From: "Will Thompson" Subject: Date: 03 Oct 1999 11:44:02 -0600 From the NEA today online. (neato-iddn't nice to know that the NEA done grajyated to words like "neato"? What's next? "Daddy-o"? "keen"? "Neato-burrito"? This is the first time I have ever seen an online poll with more than 80% for anything. Keep up the good work. Wingnuts UNITE! hehe *********************************** Thanks for your vote Would Stronger Gun Control Laws Make Schools Safer? 1% Yes votes 99% No votes Return to NEATO home page. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: NEWS - SSAA response to USA Oz Embassy opinion Date: 03 Oct 1999 22:41:00 -0700 ----- ---------- opinion Date: Thu, Sep 30, 1999, 10:47 PM Sandi Logan is counsellor of public affairs for the Embassy of Australia. Washington, D.C. Address is Sandi Logan Washington Bag Locked Bag 40 KINGSTON ACT 2604 P. Peake Research Section Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc. 166 Keymer Street Belmont, Western Australia 6104 Ph/Fax (08) 92776436 23 September 1999 Letters to the Editor The Washington Times 3600 New York Ave. NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Dear Editor Sandi Logan's defence of the Australian government's confiscation of 640,000 firearms and the supposed impact it has had on crime rates in Australia overlooked a number of important points (Washington Times, 9/13/99). First, the available data-sets for considering the efficacy of the scheme are grossly inadequate. The government's 'buyback' program concluded in September 1997. This means at best there is no more than two years worth of information to hand and much of what is available is fragmentary. Assuming that some sort of trend could be discerned however, what has come to light indicates little if any reduction in the overall rate of some crimes and a considerable increase in others. There is a clear upward trend in method substitution, especially where armed robberies and suicides are concerned; blood filled syringes are rapidly becoming the weapon of choice among street criminals, while asphyxiations and poisonings now outstrip firearm related suicides by several fold. Similarly, the number of violent home invasions has continued to increase, as have violent assaults and car thefts. Logan's assessment also overlooked the fact that firearm related accidents were actually lower during the period immediately prior to the government's program. Given the $500,000,000 lifted from taxpayers in order to fund the scheme and the often incestuous relationship between government departments and the anti-gun lobby in Australia, one can understand the authorities willingness to cleave to statistical straws. Looking at the available evidence however, any fair-minded assessment could only conclude that the whole exercise has had no significant impact on crime in Australia. Your sincerely, Paul Peake Research Section Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Inc. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: ALERT! GUN MANUFACTURERS SELLING 2nd AMENDMENT OUT!! Date: 05 Oct 1999 18:09:00 -0700 ----- Note: If Colt, Glock and S&W stop selling handguns to the civilian market, they'll go out of business. The following is offered FWIW GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE !!ALERT!! Chris W. Stark - Director P.O. Box 1924 Crosby, Texas 77532-1924 Ph. (281) 787-4111 Fax (281) 328-7505 http://www.GOA-Texas.org email: Director@GOA-Texas.org GUN MANUFACTURERS SELLING 2nd AMENDMENT OUT!! Republication permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert is left intact in its original state. NOTE FROM CHRIS W. STARK, DIRECTOR OF GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE: Be sure to scroll down to the bottom of this alert to receive the contact information for the gun manufacturers listed in this alert (Courtesy of Gun Owners Alliance). Copyright by Neal Knox http://www.nealknox.com Sept. 26 update -- There will be a meeting in Washington tomorrow between three major handgun makers and the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut, and Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell. Glock, Colt's and Smith & Wesson, who are attending the meeting, reportedly are interested in negotiating their way out of lawsuits by governmental agencies. Industry sources tell me Glock is in the process of shutting down private sales of handguns, and Colt's is positioned to do so. Another long gun maker who produces a relatively few handguns has already stopped handgun production in antipation of whopping increases in liability insurance unless they get out private sales of handguns. They haven't announced the shutdown of their handgun production, and it could resume if the exhorbitant insurance cost is reduced; but right now that doesn't seem likely. ****UPDATED BULLETIN NEWS FLASH!!**** Oct. 4 Neal Knox Update -- Saturday's New York Times contained details of last Monday's meeting between key gunmakers and most of the cities suing them for providing the less than one-half of one percent of their guns used in crimes. According to the Times, the attendance list was much broader than previously reported. It included Ed Shultz, chief executive of Smith & Wesson, and officials from Sturm, Ruger & Company, Colt's Manufacturing, O. F. Mossberg & Sons, Taurus, Glock and Beretta. Although discussions were preliminary, participants on the cities' side of the table were optimistic because Robert Delfay, president of National Shooting Sports Foundation, "was behind a carefully developed framework that provided common ground for both sides in the talks." The municipalities' demands, which were described as a "wish list" were presented by the City Attorney of Los Angeles. The "most important and far-reaching ... was that the gun companies establish tighter contractual control over their chain of distribution to wholesalers and then retailers, and so curb the supply of handguns to criminals and juveniles through corrupt dealers. Any dealer who was found by Federal tracing to be providing a sizable number of guns used in crimes would lose his supply of products from the manufacturer." Other demands, the Times reported, were that the industry prohibit its dealers from selling handguns at gun shows or on the Internet, stop advertisements claiming that handguns increase safety in homes, and support legislation limiting customers to one handgun purchase a month. Further, the cities wanted the companies to require external locks on all guns and, by 2004, to produce guns that only its owner could fire. The industry reportedly responded that the cities should lobby for an increased budget for BATF to expand its oversight. Notably missing from the meeting were makers of low-cost handguns and lawyers for New Orleans, Newark, Chicago, Detroit and several other cities. # # # # # # # # NOTE FROM CHRIS W. STARK, DIRECTOR OF GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE: Let's apply some tremendous pressure to these traitors. We need to voice our outrage of this "sell-out", by contacting the gun manufacturers that are involved in this sellout listed below: Smith & Wesson 2100 Roosevelt Avenue Springfield, MA 01104 Tel: 1-800-331-0852 Fax: 1-413-747-3317 ceo@smith-wesson.com qa@smith-wesson.com Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc. P.O. Box 1868 Hartford, CT 06144-1868 Tel: 1-860-236-6311 Fax: 1-860-244-1442 (no e-mail address) O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. 7 Grasso Ave. North Haven, CT 06473 Tel: 1-203-230-5300 Fax: 1-203-230-5420 O.F.Mossberg@worldnet.att.net Service@mossberg.com BERETTA U.S.A. CORP. 17601 Beretta Drive ACCOKEEK MD 20607 Tel: 1-301-283-2191 Fax: 1-301-283-0990 (no e-mail address) Glock, Inc. 6000 Highlands Parkway PO Box 369 Smyrna, GA 30082 Tel: 1-770-432-1202 Fax: 1-770-433-8719 (no e-mail address) Taurus International Firearms 16175 NW 49th Avenue Miami, FL 33014-6314 Tel: 1-305-624-1115 Fax: 1-305-623-7506 (no e-mail address) Sturm Ruger & Co, Inc. 134 Old Post Road Southport, CT 06490 Tel: 1-203-259-4537 Fax: 1-203-259-2167 (no e-mail address) Support the work of Gun Owners Alliance! Go to: http://www.goa-texas.org/members.htm (c) 1999 by Gun Owners Alliance (GOA-Texas). Republication permitted ONLY if this e-mail alert is left intact in its original state. The views herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any other individual or organization, than Gun Owners Alliance (GOA-Texas). We do not officially represent Gun Owners of America. Go to http://www.goa-texas.org/TXsig.htm for more information. SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: subscribe@GOA-Texas.org ...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Shameless plug for campaign support Date: 06 Oct 1999 14:15:47 -0600 Hello all. I know this is mostly off topic as city councils don't have much direct impact on the gun rights, so delete now if you are terribly bothered by off topic messages. Otherwise, I hoping to find at least a couple people who live in (or close to) Sandy City to help me with my efforts at gaing a seat on the Sandy City Council. Last night I survived my primary race for one of Sandy City's at-large city council seats. Having done so with a reasonably decent showing with nearly 600 votes for some 18% (4th place was down around 11%, 3rd place was at 25%), I intend to make a fairly serious run for office. Two incumbants (Linda Saville and Crickett Ralston), myself, and another challenger (Sylvia Brunsholz) survived the primary. Marilee Guinan did not. Given that my efforts to date have consisted only of getting about 500 half page black-on-white flyers passed out throughout the city, I think I have a decent chance at this one if I can get my name out better. Due to my limited personal resources, this is going to require either some fairly serious donations so I can afford some signs and do mailings or a lot of leg work to pass out more flyers. I plan to make some modest changes to the flyer I used for the primary, and run off a bunch of copies. I may also do up some smaller (8 or even 12 per page) "reminder cards" to remind people of the election and encouraging them to vote. I also plan to get out a few nights and walk some of the neighborhoods making an effort to visit with people as I pass out flyers in addition to simply trying to get as many flyers placed on doors as I can. Several people have volunteered to help with passing out flyers. If anyone else is able and willing to help please let me know. There is no need to visit with anyone while doing this. Flyers can simply go on door steps. I can especially use help on the east side of Sandy heading up the bench and on the west side of the freeway. Also, if anyone has any friends who own small businesses in Sandy (or near Sandy where Sandy residents are likely to do business or drive by) who would be willing to put flyers and/or signs on their property for the next few weeks, that would be a big help. If you know anyone who would be willing and able to make decent yard signs for me either free or at a significantly reduced rate, that would also be a big help. I plan to make a real run, but will not go into debt or significantly adversely affect my family's monthly budget to do so. So this is a small budget race being run mostly on sweat. If there is anyone who would like to help but would rather make phone calls than do leg work, also let me know. I'm going to try to put my hands on a list of registered voters in Sandy and would like to start making phone calls to them to ask them to vote and to vote for me--probably a simple 15 to 30 second message containing my name and asking for their vote. I'd like to target these calls during the day when they can be quickly left on answering machines and not bother anyone during their evening or dinner hours. Finally, if by some chance anyone is in a position to do so and wants to make a financial contribution, I'm more than happy to accept. If anyone would like to donate services in kind (yard signs, photo copies, use of a bulk rate mailing permit and postage, advertising in newsletters, taking a better portrait shot of me for use on flyers, etc) I can also certainly make use of those. I can be reached at this email (no attachments however) or at my home phone number at 523-3817. I do work days so either call evenings or leave me a clear message. Thank you. ================================================================== 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: ALERT: Volunteers Needed AM of 10/7 Date: 06 Oct 1999 17:18:00 -0700 In Salt Lake County call Kitty Burton at 254-3834 to volunteer. Jim Dexter's # is 963-1028. ----- The UEA is planning to kick off their 1999 Convention on Thursday, Oct. 7, with a "Walk the Talk" march from the capitol to the Salt Palace in support of their anti-guns in schools and churches petition drive. The LPUtah, in concert with Women against Gun Control and GOUtah!, has prepared a special brochure: "Guns, Children & Schools," which provides the real facts about this topic with unimpeachable sources ranging from John Lott's studies, Gary Kleck's study to Dep't of Justice statistics (the least credible source, of course). We have printed 1500 of those brochures for distribution at the UEA convention and PTA meeting around the state. We need volunteers to hand out brochures to the delegates as they "march" into the Salt Palace on Thursday, 10/7, around 8:00 - 8:30 AM. (The keynote speech is slated to start at 8:45 AM.) Unfortunately, I must go to California to help my parents. (My 85-year-old mother was just hospitalized with a broken leg and my 89-year-old father can't cope.) Also unfortunately, both our state vice chair and state treasurer are out of the country. I will pick up the brochures from the printer tomorrow. If you can volunteer to bring the brochures to the Salt Palace, please let me know ASAP. IF you can be at the Salt Palace from 8:00 to 9:00 on Thursday, please also let me know. We will also notify the media. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: ALERT: Volunteers Needed AM of 10/7 Date: 07 Oct 1999 09:01:30 -0400 Jim Can you get a few people to make signs etc too? You need to walk along with them with your own signs. Nothing like diffusing the message :-) Chad from NH --On Wed, Oct 6, 1999 17.18 -0700 SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > In Salt Lake County call Kitty Burton at 254-3834 to volunteer. > Jim Dexter's # is 963-1028. > > ----- > To: lputah@qsicorp.com > Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:58:52 -0600 > Subject: ALERT: Volunteers Needed AM of 10/7 > From: "Jim Dexter" > > The UEA is planning to kick off their 1999 Convention on Thursday, Oct. 7, > with a "Walk the Talk" march from the capitol to the Salt Palace in > support of their anti-guns in schools and churches petition drive. > > The LPUtah, in concert with Women against Gun Control and GOUtah!, has > prepared a special brochure: "Guns, Children & Schools," which provides > the real facts about this topic with unimpeachable sources ranging from > John Lott's studies, Gary Kleck's study to Dep't of Justice statistics > (the least credible source, of course). > > We have printed 1500 of those brochures for distribution at the UEA > convention and PTA meeting around the state. > > We need volunteers to hand out brochures to the delegates as they "march" > into the Salt Palace on Thursday, 10/7, around 8:00 - 8:30 AM. (The > keynote speech is slated to start at 8:45 AM.) > > Unfortunately, I must go to California to help my parents. (My 85-year-old > mother was just hospitalized with a broken leg and my 89-year-old father > can't cope.) Also unfortunately, both our state vice chair and state > treasurer are out of the country. > > I will pick up the brochures from the printer tomorrow. If you can > volunteer to bring the brochures to the Salt Palace, please let me know > ASAP. IF you can be at the Salt Palace from 8:00 to 9:00 on Thursday, > please also let me know. > > We will also notify the media. > > > > - > Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC Web and Macintosh Consulting -- full service web hosting Chad Leigh chad@pengar.com chad@shire.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Dial 911 and Die Date: 07 Oct 1999 14:53:52 -0600 Dial 911 and Die By Richard W. Stevens Review by Sarah Thompson, M.D. Recent events have focused many people's attention on violent crime. Many people are upset that not a single teacher at Columbine High was prepared to do anything to stop a couple of homicidal and suicidal teenagers. Even more people are outraged that the police sat outside for several hours while innocent students were murdered. Some people wonder why vicious bigots choose places like Los Angeles and Chicago to go on murderous rampages, or why mentally ill criminals are set free to commit further crimes. The answers can be found in a new book by Richard Stevens. _Dial 911 and Die_ is a book that will open your eyes - and possibly even save your life, or the life of someone you love. It should be required reading for anyone who doesn't realize that he has primary, if not sole, responsibility for protecting and defending himself. And it's a wonderful resource for those of us who have accepted that responsibility in the face of overwhelming hostility from the uninformed and politically correct. The premise of the book is simple: the police and the government have, with few exceptions, absolutely no responsibility to protect you, and no responsibility to arrest or incarcerate criminals. You're on your own, and if you depend on the police, you do so at your own risk. Stevens, a practicing attorney, cites cases from every state in the nation, as well as Canada and Puerto Rico, to illustrate this concept. Each case is carefully documented, with a complete citation, as well as an explanation of the laws involved. The cases are shocking and horrifying. If a prospective murderer calls the police and tells them when and where he plans to murder someone, do they have any duty to intervene to prevent the murder? No. Do the police have the obligation to arrest someone who repeatedly violates a domestic violence protective order? No. Can the police ignore an emergency call for assistance in order to do paperwork? Yes. Do the police have the obligation to respond to a 911 call for help? No. What if they promise that "help is on the way"? Do they then have an obligation to respond? Still no. If the police witness a crime in progress, must they intervene to protect the innocent? No again. If a police officer attacks an innocent person, may he be held liable for criminal assault? In most cases, no. As one California court wrote: "police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything." The basis for this is the legal principle of "sovereign immunity", which means that government is immune from liability and has no financial or other responsibility for its actions. Essentially, government and its agents are above the law and may violate it at their own discretion. Another problem is the doctrine of "public duty", i.e. that the police have the duty to protect the "general public", but not the duty to protect individuals. This is in the best tradition of "newspeak" since by definition, the "general public" _excludes_ each and every individual person. For all practical purposes, the police have the duty to protect everyone but the person or persons who need their assistance. Even in the case of riots and civil disturbances, which would seem to fall under the "public duty" rule, the police usually have no duty to protect the affected people or their property. Focusing on liability can be misleading however, and Stevens frequently reminds the reader of this. Even in the rare instances where crime victims retain the right to sue the state for inadequate, negligent or malicious police services, suing the state is a very lengthy and expensive process. And no amount of money can adequately compensate victims of violent crime, or their grieving parents, spouses or children. The more libertarian and anarchic may respond "So what? I don't want or expect the government to protect me; I can do it myself." But can they? While government has no duty to protect people, or even to prevent crime and apprehend criminals, it has arrogated to itself the power to disarm them. Government, especially in crime-ridden cities such as Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles, prohibits citizens from defending themselves, or even possessing the means to do so, while simultaneously refusing to accept responsibility for those it has rendered defenseless. It can, and will, prosecute and imprison courageous, responsible people simply for defending their own lives! (This is the only real "weakness" of the book. I wish Stevens had included cases where citizens were prosecuted for daring to be responsible for their own lives and property.) While _Dial 911 and Die_ focuses primarily on sovereign immunity for law enforcement failures and inadequacies, it illustrates other disturbing problems as well. Just as police have no duty to respond to 911 calls, emergency medical services and fire departments also have no duty to respond to pleas for assistance. Paramedics have no responsibility to respond to calls from sick or injured people and fire departments have no obligation to put out fires. Courts have no duty to process papers correctly, prisons have no duty to actually keep dangerous criminals imprisoned, and mental hospitals have no duty to treat or hold even the criminally insane. Yet all of us are forced to pay taxes to support these services, even though they may refuse to provide anything in return. Only government can get away with willfully refusing to provide the services for which it's paid. Like many city-dwellers who have learned that the police are rarely around when needed, I have an alarm system in my home. Should my alarm go off, the alarm company would certainly be liable if it failed to respond because "everyone was at lunch". Yet the police have no duty to respond. I also have a fire extinguisher in my home. If a fire started and the extinguisher malfunctioned, I could sue the company for damages. But the fire department can choose to let my house burn with impunity. If a doctor in an emergency room refused to treat a patient with chest pains, he would almost certainly be sued - unless, of course, it happened at a government hospital. But paramedics have no duty to respond to 911 calls. Isn't it interesting that a person is a "responsible citizen" if he keeps a cell phone, a fire extinguisher, and a first aid kit handy, but is presumed to be a criminal if he keeps a loaded firearm available for self-defense? Yet all are essentially tools for responding to emergencies that threaten life, limb, or property, and all should be held in the same high regard. Even if a person is willing and prepared to accept responsibility for protecting himself and his family, there are limits to what he can do. Maybe he can repel, or disable, criminal predators. But can he put out a fire by himself? Can he adequately treat a heart attack, broken neck, or other serious medical problems himself? What about people who aren't physically or mentally capable of using a firearm? Should they be abandoned to violent predators? _Dial 911 and Die_ is a compelling argument for restoring the individual right of self-defense. But it's also a compelling argument for reforming, if not revoking, the legal doctrines of "sovereign immunity" and "public duty", or for privatizing emergency services. Have you ever encountered uninformed advocates of gun control who insist that, "No one needs a gun because the police will protect you"? Have you tried to educate such people by pointing out that guns save far more lives than are lost to accidents and murder, only to have them respond with, "Name one!"? If so, _Dial 911_ will also prove to be an invaluable resource. Stevens includes an excellent section explaining various legal doctrines as well as legal terms such as duty, liability, immunity etc. He also explains legal citations so that you can locate and explore the cases and statutes he discusses in more depth. And because the cases are organized by state, it's easy to find your state laws, and find actual cases to share with legislators and other government officials. In addition, the book includes forty-five stories, drawn from newspaper reports, of armed civilians who successfully defended themselves or others from violent criminals. Considering how rarely newspapers report such incidents, this is a prodigious research effort in itself! If you don't keep a firearm for self-defense, "Dial 911 and Die" should convince you to do so. If you already are prepared to defend yourself, this book will provide you with the ammunition you need to preserve, or restore, your right to do so. Buy a copy of _Dial 911 and Die_ for yourself. But more important, buy copies for friends and relatives who still believe the police will protect them. If it saves just one life, it's worth it! _Dial 911 and Die_ is available from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm. =A9 1999 Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com Permission is granted for reproduction, individual distribution or posting of this column as long as no changes are made, full attribution is given and this message is left intact. If you have questions, please contact agent@therighter.com. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: EFFECTIVE LOBBYING Date: 10 Oct 1999 11:17:00 -0700 ----- EFFECTIVE LOBBYING Third in a series. Next is Running Campaigns and Unregistering Your Gun. See below. Oppose and defeat the Juvenile Justice Bill Call your representatives at the US Capitol Switchboard at 888-449-3511 or at 202-224-3121. E-mail link to Congress: http://in-search-of.org/ http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html See newly revised www.2ndamendment.net Legislative updates: http://www.nealknox.com go to "Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line" BASIC PRINCIPLE - Gun laws do not prevent criminals from getting firearms. Criminals do not obey laws. In fact, the disarming of honest citizens makes crime worse. Therefore, additional firearm restrictions are bad and fewer restrictions are good. Anti-gun media people and politicians do not wish to control your firearms. They wish to destroy your firearms. PURPOSE - Your purpose is to protect the individual's right to keep and bear arms. The best way to defend your own rights is to defend the rights of others. This means achieving positive legislative results. Your job as an activist is to (A) stop bad legislation from passing and (B) get good legislation passed. The job is not to make a particular person or politician happy. NECESSARY PREREQUISITES - You must be willing to spend your own time, energy and money to do this work. First, go to your local library and copy all of the state and federal firearm laws and place then in a notebook with separators and labels. Read and understand all of these laws. Next be a member of a firearms organization in your state - preferably one that has a range and a large, stable, active membership. Make sure you can mail to this membership. Get to be the organization's legislative officer. Get from your state capital a roster of the state legislators with their HOME and office addresses and phone numbers. Print up this roster in a handy folded to fit shirt pocket form. Pass these out at gun clubs and include in a mailing to members at least once per year. Politicians respond primarily to THOSE IN THEIR DISTRICTS who can vote for or against them. Get a copy of your state's rules for both the senate and house. Know these rules. ACTIVATING FIREARMS OWNERS - Only when it is absolutely necessary must you try to get a large number of your fellow gun owners to contact their representatives by the use of an EXPENSIVE mailing. However, when it is necessary, the mailing should contain your cover letter describing the position you believe they should take with their legislators and a roster of the legislators to be contacted. Your letter must be true, strong and motivational. Anger and fear should be in your letter to your firearm owner friends. You must get them to act. They will act but you cannot get them to do this very often. PRINCIPLE OF LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION - Bad legislation restricts firearm owners further in a particular jurisdiction. Good legislation restricts firearm owners less in that particular jurisdiction. Legislation that is good in a very restrictive state is bad is a far less restrictive state. People who have not lived in a very restrictive state do not understand this. The legislative rules are as follows: 1. Stopping bad legislation is the FIRST PRIORITY. A. Use numerical strength where it exists in either house or in either committee. B. Get amendments attached to make the bill less likely to pass. C. If nothing else works, get a lot of amendments adopted to soften the legislation. Firearm owners who have never lived in a very restrictive state do not understand this. An example is a bill to follow private sales in a state I formerly resided. Friends in the state Senate amended this bad bill that had passed the house. This meant that the bill had to go back to the house and pass with the amendments. In the mean time I personally called 180 members of my gun club and the bill failed in the house by 2 votes out of a 141-member house. A word of caution here. You do not want to amend the bill to make it acceptable to more of the members of the general assembly. You wish to make the bill unacceptable to anti-gun legislators. The object is to kill the bill. 2. Passing good legislation is the SECOND PRIORITY; however when no attack is present pursue good legislation. A. Write the bill so that it will be perceived as practical legislation. Read the present law and get a lawyer friend to help. Run it by others. A dream bill that goes nowhere wastes resources and your creditability. THE PERFECT IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD. B. Use numerical strength where it exists in either house or committee. C. Get amendments attached to make the bill more likely to pass. D. If the politicians insist on garbaging up the bill, stop or soften any of these amendments you can. However get the bill passed. E. PRINCIPLE OF GRADUALISM - Use the gradualism approach. Year after year pass good bills. People who have never lived in a very restrictive state do not understand this. A lot of members think NRA is responsible for the final wording of a bill. This is not necessarily true. Mistakes can be made by local activists who are not politically savvy or more likely by NRA-ILA's liaisons. YOUR FRIENDS CAN DO TO YOU WHAT YOUR ENEMIES CANNOT. However opposition politicians do the most damage. F. DO NO HARM - You have no moral right to appease the anti-gun politicians and media. Do not preemptively surrender, or decide which aspect of our Second Amendment right should be gutted in trade for advancing or not gutting some other aspect. Do not support "tolerable" unconstitutional gun controls to appear reasonable, or in return for a sucker promise to back off on other gun controls. Unfortunately over the years NRA has done this at times. In 1988 they made a compromise to get the Maryland roster board that now decides what handguns can be sold in Maryland. The NRA State Liaison called me late at night to tell me AFTER the fact. I wrote and helped bring to a vote the Maryland referendum to try to stop the law from going into effect. This failed because of the police raid on the headquarters of the Maryland Committee Against the Gun Ban the night before the election. The TV stations left the voters with the impression the pro-gun side was doing something illegal. (The anti-gun politicians used the tactics of the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s.) COMMUNICATING WITH POLITICIANS - Do not try to communicate with the politicians who are the enemies of firearm ownership. You do not want to waste your time and damage our cause by educating the enemy. Do all your communication with the politicians in that political body who are in favor of firearm ownership. Testify at each hearing where an anti-gun bill is being considered. Arrive early and sign up before anyone else. Stay late and talk to the politicians who are on your side in the committee. A friend on the committee can do our cause a world of good. GOOD ARGUMENTS - Your idea of a good argument and what works are different. The ideas that work on anti-gun bills are pointing out those things in the bill that can work an injustice on the average citizen. Your committee testimony should be written for reference. But only say what others have not said ahead of you. Repetition will not work with committee members. FOLLOW THE BILL - It is up to you to know the legislative schedule and obtain timely copies of all bills affecting firearm owners. You must think ahead and have the information beforehand. Anti-gun bills are not dead until the legislative session ends. Pro-gun bills are not completed until signed by the Governor. To subscribe reply to me at luz.clark@prodigy.net or behanna@fast.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karl Peterson Subject: Re: GOUtah! Opposes Teachers as Cops Proposal by USSC Date: 11 Oct 1999 20:44:31 -0600 While I would not like to be a sworn peace officer with powers of arrest, I would like to be able to carry a concealed weapon on campus if I have a Concealed Carry Permit. I would even welcome an opportunity to get high level training in the use of the weapon from professional police trainers. I would especially love it if the State would admit they they cannot afford to hire enough police officers to put one in every school, so they offer to pay teachers to get the training and furnish them with an appropriate weapon to keep locked in a combo box in a locked drawer of their desk and get regular supervised paid practice in its' use at a commercial or police range. I could get to it in my drawer in an emergency a lot faster than the average Police response time, and my students would be unable to get to it. As it stands right now, I believe that I would be in violation of my contract and subject to immediate dismissal if I carried a concealed weapon to school even if I had a Permit. The only armed individual at my school that I am aware of is a single in-school police officer, and he is not on-campus all the time. To know if he is there all you would have to do is check his clearly marked parking space... I was in a real "weapon in the school" lockdown last year. We spent almost an hour and a half in lock down with absolutely no information for the first hour. Turned out that it was a reported knife in the subdivision next to the school. I had a lot of time to think and stress about how I would defend myself and my students if an armed intruder came through my locked door. The answer I came up with it that I would be unable to do anything except throw things or myself at him. This year my door has a window in it so that he wouldn't even have to break down the door to get in, just break or shoot out the glass and reach in to open the handle. Given the well documented fact that police officers have no statutory duty to protect anyone from anything. Given that I am willing to receive training so that I can protect myself and my students from an armed intruder who enters our "gun free zone", I would hope that you would support me and lobby for me to be able to Carry at school with the proper permits. I am an NRA Life Member and an NRA Certified Instructor in all Rifle and Shotgun disciplines. I have worked as a Rangemaster and have trained literally over a thousand young people how to shoot with accuracy, precision and safety. I am a nine bar Sharpshooter with rifle and a Sharpshooter with Shotgun. I own a pistol, but it is a bit too big for concealed carry. On a teachers salary, a concealable weapon with laser sights which I would want to have is just too expensive. Thank you for your time and consideration. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: CCW Renewal Date: 12 Oct 1999 10:02:03 -0600 Almost learned something the hard way. BCI changed their policy and no = longer sends out renewal forms for CCW permits. If yours has expired you = have a 30 grace period to apply for renewal. Applications for renewal are available at http://www.bci.state.ut.us/ or call CI at 965-4484 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Waldron Subject: SUPREME COURT DECLINES SECOND AMENDMEN CASE Date: 12 Oct 1999 10:33:49 -0700 This will undoubtedly cause a lot of furor and have the gun grabbers crowing (unjustifiably, IMHO). Keep in mind the SC did two things here: it said it didn't want a case involving convicted felons to be the determiner of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and it said police officers are not a "protected category" and thus not subject to the same laws as the common people.=20 Joe Waldron =20 Court Avoids Gun Rights Ruling=20 By Richard Carelli Associated Press Writer Tuesday, Oct. 12, 1999; 10:27 a.m. EDT WASHINGTON =96=96 The Supreme Court today shot down an appeal in which two Louisiana men said the Constitution's Second Amendment gives them and all Americans a personal right to own a gun.=20 The court, without comment, thwarted the two men from owning hunting rifles because they were convicted of serious, but nonviolent, tax crimes.=20 "The time is now ripe for this court to squarely confront the issue the Second Amendment creates a personal right in favor of individual citizens," the justices were told.=20 The amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bar arms, shall not be infringed."=20 In separate action, the court rejected a challenge to a federal law that prohibits anyone =96 including police officers =96 from possessing a gun after being convicted of a domestic-violence crime.=20 In that case, the justices turned away, without comment, arguments by the Fraternal Order of Police that Congress lacks the authority to set qualifications for state and local police.=20 Neither of today's actions set any legal precedent. The nation's highest court has ruled only once =96 in 1939 =96 directly on the scope of the amendment, long a hotly debated issue in the political fight over gun control.=20 The court 60 years ago ruled there is no right to own a sawed-off shotgun in the absence of "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."=20 The appeal in the Louisiana case had been filed in behalf of James Kostmayer Jr. and Robert Lawson Jr., avid hunters who have been barred from purchasing rifles because of their federal tax convictions.=20 Kostmayer, a construction industry manager, was sentenced to 10 months in prison and three years probation after pleading guilty in 1994 to conspiring to defraud the government over taxes. Lawson, a certified public accountant, pleaded guilty in 1993 to submitting a false federal=20 tax form and was sentenced to two years probation.=20 Their lawyers say Louisiana has restored "full rights of citizenship" to both men, including the right to own and possess guns. But a federal law makes it a crime for convicted felons to "possess ... any firearm or ammunition."=20 After the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms refused to grant the two men any relief from the law, they sued. Their lawsuit contended, among other things, that applying the law to them violates their Second Amendment rights.=20 A federal judge and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them.=20 "No rational basis exists for concluding that a construction executive and=20 a CPA endanger society when hunting ducks," their Supreme Court appeal said.=20 But government lawyers urged the justices to reject the appeal.=20 The second case had its roots in a 1968 federal law barring convicted felons from owning or possessing a gun. The law contains an exception for federal, state and local government officials.=20 In 1996, Congress extended the gun ban to anyone convicted of a domestic-violence misdemeanor. That amendment contained no exception for government officials.=20 The FOP sued in federal court, saying the 1996 law violated the Constitution's 10th Amendment by encroaching on states' authority to establish qualifications for their gun-carrying police officers.=20 A federal judge and three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the 1996 law.=20 The cases are Kostmayer vs. Department of Treasury, 99-71, and Fraternal Order of Police vs. U.S., 99-106.=20 =A9 Copyright 1999 The Associated Press - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: More good news on Orrin Hatch Date: 13 Oct 1999 10:58:13 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:35:53 -0600 Received: from THIOKOL.COM by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05515; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:22:20 -0600 Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:36:37 -0600 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 UTAH.Inet#c#xmission.com#c#ajgaunt@THIOKOL.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Received: from adobe ([146.168.4.20]) by gw2.thiokol.com; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:20:36 -0600 Received: from hermes.gcscatt.com ([12.63.159.4]) by adobe.thiokol.com; = Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:18:58 +0000 (MST) Received: from m5.boston.juno.com (m5.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.197]) by hermes.gcscatt.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA02400 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:18:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from clc.slc.ut@juno.com) by m5.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id ENTL9D7F; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:16:26 = EDT Glenb@xmission.com, dcollett@ditell.com, JGILL@farmcredit.com, Dave.Hankwitz@gw.osullivan.com, jmichael@doit.state.in.us, skychief36@hotmail.com, brouse@sprintmail.com, drosati@snet.net, MCMS99@aol.com Message-ID: <19991013.081213.-309379.2.clc.slc.ut@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-7,9,11-18,20-21,23-26,28-29,31-32,34,36,38,40-43,45-4= 6,48,50,52,54-56,58-63,65-67,69,71-72,74,76-78,80,82-86,88-90,92-107 X-Juno-Att: 0 Well, some interesting reading, for whatever it is worth.............. > I have a backlog of mail I've been slogging through. This little ditty was mailed to me and a bunch of other Texas Republicans on September 27: > > -------------------------------------- > > My name is Jack Thompson. I am the last Republican to run against Janet Reno, as I was her opponent in 1988 for the office of Dade County (Florida) State Attorney. > > One of the reasons I ran against Reno was the fact that she was blackmailed by a criminal pornography enterprise. I gave the proof in my campaign. > > I also provided to Bill Clinton, before he even nominated her to be Attorney General (I heard from a friend in the Justice Department that she was on the "short list" of nominees), not only the proof of her blackmail but also the evidence of her five drunk driving incidents, her use of call girls, and her disturbing ties to organized crime. > > I gave this information to Clinton through my best friend at Vanderbilt Law School, Class of 1976, an attorney by the name of M. Samuel Jones, who by then was a partner to Bruce Lindsey in the Little Rock firm of Wright, Lindsey & Jennings. Confirmation that Clinton got all the information that disqualified Reno from practicing law, let alone being the AG, came in a phone call from someone at the White House before her confirmation hearings who wanted to know all that I knew. His name? Lanny Davis. Davis clearly wanted to know what I knew not to disqualify her but to discredit me should it all hit the fan in public. This was the beginning of my education about the ways of Washington and of the political elite of both parties who protect themselves rather than the interests of the American people. > > I say that because now I am writing letters to Senator Danforth to ask him to subpoena me to testify in his "investigation" of what happened at Waco and its aftermath in order that his team might consider the fact that Reno had a powerful disincentive to get to the bottom of Waco. The disincentive is, of course, the blackmail information that the President has on Reno.=20 It is how he has kept her on line on Chinagate and every other "gate" for which she has proven so useful. > > The reason Danforth won't want to get into that is the complicity of the Senate Republicans in assuring that Reno became A.G. Orrin Hatch, for example, knew of the five police officers who pulled her over for drunk driving while she was State Attorney down here. How do I know? > > Because his Judiciary Committee staffer, John Bliss, told me that Hatch had the police officers but did not want to go public with them because "The Senate Republicans don't want to mess with the Anita Hill crowd again." > > So, folks, there you have it: Danforth won't get to the bottom of Waco, which means getting to the bottom of the cover-up, because to do so exposes the Republicans as complicit in the Waco disaster. They knew Reno was a drunk and a compromised one at that, who could be controlled with this and other information by the extortionate White House, and yet they sat on their hands at the moment that she could have been denied the post. > > Orrin Hatch has the blood of 24 kids on his hands. I have told all this to Danforth, and he won't even have his people talk to me. I said this on Fox News Channel on Labor Day while being interviewed about Waco, and the interviewer freaked and pulled the plug on the interview. > > Fox News, if you're wanting to do something, should be inundated with calls asking me to be interviewed in depth about this. And Danforth should be pressured to talk to me. > > I leave it in your hands. I have tried everything to get this word out. > > I can testify to all of this under oath, and I have witnesses to corroborate it all. > > But America will not know the truth about Waco until it knows that Reno was picked by Clinton to be his firewall between all his criminality and accountability for it. > > Jack Thompson, > 305-666-4366 > Jackpeace@aol.com > > > ________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail you don't need Web access to use -- Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web! Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Re: GOUtah! Opposes Teachers as Cops Proposal by USSC Date: 13 Oct 1999 14:45:46 -0600 Karl, Teachers who feel as you do desperatly need to heard by the legislature. Please contact your State rep or Senator (if they are pro-gun) and make arrangments to testify at some of the hearings on gun bills and school safety that are sure to come up this next session. If your rep or senator are not pro gun and helpful, and you're at all unsure of which other members of hte legislature to contact, please let me know and I'll put you in touch with a couple good members. Also, you most certainly know other teachers who feel similarly to the way you do. They too need to be encouraged to speak out--to let the legislature, the press, and the populace know that on the gun issue, the PTA and UEA do not represent the views of all teachers. Charles. On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:44:31 -0600 Karl Peterson writes: > While I would not like to be a sworn peace officer with powers of > arrest, I > would like to be able to carry a concealed weapon on campus if I > have a > Concealed Carry Permit. I would even welcome an opportunity to get > high > level training in the use of the weapon from professional police > trainers. I > would especially love it if the State would admit they they cannot > afford to > hire enough police officers to put one in every school, so they > offer to pay > teachers to get the training and furnish them with an appropriate > weapon to > keep locked in a combo box in a locked drawer of their desk and get > regular > supervised paid practice in its' use at a commercial or police > range. I > could get to it in my drawer in an emergency a lot faster than the > average > Police response time, and my students would be unable to get to it. > > As it stands right now, I believe that I would be in violation of my > contract > and subject to immediate dismissal if I carried a concealed weapon > to school > even if I had a Permit. The only armed individual at my school that > I am > aware of is a single in-school police officer, and he is not > on-campus all > the time. To know if he is there all you would have to do is check > his > clearly marked parking space... > > I was in a real "weapon in the school" lockdown last year. We spent > almost an > hour and a half in lock down with absolutely no information for the > first > hour. Turned out that it was a reported knife in the subdivision > next to the > school. I had a lot of time to think and stress about how I would > defend > myself and my students if an armed intruder came through my locked > door. The > answer I came up with it that I would be unable to do anything > except throw > things or myself at him. This year my door has a window in it so > that he > wouldn't even have to break down the door to get in, just break or > shoot out > the glass and reach in to open the handle. > > Given the well documented fact that police officers have no > statutory duty to > protect anyone from anything. Given that I am willing to receive > training so > that I can protect myself and my students from an armed intruder who > enters > our "gun free zone", I would hope that you would support me and > lobby for me > to be able to Carry at school with the proper permits. > > I am an NRA Life Member and an NRA Certified Instructor in all Rifle > and > Shotgun disciplines. I have worked as a Rangemaster and have > trained > literally over a thousand young people how to shoot with accuracy, > precision > and safety. I am a nine bar Sharpshooter with rifle and a > Sharpshooter with > Shotgun. I own a pistol, but it is a bit too big for concealed > carry. On a > teachers salary, a concealable weapon with laser sights which I > would want to > have is just too expensive. > > Thank you for your time and consideration. > > > > - > ================================================================== 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: Kmart dumps Rosie (?) Date: 13 Oct 1999 11:36:00 -0700 ----- Let's hope this is true. Has anyone else seen or heard about this? I just copied this from a site I visit. It's been brewing for a couple days and now the guy evidentially found the article and typed it for posting there. He says it's from his local paper. I have no reason to doubt him. He lives in NY. _________________________________________ First, this is rather lengthy. Second, I am copying the article out of the local paper. Sorry for any typo's. Third, this article was written by Dave Henderson on published on Wed 9/29. Rosie O'Donnell - talk show host, comedienne and actress - apparently has quite a national following. Known alternately as the "Queen of Nice3" by the media in reference to her soft-subject talk show and "Rosie O'Doughnuts" by Don Imus' irreverent crew in reference to hew heftiness, O'Donnell grabbed national headlines last spring when she shouted down guest Tom Selleck when he defended his rights as a gun owner on her talk show. The incident occurred shortly after the Columbine and Conyers gun tragedies. Using her talk show seat as a podium, Rosie the next day essentially told the TV audience that it was "tough" if hunters and shooters would miss their guns and that "...only the military and police should have guns." Rosie is certainly entitled to her opinions, and is entitled to express them in her national TV forum. That's what KMart, for which Rosie was a paid spokesperson, said in a statement shortly thereafter. O'Donnell, not coincidentally, immediately issued a statement that Kmart was OK because it sold legal guns and ammo to hunters and shooters who used it lawfully - ignoring the fact that she'd attacked those very people previously. Well, according to a published report, the threatened boycott did come to pass and - with its margins on hunting items cut deeply entering hunting season - Kmart has DISMISSED O'Donell as a spokesperson. The move apparently has triggered an even bigger response as Wal'Mart, the nation's leading retailer, has reacted to the move by making arrangements with firearms training org's to support and provide meeting room space for training sessions nationwide. Kmart and Wal-Mart, incidentally, are the nations leading retailers of sporting arms and ammo. The adage "when you really want their attention, hit them in the wallet" certainly proved itself in this case. End I am so glad to hear this. I hope it's true. If this can be substantiated, then I think we should contact K-Mart and Wal-Mart to give them applause. | Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners | | P.O. Box 14014, Lansing, MI 48901. Membership $15/yr. | | http://www.mcrgo.org/ | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Gun Makers: An Open Letter Date: 14 Oct 1999 10:11:00 -0700 ----- The author is Nancy Lord's husband. Attention Gun Manufacturers: After reading a recent AP wire story regarding discussions many of you have been having with cites about firearms lawsuits, I believe it's time we give you a dose of reality, and some helpful advice. First of all, it sounds like too many of you have been listening to your lawyers. If this is the case, they should be fired -- and use some of your products to escort them to the door. As a second amendment activist who works in the legal business, I can tell you that many of these lawyers are only pro-second amendment as long as the check clears. After that, part of their political contributions goes to organizations that are leading the fight to put you out of business. Of course, many of you are saying, "It's easier to settle out of court than to deal with all the legal cost involved." This only begs the question, "Then why pay the lawyers in the first place?" If you really are convinced that out-of-court settlements are the answer, then go talk to the tobacco companies. Their lawyers told them the same thing. So after settling out-of-court (for a king's ransom) to the states, they found themselves getting blind-sided by the mother of all suits -- from the federal government. There are those of us who have given our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor just to keep you folks in business. Now we see what amounts to nothing less than a "sell-out" to the new religion of political correctness. Sorry to sound too harsh about the whole thing, but if you were in my home when I first read the story, you would know how much I've toned down my language. But this isn't just a gripe letter. I'm willing to offer whatever help I can. Unlike the tobacco companies, I recall seeing your products (and the right to own them) specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It was somewhere around the phrase, "shall not be infringed". It's as much a guaranteed right as it is for you to have lawyers (bet your lawyer didn't tell you that). Many of you will reply that you are not a political organization, but a business -- whose mission is to maximize and protect profits. Fine. Maybe it's time for you folks to start acting like a political organization. But first, take a look at those lawsuits -- without the lawyers around. What you will find glaring out at you is that these municipal leaders hell bent on their own agenda are attempting to sue you for things that a certain federal agency is supposed to be responsible for. Frankly, I can't find a Constitutional justification for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to exist. But it seems you're getting sued for what falls under their (apparent) jurisdiction. Why not simply counter-sue the BATF? The lawsuits against you have no merit. You are NOT responsible for the distribution of firearms to the civilian market. The firearm enterprise in this country is almost completely regulated by the BATF -- and you know this. If I were you, I would tell those cities to take those lawsuits and shove 'em, and get ready for a Supreme Court battle. But here are some other things you can do that will make these cities back off: 1) Instead of ending sales to the civilian market, try a prohibition on any sales to the government sector until the lawsuits are dropped. After all, these types have proven for centuries that they are most irresponsible people when it comes to firearms. 2) Instead of forking out mega-bucks for legal fees, try donating some of that liquid cash to organizations that are trying to stop this current regime. 3) If you can't find it in your hearts to sell firearms to the civilian market, how about selling the blueprints? I'm sure that will help you meet your bottom line. 4) Only hire lawyers who are pro-second amendment AND who own firearms. If you could get away with it, I'd say, "Only hire lawyers who accept guns and ammunition as payment for their services." That would give them a motivation. 5) Take out ads detailing the responsibilities of the BATF, then ask the question, "Aren't the wrong people being sued?" When I see gun manufacturers making "deals" with the powers that be, I think of the signs that I've seen in zoos across the country that read, "Don't Feed the Animals." Please understand that your enemies will not stop until you are out of business. It also reminds many second amendment activists of the Roman phrase, "Et Tu, Brute." If gun safety is your concern, consider this: When many of you stop selling to the civilian market, guns -- like hard drugs -- will fall under the "supply vs. demand" concept. Thus, I predict a growing black market for guns, and worse -- people who will resort to making their own type of high-powered weaponry. This will become a danger to even the person who's making the weapon and the people around them. Would you like this on your conscience, or will your lawyers tell you that it's not your concern? For too long, many of us have compromised our rights away. We have found for too long, that by giving a little ground, the adversary would lay off. But that lay off has been proving to be only short-lived. This country was built when some people drew the line when it came to the British confiscating firearms from the people. There are people who would love to do this today. What they can't get through any legislature, they are trying to get thorough the courts. One federal judge had thrown out a lawsuit that he called "baseless" -- and something that should be decided by the legislature -- not the courts. This proves that you can win the legal argument. Please do not tarnish the blood of these brave men -- men who founded this great nation. There are millions of people in this country who are a just a phone call away for any assistance you may need to stay in business. Don't throw away everything this country stands for just for the sake of "the bottom line" Take the legal high road. Don't hide. Don't blink in the face of adversity. Stand your ground like the men at Lexington and Concord. You will find many other faces standing with you. Sincerely, J.J. Johnson - citizen@mindspring.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: Oct. 12 column -- gun lawsuit thrown out Date: 14 Oct 1999 22:53:40 -0600 ---------------- Charles Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 12, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Anti-gun lawsuit thrown out Court-watchers were beginning to wonder who was next. First the attorneys general of most of the states found success in their efforts to extort billions of dollars from the tobacco industry, hauling cigarette manufacturers into court to demand payment for the "health care costs" of sickened cigarette smokers. (In the real world, of course, cigarette smokers tend to die younger and thus run up (start ital)lower(end ital) lifetime health care costs; states have no obligation to pay their health care costs in the first place; and states have proceeded to use the resultant booty for nearly everything (start ital)but(end ital) the health care of sick smokers.) Then a number of cities, most prominently Chicago and New Orleans, decided they might be able to extort even more funds by suing handgun manufacturers, contending the gun makers were responsible for the ambulance and emergency room bills of young drug dealers who shoot each other or get shot by cops while in the commission of various crimes. The nation waited with bated breath. How long could it be before someone figured out how much money awaited the first jurisdiction to stumble on the exigency of suing GM or Toyota for all the costs resulting from automobile accidents? From the offices of the tort lawyers, the sound of pencils being sharpened could be heard late into the night. Fortunately, at least in one jurisdiction, common sense has now prevailed. In what The Associated Press is calling the first dismissal of such a case, Hamilton County (Ohio) Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman last week threw out Cincinnati's lawsuit against 14 firearms manufacturers, ruling the city's claims were vague and unsupported by legal precedent. The city intends to appeal the decision within a few days, said Stanley M. Chesley, attorney for the city. But Judge Ruehlman didn't beat about the bush. He threw out the lawsuit without even allowing the city to proceed with "discovery" -- using blanket subpoenas to beat the bushes for documents, hoping to find in the files of Taurus or Smith & Wesson or Beretta a smoking, "Let's hope this doesn't get out" memo. The city's suit demanded reimbursement for the costs of providing police, emergency, court and prison services in connection with shootings in the city -- not only homicides, but also accidents and suicides. Suicides? Join the line, all you pharmaceutical, bathtub, and rope manufacturers. But Judge Ruehlman found only the Legislature, not the courts, has authority to regulate product design and marketing. He also rejected Cincinnati's allegations of design defects and failure to warn users of possible risks from the use of guns so well-designed that even police forces carry them. "There can be liability for failure to warn only if the risk is not open and obvious or a matter of common knowledge," Judge Ruehlman wrote in his five-page ruling. "The risks associated with the use of a firearm," on the other hand, "are open and obvious and matters of common knowledge." Without even mentioning that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear them -- precisely the right the plaintiffs hope to finesse out of existence with this indirect attack. "It very clearly points out the weaknesses in the other cities' suits," was the immediate response of Jim Dorr, a Chicago lawyer who represents handgun manufacturers Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc. of Southport, Conn., and Smith & Wesson Corp. of Springfield, Mass. But the ruling may have come too late for civilians wishing to purchase new handguns manufactured by Colt's Manufacturing Co., one of the defendants. Just as those who dreamed up this strategy had hoped, Colt -- a firm which has done better with military rifle contracts in recent decades than with its vintage line of handguns, and which now finds itself in the hands of a foreign national with no love of civilian gun ownership -- announced just before Judge Ruehlman's action that it will suspend or cease sales to the civilian market. The firearms manufacturers would have done better to adopt the advice of net correspondent Jon Roland, who on Oct. 4 advised, in part: 1) Immediately cease all sales or product deliveries to the police departments of the cities filing suit, and threaten to cease sales or deliveries to any dealers who sell to them. 2) Advise plaintiffs that if all lawsuits are not withdrawn within 10 days, all involved manufacturers will cease sales or product deliveries to law enforcement and military organizations in the United States. Only civilians will be allowed to purchase their products. 3) If the suits cause costs to increase till it becomes prohibitive to manufacture for the civilian market, immediately release all designs to the public domain, publishing them on the Internet, and begin training civilians to manufacture their own firearms and ammunition. Good plan. We've taken this lying down, long enough. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. His new book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at 1-800-244-2224, or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * ------ 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: charles hardy Subject: Fw: Oct. 10 column -- "free market" in the skies? Date: 14 Oct 1999 23:00:46 -0600 ---------------- Charles Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 10, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Let's launch an 'all-armed, all-smoking' airline A number of readers wrote in response to my column of Oct. 3, about bored functionaries "randomly" rooting through my laundry and personal effects even after my bags have cleared our now-standard metal detectors and X-ray machines. Many noted that private airlines have a right of private contract, which should allow them to set any such requirements they please, since we passengers always have the right to patronize another airline. I'm familiar with the argument for freedom of voluntary contract. In this case, it's purest steer manure. Suppose I raised $100 million and proposed to start AirGanja, "America's only all-armed, all-smoking airline"? I'd beef up my on-board air conditioning so I could advertise that our air quality is better than our competitors' even if the passengers on either side of you choose to chain-smoke cigars. My "flight attendants" would hand out free marijuana in First Class once airborne, and politely offer each boarding passenger a metal magazine (or revolver speed-loader) full or any caliber ammo they choose, urging them to reload their weapons for the duration of the flight with my special color-coded frangible rounds, designed to blow the head off any hijacker without penetrating our pressure cabins. (Needless to say, "controlled" drugs could not be used until we're airborne, at which point we're out of the jurisdiction of any local prohibitionist deviants -- the precedent already having been set by the fact that no airline today will refuse to sell you a cocktail while they're passing over the dry counties of Texas or Tennessee.) Of course, I'd charge a 15 percent premium for these improved services. Either I'd grow rich -- forcing my competitors to start offering some of the same options and services -- or, if my idea proved unpopular with the paying public, I'd go bankrupt. That would be a free market in air travel, and you would indeed remain free to choose a "non-smoking, no guns," strip-search airline (if that somehow makes you feel safer) instead of mine. Chance the FAA would allow me to launch such a competing service? Pinch yourself; you're dreaming. If such suggestions now sound absurd, it's only because we've forgotten what it was like to live in a free country. The average train passenger in 1912 could easily have found herself seated opposite a fellow passenger armed with a loaded revolver (concealed or otherwise), smoking an Indian hemp cigarette, and carrying a hip flask of laudanum. In fact, your great-grandmother would probably have felt somewhat more secure under such circumstances, knowing this fellow American was prepared to resist any attempted train robbery, as well as to provide a sip of cough syrup should the baby (your grandfather) grow fretful. The fact that we find it unthinkable today that an airline might be allowed any such options only means we have grown used to living under a burgeoning variety of fascism, an economic system in which private corporations are allowed to keep private title to their properties and extract certain after-tax profits (providing they don't grow large enough to attract the attention of the "Anti-Trust Division"), but where all substantive decisions about routes, "security," and so forth are actually made on a "one-size-fits-all" basis by unelected government functionaries. To argue any part of the current scenario is a true "voluntary, free contract" between passenger and airline is like saying the Todt Organization's slave laborers in various cannon works in Nazi Germany had no right to blame the government for their plight, since they'd entered into a "voluntary contract" with their employer. ("Volunteer for this labor contract, or go to the death camps. Choose quickly.") "Voluntary contract," indeed. I'm free "to not use their service" -- and try to find a passenger train with regular service from Colorado Springs to Las Vegas? And how long do you think we'll be free from having our luggage searched and being require to show our "government-issued photo ID" on the trains and highways? Whoops. "Random highway checkpoint" stops are already part of the War on Drugs, aren't they? And reporter P.L. Wyckoff of The Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reported this week: "They haven't attracted the attention that drug searches on the New Jersey Turnpike and other highways have. But charges of racial profiling are being leveled on another busy battlefield in the drug war -- the nation's trains and train stations. "Larry Bland, a black Bethesda, Md., resident, says he had just walked off a train in Richmond, Va., in July when police told him they needed to search his bag because drugs were coming through the station and he 'fit the profile.' "Carlos A. Hernandez, a former Newark, N.J., policeman, believes he was singled out for a tense drug search of his Amtrak sleeper cabin coming back from Miami that same month simply because his name is Hispanic. ... "Civil libertarians and attorneys say that, whatever the truth for Bland and Hernandez, such cases are widespread. ... 'That is really just a sliver of what's going on out there,' said David Harris, a University of Toledo law professor who prepared a national report for the American Civil Liberties Union on racial profiling on the highways. "Train searches 'have been going on for a long time,' agrees Georgetown law professor David Cole. ..." Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is author of the new new book, "Send in the Waco Killers," available at 1-800-244-2224 or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * ------ 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: charles hardy Subject: Fw: Oct. 11 column -- making up new "rights" Date: 14 Oct 1999 22:57:32 -0600 ---------------- Charles Hardy --------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 11, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz The 'right to travel in safety' Continuing the response to my column of Oct. 3, about "random airport searches" of my bags even after they've cleared our now-standard metal detectors and X-ray machines, correspondent T.M. wrote in: "We have all sorts of rights and obligations that are not listed in the Constitution. That is why we have elected representatives, laws, and courts. My right to travel in safety was created by the Federal government and is no less a real right that your right to carry a firearm. What about the right of the airline to protect its property? You seem to think carrying weapons on airplanes does not compromise safety. This is an idea most people would find hard to accept. "It's pretty obvious that no Constitutional right is absolute. We have all heard the one about yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. Do you accept any limits on the right to bear arms? I don't find it hard to draw a distinction between reasonable restrictions on my rights and oppressive limits to my freedom." I replied: In fact, T.M., every constitutional right is absolute, unless some modifying condition is included in its wording. The Fourth Amendment, for instance, does not ban searches; it merely says searches may occur only under a written warrant, issued upon presentation of probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Therefore, you would be correct in stating "The Fourth Amendment's ban on government searches is not absolute." The Second Amendment contains no such modifying language. Grammatically, the introductory clause, explaining why the founders preferred a populace armed with up-to-date military-style arms and capable of militia service, as a better guarantor of freedom than any standing army (such as, say, an armed "FBI," "ATF," or "DEA"), does not restrict the second. It does not say my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed "unless some bureaucrat, operating in good faith, feels there is a reasonable risk to public safety." There is no place you could have possibly been convinced of such a dangerous absurdity but in a tax-funded government school. Our "elected representatives, laws, and courts" are not authorized to discover for us "new obligations" not listed in the constitution. The Constitution limits government to such functions, duties, and powers as are (start ital)specifically enumerated(end ital) for them there. Do you have a "right to travel in safety," which was "created by the Federal government"? Let's say you die in a hijacking on a commercial means of transportation. Can your family sue the federal government for failing to protect you? No, they cannot. The courts will acknowledge no such "right," nor any federal duty to protect it. This made-up "right" exists only in the evanescent speeches of politicians. It is very much "less real" than my right to carry a firearm. Real rights are restrictions on government action. New, made-up "rights" can be spotted relatively easily, since they insidiously justify government coersion. There can be no "right" to free medical care, unless someone holds a gun to a doctor's head. The guarantee of a "right" for the disarmed to remain safe is even more chimerical. It matters not at all that "many people may find it hard to accept" that I have a right to keep and bear arms on a common carrier, nor the notion that armed, law-abiding citizens make everyone safer, from freelance bandits as well as from genocidal governments. (An airline concerned with safety is certainly allowed to offer passengers color-coded frangible ammunition, capable of downing a hijacker without penetrating their pressure hulls.) My right is not subject to any majority vote, any more than a majority could vote to seize the jewelry salesman's sample case and divvy its contents amongst themselves. You say "We have all heard the one about yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater." But Mr. Justice Holmes wrote that (start ital)in dissent(end ital). It is not the law. I do indeed have a right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. What would (start ital)you(end ital) do if you were the only one who realized the theater was on fire? The example is quite apt. If you yell "Fire!" inappropriately in a crowded theater, you might be charged with disturbing the peace and incitement to riot. How often does such a deadly riot occur? I can't remember one in my lifetime. Similarly, if you shoot someone inappropriately on an airplane, you would be equally likely to face prosecution. (The Second Amendment grants us only a right to "keep and bear" arms -- not to brandish a gun in order to get that darned stewardess to hurry up, nor to shoot anyone in cold blood.) How often did this happen, back before passengers were searched for weapons? Hardly ever, except when we were at war, overthrowing foreign governments and getting their nationals upset. I call it "The Fred & Ethel Mertz Security System." This summer a 12-year-old cut through the fence at Logan International in Boston and flew to London without a ticket, let alone passing through any metal detector. (Feel safer now?) It makes precisely as much sense to put millions of domestic airline passengers through all this just-for-show rigmarole to supposedly prevent anyone from having the (start ital)opportunity(end ital) to use a gun inappropriately, as it would for the government to hire thousands of nurses and assign them the duty of shooting a dose of curare or botulism toxin into the vocal chords of everyone entering a movie theater in this country, to prevent them from having the (start ital)ability(end ital) to yell "Fire!" during the movie ... even in that one case in 10,000 when yelling "Fire!" would be precisely the right thing to do. Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is author of the new book, "Send in the Waco Killers," available at 1-800-244-2224, or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * ------ 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: A principal and his gun 2/2 Date: 14 Oct 1999 18:30:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Politics of nothing Right here in Boulder, a city of self-proclaimed enlightenment, city council members are hard at it trying to enact more gun control in the light of Columbine. Weird. Today in Boulder, it is absolutely illegal in every way, shape and form for a student to walk onto, or anywhere near a public school with a gun of any kind. Remove all state and local gun laws, and you still have a federal law that clearly forbids firearms of any kind within 100 yards of public schools. Anyone who shoots up any school, anywhere, is violating gun laws. So what does the Boulder City Council think up to address the very real concern of school massacres? Hey, let's pass some gun laws. Duh. "If we can save one life," it would be worth it, Councilman Dan Corson told the Daily Camera. If the city council manages to craft a gun law that isn't redundant to the Nth degree, it will serve only to make victims of future massacres more defenseless-guaranteed. Some politicians know this, but they don't care. What matters is how the public perceives the headlines their words garner. Guns kill. Duhhh. "Let's outlaw guns." Gun control was essential to Hitler and slave owners in the Old South. Proven fact: Gun control oppresses and kills. Proven fact #2: Responsible adults, such as Joel Myrick, save lives. When unencumbered by bizarre gun laws, they can save even more lives. So let's appeal to the Boulder City Council and the Boulder Valley School Board to explore ways of empowering law abiding adults. Perhaps it's time for the school district, with the full support of city hall, to establish a voluntary defensive weapons training course for teachers and administrators. Politicians who find a way to balance the firepower between forces of good and evil, by arming some teachers and administrators, might not get re-elected. But they might preclude a future disaster like Columbine, where SWAT teams sat helplessly in a parking lot while a teacher in the building prepared to fire at the shooters with a fire extinguisher. Have a good laugh at this idea, on me. Then ask yourself whether it's more important to be re-elected, or to cut short a future school massacre. We will never rid society of guns unless we eliminate the natural phenomenon of internal combustion. A gun is a crude instrument and nothing more than a controlled explosion. America is home to about 250 million of them, and they're with us to stay regardless of law. If you want to save lives, the answer is simple. Stop keeping guns from the hands of would-be heroes -- the only people who obey gun laws. Joel Myrick had a gun, legally in his truck. Myrick and his gun saved lives, but they could have saved more. The lesson: Some guns save lives. This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279-6535 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email) webmngr@i2i.org Independence Institute topical pages: Criminal Justice & Second Amendment http://i2i.org/CrimJust.htm Education http://i2i.org/Eduction.htm Environment http://i2i.org/enviromt.htm Immigration http://i2i.org/IPPC.htm Parent Information Center http://i2i.org/PIC.htm Personal Freedom Center http://i2i.org/lifestyle.htm Politics & Government http://i2i.org/Politics.htm Stevinson http://i2i.org/StevCntr.htm Center on Local Government http://i2i.org/StevCntr.htm Transportation http://i2i.org/transprt.htm Waco http://i2i.org/Waco.htm Op-ed archive http://i2i.org/opedlist.htm Hot Topics this week http://i2i.org/HotTopic.htm Great Books page http://i2i.org/book.htm Publications catalogue http://i2i.org/Publctns.htm Copyright 1999 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: A principal and his gun 1/2 Date: 14 Oct 1999 18:30:00 -0700 A principal and his gun by Wayne Laugesen [This article was originally published in the Boulder Weekly, and is posted at the Independence Institute website by permission.] http://i2i.org/suptdocs/opedarcv/1999/principal&gunl.htm Vice Principal Joel Myrick held his Colt .45 point blank to the high school boy's head. Last week, he told me what it was like. "I said 'why are you shooting my kids?' He said it was because nobody liked him and everything seemed hopeless," Myrick said. "Then I asked him his name. He said 'you know me, Mr. Myrick. Remember? I gave you a discount on your pizza delivery last week." The shooter was Luke Woodham. On that day in 1997, Woodham slit his mother's throat then grabbed a .30-30 lever action deer rifle. He packed the pockets of his trench coat with ammo and headed off to Pearl High School, in Pearl, Miss. The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss. Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up. But Myrick foiled that plan. He saw the killer fleeing the campus and positioned himself to point a gun at the windshield. Woodham, seeing the gun pointed at his head, crashed the car. Myrick approached the killer and confronted him. "Here was this monster killing kids in my school, and the minute I put a gun to his head he was a kid again," Myrick said. True humanitarian I've been intrigued by Myrick ever since that day. Most have never heard his name, because the mainstream press barely reported how the massacre was stopped. I've become more interested in Myrick's story with every subsequent mass murder. If only someone like Myrick had been at Columbine, I've pondered. A few months ago, Soldier of Fortune Publisher Bob Brown asked me if I had any suggestions as to who should receive his magazine's Humanitarian Award of 1999. In the wake of Columbine, the answer seemed clear: Joel Myrick. Brown talked it over with his staff, gave it some thought and went with my choice. Brown and I will present Myrick with his award Friday in Las Vegas, at the annual Soldier of Fortune Convention and Expo. Myrick and his gun, no matter how one looks at it, saved lives. His actions saved the lives of waiting victims at a nearby junior high. He may have kept Woodham from shooting police, who would have arrived at the scene disoriented, without Myrick's home turf frame of reference. Arguably, Myrick and his gun even saved the life of the killer, who likely would have killed himself or been shot by SWAT cops after spilling more blood. Although Myrick saved lives, beyond question, some treat him as a leper. After the shootings, and the relatively peaceful ending to something that could have made Columbine pale in comparison, Myrick was in exile. He'd held a gun to a student's head, and his colleagues simply couldn't accept that. "Nobody wanted to dog me, but nobody wanted to side with me, either," Myrick says. "I felt like I was being betrayed by everybody." And that was Mississippi. This summer he studied at Harvard, where he'd been awarded a prestigious education fellowship. That's when uppity intolerance and mass stupidity took on new meaning for Myrick. "Once people found out my story, I got a lot of dirty looks and strange stares," Myrick said. "A few people confronted me." Myrick shouldn't feel bad. Only goofy losers gave Myrick funny looks, and such people never learn. Myrick's gun, and his ability and willingness to use it, saved lives plain and simple. Yet somehow, in the minds of the anti-intellectual gun control crowd, he's a bad man who did an immoral deed. By any sane, rational view, Myrick is a life-saving humanitarian. Even in my view, however, his heroic act will be marred by an asterisk in the annals of history. Despite the presence of this brave man, two students still died. Therefore, the footnote of far off history books will read something like this: *The late 20th Century was an era of crude polemics, in which some people believed hardware items, such as handguns, caused mass murders. Therefore, ineffective laws that reflected this view made it illegal for this legendary hero to have his gun on campus. The gun was in a truck, giving the killer valuable time as Myrick ran to retrieve it. In modern society, of course, responsible adults have better access to hardware than killers do. Arguing with a moron Myrick is as much of a hero as the law would allow. He was only seconds away from the shootings, yet the law had him far away from his gun. Federal law precludes anyone but a cop from having a weapon in or near a school. The modern spree of school shootings began sometime shortly after this law was enacted. In most places, state and local laws needlessly duplicate the federal law, serving only to accommodate political grandstanding. In Pearl, federal, state and local laws helped Luke Woodham shoot nine students. The deer rifle had to be reloaded after every shot. To hit nine students, Woodham needed time. The moments it took Myrick to reach his gun are what allowed Woodham to continue shooting and almost escape. Gun laws, and nothing else, gave Woodham that time. But talking to gun control advocates is like talking to five year-olds. Tell a five-year-old it's time for bed, and he'll say "No." Ask why not, and he'll say "because." Likewise, I've told a few gun control advocates about Myrick-telling them how he would have saved more kids had it not been for gun laws-and they've said "guns kill." Or, "we have too many guns." Or, "Woodham killed his victims with a gun." At which point I say, "Woodham violated several gun laws by having his gun on campus. The law did nothing to deter him, but plenty to deter the man who set out to stop the killings." To which a gun controller replied: "But guns kill." Sucked in and trapped by this bizarre logic, I attempted to address it. I said: "But Joel Myrick's gun didn't kill. Rather, it allowed children, including the deranged killer, to live." "Yeah, but all of these school shootings are done by guns," he told me. So I pounded my head against a wall. Politics and sociology are complex. But if any socio-political issue should be a simple, exact science, it's gun control. All honest modern studies show that gun control, in this culture, benefits criminals while leaving law-abiding victims defenseless. In his book More Guns Less Crime, Yale law professor John Lott ran the numbers every which way possible. He set out to write a book about guns being bad, and found that every gun law ever enacted in this country has resulted in more violent crime. I saw him on TV recently, debating a gun control advocate. Lott cited numbers and anecdotes. His opponent, in essence, said "but guns kill." [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: anti-gun alert Date: 15 Oct 1999 21:59:00 -0700 Gun Control Moving Again on Capitol Hill -- Gun shows still on the chopping block 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 "House Republican leaders will press ahead with new gun restrictions despite a lack of cooperation from Democrats and resistance by Republican conservatives." -- The Washington Times, 10/13/99 (Wednesday, October 13, 1999) -- The battle lines are being drawn in the House and Senate, as negotiators soon plan to produce a "compromise" gun control bill. The new restrictions will be included as part of a much larger juvenile crime bill that was passed in each house earlier this year (S. 254 and H.R. 1501). The chief Republican negotiators, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, are hoping to bring up the anti-gun bill for a House-Senate conference vote as early as today. The bill would then move to the House and Senate floors. According to press reports and legislative aides, the provisions in the bill will limit the freedoms of decent Americans and will include, but not be limited to, the following controls: * A likely end to gun shows. The Senate version of the crime bill contained language allowing gun shows to be taxed without limits. And under the Senate version and an amendment adopted by the House, gun shows would be subject to draconian regulations and harassment-type inspections with no practical limitations. These are tools an anti-gun president could use to shut down gun shows nationwide. * A ban on the importation of high-capacity magazines-- items which are enormously useful for self-defense and some types of hunting. * A "gun tax" resulting from a requirement that forces every handgun buyer to also purchase a "lock-up your safety" device. In the House, Republican Reps. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and John Doolittle (R-CA) have led the opposition to the anti-gun provisions in the bill. In the Senate, Bob Smith of New Hampshire has promised to filibuster any "compromise" that contains one iota of gun control. Ironically, press reports indicate that the obsessively anti-gun senator from New York, Democrat Chuck Schumer, could join Smith in filibustering the bill. Many Democrats -- Schumer included -- are likely to balk at any bill that does not contain all of the gun control that passed the Senate in May. ACTION: Make sure your Representative and Senators have heard your opposition to the juvenile crime bill. They could be voting soon on the final version that emerges from the conference committee. You can call toll-free at 1-888-449-3511; or 202-225-3121. See the GOA website for fax and e-mail contact information. Will Congress Limit Your Ability To Get Gun-Related Information From Groups Like GOA? In other news, the Senate will soon be debating legislation that GOA has been tracking very closely. Either late this week or early next week, the Senate will vote on whether to shut down a filibuster of the anti-gun "campaign finance" bill being pushed by anti-gun senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The House-passed version of that bill would outlaw GOA's legislative alerts by treating them as campaign contributions and as expenditures for or against the senators and congressmen whose votes are discussed. Candidate ratings such as those that GOA puts out in election years would also be effectively outlawed. Although the Senate sponsors have tactically deleted the anti-freedom provisions from the Senate bill, passage of that bill would result in a conference with the anti-gun House version, thereby bringing them back to life. Please contact your two senators and ask them to vote against shutting down the filibuster of the McCain legislation (S. 1593). ************** Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if you use http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online store. ************** 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 a message to goamail@gunowners.org and include the state in which you live, in the subject or the body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Action Alert Vote To Come Next Week Date: 15 Oct 1999 22:47:00 -0700 ----- Action Alert Vote To Come Next Week Call your Congressman and Senators, and the offices of these so-called Republican leaders, and complain. Defeat the Juvenile Justice Bill. You can call your representatives at the following toll-free numbers US Capitol Switchboard 800-456-1414 You can also call them using the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Here is the URL for Congressional Telephone Directory: http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/members/teledir/members/congdir.htm Here's an e-mail link to Congress. http://in-search-of.org/ http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html To spread the word call Rush Limbaugh at 800-282-2882 and callers may call in from 12 noon to 3PM EST, M-F MARYLAND RESIDENTS and all others who want to see how a "peoples republic" state operates see http://www.2ndamendment.net For legislative updates contact www.nealknox.com and go to "Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line" From Neal Knox -- Tell your Congressman and Senators "We do not want any legislation." Either Juvenile Justice or Campaign Finance. Excerpts from Tanya K. Metaksa's Article THERE WILL BE A VOTE. It's now time to contact your senators and your representative. They need to hear from every law-abiding gun owner and every person who supports the Bill of Rights. It's not just about trigger locks, magazine bans, or gun shows. It's about the right to purchase, to own, to transport, or to use the gun of your choice. If you fail to make that call, the Washington Post will be ecstatic to influence the outcome. Waco feed back Attorney needs information. Keep up the good work in forwarding anything that might prove helpful. Please put out in your newsletter and ask people to contact me who know of any information relating to the military involvement at Waco, or other information related to the initial attack on 28 Mar 93 or the final assault on 19 Apr 93. Regards, Jim@Brannon.com From Russ Howard "House Republican leaders will press ahead with new gun restrictions despite a lack of cooperation from Democrats and resistance by Republican conservatives." -- The Washington Times, Oct 13, 1999 Oct 13, 1999 - Negotiators soon plan to produce "compromise" gun control. New restrictions will be part of a much larger juvenile crime bill passed in each house earlier this year. Republicans Hatch & Hyde hope to bring up the anti-gun bill for conference vote as early as today, including the following controls: * A likely end to gun shows. ...allows gun shows to be taxed without limits ... draconian regulations & harassment inspections with no practical limitations. * The bill contains provisions to follow private sales at gun shows. This produces record that can be used against you in the future. It is a registration of sale of a firearm. Registration is the one thing that makes confiscation possible. The only reason the anti gun politicians can steal the guns is that they have a record of firearms ownership. GET BETWEEN THESE RECORDS AND YOUR GOVERNMENTS ANY WAY YOU CAN. * A ban on importing high-capacity magazines... * A "gun tax" that forces every handgun buyer to buy a "lock-up your safety" device. Republicans DeLay & Doolittle have led House opposition to the anti-gun provisions. Senator Bob Smith has promised to filibuster any "compromise" that contains one iota of gun control. Let your legislators hear your opposition to the juvenile crime bill. See beginning of this post Late this week or early next, the Senate will vote on a filibuster of the anti-gun "campaign finance" bill. The House version outlaws legislative alerts by treating them as contributions for or against politicians whose votes are discussed. Candidate ratings would also be outlawed. Sponsors have deleted anti-freedom provisions from the Senate bill, but passage would result in a conference with the House bill, bringing both back to life. Ask your senators to vote against shutting down the filibuster of S1593 [McCain]. The 2ndAmendmentNews Team The way to protect your own rights is to protect the rights of others. Our right to own and use firearms is under attack. This list was created in a hurry due to the emergency presented by anti-gun politicians and the media dancing in the blood of those who died in the Colorado massacre. If you've received this as a forward and wish to subscribe please send a reply to me at luz.clark@prodigy.net or behanna@fast.net Cordially Yours, The 2ndAmendmentNews Team 2ndAmendmentNews is published by volunteer activists who support the full original individual rights intent of the 2nd Amendment and oppose any appeasement on gun rights. The moderators include Chris Behanna, Weldon Clark (an NRA director) and Steve Cicero. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: DN Fascist alert Date: 17 Oct 1999 11:33:00 -0700 Two articles in today's DN concern victim disarmament in Utah. Both are by Bob Bernick, Jr., and seem to favor victim disarmament and politicians pushing it such as Gov. Mike Leavitt. One is specifically about Gov. Leavitt and the other is entitled "Residents of S.L. favor tighter gun control". The latter includes two sidebars; Dan Jones gun polls and a list of fascist (with the exception of Rep. Matt Throckmorton, R-Springville, who's drafting a bill that would limit gun manufacturers' liability) legislators who are drafting gun-related bills for the 2000 legislative session. Read a printed copy or log on to http://www.desnews.com Scott Bergeson - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: How to Sell Gun Rights Date: 17 Oct 1999 17:04:00 -0700 How to Sell Gun Rights By Harry Browne From time to time the press reports a tragic event in which a child is killed in a gun accident. It provides an opportunity for politicians and reformers to speechify about the need to pass stricter gun laws -- laws that will require safety locks on guns, laws that will force gun owners to keep all guns in locked storage, even laws to make it harder for someone to buy a gun. But why does the press bother to report the tragic gun accident? Because it is an extraordinary event. Like an earthquake big enough to cause fatalities, the rarity of a gun accidentally killing a child makes it newsworthy. It's the legendary "Man Bites Dog!" story. But thousands of children are killed in _car_ accidents _every year_. Why don't you see reports of those auto accidents on the TV News? Because they are too commonplace to be news -- events no more unusual than "Dog Bites Man." The death of any child or adult is a tragedy. Life is the most precious gift a human being possesses. But if the death of a child from a gun accident justifies taking away freedoms from people, why doesn't the death of a child from an auto accident justify laws that would keep children away from cars? Rights & Freedoms The answer stems from a simple truth: Few people care about the rights and freedom of others. Most of us care only about the rights and freedoms that affect our own lives. Almost every adult drives a car and accepts the risks that go with driving an automobile. To forcibly keep children away from cars would inconvenience most families so much that the idea could gain the support of almost no one -- except perhaps the Vice-President of the United States. But only about half of American families own guns. The other half includes people who, for one reason or another, see no need to own a gun -- in some cases because they are afraid of guns. Those people can easily believe that reducing gun ownership will save lives without inconveniencing them in any way. Politicians are particularly prone to this attitude. Most of them work in buildings with heavy security; many of them have armed chauffeurs and armed guards; and if they want to go into a dangerous area of a city, they can requisition an armed escort. So they don't feel imposed upon when restrictive gun laws prevent average citizens from defending themselves. Also, politicians respect the political influence wielded by many gun-control advocates. Some of those advocates run America's biggest newspapers, or are pundits on the Washington Sunday-morning talk shows, or are wealthy Hollywood celebrities. Why shouldn't politicians pander to these gun-controllers who can do so much to help their careers -- especially when the politicians feel no need to own guns themselves? Appealing to Non-Gun-Owners We may never change the minds of the politicians or the gun-control advocates. So our efforts should be directed toward the rest of the people who don't own guns. And the first point to keep in mind is this: _You will get nowhere by proclaiming your right to keep and bear arms_. Very few people care about rights they don't plan to exercise themselves. To them, it doesn't matter that the Founding Fathers meant the 2nd amendment to provide unqualified gun ownership for citizens, and it doesn't matter that the right to be armed against a potential tyranny may be the most important right of all. You might be able to win debates asserting such arguments, but _you won't win converts_. And what's the point of winning debates if you don't convert anyone, and if winning a debate simply encourages your opponents to look for new ways to defeat you? I know of only one way to bring non-gun-owners over to our side: by showing them that widespread gun ownership makes them safer than they would be among a disarmed populace. Here are some examples of points that can help you persuade them . . . * If you're ever in a restaurant and a maniac starts shooting people at random, I hope someone in that restaurant will have a gun that can stop the assailant. * I doubt that I would take advantage myself of a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons, but I feel safer in a community where anyone I see _might_ be carrying a concealed gun -- so that any criminal has to wonder whether _I_ have a gun. * Although you hear about unusual accidents in which guns have killed children, or cases where a maniac has fired on a bunch of children, you don't hear of the thousands of commonplace events in which a home containing children was defended from an intruder by a gun owner -- or even defended by a child with a gun. Nor do you hear about the criminals who were deterred from entering a neighborhood where they didn't know which houses might contain guns. Your home is safer if some of your neighbors happen to have guns. * Criminals rarely buy guns in gun stores or at gun shows, because they don't want guns traced back to them. They buy their guns in the underworld or simply steal them. So they are rarely affected by gun-control laws. The number of criminals nabbed by such laws is microscopic compared to the number of innocent citizens who were prevented by waiting periods from buying guns when threatened by a stalker, a violent ex-spouse, or a crazy person. Like most laws, gun control hurts the innocent far more than the guilty. And since the criminals will have guns no matter what, the more the innocent are deprived of owning guns, the less safe _you_ are. * Women especially need access to guns to protect them from stronger men who might assault them in parking lots, on city streets, or in their own homes. To prevent them from carrying guns is to deny them the only way to resist an attacker. * The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only _after_ he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is _your_ responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens -- even if you don't own a gun yourself. * It is unrealistic to say such things as "But no one needs an assault rifle." How can we know that? If you were a store owner during the Los Angeles riots and a mob was about to enter your store to destroy your life savings, which would you have wanted in your hand -- a knife, a 6-bullet revolver, or an assault rifle? Giving politicians the power to decide what you need and don't need is to force you to live your life according to _their_ needs and circumstances -- making you vulnerable to any whim that strikes the politicians during a period of temporary hysteria. Understand that none of these points is likely to convert someone overnight. But your prospect will actually listen to you when you discuss these things, because you're talking about matters that affect his life directly. And as he considers more and more of these matters, he is likely to become less adamantly opposed to gun ownership, then grow even more open-minded, and eventually become your ally. That's how so many people have come to want an end to the Drug War -- a step at a time -- and not out of concern for someone else's right to take drugs, but to make one's own life safer. The ability to keep and bear arms is one of the most important rights you can have. So it's essential that you be as persuasive as possible when you get the chance to talk to someone about it. Don't waste the opportunity by preaching about _your_ right to do what _you_ want. Instead, agree with the person's concern for safety -- so he knows you want a more peaceful society, not a more violent one. Then you can help him understand how much safer he'll be in a society of armed citizens, rather than living in one where only criminals and government employees have guns. Harry Browne was the 1996 Libertarian presidential candidate. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Hyde-Hatch Gun Control Deal Date: 17 Oct 1999 17:04:00 -0700 Noon Oct. 12 Update -- Judiciary Chairmen Orrin Hatch and Henry Hyde have worked out a deal on Juvenile Justice and plan to introduce it at a conference committee meeting as early as tomorrow, according to Roll Call. The plan supposedly calls for the conference to approve a compromise between the Senate-passed Lautenberg three business days to conduct a background check on gun show purchases, and the 24 hours that would be allowed by the Dingell gun show background check approved by the House. The "compromise" would be to allow no more than 24 hours for the check unless the buyer had been arrested and the records didn't show the final disposition, in which case up to three business days could be taken to determine the outcome of the arrest. Attorney General Reno has claimed-but dealer organizations dispute- that 95 percent of transfers are approved within two hours. Well-placed sources on the Hill report that the article is essentially correct-including resistance from Republican Whip Tom Delay, who told Roll Call: "I could tell [Hyde] that it would be very difficult to pass the House if he brings it back and the gun show provision goes any further than Dingell," "This House is a pro-gun House," Rep. Delay added. On the Senate side, one of the key players reportedly told Chairman Hatch: "You and Henry may like this deal, but a lot of us sure don't." One of the big questions is which side would move first- House or Senate. The package reportedly contains the several other gun provisions that have been approved by both houses-such as trigger locks, a magazine import ban, and prohibiting possession of "assault weapons" by juveniles. ------------------ There a lot of provisions in both the House and Senate bills that neither side wants. And it isn't just guns that are in conflict. The left wing doesn't like the idea of getting tough on juvenile criminals, which is what got all this started. What would most please the Clintonoids is to see nothing happen and be able to blame Republicans and guns for blocking the bill. Republicans want to avoid that political campaign issue by making sure it's the Democrats who kill the bill, as they already did when they killed the gun provisions in the House. Democrats killed it not only because they didn't consider it strong enough, but because the Dingell gun show language demanded immediate destruction of records on purchases by the law-abiding- which is what the NRA language in the Brady Act requires, but is being ignored. ----------- The Washington Post is turning handsprings over Colt's announcement that it is discontinuing most of its retail handgun line-which a Post article referred to as its "cheaper models." An editorial this morning pontificates that "it would be better if guns could be tamed by more democratic means" than litigation, but "it is hard to see how companies making lawful products can be held liable when those products perform precisely as intended-even when the intent is death." The intent of the overwhelming majority of handgun buyers is not to cause death, but to preserve life. And a Police Foundation study for the Justice Department and Florida State Criminology Professor Gary Kleck have concluded that guns are used to save lives and property three to five times as often as they are used in crime. But the Washington Post has a mindset, as stated in this morning's editorial: "America needs tougher gun laws; indeed, an outright ban on handguns would be best." ------------ The Los Angeles Times, which has called for a ban on all guns for years, and which is beating the drums about horrors like Columbine and the Jewish Day Care shootings, had a report this morning on two educators who went to 50 cities to talk to students about how to prevent kids from killing kids. From every social and economic strata, the kids focussed on the same root problem: poor parenting. The kids, with a lot more common sense than the L.A. Times and most educators, dismissed the notion that new gun control laws could have any effect. The researchers found the kids didn't think government could do anything more about availability of guns than availability of drugs. Out of the mouths of babes. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: LPU: FW: .50 Cal. Poll Date: 18 Oct 1999 08:48:00 -0700 ----- Now the long guns. Go to: http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/15/cnn.time/ Don't forget to vote in their "poll." I know nothing is said when the polls disagree with their agenda, but you can bet it will be on the Front Cover if they ever get one their way. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: A *shocking* editorial... Date: 21 Oct 1999 14:52:28 -0600 Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:21:22 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07867; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:07:28 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27837; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910211414.KAA27837@fs1.mainstream.net> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: noban@mainstream.net X-Divvy-no: 1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Nobanners-- =20 The following editorial/letter was featured in October's issue of = the=20 Florida Hunting Coalition's Florida Hunter magazine. (The editor is Joe Ellis; Ellishunts@aol.com ) =20 Thought you might find it interesting. NOTE from Mike Baker:=20 Ellis sent me the following comment about some of the fallout following the editorial. I replied that I was reminded of the quote that goes something like this--: ...the quickest way to be branded as an anarchist- maniac is to be overheard repeating what the founding fathers said... >>>>> A few days after it came out, a very prestigeous lady which had read = her=20 son's copy of the magazine called me and left a message on my recorder,=20 saying, "Thanks a million. I'm behind you 100%, and I'm joining the = NRA=20 tomorrow morning." She agreed that the message we need to send Congress is that = political=20 posturing, squabbling and negotiating be damned. Tyrannical laws and = their=20 authors become meaningless when free men are pushed too far. >>>>> Fed Up! I think everyone has a boiling point. Some people are just more=20 tolerant than others, but all of us are born with a survival instinct, = an=20 instinct that arouses something deep inside that says, "Ok, you've pushed = me=20 into a corner, so bring it on. This is no longer a game. This is = serious=20 business. You want some of me? Come and get it!" "You want my guns? Come and get 'em! I've grown weary of the chase. = =20 I'm tired of anti-gun politicians' threats. And I'm damn mad that = anyone=20 thinks they have the right to take away my guns, my constitutional rights = and=20 my freedom. You picked on the wrong Bubba this time!" Legislators need to know that if they want to take away someone's = rights=20 so damn bad, then they better take 'em away from the criminals, because = our=20 rights aren't up for negotiation. I learned a long time ago that the only way to stop a bully is to = draw a=20 line in the sand. It's about time we drew that line! Senator Connie Mack: Senator Bob Graham: Representative Charles Canady: Gentlemen: I'm writing you to let you know, that as a tax-payer, voter and=20 law-abiding American citizen, I am fed up with the constant attempt by = many=20 politicians to strip the Second Amendment by blaming the legal and=20 responsible gun owners of this country with the misdeeds of lunatics = and=20 criminals. I'm also quite weary of hearing those same politicians quote the = results=20 of skewed polls that are designed and controlled by the anti-gun media. = If=20 we wanted Dan Rather and his cohorts to determine policy, then we could = get=20 rid of Congress and save tax payers a lot of money. The fact of the matter is that there are literally thousands of = state=20 and federal gun laws already on the books. And not to burst the=20 anti-gunners' bubble, but you can bet that the perpetrators of murderous=20= events don't lie awake at night agognizing over the thought of breaking = one=20 of them. There is only one thing that criminals fear, and that's punishment. = But=20 because of the absence of punishment for misdeeds, criminals have made = a=20 mockery of existing laws. =20 Unfortunately, our present "leadership" in the White House has = regularly=20 demonstrated they are more concerned with disarming honest citizens = than=20 punishing criminals. A dramatic drop in BATF criminal prosecution = referrals=20 for firearm law violations under the Clinton-Gore Administration is=20 underscored by a recent analysis of law enforcement data done by=20 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. = =20 The TRAC study shows that BATF cases sent to federal prosecutors = plummeted=20 44% from 1992 to 1998, dropping from 9,885 to 5,510. Now, on the heels of the above study, President Clinton decided to=20 pardon 16 Puerto Rican terrorists. Think about that one for a=20 moment...Unconcerned with prosecuting criminals, our political leaders = are=20 letting terrorists out of jail and trying to take away our guns at the = same=20 time. That should scare the hell out of anyone that has even a trace of = gray=20 matter between the ears. And it should certainly make all of us ponder = the=20 real agenda of the anti-gun crowd. With that said, I think there's something very important that all=20 legislators need to keep in mind when considering further laws that = would=20 restrict the rights of lawful people; and that is - don't push good = people=20 too far. If you recall, there was a group of "good men" that also became = fed=20 up with the abuses and tyranny of a self-righteous government. Those = same=20 men denounced that government, fought that government, formed their own=20 government and went on to become the forefathers of our country. James=20 Madison once said, "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being = armed=20 which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, = where=20 the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." You would do well to share the above quote with all of your colleagues= ,=20 especially those that want to register and restrict the arms of honest=20 citizens. A government that doesn't trust the people is a dangerous=20 government, a dangerous bully. And as history reveals, even good, honest = men=20 can reach their limit. Don't push it!=20 Sincerely, Joe Ellis =20 - To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@mainstream.net, and as the body of the message (plain text, no HTML), send the following: . unsubscribe noban email-address . where email-address is the address under which you are subscribed. Report problems to owner-noban@mainstream.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: USSC E-mail Action Alert Date: 22 Oct 1999 13:09:00 -0700 ----- An exceptionally long-woinded "alert" but important nonetheless. Even though Orrin will, as usual, ignore his constituents, the others may not. ---------- House and Senate conference committee negotiators in the U.S. Congress are working on a compromise gun control bill that could end gun shows as we know them. The new restrictions on law abiding gun owners will be included as part of the juvenile crime bill that was passed earlier this year in both houses. This proposed legislation has been advertised as nothing more than a call for instant background checks at gun shows. Do not believe this. Some of the proposed legislation would place such a huge regulatory burden on legal gun shows that most promoters would probably go out of business. This legislation follows Clinton and Gore's successful effort to put half of the federally licensed gun dealers out of business during their administration. To understand how the gun banners hope to shut down gun shows consider some of the proposed legislation. At a gun show a vendor will be defined as anyone who sells a gun, whether or not they have a table or are known to the gun show promoter. Gun show promoters will be required to fill out paper work on and register all vendors with the federal government. If the gun show promoter fails to do this he faces jail time. Now consider the following. An individual buys a ticket to the gun show. While walking through the show he offers to sell another show attendee a gun. After the transaction is completed the seller discovers that the person to whom he sold the gun to is an undercover BATF agent. Under the proposed legislation the seller is considered to be a vendor and since he did not do a background check on the buyer of his gun he is arrested subject to jail time. The really unfair aspect of the proposed legislation is that the gun show promoter will also face jail time since he failed to register this vendor. Never mind the fact that the gun show promoter had no way of knowing that this person was going to sell a gun at the promoters show, the law still required him to register all vendors and a vendor is considered a vendor even if the promoter was was unaware that that person would be selling a gun. Since a gun show promoter cannot know which attendees might possibly try and sell a gun during a show the only way he can protect himself against criminal prosecution is to register every attendee as a vendor. The time required to have the thousands of people who attend a gun show on any given weekend fill out all the paperwork and register with the federal government as vendors would make it impossible for a promoter to run a show. The only option a promoter has is to risk jail time or go out of business. The Clinton-Gore administration is hoping it will be the latter. Another way the anti-self defense and anti-hunting crowd hopes to drive gun shows out of business is with the so called instant checks. Only the federal government would consider background checks that take five days to be instant checks. Under proposed legislation the Clinton run Justice Department could take three business days to conduct a background check. If you try and buy a gun at the show on Saturday they could delay your approval to exercise your Second Amendment rights till Wednesday by which time the gun show is long gone. Proposed legislation would also ban the importation of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Despite all the media hype about banning assault weapon magazines this legislation would actually ban the importation of standard magazines for ordinary pistols like Glocks and Barrettas. Getting mad about this legislation will do nothing. You need to contact your U.S. Representative and Senators now. It is especially important to contact Senator Hatch as he is one of the Republican negotiators. Contact both Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett and your representative. Tell them that you oppose any gun control in the juvenile justice bill. Tell them that you do not want private individuals to be required to conduct background checks when they sell a gun. Tell them you oppose restricting the importation of magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Tell them that if the compromise bill emerges from the conference committee with any gun control measures that you want the whole bill voted down. Senator Orrin Hatch: 801-524-4380 202-224-6331 senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov Senator Bob Bennett 801-524-5933 202-224-5444 senator@bennett.senate.gov Representative Chris Cannon 801-379-2500 202-225-7751 cannon.ut03@mail.house.gov Representative Jim Hansen 801-625-5677 202-225-5857 Representative Merrill Cook 801-524-5994 202-225-5368 You can also reach your Senators and Representative toll free at 1-888-449- 3511 Please note that the Utah Shooting Sports Council usually deals with Utah legislative issues. To stay up to date on federal issues we recommend you check out the NRA's website at http://www.nra.org or the Gun Owners of America at http://www.gunowners.org The Utah Shooting Sports Council is trying to get as many people as possile signed up for our free e-mail alert service. If this alert was forwarded to you by someone other than USSC you can sign up for alerts by sending a request to gunlist@wojciktech.com. Please forward this e-mail to as many people as you can. You can check out our web sight at http://www.UtahShootingSports.org. For those who do not have internet access we have a toll free hotline you can call to receive the latest Utah legislative updates. The number is 801-299-7230. If you would like to be removed from our e-mail list send a request to gunlist@wojciktech.com asking to be removed. If you would like a membership application please send a request to gunlist@wojciktech.com. USSC E-mail Action Alerts visit our web-site at: www.utahshootingsports.org/USSC If you wish to be removed from the USSC E-Mail Action Alert list, or your address has changed, send an e-mail to: gunlist@wojciktech.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: LPU: FW: Malcolm & Kates on Gun Control Date: 23 Oct 1999 11:49:00 -0700 ----- ---------- Follow the link below to an article in the Oakland Tribune reporting on the Independent Institute's recent Second Amendment forum. Speakers included prominent Second Amendment scholars Joyce Lee Malcolm and Don Kates. Excerpt: "[The constitution's framers] would be appalled that the people who call themselves liberal today think the military and police should determine who should be armed," Kates said. Kates pointed out that World War II-era Germany disarmed its citizenry using laws that were put in place after World War I, propelled by revulsion of that bloody war's death toll. "It wasn't the Nazis that put these laws in... It was the dupes who put these laws in and then found themselves being screwed by them," he said. Kates said gun-control advocates are unreasonable, shunning sensible checks on firearm ownership in favor of outright bans that criminalize law-abiding citizens. http://www.independent.org/tii//news/990922OaklandTribune.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Malcolm & Kates Date: 27 Oct 1999 09:48:00 -0700 http://www.independent.org/tii//news/990922OaklandTribune.html From The Oakland Tribune September 22, 1999 Speakers Defend "Rights" To Bear Arms By Sharon Lerman The case against gun control is not necessarily one pondered over pork rinds and canned beer, a scholarly forum on the individual's right to bear arms proved this week. More than 100 people packed the nonprofit Independent Institute's conference center on Tuesday to hear historian Joyce Lee Malcolm and civil rights attorney Don B. Kates Jr.'s arguments in favor of armed citizenry. The meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is at the center of the gun debate. Those in favor of gun legislation say it allows for state militias to fight federal tyranny, while those against it insist the right is an individual one. People have always believed in that right, (but) legal interpreters of the 20th century have found a way to misinterpret it, Malcolm said. Author of "To Keep and Bear Arms," Malcolm is currently researching another historical analysis for a forthcoming book, this time by examining the traditions of citizen's rights to arm themselves in England. She shared some of her findings at the forum, saying England's legal conditions were passed on to America through the colonies. And since England disarmed its people through sweeping laws, violent crime there has increased, with citizens more likely to be robbed and burgled than their American counterparts, Malcolm said. High-profile shootings of young people, such as those at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., and a church in Fort Worth, Texas, are followed by a "media drumbeat" to control firearms, Malcolm said. But the blustery Kates pulled no punches in his assessment of the current efforts, sometimes shocking the crowd. "[The constitution's framers] would be appalled that the people who call themselves liberal today think the military and police should determine who should be armed," Kates said. Kates pointed out that World War II-era Germany disarmed its citizenry using laws that were put in place after World War I, propelled by revulsion of that bloody war’s death toll. "It wasn't the Nazis that put these laws in... It was the dupes who put these laws in and then found themselves being screwed by them," he said. Kates said gun-control advocates are unreasonable, shunning sensible checks on firearm ownership in favor of outright bans that criminalize law-abiding citizens. "We are blacks in Alabama and the year is 1890," Kates said. "We are a discriminated-against class, excluded from justice and subjected to injustice." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Malcolm & Kates Date: 27 Oct 1999 09:48:00 -0700 http://www.independent.org/tii//news/990922OaklandTribune.html From The Oakland Tribune September 22, 1999 Speakers Defend "Rights" To Bear Arms By Sharon Lerman The case against gun control is not necessarily one pondered over pork rinds and canned beer, a scholarly forum on the individual's right to bear arms proved this week. More than 100 people packed the nonprofit Independent Institute's conference center on Tuesday to hear historian Joyce Lee Malcolm and civil rights attorney Don B. Kates Jr.'s arguments in favor of armed citizenry. The meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is at the center of the gun debate. Those in favor of gun legislation say it allows for state militias to fight federal tyranny, while those against it insist the right is an individual one. People have always believed in that right, (but) legal interpreters of the 20th century have found a way to misinterpret it, Malcolm said. Author of "To Keep and Bear Arms," Malcolm is currently researching another historical analysis for a forthcoming book, this time by examining the traditions of citizen's rights to arm themselves in England. She shared some of her findings at the forum, saying England's legal conditions were passed on to America through the colonies. And since England disarmed its people through sweeping laws, violent crime there has increased, with citizens more likely to be robbed and burgled than their American counterparts, Malcolm said. High-profile shootings of young people, such as those at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., and a church in Fort Worth, Texas, are followed by a "media drumbeat" to control firearms, Malcolm said. But the blustery Kates pulled no punches in his assessment of the current efforts, sometimes shocking the crowd. "[The constitution's framers] would be appalled that the people who call themselves liberal today think the military and police should determine who should be armed," Kates said. Kates pointed out that World War II-era Germany disarmed its citizenry using laws that were put in place after World War I, propelled by revulsion of that bloody war’s death toll. "It wasn't the Nazis that put these laws in... It was the dupes who put these laws in and then found themselves being screwed by them," he said. Kates said gun-control advocates are unreasonable, shunning sensible checks on firearm ownership in favor of outright bans that criminalize law-abiding citizens. "We are blacks in Alabama and the year is 1890," Kates said. "We are a discriminated-against class, excluded from justice and subjected to injustice." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Put This One On The Wall To Read, EVERDAY! Date: 27 Oct 1999 10:02:50 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 06:48:57 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06137; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:46:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910271246.IAA06137@fs1.mainstream.net> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: noban@mainstream.net X-Divvy-no: 1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1" --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline =20 --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-path: NJGunsRus@aol.com Full-name: NJGunsRus Message-ID: <0.eacaffb2.2547b2d2@aol.com> X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Pres. Candidate Alan Keyes on the 2nd Amendment (WorldNetDaily 8/14/98) ########################################################## The reason for the Second Amendment=20 - Sen. Bob Smith has succeeded in amending an upcoming appropriations bill = to=20 beat back the latest wave of Clinton administration disrespect for two = key=20 elements of a free citizenry -- privacy and the right to keep and bear = arms.=20 Smith's amendment to the Justice-State-Commerce appropriations bill = would=20 foil FBI plans to keep records of private identifying information on=20 law-abiding citizens who buy guns. The amendment also forbids a proposed = tax=20 on gun purchases, and authorizes citizens to sue if the FBI doesn't = observe=20 these restrictions. Senator Smith is to be praised for keeping his eye on some balls that = might=20 have been lost in the smoke of scandal and misinformation that the = Clinton=20 Administration seems endlessly to emit. Actually, few things could make = the=20 need for vigorous defense of 2nd Amendment rights clearer than the = ongoing=20 spectacle of Clinton contempt for the citizens he is supposed to serve. = For=20 the 2nd Amendment is really in the Constitution to give men like Bill = Clinton=20 something to think about when their ambition gets particularly over-inflate= d. The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders = merely=20 to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts' = content.=20 This is not to say that hunting game for the family dinner, or defending=20= against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms,=20 particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the real purpose = of=20 the Amendment. The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train = of=20 abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, = we=20 will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the = right=20 to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically= =20 violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and = overthrow=20 the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the=20 material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is = very=20 hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be = made,=20 therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and = bear=20 arms. In our time there have been many folks who don't like to be reminded of = all=20 this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the word = "people"=20 in the 2nd Amendment means something there that it doesn't mean in any one = of=20 the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say that, for some = odd=20 reason, the Founders had a lapse, and instead of putting in "states" they = put=20 in "people." And so it refers to a right inherent in the state government. This position is incoherent, and has been disproved by every piece of=20 legitimate historical evidence. At one point in Jefferson's letters, = for=20 example, he is talking about the militia, and he writes, "militia -- = every=20 able-bodied man in the state. ..." The militia was every able-bodied man = in=20 the state. It had nothing to do with the state government. The words=20 "well-regulated" had to do with organizing that militia and drilling it = in=20 the style of the 19th century, but "militia" itself referred to the=20 able-bodied citizens of the state or commonwealth -- not to the state=20 government. It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear = arms=20 to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is based, = as=20 stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, = can=20 become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend = ourselves=20 against its abuses. But the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to = our=20 capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part = of=20 the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are=20 capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper reason that = the=20 defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense of liberty. Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for = human=20 self-control, but this approach won't wash. It is the human moral will = that=20 saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons. We = should=20 reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause of violence. Consider, for example, the phony assertion that certain weapons should = be=20 banned because "they have no purpose except to kill people." It is = people=20 that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons to do so, = if=20 killing is in their hearts where love of justice should be. This week a=20 7-year old boy in Chicago apparently used a pair of underwear to commit=20 murder, because he wanted a bike. So let's get down to the real issue: are we moral adults, or are we = moral=20 children? If we are adults, then we have the capacity to control our = will=20 even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the exercise of = our=20 natural rights. If we are only children, then all the particularly = dangerous=20 toys must be controlled by the government. But this "solution" implies = that=20 we can trust government with a monopoly on guns, even though we cannot = trust=20 ourselves with them. This is not a "solution" I trust. Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that it = can=20 only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That's why I = don't=20 understand those who say "save us from guns," even while they cling to = the=20 coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth except what they=20 "choose" to assign to it. If we want to end violence in our land, we must warm the hearts of all=20 Americans with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all = human=20 beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of moral=20 responsibility and self-restraint -- of assuming responsibility for = governing=20 himself. This is the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and indeed of = the=20 entire American project of ordered liberty. It is the business of every citizen to preserve justice in his heart, and = the=20 material capacity, including arms, to resist tyranny. These things = constitute=20 our character as a free people, which it is our duty to maintain. And = to=20 fulfill our duty to be such a people we shall have to return to the = humble=20 subjection to the authority of true moral principle that characterized = our=20 Founders, and that characterized every generation of Americans, until now. = We=20 must regain control of ourselves. Most deeply, then, the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights is the = assertion=20 that we intend to control ourselves, and submit to the moral order that = God=20 has decreed must govern our lives. And just as we have no right to shirk = our=20 duty to submit to that moral order, so we have no right to shirk our duty = to=20 preserve unto ourselves the material means to discipline our government, = if=20 necessary, so that it remains a fit instrument for the self-government of = a=20 free people. The preservation of 2nd Amendment rights, for the right = reasons,=20 is a moral and public duty of every citizen. The Clinton Administration's flirtations with executive tyranny should = remind=20 us that we have a duty to remain capable of disciplining our government = if=20 necessary. Bill Clinton's comprehensive avoidance of personal responsibilit= y=20 for his own actions, and our revulsion at the kind of character which = that=20 avoidance has produced in him, should be a kind of horrific preview of = the=20 kind of people we will all become if we continue to let our government = treat=20 us as though we were incapable of moral self-control. And Senator = Smith's=20 successful effort to defeat several policies that treat us that way is=20 precisely the kind of principled defense of our liberty -- and of the=20 premises of our liberty -- that make him so worthy to be a representative = of=20 a free people.=20 --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Put This One On The Wall To Read, EVERDAY! Date: 27 Oct 1999 10:02:50 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 06:48:57 -0600 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA06137; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:46:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199910271246.IAA06137@fs1.mainstream.net> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: noban@mainstream.net X-Divvy-no: 1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1" --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline =20 --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-path: NJGunsRus@aol.com Full-name: NJGunsRus Message-ID: <0.eacaffb2.2547b2d2@aol.com> X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Pres. Candidate Alan Keyes on the 2nd Amendment (WorldNetDaily 8/14/98) ########################################################## The reason for the Second Amendment=20 - Sen. Bob Smith has succeeded in amending an upcoming appropriations bill = to=20 beat back the latest wave of Clinton administration disrespect for two = key=20 elements of a free citizenry -- privacy and the right to keep and bear = arms.=20 Smith's amendment to the Justice-State-Commerce appropriations bill = would=20 foil FBI plans to keep records of private identifying information on=20 law-abiding citizens who buy guns. The amendment also forbids a proposed = tax=20 on gun purchases, and authorizes citizens to sue if the FBI doesn't = observe=20 these restrictions. Senator Smith is to be praised for keeping his eye on some balls that = might=20 have been lost in the smoke of scandal and misinformation that the = Clinton=20 Administration seems endlessly to emit. Actually, few things could make = the=20 need for vigorous defense of 2nd Amendment rights clearer than the = ongoing=20 spectacle of Clinton contempt for the citizens he is supposed to serve. = For=20 the 2nd Amendment is really in the Constitution to give men like Bill = Clinton=20 something to think about when their ambition gets particularly over-inflate= d. The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders = merely=20 to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts' = content.=20 This is not to say that hunting game for the family dinner, or defending=20= against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms,=20 particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the real purpose = of=20 the Amendment. The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train = of=20 abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, = we=20 will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the = right=20 to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically= =20 violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and = overthrow=20 the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the=20 material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is = very=20 hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be = made,=20 therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and = bear=20 arms. In our time there have been many folks who don't like to be reminded of = all=20 this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the word = "people"=20 in the 2nd Amendment means something there that it doesn't mean in any one = of=20 the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say that, for some = odd=20 reason, the Founders had a lapse, and instead of putting in "states" they = put=20 in "people." And so it refers to a right inherent in the state government. This position is incoherent, and has been disproved by every piece of=20 legitimate historical evidence. At one point in Jefferson's letters, = for=20 example, he is talking about the militia, and he writes, "militia -- = every=20 able-bodied man in the state. ..." The militia was every able-bodied man = in=20 the state. It had nothing to do with the state government. The words=20 "well-regulated" had to do with organizing that militia and drilling it = in=20 the style of the 19th century, but "militia" itself referred to the=20 able-bodied citizens of the state or commonwealth -- not to the state=20 government. It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear = arms=20 to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is based, = as=20 stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, = can=20 become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend = ourselves=20 against its abuses. But the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to = our=20 capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part = of=20 the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are=20 capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper reason that = the=20 defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense of liberty. Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for = human=20 self-control, but this approach won't wash. It is the human moral will = that=20 saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons. We = should=20 reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause of violence. Consider, for example, the phony assertion that certain weapons should = be=20 banned because "they have no purpose except to kill people." It is = people=20 that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons to do so, = if=20 killing is in their hearts where love of justice should be. This week a=20 7-year old boy in Chicago apparently used a pair of underwear to commit=20 murder, because he wanted a bike. So let's get down to the real issue: are we moral adults, or are we = moral=20 children? If we are adults, then we have the capacity to control our = will=20 even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the exercise of = our=20 natural rights. If we are only children, then all the particularly = dangerous=20 toys must be controlled by the government. But this "solution" implies = that=20 we can trust government with a monopoly on guns, even though we cannot = trust=20 ourselves with them. This is not a "solution" I trust. Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that it = can=20 only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That's why I = don't=20 understand those who say "save us from guns," even while they cling to = the=20 coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth except what they=20 "choose" to assign to it. If we want to end violence in our land, we must warm the hearts of all=20 Americans with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all = human=20 beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of moral=20 responsibility and self-restraint -- of assuming responsibility for = governing=20 himself. This is the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and indeed of = the=20 entire American project of ordered liberty. It is the business of every citizen to preserve justice in his heart, and = the=20 material capacity, including arms, to resist tyranny. These things = constitute=20 our character as a free people, which it is our duty to maintain. And = to=20 fulfill our duty to be such a people we shall have to return to the = humble=20 subjection to the authority of true moral principle that characterized = our=20 Founders, and that characterized every generation of Americans, until now. = We=20 must regain control of ourselves. Most deeply, then, the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights is the = assertion=20 that we intend to control ourselves, and submit to the moral order that = God=20 has decreed must govern our lives. And just as we have no right to shirk = our=20 duty to submit to that moral order, so we have no right to shirk our duty = to=20 preserve unto ourselves the material means to discipline our government, = if=20 necessary, so that it remains a fit instrument for the self-government of = a=20 free people. The preservation of 2nd Amendment rights, for the right = reasons,=20 is a moral and public duty of every citizen. The Clinton Administration's flirtations with executive tyranny should = remind=20 us that we have a duty to remain capable of disciplining our government = if=20 necessary. Bill Clinton's comprehensive avoidance of personal responsibilit= y=20 for his own actions, and our revulsion at the kind of character which = that=20 avoidance has produced in him, should be a kind of horrific preview of = the=20 kind of people we will all become if we continue to let our government = treat=20 us as though we were incapable of moral self-control. And Senator = Smith's=20 successful effort to defeat several policies that treat us that way is=20 precisely the kind of principled defense of our liberty -- and of the=20 premises of our liberty -- that make him so worthy to be a representative = of=20 a free people.=20 --=_4D146F28.A5C4ABA1-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Rocky and Stuart Date: 28 Oct 1999 11:46:00 -0700 How do the positions of Rocky Anderson and Stuart Reid on guns compare? Is there any gun-related reason to prefer one over the other for Mayor of Salt Lake City? Rocky said he would buy back guns. What else do we know about these candidates? Scott - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Athay, Mark" Subject: RE: Rocky and Stuart Date: 28 Oct 1999 11:44:02 -0700 I used to live across the street from Stuart Reid. I've known him ever since he moved to Utah, and he's a very down to earth and likeable guy. Like they said in the paper, quiet and private, at least until you get to know him. It's appropriate that he's been working in the planning and zoning area, as when he was on the city council he was hassled by the zoning department when he wanted to build a gazebo in his back yard. They didn't know who he was, and when he was complaining about the hassles and the difficulties, the lady at the desk told him to go talk to his city councilman. He responded back with I AM the city councilman!" A pretty humorous thing, and now they use that example in their department training for all new hires. He wants that department to be more user-friendly, encouraging homeowners to work on their property to improve it and raise its value. Having served in the military I can't picture him as wanting to control guns. He's not a hunter now, but did hunt as a kid. I don't think he owns a gun, but he is practical about things in general. He's not known to have any extreme ideas, and had a good working relationship with the NAACP and the ACLU when he was in Public Relations for the LDS Church. They didn't always agree, but they understood and respected each other. If I lived in Salt Lake any more, I'd vote for Stuart for sure. Rocky just doesn't seem the trustworthy type to me. He's too extreme and liberal for my views. Mark R. Athay P.E. NTO Suite 330 (801) 220-2130 mark.athay@pacificorp.com mark.athay@ieee.org -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 12:46 PM How do the positions of Rocky Anderson and Stuart Reid on guns compare? Is there any gun-related reason to prefer one over the other for Mayor of Salt Lake City? Rocky said he would buy back guns. What else do we know about these candidates? Scott - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Another School Shooting ! Date: 28 Oct 1999 15:05:17 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from lists1.best.com ([206.86.8.15]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:50:49 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.ls) id NAA21538; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199910272006.NAA21538@lists1.best.com> BestServHost: lists.best.com Sender: fco-errors@lists.best.com Errors-To: fco-errors@lists.best.com Reply-To: chris@nealknox.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Oct. 27 update - There's been another school shooting -- this one in a middle school in totally gun-controlled totalitarian China. A teacher and six students were wounded according to an Associated Press story based on a report in the Beijing Youth Daily and other newspapers. The perpetrator was a drunk school guard armed with an illegal homemade hunting rifle belonging to a school official, who had loaned the gun and ammunition to the shooter. With rare exceptions, no one but police and military are allowed to have guns in China, and the exception guns are tightly regulated, registered and licensed. ------------- If President Clinton can't get a law he wants, he just signs an Executive Order -- and there have been statements from his staff that if Congress doesn't enact some of the laws he's been pushing,=20 including broader gun restrictions, he intends to issue a series of Executive Orders to implement them. Tomorrow the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commerce and Administrative Law will hold a hearing on Rep. Ron Paul's (R-Texas) H.R. 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. =20 It would put a knot in Presidential power to sign often-abused=20 Executive Orders, which Clinton reportedly has used more than any other President. Rep. Paul, who has been invited to testify, said "Presidents must be able to direct their employees, but this power must be=20 closely confined by the laws which they are constitutionally and legislatively empowered to execute." -------------- The New England Journal of Medicine, which supposedly has the very highest standards on research quality, has published reams of shoddy research in the firearms area. It also has extremely strict rules prohibiting conflicts of interest, such as by prohibiting researchers of new drugs from reporting on their own research if they have received any financial support from drug companies. But according to an article in the Los Angele Times, almost a fourth of recent articles on new drug therapies have been written by researchers with strong financial ties to the companies which make those drugs. Of course, those drug companies also are heavy advertisers. What the Journal refuses to recognize is that bias may be triggered by political ideology just as much by financial conflicts -- which is why the editors usually refuse to run any criticism, much less a detailed scholarly critique of the NEJM's anti-gun articles,=20 either by criminologists or firearms research experts such as Drs. Ed=20 Suter or Tim Wheeler. =20 -- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the = Firearms=20 Coalition Alerts list. To unsubscribe send mail to=20 fco-request@lists.best.com with the word "unsubscribe" in the body. Archives of these messages are stored at http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/. Copyright (c) 1999 Neal Knox Associates. All Rights Reserved. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #31 - 28 October 1999 1/2 Date: 29 Oct 1999 14:02:00 -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 http://www.slpsa.org/goutah! GOUtah! Alert #31 - 28 October 1999 Today's Voice of Liberty: "The war for freedom will never really be won, because the price of freedom is constant vigilance over ourselves and over our government." -- Eleanor Roosevelt If you wish to be added to the GOUtah! list, please log onto our website at http://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 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 Moving Again on Capitol Hill -- Gun shows still on the chopping block Received from Gun Owners of America. "House Republican leaders will press ahead with new gun restrictions despite a lack of cooperation from Democrats and resistance by Republican conservatives." -- The Washington Times, 10/13/99 (Wednesday, October 13, 1999) -- The battle lines are being drawn in the House and Senate, as negotiators soon plan to produce a "compromise" gun control bill. The new restrictions will be included as part of a much larger juvenile crime bill that was passed in each house earlier this year (S. 254 and H.R. 1501). The chief Republican negotiators, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, are hoping to bring up the anti-gun bill for a House-Senate conference vote as early as today. The bill would then move to the House and Senate floors. According to press reports and legislative aides, the provisions in the bill will limit the freedoms of decent Americans and will include, but not be limited to, the following controls: * A likely end to gun shows. The Senate version of the crime bill contained language allowing gun shows to be taxed without limits. And under the Senate version and an amendment adopted by the House, gun shows would be subject to draconian regulations and harassment-type inspections with no practical limitations. These are tools an anti-gun president could use to shut down gun shows nationwide. * A ban on the importation of high-capacity magazines-- items which are enormously useful for self-defense and some types of hunting. * A "gun tax" resulting from a requirement that forces every handgun buyer to also purchase a "lock-up your safety" device. In the House, Republican Reps. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and John Doolittle (R-CA) have led the opposition to the anti-gun provisions in the bill. In the Senate, Bob Smith of New Hampshire has promised to filibuster any "compromise" that contains one iota of gun control. Ironically, press reports indicate that the obsessively anti-gun senator from New York, Democrat Chuck Schumer, could join Smith in filibustering the bill. Many Democrats-- Schumer included-- are likely to balk at any bill that does not contain all of the gun control that passed the Senate in May. ACTION: Make sure your Representative and Senators have heard your opposition to the juvenile crime bill. They could be voting soon on the final version that emerges from the conference committee. You can call toll-free at 1-888-449-3511; or 202-225-3121. See the GOA (or GOUTAH!) website for fax and e-mail contact information. How You Can Fight Back Against the UPS Handgun "Tax" Received from Gun Owners of America (Friday, October 15, 1999) -- By now, you have no doubt heard that UPS has stopped shipping handguns through its cheaper "ground service." The decision has sent shock waves through a gun industry that is already under fire from many cities that have launched frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to put them out of business. "We're trying to protect ourselves from employees stealing and criminals stealing," said a spokesman from the company. However, UPS is continuing to ship long guns, rifles and shotguns by ground. For years, UPS has handled up to 75% of guns sent from manufacturers to distributors and nearly all firearms shipped from distributors to dealers, says the executive director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute. The new decision by UPS certainly comes at a bad time, as the Christmas season looms just around the corner. Removing the ground service alternative for handguns will clearly raise the cost of those firearms and could amount to a "tax" of something like $30 for each handgun. While there were some early reports that a competitor such as RPS might fill the vacuum left by UPS, that option did not materialize. In fact, RPS instead announced they will no longer ship handguns by ground. Adding insult to injury, Airborne Express joined the mayhem by announcing it will no longer ship any firearms-- period. Speculation abounds as to the real motives behind the recent actions taken by UPS, RPS and Airborne Express. Some contend there is a clear anti-gun bias working here, and the intent is to increase the cost of handguns to consumers. Others, especially those in the mail industry, contend that they are subject to increased liability, and must somehow reduce the number of workers who handle the firearms in transit. While it is certainly possible that some truth exists on both sides, one thing is for sure: anti-gun politicians have launched a campaign to demonize anyone who touches a firearm-- specifically, anyone responsible for making guns or delivering them to the dealers who sell them to the public. As of this week, 28 cities and counties had unsheathed their litigious swords against the firearms industry. Even if the manufacturers and dealers win in court, simply financing their defense will greatly increase their cost of doing business. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #31 - 28 October 1999 2/2 Date: 29 Oct 1999 14:02:00 -0700 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] And that's the point. It does not matter that these suits have been almost universally unsuccessful. This month, judges in Cincinnati and Baltimore became the most recent magistrates to throw out such frivolous cases. Nevertheless, the other lawsuits continue, financed by public tax dollars. And there's no guarantee that mail carriers will remain exempted from future lawsuits. Several states have passed legislation that in one form or another will prevent or discourage cities from suing gun makers and sellers. But the lawsuits continue anyway; and will eventually cripple the gun industry if left unchecked. Thankfully, three Congressmen have introduced bills to put a stop to this (see item #1 below). HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO: 1. Help save those who manufacture or deliver 2nd Amendment-type products. It is imperative that you urge your Congressmen to act now. Ask your Representative and Senators to cosponsor the bills listed below, as they would stop these frivolous lawsuits that are merely designed to punish law-abiding businesses. Call 202-225-3121 (see GOA website for fax and e-mail info) to support: * S. 954 by Sen. Bob Smith (I-NH), a bill which currently has 1 cosponsor; * H.R. 1577 by Rep. John Hostettler(R-IN), a bill which currently has 20 cosponsors; * H.R. 1032 by Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), a bill which currently has 89 cosponsors. 2. Contact UPS. The UPS decision is almost guaranteed to deliver handgun buyers a new "tax." But as NRA Director Neal Knox put it on Wednesday: "It's going to be mighty difficult to mount an effective boycott if all the carriers are doing it." However, that doesn't mean we can't vent our displeasure with their management. Please look at the contact information below and direct your comments to one or more of the outlets provided. By the way, you can offer them a positive suggestion as well. UPS has attributed its theft problem to the smaller size of the handgun box that can be easily secreted under an employee's clothing. Since UPS is still shipping long guns at the cheaper price, why not ask them to simply change the requirement for the minimum box size rather than commit highway robbery against gun owners shipping handguns? 3. Consider alternatives. Writing for World Net Daily, Tanya Metaksa gives an interesting alternative from Jason Young, account representative of The Service Source. Young says that his company has negotiated "aggressive shipping rates" and is willing to work with handgun shippers. Young can be reached at 1-877-843-7687; jyoung@theservicesource.com is his e-mail address. It is also worth noting that dealers can ship handguns to fellow dealers through the US Postal Service using the ground service rate. Contact Information for UPS* UPS Corporate Headquarters United Parcel Service of America, Inc. 55 Glenlake Parkway, NE Atlanta, GA 30328 Customer Service: 1-800-833-0056 E-mail: customer.service@ups.com National Media Relations - Norman Black Voice: 404-828-7593 Pager: 888-856-8816 E-mail: norman.black@ups.com Reputation Management - Peggy Gardner Voice: 404-828-6051 E-mail: pgardner@ups.com Executive Communications - Steve Soltis Voice: 404-828-4029 E-mail: ssoltis@ups.com Public Affairs - Tad Segal Voice: 202-675-3381 E-mail: tsegal@corpmail.ups.com * Our thanks to Chris Stark of the Gun Owners Alliance for providing this contact information for UPS. GOUtah! Working to Help Establish Utah CCW Instructors Network. GOUtah! and CCW instructor Clark Aposhian are working together to establish a Utah CCW instructor network, to share information, improve the quality and availability of CCW instruction, and advocate for the needs and interests of Utah's CCW instructors and applicants. The network will seek to be an inclusive rather than exclusive group, and will work toward maintaining the current training requirements for CCW applicants, rather than increasing requirements or creating additional requirements for a Utah CCW permit. If you are a Utah CCW instructor and are interested in learning more about this instructors network, contact GOUtah! at GOUtah3006@aol.com or fax to (801) 944-9937. Please provide your name, mailing address, day and evening phone numbers, fax numbers and email address, and indicate CCW Instructor's Group in your request. Mr. Aposhian will be in touch with you shortly to bring you into the organization. GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) QuoteWatch. "To say I can make school a safer place by having a gun is absolutely repugnant to every teacher in this state.""-- Phyllis Sorensen, President, Utah Education Association, the state's largest teacher's labor union, supporting the anti-gun initiative petition of the UEA, PTA and others, from the Salt Lake Tribune, 28 Sept. 1999. "It's going to be interesting as they go out and talk to people outside their own ilk. The issue is not guns, it's control. These individuals are control freaks."-- Rob Bishop, Registered Lobbyist for the Utah Shooting Sports Council, discussing the anti-gun initiative petition, as quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune, 28 Sept. 1999. "If a criminal breaks into a school, how are we going to protect the children?"-- Janalee Tobias, founder of Women Against Gun Control, discussing the anti-gun initiative petition, as quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune, 28 Sept. 1999. If you have a gun rights quote you'd like to share, please send it, along with a verifiable original source reference to GOUtah! This concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #31 - 28 October 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: Metaska: Election loser: more gun control Date: 29 Oct 1999 22:24:00 -0700 Election loser: more gun control by Tanya Metaska On Saturday, Oct. 24, Louisiana Gov. Mike Foster, a strong supporter of right to carry firearms legislation, was reelected with 60% of the vote, even though media pundits tried to make him look vulnerable. And in less than a week, voters in the states of Virginia, Kentucky, New Jersey, as well as countless towns and cities will go to the polls to elect state legislators, mayors, school board members, and other local officials. But you would hardly know it by reading the major newspapers or watching the evening news. The nation's press is already singularly focused on Election Day 2000. The politics of next year's presidential election assaults us by way of the evening news on television and the hourly news on the radio. It can also be found almost daily on the front pages of every major newspaper. The announced candidates, the would-be candidates, and the fallen candidates are scrutinized, dissected, and demonized hourly. They are hounded with the same line of questioning over and over again. That kind of relentless questioning backfired on NBC sports announcer Jim Gray. In a Sunday evening interview with Pete Rose -- the aggressive Cincinnati Reds player/coach who has been banned from baseball for gambling on the sport -- Jim Gray repeatedly asked Rose in a very aggressive manner about his gambling. The NBC switchboard, their website, and even MasterCard, the sponsor of the event, was overwhelmed by negative reactions to Gray's interview. At first Gray was quoted as saying, "I'm not sorry for it, and I don't apologize for it." As a result the entire Yankee team even went so far as to boycott any interviews with Gray. Tuesday night's homerun hero, Chad Curtis, refused to talk to Gray after he won the ball game. Bowing to tremendous pressure from fans all over America, Gray was forced to apologize on air. It seems NBC sports has discovered that American baseball fans do not like "in your face" nasty interviews. The same relentless bashing seems to be backfiring on the issue of gun control as well. The major media keeps using every conceivable angle to push for more and more gun control. A cursory examination of newspapers across America shows that in the month of October the Editorial commentary is slanted by a ratio of 9-1 in favor of expanding gun laws. Yet, the Oct. 24 Greensboro News and Record published an article by H. Sterling Burnett entitled, "Will gun control be a vital issue in next year's presidential elections? Issue won't be a priority." Mr. Burnett's premise is that gun control may be an issue in congressional contests, but will not really affect the presidential race. He states that over the decade of the '90s those Americans favoring more gun control have dropped from 78% to 62%. He goes on to state, "Polls also show that gun control is not among the top five issues for probable voters in the presidential elections and that only 15% of Americans vote for candidates primarily based on their views on guns. Indeed, after the tragic school shootings in Colorado and Georgia, the number of people who said they would not consider gun control a major issue when voting actually increased from 19% to 21%!" Burnett gives further credibility to the argument that the gun control issue favors those candidates that oppose further restrictions on the individual right to own firearms, by citing the primary race in the Democratic Party for the 42nd California congressional district. In this race Marta Brown, the widow of the longest-serving member in Congress, was defeated by California State Senator Joe Baca. Marta Brown's defeat broke the string of 35 consecutive congressional elections where widows succeeded their husbands. Although she had more money, the backing of the White House, and the support of the California Democratic party, Joe Baca won as a result of the strong support of gun owners and NRA members in his district. Mrs. Brown's tactic of sending out mailers and press releases attacking Baca as the "radical gun lobby's favorite candidate" obviously backfired. In the days before the primary the national media referred to this race as a referendum on gun control -- a tactic similar to their characterization of the 1997 gun prohibition referendum in Washington State. In both cases the gun prohibitionists lost and the national media's silence was deafening. As Mr. Burnett so aptly puts it, "If, as the national press claimed, Brown's race was a referendum on gun control, then gun control lost." The same can also be said for the September election in Australia, a country in which almost all private ownership of firearms has been banned. In the first election since the Australian gun ban, the Liberal National Coalition, who strongly supported and promoted the "gun grab," lost its 20-seat majority in the state of Victoria. They primarily lost support in rural and semi-rural areas where the majority of gun owners reside. Yet the media ignored those facts. When those candidates who have supported the rights of law-abiding gun owners are re-elected on Nov. 3, the gun control issue will never be cited as the reason for their election. The media only mentions gun control when a candidate who supports their point of view is elected. What they fail to understand is that most Americans believe in fairness and are turned off by the establishment media who keep trying to make the dead horse of more gun control an election issue. Tanya K. Metaksa is the former executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action. She is the author of "Safe, Not Sorry," a self-protection manual, published in 1997. She has appeared on numerous talk and interview shows such as "Crossfire," the "Today" show, "Nightline," "This Week with David Brinkley" and the "McNeil-Lehrer Hour," among others. 1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: DN: Disarming citizens leaves them alarmingly defenseless Date: 31 Oct 1999 12:11:00 -0700 http://www.desnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,125011859,00.html Deseret News, Sunday, October 31, 1999, 12:00 AM MDT Disarming citizens leaves them alarmingly defenseless By Terry L. Thompson Utah has seen a dramatic increase in legislation regarding the 2002 Winter Olympics. It seems that anyone with a particular interest has found some way to intertwine that interest with the pending Olympics in hopes that the Winter Games will propel his or her agenda to a desired conclusion. Certainly this has been the case with attempts to restrict Utah's law-abiding citizens from possession of adequate means of self- preservation. We have seen misguided, misled, uneducated, political and/or politically appointed pundits support restrictive gun-control legislation attacking the very citizens that they purport to protect. A prime example is the attempt to restrict lawful citizens carrying concealed weapons into churches or schools. There have been no incidents of lawful, permit-carrying citizens creating a threat to our children. However, politically motivated individuals and groups have adopted a popular lie which befits their socialist agenda. In a nutshell, disarming "common people" creates a massive dependence on a gloating government. The more dependence on government, the bigger the bureaucracy, the more powerful, the more expansive, the more corrupt, the more oppressive. The individual right to self-preservation is eloquently protected in the Second Amendment to the Constitution and is recognized as a basic God-given right. This is as basic as the need for food, water, shelter or clothing. What must be understood is that the Constitution did not give us this right, it was recognized by our Founding Fathers as an inalienable right God-given to every man. Politicians at all levels, law enforcement administrators, academia and popular groups in society have falsely claimed that their interest in gun control is for the common good. Yet their banner is stained with the blood of countless victims paying the price for their passive nonjustice of societies' real criminals. The common thread is to find blame with society, relinquishing personal responsibility for the pain and suffering caused by predatory criminals. But look out! Law-abiding citizens who wish to prepare to protect themselves or their loved ones from the criminals that liberals coddle and condone are hazardous to society. The height of arrogance is to restrict our ability to protect ourselves and those we dearly care for, knowing that our protection cannot be guaranteed. In a free society, individuals must be allowed the option of "free agency." Otherwise it is not a free society. There always has been and always will be those who choose to abuse their free agency. With that choice is an intent to cause pain, suffering and sorrow for victims of the abuser. We have reasonable laws governing this abuse, and those violating the law must be held personally accountable for their actions. This is reasonable and sensible. It's pathetic and embarrassing to realize that we fall so short of applying proper justice in our criminal nonjustice system. We fail to apply punishment to the very criminals that we create laws to effect and in turn attack law abiding citizens. Politicians have the gall to suggest that lawful citizens carrying concealed weapons are the problem. Here is a clue for evaluating your representatives. When they support legislation aimed at disarming law-abiding citizens, they have discarded prior existing values and have been seduced by corruption in the political system. Their continued time in political office will contribute to the benefit of criminals and serve to decay our precious constitutional protections. With the "politically correct" pressure on our legislators, it is time that law enforcement spoke up. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and blindly hope that our representatives do the right thing. It is time to lend our support not only as law-abiding citizens but as a group of law-enforcement professionals. The vast majority of law enforcement realizes that they cannot guarantee individual safety and therefore fully support the ownership, possession and concealed carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens. Law enforcement: Please take it upon yourself to personally let your representatives know that as a law-enforcement professional, you oppose gun-control laws in all of their sheep wool and clever disguises. Criminal control should be a priority, and we support legislation holding criminals personally responsible for their actions. Law enforcement: It is time to take a public stance against pending legislation. This is increasingly critical, as other organizations are pressuring Utah legislators to enact meaningless restrictions that only affect you. Don't forget, you are a law-abiding citizen first and a law-enforcement professional second. Our state representatives need to know that law enforcement is supporting them. Thus far, the majority of our legislators have shown incredible courage in the fight against socialism. Let's help them as they prepare to do the right thing for the political battles of the future. Terry L. Thompson, a sergeant in the Weber County Sheriff's Office, has worked in law enforcement for 12 years. He serves on the board of directors of the Utah Peace Officers Association http://www.upoa.org. Thompson's opinion is his own and does not necessarily reflect the position of the Weber County Sheriff's Office. Copyright 1999, Deseret News Publishing Corp. -