From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Tide is turning against the anti's Date: 08 Aug 2003 18:20:35 GMT A short, interesting, and uplifting read. While I remind everyone that both Alaska and Vermont (along with various federal laws such as the unconstitutional "gun free school act") impose a fair number of restrictions on where a gun can be carried without a permit, would that our own legislature would follow their lead in respecting the RIGHT to own AND CARRY a firearm. In most regards, Alaska now does Vermont one better. No permit is required to carry a firearm (openly or concealed, if I'm not mistaken) in most public places AND Alaska also has a "shall issue" concealed carry law similar to Utah's for those who want or need to carry in places like schools or to avail themselves of reciprocity in other States. Any legislators willing to follow Alaska's example? Charles ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Great News! ---------- Source: The Future of Freedom Foundation http://www.fff.org/ The Gun-Control Tide Is Turning http://www.fff.org/comment/com0308a.asp by Scott McPherson mailto:mcpherson0627@juno.com http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/bios/sxm.asp August 4, 2003 Advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have modest reason to celebrate these days. The state of Alaska recently became the second state, after Vermont, to allow citizens to carry concealed firearms without a permit or any of the restrictive measures, such as fingerprinting or background checks, that often accompany the permit-application process. And on July 15 the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted 6-1 that ³a citizen¹s desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex when undertaken to secure one¹s home or privately owned business.² The decision came when the court heard the case of a Milwaukee store owner who was arrested for having a loaded gun in his pocket. The police were enforcing the state¹s draconian concealed-carry law, which allows only ³peace officers² to carry concealed weapons. The Wisconsin court ruled, however ‹ on the basis of a 1998 amendment to the state¹s constitution that states that ³people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose² ‹ that protecting oneself while at home or one¹s place of business is clearly consistent with that ³other lawful purpose² standard. These two events mark small but significant victories for America¹s gunowners and all supporters of individual freedom. Do they signal a sea change in the way most Americans are thinking about guns? Can we now expect widespread support for the repeal of our nation¹s many unconstitutional gun-control laws? Unfortunately not. Still, what does seem to be happening, at the very least, is that more and more Americans are rejecting the absurd, leftist, 20th-century invention of a ³collective right² to own a gun (e.g., through a state agency such as the National Guard) in favor of an individualist interpretation of the Second Amendment more consistent with the intentions of the Framers. More important, a few state governments seem to be listening. When writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Framers wanted to ensure that the citizenry at large would be armed to protect their respective states against foreign aggression or a tyrannical central government; this was the general militia (as compared with the ³select² militia, which they greatly feared) early statesmen were talking about when they wrote the Second Amendment. The Founders wanted to maintain a constant and large supply of gunowners who could defend liberty were it ever to be seriously threatened again. Remember, these men had lived through the early days of the American Revolution; they had seen the militia at work on April 19, 1775, when armed farmers swarmed like bees on an invading British army and sent it back to Boston in tatters. Whatever their misgivings about the militia replacing a conventional standing army, they knew first-hand that a countryside full of armed citizens was the greatest first line of defense. Tench Coxe, a personal friend of James Madison (who with George Mason co-authored the Second Amendment), summed it up best when he wrote, ³Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.² Such men would be horrified to hear modern Americans claim that gun ownership was a right only of government employees. For these early Americans, one of the citizen¹s first duties was to own a gun ‹ if necessary, __as a last resort for use against government employees__. At the same time, the right of an individual to own and use a gun to defend his home and property would have been accepted as a given, not even worthy of discussion or debate ‹ which is precisely why it was never discussed, let alone debated, in either the Constitutional Convention or early congresses. People would own guns for the broad purpose of security, as the Wisconsin court has acknowledged. If someone wishes to argue that home, state, or national security should be assigned orders of importance, it doesn¹t weaken the case for an individual right in the least. Ever since the 2000 presidential election, many pundits have been warning Democrats that gun control is a losing issue. Many believe that key Democratic states such as Tennessee and Arkansas, which should have been easy pickings for Al Gore, were nonetheless lost because of his anti-gun proposals. In the same vein, these pro-gun victories in Alaska and Wisconsin suggest that a minor groundswell is taking place in our country. Even if most Americans are still (mistakenly) prepared to support ³reasonable² gun control at the federal level, such as background checks, they are also (wisely) signaling that such measures should not be used to erode the general right to own guns. We may be a long way from abolishing all of our failed, immoral, and unconstitutional gun-control laws, but this year¹s actions taken by the Alaska legislature and the Wisconsin Supreme Court indicate that, however slowly, the tide is finally moving in that direction. Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation. FFF articles by Scott McPherson http://www.fff.org/issues/listsxm.asp ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Fwd: Reminder: AWBansunset.com August Letter Drive (fwd) Date: 14 Aug 2003 22:03:23 -0600 Good action. You can look up Hatch and Bennett's contact info and your Rep as well on the respective websites for the senate and house. Begin forwarded message: > From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org > Date: Thu Aug 14, 2003 9:09:02 PM US/Mountain > To: 2roc@xpresso.com > Subject: Reminder: AWBansunset.com August Letter Drive (fwd) > Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com > > ----------------------- begin forwarded message from Bill Phillips > --------------------- > > From: "Bill Phillips" > Subject: Reminder: AWBansunset.com August Letter Drive > Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 11:54:52 -0500 > > > Three months ago, AWBansunset.com launched its first letter drive to > let > Congress know where we stood. Shortly afterwards, Tom DeLay made the > comment that any '94 ban renewal would not pass the House. We'd like > to > think we may have had a part provoking this statement. > > Now it's time to remind our elected officials of our steadfast > opposition to > any assault weapon ban. Are you ready for the next evolution? > > By August 17th, write letters to any and all of the elected officials > listed > below. On Monday, August 18th, place them in the mail. > > For you busy gunowners, there are letter templates available at this > page: > > http://www.awbansunset.com/writeofficials.html > > Simply season to taste. > > Make sure to include your own reps and senators at the top of this > list. > You can find out your senators' and rep's contact info at the top of > that > page. Other suggested targets: > > Pres George W. Bush > 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW > Washington, US 20500 > > Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (Speaker) > 235 Cannon House Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20515-1314 > > Sen. Bill Frist (Sen Maj Leader) > 461 Dirksen Senate Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20510-4205 > > Sen. Thomas Daschle (Sen Min Leader) > 509 Hart Senate Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20510-4103 > > Rep. Tom DeLay (House Maj Leader) > 242 Cannon House Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20515-4322 > > Rep. Nancy Pelosi (House Min Leader) > 2371 Rayburn House Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20515-0508 > > Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (House Judiciary Co Chair) > 2449 Rayburn House Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20515-4905 > > Rep. Roy Blunt (House Majority Whip) > 217 Cannon House Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20515-2507 > > Sen. George Allen (Chairman of the Republican National Senatorial > Committee) > 204 Russell Senate Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20510-4604 > > Rep. Thomas Reynolds (Chairman of the National Republican Congressional > Committee) > 332 Cannon House Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20515-3226 > > Sen. Jon Corzine (Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign > Committee) > 502 Hart Senate Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20510-3004 > > Rep. Robert Matsui (Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign > Committee) > 2310 Rayburn House Office Building > Washington, D.C. 20515-0505 > > We urge all who read this to inform as many firearm owners as possible > about > this latest letter drive. This is our opportunity to let our > officials know > we have not gone away and we have not turned a blind eye. > > Thank you for supporting the 2nd Amendment, > AWBansunset.com Staff > > http://www.awbansunset.com > http://www.awbansunset.com/forums > > To be removed from the Sunset News mailing list, > send an e-mail to unsubscribe@awbansunset.com. > > > > ----------------------- end forwarded message from Bill Phillips > --------------------- > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** > 4-19! > ----------------+----------+-------------------------- > +--------------------- > An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who > hath no > weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Planck | weapon sell his > hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and > buy a > on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus > Christ > ----------------+----------+-------------------------- > +--------------------- > > Constitutional Government is dead; LONG LIVE THE > CONSTITUTION!!!!! > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Guns at U.S. Supreme Court Date: 17 Aug 2003 22:05:01 -0600 "Supreme Court Gun Cases" News Release Permission granted to circulate the following news release - Bloomfield Press FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 18, 2003 Contact: Felicity Bower 1-800-707-4020 SUPREME COURT STUDY FINDS NEW GUN FACTS 92 Cases Reveal Court's Outlook on Guns Phoenix, Ariz. The results of a six-year study of Supreme Court gun cases will be released in September and has uncovered scores of forgotten decisions that affect the highly contested Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Co-written by an attorney who has won three cases before the High Court, along with the research director of a prominent think tank, and a nationally recognized gun-law expert, the researchers conclude from the evidence that the Supreme Court has recognized an individual right to arms for most of the past two centuries. Among the key findings in "Supreme Court Gun Cases", being released next month by Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press: - The Court has not been quiet on this subject as previously thought, using some form of the word "gun" in its decisions 2,910 times (gun, rifle, pistol, shotgun, firearm, etc., even Winchester five times) in 92 cases. Three dozen of the cases quote or mention the Second Amendment directly. - Armed self defense with personally owned firearms is recognized and supported in more than a dozen cases, is a distinct right of American citizens, and an ancient "duty to retreat" is not obligatory. - The often-cited Miller case from 1939 is inconclusive, which is why gun-rights and gun-control advocates both claim it supports their position. The record shows that the Court actually remanded this case back to the lower court for retrial and a hearing on the evidence, since there was no evidence presented. Because Miller had been murdered by that time and his co-defendant had taken a plea agreement, no retrial or evidentiary hearing was ever held. - All 92 cases are reproduced to show what the Court has actually said. More than 1,000 interesting quotations are highlighted, and each case includes a plain-English description. A special "descriptive index" reduces each case to the firearms-related question(s) it answers. Advanced review copies of "Supreme Court Gun Cases" are available to the news media on request. Contact Bloomfield Press at 1-800-707-4020 or SCGC@gunlaws.com. --------------------- Note: Bloomfield Press publishes "Gun Laws of America," the unabridged guide to federal gun law, and is the largest publisher of gun-law books in the country, founded in 1988. Copies of "Supreme Court Gun Cases" for media review are free on request, call 1-800-707-4020. The authors (Attorney David Kopel, Attorney Stephen Halbrook, Alan Korwin) are available for interview, call us, or email interview@gunlaws.com. Download high-resolution mini-cover art and more info from our website, click Media Services. Contact: Alan Korwin BLOOMFIELD PRESS "We publish the gun laws." 4718 E. Cactus #440 Phoenix, AZ 85032 602-996-4020 Phone 602-494-0679 FAX 1-800-707-4020 Orders http://www.gunlaws.com mailto:alan@gunlaws.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: Fw: FAL kits Date: 22 Aug 2003 19:54:50 GMT I have NOT verified any of this and pass it along partly hoping someone can verify or refute it. ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- FWD from one of my discussion groups: "In a recent ruling, the ATF has determined that the center section of a chopped FAL receiver is a machinegun. One of the guys at the gun shop I'm working in tried to get a new kit for a customer of ours who wants a FAL built, and discovered that our source for them no longer offers them for sale. After being notified by the ATF of the rule change, our supplier had started removing the center section of the receiver from each kit, and tossing them into 55 gallon drums (ditching them all was impractical, as he had 28 palettes of kits at the time). The ATF recently inspected/raided his premises and confiscated two such drums full of chopped receivers. They are now in the process of charging him with who-knows-how-many counts of illegal machine gun possession If you bought a FAL kit in the past and got the center section of the chopped receiver (they were perfectly legal until a month or two ago), I strongly suggest that you get rid of it posthaste. I don't have any links to sources for this, as everything I've heard has been firsthand word of mouth. I don't know if I should say who our kit supplier is/was, because I don't know if publicity would hurt his efforts to survive these charges. Suffice to say, he's an upstanding and legitimate guy who had sold a great many such kits until now." ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: DEMOCRATS: For, and against, the Second Amendment Date: 22 Aug 2003 14:45:23 -0600 RKBA supporters have abandoned the DP, affording the GOP a political monopoly (save minor balance of power challenges from Libertarians and other third parties) on this issue. Since this allows them to play to the center rather than having to compete, they often compromise it. It is sad no candidate for DPU chair takes RKBA seriously. Here's what David Nelson of Pink Pistols of Utah has to say about current candidates for DPU offices: -=-=- During the last few months, I surveyed and attempted to survey the candidates for elected Utah Democratic Party offices. They would, if elected, lead the state party for the next two years. Most of you know of my more than 23 years of service to the party and, while I believe strongly that it needs to influence better Second Amendment public policy as it does for gender- and sexual-orientation policy, I invite others to publish the relevant opinions of other party leaders in the state for comparison. It's notable that no candidate for state-party chair wrote of her or his support of us, but that candidates for vice chair and secretary did and are firearms advocates and owners: --Nancy Jane Woodside for Vice Chair --Carlos A. Vasquez Jr. for Secretary Their opponents didn't and aren't. It's also notable that secretary-candidate Russell Kennedy is the brother of Gun Violence Prevention Campaign-Center of Utah director Marla Kennedy, though he's among those candidates who didn't answer, so his opinion is unknown. All in all, it's clear where our party support is. For those of us who'll serve on Saturday, Aug. 23, at 9:00 a.m. as delegates to the Utah Democratic Convention at Highland High School at 2166 South 1700 East in Salt Lake City, our choices are obvious. Feel free to visit the convention even if you're not a delegate. See you there! -=-=- Congratulations on your candidacy for elected Utah Democratic Party office. Pink Pistols of Utah(TM) includes more than 270 members - the largest such group in the United States - many of whom are Democrats and party-convention delegates. We're gender- and sexual-minority firearm advocates and owners in Utah, and supporters of the Pink Pistols idea that was described nationally in 2000 by writer Jonathan Rauch for the legal, safe and responsible use of firearms for our self defense and shooting-sport competition, including those of us who are gay and lesbian, and that of our families and friends. Please let us know what you believe about these questions: 1. Do you believe that self defense is a human right? 2. Do you agree with Democratic Party founder Thomas Jefferson that "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" and that "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man"? 3. Do you agree with U.S. presidential Democratic candidate Howard Dean who also served as governor of Vermont that the U.S. Constitutional Second Amendment right to bear arms is important enough to warrant no laws, such as in his state, which regulate the ownership and possession of arms, even those which are concealed? Thank you for letting us know about your opinions as soon as possible. Because your answers will be shared with our members and others, they may choose to support your campaign with their contributions and/or votes. Good luck. ___ FOR CHAIR GREGG CHAMBERLAIN (gchambe892@aol.com): Your questions seem to me to be a little bit en dubious. After all I am running for state chairman of the party. I have no plans to mold the party for my own purposes. Only to build a stronger more successful party. I really do enjoy diversity and open expression amongst my friends. If your opinion differs from mine that does not mean you cannot be my friend. I think this will be one of the hardest factors of holding this office. To steer clear of political maters that do not directly involve the chairman. After all most of what politicians do involves change. It would not be right for me to take sides. Once a candidate receives nomination to be placed in the general election then will they have my full support regardless of my ideals or goals. I hope this will find you elected, I am anxious to have your support. I hope you will come over and talk to me at my table Saturday morning. DONALD DUNN (donaldkdunn@bigplanet.com): I'll be honest with you. When I read your questionnaire I did not think it was a balanced questionnaire. Now, this is your prerogative, being a special interest group. However, I felt that no matter what I 'wrote' down you would not hear what you want. (Not that it is a requirement) So I saved the both of us from that heart ache. I think you and I will probably disagree on the gun issues. I think we should have more gun safety laws and I don't know if you agree with me. But, that is the healthy part of Democracy. I would say that as Democrats we should all care about this race, especially an activists like you. The party is in trouble. If you believe that it is going in the right direction and you want to support the status quo, vote for Meg. If not, I would say it's time for change and you should vote for me. The truth is, I would rather talk to you on the phone about your issues so we can have a dialogue, rather than just filling out a questionnaire. What do you think? OTHER CANDIDATES: No comment. ___ FOR VICE CHAIR NANCY JANE WOODSIDE (nancyjane1@attbi.com): Thank you for your interest in my candidacy for Vice Chair of the State Party. It is exciting to have so many candidates running this year. I believe this election cycle for our State Party could prove to be very healthy for the future of working families and Democrats in the state. The time for wealthy, top-tier, profile candidate recruiting as a substitute for really a State Democratic party needs to come to an end. There is no long-term substitute for doing the hard work state-wide to build the party. We need to go to work. There is no limit on the number of Democrats in the State, just as there is no limit on the amount of money we can raise. The only limits we face are those we place on ourselves by failing to be Democrats and limiting our vision. With regard to your specific questions, you may know from my recent campaign for Congress from the Third District, that I am a member of the N.R.A. I support the second amendment and the right to bear arms. I also believe all people have the right to defend themselves as they choose, within the laws we make to govern ourselves. I believe the answers to questions about guns and responsible gun ownership lie not just in the Constitution, but in education, prevention, training, common sense, and good law. I am not sure how Thomas Jefferson would have felt about women with guns. I know how he felt about us voting. I believe law is not static but a tool we can use to govern ourselves for the times we live in. I also believe we have a responsibility to separate gun collecting, hunting, and sportsman's rights from questions of terrorism, community health and safety, and the protection of life and liberty. OTHER CANDIDATES: No comment. ___ FOR SECRETARY CARLOS A. VASQUEZ JR. (carlosavasquez@aol.com): Thank you for your interest in my point of view. The answers to your questions are as follows: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. I believe that there should be no restrictions on gun ownership and possesion by law-abiding citizens. In fact I practice what I preach. I have a permit to carry a concealed fire-arm in the state of Utah. I commend your group for doing the same. If there is anything further I can do for you please contact me by e-mail or else at 801-593-6719(home) 801-721-2921 (cell). I hope I can count on your support. OTHER CANDIDATES: No comment. ___ FOR TREASURER ALL CANDIDATES: No comment. ===== David Nelson http://www.PinkPistolsUtah.org/ Salt Lake City - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Excerpt from Cato Daily Dispatch - 8/25 -- Concealed Carry may re Date: 26 Aug 2003 00:03:14 GMT ================== Charles Hardy ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Cato Daily Dispatch August 25, 2003 http://www.cato.org/ http://www.cato.org/dispatch/08-25-03d.html * Violent Crime at 30-Year Low VIOLENT CRIME AT 30-YEAR LOW "All the indicators, from the sagging economy to the increase in newly released ex-cons on the street, had led many criminologists to predict the crime rate would go up. But it's not - at least according to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), released Sunday by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. It found that violent crime and property crime are at a low not seen since 1973," reports the Christian Science Monitor ( http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0825/p01s01-usju.html ). "In 2002, there were 23 violent crimes per 1,000 people, compared with 25 victimizations per 1,000 people in 2001. A decade ago, the victimization rate was twice as high, meaning there's been a 54 percent drop in violent crime since 1993." In "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun", ( http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html ) attorney Jeffrey R. Snyder writes that "shall-issue" concealed-carry gun laws may be one way of curbing violent crime. "Citizens have the right to defend themselves against criminal attack-–and that the last thing government ought to be doing is stripping its citizens of the most effective means by which they can defend themselves," says Snyder. "Carrying a handgun in public may not be for everyone, but it is a right that government ought to respect." ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Review - 'The Bias Against Guns' Date: 27 Aug 2003 11:03:41 -0600 Freedom Book of the Month, 8/03 ---------- FMN by Sunni Maravillosa "'The Bias Against Guns' could prod many individuals out of their previously-unexamined anti-gun views. We can but hope." (8/25/03) http://www.free-market.net/rd/998177324.html -