From: "Karl Pearson" Subject: PoliHumor: How to be a good Democrat Date: 05 Jul 2000 15:33:00 -0600 I hope not to get flamed for posting an off topic email, and please don't respond to the list regarding the following post. Thanks, KLP How to be a good Democrat 1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding. 2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about morals and sex. 3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology, in the hands of Chinese communists. 4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding. 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs. 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural. 7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand. 8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity. 9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who've never been outside of Seattle do. 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it. 11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars. 12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution. 13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high. 14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison. 15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't. 16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady. 17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge. 18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a sex offender who lies belongs in the White House. 19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal. 20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: URGENT Hostettler Pushing BATF Amendment Date: 07 Jul 2000 10:40:52 -0600 ----- Thursday, July 06, 2000 9:38 PM July 6 Neal Knox Report -- Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) is talking to members of the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee about preventing BATF from being involved in enforcing the Smith & Wesson/Clinton Administration agreement. The subcommittee hasn't yet completed action on the Treasury Appropriations bill, and will probably hold a committee markup next week, "as soon as Congress gets back." On April 7 Rep. Hostettler and 61 other Congressmen wrote Subcommittee Chairman Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) asking that the committee prevent BATF from participating in the "Oversight Commission" created by the S&W agreement. Similar restrictions, offered as amendments to the Justice Department and Housing Urban Development funding bills, failed last month, but would probably survive attacks by the gun control crowd if incorporated in the committee bill. NRA hasn't supported the earlier Hostettler amendments arguing they wouldn't apply to later agreements with other manufacturers. Rep. Hostettler submitted NRA's broader language to the House parliamentarian, who said it would be out of order because it would be legislating on an appropriations bill, which is forbidden by House rules. However, broader language might be possible if proposed in the subcommittee bill, though that might require approval of the Rules Committee. The House sometimes winks at the rule against legislating on appropriations bills, but not when the Speaker opposes an amendment. The Wall Street Journal has reported NRA has left Hostettler to fight alone in deference to Speaker Hastert, who doesn't want any hard gun votes. Other Treasury, Postal Appropriations Subcommittee members are Republicans Frank Wolfe (Va.), Anne Northrup (Ky.), Jo Anne Emerson (Mo.), John Sununu (N.H.) and John Peterson (Pa.). Democrats are Steny Hoyer (Md.), Carrie Meek (Fla.), David Price (N.C.) and Lucille Roybal-Allard (Calif.). Gun rights stalwart Virgil Goode (Va.), an Independent, is also a member and a signer of the letter to Chairman Kolbe. ***************************************** Editor's Note by Weldon Clark – You need to contact your Congressman NOW. You can call your Representative at (202) 225-3121 and your two Senators at (202) 224-3121 at the Capitol Switchboard. Here is the URL for Congressional Telephone Directory: http://clerkweb.house.gov/106/mbrcmtee/members/teledir/members/cdframe.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 Write your CONGRESSMAN OR STATE LEGISLATORS can now be accomplished at the speed of light, thanks to WorldNetDaily's new Legislative Action Center. http://congress.nw.dc.us/wnd/ ***************************** To begin receiving Neal Knox's bi-monthly newsletter, send a contribution of $25 or more to The Firearms Coalition, 7771 Sudley Rd. No. 44, Manassas, VA 20109. For current news, call 1-900-225-3006 (89 cents per minute) or visit http://www.NealKnox.com (free). ************************************************************ What To Do If The Police Come To Confiscate Your Militia Weapons see http://www.2ndamendment.net For legislative updates contact www.nealknox.com and go to "Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line" *************************************************** from The 2ndAmendmentNews Team If you received this as a forward and wish to join please send: E-Mail to listserver@frostbit.com with the following text in the message body: SUBSCRIBE 2nd-Amendment-News Feel free to forward our alerts. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: "Patriot" for 10-year olds Date: 11 Jul 2000 14:33:51 -0600 Edited for legibility ----- Someone on an email list for antique firearms posed a question about the suitability of "The Patriot" for viewing by his 10-year old son. Of course the answers were all positive, with most suggesting he might go see it himself first, and then decide for sure. Apparently, someone forwarded his question to Vin Suprynowicz. Here's Vin's response. Jim H =================================================== Vin Suprynowicz comments: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > ikipniss wrote: >> My ten year old son would like to see the movie... He enjoys history >> and historical fiction. >> He is standing here as I type, because I don't believe it is >> appropriate to let a ten year old see an R rated movie. >> I would Love to take him but feel it is my duty to raise him properly, >> and just because his friends are able to see doesn't mean it is >> appropriate for his age group. >> What are the opinions of you guys/gals who have seen it already.... >> would you let your ten year old see this movie. >> Thanks for your guidance >> Ivan Hi -- The more substantive response to ikipniss (if you'd be willing to forward this -- you didn't include his address) would be to point out that the film rating board ADMITS the only reason they rated this film "R" was because a 10-year-old boy is shown being instructed by his father to shoot and kill British officers. The film has no frontal nudity or sex scenes or foul talk or any of the stuff one might SUSPECT would be indicated by an "R" rating ... some of which stuff actually shows up pretty regularly in PG films, these days. Yes, there are a few "bloody" or "gory" combat scenes, but the camera doesn't zoom in or linger long on any such images -- in fact, combat here doesn't look nearly as realistically gruesome as in the first half-hour of "Saving Private Ryan." (One critic complained that, in a crucial scene, Gibson gratuitously goes to work with a hatchet on a "British soldier who was already dead." I reply: 1) Gibson's Benjamin Martin had channeled his anger into direct, purposeful action after seeing one of his own sons killed only a short time before -- I think his character showed admirable restraint, and this kind of letting-out of his anger was very understandable and in character, while the critic shows an inexperienced person's common foolish misunderstanding that someone in an adrenaline rush, fighting for his life, is likely to be able to determine and use "only the measured amount of force necessary"; 2) the camera never points down to show the body of the British soldier sustaining the hatchet wounds; it's always discreetly off camera to spare us the real gore; 3) the critic is nuts, and demonstrates that his knowledge of life-and-death situations most likely comes from watching Hopalong Cassidy, the Cisco Kid, or the Lone Ranger. If you throw a hatchet at a fleeing soldier and it sticks in a man's shoulder muscles and he falls down, you'd BETTER not assume he's "already dead;" you'd BETTER run up and follow through with some really mortal blows, or that guy is going to sit up, point his flintlock or his belt pistol at you, and show you just how "dead" he really is.) Obviously, each parent has to make a case-by-case judgment for each kid. But I thought the "R' rating was very bizarre. Who is MORE open to (and also in need of) an understanding of what our ancestors sacrificed -- what patriotism really means -- than young teens, most of whom are about to be subjected to four to six years of relentless feminist, pacifist, socialist propaganda and chemical castration in the government high schools? -- V. p.s. -- After the movie, of course, everyone in the family WILL want to go out and buy a flintlock. I don't happen to think this is a bad thing, either. 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 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FEWER GUNS = MORE CRIME Date: 11 Jul 2000 18:20:22 -0600 Attempts at victim disarmament indicate enmity of the public servants towards the Citizenry. Respect and encourage the right of the People to keep and bear arms to prevent handgun violence. Scott Vanguard of the Revolution http://www.theVanguard.org FEWER GUNS = MORE CRIME by Rod D. Martin, 11 July 2000 Four years into the British and Australian gun bans, the verdict on gun control is in: disaster. Those who argue for the right of self-defense have always said that banning guns would disarm the law-abiding while encouraging the criminals. Yet even by the standards of most pro-gun arguments, the actual results of total gun control have been startling, leaving anti-gunners and government officials at a loss to explain the debacle. Take Australia. Just over one year ago, the Australian government spent more than $500 million to confiscate 640,381 privately-owned firearms, even using deadly force. This followed a partial ban of over 60 percent of the countryıs private weapons in 1996. The promise: a dramatic reduction in crime, in exchange for the right of common citizens to defend themselves. The results: utter mayhem, showing yet again that, as in most things, government cannot take care of you as well as you can. In the first year of the ban, Australian homicides increased 3.2 percent, and in the state of Victoria, gun homicides shot up 300 percent. Assaults increased 8.6 percent. Armed robberies rose a whopping 44 percent, after having dropped for 25 straight years before the ban. Since then, homicides have jumped 29 percent, kidnappings have risen 38 percent, assaults have increased 17 percent, and armed robberies have skyrocketed an additional 73 percent. In Australia today, police can go house to house, enter your home without a warrant, search for guns, copy your hard drive, seize your records, and take you to jail. What they cannot do is protect you. Itıs worse in Britain, where virtually all guns were banned in 1996 following the Dunblane massacre. Americans tend to believe Britain a peaceful place with little crime. Post-confiscation, quite the opposite proves true: the crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher than in the United States. Indeed, it is higher than in every one of the 50 states. As in Australia, British police are incapable of stopping this growing anarchy. Despite having more policemen per capita than the U.S., despite installing more electronic surveillance equipment than any other Western country, robbery and sex crimes have shot ahead of U.S. numbers, property crime is now twice as high, and assaults and muggings are now between twice and three times as high as in America. Perhaps the most telling statistic is the "hot burglary" rate; i.e., those burglaries which are committed while the homeowner is present. In the United States, these burglaries account for just over 10 percent of the total: criminals fear getting shot. In post-gun-ban Britain, however, "hot burglaries" account for more than half of the total, meaning that vastly more Britons face an armed intruder each year, with absolutely no way to defend themselves either from the burglary itself or from whatever other assaults, rapes or murders the criminal may choose to commit. The contrast between this horror story and the American experience is vast. The U.S. crime rate has fallen precipitously throughout the 1990s, largely driven downward by those states which have enacted concealed-carry laws. And in fact, gun ownership has been shown in survey after survey to be one of the single most important factors in preventing violent crime. Of particular note, Janet Renoıs Department of Justice commissioned a survey in 1994 by the openly anti-gun Police Foundation. That exhaustive study, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," was completed in 1997, and its conclusion was clear: "Guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime." In the year studied, 1.5 million Americans used guns to defend their homes, families or property. In the words of the study, literally "millions of attempted assaults, thefts and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the 12-month period." And as the study itself admits, its conclusions are "directly comparable" to other similar studies: the Police Foundation's work was the fifteenth national survey to reach this same conclusion in the past twenty-two years, every one of them having found results in the same range. The common sense of gun ownership is inescapable: a family, or a single mother, alone at home, facing an armed intruder in the middle of the night, does not have time to call 911. By the time the police arrive, no matter how competent they are, no matter how quickly they respond, she and her children will be dead. It's that simple. She can defend herself and her children, or she can face her merciless predator, alone. The fact is simple: guns save lives. Lots of lives. Every day. Criminals would far rather prey on the weak than on someone who can fight back. Private gun ownership means people can help protect their families and keep the peace; it also makes certain that crime does not pay. And if you donıt believe it, just visit our British and Australian cousins. Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 11 July 2000. -- Rod D. Martin is National Chairman of The Vanguard, an organization dedicated to the promotion of conservative causes. He is a Fellow of the Kuyper Institute for Political Studies, an elder of Covenant Baptist Church, and an attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Doctors promoting the anti-gun agenda? Date: 12 Jul 2000 14:20:46 -0600 My apologies to any who regularly read Dear Abbey and have already read this article from today's Deseret News. But for those who don't, there is a tid-bit of information in this one that is worth seeing. For the last couple of years I've seen varous internet/email reports warning that medical groups were pushing for doctors to begin including ownership/use of guns in their questions about family medical history and offering advice against the private ownership of guns--especially in homes with children. The last sentence of this letter would seem to confirm that this is actually happening, at least in some places. In a letter encouraging a parent to take her teenage daughter, who has a mustache, to the doctor to rule out serious medical problems that may cause excess body hair, an MD writes (emphasis added): "The visit also gives the pediatricians (or family practioners) an opportunity to touch base with a population notorious for avoiding doctors -- adolescents. Not only are they underimmunized, they are also the group most in need of anticipatory guidance on issues such as abstinence, safe sex, birth control, STDs, drugs, alcohol, smoking, __GUNS__, nutrition, school perfomance, sports, and safe driving." Complete letter online at . ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Crime in Britian Date: 13 Jul 2000 11:14:40 -0600 Holy smokes Batman, looks like the night janitor took some time and wrote the lead editorial in today's SLTrib. Heaven knows the usual bunch of editorialists isn't responsible for this one. :) While it would be a bit of stretch to call this a pro-gun piece, at least it looks to be factually accurate and ackowledges that the lack of private guns and the resulting inability to put up a fight is a contributing factor in home invasions in England. On the web at Apologies to any who have already read this, but it is too good to not pass along for any who don't regularly read the editorial page of the SLTrib. Crime in Britain When CBS newsman Dan Rather recently reported that Britain is "one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world," the British uprose in vociferous wrath, to borrow a Churchillian phrase. Well they should. Not because Rather is wrong, not because for years the British have liked to imagine the United States to be much more violent and crime-ridden than their own society, but because violent crime is rising in Britain. For many years, Americans and the British have basked in the firm belief that crime is a definite problem in the United States while Britain is peaceful and relatively crime-free. Popular thinking has attributed this difference to the fact that the American citizenry can own firearms, while in Britain this prerogative is severely restricted. It is illegal for a private person to own a handgun in Britain. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned. All legal firearms sales must be registered with the police. Private possession of rifles and shotguns is strictly regulated, and usually is permitted only in conjunction with membership in a government-approved shooting club. No doubt, part of the British reaction to the CBS report is due to the fact that it is inimical to this long-held notion that firearms restrictions prevent violent crime. The fact is, crime is rising in Britain and some of it is quite violent. Home invasion robberies, for instance, are on the rise in Britain. This is due to a variety of factors, chiefly that the pickings are easy and residents tend to lack the means and will to put up much of a fight. One recently did, a farmer in Norfolk who killed an assailant who forcibly entered his home. The government's reaction was to jail him. Such action does not encourage others to defend themselves against intruders. Instead of whining about the effrontery of CBS for suggesting that Britain is not as peaceful and glorious as a Georgian evening on the Thames in the royal barge with Handel in charge of the music, the British should be more worried about finding solutions to their own crime problems. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Appeals Court Rules FBI Can Keep Gun Records Date: 14 Jul 2000 10:10:26 -0600 ----- Like I'm really surprised. Appeals Court Rules FBI Can Keep Gun Records http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26048-2000Jul12.html Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 12, 2000; Page A21 A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the FBI can hold on to gun purchase records for six months to ensure that a federal computer system that conducts millions of instant criminal background checks is working properly. The 2 to 1 ruling was a defeat for the National Rifle Association, which argued that the practice amounted to an "illegal national registration of gun owners." The NRA contended that the law requires the FBI to destroy records of approved purchases immediately. The instant background checks of potential gun purchasers began in November 1998, fulfilling requirements under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and putting an end to checks conducted under a five-day federal waiting period. Gun dealers are required to submit information about prospective buyers to the computer system in an effort to prevent sales to convicted felons, fugitives and other disqualified buyers. The information includes the customer's name, sex, race, date of birth and state of residence. The computer is supposed to immediately generate a response for gun dealers that approves, rejects or postpones the sale for further investigation. Since the system was put into place, roughly 14 million checks have been performed, Justice Department officials said. About 280,000 purchases have been rejected. The NRA filed suit to challenge a Justice Department regulation that allows the FBI to keep all purchase records for six months for auditing purposes only. The Justice Department contended that it needs the time to spot-check results for quality control, ensure that gun buyers and dealers are not using false identities or other means to thwart the system and determine that the huge database is not being used by anyone to gain confidential information for unauthorized purposes. While the NRA did not object to preserving--indefinitely--the records of buyers who are rejected, it argued that the FBI was required to immediately destroy personal data about those who were approved. The NRA's lawyers pointed to language in the Brady law that called for officials to "destroy" records of approved transactions. The law also warned against using the checks "to establish any system for the registration of firearms." U.S. District Judge James Robertson dismissed the NRA's lawsuit last year, concluding that the Justice Department acted reasonably in establishing auditing standards. The NRA asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Robertson's ruling. Appellate Judges David S. Tatel and Merrick B. Garland, both Clinton appointees, rejected the NRA's argument. David B. Sentelle, a Reagan appointee, dissented. Tatel wrote that the "audit log" is not a firearms registry. The Brady law contained no timetable for purging records, he said, adding that common sense indicates that Congress wanted to ensure that the system functions properly. Sentelle wrote that the law's instruction to destroy records meant exactly that, prohibiting even temporary preservation. The NRA was among the strongest supporters of instant background checks. James Baker, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said the organization may seek further appellate review. "When you have words in the law like 'destroy,' 'don't record' and 'no system of registration,' it seems fairly obvious to us," Baker said. Attorney General Janet Reno called the ruling "a win for the safety of all Americans," saying it "will allow us to continue to conduct audits that protect individual privacy, ensure system accuracy and deter fraud by corrupt gun dealers." İ 2000 The Washington Post Company [Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed By The Sender - A.K. Pritchard] A.K. Pritchard http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/ http://rosie.acmecity.com/songfest/189/ To subscribe to "The Republican" email list - just ask! therepublican@ideasign.com "Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it. Patrick Henry - Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death March 23, 1775 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Federal judges created unequal? Date: 17 Jul 2000 15:22:56 -0600 Excerpted Cato Daily Dispatch July 17, 2000 http://www.cato.org/ http://www.cato.org/dispatch/07-17-00d.html WHAT'S GOOD FOR JUDGES IS GOOD FOR ALL AMERICANS Washington Post columnist Al Kamen writes today about a proposal to allow federal judges to carry concealed weapons nationwide, regardless of state laws. The plan is part of the Federal Courts Improvement Act which passed the House recently on a voice vote. http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54652-2000Jul16.html The idea was pushed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the policymaking body of the federal judiciary and would allow about 2,000 federal judges and magistrates to conceal and carry any type of gun they wished. The conference states the law is needed because three federal judges have been killed this century. "[I]f a judge is in danger, the fact that he or she is in one state or the other does not eliminate the danger," said Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger, a supporter of the bill. Congress may also decide that what is true for federal judges is true for the population at large. In "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun," http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html an analysis of a 1987 Florida law that allowed citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, Jeffrey R. Snyder found that there was a decrease in violent crime, not the increase many people had predicted. Recently, the Cato Institute hosted the book forum featuring legal scholar John R. Lott, Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime." His updated book presents the most comprehensive analysis ever done on crime statistics and the right-to-carry laws. Video of the forum is available on the Cato Web site. http://www.cato.org/events/000616bf.html To unsubscribe or change your e-mail address, visit http://www.free-market.net/partners/c/cato.html#dailydispatch - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Waldron Subject: SAF SUES OHIO AG AND OTHERS OVER CONCEALED CARRY Date: 17 Jul 2000 17:56:13 -0700 Ohio Gun Law Challenged in Court - Hearing Tuesday CINCINNATI, OHIO (Monday, July 17, 2000) - The Second Amendment Foundation, along with Ohio citizens, filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the law prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. The suit alleges that current law violates numerous federal and state constitutional protections. "It is blatantly unfair to have a law where nobody knows whether he or she is complying with the law, or in violation of the law," stated Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder. "There are no standards, guidelines or common sense under the current statute." The legal action specifically seeks to prevent enforcement of R.C. 2923.12 until a court reviews whether it is constitutional. The complaint calls the current scheme a violation of both the U.S. Constitution (Second Amendment [keep & bear arms], Ninth Amendment [self-defense], and Fourteenth Amendment [Equal Protection, Incorporation of Bill of Rights to the States]) as well as the Ohio Constitution, which reads: Article 1, Section 1: All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety. Article 1, Section 4: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. The Ohio law in question, R.C. 2923.12, bans all concealed carry of firearms with felony penalties for any violations. It is only after a person caught carrying a concealed firearm is incurring the costs and stresses of a criminal trial that the current law allows the possibility of an "affirmative defense" to be made. Such an unjust system must be replaced with reasonable and prudent legislation. In a recent case against a pizza delivery driver, both the prosecutor and the judge stated that the law should be changed or repealed. The defendant was Pat Feely, who was known to carry large sums of cash in bad neighborhoods as part of his employment. He was acquitted at trial, but could face the same charges if found carrying a concealed firearm again. The threat and costs of repeated prosecutions is another reason for declaring the current law unconstitutional. "Even after a defendant wins his or her case based on 'affirmative defense' showing need for carrying a firearm concealed, this does not prohibit dragging the same person into a courtroom again for the very same charge," warned Timothy A. Smith, attorney for Mr. Feely and lead counsel for the pending legal action. "Such unfairness motivated Mr. Feely's employer, James H. Cohen, to step forward as one of the plaintiffs seeking relief from courts against the current law." In addition to SAF and Mr. Cohen, the other plaintiffs include Chuck Klein, Vernon Ferrier and Lea Anne Driscoll. A hearing will take place at 10:00 AM in the Judge Robert Ruehlman's Courtroom this Tuesday, July 18, 2000 with a ruling on the restraining order expected at the end of the hearing. A full hearing on the constitutionality of the law is expected in August 2000. Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate and its consequences. SAF previously has funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners. Current projects include a damage action lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers, an amicus brief in support of the Emerson case holding that the Second Amendment is an individual right and a lawsuit against the Clinton gun and magazine ban. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Live like sheep, die like cows. Date: 17 Jul 2000 21:33:55 -0600 Dave Hansen elaborates: ----- Excerpt: "[I]f a judge is in danger, the fact that he or she is in one state or the other does not eliminate the danger," said Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger, a supporter of the bill. Well, duh! Of course "some are more equal than others", and this clearly seems to apply to Federal judges. Read below also about the Siren Song of the Anti-gunners. Or, "How to live like sheep and die like cows." Dave Cato Daily Dispatch July 17, 2000 http://www.cato.org/dispatch/07-17-00d.html WHAT'S GOOD FOR JUDGES IS GOOD FOR ALL AMERICANS Washington Post columnist Al Kamen writes today about a proposal to allow federal judges to carry concealed weapons nationwide, regardless of state laws. The plan is part of the Federal Courts Improvement Act which passed the House recently on a voice vote. http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54652-2000Jul16.html The idea was pushed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the policymaking body of the federal judiciary and would allow about 2,000 federal judges and magistrates to conceal and carry any type of gun they wished. The conference states the law is needed because three federal judges have been killed this century. "[I]f a judge is in danger, the fact that he or she is in one state or the other does not eliminate the danger," said Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger, a supporter of the bill. Congress may also decide that what is true for federal judges is true for the population at large. In "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun," http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html an analysis of a 1987 Florida law that allowed citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, Jeffrey R. Snyder found that there was a decrease in violent crime, not the increase many people had predicted. Recently, the Cato Institute hosted the book forum featuring legal scholar John R. Lott, Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime." His updated book presents the most comprehensive analysis ever done on crime statistics and the right-to-carry laws. Video of the forum is available on the Cato Web site. http://www.cato.org/events/000616bf.html Siren Song of the Anti-gunners: Written By: Robert Waters The Siren Song of Gun Control by Robert Waters http://keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=304 (In Greek mythology, the Sirens had such sweet voices that mariners who heard their songs were lured upon the rocks from which they sang.) On May 24, 2000, it was closing time at Wendy's. As employees worked to finish their chores so they could go home, John Taylor and Greg Godineaux are alleged by police to have entered the restaurant on Main Street in Queens, New York. One of the men pulled a gun on the workers, tied and gagged them, then systematically executed the entire crew. Five employees died, while two survived. In New York City, you see, only the cops and robbers have guns-- employees of Wendy's aren't allowed. Decades of strictly enforced gun laws have bullied most law-abiding citizens into abandoning their best means of self-defense. But, as the Wendy's shootings show, gun control laws don't prevent violence. In fact, statistics have shown that such laws often breed crime. The combined research of Dr. Gary Kleck, Dr. John Lott, Jr., and others make powerful arguments against restrictive firearms legislation. Gun control, however, is an enticing mistress. She promises security, safety, and insulation from those brutal thugs whose faces you see each night on the six o'clock news. She whispers that if you give her your gun, the cops will protect you. In her heart of hearts, she can't stand the thought that a single citizen might be armed. Like the Siren that is, though, her lying lips don't tell you that the Wendy's victims might have been saved. Almost exactly a month after the New York shooting, the McDonald's restaurant at 5301 East Freeway in Houston was getting ready to close. Three robbers burst in wearing masks and brandishing rifles. Threatening employees and customers, they didn't notice Willis Lee. The janitor pulled out a revolver and shot two of the thugs. Because he carried a gun, the maintenance man stopped an armed robbery and possibly a mass murder similar to the one at Wendy's. In New York City, employees are sitting ducks. But in Texas, concealed carry laws give citizens the opportunity to defend themselves. One of the common songs the gun control Siren sings is that if you give robbers your money, you probably won't get hurt. That lie has lured many onto the rocks of gun control. But what the Siren won't tell you is that robbery victims are often successful in fighting off their attackers. On September 3, 1998, Joe Montgomery, an Indianapolis gun shop owner, refused the demands of two robbers who held a gun to his head and ordered him to lie on the floor. During a brutal struggle in which the robbers beat Montgomery, slashed him with a knife, and attempted to shoot him twice, the businessman was able to retrieve a gun he'd hidden. The gun shop owner then shot and killed both robbers. In a recent interview, Montgomery related his reasons for choosing to fight back. "I had seen too many horrible video clips," he said, "of robbers who, after they push somebody to the floor, start shooting while [the victim is] lying face-down. I figured at this point I'm already dead, so why should I lay down and let them shoot me in the back of the head?" The gun control Siren won't mention Joe Montgomery. Nor will she tell you about other intended victims who saved their own lives and the lives of others. She won't tell you about Joel Myrick, the assistant principal of Pearl High School who used his handgun to end a school shooting, probably saving the lives of dozens of schoolchildren. She won't tell you about Jan Hartford, the Philadelphia baker who shot and killed an armed robber. Or the Tucson jogger who shot one of two armed robbers. Or the Charleston, South Carolina woman who shot a burglar after he tore the steel bars off her window in order to break into her house. She won't tell you about the Atlanta housewife who shot and killed a masked intruder in her apartment. Each year, thousands of armed victims fight back and survive. In Jacksonville, Florida, 77-year-old Claude Allen and his daughter, Shirla Menendez, were relaxing at home one Sunday evening. Suddenly a stranger kicked in the the door. Holding the two at gunpoint, he forced Menendez to tie up her father, a World War II veteran. Then the robber looted the house. As he was leaving, he placed his gun to Menendez's head and threatened to pull the trigger. Allen, desperately wrenching at his bonds, finally broke free, The veteran then retrieved his 9 mm semiautomatic pistol and shot the intruder dead. In spite of the evidence, the Siren continues to lure innocents onto the rocks of gun control. Her song causes them to lose their reason, to surrender their senses, and to believe her lies. Under her influence, they learn to live like sheep and die like cows. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Waldron Subject: SAF OHIO LAWSUIT--RESTRAINING ORDER GRANTED Date: 18 Jul 2000 12:39:33 -0700 Ohio Gun Law Blocked By Restraining Order CINCINNATI, OHIO (Tuesday, July 18, 2000) - Judge Robert Ruehlman today issued a restraining order against enforcement of Ohio's law banning concealed carry of firearms as well as the law banning loaded firearms in a motor vehicle. The order affects the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County. Backers of the legal action are very pleased. "These laws are in clear violation of both Ohio and U.S. Constitutions and were ripe for challenges after the Pat Feely decision," proclaimed Alan Gottlieb, Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). "We saw a huge opportunity to advance the rights of self-defense and took advantage of it." In addition to blocking enforcement of R.C. 2923.12 (banning concealed carry) the Judge included R.C. 2923.16, (loaded gun in a motor vehicle). The restraining order will be in place until after the preliminary injunction hearing beginning August 11, 2000. Until that time, law-abiding adult residents of Cincinnati and Hamilton County can legally carry a loaded firearm on their person or in their car without risk of arrest or prosecution PROVIDED that they do not violate other laws prohibiting possession in bars, schools, or other specified places. The law preventing felons and other disqualified from possessing guns, R.C. 2923.13, is also still in effect. The restraining order makes Hamilton County unique. The only state with a similar carry law is Vermont, where any law-abiding adult can carry a gun if they have a driver's license or some other form of photo identification. Including Vermont, 43 states allow the lawful concealed carry of firearms. Only 7 states, including Ohio, deny the individual's right of self-defense outside one's home or fixed place of business. The complaint called the current scheme a violation of both the Ohio Constitutions (Article 1, Section 1 [inalienable rights to defending life, liberty and property] & Article 1, Section 4 [bear arms for defense and security]) and the U.S. Constitution (Second Amendment [keep & bear arms], Ninth Amendment [self-defense], and Fourteenth Amendment [Equal Protection, Incorporation of Bill of Rights to the States]). But Judge Robert Ruehlman found yet another problem under current law. "The judge made it clear that the current law treats people as guilty until proven innocent," said attorney William Gustavson. "If this order is upheld, the burden of proof will switch to the Government to show why the person should not be allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense." In a recent case against a pizza delivery driver, both the prosecutor and the judge stated that the law should be changed or repealed. The defendant, Pat Feely, was known to carry large sums of cash in bad neighborhoods as part of his employment. He was acquitted at trial, but could have faced the same charges if found carrying a concealed firearm again unless the restraining order was issued. Such unfairness opened the door for throwing the unconstitutional law out. "For years, Gov. Bob Taft and the anti-self-defense crowd have blocked reasonable standards for issuing concealed carry licenses," stated Dave LaCourse, SAF Public Affairs Director. "Now they have their wish, and Hamilton County allows law-abiding people to carry of firearms without a license. I hope this decision sends a message to them that the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions are still valid and binding." The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the gun control debate and its consequences. SAF previously has funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners. Current projects include a damage action lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers, an amicus brief in support of the Emerson case holding that the Second Amendment is an individual right and a lawsuit against the Clinton gun and magazine ban. SAF's web site is at http://www.saf.org/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: Federal agent kills his dog? Date: 19 Jul 2000 10:51:53 -0600 Assumming this "report" is substantially accurate, it will be interesting to see how it is handled. Joe Citizen would almost certainly be charged with animal neglect or even cruelty to animals for such a callous and stupid act as leaving a dog in a car during the summer months. And after all the talk we heard from government "experts" during this last session about how certain misdemeanors--including cruelty to animals--needed to be added to the list of disqualifications for owning a gun because cruelty to animals was a very strong indicator of a likelyhood of future violence against people, should we take bets on whether or not the agent will be stripped of his badge and gun? Well, just try to remember that some people (government agents in particular) are created more equal than others. From today's Rolly & Wells in the SLTrib A narcotics-trained canine working for the Metro Narcotics Task Force in Salt Lake County died Friday after a federal Drug Enforcement Administration investigator left it in his car for several hours during 100-degree-plus temperatures. Don Mendrala, agent in charge of the Utah office of the DEA, confirmed he is investigating the death of Lady, a beagle trained to sniff out illicit drugs. The DEA is a member of the Metro Narcotics Unit, which consists of specially trained investigators from 14 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Because of the undercover nature of the agent's work, his identity is being kept confidential. o ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: MILLION MOM MARCH organizer uses GUN to attempt murder Date: 19 Jul 2000 22:34:23 -0600 These articles didn't load well for me. ----- She'll probably claim that the gun made her do it. Maybe she and Candy Leightner can share a cell and a pint. Barbara Lipscomb, an organizer of the Million Mom March, was charged with assault with intent to kill for shooting a teen who she believed to have caused her son's death. It was later determined (second story) that she had probably shot the wrong person. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40501-2000Jul13.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45741-2000Jul14.html Please circulate this far and wide. BTW, for those who do not remember: The Rocky Mountain News reported shortly after the Columbine massacre that Mark Manes, the man who sold the Tec-9 assault pistol used in the Columbine shootings, was the son of two strong members of Handgun Control, the nation's largest gun control lobbying group. LPUtah LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "lputah@qsicorp.com" LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender. LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: elwell@inconnect.com LPUtah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: charles hardy Subject: BATF and SSC? Date: 28 Jul 2000 09:33:03 -0600 Last night I turned on the 10:00 channel 4 news a few minutes late and just in time to catch the tail end of the last sentence of some report. All I caught was "...BATF and Shooting Sports Council." Can anyone shed anymore light on this? Thanks. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Karl Pearson" Subject: Petition To G.W.Bush Date: 29 Jul 2000 12:04:30 -0600 Freedoms of one group lost create a footpath where all freedom will be trodden under the foot of the elite who are exempt. KLP http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kelly & Miriam Phelps Subject: Re: Petition To G.W.Bush Date: 29 Jul 2000 13:25:39 -0600 I signed earlier, Karl, even though I don't trust GW. Thanks for forwarding this. Kelly Phelps Karl Pearson wrote: >=20 > Freedoms of one group lost create a footpath where all freedom will be > trodden under the foot of the elite who are exempt. KLP >=20 > http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html >=20 > - --=20 MZ=90 -