the Salt Lake Tribune, 31 May 1999. The article also noted that Rep. Cook received $62,105.00 in direct donations and independent expenditures on his behalf from the National Rifle Association during his 1998 re-election bid. "The gun-violence problem is more than the problem of guns in the hands of bad people. It's also a problem of guns in the hands of good people." --Dennis Henigan, a representative of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. as quoted by Peter J. Boyer in a recent issue of The New Yorker magazine. "It's time for a national dialogue." --Bob Templeton, Owner of Crossroads of the West Gun Shows, indicating his support for Brady background checks on private party firearms purchasers at gun shows., Salt Lake Tribune, 22 May 1999. (Note: Mr. Templeton is also a long-time member of the Board of Trustees of the Utah Shooting Sports Council) "Habitual Republican lack of discipline and strategy collided last Thursday with a barely hidden Democratic agenda of eventual gun confiscation. The result was a political windfall that had Democrats giddy." --Robert Novak, describing the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate's headlong retreat from protecting gun rights, Chicago Tribune, 24 May 1999 "...guns should be thought of as pathogens, and gun ownership, perhaps, as a disease." --Peter J. Boyer paraphrasing statements made by Dennis Henigan, a representative of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, in a recent issue of The New Yorker magazine. If you have a gun rights quote you'd like to share, please send it, along with a verifiable original source reference to GOUtah! That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #15 - 1 June 1999. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending your firearms rights. Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal! Copyright 1999 by GOUtah! All rights reserved. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: May the Force Date: 06 Jun 1999 21:10:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Darth Sidius, the eventual evil emperor in the Star Wars saga, says this in "The Phantom Menace." "Fear is the path to the dark side...fear leads to anger...anger leads to hate...hate leads to suffering." Erin Partridge (Dick's son) observes: Despite that this was said by a fictional character, it does have a lot of wisdom and is very applicable to the gun issue to gun owners favour. Littleton created a lot of FEAR of guns and their owners. In fact a lot of people got ANGRY at gun owners. Many actually showed HATE ---such as by protesting the NRA at Denver, saying "they're not welcome." But if gun prohibitionists -- mostly well meaning but misled people -- do get there way --- What will it lead to? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Looking for recording of GOP convention--off topic Date: 07 Jun 1999 12:54:24 -0600 Apologies for an off topic post, but I'm hoping some here may have the info I need. I am currently trying to track down audio or video recordings made at the State GOP convention this past Saturday. I am especially interested in any recordings of Senator Hatch's remarks. In addition to seeing several individuals with camcorders I also saw several larger cameras and crews like those used by the professional media. I have checked with TV stations KUTV (ch 2), KUWB (ch 30), KTVX (ch 4), and KSL (ch 5). None of them had camera crews at the convention. I have also contacted the State GOP HQ, but they do not have any recordings or further info as of yet (maybe something will come into their hands in the next few days, but no guarantees). I have a call into Hatch's local office to request a transcript, but have not heard back from yet either. If anyone has a recording of Hatch's speech, or if you know of anyone, idividual or organization (ie did you notice which stations had film crews there or did you see any video broadcast on any news reports), who may have made a recording of his comments, please let me know. I very much want to get a copy of his speech and will happily pay any reasonable price for copying, etc. Thank you Charles. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: June 7 column -- private mailboxes--a bit on guns in this one Date: 08 Jun 1999 13:01:26 -0600 ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: Return-path: Received: from mx1.boston.juno.com (mx1.boston.juno.com [207.205.100.50]) by x13.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA5X3MNWANXBST2 (sender ); Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:43:48 -0400 (EST) Received: from ez0.ezlink.com (ezlink.com [199.45.150.1]) by mx1.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA5X3MNWADML79A (sender ); Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:43:48 -0400 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA16982; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:43:00 -0600 Resent-From: vinsends@ezlink.com Resent-Date: xMessageSize=30000000 Resent-Sender: vinsends-request@ezlink.com Resent-Message-ID: <"UHS623.0.X84.rqANt"@ez0.ezlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JUNE 7, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz You dared use a private postal competitor? Why is there suddenly so much talk about an "alternative tax system"? Because our congresscritters just now started to feel compassion for us, their long-suffering milk cows, after 85 years? It couldn't be because "voluntary compliance" with the existing system is plummeting as folks enter the gray market of offshore e-commerce, a trend which can only accelerate as rumors spread that the already sclerotic computer system of the IRS may not survive Y2K? Couldn't that help explain the accelerating frenzy to ear-tag and track every American and his money? It is in this context that we must view the frantic haste with which the Clinton administration now seeks to "close the loopholes" and make sure federal agencies permanently record the serial number of every firearm -- as well as the buyer's home address -- whenever there's a transfer. In this context, it starts to make sense that the process of "voluntarily applying" for a Social Security number (like you could really get a job without one) no longer waits till the wide-eyed youth's first job at age 16, but is now imposed on squalling infants in the hospital delivery room -- whether parents sign the consent form or not. This growing panic that some members of the formerly docile herd may somehow slip out of the observation and grasp of those who enjoy milking us weekly shows up in the recent requirement that federally-regulated banks (any other kind of bank is illegal, of course) report every customer transaction over $5,000 -- justified as a step against drug-dealers, though in fact 99.9 percent of transactions thus reported turn out to involve no "crime." Yet even (start ital)that(end ital) wasn't enough for the FDIC, which beat a hasty retreat from its far more onerous "Know Your Customer" bank snitch regulations earlier this year only after a record 200,000 citizens filed objections via the Internet. But it didn't take long for them to assault our remaining privacy from another front. Though the average postal regulation draws fewer than a dozen total comments, more than 8,000 citizens wrote in during December of 1997 to oppose a new requirement that will seriously affect 1.5 to 2.5 million individuals and small businesses who rent private mailboxes. The Postal Service put its new rule into effect a month ago, anyway. (Perhaps they found the 10 favorable responses more compelling than the 8,000 objections.) As of April 24, according to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, "Any American currently renting or planning to rent a commercial mailbox must provide the commercial agency with personal information, including two forms of identification: one must display a photograph of the renter, and the other include a 'serial number ... traceable to the bearer' ... generally today's de facto national ID -- the Social Security Number. "The Postal Service now requires that the commercial agency send the information to the Post Office, which in turn will maintain the information in a database. ... It should not escape notice that the Postal Service, under the Privacy Act of 1974, is prohibited from doing this itself. How ironic, and outrageous, that the Post Office is mandating a private business do what Congress has explicitly forbidden the Post Office from doing." Rick Merritt of the new organization Postal Watch -- created specifically to oppose these new restrictions -- points out this regulation also requires that the initials PMB -- for "Private Mail Box" -- must by October appear on a separate line on any mail addressed to such an address, "or the Postal Service has said they will return the mail to the sender marked 'undeliverable.' "This is the first time, to my knowledge, that they will have violated their original mandate to deliver mail to all communities in the United States," says Merritt, a computer consultant who has operated his business out of a private mailbox in Dallas for the past nine years. "And this is what is driving the cost; it appears the minimum first level cost will exceed more than $1 billion," in the next six months, as the estimated 1.5 to 2.5 million private boxholders have to spend time and money advising everyone who might send them mail of this new "PMB" address requirement. Affected are "a very large constituency of people who live essentially full-time in their recreational vehicles and depend on a mail-forwarding service to get their mail," Merritt says, as well as "survivors of domestic violence and stalking victims who use these mailboxes to remain anonymous from the perpetrators of those crimes. ... "The justification from the postal service is that people have the right to know where they're sending their mail, that it's deceptive to use 'suite' or just the box number," Merritt reports. The post office also cites the risks of mail fraud and "identity theft," though ironically the new regulation for the first time mandates the creation of a document containing all the information a culprit would need to "steal" a boxholder's identity. On the other hand, nearly every American who rents a private box is taking that business away from his local post office -- and also now finds it easier to receive UPS and Federal Express packages at the same address, spurring more growth for those postal competitors. "The post office likes this database because it will give them a 100-percent, no-error list of people who have opted against using a Postal Service PO Box and related services," comments Rep. Paul. "The long-term cost of this rule is incalculable, but will no doubt force some of these businesses into bankruptcy." What can be done before those 10,000 small, independently owned businesses start closing their doors? Contact your local congresscritter, and urge him or her to support Rep. Paul's House Joint Resolution 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, calling for expedited action to overturn the new regulations. Or, contact Postal Watch, 3419 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Virginia Beach, VA 23452, through the group's web site at http://www.postalwatch.org, or by dialing 877-576-7825. Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is the author of "Send in the Waco Killers." *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * ------ If you have subscribed to vinsends@ezlink.com and you wish to unsubscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your OLD address, including the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: HR 1790, Separation of Powers, STOP THIS!!!! Date: 08 Jun 1999 14:11:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- When you call your critter to tell him to stop the juvie Justice bill and all the 2d Amend violations, tell him to stop HR1790 in its tracks! read the following then WRITE (snail) or CALL - do NOT be satisfied with an EMAIL! This is a serious and grave problem that will truly give the President the right to create laws IF he ever loses his right to issue PDDs and EOs and then gives those the full power of legislative laws. Read this and WRITE or CALL your representative even, the critters local office. FAX a message on this and on Juvie Justice. HCI is really gearing up in support of new 2d Amend violating amendments to the bill and the caving Republicrats have got to get the word!!! 1999 11:01:45 -0400 EMERGENCY ALERT II This writer has obtained a copy of the full text of the bill that was the subject of the first alert (H.R. 1790). It's not as bad as was painted in that article. It's worse! Although the subject matter of the bill (off-site consequence analysis information) will not be considered very important by some, the "legal" precedents it tries to establish are a template for control by the executive branch in other areas where similar (unconstitutional) laws are passed. In plain English the bill would do the following. It would criminalize any "knowing" violations of restrictions or prohibitions established as authorized by the bill. Those prohibitions and restrictions would be established through "guidance" issued by the "administrator" of the federal agency or any officer or employee of the agency to whom the administrator wished to delegate the authority. The "guidance" would not be subject to judicial review. The "guidance" would preempt any state or local law in conflict with it. The subject information would be exempted from Freedom of Information Acts (federal, state and local). It equates presidential Executive Orders with statutes passed by Congress in establishing "legal" requirements. It allows the administrator to withhold, or prevent the release of, information if he or she determines that release may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or welfare or the environment. Finally, it allows, but does not require, the Attorney General to report to Congress regarding enhancing site security practices (read guidance) and the need for continued implementation or modification of the Act. The "administrator", or other employee of the agency developing the "guidance", would be required to consult with other "appropriate" federal agencies, but not with state or local officials who would be subject to criminal penalties if they violated the "guidance". This bill, if enacted, would violate at least three provisions of the constitution: 1.Article I, Section. 1, states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives". 2.Article I, Section 8 states "The Congress shall have the power? To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". 3.Again in Article I, Section 8 "The Congress shall have the Power..To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". This is a separation of powers issue. The Congress cannot delegate to the executive branch the power to issue anything that has the force of law no matter what it is called (guidance, regulations, executive orders or whatever) any more than the president can delegate his authority as commander-in-chief of the military to the Congress. Please forward this follow up to all who received the original alert and continue your protests to the Congress over this unconstitutional delegation of power to the Executive. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ALERT! The Real S. 254 Date: 08 Jun 1999 14:11:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The House of Representatives will soon vote on an omnibus "juvenile crime" bill. A new Issue Paper from the Independence Institute details the civil liberties horrors hidden in Senate Bill 254, the juvenile crime bill recently passed by the Senate. Many or all of these provisions may be placed in the House bill, which is still being drafted. Among the dangerous items in S. 254 which have been ignored by the media are a provision that would allow federal prosecutors to effectuate forfeitures for _state_ misdemeanors and felonies. Below is the Executive Summary of key points from the new Issue Paper. The full 22-page text is available at: http://i2i.org/suptdocs/crime/unfair.htm The paper is titled "Unfair and Unconstitutional: The New Federal Juvenile Crime and Gun Control Proposals." It is written by David B. Kopel and James Winchester. Executive Summary: I. Too Fast, Too Big, No Legitimate Congressional Involvement This Issue Paper addresses some of [the] most obvious problems with the Senate Bill 254, and with any House of Representatives counterpart which copies provisions from S. 254. S. 254 and its House counterpart are massive bills--far too large for any legislator to examine carefully before voting-especially when bills are brought to the floor almost as fast as they are drafted. Such mammoth legislation is an abdication of the responsibilities of representative government; if Representatives do not even know what is in the bill they are voting on, they are not real representatives. S. 254 and its House counterpart violate the Tenth Amendment by imposing federal hegemony on states' authority over juvenile justice. S. 254 and its House counterpart purport to exercise Congressional powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce, that have only tenuous and trivial connections to juvenile justice. Although these bills claim to be a "law and order" bill, they are in fact a lawless usurpation of power. Almost nothing [in] S. 254 criminalizes conduct which is actually harmful to anyone. Instead, S. 254 broadens the scope of various pr[text missing] II. Gun Control Provisions Existing federal gun control law prohibits any use of records created for firearms regulation to be used to create a registry of gun owners. The Lautenberg Amendment to S. 254 in effect destroys this protection against the compilation of lists of people who exercise their constitutional rights. The Lautenberg Amendment applies to much more than gun shows. It ratifies the Clinton Administration's illegal practice of using the National Instant Check System to compile lists of gun buyers--including buyers who buy at gun stores, not at gun shows. The Brady Act was never intended to apply to transfers of firearms by private persons. The Act was intended only for sales by federally licensed dealers. That the Brady Act does not apply to private sales is not a "loophole" created by the NRA; it is the decision of Mrs. Brady and her organization, in the language that they proposed to Congress in 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, and 1988. Lautenberg does much more than require a NICS (National Instant Check System) verification of the gun purchaser's legal eligibility. In addition, there is a requirement that identity and address of the purchaser be permanently registered in writing. Lautenberg imposes an additional registration step unprecedented in Federal firearms control law: the sale must be reported within 10 days to the Department of the Treasury. Firearms sales in firearms stores do not even have this requirement! (In a firearms store, the buyer fills out a registration form, but this form is retained by the dealer, and not sent to the federal government.) The Lautenberg Amendment is not about loopholes, it is about creating a firearms tracking system for private sales; today the gun shows, tomorrow all private sales. The amendment creates hugely onerous burdens to conducting a gun show, including an unlimited tax, registration of private sellers and perhaps attendees as well. This is a bullying attempt to destroy gun shows, which are currently the main method for political communication in the Second Amendment community. Violation of Lautenberg's convoluted system--even by mere attendees at gun shows--is made a felony, in gross disregard of the lack of seriousness of the underlying "crime." S. 254 imposes a mandatory one-year prison sentence on adults who violate the current federal prohibition on giving handguns to minors. Thus, a father who gives a family heirloom in a locked glass case to a son on the son's seventeenth birthday would spend a mandatory year in prison. S. 254 expands the ban on juvenile possession of handguns (which is properly a matter for state, not federal law), by extending the ban to so-called "assault weapons." As defined by federal law, "assault weapons" are ordinary firearms which have certain cosmetically incorrect features, such as bayonet lugs, or a "conspicuous" magazine. Young people should not be forbidden to possess firearms simply because the firearms look ugly to people who know nothing about firearms. The Appendix to this Issue Paper details the nineteen state and federal weapons control laws which were broken by murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. III. Other Civil Liberties Violations The media's obsessive focus on gun control has prevented public discovery-so far-of numerous provisions in S. 254 which effect major intrusions on civil liberties. These include: A provision allowing interception of the content of electronic communications without a warrant. Provisions to encourage suspicionless drug testing of students. A new federal law providing extra punishment for people who wear body armor during a crime-even if the armor has nothing to do with the crime (e.g., a liquor store owner cheats on his taxes, while wearing body armor for protection from robbery). Incredibly, the penalty does not apply to law enforcement officers who criminally violate a person's civil rights! An expansion of the scope and penalties of the federal law regarding "criminal street gangs"-so that the law would apply to activities which have nothing to do with gangs or streets. A major expansion of forfeiture powers, which would allow U.S. Attorneys to bring forfeiture cases for state felonies of all types and for many state misdemeanors. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: About the GOP Convention 1/2 Date: 08 Jun 1999 14:11:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The reporter (who was anonymous in the copy I received) neglects to mention that Gerry Arthus got 22% of the vote for GOP state chair. Those who attended might be able to identify the writer by the actions described herein. ---------- Introduction: The following covers various aspects of the Utah Republican Party State Convention that I thought were significant or in which I had interest. Before doing so, however, I wish to commend all those who participated in what I felt was a very successful event. For your information, at the bottom of this lengthy message you can find links to news coverage of the Convention. Summary: At Convention the delegates approved resolutions opposing the anti-gun provisions in Sen. Orrin Hatch's S. 254, and Gov. Leavitt's call for a special legislative session to enact gun control. A Constitutional Amendment to institute proportional selection of national delegates narrowly failed to receive a 2/3 vote. ---------- Convention Guide: The Guide was distributed to virtually every delegate (approximately 1200) attending the Convention. Significant recipients of the Guide included Sen. Orrin Hatch, who was seen entering the Dee Events Center with a copy in hand. Hatch's anti-gun S. 254 was analyzed inside. With its attractive red, white, and blue cover, containing a graphic of the US Constitution superimposed upon a 13 star flag, and containing a copy of the Bill of Rights on the back side, the Guide no doubt invited consideration by the delegates of its contents. And consideration of the contents did seem to have their intended effect and raised concern among Convention officials. At the beginning of the Convention, Chair Nolan Karras informed the delegates that the only "official" material made available by the URP was the delegate package obtained during registration, and that any other similar looking materials were not official. One of the areas addressed in the Guide contents was common abuses of Robert's Rules. Possibly because these abuses were defined and remedies proposed, it was not necessary to refer to them in the course of the Convention. I see some analogies to General Washington's remarks on how to ensure peace. Another impact was on the reporting of the Convention by the Standard-Examiner which noted explicit objections to Hatch's anti-gun S. 254. These objections came directly from the Guide. Lastly, the use of the Guide as various items of Convention business were conducted apparently infuriated some, including one delegate who arose to denounce it as a misrepresentation. Her position did not seem to be supported by many other delegates, however. Convention Business: Rules The Convention Chair was Nolan Karras (not Rob Bishop), which may have been in response to a Convention rule amendment submitted that stated that candidates for Party officer positions were not eligible to be Convention Chair. An extended period for consideration of the other Convention Rules Amendments arose when on the first vote, which by all estimation of those around me and myself had been clearly decided favorably, was counted. After counting and its consumption of 15 minutes or so, the outcome was exactly as it had clearly been in the first place. Following this, however, the Chair's ability to determine which side had won seemed to improve. All the amendments were accepted, except for one to allow extension of debate by a majority vote, and another reducing the quorum requirement to 400. Agenda Following adoption of Rules, an effort was made to amend the agenda to move delegation reports to after the resolutions, giving the politicians an opportunity to respond. This amendment attempt was defeated by an immediate call for the previous question, which was approved. Delegation Reports The reports of Leavitt and Hatch are worthy of mention. Leavitt seems to be trying to redefine his image as someone who has national/international perspective, qualifying him for a Cabinet position with George Bush. In keeping with his objective to curry favor with Bush, he transparently lobbied in his speech against the proposed Constitutional change to allocate national delegates proportionally. When Leavitt got to the Second Amendment, he said he supports it, but ... This is the typical weasel approach that we've seen time and time again. At this point the Convention gave him some feedback, by jeering, shouting, etc. He said he didn't want his kids to be protected by armed teachers, but dozens or hundreds of delegates shouted back "I do, I do". I have never seen this kind of a reception before for any politician before the Convention. It appeared that Leavitt had even more gun control advice for the Convention when he abruptly moved on to another topic. Senator Hatch talked of America's greatness and the need for spiritual and moral renewal. Sadly, it is good advice that he doesn't follow when it comes to the moral imperative of upholding the original intent of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Apparently sensing some vulnerability on his anti-gun S. 254, he went through a lengthy citation of crime statistics, all "proving" the need for more "solutions" by the federal government. He stated that 98% of the bill was solidly Republican, and 2% was not. Having looked through the bill (approximately 700 pages), I found virtually nothing that could qualify as being consistent with Republican principles. The bill, excluding its gun control provisions, increases funding for the federal police, implements further control of state government by use of block grants, and extends federal jurisdiction beyond its already unacceptable limits. One of the more appalling appeals made by Hatch was to read from a letter by James Baker, head of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, recognizing him for his efforts on S. 254. While this letter had the appearance of vindicating Hatch's actions, it actually reflects upon the increasingly anti-gun positions of NRA officers and staff and their support for anti-gun politicians (I am a fully paid $750 NRA life member, by the way). Consider just some of the horrors in S. 254 and ask yourself if you join with Hatch and the NRA staff in supporting them (or doing little or nothing to stop them): 1) Imprisonment for parents who don't generate permission slips when their children safely and lawfully use certain legal firearms; 2) Expansion of property forfeiture powers by the federal government; 3) Ban on the importation of ammunition magazines greater than 10 rounds useful for defensive and sporting purposes; 4) Compulsory purchase of safety locks by handgun buyers, facilitating later legislation that requires their use at all times to prevent handguns from being used for self defense in the home; and 6) Permanent registration by picture ID of all gun show attendees into a book that can be inspected at any time by federal police, to enable the BATF and other agencies to harass, threaten, and intimidate these likely political opponents of the Democrats. Hatch received some applause at the conclusion of his remarks, but it seemed much less enthusiastic than in most Conventions I've attended. And the reaction from some was definitely stone cold. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: About the GOP Convention 2/2 Date: 08 Jun 1999 14:11:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Constitution and Bylaws Amendments All of the Constitutional amendments approved by the State Central Committee were approved by the Convention. The one reducing the nomination threshold to 60% was close, but was accepted. I spoke in favor of this particular change. After this, I withdrew my Bylaws amendment to require disclosure of conflicts of interest by Party officials. This withdrawl received a fair amount of applause. Though I believe this remains an important addition to the Bylaws, the value of doing so at the Convention became virtually non-existent. A substitute motion was prepared by Marreen Casper and was being distributed when I announced the withdrawl. Her substitute would have required Party registration to run, not disclosure of conflicts of interest. Following the bylaws amendment, I presented a Constitutional amendment to institute proportional (rather than "winner take all" being advocated by Mike Leavitt) allocation of National delegates. This was made with reference to the Guide. The amendment was debated intensely, and it received 63% of the vote, which was short of the 66.7% required for passage. However, a move is now underway to reconsider this issue at a special meeting of the State Central Committee. With a significant change in the philosophical make up in the new Committee, the outcome may be different than what it was last month. Resolutions Just prior to consideration of Resolutions, a delegate rose and proposed a rule amendment that no person could speak to more than three questions in the Convention. While not naming me directly, its intent was clear. In a great compliment by the Convention, this motion was overwhelmingly defeated. I then presented the rationale for the resolution opposing Hatch's and Bennett's perfidy on S. 254. Debate was closed and the resolution passed by a large margin. There are at least two signficant points to be made here. First, Orrin Hatch sponsored an enormous free breakfast for everyone attending the Convention (I did not partake). This would appear to have two objectives: 1) Increase the turnout by Orrin Hatch supporters to improve his ability to defeat the resolution, and 2) pacify those that were already going to attend the Convention by showing how generous Orrin is. In effect, the breakfast amounted to a peace offering. The second point is that two years ago when Orrin was soundly denounced in Convention via resolution for his advocacy with Ted Kennedy on socialized medicine for children, the naysayers at that time stated that the resolution would not have passed if only Orrin could have spoken before the resolution and let the delegates know about its defects. This argument cannot be raised regarding the delegates' approval of the resolution opposing the gun control content of S. 254, since Hatch spoke at length before the resolution was considered, and directly to it. The delegates made an informed decision, and fortunately despite Hatch's efforts with the breakfast and focus of his Convention report, the decision by them was to oppose his legislative subversion of the Second Amendment. The next resolution considered was one that requested that Gov. Leavitt not call a special session of the Legislature to enact further restrictions on self defense (ie imposition of more gun control). This resolution was also passed by a large margin. Copies of the two gun control-related resolutions follow. Other resolutions dealing with abortion, light rail, closed primaries, Chris Cannon's involvement in the impeachment trial, and Clinton's possible treason in Kosovo were also passed. ---------- A Resolution of the Utah Republican Party Regarding Preservation and Defense of the Second Amendment Submitted by: Arnold J. Gaunt Whereas, the Second Amendment guarantees to Americans protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms; and Whereas, despite the Second Amendment, the recent tragedy in Colorado has been shamelessly exploited by infamous Democrats such as William Clinton, Janet Reno, and Charles Schumer to promote further infringement of this right; and Whereas, in response to this exploitation the United States Congress is actively responding to the gun control agenda of these Democrats; and Whereas, this agenda contains unacceptable proposals that include registration in an FBI database of private firearms transactions at gun shows, banning the importation of ammunition magazines useful for personal, family and community defense in times of civil unrest, and long term imprisonment for inconsequential procedural oversights by parents regarding their children's safe and responsible use of firearms; and Whereas, either one or both of Utah's Senators voted for these proposals infringing upon citizens' rights; and Whereas, by their support for these oppressive proposals they have ignored Utah's freedom-loving Republicans and citizens, demonstrated lack of attention to the Utah Republican Party Platform, failed to properly consider the higher law of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and diverted attention from the failure of government to disarm and imprison criminals and hold them accountable for their actions; now, therefore be it Resolved, That the Utah Republican Party requests that Utah's US Senators and Representatives uphold their oath of office by voting against all proposals and legislation that compromise or subvert the Second Amendment, and utilize whatever means are necessary, including the filibuster, to prevent their passage, so as to protect the inherent rights of Utahns and Americans; and be it Further resolved, That the Chairman and Secretary are directed to authenticate and transmit this resolution without delay to Utah's US Senators and Representatives. A Resolution of the Utah Republican Party Regarding a Special Session of the Legislature in 1999 Submitted by: Arnold J. Gaunt and Neil Sagers Whereas, recent tragedies in Utah and Colorado have been exploited to promote the call for a special legislative session to enact additional gun control laws in Utah; and Whereas, accommodating this exploitation, Governor Leavitt has facilitated the call by forming a committee able to offer gun control proposals and recommendations; and Whereas, since Governor Leavitt has consistently opposed viable self-defense in houses of worship and schools, advocacy by the committee for more gun control laws may be expected; and Whereas, despite the predictable failure of each gun control law to curb crime, the failures are used to justify even more gun control laws; and Whereas, the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by gun control laws has already proceeded to a threatening and unacceptable point; now, therefore be it Resolved, That the Utah Republican Party requests Governor Leavitt exercise prudence, responsibility, and restraint by not calling a special session of the Legislature for the purpose of enacting laws that infringe on the right of self-defense; and be it Further resolved, That the Chairman and Secretary are directed to authenticate and transmit this resolution to the Governor without delay. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: LPU: FW: About the GOP Convention Date: 08 Jun 1999 14:11:00 -0700 * CARBON COPY: * Original was to LPUtah@qsicorp.com (Libertarian Party of Utah) On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:50:43 -0600 Jim Dexter stated: >The reporter (who was anonymous in the copy I received) neglects to mention >that Gerry Arthus got 22% of the vote for GOP state chair. Kitty Burton tells me that Gerry Arthus received 29% of the vote, and that the reported 22% is a miscount. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Waldron Subject: U.S. HOUSE GUN BILL TEXT (H.R. 2037) Date: 08 Jun 1999 18:02:37 -0700 The text of the proposed House version of the new gun bill can be found at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2037.pdf Note: It is NOT available at the "Thomas" site (at least not that I could find). While H.R. 2037 is a marked improvement over S. 254, there are still significant problems with it. The bill will allegedly pass directly out of committee tomorrow, and be acted on on the House floor next week. There WILL be amendments from the floor. There is some confusion on the bill number. In a press release, Judiciary Committee chair Henry Hyde referenced H.R. 1501 as the baseline bill. 1501 IS available at Thomas ( http://thomas.loc.gov ), but does NOT address firearms. More after I have digested the bill. Joe Waldron - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: FW: About the GOP Convention 1/2 Date: 08 Jun 1999 19:37:11 -0600 At 02:11 PM 6/8/99 -0700, you wrote: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:50:43 -0600 >To: lputah@qsicorp.com >From: "Jim Dexter" > >The reporter (who was anonymous in the copy I received) neglects to mention >that Gerry Arthus got 22% of the vote for GOP state chair. > >Those who attended might be able to identify the writer by the actions >described herein. I believe the author is Arnold Gaunt, the sponsor of the two resolutions mentioned. Sarah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: The Salt Lake Tribune -- Nation/World Date: 09 Jun 1999 14:28:50 -0600 http://www.sltrib.com/06091999/nation_w/nation_w.htm Wednesday, > June 09, 1999 >=20 > Feds Check If IOC Boss Broke U.S. Firearm Laws = [Advertisement] >=20 > BY GREG BURTON =A9 1999 [Image] > THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Samaranch [The Front Page for Today] > Federal investigators [Notable News -- Links to Newspapers on the Net] > are trying to determine whether a handgun given to [Image] > International Olympic Committee President Juan Antonio [Search] > Samaranch during a 1991 visit to Salt Lake City was taken [Tribtalk] > out of the country in violation of U.S. firearms laws. [Tribaccess Archives] > As part of the government's investigation into the bid [Help Desk] > for the 2002 Olympics, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and [Links and special features] > Firearms (ATF) is examining a series of transactions [Contact the Tribune] > between the Salt Lake bid committee, the IOC and Browning > Arms Co., The Salt Lake Tribune has learned. > The Morgan County gun manufacturer sold or delivered 10 > weapons to the bid committee. At least three of those guns Today's > were given to Samaranch. Headlines: > "We were interviewed by the ATF and the FBI and we > discussed the facts that the products we sold to [the bid [Image] GOP > committee] were spotted in other parts of the world," said Poll Shows > Rich Bauter, Browning's vice president of marketing. That Public Backs > acknowledgment essentially ended the interview, Bauter Gun Laws > said. > Visitors to the United States must obtain approval from [Image] > the U.S. State Department before leaving the country with > weapons purchased or obtained here. Browning Says > Violators could be charged under federal law with Gun-Crime > felony exportation of a firearm without a permit, said ATF Report Isn't > spokesman Larry Bettendorf. Other federal laws restrict Accurate > non-U.S. citizens from possessing firearms without a permit > and prohibit unlicensed dealers from exporting firearms [Image] > from the country. Babbitt: West > The ATF inquiry dovetails with investigations of wire Is Awash in > fraud and money laundering by the FBI, tax fraud by the Water, It= Just > Internal Revenue Service and a U.S. Customs probe of a Needs an > transport of large sums of cash out of the country. Efficient= Plan > "I really can't comment on any ongoing information that > we may or may not have," Bettendorf said. [Image] Reel > The Department of Justice also declined to comment on > any aspect of the investigation, although The Tribune has Dilemma: > learned at least two people are facing indictments in the Violence, Sex > Olympic scandal. Treated > Browning has found invoices for 10 firearms bought by Differently > the bid committee. A 7 mm bolt-action rifle and > semiautomatic shotgun were delivered to Samaranch in May [Image] > 1995 at the bid committee's request. Theaters= Agree > Another invoice was for a 9 mm pistol sold to the bid to Enforce > committee in February 1991, two months before Samaranch's Film-Rating > first visit to Utah. The invoice, for $395.86, was directed System > to Tom Welch, the former head of the bid committee and the > Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC). [Image] > The pistol was presented to Samaranch during a dinner > at the home of businessman Jon Huntsman. Carmakers to > "[Our] counsel has not been informed of any involvement Install > by ATF," SLOC spokeswoman Shelley Thomas said Tuesday. Trunk-Release > The IOC has acknowledged that Sam-aranch was given a Latches > pistol and a rifle, and Samaranch has said he was given > guns on two visits to Salt Lake City. [Image] > The rifle was presented in a case with an engraved Legislators > plaque that read, "Presented to President Juan Antonio Try to Save > Samaranch from the Browning Arms Co. on behalf of the Big With > people of Salt Lake City." Lobbyist Cash > Last year, Samaranch gave conflicting answers about > where the rifle and pistol are kept. In a press conference, [Image] U.S. > he said they are in the Olympic Museum in Lausanne, > Switzerland. But in a subsequent interview, he said they Gathers Its > are in his office. Peacekeepers > "I am in a position to show them to any of my as It Keeps > visitors," he reportedly told a European newspaper. Bombing Serbs > A Browning Arms Model 1886 lever-action rifle and > custom case delivered to the bid committee at 1994 Winter [Image] > Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway, was apparently given to Balkans Peace > the king of Norway. =20 > --------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > =A9 Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune > All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt > Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may > be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from > The Salt Lake Tribune. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Re: FYI. Leavitt Speaks on Gun Control! Date: 10 Jun 1999 11:20:30 -0600 If there is ANY gun owner in this State who still thinks Leavitt is any better than a Democrat would be, I'd like to see about selling them some ocean front property in St. George. I suggest everyone also check out the accompanying article at (or via the link on the front page ). On the one hand, even the BATF basically admits that many of the so called "dangerous felons" "prevented" from buying guns are nothing more than someone who committed check fraud 20 years ago and aren't even worth arresting for trying to buy a gun. On the other, even those convicted of violent felonies are almost never arrested unless there happens to be an outstanding warrant at the time the purchase is attempted. Even then, they aren't likely to actually be charged with trying to buy a gun illegally. On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:04:02 -0600 "Mr. Black" writes: >To All: > >See your marvelous Governor finally revealing his true colors on the >front >page of the SL Tribune: "Weapons Don't Belong in School, Governor >Says" at >http://www.sltrib.com/ > >Gore/Leavitt in 2000! > >Mr. Black > >P.S. In the next Star Wars movie, I nominate Hatch to play Senator >Palpatine and Leavitt to play his new apprentice -- Darth Liar. Call >it >"The Phantom Republicans." ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: House Votes Coming Next Week Date: 11 Jun 1999 09:41:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- House to Tackle Anti-gun Crime Bill Soon Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org Thursday, June 10, 1999 "House Republican leaders yesterday embraced gun control legislation written with the help of the National Rifle Association and announced plans to rush it to a final vote." -- The Washington Post, 6/9/99 House To Take Up Gun Control Next Week Voting on juvenile crime legislation will probably begin next week. There will be gun control amendments offered on the floor of the House, and many of these provisions will probably parallel the gun issues that were considered in the Senate (background registration checks, import bans on self-defense magazines, liability on gun owners who don't lock up their guns, etc.). The House Republican leadership is supporting a proposal that, among other things, will impose background registration checks on those buying guns from PRIVATE individuals at gun shows. Gun owners should begin calling their Representatives and urge them to vote "NO" on all gun control-- including any Gun Control "Lite" provisions that are sponsored by Republicans. [Activists can now get an exact copy of the juvenile crime bill (S. 254) that passed in the Senate at http://www.gunowners.org/gts254.htm on the GOA Website.] Republicans Getting Hammered On Capitol Hill Irate gun owners from across the country are deluging Republicans with correspondence, both at the Republican National Committee and on Capitol Hill. Reports have indicated that the RNC has been "besieged" with mail, as "several boxes" of faxes, emails and letters have been unloaded upon their offices. House Speaker Denny Hastert's office has admitted to receiving a thousand calls a day from angry gun owners. In what could be an attempt to counteract this grassroots response, the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), released a poll recently supposedly showing that 80% of Republicans favor stricter gun controls, such as those which passed in the Senate juvenile crime bill. This ignores the fact that truly honest polls-- such as those conducted by the Denver Rocky Mountain News (5/20/99)-- have found that 65% of people want less gun control, like easier concealed carry. "Should people ought to have to register a gun like they register their cars? Do I think that? Of course I do. Of course I do." -- President Bill Clinton, June 4, 1999 Democrats Pushing For More Gun Control Even before the House of Representatives has had a chance to vote on the juvenile crime bill, top-ranking Democrats in Congress and in the White House are predicting that the current batch of gun control provisions will be followed by more stringent proposals. For example, on June 4, President Clinton stated on ABC's Good Morning America that: "I have made it perfectly clear that I want to get what was passed in the Senate, passed in the House. Then we will come back and try to pass some more [gun control]." The current gun control proposals in Congress are mere stepping stones to Clinton's next goal. He has openly stated he wants to move towards full-fledged gun owner registration. Gun owners should not fall for Congressional promises that once this anti-gun crime bill is finished with, they will get the whole gun control debate "behind them." Not true. If the current gun restrictions in Congress become law, we will see an immediate move towards even stricter proposals. The time to stop the hemorrhaging is now. Make sure your Congressman hears from you. ACTION: If you have not done so already, please contact your Representative and ask him to oppose Gun Control "Heavy" (from the Democratic side of the aisle) and to oppose Gun Control "Lite" (from the Republicans). Moreover, Representatives should be encouraged to vote "NO" on the final passage of any juvenile bill that contains even the least 2nd Amendment infringement. Call the House at 202-225-3121 or toll free at 1-888-449-3511. The address for all Representatives is: [Name of Rep.], U.S. House of Representatives, Washington DC 20515. See http://www.gunowners.org/h106th.htm for fax and e-mail contact info. ************** Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail Alert Network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to goamail@gunowners.org and include the state in which you live, in either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert and ask to be removed. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Vin: May 31 column -- kids with guns Date: 11 Jun 1999 09:41:00 -0700 * CARBON COPY: * Original was to Reader.Advocate@sltrib.com (Shinika Sykes) This is another excellent column for The Salt Lake Tribune to print. I believe it is quite easy to obtain syndication rights from Vin Suprynowicz and the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Please request your editors to do so. Scott Bergeson --------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 31, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz To prevent a life of crime, buy your kid a gun It's called propaganda: Simplify your lie down to an easily-recalled slogan, repeat it often enough, and people will eventually get it down by heart and accept it as fact. Take: "The cause of all these school shootings is the too-easy availability of guns." Prior to the National Firearms Act of 1933, there was no law to discourage a veteran of the Great War from keeping a fully-operational souvenir machine gun in the bedroom closet. There were few towns in America where the local lads didn't know the location of at least one such weapon. Yet none was ever used in a "school shooting." As late as the 1960s, it was not unusual in rural America for young boys to carry their .22 rifles to school with them, parking them in the principal's office until needed for the target matches after school. At age 49 I am no doddering old-timer, but I can remember young lads walking the country roads of Ohio and Connecticut after school with their rifles (or bicycling home with the weapons across their handlebars), hoping to pick off some predatory bird with the full encouragement of area farmers. A neighbor might chide you about watching where your bullets went if you missed, but no one ever called the police to report "The Jones boy is heading down the road with his gun; come arrest him!" When I went away to Eaglebrook School in Massachusetts (yes, "Own a gun, go to jail" Massachusetts) in 1962 at the age of 12, I took my rifle. We fired for accuracy at the range on Saturdays. I daresay we could have snuck them out of the lockers down at the gym for some mayhem if it ever crossed our minds ... but it never did. The violent media? Today's TV offers nothing like "The Rifleman" or "Wanted Dead or Alive," programs of the early 1960s in which Chuck Connors and Steve McQueen ended every episode by mowing down some reprobate who had kicked the town dog or insulted Millie down at the general store, in McQueen's case using a sawed-off Winchester which it's now a federal felony even to recreate for a museum. This focus on "the availability of guns" -- ignoring the fact they were far more accessible only 40 years ago, when you could order a 20-mm Lahti anti-tank gun through the mail from an ad in the back of a comic book -- is intended not only to advance the prior agenda of those who want a disarmed and enslaved citizenry, but also to distract us from asking what it is about the mandatory behavior modification labs (public schools) which creates such rage and frustration in our incarcerated adolescent males. We don't see these shoot-em-ups in the private schools, or among home-schoolers. It also diverts attention from the perfectly relevant question of how many of these shooters had been on drugs known to affect the judgment, like Ritalin and Luvox, (start ital)prescribed and administered by their government wardens(end ital). In the face of all this misdirection, isn't it too bad the government has never conducted an actual scientific study on how it affects a child's likelihood of committing crimes if his parents buy him a gun? Um, actually ... they have. The study was conducted from 1993-1995 by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Child psychologists tracked 4,000 boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, N.Y. Their findings? -- Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%) while children who get guns illegally are quite likely to do so (21%). -- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14%) than children who have no gun in the house (24%) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74%.) -- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use banned drugs (13%) than children who get illegal guns (41%.) -- Most strikingly, the study found: "Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns." This wouldn't have surprised anyone before the rise of the modern welfare state. It used to be common knowledge that the best way to get kids to act "responsibly" was precisely to give them some "responsibility." Why would we assume a child taught by his parents to use a gun responsibly wouldn't also be more responsible in his other behaviors? "Want to dramatically reduce the chance that your child will commit a gun-related crime or -- heaven forbid -- go on a shooting spree?" asked the national Libertarian Party in a May 21 news release detailing these study results. "Buy your youngster a gun." "Politicians are apparently more interested in demonizing guns than they are in facts," commented LP national director Steve Dasbach, himself an Indiana government schoolteacher. But "The evidence is in: The simplest way to reduce firearm-related violence among children is to buy them a gun and teach them how to use it responsibly." Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is author of the book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998." *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * If you have subscribed to vinsends@ezlink.com and you wish to unsubscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your OLD address, including the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: May 31 column -- kids with guns Date: 10 Jun 1999 23:51:33 -0600 ---------------- Charles Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 31, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz To prevent a life of crime, buy your kid a gun It's called propaganda: Simplify your lie down to an easily-recalled slogan, repeat it often enough, and people will eventually get it down by heart and accept it as fact. Take: "The cause of all these school shootings is the too-easy availability of guns." Prior to the National Firearms Act of 1933, there was no law to discourage a veteran of the Great War from keeping a fully-operational souvenir machine gun in the bedroom closet. There were few towns in America where the local lads didn't know the location of at least one such weapon. Yet none was ever used in a "school shooting." As late as the 1960s, it was not unusual in rural America for young boys to carry their .22 rifles to school with them, parking them in the principal's office until needed for the target matches after school. At age 49 I am no doddering old-timer, but I can remember young lads walking the country roads of Ohio and Connecticut after school with their rifles (or bicycling home with the weapons across their handlebars), hoping to pick off some predatory bird with the full encouragement of area farmers. A neighbor might chide you about watching where your bullets went if you missed, but no one ever called the police to report "The Jones boy is heading down the road with his gun; come arrest him!" When I went away to Eaglebrook School in Massachusetts (yes, "Own a gun, go to jail" Massachusetts) in 1962 at the age of 12, I took my rifle. We fired for accuracy at the range on Saturdays. I daresay we could have snuck them out of the lockers down at the gym for some mayhem if it ever crossed our minds ... but it never did. The violent media? Today's TV offers nothing like "The Rifleman" or "Wanted Dead or Alive," programs of the early 1960s in which Chuck Connors and Steve McQueen ended every episode by mowing down some reprobate who had kicked the town dog or insulted Millie down at the general store, in McQueen's case using a sawed-off Winchester which it's now a federal felony even to recreate for a museum. This focus on "the availability of guns" -- ignoring the fact they were far more accessible only 40 years ago, when you could order a 20-mm Lahti anti-tank gun through the mail from an ad in the back of a comic book -- is intended not only to advance the prior agenda of those who want a disarmed and enslaved citizenry, but also to distract us from asking what it is about the mandatory behavior modification labs (public schools) which creates such rage and frustration in our incarcerated adolescent males. We don't see these shoot-em-ups in the private schools, or among home-schoolers. It also diverts attention from the perfectly relevant question of how many of these shooters had been on drugs known to affect the judgment, like Ritalin and Luvox, (start ital)prescribed and administered by their government wardens(end ital). In the face of all this misdirection, isn't it too bad the government has never conducted an actual scientific study on how it affects a child's likelihood of committing crimes if his parents buy him a gun? Um, actually ... they have. The study was conducted from 1993-1995 by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Child psychologists tracked 4,000 boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, N.Y. Their findings? -- Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0 percent) while children who get guns illegally are quite likely to do so (21 percent). -- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14 percent) than children who have no gun in the house (24 percent) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74 percent.) -- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use banned drugs (13 percent) than children who get illegal guns (41 percent.) -- Most strikingly, the study found: "Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns." This wouldn't have surprised anyone before the rise of the modern welfare state. It used to be common knowledge that the best way to get kids to act "responsibly" was precisely to give them some "responsibility." Why would we assume a child taught by his parents to use a gun responsibly wouldn't also be more responsible in his other behaviors? "Want to dramatically reduce the chance that your child will commit a gun-related crime or -- heaven forbid -- go on a shooting spree?" asked the national Libertarian Party in a May 21 news release detailing these study results. "Buy your youngster a gun." "Politicians are apparently more interested in demonizing guns than they are in facts," commented LP national director Steve Dasbach, himself an Indiana government schoolteacher. But "The evidence is in: The simplest way to reduce firearm-related violence among children is to buy them a gun and teach them how to use it responsibly." Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is author of the book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998." *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * ------ If you have subscribed to vinsends@ezlink.com and you wish to unsubscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your OLD address, including the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #16 - 11 June 1999 1/2 Date: 12 Jun 1999 10:45:00 -0700 GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. Visit our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! GOUtah! Alert #16 - 11 June 1999 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "It is unreasonable ...to oblige a man not to attempt the defense of his own life." -Montesquieu, in The Spirit of Laws If you wish to continue to receive this information under the GOUtah! banner, you need to do nothing. If you wish to be added to or taken off the GOUtah! list, please log onto our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! or send an e-mail to GOUtah3006@aol.com or send a fax to (801) 944-9937 asking to be added to or removed from the GOUtah! list. If you wish to forward or share this copyrighted information with others, you are welcome to do so, on the condition that you pass along the entire document intact and unmodified, and that GOUtah! is clearly indicated as the original source of the material, unless otherwise noted. U.S. House To Take Up Gun Control Next Week-Your Action Is Urgently Needed! A Special Report from Gun Owners of America -10 June 1999 "House Republican leaders yesterday embraced gun control legislation written with the help of the National Rifle Association and announced plans to rush it to a final vote." -- The Washington Post, 6/9/99 Voting on juvenile crime legislation will probably begin next week. There will be gun control amendments offered on the floor of the House, and many of these provisions will probably parallel the gun issues that were considered in the Senate (background registration checks, import bans on self-defense magazines, liability on gun [owners] who don't lock up their guns, etc.). The House Republican leadership is supporting a proposal that, among other things, will impose background registration checks on those buying guns from PRIVATE individuals at gun shows. Gun owners should begin calling their Representatives and urge them to vote "NO" on all gun control--including any Gun Control "Lite" provisions that are sponsored by Republicans. [Activists can now get an exact copy of the juvenile crime bill (S. 254) that passed in the Senate at http://www.gunowners.org/gts254.htm on the GOA website.] (GOUtah! Note: An NRA/ILA Alert mailed nationwide to all NRA members this week indicated that the Lautenberg language from the U.S. Senate version describes "events" rather than only "gun shows" and "transfers" rather than "sales." These terms are not defined in the bill. As such, this language could easily be stretched to include any event at which any firearms transfer, sale, gift or other exchange might take place, such as a shooting competition, club meeting, family gathering, business lunch, etc. Clearly the intent of the bill is to require every private party transfer, regardless of nature, circumstance or location to require a background check, along with the potential for registration and potential confiscation. We urge you to oppose any expansion to the current Brady background check system.) Call and write your U.S. Congressman TODAY! Congressional District 1: Northern and Western Utah, except Salt Lake Metro Rep. Jim Hansen (R) 242 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone (202) 225-0453 Fax (202) 225-5857 E-mail: www.house.gov click on Members and select Jim Hansen Local Office: 324-25th Ave. Ogden, Utah 84401 Utah Phone: (801) 451-5822 Utah Fax: (801) 621-7846 Congressional District 2: Salt Lake Metro Area Rep. Merrill Cook (R) 1431 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0001 Phone (202) 225-3011 Fax (202) 225-5638 E-mail: Cong.Merrill.Cook@mail.house.gov Local Office: 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 Utah Phone: (801) 524-4394 Congressional District 3: Central and Eastern Utah Rep. Chris Cannon (R) 118 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-4403 Phone (202) 225-7751 Fax (202) 225-5629 E-mail: Cannon.ut03@mail.house.gov Local Offices: 51 South University Drive Provo, Utah 84606 Utah Phone: (801) 379-2500 Utah Fax (801) 379-2509 Republicans Getting Hammered On Capitol Hill A Special Report from Gun Owners of America -10 June 1999 Irate gun owners from across the country are deluging Republicans with correspondence, both at the Republican National Committee and on Capitol Hill. Reports have indicated that the RNC has been "besieged" with mail, as "several boxes" of faxes, emails and letters have been unloaded upon their offices. House Speaker Denny Hastert's office has admitted to receiving a thousand calls a day from angry gun owners. In what could be an attempt to counteract this grassroots response, the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), released a poll recently supposedly showing that 80% of Republicans favor stricter gun controls, such as those which passed in the Senate juvenile crime bill. This ignores the fact that truly honest polls-- such as those conducted by the Denver Rocky Mountain News (5/20/99)-- have found that 65% of people want less gun control, like easier concealed carry. Democrats Pushing For More Gun Control A Special Report From Gun Owners of America-10 June 1999 Even before the House of Representatives has had a chance to vote on the juvenile crime bill, top-ranking Democrats in Congress and in the White House are predicting that the current batch of gun control provisions will be followed by more stringent proposals. For example, on June 4, President Clinton stated on ABC's 'Good Morning America' that: "I have made it perfectly clear that I want to get what was passed in the Senate, passed in the House. Then we will come back and try to pass some more [gun control]." The current gun control proposals in Congress are mere stepping stones to Clinton's next goal. He has openly stated he wants to move towards full-fledged gun owner registration. Gun owners should not fall for Congressional promises that once this anti-gun crime bill is finished with, they will get the whole gun control debate "behind them." Not true. If the current gun restrictions in Congress become law, we will see an immediate move towards even stricter proposals. The time to stop the hemorrhaging is now. Make sure your US Congressman hears from you TODAY. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #16 - 11 June 1999 2/2 Date: 12 Jun 1999 10:45:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] 1999 Utah GOP State Political Convention Review- Elected Leader's Anti-Gun Positions Rebuked by Republican Party Delegates A Report From Arnold Gaunt, Utah State Republican Party Delegate Senator Orrin Hatch's and Governor Mike Leavitt's advocacy for gun control were opposed by delegates attending the Utah Republican Party State Organizing Convention on Saturday June 5 at the Weber State Dee Events Center in Ogden. Both politicians made appeals to the Party prior to the hearing of resolutions addressing their promotion of gun control at the federal and state level, respectively. In the case of Orrin Hatch, he provided a free breakfast preceding the Convention in a failed effort to lure his die-hard supporters to oppose the resolution. In addition, in his Convention report, he dramatized the impact of crime in America and the resultant "necessity" of his anti-gun S. 254. According to Sen. Hatch, gun owners should be happy that S. 254 isn't even worse than it is. As proof of his Second Amendment advocacy, Hatch stated that he had been deputized as a Special US Marshal when his life had been threatened, and thereby was authorized for concealed carry. However, his deputization proves nothing more than hypocrisy on the issue of self-defense. When Orrin is threatened, he receives a carry permit that is valid throughout the US, preempts state and local laws, and is good even on airplanes. On the other hand, when a private citizen faces similar threats, no similar carry permit is available. Can it be that some people's right to life is greater than others? Governor Leavitt, who appears to be accompanied by armed bodyguards, shares Hatch's position that some people (like "important" politicians) should be able to defend their lives without restriction, while the rest should accept ever-increasing "reasonable" infringements on their right to be armed. When Leavitt offered some "reasonable" Second Amendment infringements to the Convention, delegates didn't buy his gratuitous advice, and responded by shouting back at him and jeering. Abruptly, the Governor changed subjects. Resolutions were finally considered after Hatch and Leavitt had presented their respective arguments for more gun control legislation. The first resolution requested that Hatch and Bennett "uphold their oath of office by voting against all proposals and legislation that compromise or subvert the Second Amendment, and utilize whatever means are necessary, including the filibuster, to prevent their passage, so as to protect the inherent rights of Utahns and Americans". The second resolution requested that Gov. Leavitt "exercise prudence, responsibility, and restraint by not calling a special session of the Legislature for the purpose of enacting laws that infringe on the right of self-defense". Happily, both resolutions were passed by large margins. So, if Hatch and Leavitt don't represent the Republican Party on the Second Amendment, whom do they represent? The text of the Utah Republican Party resolutions passed is available on the GOUtah! website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! Utah Legislative Committees Will Meet on Wednesday, 16 June to Discuss Gun Control Measures. Be There! Please remember to attend the Utah Interim Legislative Committee hearings on Wednesday, 16 June 1999 at 2:00 PM at the Utah State Capitol. It is critical we be there in force! Make your voice heard to protect your rights! The Judiciary Committee will meet in Room 403 to discuss issues related to pleas and prosecution of gun crimes, additions to prohibited classes for gun purchases, and other items. The Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee will meet in Room 416 to discuss updates on the Federal laws under consideration. BCI background Checks, Mental health records access, gun shows, and progress reports form the Governor's anti-gun working groups. Governor Leavitt intends to call for a special session of the Utah Legislature to consider Utah gun laws in the Fall of 1999. If he cannot get a majority of Utah legislators to support the special session, it will not take place. So far the Utah Senate has indicated they will favor the session, while the Utah House is as yet uncommitted. Focus your calls, email and letters to the Utah House members! GOUtah! asks every Utah gun owner and concerned citizen to immediately and repeatedly contact their state representatives and senators at home and again urge them to take a measured and rational approach to these issues, rather that blame peaceable gun owners for the deep seated ills of our society. We must now work overtime to avoid a special session of the Utah Legislature, which would likely devolve into a free-for-all legal and media circus which will ride roughshod over our gun rights. Feds Look Into Salt Lake Olympic Committee's Possible Gun Law Violations The Salt Lake Tribune reports in a 9 June 1999 article that the FBI and ATF are examining possible federal weapons export law violations by members of SLOC and the Salt Lake Olympic Bid Committee, related to the numerous gifts of Browning firearms to IOC members, including IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch. These allegations come close on the heels of media reports that at least two members of the Salt Lake Olympic bid group will be facing federal grand jury indictments regarding their actions in the bribery-scandal plagued 2002 Winter Olympic Games bidding process. GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch "Should people ought to have to register a gun like they register their cars? Do I think that? Of course I do. Of course I do." -- President Bill Clinton, television interview, June 4, 1999 I'm one Republican who doesn't want my child going to a school where teachers are armed." -- Governor Michael O. Leavitt, in a speech to the Utah Republican Party Convention in Ogden, Utah on 5 June 1999 "I do! I do!" -- Shouted responses from numerous Utah Republican Party Delegates, loudly disagreeing with the above comments by Governor Leavitt. If you have a gun rights quote you'd like to share, please send it, along with a verifiable original source reference to GOUtah! That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #16 - 11 June 1999. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending your firearms rights. Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal! Copyright 1999 by GOUtah! All rights reserved. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Twice Damned, Ben Fulton Date: 13 Jun 1999 18:14:00 -0700 * CARBON COPY: * Original was to COMMENTS@SLWEEKLY.COM I just read your June 3, 1999 issue (Vol 16. No. 1). Kudoes to David Owen for the last two paragraphs of his Voices column. I was beginning to think the SALT LAKE City Weekly favored extermination of the populace, or at least draconian suppression of civil rights. However, I fail to see why Ben Fulton is opposed to proprietors of houses of worship exercising their right to freedom of speech if they "want to remain firearm free". My religious beliefs demand that worshipers take good care of the stewardship their Creator gave them; as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life" ... Please apprise Mr. Fulton that I do not appreciate his relegating my religious beliefs to the trashbin, by demanding that I forfeit my Right to Life should I wish to peaceably assemble for religious worship. If he wants to post his house and places of business and worship as safe criminal zones that is his business, but don't give the criminals free reign at mine. His column borders on a declaration of war (death threat) against anyone who wishes to visit a school or house of worship. Scott Bergeson scott.bergeson@ucs.org - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Willie the Salesman Date: 15 Jun 1999 09:50:57 -0600 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_rockwell/19990614_xclro_the_clinto.sht= ml=20 The Clinton gun boom=20 One ironic legacy of the Clinton administration is the rearming of the = American citizenry. Each time Clinton and his friends in Congress threaten = another round of anti-gun regulations, the American people respond by = stocking up on as many guns as possible. This is all to the good: an armed = citizenry translates to less crime and more security, and reminds the = government that its bureaucrats aren't the only ones with firepower.=20 The trend began in 1989 with the passage of restrictions on so-called = "assault weapons," which brought about the initial boom in gun sales. = After a brief respite, the Brady Bill, which imposed background checks on = buyers, was passed in 1993. The politicians claimed they were only after = the criminals. But the main effect was to convince people that the federal = government was determined to disarm the public.=20 Of course the politicians always say that they are only after the = criminals, not hunters and not people who only desire self-protection. But = by definition, criminals aren't interested in regulations. Legal restrictio= ns on gun sales only make it more difficult for people who scrupulously = keep the law to defend themselves against those who do not.=20 This point may be too complicated for politicians to understand, but = average people get the point. After the Brady Bill, another gun boom = ensued, as people loaded up in anticipation of further regulations.=20 Public perceptions were right on the money. Without missing a beat, the = feds banned the domestic manufacture of military-style guns and clips = holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The result was the biggest = regulatory backfire of them all. The limited number of "assault" (i.e., = government-style) weapons still in circulation are selling at twice their = pre-ban prices. And since it takes more clips to equal the old firepower, = clip manufacturers are profiting as never before, according to data = assembled by the Wall Street Journal.=20 Finally, sending the market into overdrive was the threat that gun makers = will be bankrupted by lawsuits. People saw what the courts did to tobacco = companies, and what happened to cigarette prices in the aftermath. Unlike = cigs, guns are not perishable, so people figured they might as well stock = up now, before judges do to gun makers what they did to cigarette = makers.=20 The flurry of legislation introduced after the Littleton, Colo., shootings = (in which the killers paid no attention to all the existing laws) = underscored the message that government does not want private individuals = to own guns. The gun industry is benefiting once again from people's fears = of what government may be prohibiting in the future.=20 Anti-gun fanatics view all this stockpiling as a catastrophe, since their = goal is the disarming of Americans. But they are caught on the horns of a = dilemma. Weaving gun bans through the legislative process takes more time = than the waiting periods and regulatory barriers already enacted into law. = The existing windows of freedom permit people to defy the intentions of = the gun banners while there is still time.=20 The countrywide stockpiling now taking place should cheer the hearts of = even people who have no interest in owning a gun.=20 That is because wide ownership of guns confers what economists call = "positive externalities" on people who do not wish to own them. For = example, if you do not own a gun, you still benefit from the perception = that you may, a perception that can only continue so long as the reality = of widespread ownership is true. The fear of people willing to fight back = is what keeps criminals at bay.=20 A massive and detailed literature has proven time again time that the more = guns that are owned in a community, the less crime that community has to = put up with. The data are so overwhelming that no reasonable person can = deny them. (The "Firearms Fact Sheet" should be in every thinking person's = favorites list). Why, then, does the gun-ban lobby continue to say that = restrictions on guns are the key to cutting crime?=20 It's time that the ideological orientation of the gun grabbers be examined = more carefully. Notice that their theory about gun ownership does not = appear in isolation; it is part of a larger package of political beliefs = about the role of government in society. Almost to a man, they favor the = entire big-government/politically-correct agenda. What they want is not a = disarmed society, but a society where government has a monopoly on gun = ownership.=20 Consider this shocking reality: the present anti-gun hysteria is taking = place in the very month in which the federal government's guns have laid = waste to an entire nation. The U.S. has brought about a large-scale = massacre in Yugoslavia, and set back its standard of living some fifty = years. It is a display of brutality that hasn't been seen on Europe's soil = since the 1940s.=20 Also consider that the Congress' feeble attempt to place controls on the = warfare state's use of guns has amounted to nothing. Clinton's war was = defiantly illegal. The White House has put the War Powers Act through a = shredder, and when a few brave congressmen tried to sue, a federal judge = (which is to say, a judge in the pay of the Clinton administration) threw = out the case.=20 This is in keeping with the general principle that criminals don't obey = the law -- and it doesn't matter whether those criminals are street = hoodlums or the holders of high elected office. Just as the Littleton = killers ignored anti-gun statutes already on the books, Washington's war = party ignored legal strictures designed to restrain their ability to kill = and destroy.=20 Where are the gun control advocates when it comes to preventing politicians= from the unrestrained use of violence and weapons of mass destruction? = They avert their eyes, because what they want is not a disarmed America, = but an America in which only criminals in the public sector own guns. In = short, the attempt to strip regular Americans from owning guns is a = totalitarian agenda unaffected by any amount of facts and data that = contradict their claims.=20 Thank goodness for what is left of the free market in guns, which has made = it possible for people to respond to the threat of gun regulation by = stockpiling. If we truly value freedom and security, we need not more = restrictions on private ownership, but repeal of existing restrictions. = And given recent events in the Balkans, it should be clear that Congress = needs to pass very severe restrictions on the ability of bureaucrats and = warmongers to acquire and use weapons.=20 The danger to a free society is not the guns owned by the citizens but an = unconstrained government, especially one that is better armed than the = public. An armed society is a self-governing society, just as a disarmed = people are vulnerable to arbitrary power of every kind.=20 Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute = in Auburn, Alabama. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Another angle on the CCW debate Date: 16 Jun 1999 10:11:12 -0600 I will not be able to attend the hearings this afternoon. However, I did call several members of the Law Enforcment Committee last night. The angle I took was this: "I'm concerned about what federal laws may come into effect if Utah changes the validity of CCW permits at schools. The federal gun free school act applies not only to schools and the grounds themselves, but extends 1000' (nearly 1/5 mile or 2 city blocks) in all directions. Currently, a Utah CCW permit is valid on school grounds so the federal law doesn't apply to permit holders. However, I'm worried that if CCW permits are invalidated at schools, the federal law could come into play and CCW permit holders would commit a federal felony every time the drove or walked withing 2 city blocks of a school, day care, pre-school etc. "This is very concerning to me because I live within 1000' of Mt. Jordan Middle School. Now this has seemed to be a fairly decent area and I'm not terribly concerned about criminals. But, we do have a huge number of very large, very potentially dangerous dogs (pit bulls, rottwhilers (sp), Huskies, dobermans, etc) which are not contained nearly as well as the should be. My wife and I do enjoy taking walks in the evening, seeing the neighborhood and the neighbors, but becuase of the dogs, and bearing in mind the off-duty police officers who have had to defend themselves against loose dogs in the last year, we feel it is only prudent to carry a firearm on these evening walks. I hope and pray we never need it. But, I simply am not prepared to see me or my wife end up in the emergency room over an improperly restained, 90 pound, dog. "If my permit is no longer valid in school zones, I'm afraid I will guilty of a federal felony the moment I step off my driveway and onto the sidewalk for my evening walks. I don't want to live with a "bunker mentality" where I come home at night and hide behind locked doors. I want to be out and about and neighborly. But becuase of these dogs it simply isn't safe to do so without some means of protection. I don't want to have to choose between obeying the law and being a good, friendly, outgoing neighbor. If you allow CCW permits to be invalidated on school grounds, you will turn me from a perfectly respectable, law-abiding citizen, into a potential federal felon. Please don't do that. "Please remember that the Utah legislature does not work in a vacum and there are myriad federal laws that could adversly affect us." You'll note I work in the "bunker mentality" used recently by Pres. Hinckley and do so in such a way as to show that not having the means to defend myself is what leads to living behind locked doors. I also make it clear I am concerned about my wife's safety (even better if women simply point out they can't stop a dog, etc). I also change the focus from criminals to dogs, simply becuase it is more accurate in my case, and because I think it probably hits home a little better. Honestly, most of the legislators (or the rest of us) have never confronted a criminal. But who hasn't had close calls with loose dogs. Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a criminal attack with a gun. But we've had a couple of well publicized cases of at least off-duty cops having to shoot a stray dog that was attacking. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: The Hill's Hidden Crime Agenda (CATO Commentary) Date: 16 Jun 1999 11:05:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- June 15, 1999 The Hill's Hidden Crime Agenda by Dave Kopel Dave Kopel is an adjunct professor at New York University Law School and an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute. As the House is poised to vote on a major crime bill, the media can be expected once again to focus only on the bill's gun control provisions. Unfortunately, by ignoring the other provisions, a wide variety of dangerous measures may sneak past public scrutiny. That is just what happened with the recently passed Senate "juvenile crime bill," S. 254. The bill is laden with provisions to expand forfeiture, increase wiretapping without warrant, promote drug testing and immunize police who commit violent crimes from criminal punishment. When senators are presented with a 648-page-long bill, few bother to read it. Thus, many senators who voted for S. 254 may have been unaware that the bill contains a sweeping new forfeiture provision that allows U.S. attorneys to base forfeiture on violations of state law -- even misdemeanors. Currently, there is a special federal forfeiture statute that applies to the transfer of military information to a foreign government and any federal crime in which a person is physically harmed, such as rape or assault. It states that if a convicted criminal makes money from selling their story of the crime, any profits from the sale may be forfeited. S. 254 significantly expands that statute to include any felony, including state felonies, and any state misdemeanor involving physical harm. Instead of just applying to profits from the sale of a criminal's story, the statute as revised by S. 254 would allow forfeiture of any enhanced value, in any property owned by the criminal, that resulted from the crime. But the measure ignores the constitutional fact that forfeitures for state law violations ought to be determined by state legislatures and carried out by state and local prosecutors, not by the federal government. Also buried deep within S. 254 is language that for the first time allows the police to intercept the content of electronic communications -- the contents of pager messages -- without a warrant. Those messages can reveal information about a person's travel schedule, private life and current location. The bill's "cloned pager" language is the latest expansion of wiretap authority to be buried in a large, complex bill where the public, which is generally skeptical about wiretapping, is not likely to notice. "Public safety" seems to demand that the public be protected from any opportunity to debate whether the federal government needs more power to peek in on the public without a search warrant. Another section of S. 254 includes provisions to encourage suspicionless drug testing for students -- even though Littleton murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, whose rampage was the pretext for rushing the legislation through Congress, were both "drug free" according to their autopsies. Although they ignored the wiretap and drug testing provisions of S. 254, the media did glance at the bill's body armor provisions, but the media didn't report the provision's details, which turn a reasonable concept into a very unreasonable law. S. 254 requires at least a two-sentencing-level increase for any crime in which the defendant uses body armor. Such an increase can add as much as 36 months to a defendant's sentence. There is no requirement that the defendant's "use" be in conjunction with a violent crime or for any type of offensive purpose. The enhancement would apply to a liquor store owner who cheats on his taxes while wearing body armor for protection from robbers. Reflecting a view of law enforcement that would have horrified the framers of the Constitution, the bill grants a special exemption from the body armor sentencing enhancement. The exemption applies only to law enforcement officers who while "acting under color of the authority" of law enforcement, "violate the civil rights of a person." In other words, police officers who wear body armor while robbing drug dealers, prostitutes and gambling operations are immune from the sentencing enhancement. So are police officers who rape, rob or murder while on the job. So if the police arrest a gun store owner for improper paperwork and the owner is wearing body armor at the time of his arrest, he may spend an additional three years in prison. But if the arresting officers, who are also wearing body armor, rape the arrestee with a toilet plunger, they are specifically exempt from additional punishment. If representatives don't even know what is in a bill they're voting for, they are not really representatives. If Congress is serious about "law and order," it ought to take the time to read the laws it is considering before calling a final vote. (c) 1999 The Cato Institute - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate Date: 16 Jun 1999 12:41:00 -0700 On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:11:12 -0600 Charles C. Hardy wrote: >I did call several members of the Law Enforcment Committee last night. >The angle I took was this: >"I'm concerned about what federal laws may come into effect if Utah >changes the validity of CCW permits at schools. The federal gun free >school act applies not only to schools and the grounds themselves, but >extends 1000' (nearly 1/5 mile or 2 city blocks) in all directions. >Currently, a Utah CCW permit is valid on school grounds so the federal >law doesn't apply to permit holders. However, I'm worried that if CCW >permits are invalidated at schools, the federal law could come into play >and CCW permit holders would commit a federal felony every time the drove >or walked withing 2 city blocks of a school, day care, pre-school etc. How about carrying your firearm to or from your home, or for that matter, just about anywhere considering the propinquity of schools to most every street, road and thoroughfare, if you don't have a CCW permit? Even if there is an exemption, must you always have a story ready about a purchase, repair, or hunting or target shooting trip? >very large, very potentially dangerous dogs (pit bulls, rottwhilers (sp), Rottweiler >I also change the focus from criminals to dogs, simply becuase it is >more accurate in my case, and because I think it probably hits home >a little better. Honestly, most of the legislators (or the rest of >us) have never confronted a criminal. Do you and the legislooters really live such sheltered lives??? Might be an effective slant anyhow, considering that statists protect criminality as much as possible without making it too obvious both because of professional courtesy, and to keep the public psychologically needing the State to "protect them". >Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a >criminal attack with a gun. The SLC Library bomber. Scott - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Forfeiture Update Date: 17 Jun 1999 09:32:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ---------- To all - GOOD NEWS! Please contact your representative and urge him to SUPPORT HR 1658, the Asset Forfeiture Reform bill, and make sure it makes it to the House floor for a full vote. The following alert came from The Liberty Project. On Tuesday, June 15, 1999, the bi-partisan civil asset forfeiture reform bill was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee by an overwhelming margin of 27-3. HR 1658 passed out of the Committee in its unaltered form. Background on HR 1658 is available by visiting http://www.criminaljustice.org or http://www.thomas.gov. The three representatives voting against HR 1658 were: Rep. Ed Bryant (R-TN); Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-ARK); and Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Supporting organizations of HR 1658 which include the Liberty Project, the NACDL, the ACLU, Cato Institute and Common Sense for Drug Policy hope to see the bill move quickly to the House floor, but expect a hard fight against DOJ-drafted amendments. The time is NOW to encourage all concerned citizens to contact Congress and voice their support for HR 1658. The Liberty Project makes it easy for you to contact your House representative and voice your support for this reform act. Simply visit our site at www.libertyproject.org or call toll free 1-877-474-3200. Thanks for helping us preserve liberty! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: TO THE POINT: Asset Forfeiture: An Unbroken Line of Broken Constitutional Promises Date: 17 Jun 1999 09:32:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Constitutional Promises TO THE POINT: A Sutherland Institute Public Policy Perspective June 15, 1999 Asset Forfeiture: An Unbroken Line of Broken Constitutional Promises By Maxwell A. Miller and David Harmer When pressed for legal justification for control of the Panama Canal, Teddy Roosevelt is said to have remarked: "What's the Constitution among friends?" Teddy had a point. History is replete with government do-gooders stretching the Constitution for self-proclaimed noble purposes. Yes, the Constitution can be a pain. Crime would surely decrease if we summarily shot accused felons rather than try them -- at public expense, no less -- but not only does the Constitution forbid it, we would not want it. History's lesson is that external restraints against anti-social behavior -- criminal laws -- become more onerous when societal morality breaks down. Drug laws are a perfect example. More than 25 years ago, the Nixon Administration officially declared a "War on Drugs," no doubt with humanitarian objectives. Since then, the war has escalated notwithstanding dubious results. Federal and state governments combine to spend over $48 billion annually to combat drugs. Prisons are filled with non-violent offenders. Nonetheless, drug dependence soars, and drug-related crime represents an increasingly large percentage of all crime. Bluntly speaking, the war is a bust, whatever one thinks about its original intent. Society's answer to this conundrum has been to resurrect property forfeiture laws, a 19th century relic used to seize property of remote wrongdoers, like pirates and slave-traders. Necessity being the mother of invention, these laws emanated from the absurd notion that property, not a person, can be guilty of illegal activity. From that illogical premise it logically follows that constitutional protections of persons may be cavalierly jettisoned when mere property is at stake. Property is automatically subject to forfeiture if there is "probable cause" (which can be based on hearsay, innuendo, or self-serving testimony) to believe it was "used" or "intended for use" by anyone to violate controlled substance statutes. Thus triggered, government may seize "guilty" property, even that of innocent owners, almost at will. There need be no conviction (or even arrest) of the real criminal. Standing the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" on its head, forfeiture laws oblige an innocent owner to prove that the government should not keep already-seized property. Faced with government's overwhelming resources, many owners simply give up. Forfeiture laws, moreover, spawn corrupt incentives for law enforcement officials to fund themselves through seizures. Hyperbole aside, some recent forfeiture examples include: * Under a Michigan forfeiture statute, a wife whose husband "used" the family car in order to engage a prostitute lost the car; * Under a Puerto Rican law, a leasing company, having no knowledge that its luxury yacht was "used" for illegal drugs, lost its boat; * Acting under California law, sheriff's deputies shot Donald Scott inside his own home when he resisted their "lawful" break in. The district attorney's report concluded the department, motivated by a chance to seize a million dollar ranch, had lied about probable cause. Given the United States Supreme Court's recent ventures at curing societal ills in the name of constitutional imperatives, some hoped in 1995 the court would recognize real constitutional rights when it saw them, and mandate reformation of forfeiture laws. Unfortunately, in an ironic reversal of judicial activism, the court abdicated its proper role in a series of three cases -- and for the flimsiest of circular reasons. Asset forfeiture laws, the court said, are "long standing" and have been upheld in "a long and unbroken line of cases." Longevity hence trumps rationality. Dissenting Justice Stevens more thoughtfully wrote there is no justification in the court's jurisprudence for "confiscation of an ocean liner just because one of its passengers sinned while on board." The Utah Supreme Court has also recently entered the fray over asset forfeiture. In 1994, the court ruled that the restraint against excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution limits Utah's forfeiture law. True, but that ruling did not acknowledge Utah's constitution, which recognizes "an inalienable right to ... possess and protect property." With that unique language in the Utah Constitution, why would the Utah Supreme Court mirror what five justices in Washington say the federal constitution means? The Utah Legislature has finally shown some interest in reforming asset forfeiture laws. Last session, it tabled HB 127, which would have implemented a modicum of reasonable reforms. These reforms included shifting the burden of proof to the state to justify forfeiture by clear and convincing evidence, and preventing seizure cases from being transferred to the federal government to circumvent Utah's laws. Would-be recipients of forfeited assets argued such reforms would cost local government over $6 million. Strange that even under present law, forfeited assets should be deposited with the Division of Finance, which claims never to have received a penny of the $6 million. A legislative audit is currently being conducted, but as Teddy might have shrugged, what's an audit among friends? # # # # # # Maxwell A. Miller is a shareholder in the law firm of Parsons Behle & Latimer, and is a trustee of the Sutherland Institute, a Utah public policy research institute. David Harmer is an attorney with Riddle & Associates and is an adjunct policy specialist with the Sutherland Institute. Their views do not necessarily represent the views of their employers. Permission to reprint this article in whole or in part is granted provided credit is given to the authors and to the Sutherland Institute. For more information about the Sutherland Institute and/or to order additional copies of this article, call the Institute office, (801) 281-2081, or write: The Sutherland Institute, 111 E. 5600 South, Suite 208, Murray, UT 84107. Fax: (801) 281-2414; e-mail: sutherland@utah-inter.net; web address: www.sutherlandinstitute.org. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Sutherland Institute, as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation, or as an endorsement of any candidate or initiative. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: State Leg Interim Committee on law enforcement & crim justice 6/16/99 mtg Date: 17 Jun 1999 09:32:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- mtg I saw no other Libertarians in the packed committee room where numerous citizens spoke out, some eloquently, in favor of 2nd Amdmt rights and against more govt. infringement. A chilling presentation was made by two from the state Health Dept. and Div. of Mental health, the thrust of which was that about the only predictor of violent behavior by the insane is their prior history of such violence, that the mentally ill are no more violence-prone than 'normal' people, but - and here's the chilling aspect - they have proposals for the legislature to: a) institute FORCED MEDICATION on the state-certified mentally ill b) establish (initially) 2 MOBILE TEAMS to search out and apprehend for forced medication the state-certified mentally ill who don't comply with doctors orders (more SWAT-style teams to be added later) c) create a new MENTAL HEALTH COURT SYSTEM to enforce "Assertive Community Treatment". (These plans-in-the making brought to my mind the Soviet Communist gulag system where enemies of the state were declared insane and hauled off to Siberian prison camps). And they have a list of 200 Utah residents upon whom they are ready to pounce if the laws were in place to allow it. There was a further string of full-employment-for-bureaucrats previsions proposed by the state bureaucrats testifying. But THE HIGHLIGHT of this stuffy hearing was a stirring, eloquent, assertive, well-reasoned and principled defense of the 2nd Amendment by Scott Engen of Gun Owners of Utah. (If this e-mail gets to Mr. Engen or GOUTAH, I would really like to have a transcript of his testimony). These are dangerous times for liberty (and tax-rates) in Utah. What happens to 2nd Amendment rights here will be a bellwether for the nation which sees Utah (however wrongly) as a paragon of conservative and constitutional values. The 1999 special session and citizens' attention and reaction to it will show whether Utahns want and deserve Freedom. A 3rd Committee meeting will be scheduled. 6/16/99 mtg Well I am a fellow Libertarian and I was in the committee room with you. It looks like the Health Department is willing to help with setting up a database of citizens that have been committed as long as they are given funds to promote their own agenda. There where also talks of mental health courts and special gun courts, nobody wants to fix the court system we have they just want to have another reason to increase the size of government. It seems to me that this is so slow moving that as long as we stay united we can kill anything that comes down the pipe. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate Date: 18 Jun 1999 08:18:00 -0700 As requested. I responded to both LPU and utah-firearms because Charles originally posted it to both. Scott ---------- Scott, Please pass along to anyplace else you posted your response to me. Thank you. On Wed, 16 Jun 99 12:41:00 -0700 scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) writes: >How about carrying your firearm to or from your home, or for that matter, >just about anywhere considering the propinquity of schools to most every >street, road and thoroughfare, if you don't have a CCW permit? Even if >there is an exemption, must you always have a story ready about a purchase, >repair, or hunting or target shooting trip? I would suggest consulting with a legal professional or at least someone far more knowledgable than I about specifics of federal law. However, having said that, my understanding is that so long as the gun is unloaded and cased, or disassembled, etc, it may be freely transported even through the 1000' perimeter of schools. Further, I believe the Federal law makes an exemption for a CCW permit that requires a criminal background check so the gun may be carried according to the provisions of the permit. I am unclear as to how the federal law handles CCW permits that are specifically not valid on school grounds. I don't know whether it is still permissable to CCW in the 1000' buffer area or not. Hence my concern to lawmakers. >Rottweiler Thank you. >Do you and the legislooters really live such sheltered lives??? I don't know that you'd call it sheltered. What is the current percentage of people who have ever been the victim of a violent or other crime against the person (rapes, mugging, assaults etc)? What is the current percentage of *anglo men* who have ever been the victim of one of these crimes? What is the percentage of *anglo men*, raised in Utah over the age of 30 or even 40 who have ever been the victim of one of these crimes? I, and most of our legislators are anglo men raised in Utah. Most of them are well over the age of 30. While I have been the victim of a few property crimes (but I sure can't convince myself, let alone anyone else, that CCW would have had any effect of whether or not an unattended car was burglarized), and witnessed a couple altercations between long standing acquantances, I've been blessed to never have been the victim of any kind of violent or other crime committed against my person. But, I am a healthy anglo male, somewhat taller than average, grew up in rural Utah in a county that averaged less than one murder a year, I generally avoid areas (and times) known for trouble, do my best to keep a keen eye for potential trouble when I am out and about, avoid the display of cash or valuables at such times, etc. IOW, I'm probably not the "easiest" target out there so criminals are likely to pass me up for someone who will give them less trouble. >Might be an effective slant anyhow, considering that statists >protect criminality as much as possible without making it too >obvious both because of professional courtesy, and to keep the >public psychologically needing the State to "protect them". >>Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a >>criminal attack with a gun. >The SLC Library bomber. While you and I consider that a fine example, I believe the citizen was an off-duty LEO, which in the minds of the statists doesn't count. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate Date: 18 Jun 1999 08:18:00 -0700 On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:19:08 -0600 Charles C. Hardy wrote: >On Wed, 16 Jun 99 12:41:00 -0700 scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) >writes: >>How about carrying your firearm to or from your home, or for that matter, >>just about anywhere considering the propinquity of schools to most every >>street, road and thoroughfare, if you don't have a CCW permit? Even if >>there is an exemption, must you always have a story ready about a purchase, >>repair, or hunting or target shooting trip? >I would suggest consulting with a legal professional or at least someone >far more knowledgable than I about specifics of federal law. However, >having said that, my understanding is that so long as the gun is unloaded >and cased, or disassembled, etc, it may be freely transported even >through the 1000' perimeter of schools. Further, I believe the Federal >law makes an exemption for a CCW permit that requires a criminal >background check so the gun may be carried according to the provisions of >the permit. I am unclear as to how the federal law handles CCW permits >that are specifically not valid on school grounds. I don't know whether >it is still permissable to CCW in the 1000' buffer area or not. Hence my >concern to lawmakers. The specific exemption to which I referred was to homeowners and renters living within 1000' of a school perimeter. I hope you are correct about unloaded and cased guns, though that doesn't help much if you need self defense. Have you looked at a map to see the coverage of area and travel routes these free fire zones for criminals enjoy? How does Vermont deal with this federal edict? >>Do you and the legislooters really live such sheltered lives??? >I don't know that you'd call it sheltered. What is the current >percentage of people who have ever been the victim of a violent or other >crime against the person (rapes, mugging, assaults etc)? What is the >current percentage of *anglo men* who have ever been the victim of one of >these crimes? What is the percentage of *anglo men*, raised in Utah over >the age of 30 or even 40 who have ever been the victim of one of these >crimes? I, and most of our legislators are anglo men raised in Utah. >Most of them are well over the age of 30. Beats me. ;-) I believe the FBI compiles such statistics. Perhaps my experience isn't typical for Utahns since I have lived outside of Utah, but a close friend was mugged IN Utah, and I seem to recall you lived in or near Boston for a while. OTOH, I can't recall getting bested by a dog since I was 5 years old, and few propose arming 5-year-olds with guns. >I've been blessed to never have been the victim of any kind of violent or >other crime committed against my person. But, I am a healthy anglo male, >somewhat taller than average, grew up in rural Utah in a county that >averaged less than one murder a year, I generally avoid areas (and times) >known for trouble, do my best to keep a keen eye for potential trouble >when I am out and about, avoid the display of cash or valuables at such >times, etc. IOW, I'm probably not the "easiest" target out there so >criminals are likely to pass me up for someone who will give them less >trouble. I'm glad your rural Utah experience in a low crime area, combined with street smarts, continued in Massachusetts. They say that God created men, and Col. Colt made them equal. This may apply even more to men (species) of the female persuasion. >>>Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a >>>criminal attack with a gun. >>The SLC Library bomber. >While you and I consider that a fine example, I believe the citizen was >an off-duty LEO, which in the minds of the statists doesn't count. Odd this would bother you, since the best-publicized case of defense against dogs involved an LEO. See Chris Kierst's civilian examples. Scott - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: FW: Another angle on the CCW debate-Reply w/3 local examples Date: 18 Jun 1999 08:18:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- In response to the following exchange between Charles and Scott: >>>Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a >>>criminal attack with a gun. >>The SLC Library bomber. >While you and I consider that a fine example, I believe the citizen was >an off-duty LEO, which in the minds of the statists doesn't count. Example 1 - A local publicized instance of an armed citizen thwarting a robbery attempt can be found in a 2/3/97 article in the Salt Lake Tribune by Dan Egan entitled "Man Fleeing Police Loses Leg" in which a crook tried to fool three men headed out on a hunting expedition into believing that The Club (the car locking device, which he had concealed under his jacket!!!) was a gun. While one of the hunters was pulling money from his pocket another was pulling out his concealed 9mm. The (as yet uninjured) crook shagged, jumping into his nearby parked car. The hunters got the plates and notified the cops who identified the car as stolen. 10 minutes later the cops located the crook outside the car and tried to capture him. He tried to escape by jumping a freight but fell between the cars, losing a leg. This crook was no Einstein. Records revealed that on a previous occasion he had wounded himself in the foot after stealing a rifle. Example 2 - Salt Lake Tribune article of 7/10/96 in which a 17 year old boy broke into an occupied residence through an open window. The 35 year old homeowner attempted to call the cops but the kid jerked the phone and chucked it out the window. The older man ran into his room, fetched a gun from a drawer and shot the kid, puttng him in the hospital. Example 3 - Salt Lake Tribune article of 2/16/96 by Taylor Syphus (Special to the Tribune) entitled "Springville Man Recovers Stolen Car After Wild Ride" in which a 21 year old man returned his mom's stolen Nissan Pathfinder after clinging to the side of the vehicle after spotting it in a parking lot with 3 teenagers (1 was 18 and the others were 17) aboard. He wouldn't let go despite the kids driving off. While they tried to splatter him on concrete overpass supports his plight was noticed by an armed citizen motorist who eventually forced the SUV over with his PU, covering the car thieves with his .38 pistol while calling the cops with his cellphone. The deliquents had a record of other offenses including car burglary and theft. Will this do for the short run? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: The Washington Times - Opinion Date: 18 Jun 1999 08:18:00 -0700 http://www.washtimes.com/opinion/ed3.html Published in Washington, D.C. 5am -- June 16, 1999 Disarming good people Editor's note: The following is an open letter from 287 economists, law-school professors and other academics to Congress, regarding gun-control legislation before the House of Representatives. Some but not all of the names of the signatories appear here. After the tragic attacks at public schools over the last two years, there is an understandable desire to "do something." Yet, none of the proposed legislation would have prevented the recent violence. The current debate focuses only on the potential benefits from new gun control laws and ignores the fact that these laws can have some very real adverse effects. Good intentions don't necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws will ultimately save lives, prevent injury, and reduce crime. Passing laws based upon their supposed benefits while ignoring their costs poses a real threat to people's lives and safety. These gun control laws will primarily be obeyed by law-abiding citizens and risk making it less likely that good people have guns compared to criminals. Deterrence is important and disarming good people relative to criminals will increase the risk of violent crime. If we really care about saving lives we must focus not only on the newsworthy events where bad things happen, but also on the bad things that never happen because people are able to defend themselves. Few people would voluntarily put up a sign in front of their homes stating, "This home is a gun-free zone." The reason is very simple. Just as we can deter criminals with higher arrest or conviction rates, the fact that would-be victims might be able to defend themselves also deters attacks. Not only do guns allow individuals to defend themselves, they also provide some protection to citizens who choose not to own guns since criminals would not normally know who can defend themselves before they attack. The laws currently being considered by Congress ignore the importance of deterrence. Police are extremely important at deterring crime, but they simply cannot be everywhere. Individuals also benefit from being able to defend themselves with a gun when they are confronted by a criminal. Let us illustrate some of the problems with the current debate. The Clinton administration wants to raise the age at which citizens can possess a handgun to 21, and they point to the fact that 18- and 19-year-olds commit gun crimes at the highest rate. Yet, Department of Justice numbers indicate that 18- and 19-year-olds are also the most likely victims of violent crimes including murder, rape, robbery with serious injury, and aggravated assault. The vast majority of those committing crimes in this age group are members of gangs and are already breaking the law by having a gun. This law will primarily apply to law-abiding 18-to-21-year-olds and make it difficult for them to defend themselves. Waiting periods can produce a cooling-off period. But they also have real costs. Those threatened with harm may not be able to quickly obtain a gun for protection. Gun locks may prevent some accidental gun deaths, but they will make it difficult for people to defend themselves from attackers. We believe that the risks of accidental gun deaths, particularly those involving young children, have been greatly exaggerated. In 1996, there were 44 accidental gun deaths for children under age 10. This exaggeration risks threatening people's safety if it incorrectly frightens some people from having a gun in their home even though that is actually the safest course of action. Trade-offs exist with other proposals such as prison sentences for adults whose guns are misused by someone under 18 and rules limiting the number of guns people can purchase. No evidence has been presented to show that the likely benefits of such proposals will exceed their potential costs. With the 20,000 gun laws already on the books, we advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed to the problems we currently face. The new legislation is ill-advised. Sincerely, Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University; Charles W. Baird, California State University, Hayward; Randy E. Barnett, Boston University; Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University; Michael Block, University of Arizona; Walter Block, Thomas Borcherding, Claremont Graduate School; Frank H. Buckley, George Mason University; Colin D. Campbell, Dartmouth College; Robert J. Cottrol, George Washington University; Preston K. Covey, Carnegie Mellon University; Mark Crain, George Mason University; Tom DiLorenzo, Loyola College in Maryland; Paul Evans, Ohio State University; R. Richard Geddes, Fordham University; Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas; John Heineke, Santa Clara University; David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Melvin J. Hinich, University of Texas, Austin; Lester H. Hunt, University of Wisconsin - Madison; James Kau, University of Georgia; Kenneth N. Klee, UCLA; David Kopel, New York University; Stanley Liebowitz, University of Texas at Dallas; Luis Locay, University of Miami; John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago; Geoffrey A. Manne, University of Virginia; John Matsusaka, University of Southern California; Fred McChesney, Cornell University; Jeffrey A. Miron, Boston University; Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary; Craig M. Newmark, North Carolina State University; Jeffrey S. Parker, George Mason University; Dan Polsby, Northwestern University; Keith T. Poole, Carnegie-Mellon University; Douglas B. Rasmussen, St. John's University; Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee; John R. Rice, Duke University; Russell Roberts, Washington University; Randall W. Roth, Univ. of Hawaii; Charles Rowley, George Mason University; Allen R. Sanderson, University of Chicago; William F. Shughart II, University of Mississippi; Thomas Sowell, Stanford University; Richard Stroup, Montana State University; Robert D. Tollison, University of Mississippi; Eugene Volokh, UCLA; Michael R. Ward, University of Illinois; Benjamin Zycher, UCLA; Todd Zywicki, George Mason University. Copyright 1999 News World Communications, Inc. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate Date: 18 Jun 1999 11:31:25 -0600 On Fri, 18 Jun 99 08:18:00 -0700 scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) writes: >The specific exemption to which I referred was to homeowners and >renters >living within 1000' of a school perimeter. I hope you are correct >about >unloaded and cased guns, though that doesn't help much if you need >self >defense. Have you looked at a map to see the coverage of area and >travel >routes these free fire zones for criminals enjoy? Haven't actually looked at a map, but I live in that 1000' zone. Once I leave it, I drive through at least 4 more that I know of just getting to work. And that doesn't count all the day cares and private preschools that I don't know about. Obviously, in the State with the highest percapita number of children, we probably have the highest percapita number of schools. It is probably all but impossible to go anywhere of importance in this county without passing through several school zones. >How does Vermont >deal >with this federal edict? I haven't the foggiest, but suspect they simply don't arrest, and thus don't prosecute people who are peacably carrying guns. >Beats me. ;-) I believe the FBI compiles such statistics. Perhaps my >experience isn't typical for Utahns since I have lived outside of >Utah, >but a close friend was mugged IN Utah, and I seem to recall you lived >in >or near Boston for a while. OTOH, I can't recall getting bested by a >dog >since I was 5 years old, and few propose arming 5-year-olds with >guns. Yup, 4 years in Cambridge. I consider myself blessed to have been spared criminal problems. Of course, the Lord does help those who help themselves, and I did my best to take prudent measures within the realm of what the law allowed. I also have never had problems with a dog. But the visible and audible threat is there every time I walk my neighborhood. I believe similar situations exist for many of our legiscritters. Further, the natural adversion to killing a human makes many people adverse to even considering the need to ever do so, IMHO. OTOH, far fewer people have any strong adversion to putting down an attacking dog. So I don't sound like so much of a cowboy or hot shot if I talk about the need to protect myself and family from dogs than I do if I talk about "plugging criminal scum." I'm not suggesting this is the best or only approach to take on this issue. I'm only saying it seems to have been well received by the legislators I've talked to so far--better than my older approach of talking about criminals. > >Odd this would bother you, since the best-publicized case of defense >against dogs involved an LEO. See Chris Kierst's civilian examples. It isn't that it bothers me. It's that legislators are quick to dismiss it. Once again, even though the dog case involved an LEO, it does seem to be better received. I'm not relating what "should" be, only what I have experieced. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: More Gun Controls? They Haven't Worked in the Past Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700 Wall Street Journal June 17, 1999 O p - E d More Gun Controls? They Haven't Worked in the Past. By John R. Lott Jr., a fellow in law and economics at the University of Chicago School of Law. He is author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" (University of Chicago Press, 1998). Everyone from President Clinton to the hosts of the "Today Show" attributes the recent wave of school violence to the greater accessibility of guns. Gun-control groups claim that today "guns are less regulated than toasters or teddy bears." Proposed solutions range from banning those under 21 from owning guns to imprisoning adults whose guns are misused by minors. Today the House will consider yet another measure, this one requiring a waiting period and background check for anyone wishing to make a purchase at a gun show. Such legislation might make sense if guns had indeed become easier to obtain in recent years. Yet the truth is precisely the opposite. Gun availability has never before been as restricted as it is now. As late as 1967, it was possible for a 13-year-old virtually anywhere in the U.S. to walk into a hardware store and buy a rifle. Few states even had age restrictions for buying handguns from a store. Buying a rifle through the mail was easy. Private transfers of guns to juveniles were also unrestricted. But nowhere were guns more common than at schools. Until 1969, virtually every public high school in New York City had a shooting club. High-school students carried their guns to school on the subways in the morning, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved them after school for target practice. The federal government even gave students rifles and paid for their ammunition. Students regularly competed in citywide shooting contests, with the winners being awarded university scholarships. Since the 1960s, however, the growth of federal gun control has been dramatic. Federal gun laws, which contained 19,907 words in 1960, have more than quadrupled to 88,413 words today. By contrast, in 1930 all federal gun-control laws amounted to only 3,571 words. The growth in state laws has kept pace. By 1997 California's gun-control statutes contained an incredible 158,643 words-nearly as many as the King James version of the New Testament-and still another 12 statutes are being considered in this legislative session. Even "gun friendly" states like Texas have lengthy gun-control provisions. None of this even begins to include the burgeoning local regulations on everything from licensing to mandatory gun locks. The fatuity of gun-control laws is nowhere better illustrated than in Virginia, where high-school students in rural areas have a long tradition of going hunting in the morning. The state Legislature tried but failed to enact an exemption to a federal law banning guns within 1,000 feet of a school, as prosecutors find it crazy to send good kids to jail simply because they had a rifle locked in the trunk of their car while it was parked in the school parking lot. Yet the current attempts by Congress to "put teeth" into the laws by mandating prosecutions will take away this prosecutorial discretion and produce harmful and unintended results. But would stricter laws at least reduce crime by taking guns out of the hands of criminals? Not one academic study has shown that waiting periods and background checks have reduced crime or youth violence. The Brady bill, widely touted by its supporters as a landmark in gun control, has produced virtually no convictions in five years. And no wonder: Disarming potential victims (those likely to obey the gun laws) relative to criminals (those who almost by definition will not obey such laws) makes crime more attractive and more likely. This commonsense observation is backed by the available statistical evidence. Gun-control laws have noticeably reduced gun ownership in some states, with the result that for each 1% reduction in gun ownership there was a 3% increase in violent crime. Nationally, gun-ownership rates throughout the 1960s and '70s remained fairly constant, while the rates of violent crime skyrocketed. In the 1990s gun ownership has grown at the same time as we have witnessed dramatic reductions in crime. Yet with no academic evidence that gun regulations prevent crime, and plenty of indications that they actually encourage it, we nonetheless are now debating which new gun control laws to pass. With that in mind, 290 scholars from institutions as diverse as Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, the University of Pennsylvania and UCLA released an open letter to Congress yesterday stating that the proposed new gun laws are ill-advised: "With the 20,000 gun laws already on the books, we advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed to the problems we currently face." It thus would appear that at the very least gun-control advocates face something of a dilemma. If guns are the problem, why was it that when guns were really accessible, even inside schools by students, we didn't have the problems that plague us now? Copyright 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #17 - 17 June 1999 Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700 ---------- GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. Visit our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! GOUtah! Alert #17 - 17 June 1999 Today's Maxim of Liberty: "...The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, writing in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833. If you wish to continue to receive this information under the GOUtah! banner, you need to do nothing. If you wish to be added to or taken off the GOUtah! list, please log onto our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah! or send an e-mail to GOUtah3006@aol.com or send a fax to (801) 944-9937 asking to be added to or removed from the GOUtah! list. If you wish to forward or share this copyrighted information with others, you are welcome to do so, on the condition that you pass along the entire document intact and unmodified, and that GOUtah! is clearly indicated as the original source of the material, unless otherwise noted. U.S. House Gun Control Debate and Vote Status Report The US House of Representatives will be voting on Federal gun control legislation on Thursday, 17 June 1999. You must pick up the phone RIGHT NOW and call both the Washington DC and SLC offices of each of the Utah Congressional Delegation listed and demand they vote against any gun control measures now before the House. DO IT RIGHT NOW! Their phone numbers are listed below. Call your U.S. Congressman TODAY! Congressional District 1: Northern and Western Utah, except Salt Lake Metro Rep. Jim Hansen (R) 242 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone (202) 225-0453 Fax (202) 225-5857 E-mail: www.house.gov click on Members and select Jim Hansen Local Office: 324-25th Ave. Ogden, Utah 84401 Utah Phone: (801) 451-5822 Utah Fax: (801) 621-7846 Congressional District 2: Salt Lake Metro Area Rep. Merrill Cook (R) 1431 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0001 Phone (202) 225-3011 Fax (202) 225-5638 E-mail: Cong.Merrill.Cook@mail.house.gov Local Office: 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 Utah Phone: (801) 524-4394 Congressional District 3: Central and Eastern Utah Rep. Chris Cannon (R) 118 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-4403 Phone (202) 225-7751 Fax (202) 225-5629 E-mail: Cannon.ut03@mail.house.gov Local Offices: 51 South University Drive Provo, Utah 84606 Utah Phone: (801) 379-2500 Utah Fax (801) 379-2509 Utah Legislative Committees Report and Status On Wednesday, June 16, the Joint Law Enforcement Committee of the Utah State Legislature held an interim meeting to discuss various topics regarding the expansion of gun control laws in Utah. Scott Engen, Director of Policy for GOUtah!, presented testimony to the committee. Scott, who had to leave shortly afterwards to travel to Atlanta to compete in the U.S. National Championships of Free Pistol and Air Pistol, will elaborate on the proceedings of the Joint Committee's meeting in a future GOUtah! Alert. GOUtah! Activist N. William Clayton attended an interim meeting of the Joint Judiciary Committee. Here is his report: The Joint Judiciary Committee heard testimony from several individuals, mostly representing various bureaucracies of the state government. Topics included access to firearms by mentally ill individuals, expanding state law to prohibit people who have been convicted of "violent misdemeanors" from owning firearms, and codifying portions of the common law to make it easier to sue gun owners, gun retailers, and gun manufacturers. The topic of guns in schools was not on the agenda, as that is the purview of the Education Committee. However, this issue ended up taking center stage for a while, despite the best efforts of the committee chairman to keep people off it. One of the more interesting bits of testimony was given by Camille Anthony, who works in the Governor's Office. Gov. Mike Leavitt assembled a special commission on "gun violence" to come up with proposals to submit to the State Legislature, in the hope that these proposals will become law during a yet-to-be approved special session of the Legislature sometime this fall. Ms. Anthony was on this committee, and presented a summary of its recommendations. She mentioned in passing that the committee had recommended that police officers be placed in all public schools on a full-time basis, and that these officers be given specialized training in "early identification" of potential troublemakers and be instructed on "how various materials used in school construction react to bullets." According to Ms. Anthony, one of the duties of school police officers would be to "do searches". Other recommendations made by the Governor's Commission included increased use of surveillance cameras and metal detectors in schools, volunteer "parent patrols" in and around schools, and the designation of all public schools and school grounds as completely "gun-free zones", where nobody, not even holders of concealed-carry permits, would be allowed to possess firearms. During the ensuing Q&A session, one legislator asked whether police officers assigned to school duty would be exempted from the proposed ban on guns in schools. He noted that the report of the Governor's Commission did not mention any exceptions to the proposed "gun-free" policy. Would policemen be exempt? Ms. Anthony responded by saying that this issue had not been considered by the commission, because they had simply "[taken] it for granted that police officers would be exempt." Legislators responded by asking whether this exemption would extend to off-duty officers who attend PTA meetings in school buildings. Ms. Anthony said that the commission had not considered such details, but that she assumed that off-duty officers would probably be exempt. What about judges and prosecutors who carry guns? Could they have their guns with them when they drop off their kids at school? Again, Ms. Anthony said that the commission hadn't considered this, but speculated that judges and prosecutors might be exempt from the ban, because they have "extra gun training" compared with ordinary holders of concealed carry permits. What about members of the proposed "parent patrols"? Would those with carry permits be exempt? Again, Ms. Anthony said that the commission had not discussed this. One legislator asked whether a police officer has a greater right to personal safety while on school property than an ordinary concealed-weapon permit holder. She said that the commission had not considered such details. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #17 2/2 Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Virtually every bureaucrat who testified indicated support for the Governor's proposal to ban the possession of firearms by persons convicted of "violent misdemeanors" and "gun-related misdemeanors" such as concealed-carry violations, brandishing, and "terrorist threats." Thus, for example, someone without a concealed carry permit who puts an unloaded pistol in an unlocked box in the back of his sport utility vehicle and transports it to the shooting range could be convicted of illegally carrying a concealed firearm, and could be permanently prohibited from owning a gun. Paul Boyden, the executive director of the Statewide Association of Prosecutors, said that the legislature should simply obtain a list of all misdemeanor offences currently on the books and go through it, selecting the misdemeanors that should disqualify someone from owning a gun. Although such a list might start out small, he indicated that the legislature "can always expand the list" in future sessions. However, Brian Miller of the Utah Division of Mental Health obliquely suggested that the list be constrained to encompass only violent misdemeanors committed by mentally ill people. I came away from the meeting with the following impressions: 1) A substantial number of legislators in the committee appeared less enthusiastic about the prospect of a special session than they were last month. The amount of work that would be needed to craft the proposed legislation and iron out the details in preparation for such a session would be enormous. Even one anti-gun legislator appeared disgruntled with the proposed process for doing this. One representative said "why don't we just wait until the regular January session?" The Governor and the local media will keep pressing the Legislature to convene a special session, continued pressure from pro-liberty activists could tilt the balance in our favor. Please contact your state legislators and tell them that you are opposed to a special session. A full list of legislators can be found at the GOUtah! Web site, shown at the top of page 1 of this alert. 2) The "guns in schools" hysteria may be starting to wane a bit among legislators. It has certainly not waned enough to prevent bad legislation from passing, but it has waned enough to give us hope that we can tilt the balance by continuing to make our voices heard. During the meeting, legislators intelligently discussed the issue, and many of them seemed to be aware that teachers, parents, and school principals who hold concealed-carry permits are not a hazard to public safety. However, the Governor, the major local newspapers and television stations, all major religious establishments in Utah (including the LDS Church), and a large majority of voters (probably due to naivete) still support the "gun-free school zones" concept. However, legislators tend to pay attention to people who make the effort to write to them, so YOU can make a difference by contacting your state representative and state senator and telling them that you have as much right to self-defense when you go to a PTA meeting as does an off-duty policeman. We have a long row to hoe here, but there is hope that we can derail this thing if we keep the cards, letters, e-mails, and phone calls coming into the offices of our elected officials. Keep up the letters to editors of local newspapers as well, as this is a good way to influence public opinion. 3) The legislators' lack of opposition to the idea of prohibiting firearms ownership for those who have committed misdemeanors is alarming. Please tell your legislators that you don't think that a misdemeanor should disqualify you from exercising your Second-Amendment rights, any more than you think that people convicted of misdemeanors should be prohibited from voting. Pro-Gun Constitutional Seminar Scheduled by Utah Republican Assembly for 26 June in Orem, Utah. The Utah Republican Assembly (URA), a conservative, Constitution-based wing of the Utah Republican Party, will host a constitutional workshop on Saturday, 26 June 1999 in the Ballroom of the Sorenson Student Center at Utah Valley State College in Orem. The program will begin promptly at 9:00AM, and URA asks attendees to arrive a half-hour early for registration and seating. David Harmer, J.D., will be conducting a seminar on Second Amendment issues. Other issues such as states rights and asset forfeiture will also be covered. Cost for the program will be $30.00 per person, and $15.00 for spouses or partners. To register or for additional information, contact Vona Hunsaker at (801) 373-2743 or Joe Ferguson at (801) 756-4452. As an independent, non-partisan gun rights organization, GOUtah! has not reviewed the URA program content, has no political connection the URA, and receives no economic benefit from URA or this program. This notice appears only for the benefit of our activists. GOUtah! Takes Message to Radio Listeners Statewide. Members of the GOUtah have recently been guests on a number of local and statewide radio programs dealing with the gun rights and gun control issues. Among our recent efforts were two half-hour interviews with Metro Networks, which will air early Sunday mornings on a number of stations around the state. Tune in and hear what GOUtah! is doing for you and your gun rights. GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch "We can always expand this list in the future." -- Paul Boyden, Executive Director of the Statewide Association of Prosecutors, testifying before the Joint Judiciary Committee of the Utah State Legislature. Mr. Boyden was referring to the proposed creation of a "small" list of misdemeanor offenses which would prohibit a person from owning a firearm in the state of Utah. "There is no limit to the creativity that can be employed in this arena." -- A representative of the Utah Trial Lawyers Association, testifying before the Joint Judiciary Committee. This man, whose name we didn't catch, was referring to the use of civil law suits to go after gun owners, gun dealers, and gun manufacturers. "We took it for granted that the police would be exempt." -- Camille Anthony, an assistant to Gov. Mike Leavitt, explaining why the Governor's Commission on Gun Violence neglected, in its final report to the Legislature, to explicitly exempt police officers from the Governor's proposed ban on firearms in schools. If you have a gun rights quote you'd like to share, please send it, along with a verifiable original source reference to GOUtah! That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #17, 17 June 1999. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending your firearms rights. Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal! Copyright 1999 by GOUtah! All rights reserved. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: We Are Training Our Kids to Kill 1/3 Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700 ---------- We Are Training Our Kids to Kill by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman Saturday Evening Post - July/August 1999, pgs. 64-72 I am from Jonesboro, Arkansas. I travel the world training medical, law enforcement, and U.S. military personnel about the realities of warfare. I try to make those who carry deadly force keenly aware of the magnitude of killing. Too many law enforcement and military personnel act like "cowboys," never stopping to think about who they are and what they are called to do. I hope I am able to give them a reality check. So here I am, a world traveler and an expert in the field of "killology," when the (then) largest school massacre in American history happens in my hometown of Jonesboro, Arkansas. That was the March 24, 1998, schoolyard shooting deaths of four girls and a teacher. Ten others were injured and two boys, ages 11 and 13 were jailed, charged with murder. Virus of Violence To understand the why behind the Littleton, Jonesboro, Springfield, Pearl and Paducah, and all the other outbreaks of this "virus of violence," we need first to understand the magnitude of the problem. The per capita murder rate doubled in this country between 1957; when the FBI started keeping track of the data; and 1992. A fuller picture of the problem, however, is indicated by the rate at which people are attempting to kill one another; the aggravated assault rate. That rate in America has gone from around 60 per 100,000 in 1957 to over 440 per 100,000 in the middle of this decade. As bad as this is, it would be much worse were it not for two major factors. The first is the increased imprisonment of violent offenders. The prison population in America nearly quadrupled between 1975 and 1992. According to criminologist John A. DiIulio, "dozens of credible empirical analyses . . . leave no doubt that the increased use of prisons averted millions of serious crimes." If it were not for our tremendous imprisonment rate (the highest of any industrialized nation), the aggravated assault rate and the murder rate would undoubtedly be even higher. The second factor keeping the murder rate from being even worse is medical technology. According to the U.S. Army Medical Service Corps, a wound that would have killed nine out of ten soldiers in World War II, nine out of ten could have survived in Vietnam. Thus, by a very conservative estimate, if we still had a 1940-level medical technology today, our murder rate would be ten times higher than it is. The murder rate has been held down by the development of sophisticated lifesaving skills and techniques, such as helicopter medevacs, 911 operators, paramedics, CPR, trauma centers, and medicines. Today, both our assault rate and murder rate are at phenomenally high levels. Both are increasing worldwide. In Canada, according to their Center for Justice, per capita assaults increased almost fivefold between 1964 and 1993, attempted murder increased nearly sevenfold, and murders doubled. Similar trends can be seen in other countries in the per capita violent crime rates reported to Interpol between 1977 and 1993. In Australia and New Zealand, the assault rate increased approximately fourfold, and the murder rate nearly doubled in both nations. The assault rate tripled in Sweden and approximately doubled in Belgium, Denmark and England and Wales, France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Scotland. Meanwhile, all these nations had an associated (but smaller) increase in murder. This virus of violence is occurring worldwide. The explanation for it has to be some new factor that is occurring in all of these countries. There are many factors involved, and none should be discounted: for example, the prevalence of guns in our society. But violence is rising in many nations with Draconian gun laws. And though we should never downplay child abuse, poverty, or racism, there is only one new variable present in each of these countries that bears the exact same fruit: media violence presented as entertainment for children. Killing is Unnatural Before retiring from the military, I spent almost a quarter of a century as an army infantry officer and a psychologist, learning and studying how to enable people to kill. Believe me, we are very good at it. But it does not come naturally; you have to be taught to kill. And just as the army is conditioning people to kill, we are indiscriminately doing the same thing to our children, but without the safeguards. After the Jonesboro killings, the head of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Juvenile Violence came to town and said that children don't naturally kill. It is a learned skill. And they learn it from abuse and violence in the home and, most pervasively, from violence as entertainment in television, the movies, and interactive video games. Killing requires training because there is a built-in aversion to killing one's own kind. I can best illustrate this fact by drawing on my own military research in the act of killing. We all know how hard it is to have a discussion with a frightened or angry human being. Vasoconstriction, the narrowing of the blood vessels, has literally closed down the forebrain -- that great gob of gray matter that makes one a human being and distinguishes one from a dog. When those neurons close down, the midbrain takes over and your thought processes and reflexes are indistinguishable from your dog's. If you've worked with animals, you have some understanding of what happens to frightened human beings on the battlefield. The battlefield and violent crime are in the realm of midbrain responses. Within the midbrain there is a powerful, God-given resistance to killing your own kind. Every species, with a few exceptions, has a hard-wired resistance to killing its own kind in territorial and mating battles. When animals with antlers and horns fight one another, they head-butt in a non-fatal fashion. But when they fight any other species, they go to the side to gut and gore. Piranhas will turn their fangs on anything, but they fight one another with flicks of the tail. Rattlesnakes will bite anything, but they wrestle one another. Almost every species has this hard-wired resistance to killing its own kind. When human beings are overwhelmed with anger and fear, we slam head-on into that midbrain resistance that generally prevents us from killing. Only sociopaths -- who by definition don't have that resistance -- lack this innate violence immune system. Throughout all human history, when humans have fought each other, there has been a lot of posturing. Adversaries make loud noises and puff themselves up, trying to daunt the enemy. There is a lot of fleeing and submission. Ancient battles were nothing more than great shoving matches. It was not until one side turned and ran that most of the killing happened, and most of that was stabbing people in the back. All of the ancient military historians report that the vast majority of killing happened in pursuit when one side was fleeing. In more modern times, the average firing rate was incredibly low in Civil War battles. British author Paddy Griffith demonstrates in his book The Battle Tactics of the Civil War that the killing potential of the average Civil War regiment was anywhere from five hundred to a thousand men per minute. The actual killing rate was only one or two men per minute per regiment. At the Battle of Gettysburg, of the 27,000 muskets picked up from the dead and dying after the battle, 90% were loaded. This is an anomaly, because it took 90% of their time to load muskets and only 5% to fire. But even more amazing, of the thousands of loaded muskets, only half had multiple loads in the barrel -- one had 23 loads in the barrel. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: We Are Training Our Kids to Kill 2/3 Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] In reality, the average man would load his musket and bring it to his shoulder, but he could not bring himself to kill. He would be brave, he would stand shoulder to shoulder, he would do what he was trained to do; but at the moment of truth, he could not bring himself to pull the trigger. And so he lowered the weapon and loaded it again. Of those who did fire, only a tiny percentage fired to hit. The vast majority fired over the enemy's head. During World War II, U.S. Army Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall had a team of researchers study what soldiers did in battle. For the first time in history, they asked individual soldiers what they did in battle. They discovered that only 15 to 20% of the individual riflemen could bring themselves to fire at an exposed enemy soldier. That is the reality of the battlefield. Only a small percentage of soldiers are able and willing to participate. Men are willing to die. They are willing to sacrifice themselves for their nation; but they are not willing to kill. It is a phenomenal insight into human nature; but when the military became aware of that, they systematically went about the process of trying to fix this "problem." From the military perspective, a 15% firing rate among riflemen is like a 15% literacy rate among librarians. And fix it the military did. By the Korean War, around 55% of the soldiers were willing to fire to kill. And by Vietnam, the rate rose to over 90%. The method to this madness -- desensitization. How the military increases the killing rate of soldiers in combat is instructive because our culture today is doing the same thing to our children. The training methods militaries use are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. I will explain each of these in the military context and show how these same factors are contributing to the phenomenal increase of violence in our culture. Brutalization and desensitization are what happens at boot camp. From the moment you step off the bus, you are physically and verbally abused -- countless push-ups, endless hours at attention or running with heavy loads, while carefully trained professionals take turns screaming at you. Your head is shaved; you are herded together naked and dressed alike, losing all individuality. This brutalization is designed to break down your existing mores and norms, and force you to accept a new set of values that embraces destruction, violence, and death as a way of life. In the end, you are desensitized to violence and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world. Something very similar to this desensitization toward violence is happening to our children thorugh violence in the media -- but instead of 18-year-olds, it begins at the age of 18 months when a child is first able to discern what is happening on television. At that age, a child can watch something happening on television and mimic that action. But it isn't until children are six or seven years old that the part of the brain kicks in that lets them understand where information comes from. Even though young children have some understanding of what it means to pretend, they are developmentally unable to distinguish clearly between fantasy and reality. When young children see somebody shot, stabbed, raped, brutalized, degraded, or murdered on TV, to them it is as though it were actually happening. To have a child of three, four, or five watch a "splatter" movie, learning to relate to a character for the first 90 minutes and then in the last 30 minutes watch helplessly as that new friend is hunted and brutally murdered, is the moral and psychological equivalent of introducing your child to a friend, letting her play with that friend, and then butchering that friend in front of your child's eyes. And this happens to our children hundreds upon hundreds of times. Sure, they are told: "Hey, it's all for fun. Look, this isnit real; it's just TV." And they nod their little heads and say OK. But they can't tell the difference. Can you remember a point in your life or in your childrens' lives when dreams, reality, and television were all jumbled together? That is what it is like to be at that level of psychological development. That is what the media are doing to them. The Journal of the American Medical Association published the definitive epidemiological study on the impact of TV violence. The research demonstrated what happened in numerous nations after television made its appearance as compared to nations and regions without TV. The two nations or regions being compared are demographically and ethnically identical; only one variable is different -- the presence of television. In every nation, region, or city with television, there is an immediate explosion of violence on the playground, and within 15 years there is a doubling of the murder rate. Why 15 years? That is how long it takes for the brutalization of a three to five-year-old to reach the "prime crime age." That is how long it takes for you to reap what you have sown when you brutalize and desensitize a three-year-old. Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society are superior to those linking cancer and tobacco. Hundreds of sound scientific studies demonstrate the social impact of brutalization by the media. The Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that "the introduction of television in the 1950s caused a subsequent doubling of the homocide rate, i.e., long-term childhood exposure to television is a casual factor behind approximately one half of the homocides committed in the United States, or approximately 10,000 homocides annually." The article went on to say that "if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there would today be 10,000 fewer homocides each year in the United States, 70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults" (June 10, 1992). Classical Conditioning Classical conditioning is like the famous case of Pavlov's dogs they teach in Psychology 101. The dogs learned to associate the ringing of the bell with food, and once conditioned, the dogs could not hear the bell without salivating. The Japanese were masters at using classical conditioning with their soldiers. Early in World War II, Chinese prisoners were placed in a ditch on their knees with their hands bound behind them. And one by one, a select few Japanese soldiers would go into the ditch and bayonet "their" prisoner to death. This is a horrific way to kill another human being. Up on the bank, countless other young soldiers would cheer them on in their violence. Comparatively few soldiers actually killed in these situations, but by making the others watch and cheer, the Japanese were able to use these kinds of atrocities to classically condition a very large audience to associate pleasure with human death and suffering. Immediately afterwards, the soldiers who had been spectators were treated to sake, the best meal they had had in months, and to so-called comfort girls. The result? They learned to associate committing violent acts with pleasure. The Japanese found these kinds of techniques to be extraordinarily effective at quickly enabling very large numbers of soldiers to commit atrocities in the years to come. Operant conditioning (which we will look at shortly) teaches you to kill, but classical conditioning is a subtle but powerful mechanism that teaches you to like it. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: We Are Training Our Kids to Kill 3/3 Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] This technique is so morally reprehensible that there are very few examples of it in modern U.S. military training, but there are some clear-cut examples of it being done by the media to our children. What is happening to our children is the reverse of the aversion therapy portrayed in the movie A Clockwork Orange. In A Clockwork Orange, a brutal sociopath, a mass murderer, is strapped to a chair and forced to watch violent movies while he is injected with a drug that nauseates him. So he sits and gags and retches as he watches the movies. After hundreds of repetitions of this, he associates violence with nausea. And it limits his ability to be violent. We are doing the exact opposite: Our children watch vivid pictures of human suffering and death, and they learn to associate it with their favorite soft drink and candy bar, or their girlfriend's perfume. After the Jonesboro shootings, one of the high-school teachers told me how her students reacted when she told them about the shootings at the middle school. "They laughed," she told me with dismay. A similar reaction happens all the time in movie theatres when there is bloody violence. The young people laugh and cheer and keep right on eating popcorn and drink pop. We have raised a generation of barbarians who have learned to associate violence with pleasure, like the Romans cheering and snacking as the Christians were slaughtered in the Colosseum. The result is a phenomenom that functions much like AIDS, a phenomenom I call AVIDS: Acquired Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIDS has never killed anybody. It destroys your immune system, and then other diseases that shouldn't kill you become fatal. Television violence by itself does not kill you. It destroys your violence immune system and conditions you to derive pleasure from violence. And once you are at close range with another human being, and it's time for you to pull that trigger, Acquired Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrome can destroy your midbrain resistance. Operant Conditioning The third method the military uses is operant conditioning, a very powerful repetitive procedure of stimulus-reponse, stimulus-response. A benign example is the use of flight simulators to train pilots. An airline pilot in training sits in front of a flight simulator for endless hours; when a particular warning light goes on, he is taught to react in a certain way. When another warning light goes on, a different reaction is required. Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, stimulus-response. One day, the pilot is actually flying a jumbo jet; the plane is going down, and 300 people are screaming behind him. He is wetting his seat cushion and he is scared out of his wits; but he does the right thing. Why? Because he has been conditioned to respond reflexively to this particular crisis. When people are frightened or angry, they will do what they have been conditioned to do. In fire drills, children learn to file out of the school in orderly fashion. One day there is a real fire, and they are frightened out of their wits; but they do exactly what they have been conditioned to do, and it saves their lives. The military and law enforcement community have made killing a conditioned response. This has substantially raised the firing rate on the modern battlefield. Whereas infantry training in World War II used bull's-eye targets, now soldiers learn to fire at realistic, man-shaped silhouettes that pop up into their field of view. That is the stimulus. The trainees have only a split second to engage the target. The conditioned response is to shoot the target, and then it drops. Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, stimulus-response -- soldiers or police officers experience hundreds of repetitions. Later, when soldiers are on the battlefield or a police officer is walking a beat and somebody pops up with a gun, they will shoot reflexively and shoot to kill. We know that 75 to 80% of the shooting on the modern battlefield is the result of this kind of stimulus-response training. Now, if you're a little troubled by that, how much more should we be troubled by the fact that every time a child plays an interactive point-and-shoot video game, he is learning the exact same conditioned reflex and motor skills? I was an expert witness in a murder case in South Carolina offering mitigation for a kid who was facing the death penalty. I tried to explain to the jury that interactive video games had conditioned him to shoot a gun to kill. He had spent hundreds of dollars on video games learning to point and shoot, point and shoot. One day he and his buddy decided it would be fun to rob the local convenience store. They walked in, and he pointed a sub-nosed .38 pistol at the clerk's head. The clerk turned to look at him, and the defendant shot reflexively from about six feet. The bullet hit the clerk right between the eyes -- which is a pretty remarkable shot with that weapon at that range -- and killed this father of two. Afterward, we asked the boy what happened and why he did it. It clearly was not part of the plan to kill the guy -- it was being videotaped from six different directions. He said, "I don't know. It was a mistake. It wasn't supposed to happen." In the military and law-enforcement worlds, the right option is often not to shoot. But you never, ever put your money in that video machine with the intention of not shooting. There is always some stimulus that sets you off. And when he was excited, and his heart rate went up, and vascoconstriction closed his forebrain down, this young man did exactly what he was conditioned to do: he reflexively pulled the trigger, shooting accurately just like all those times he played video games. This process is extraordinarily powerful and frightening. The result is ever more "homemade" sociopaths who kill reflexively. Our children are learning how to kill and learning to like the idea of killing and then we have the audacity to say, "Oh my goodness, what is wrong?" One of the boys involved in the Jonesboro shootings (and they are just boys) had a fair amount of experience shooting real guns. The other one, to the best of our knowledge, had almost no experience shooting. Between them, those two boys fired 27 shots from a range of over 100 yards, and they hit 15 people. That is pretty remarkable shooting. We run into these situations often -- kids who have never picked up a gun in their lives pick up a real gun and are incredibly accurate. Why? Video games. (continued next issue) Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, an expert on the psychology of killing, retired from the U.S. Army in February 1998. He now teaches psychology at Arkansas State University, directs the Killology Research Group in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and has written On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (Little, Brown and Co., 1996). This article was adapted from a lecture he gave at Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas in April 1998 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: RKBA: An *Individual* Right Date: 21 Jun 1999 08:28:00 -0700 ----- Lots of talk about RKBA being an *individual* right---as opposed to a "collective" right, as espoused by some (even esteemed professors of constitutional law). The following (posted to another RKBA list) might prove enlightening: -------------- Well, the antis claim that no Court has ever held that RKBA, as referred to in the Second Amendment, is an *individual* (versus a *collective*) right and that no court has ever overturned a federal gun law on Second Amendment grounds. This is not true. The federal district court which heard the case of Miller and Layton for violating the NFA of 1934 by carrying a short-barreled shotgun acquitted the defendants, finding the NFA unconstitutional, effectively overturning the NFA on Second Amendment grounds The federal government appealed directly to the Supreme Court (it wasn't necessary to go through the circuit appellate court in those days). By issuing a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court agreed that Messrs. Miller and Layton had "standing", which they most certainly would *not* have had if the Second Amendment applied only to State governments regarding the conduct of their individual militiae. In short, the 1939 Supreme Court was all set to strike down the National Firearms Act of 1934 by vindicating Jack Miller and Frank Layton---except that their attorney was prevented from offering evidence to support their Second Amendment defense because his clients (the stupid b*st*rds!) had fled the country, rather than stand before a Supreme Court very ready to exonerate them! (see *U.S. v. Miller* 307 U.S. 175-176 (1939). So the case was decided against them by default, even though they would've won if only they had appeared! --------------- David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte Wheeling, Illinois Replies/Abuse: gonzalez@mcs.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Public Policy Position Paper - 16 June 1999 Date: 21 Jun 1999 09:28:00 -0700 ---------- GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever. Public Policy Position Paper - 16 June 1999 Regarding the Expansion of the Brady Background Check to Include Private Party Sales, Gifts or Transfers, Mental Health Status and the Inclusion of Misdemeanor Offenses to the List of Disqualifying Criteria for Firearms Possession of Purchase by Adult Citizens. Position: Strong Opposition Private Party Sales, Gifts or Transfers at Gun Shows or Any Other Circumstance. The provisions of the unfunded 1993 Federal Brady mandate never intended and further specifically exempted private party transfers from the Brady background check system. This was not a loophole in the law, but was included in each of the legislative drafts of Brady from 1987 until its passage in 1993. The Brady check initially covered only handguns, and as of November 1998, covers all firearms purchased from any federally licensed dealer regardless of time, location or circumstance. Currently Utah is anticipated to check some 75,000 firearms transactions in calendar 1999 under the DPS/BCI Instant Check System as was implemented to comply with the unfunded Federal Brady mandate. Rejections for disqualified individuals attempting to purchase under the Utah system currently run slightly over 2% of all transactions. This means NEARLY 98% of those purchasing firearms under Brady are being charged $7.50 in state fees per transaction to prove their innocence to the state before being allowed to exercise an enumerated Constitutional right. Criminals do not, will not and never have obtained their firearms from legitimate sources, regulated or not. In other words, Brady, as based on the actual numbers, is arguably a 98% failure in both concept and in execution. Expanding Brady to include private party transfers at gun shows or at any other time, place or circumstance, will yield similar dismal crime reduction results. Demanding that before one citizen, a friend or a neighbor might sell a privately owned firearm to another, or before a grandparent might give a grandchild the a gift of a firearm on Christmas morning that a Brady check must be run on all parties involved is not good public policy, and it is contemptible that the idea should even be discussed with a straight face in a legislative forum such as this. According to recent discussions with Utah DPS/BCI personnel, of the more than 3000 individuals who have been denied purchase of a firearm under Brady in the last 5 years, a grand total of ZERO have been arrested on the charge of attempting to purchase in violation of existing law by Utah authorities. It follows that referrals to prosecution were also ZERO, as were prosecutions, convictions, sentencing and incarcerations. ZERO + ZERO + ZERO + ZERO + ZERO + ZERO = ZERO. Currently a reported grand total of federal convictions for attempts to purchase under Brady over the last 5 years throughout all 50 states stands at SEVEN. Out of the supposed tens and hundreds of thousands of disqualified individuals denied under Brady, only SEVEN were convicted of violation of Brady by Federal authorities over 5 years, and an impressive total of ONE in the last three years. It becomes abundantly clear that if arrest, prosecution and punishment of those disqualified individuals attempting to purchase under Brady is not a priority, what then is the underlying purpose of the Brady program? In our opinion, it is two-fold. First, the fees from Brady provide the administering agency with a most attractive non-appropriated revenue stream. Based on 1999 projected checks, Utah firearm purchasers will be charged by DPS/BCI a total of some $562,500 in Brady fees, and yet $549,000 of that amount WILL COME FROM THOSE WHO ARE NOT PROHIBITED for purchase or possession. Fee increase as proposed by DPS/BCI during the 1999 General Session would double Brady fees, and new fee-setting authority given to DPS/BCI during that session makes such fee increases both inevitable and in all likelihood, abusive and punitive. Will we see improved user services provided by DPS/BCI in exchange for these fee increases? No. For example, BCI reportedly no longer conducts on-site Brady checks for FFL dealers at gun shows. BCI reportedly has stopped sending out permit renewal notices to Utah's 25,000 CCW holders as of March 1999. If a CCW renewal is more than 30 days late, the entire CCW application process with full application fees, less the training class, must be repeated. It is doubtful any other state license or permit renewal is handled in this manner. Clearly the DPS/BCI policy direction is increased user fees and less service for Utah gun owners and purchasers. That is why we strongly opposed the recent fee setting authority moving from legislative oversight and justification to administrative agency control. Law abiding Utahns lawfully purchasing firearms are now being charged more than ONE-HALF MILLION DOLLARS EVERY YEAR to prove they are law-abiding citizens before they can exercise a Constitutional right. However, for this ONE-HALF MILLION DOLLARS annually, Utah's firearms owners receive NO DIRECT,, INDIRECT OR TANGIBLE BENEFIT WHATSOEVER. If any benefit, however dubious, comes from the Brady check system, it is an alleged benefit to society as a whole, not to firearms owners or purchasers as a group. Therefore, as the supposed beneficiaries, society as a whole should fund any such system in its entirety. As such, GOUtah! will be working on legislation to place all Brady administrative costs under general state funding, rather than user fee-based funding, for the duration of the Brady program. We, as law-abiding citizens and as gun owners will not be taxed to exercise a Constitutional right. We will not be forced by the state to pay for the rope with which we'll be hung. Secondly, the purchase and transaction records generated by the Brady system, or any other firearms registration proposal, are now clearly subject to abuse by the administrative agencies involved. The FBI is widely reported as, and admits to retaining NICS records on the firearms purchases by law abiding citizens, in direct and knowing violation of existing federal law. This practice has resulted in lawsuits being filed against the FBI by the National Rifle Association and by others. Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah's 3rd District is currently developing legislation to force FBI compliance with existing federal laws in this area. Further, BATF is widely reported as scanning the many years worth of sales records of the hundreds of thousands of federally-licensed firearms dealers forced out of business by the current administration's anti-gun policies, again in violation of existing federal laws prohibiting the creation or maintenance of any such centralized database of firearms or firearms owners. The purpose of any scheme or system to register firearms or firearms owners has historically been to either tax such firearms ownership, or to provide the information needed to implement confiscation of privately owned firearms, or both. Make no mistake, and harbor no illusions. These existing and proposed systems are not about crime prevention. They are about firearms registration, taxation and/or confiscation. This pattern has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout the world in this century and is being implemented in places like New York City, Chicago and New Jersey even as we speak. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Public Po 2/2 Date: 21 Jun 1999 09:28:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Mental Health Issues: Current existing federal and state law prohibits those adjudicated by a court as mentally incompetent to own, possess or purchase a firearm. In one recent instance, an individual who may have been so adjudicated was able to purchase a firearm used in violence at retail from a licensed dealer. In this instance, it is reported that court records of commitment were not available to the DPS/BCI information system. It is clear the problem is one of reasonable information sharing and access, not expansion of the definition of mental incompetence or criteria for denial of firearms ownership, purchase or possession. Any such disqualification must be strictly limited and defined, have competent legal and medical representation, a full measure of due process and judicial review for the subject, and any individual so defined should be in the physical custody of the state or other agency for confinement for the duration of such treatment. If they are adjudicated as too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, they are also too dangerous to be freely circulating in our communities. Disqualification Based on Misdemeanor Offenses: Our society and our legal system has always provided a clear and unambiguous 'line in the sand' regarding the criteria for a lifetime loss of the civil rights held by its citizens. That line is a conviction in a court of law for a felony crime. With such conviction comes the loss of the right to vote, to hold office of public trust, engage in certain professions, possess dangerous weapons or materials, move freely within our society and other restrictions and prohibitions. We are firmly opposed to any loss or restriction of any basic constitutional and civil right, including the right to own, possess or purchase a firearm, based on anything less than the lawful conviction of a felony level crime, period. It becomes clear that those whom we consider a threat to our society, based on their violent criminal actions, are currently breaking numerous felony- level laws already on the books. For example the theft of or possession of a recently stolen firearm, like auto theft, is a second degree felony under Utah law, and also a federal violation if the firearm has moved in interstate commerce. Yet our prosecutors and courts constantly play 'let's make a deal' with violent felony level crime in hopes of streamlining the process of justice. Yet this criminal justice 'barter bazaar' plea bargaining system is at the root of the problem. If an individual has broken the law, and it can be proven in a court of law, then it should be properly tried, a verdict rendered, and appropriate punishment swiftly administered. That's the way the criminal justice system works, and that's the way it must work. Justice 'on the cheap' is not justice. It's institutionalized contempt for the very core values and principles our justice system is sworn to uphold. As a society we have collectively decided which violent crimes are serious enough to warrant a lifetime loss of rights, and we call them felonies. We need to administer our criminal justice system based only on that standard, not based on 'how many beds are available at the gray bar hotel tonight' or what our 'public indignation flavor of the month' might be. If Judicial and Correctional resources are the limiting factor driving this public policy equation, then you, as Legislators, must stop creating non-violent, victimless crimes where none now exist, and you will soon find the resources are available to punish violent crimes where they do exist. That's the proven way to a safer and more tolerant society. To tamper with the civil rights of any citizen, absent their lawful conviction of a felony level crime, is both unfair and unacceptable. Conclusion: Utah's peaceable firearms owners are not the problem, Utah's current gun laws are enough. They don't need to be fixed. The laws now in place need to be enforced. The criminal justice system needs to get up off its knees and administer effective justice. The public's safety needs to be protected, and our citizens rights need to be preserved. As peacable firearms owners, we will stand with you to help implement meaningful improvements to our public institutions. We will also stand squarely in the middle of this political debate, without apology and without compromise, to delay, block, derail and otherwise prevent the rights and interests of Utah's peaceable firearms owners from being trampled or sacrificed on the altar of public hysteria or political expediency. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: ALERT! Leavitt's Mental Health Proposals Unveiled! Date: 21 Jun 1999 17:13:27 -0600 ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- To All: On June 23, 1999 (Wednesday) from 5pm to 6pm, on Tom Draschil's show (KTALK 630 AM), Ruth Andrus will be exposing Fuehrer Leavitt's and Oberfuehrst Robin Arnold-William's mental health proposals for the special session. Ruth has acquired the tapes from the interim committee meeting last Wednesday, as well as Leavitt's letter to Beattie and Stephens, and other special papers. Here's a couple highlights: Under Leavitt's final solution, even non-violent misdemeanors can have you involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- where they _forcibly_ inject you with whatever wonderful drugs they deem neccessary to keep you passive and controlled. New mobile squads of state-funded thugs will search the streets, looking for people (like you, you ultra-right-wing-whackos!) to send directly to new "mental health courts," where inconvenient constitutional rights will be jettisoned for the good of the Reich, and where they will make certain you are protected from your own self. For you pro-second amendment folks, Leavitt's Auschwitz-type mental health proposals are far worse than simply removing guns from schools and churches. You'd better respond to this greater threat quickly! I have the actual proposals in front of me -- it is Nazi Germany all over again. Listen to the program, get the documentation you need, and call your legislators! --------- End Forwarded message ---------- ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Food for thought from the Chuck Wagon for 06/22/99 Date: 22 Jun 1999 09:19:38 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:57:12 -0600 Received: from gulf1.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA24346; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:37:27 -0600 Received: from gulf1.com [208.226.47.226] by gulf1.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-5.04) id A969B7D0106; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:54:17 CST Message-ID: <1317719996222114653990@gulf1.com> X-EM-Version: 4, 5, 0, 0 X-EM-Registration: #30C3410514B417038530 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Must Witherspoon Apologize? June 22, 1999 =20 I received a postcard yesterday from a Christian Brother telling me that I cared nothing for souls, that I should resign my pulpit and that I was wasting my time getting involved in "reformation" efforts. It is his opinion that I should stick to preaching the gospel and do nothing else. Doubtless, he finds my activism in civil liberty offensive. I=C6ve been = told this before.=20 I find the attitude of Christians and ministers such as this brother very interesting and very disturbing. Must I do nothing but preach the gospel? Am I "out of God=C6s will" when I engage the great cultural battles of our day? Dr. John Witherspoon didn=C6t think so. John Witherspoon was one of the most learned and powerful preachers of his day. He was a direct descendant of the great reformer, John Knox. The son of a minister, (No less than 12 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were the sons or grandsons of ministers.) Dr. Witherspoon graduated with honors from the University of Edinburgh and was ordained to the ministry at age 22. His scholarship and pulpit skills were so highly regarded that he was invited to become the president of New Jersey = College, later called Princeton University. He was inaugurated president of the College on August 17, 1768.=20 As the sentiments of independence were building within the colonies, Dr. Witherspoon preached with great knowledge and persuasion the Biblical principles of freedom and self-government. So influential were Witherspoon=C6s sermons that he was asked to assist in the formation of a = new constitution for New Jersey. Later, he was elected as a delegate to the General Congress and on August 2, 1776 affixed his signature to the Declaration of Independence. Throughout John Witherspoon=C6s illustrious civic career he never stopped preaching the gospel. He authored numerous theological works and even when blind continued to preach until his death at age 72. John Witherspoon was not the only preacher to be actively involved in the fight for independence. Include in this list Episcopalian ministers Dr. Samuel Provost, Dr. John Croes and Rev. Robert Smith. The Presbyterian Church provided several notable preacher-patriots including Rev. James Armstrong and Rev. James Caldwell. Baptist ministers, like Rev. Joab Houghton and Pastor M=C6Clanahan enthusiastically joined the fight for freedom and independence.=20 George Washington was so impressed with the contribution that numerous Baptists had made to the Revolutionary War that he penned a letter to them in which he said, "I recollect with satisfaction that the religious societies of which you are a member have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious Revolution." And, who can forget the preacher and patriot, the great Lutheran pastor, John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg of Virginia? He led the men of his congregation to join the revolutionary army in our fight for independence.= =20 Now I ask you, will Witherspoon and Muhlenberg and Houghton and Caldwell and the countless other ministers of Christ who preached, prayed and = fought for this country have to apologize for getting involved in the fight for civil liberty? I wonder if my good brother bothers to vote? If he does, is he wasting his time and outside his calling? I wonder if he personally celebrates Independence Day? I wonder if he understands how the significance of this day came about?=20 Desperate days call for desperate measures. The truth is, if all of my preacher brethren were the salt that Christ told us to be a few of us wouldn=C6t have to spend quite as much time trying to restore the = fundamental principles that have been stripped away from us.=20 And, without trying to sound heretical, evangelism is not enough to save a nation! During the past four decades we have expanded the evangelistic outreach of the church in ways never before known. We have recorded more conversions, built more church buildings and raised more money for the Lord=C6s work than at any time in history. (And, while desiring to do more = in this regard, the dear Lord has blessed us with the privilege of winning hundreds of souls to Christ during the last two decades of ministry.) With all this evangelism going on why is America facing such desperate days? Our Lord warned us that if the salt lost its character it would be "good for nothing" and would be "trodden under the foot of men." That is exactly what is happening today. The salt has lost its character and the clanging sounds of tyranny are beginning to be heard all over the land. It takes character to live a pure life. It takes character to raise a = godly family. It takes character to build an honest business. It takes character to engage cultural evils and impact society for good and for God. Anyone can build a moat around their lives and pretend that they don=C6t have a responsibility to the outside world. Anyone can pretend that it is not their "calling" to dirty their hands with "politics."=20 Our Christian forefathers were as saved as we are. They loved God as much as we do. They prayed. They worshipped. They preached. They won souls to Christ. They sent missionaries. They started Christian schools, orphanages,= hospitals, seminaries and universities. They believed the Bible as much as we do and relied on the Holy Spirit as much as we say we do. They also helped to give birth to this great land of freedom that we know as the United States of America. Somehow, I don=C6t think that they are the ones = who are going to have to apologize. NOTE: Chuck's editorials are published weekdays on Gulf1.com and are sent via email to anyone who requests them. Newspapers also carry his editorials. Visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com for more information. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: FYI--Fw: Oldies & HCI Date: 23 Jun 1999 12:36:16 -0600 ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- Just thought I'd let you know that the radio station "Oldies 94.1" is running commercials from Handgun Control Inc. I can't get through to their web site from work to protest and it is the only computer access I have. I thought maybe you could pass this info along to your E-Mail group. The station's web site is www.oldies941.com. Maybe you could get through and find an E-mail address and let us know. Note from Dave: I just called Tom Sly, who is the general manager of JACOR Broadcasting, the company that owns Oldies 94.1. He says that he defends the playing of the HCI ad in the name of freedom of speech. I pointed out to him that many of us who listen to 94.1 grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, and that these ads leave a terrible taste in our mouths, since we believe that HCI is attempting to subvert the Constitution, freedom, and the right to self-defense. I explained that we listen to 94.1 for the nostaligia of the old times, and that when ads condemning firearms are run, it makes us turn off our radios. Since 94.1 is essentially a business, I believe that their are shooting themselves in the foot by running these ads. The email address of Oldies is oldies@aros.net Tom Sly can be reached at 908-1300, and he does return calls. A few calls might help him avoid political hot potatoes? The ads are ending as of June 22, 1999, says Tom. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: ALERT! KSL POLL ON HATCH! Date: 23 Jun 1999 18:14:57 -0600 Do you want "Gun-Grabber" Hatch to be your next president? KSL Poll at http://www.ksl.com/radio/ demands your action! Vote now! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: FYI--Fw: Oldies & HCI Date: 24 Jun 1999 09:12:00 -0700 Talk about a business shooting itself in the foot -- this is one of the most despotic Web sites I have encountered in a while. It is entirely javascript, and absolutely demands a cookie to proceed. Listen to KTKK 630AM rather than these fascists. Scott ---------- Charles C. Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- Just thought I'd let you know that the radio station "Oldies 94.1" is running commercials from Handgun Control Inc. I can't get through to their web site from work to protest and it is the only computer access I have. I thought maybe you could pass this info along to your E-Mail group. The station's web site is www.oldies941.com. Maybe you could get through and find an E-mail address and let us know. Note from Dave: I just called Tom Sly, who is the general manager of JACOR Broadcasting, the company that owns Oldies 94.1. He says that he defends the playing of the HCI ad in the name of freedom of speech. I pointed out to him that many of us who listen to 94.1 grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, and that these ads leave a terrible taste in our mouths, since we believe that HCI is attempting to subvert the Constitution, freedom, and the right to self-defense. I explained that we listen to 94.1 for the nostaligia of the old times, and that when ads condemning firearms are run, it makes us turn off our radios. Since 94.1 is essentially a business, I believe that their are shooting themselves in the foot by running these ads. The email address of Oldies is oldies@aros.net Tom Sly can be reached at 908-1300, and he does return calls. A few calls might help him avoid political hot potatoes? The ads are ending as of June 22, 1999, says Tom. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Rosie O'Donnell Call-In 1-800-RINGING (fwd) Date: 25 Jun 1999 14:37:38 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:10:21 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA27123; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:23:38 -0600 Received: from (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA14106; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:35:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <9906240513.0c72@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.net Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Jun 23, David Wisniewski wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------= -] It seems that the Bell Campaign is teaming up with Rosie O'Donnell, in a effort to boost Rosie's ratings and promote gun control. On Thursday, = June 24, call 1-800-RINGING and tell them how you feel. http://www.jointogether.org/sa/action/advancing_policy/alerts/reader.jtml?O= bject_ID=3D259199 Dear friends and colleagues:=20 When Congress failed last week to close the gun show loophole, it proved that the NRA is still writing our nation's gun policy. The gun lobby is so entrenched in Washington that it will take a national citizen's movement to break the gridlock that is contributing to 93 deaths everyday.=20 The Bell Campaign is a national, grassroots organization created by survivors of gun trauma to mobilize the majority of Americans who support stronger gun laws. One of our founders, Mary Leigh Blek, will appear as a guest on Rosie O'Donnell this Thursday, June 24, 1999. Mary Leigh's son, Matthew, was killed with a handgun during an attempted robbery in June 1994. During her appearance on Rosie, Mary Leigh will invite viewers to help prevent gun death and injury, and support victims of gun trauma by joining The Bell Campaign. She will give out our toll-free number, 1-800-RINGING (1-800-764-4464) and web address: http://www.bellcampaign.org=20 If you have 5 minutes: It is important that Rosie hear from you. We know that she will get blasted by pro-gun people for showcasing The Bell Campaign. Please send Rosie an e-mail thanking her for informing her audience about ways they can help to stop the gun epidemic. You can e-mail Rosie's through her web site by clicking here. http://rosieo.warnerbros.com/cmp/mail.htm If you have a little more time: Invite some friends over to watch Rosie on Thursday, June 24. Call your local newspaper, radio or TV station (especially ABC) and tell them that you are having a 'Rosie watching party' to show your support for stronger gun laws. It is critical that the momentum started by the Columbine shootings = changes how our nation deals with gun policy. The single most important lesson of the recent events in Congress is that meaningful gun policy change will = not happen until ordinary citizens hold elected officials accountable for = their votes. You can do that by joining The Bell Campaign. --=20 David Wisniewski RKBA & Official Kmart/Rosie O'Donnell Protest Page davidwiz@erols.com http://rosie.acmecity.com/happy/365 [------------------------- end of forwarded message -----------------------= -] -- - ***** 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 =3D Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy = a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus = Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------= - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Asbestos Lawsuit Ruling to Have Gun Industry Impact? Date: 25 Jun 1999 15:25:14 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:06:46 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA28691; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:54:55 -0600 Received: from (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA24954; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:07:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <000501bebead$33cac920$9e0b81ce@bugbox> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.net Reply-To: mcgehee@mosquitonet.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Nobanners, The Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling in the challenge to a $1.5 billion asbestos settlement involving the Dallas-based Fibreboard company may drive certain = U.S. gunmakers out of their recently forged alliance with the Clinton administra= tion. In the face of multiple product liability lawsuits, and with the proposed federal tobacco settlement serving as a model, many gun manufacturers have = been distancing themselves from the 2A lobby in hopes of positioning themselves = for a better deal when the Gummint gets around to trying to establish a massive mandatory gun liability settlement. Now that SCOTUS has declared such settlements illegal, expect to see gunmakers going back to a harder line = on many of the gun-rights issues. In another case (those who disparage the importance of having a Republican president, take note!), SCOTUS also ruled once again in favor of states' = rights, with all the justices appointed by Democrats voting in the minority. Kevin McGehee Fairbanks/North Pole, AK mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mcgeheezone.com/ Visit The McGehee Zone Bookstore http://www.mcgeheezone.com/capitalism/bookstore.htm -