From: Mike Sawyer Subject: shooting arrows in back yard Date: 01 May 1997 09:16:17 -0600 Some things just make you shake your head in disbelief-- [story] A Florida man accused of shooting a squirrel with a bow and arrow faces a fine of up to $10,000 if convicted, the Daytona Beach News-Journal reported Wednesday. Sammie Parris, 67, was arrested Friday and charged with cruelty to animals, a third-degree felony. He was released on $1,000 bond. A neighbor said in a written statement she had seen Parris trying to catch a squirrel that had an arrow through it. The animal was found bloodied and dead hanging in his tree. Parris said he shot the animal to protect his garden. Full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2704196-ae8 Okay, to summarize: he didn't shoot a firearm within 300 feet of a dwelling. He killed a small animal, commonly regarded as a pest, in what seems to me a very humane manner. He did it for a very understandable reason (to protect his garden from the wascally wodent). If this can be termed "cruelty to animals," then don't all Florida hunters risk the same charge? I know Utah would be among the last states in the union to entertain such a frivolous criminal charge, but the fact that _somebody_ _somewhere_ had the nerve to file the charges should give us all pause for thought. Poor guy. -- Mike Sawyer, KC7URN (msawyer@callware.com) Technical Writer CallWare Technologies, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: State Constitution Committee Date: 01 May 1997 14:39:44 -0600 From yesterdays paper. Let's see if we can't find a nice liberty minded person to apply. Constitution review panel seeks to fill vacancy Last updated 04/30/1997, 11:06 a.m. MST The state's Constitutional Revision Commission is looking for a new citizen member. The 16-member commission is charged in state law to review the 100-year-old state constitution and make recommendations for change to the Utah Legislature. Lisa Watts Baskin, the commission's executive director, said those interested should send resumes by May 16 to Room 436, State Capitol Building, Salt Lake City, UT 84114. The position is voluntary. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "I always marveled at how a woman who had never handled a gun could shoot an errant husband straight through the heart on her first try, with one shot. And a trained policeman, trying to shoot an armed bank robber, only ends up hitting a elderly woman waiting for a bus two blocks away." -- H.L. Mencken in his autobiographical "Newspaper Days" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: NRA-ILA betrays Vermont Carry Date: 01 May 1997 21:50:48 -0600 >Gun rights activist, Tim Casey, has scanned in two letters from Colorado >and Oklahoma state legislators regarding the ILA's threats to give F >ratings to anyone who voted for Vermont style carry in Colorado. > >Please, read it for yourself at: > >http://www.wizard.net/~kc/co.jpg > >and > >http://www.wizard.net/~kc/ok.jpg > > >Those going to Seattle, look at this information first! > > Does ANYONE know what's going on here? Is this true? And if it is, could any of the NRA people receiving this explain WHY? Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Deputies Regain Guns by expunging domestic violence convictions] Date: 02 May 1997 09:59:19 -0600 I trust no one here will really be surprised by this... :( ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Thursday, May 1, 1997 3 Deputies Go to Court, Regain Right to Carry Guns Law: Domestic violence convictions expunged, they no longer fall under federal firearms control statute. By HECTOR TOBAR, Times Staff Writer Three Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies who lost the right to carry firearms under a new federal law because they had been convicted of domestic violence charges are back on the job with full police powers. The reason: They have gone to court and had their misdemeanor convictions expunged. A fourth deputy, who has not had his conviction overturned, has been placed on administrative duties, sheriff's officials said Wednesday. The officials declined to identify the four deputies. The cases represent the first test in the Sheriff's Department of a 1996 gun control law that prohibits people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from carrying firearms. In December, three deputies filed suit in federal court in an unsuccessful attempt to block enforcement of the law. Attorneys for the deputies and union officials argued that the law unfairly targeted military officers and law enforcement personnel by denying them the ability to work. It remained unclear Wednesday whether the three plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit were the same whose convictions were recently expunged. However, one source familiar with the case said that the three plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit had also filed petitions in state court to have their convictions cleared. The Sheriff's Department's Internal Investigations Bureau is conducting a survey to determine which of its deputies have been convicted of domestic abuse violations. A records check by the state Department of Justice found that 16 sworn officers had been arrested on suspicion of committing domestic violence. Department investigators have not yet determined how many of those arrests led to criminal charges, officials said. Another 15 sworn personnel have previous arrests for battery and other crimes that "could be construed as falling within the guidelines of the federal statute," said Deputy Michael Irving, a department spokesman. All of the arrests were for misdemeanors, Irving said. The department has not yet determined how many have convictions that would fall under the federal law. A similar probe in the Los Angeles Police Department found that as many as 80 officers were involved in domestic abuse accusations. The LAPD has formed a task force to see how the cases were handled and how many officers must surrender their weapons. Penny Harrington, the director of the National Center for Women and Policing, said Wednesday that recent studies have shown that as many as 40% of police officer families have suffered some form of domestic violence. Harrington, the former police chief of Portland, Ore., added that even when officers are tried and found guilty of such charges, judges regularly expunge the convictions. "You go back to the judge that sentenced you . . . you bring your wife along and say everything is fine," Harrington said. Feminist activists question whether the relatively low number of abuse prosecutions in the 8,300-member LAPD may reflect a law enforcement culture in which domestic violence is often treated as a matter of internal discipline. Department officials "cover it up and treat is as misconduct," said Harrington. "They get a reprimand or a small suspension, but they never get into the judicial system." Civil rights attorney Carol Watson, a longtime department observer, said, "If [deputies] can avoid taking a complaint from a spouse, they will." Sgt. Robert Stoneman, a sheriff's spokesman, said the department always initiates a criminal investigation when deputies are summoned to a domestic violence complaint involving department personnel. "They go to the house and do what they have to do. It would be 100% criminal investigation." Times staff writer Tina Daunt contributed to this story. Copyright Los Angeles Times In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "We always hire Democratic Congressmen who promise to give us from the government all the things we want. And we always hire Republican Presidents to make sure we don't have to pay for it." -- T.J. Rodgers quoting in REASON ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [N.R.A. TO STOP GUNS AT DOOR AT NRA SEATTLE CONVENTION] Date: 02 May 1997 10:00:46 -0600 FYI... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- We have recently found out that the N.R.A is going to stop anyone carrying a firearm into the Washington State Convention Center. They will remove your weapon as weapons are not allowed to be carried into the convention. This is in direct violation of Washington State Firearms pre-emption law (9.41 300). If you feel that this is improper behavior on the the part of the N.R.A call (206) 447-5757 or fax (206) 447-7036. Olympic Sportsmans Alliance Poulsbo, WA Rick Reitmeyer, President Phone & Fax (360) 779-5374 To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@pobox.com with the following line in the body: unsubscribe right2arms ***Visit http://www.wizard.net/~kc/firearms.html to learn more about guns in America*** RIGHT2ARMS IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "We always hire Democratic Congressmen who promise to give us from the government all the things we want. And we always hire Republican Presidents to make sure we don't have to pay for it." -- T.J. Rodgers quoting in REASON ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: [N.R.A. TO STOP GUNS AT DOOR AT NRA SEATTLE CONVENTION] Date: 03 May 1997 14:20:38 -0600 >FYI... > >----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- >We have recently found out that the N.R.A is going to stop anyone carrying >a firearm into the Washington State Convention Center. They will remove >your weapon as weapons are not allowed to be carried into the convention. > >This is in direct violation of Washington State Firearms pre-emption law >(9.41 300). If you feel that this is improper behavior on the the part of >the N.R.A call (206) 447-5757 or fax (206) 447-7036. > > >Olympic Sportsmans Alliance >Poulsbo, WA > >Rick Reitmeyer, President >Phone & Fax (360) 779-5374 > Yet another plea for confirmation, and explanation if this IS true. Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: [Fwd: Federal legs. page] Date: 05 May 1997 00:42:39 -0600 >Tim, > Pass this address on, it is so far the best I've found. >www.com/hpi/fedleg/index.html > > It has all states and if you look at local reps. it has a brief of > cash contributors and who they work for.. > Bill > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [ ILA Threats II] Date: 05 May 1997 14:52:39 -0600 FYI... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- The following is a letter from Colorado State Representative, Marilyn Musgrave regarding NRA lobbyist Mary Anne Bradfield. Many of you expressed interest in getting a text version of this letter, so here it is: -------- [Official letterhead, State of Colorado seal] Mr. Dudley Brown, Executive Director Rocky Mountain Gun Owners P.O. Box 3114 Denver, CO 80201 April 2, 1997 Dear Mr. Brown: Last week I had a conversation with NRA lobbyist Mary Anne Bradfield, the state liaison for Colorado. Ms. Bradfield echoed the comments of Steve Schreiner of the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, who rudely told me that any attempt to amend Senate Bill 96 with a "Vermont Law" would be viewed as anti-gun. Ms. Bradfield was even brash enough to threaten me with lowering my NRA rating, telling her members that I am anti-gun. In 1996, I carried a "Vermont Law" amendment to the concealed carry bill. I am proud that we got 18 votes for this measure and forced legislators to stand and be counted. Also in 1996, I singed a pledge in an candidate survey by the Firearms Coalition of Colorado and Gun Owners of America to support the "Vermont Law." I pledge to support the "Vermont Law" (i.e. carrying concealed without government permit) because I believe wholeheartedly in our right to personal protection. It is outrageous than an NRA lobbyist would suggest that voting to make it easier for citizens to carry a firearms is "anti-gun." Am I to believe that the NRA rates lawmakers based on their willingness to comply with a lobbyist's wishes, no matter how inane? That would come to a shock to NRA members, who expect ratings to reflect a candidate's views and record on supporting the Second Amendment. I may represent the most pro-gun district in the state of Colorado, and I can assure you that I support the Second Amendment, regardless of the rantings of lobbyists wishing to set public policy behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. I know that Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is not afraid of public scrutiny of their legislative agenda. I hope this information is useful. Sincerely, State Representative Marilyn Musgrave House District 65 ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military." -- President Harry S. Truman (1884-1972) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [ILA Threats I] Date: 05 May 1997 14:52:09 -0600 FYI... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- In re: NRA reps' threats to downgrade state legislators' ratings to "F" in response to their "Vermont" carry legislative efforts: [A scan of this letter may be viewed at http://www.wizard.net/~kc/ok.jpg] [Internet gunk snipped] Here is the letter about Vermont Carry and other matters by an Oklahoma State Senator that many of you expressed interest in getting: --------------------- Oklahoma State Senate SENATOR CAROL MARTIN SENATE DISTRICT 24 CAPITOL(405)521-5569 CLEVELAND. MCCLAIN,.GRADY,STEPHENS.AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES COMANCHE (405) 255-5658 i STATE CAPITOL 2300 N. LINCOLN BLVD. OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105-4808 March 31, 1997 To Whom It May Concern: I have received reports that NRA-ILA State Liaison Mary Anne Bradfield is telling Colorado House Members not to vote for a Vermont-style right-to-carry amendment to Senate Bill 96 if it is offered. I understand that some members have been "threatened" with "F" ratings if they vote for Vermont-style right-to-carry. As a staunch defender of the Second Amendment in the Oklahoma Senate, I urge you to stand on principle no matter who tells you to do otherwise. Last year I offered a Vermont style right-to-carry amendment in the Oklahoma State Senate. Although it did not pass, it received support from nearly one-third of the Senate, and I will continue to fight. I returned Ms. Bradfield's call around June 12, 1996, after my amendment failed. For the record, my conversation with Ms. Bradfield was the first direct contact I had with the NRA-ILA since I defeated an NRA-ILA-endorsed incumbent in 1994. This incumbent, a Democrat, had come out publicly for banning semi-automatic firearms and against even a permit-style concealed carry law. Ms. Bradfield's tone was both annoying and condescending. The gist of the conversation was that Ms. Bradfield was upset about my motion to establish Vermont-style right-to-carry in Oklahoma, and that I got "so-called good gun people" voting against a pro-gun bill. If the NRA-ILA and Ms. Bradfield wish to challenge my record to support the freedom of my law- abiding, gun-owning constituents in Senate District 24, I look forward to a re-match. I'll take my case to the grassroots NRA members and other gunowners who supported me in 1994. I am prepared to let them decide, and I know what they will do. There are other groups truly committed to defending the Second Amendment which have proven their effectiveness at mobilizing grassroots gunowners in our fight for freedom. Reform of the carry laws in Oklahoma didn't move until i was elected and these groups took on the entrenched anti-gun leadership in both houses of the Oklahoma Legislature. I urge you to stand for freedom and liberty at any and every opportunity. Sincerely, Carol Martin State Senator, District 24 CM/mlp ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military." -- President Harry S. Truman (1884-1972) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: [ILA Threats I] Date: 05 May 1997 15:47:44 -0600 Charles Hardy wrote: > > FYI... > > ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- > In re: NRA reps' threats to downgrade state legislators' ratings to "F" in > response to their "Vermont" carry legislative efforts: > > [A scan of this letter may be viewed at http://www.wizard.net/~kc/ok.jpg] > And some wonder why I still refuse to join the NRA.... Will ..not much of a joiner anyway.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: [ILA Threats I] Date: 05 May 1997 16:00:15 -0600 On Mon, 05 May 1997, Will Thompson posted: >Charles Hardy wrote: >> >> FYI... >> >> ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- >> In re: NRA reps' threats to downgrade state legislators' ratings to "F" in >> response to their "Vermont" carry legislative efforts: >> >> [A scan of this letter may be viewed at http://www.wizard.net/~kc/ok.jpg] >> > >And some wonder why I still refuse to join the NRA.... I think the important thing is for those who are members to immediately contact the NRA and demand an answer and for those who are not NRA members to contact the NRA and tell them this is why they are not members. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military." -- President Harry S. Truman (1884-1972) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Cite the Constitution Date: 06 May 1997 08:04:45 -0700 This sounds like one we should get behind! ========================================================== Tuesday, May 6, 1997 Cite the Constitution ### I would like to encourage Utahns to voice their support of The Enumerated Powers Act sponsored by Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, known as HR 292, at present in the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives, by calling their congressman. ### The current House has adopted a praiseworthy rule which requires that all bills sent forth from a committee include a reference to the article and section of the U.S. Constitution which would authorize the proposed legislation. This is a step in the right direction of curbing government excess by ``bind(ing them) down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution'' as Thomas Jefferson admonished. But as House rule only, it will expire after two years, with the end of the 105th Congress, and is not to be confused with a law, which would fix this practice of citing constitutional authorization for all bills from future Congresses as well. ### HR 292 proposes to make this practice permanent and so deserves the vocal and active support of all citizens who hope to see the U.S. Constitution restored as a bulwark of freedom. Enactment of HR 292 will ensure that debate on any piece of legislation shall include whether or not it has a basis in powers granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, a consideration heretofore too often overlooked. ### JANE ERVIN ### Spanish Fork ### ### #Copyright 1997, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune. Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Email to all of Congress Date: 06 May 1997 10:41:21 -0600 FYI... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Copied from the NOBAN list... Following is an edited version of a method to send e-mail to all members of congress simultaneously. This service is also a GREAT source for locating tons of information. To contact all congress-critters simultaneously (or individually, if you prefer): 1. Write your letter and convert it to text. 2. Copy it to your clip board. 3. Go to http://www.in-search-of.com 4. Scroll "sideways" and select US Government 5. Scan down and select "ISO E-Mail the mail US Senate and Congress" 6. Enter the letter's subject (mandatory) 7. Paste your letter in the space provided (or compose a new letter) 8. Enter all mandatory information is the boxes provided below the letter 9. Click on the send button and WAIT FOR THE E-MAIL VERIFICATION SCREEN! Thanks to Gene Crocker for providing the original source of this information. ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "Americans may like guns because they were reminiscent of the smell of outdoors, military heroism, the intensity of the hunt or merely because they are fascinated by the finely machined metal parts. Maybe the origin of a gun speaks of history; maybe the gun makes a man's home seem to him less vulnerable; maybe these feelings are more justified in the country than in the city; but, above all, many of us believe that these feelings are a man's own business and need not be judged by the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Justice." -- Samuel Cummings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Charlton Heston elected, Country Club Set now runs NRA Date: 06 May 1997 13:57:29 -0600 >Return-Path: >From: 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com >X-Sender: 6mesa@mithoff.1eagle1.com. >Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 08:32:49 -0700 >Subject: Charlton Heston elected, Country Club Set now runs NRA > >Warning: This essay contains a racial epithet in paragraph 2. > >If I may respectfully suggest it, not only is the NRA clearly now >dysfunctional, it has been so since the 1930's when it failed to argue in >defense of short barreled shotguns as military weapons before the Supreme >Court in Miller v. US. > >The NRA has in recent history helped the congress bugger shooters while the >NRA held shooter's heads, telling them that one compromise bill after >another was the "best legislation we could get". The NRA has in fact worked >to keep firearms from the hands of the poor (best example is recognizing >the term "Saturday Night Special" which is derived from the term >"Niggertown Saturday Night". Historically, the poor in crime impacted areas >need firearms more than anyone, as they have the greatest need and receive >immediate police assistance the least when they call. > >The Country Club republicans in the NRA will never lose their trap and >skeet guns or their hunting rifles, secured in their guarded estates. They >see no reason for state of the art semi autos, large capacity magazines >because they and their democratic political and bureaucratic counterparts >are in agreement as beltway entities. The NRA is dabbling in victim rights >advocacy, which we already pay taxes for, and a myriad of other issues that >are not as critical as the BOR and 2nd A. issues particularly. The NRA has >complete disdain for the Constitutional concept of the Militia as does the >government. Why is this? > >Every possible crime has been addressed by legislation, so to what end is >the ceaseless barrage of anti-firearm (as opposed to anti >criminal)legislation? >Why does the government clearly want a disarmed population and why does the >NRA not see this clear and present threat to our rights? To what end does >this blindness point? > >I have been a member of the NRA since 1957 and a life member since 1959. I >am a retired career LEO, and am a forensic firearms evidence and >identification expert, with my own consulting firm. As a sworn LEO, I have >always viewed armed citizens as a resource and back up, particularly after >having my life and that of my partner saved twice by citizens who came to >our aid with illegally possessed concealed weapons. > >Since 1968, (two Kennedys and MLK assassinated Between 63-68) when the >NRA., Sen. Thomas Dodd, the Congress and the US Firearms industry, citing >as the reason the above listed assassinations, cut off all surplus imports >in the 1968 GCA, providing a captive market for US manufacturers, further >screwing US shooters by eliminating choice to buy a cheaper surplus >product. Disregard the fact that two out of the three assassinations were >carried out with American made weapons. I have watched with growing >trepidation as the defeats and gradualist erosion of the BOR have taken >place under the aegis of the NRA. > >In 1986, 6 months after vice-President Bush cut the "trade" deal with >China,(12/85) the 1986 so called firearms owners protection act >(McClure-Volkmer) was passed thru the Congress with Bush's, Casey's and >Dole's blessings. Scarce months later the US was awash in cheap AK's SKS's, >ammo and parts. The repeals of the elements of the 1968 GCA that made this >surplus dumping here were not opposed by the manufacturers, the NRA or the >Democrats, who passed it. Whether the imports were good or bad, they helped >destabilize an entire market, allowed propaganda from the left that is >still unrivalled and unassailable in the media continuum. > >I watched in 1989, when Dennis DiConcini, former Senator from AZ introduced >his infamous SB 747 to outlaw semi autos with the NRA's and Bill Ruger's >support. Remember, Ruger, a large,(if not the largest) NRA advertiser, was >ready to produce 7 shot pistols and mini 14s with FIXED 5 round magazines >as soon as the domestic market was "safe" from all the surplus product that >shooter enjoyed with relative low cost and high quality. Ruger said as much >in the now well-known letter he wrote to the committee studying the >legislation. What a patriot......what an opportunist. > >And in the nineties I have watched the recent successful assaults on the >Constitution and the betrayal of the rights guaranteed, not granted, by >that document. Betrayed by the leaders and members of Congress, the Senate, >and our beloved and now feminized NRA. > >The NRA is not going to improve, the country club crowd now runs it, as >Chuck Heston's election and selection timing so aptly proved. Neal Knox;s >name and reputation was quickly and effectively discredited by the same >mantra that the Clinton Administration and the Left in general uses so >effectively to destroy dissent and opposition via semantics and namecalling >in lieu of substantive reply or argument, i.e., "meanspirited", >"extremist", "thuggish", and "cater to the militia". Wayne LaPierre is a >beltway bureaucrat, pure and simple, highly paid and poorly effective, >unless you are a firearms prohibitionist. Then, he is your friend, for >under his and Tanya's and Marion's feminized leadership, Dole and Gingrich >betrayed gun owners after making promises that need not being repeated >here. We all know how the NRA-ILA has helped defeat progun legislators and >has threatened others that don't tow the NRA "compromise" Line, while at >the same time supporting anti-firearm legislators. David Stockman, a pro >gun and pro Constitutionalist from Texas imediately comes to mind, as a man >who the NRA would not endorse because he thought Militia were >Constitutional. He lost. It's as bad as Carrol's Alice. I guess Schumer is >the mad hatter and Wayne is the Toad (or was it the Rabbit?) > >In case you wonder where this will all end, a prediction based on past >performance: In the very near future, I expect an NFA act to be passed on >all semi-autos, not unlike the one on Class III guns, the manufacture of >registerable private guns being terminated in May 1986. This means that if >you declare what you have, what you have will be grandfathered into your >possession via form 3 or 4. When it is sold, a tax will be collected. >Essentially the rich will be able to buy semis, as they now do autos, as >the tax will always be affordable for the rich, just as the $200.00 tax for >machine guns was until inflation caught up. This means of revenue >collection will be heartily endorsed by the NRA, who will say, "It's the >best legislation we can get." And it will be, for them and their insiders, >just as it was in 1934, 1938, 1968, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1994, and next? > >As of today, I have sent a certified letter to the NRA, requesting that all >traces of my name be removed from their rolls, as I am ashamed to be and >refuse to be associated with them any longer. > >I am also joining GOA and retaining my membership in JPFO. > > >Joe Horn > > > >"It is an infallible rule that a prince who is not wise himself cannot be >well advised" > - Machiavelli - The Prince. > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: In the House Date: 07 May 1997 00:37:04 -0600 That darn Schumer strikes again! He ought to move to China where he'd fit in! Sarah >From: Brian Wilson >Subject: In the House > >Your govt at work..... > > > >H.R.275 > >SPONSOR: Rep Schumer, (introduced 01/07/97) > >DIGEST: > >(AS INTRODUCED) > >Effective Antiterrorism Tools for Law Enforcement Act of 1997 - Amends >the Federal criminal code to apply provisions regarding pen >registers and trap and trace devices to foreign counterintelligence and >international terrorism investigations conducted by the Federal >Bureau of Investigation (FBI). > >Requires any common carrier, public accommodation facility, physical >storage facility, or vehicle rental facility to comply with a request >for records in its possession by the FBI under specified circumstances. > >Provides that provisions prohibiting the use as evidence of intercepted >wire or oral communications in violation of the Federal criminal >code shall not apply to the disclosure by the United States in a >criminal trial or hearing or before a grand jury of the contents of a >wire or >oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, unless the violation >involved an interception under provisions covering specified >emergency situations or bad faith by law enforcement. > >Grants: (1) wiretap authority in cases of terrorism-related or >explosives felonies; and (2) temporary emergency wiretap authority >involving terrorism crimes. > >Expands authority for multi-point wiretaps. > >Authorizes the Attorney General to request, and the Secretary of Defense >to provide (if specified conditions are met), technical >assistance in support of Department of Justice activities in situations >involving biological or chemical weapon emergencies. Sets penalties >for the use without lawful authority of, or attempts or conspiracy to >use, chemical weapons. > >Modifies Federal prohibitions against the use of weapons of mass >destruction to prohibit and penalize only such use without lawful >authority. >Brian Wilson >"Power corrupts; absolute power is kinda neat!" >Talk Show Host/Author >"the little black book on WHITEWATER" > > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: J. Neil Schulman Letter to NRA First Vice President, Charlton Date: 07 May 1997 00:56:43 -0600 Although I have great respect for Mr. Schulman, I don't necessarily agree with his point of view. However, in the interest of fairness, and opening all points of view for discussion, I'm forwarding this. Sarah >Subject: J. Neil Schulman Letter to NRA First Vice President, Charlton Heston > >I have just sent the following fax to Charlton Heston. This email may >be copied to all appropriate newsgroups, mailing lists, bulletin >boards, fax lists, and computer networks. > >For those who don't recall, Heston endorsed my book, _Stopping Power_. > >--JNS > > >May 6, 1997 > >Charlton Heston >By Fax > >Dear Mr. Heston: > >First of all, let me extend my congratulations to you regarding your >election not only to the NRA Board of Directors, but also to the >position of the First Vice Presidency of the NRA. > >I don't think I had the opportunity to tell you that since our last >encounter, when I was just an author writing books like _Stopping Power_ >and _Self Control Not Gun Control_ on Second Amendment topics, I also >was elected to the presidency of the NRA Members Council of Los Angeles. >Let me take this opportunity, as president of your local members >council, to invite you to attend any of our meetings you would care to >grace, and certainly an invitation to address our council at any time >convenient to you. We meet the second Thursday of each month at the >American Legion Post on Sepulveda (near Jefferson, opposite Coco's >coffee shop) in Culver City, at 7:00 PM. Our next scheduled meeting is >the day after tommorow, May 8th. > >While I have long thought extremely highly of Neal Knox's dedication to >the Second Amendment, and his unwillingness to see it abandoned and >diluted through unnecessary legislative compromises, I also believe that >the main battle in defense of the Second Amendment is not political but >educational. The American people, misinformed and misled by an ignorant >and hostile media into believing that widespread private ownership >of firearms increases violence, simply do not understand the role >privately held firearms play in reducing violent crime on a daily basis, >as well as acting as long-term insurance against opportunistic tyranny. >You, more than anyone I can think of, have the abilities necessary to >correct the public ignorance, and I applaud your willingness to step >into the frontlines of this ongoing struggle for the truth. > >I would hope that you will use your new platform as an opportunity to >become the NRA's leading spokesman to educate the American people to >the actual facts regarding privately held firearms. To that end, let me >offer my services, and those of our members council, for our common >purpose. > >Best regards, > >J. Neil Schulman > >-- > J. Neil Schulman / Pulpless.Com > Voice & Fax: (310) 839-7653 > Internet: jneil@pulpless.com > Personal Web Page: http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/ > >Browse sample chapters of new books by bestselling authors, pay >online with a credit card or ecash, then download books in HTML >or Adobe Acrobat format from the web at http://www.pulpless.com/ > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: [Fwd: HR1146-(FORWARD EVERYWHERE-WITHDRAWAL FROM THE U.N.)] Date: 07 May 1997 01:03:52 -0600 >To all Congressmen and all citizens: It is time to throw the suversives >out of our country, tear their clutching fingers from our throats, and >take a final stand for liberty. Do or die!! > >Col. Byron Weeks > >--------- > >HR1146-FORWARD EVERYWHERE > Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 14:46:48 -0400 (EDT) > From: JUDY709366@aol.com > >THIS IS OUR CHANCE FOLKS - Rep. Ron Paul (TX) needs OUR support push >this through. He only has two co-sponsors right now: Stump & Barr. HE >NEEDS MORE-Make copies of this -forward, fax, hand them out asap as if our >lives depend on this bill - BECAUSE... IT DOES! Everything Congress is >voting on is from the UN generated to disarm the world, etc.! >****** (Don t just call Congress because it s toll free (800-972-3524)- > >ALSO >WRITE THEM FOR RESPONSES!) > >H.R.1146 >105th Congress - 1st Session >To provide for complete withdrawal of the United States from the United >Nations. In the House of Representatives - March 20, 1997 >Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the >Committee on International Relations. >A BILL >Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United >States of America in Congress assembled, > >SECTION 1. Short Title: >This Act may be cited as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of >1997 . > >SEC.2. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS PARTICIPATION ACT. >(a) REPEAL- The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law >79-264 is repealed. >(b) CLOSURE OF UNITED STATES MISSION TO UNITED NATIONS- Effective within >120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States >Mission to the United Nations shall be closed. Any remaining functions of >such office shall not be carried out. >(c) NOTICE- The Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations of >the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations as of the date >of the enactment of this Act. > >SEC.3. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT ACT. >(a) REPEAL- The United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act (Public Law >80-357 is repealed. >(b) WITHDRAWAL- Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the >United States withdraws from the agreement between the United States and >the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations (signed >at Lake Success, New York, on June 26, 1947, which was brought into effect >by the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act). >(c) NOTICE- The secretary of state shall notify the United Nations that >the United States has unilaterally withdrawn from the agreement between the >United States of America and the United Nations regarding the headquarters >of the United Nations as of the date of the enactment of this Act. > >SEC.4. UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED >NATIONS. >(a) TERMINATION- No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise >made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States >to the United Nations. >(b) APPLICATION- The provisions of this section shall apply to all >agencies of the United Nations, including independent or voluntary agencies. > >SEC.5. UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS. >(a) TERMINATION- No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise >made available for any United States contribution to any United Nations >military operation. >(b) TERMINATION OF UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN UNITED NATIONS >PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS- No funds may be obligated or expended to support >the participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as >part of any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force. No >member of the Armed Forces of the United States may serve under the command >of the United Nations. > >SEC. 6. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED NATIONS PRESENCE IN FACILITIES OF THE >GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND REPEAL OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY. >(a) WITHDRAWAL FROM UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROPERTY- The United >Nations (including any affiliated agency of the United Nations) shall not >occupy or use any property or facility of the United States Government. >(b) DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY- No officer or employee of the United Nations or >any representative, officer, or employee of any mission to the United >Nations of any foreign government shall be entitled to enjoy the privileges >and immunities of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, >1961, nor may any such privileges and immunities be extended to any such >individual. > >SEC. 7. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL >ORGANIZATION ACT. >(a) REPEAL- The Act entitled An Act providing for membership and >participation by the United States in the United Nations Educational, >Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and authorizing an appropriation >therefor approved July 30, 1946 (Public Law 79-565) is repealed. >(b) NOTICE- The Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations that >the United States has withdrawn from membership in the United Nations >Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization as of the date of the >enactment of this Act. > >SEC. 8. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION ACT >OF 1973. >(a) REPEAL- The United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of >1973 is repealed. >(b) NOTICE- The Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations that >the United States has withdrawn from membership in the United Nations >Environment Program Participation as of the date of the enactment of this >Act. > >--------- >cheers >chas >=================================================== >Charles L Hamilton (chasm@insync.net) Houston, TX Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Sarah on the Air in Houston Date: 07 May 1997 02:02:53 -0600 Hi all! I know most of you are not in Texas (and that Texas is a rather LARGE state!) but I'm passing this on just in case you know someone who is. Sarah Thompson, M.D. of the Women's Firearms Alliance will be appearing on the Rob McKinnon show on Thursday, May 8 at 9 AM Houston time. The show is on KENR, 1070 AM radio in Houston. The call-in number is 713-787-5367. A LOT of very interesting legislation is coming out of Texas these days, so I'm hoping for a stimulating show. The topic is "Gun Talk". If it's possible for you, please tune in, and please call and say hello! Further information about WFA is at http://www.womensfire.org Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Trib Article Date: 07 May 1997 14:18:11 -0600 From today's Tribune... Anyone got some stats to end to these clowns? [Image] [Image] [Image] Wednesday, May 7, 1997 [Image] [Image] Misleading Ads? Report Says Guns Make Homes Less Safe SEATTLE TIMES SEATTLE -- Gun advertising is deceptive in claiming that guns protect homes, and federal authorities ought to consider regulating the ads, public-health researchers say in a report being released this week. Citing studies at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center in Seattle and elsewhere, the researchers say guns don't protect nearly as often as the ads imply and, in fact, they make homes more dangerous. Scientific evidence ``suggests that, on balance, the substantially increased risk of suicide and homicide associated with a gun in the home outweighs the potential benefits of relatively rare opportunities for defensive gun use,'' say researchers at The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in today's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The new study is appearing just as the National Rifle Association concludes its annual meeting this week in Seattle. The journal's editors say the timing of the report's publication is coincidental. One Harborview study cited by the report's authors shows that a homicide of a resident was 2.7 times more likely in a household with guns than in one without. Another study found that a suicide in a household with guns was five times more likely than a suicide in a household without. ``Despite these data, advertising claims don't mention the increased risk,'' said Jon Vernick, associate director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins. Omission of the risk is a form of deception, he said. In February 1994, the center asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to consider the gun-violence research in relation to the advertising and advertising laws. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence asked in separate petitions that the ads be regulated. An FTC representative said Tuesday the requests still were being reviewed and that the commission has been waiting for the Johns Hopkins study to consider along with other materials. Vicki Streitfeld, an FTC spokeswoman, said she didn't know when the agency would act on the petitions. An NRA spokesman denied gun advertising is deceptive. ``They're providing accurate information with respect to firearms ownership,'' said Chip Walker, who was at the Seattle meeting. In their study, Vernick and his colleagues cite several pistol ads they consider deceptive. One, from the Ladies' Home Journal, shows a mother putting her child to bed under the headline, ``Self-protection is more than your right . . . it's your responsibility.'' Another ad, from a gun magazine, shows a pistol and bullet on a bedside table next to a photo of a mother and two children and the headline, ``Tip the odds in your favor.'' Still another from a gun magazine, with a photo of a pistol, says: ``Homeowner's Insurance. When you're protecting what's yours, only two things matter in a handgun . . . accurate firepower and total reliability.'' The Johns Hopkins study says guns are rarely used for defense. It cites a Bureau of Census survey of 60,000 households that indicates there have been about 85,000 civilian defensive uses of guns inside and outside of homes. The Johns Hopkins researchers say the FTC has the legal authority to stop deceptive and ``unfair'' gun ads. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction in the minimum amount of time." -- General George S. Patton ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: Trib Article Date: 07 May 1997 14:57:56 -0600 Charles Hardy wrote: > > >From today's Tribune... > > Anyone got some stats to end to these clowns? > Eh... Yeah... I've never been able to get published by this fishwrapper so... Prepare for the deluge -- Some scientists say that the major building block of the Universe is hydrogen, because it is the most plentiful element. But my theory is that the Universe is made up of stupidity, because it is more plentiful than hydrogen. -Frank Zappa ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: Trib Article Date: 07 May 1997 14:59:22 -0600 Charles Hardy wrote: > > >From today's Tribune... > > Anyone got some stats to end to these clowns? > > [Image] > [Image] [Image] Wednesday, May 7, 1997 [Image] [Image] > > Misleading Ads? Report Says Guns Make Homes Less Safe > > SEATTLE TIMES > SEATTLE -- Gun > advertising is deceptive in claiming that guns protect homes, and > federal authorities ought to consider regulating the ads, > public-health researchers say in a report being released this week. > Citing studies at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research > Center in Seattle and elsewhere, the researchers say guns don't > protect nearly as often as the ads imply and, in fact, they make > homes more dangerous. > Scientific evidence ``suggests that, on balance, the > substantially increased risk of suicide and homicide associated with > a gun in the home outweighs the potential benefits of relatively rare > opportunities for defensive gun use,'' say researchers at The Johns > Hopkins School of Public Health in today's edition of the Journal of > the American Medical Association. > One Harborview study cited by the report's authors shows that a > homicide of a resident was 2.7 times more likely in a household with > guns than in one without. Another study found that a suicide in a > household with guns was five times more likely than a suicide in a > household without. >From jsrustad@meqlan1.remnet.ab.com Wed Oct 5 09:45:09 MDT 1994 Guns in the home are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder. (exact figure and quote will vary) Cities with gun-control have lower crime rates than cities without. (Seattle-Vancouver study) (stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu) ******************* Misleading Statistic #1 ************************** Statement: "I understand the impulse to pick the sort of personal safety sold with a matching holster. But that sense of security is false. Guns in the home are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder. They raise the level of violence, not safety." "Women and Guns" -- columnist Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe Response: "In a 1986 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Drs. Kellerman and Reay described the proper way to calculate how many people are saved by guns compared to how many are hurt by guns. The benefits should include, in the authors' own words 'cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm [and] cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed...'" "However, when Kellerman and Reay calculated their comparison, they didn't include those cases, they only counted the times a homeowner killed the criminal. Because well under 1% of defensive gun usage involves the death of a criminal, Kellerman and Reay under stated the protective benefits of firearms by a factor of at least 100! They turned the truth on its head!" "GUNS: Facts & Fallacies" -- "Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy", Edgar A. Suter, MD, Chairman. Phone # (510) 277 0333 SOURCES: The original study was published as: "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home" Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay The New England Journal of Medicine 314, no. 24 (June 12, 1986):1557-1560. It was then reprinted in: "The Gun Control Debate, You Decide" ed. Lee Nisbet, Prometheus Books 1990, 239-244. SUMMARY: 43:1 ratio breaks down as follows: 37 suicides 4.6 criminal homicides 1.3 accidents Note that the definition of defensive uses includes only cases where no charges were ever filed. If charges were filed the case was considered to be a "criminal homicide" even if the case was dismissed or the jury found "not guilty". Also note that the definition of defensive use requires killing the attacker -- apparently the researchers don't count wounding or driving off the attacker as defensive. Less than 0.5% of successful self-defense uses result in the death of the attacker (0.5% is based on ~400 justifiable homicides by civilians each year, FBI Uniform Crime Report, and the National Crime Survey's 80,000 self-defense uses which is a reasonable minimum estimate of the number of civilian-with-gun self- defenses.) Additionally it is useful to know that in ~85% of the cases where someone is killed by a friend or a family member, there was a police record of violence (criminal records, police calls over "domestic disturbances, etc...) In other words, if you have no history of violence, you are about five times less likely to kill a friend or family member. PARAPHRASING OF ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL (some direct quotes): Procedure: The medical examiner case files for every firearm related death in King County, Washington (1980 population = 1,270,000 including Seattle = 494,000 and Bellevue = 74,000) between January 1, 1978 and December 31, 1983 was reviewed. Incomplete records were corroborated with information from police case files and interviews of investigating officers. Gunshot deaths involving the intentional shooting of one person by another were considered homicides. Self-protection homicides were considered "justifiable" if they involved the killing of a felon during the commission of a crime; they were considered "self-defense" if that was the determination of the investigating police department and the King County prosecutor's office. All homicides resulting in criminal charges and all unsolved homicides were considered criminal homicides. Data: Over a six year period there were 743 deaths from firearms in King County (a rate of 9.75 / 100,000 per year). Firearms related deaths were 22.7 percent of all violent deaths in King County excluding traffic deaths. Firearms were used in 45% of all homicides (national average is 61%) and 49% of all suicides (national average is 57%). Firearms were involved in less than 1% of all accidental deaths and 5.7% of deaths involving undetermined circumstances. inside a house or dwelling = 473 deaths (63.7%) in the home where the firearm involved was kept = 398 (53.6%) breakdown of 398 deaths in home where gun was kept: suicides = 333 (83.7%) homicides = 50 (12.6%) accidents = 12 (3%) unknown = 3 (0.7) breakdown of suicides with guns in home where gun was kept: male victim = 265 (80%) female victim = 68 (20%) blood tested for ethanol = 245 (74%) blood alcohol test positive = 86 (35% of those tested) blood alcohol level above 100 mg/dl = 60 (24.5% of those tested) handgun used = 226 (68%) long gun used = 107 (32%) breakdown of homicides with guns in home where gun was kept: male victim = 30 (60%) female victim = 20 (40%) blood tested for ethanol = 47 (94%) blood alcohol test blood alcohol test positive = 27 (54% of those tested) blood alcohol level above 100 mg/dl = 10 (21% of those tested) handgun used = 34 (68%) long gun used = 16 (32%) occurred during altercation in the home = 42 (84%) self-defense during altercation = 7 of 42 (17%) justifiable homicide of burglars = 2 of 50 (4%) resulted in criminal charges = 41 of 50 (82%) total self-defense and justifiable = 9 of 50 (18%) breakdown of accidental deaths with guns in home where gun was kept: male victim = 12 (100%) blood alcohol test positive = 2 (17%) handgun used = 11 (92%) deaths excluding suicides = 65 (50 homicide, 12 accident, 3 unknown) victim was stranger = 2 (3%) victim was friend or acquaintance = 24 (37%) victim was resident = 36 (55%) victim of homicide was resident = 29 (45% of total, 58% of homicides) resident shot by family member except spouse = 11 (31%) by spouse = 9 (25%) by self = 7 (19%) by roommate = 6 (17%) by other = 3 (8%) Conclusions: ratio of killed by stranger to killed by person known = 12 : 1 ratio of accidental deaths to self-protection homicides = 1.3 : 1 ratio of criminal homicides to self-protection homicides = 4.6 : 1 ratio of suicides to self-protection homicides = 37 : 1 ratio of suicides, criminal homicides, and accidental deaths to homicides for self-protection = 43 : 1 ***************The "But Canada has less gun deaths" myth************ The original study appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine (Sloan et al., 1988). A follow-up study appeared in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Centerwall, author of the AJE study (December 1, 1991 issue), comments on some of the earlier criticism of the NEJM study: that Seattle and Vancouver are not comparable in terms of racial and ethnic composition: "To the extent that homicide rates are linked to ethnic strife, then, this would need to be corrected. One of the early critiques of the Seattle/Vancouver study stated that homicide ratios should be scored separately for each ethnic category, and did this for nonhispanic whites (who made up 75-80% of each city). The result: the gun homicide rates for nonhispanic whites was LOWER in Seattle, though the two ratios were very close." Centerwall cites this, and mentions that he contacted Sloan to request his data, in order to do similar comparisons and compute relative odds. Sloan refused to release his data, Centerwall reports. Centerwall then did a comparison of Canadian provinces and bordering states, looking at gun crimes. He adjusted for major metropolitan centers, so that New York City and Buffalo wouldn't skew the NY stats, nor Toronto the Ontario stats. He made some other adjustments to assure that he was comparing apples to apples. Conclusion: no differences in gun homicide rates, no differences in gun aggravated assault rates, with handgun prevalence in the states which bordered Canada running 3 to 10 times those in the neighboring provinces. There was one exception: Quebec had low gun ownership but high gun crime. Centerwall's data, though, incorporated a long enough time series that the aftermath of Trudeau's imposition of martial law might still have been having effects. Hence this result, of low gun concentration yielding high crime, is likely to be spurious. The upshot, then, was that there was no discernible effect of Canada's gun law. Of course, even had the Centerwall study not been done, and if the crimes of the Sloan study (e.g., suggesting that there was similar ethnic composition in Vancouver to Seattle, when they have wildly different characters except for nonhispanic white percentages) not been so severe, one still couldn't reach the conclusion the Seattle/Vancouver study reached. Sloan et al tried to claim that lower gun homicide rates in Vancouver were due to Canada's strict gun law. To do this, one would have to compare the data from before Canada's gun law was passed to U.S. data for the same period, and evaluate relative changes. -- Some scientists say that the major building block of the Universe is hydrogen, because it is the most plentiful element. But my theory is that the Universe is made up of stupidity, because it is more plentiful than hydrogen. -Frank Zappa ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: Trib Article Date: 07 May 1997 15:02:06 -0600 Charles Hardy wrote: > > >From today's Tribune... > > Anyone got some stats to end to these clowns? > > [Image] > [Image] [Image] Wednesday, May 7, 1997 [Image] [Image] > > Misleading Ads? Report Says Guns Make Homes Less Safe > > SEATTLE TIMES > SEATTLE -- Gun > advertising is deceptive in claiming that guns protect homes, and > federal authorities ought to consider regulating the ads, > public-health researchers say in a report being released this week. > Citing studies at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research > Center in Seattle and elsewhere, the researchers say guns don't > protect nearly as often as the ads imply and, in fact, they make > homes more dangerous. > Scientific evidence ``suggests that, on balance, the > substantially increased risk of suicide and homicide associated with > a gun in the home outweighs the potential benefits of relatively rare > opportunities for defensive gun use,'' say researchers at The Johns > Hopkins School of Public Health in today's edition of the Journal of > the American Medical Association. Another study found that a suicide in a > household with guns was five times more likely than a suicide in a > household without. > ``Despite these data, advertising claims don't mention the > increased risk,'' said Jon Vernick, associate director of the Center > for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins. Omission of the risk is > a form of deception, he said. Kopel: Most Western nations have violence rates at least as high as (usually higher than), the rates in Switzerland, which is lax gun control by most people's definition of term. Kopel: Northern Ireland has very repressive gun laws, and a very serious violence problem. Israel has very loose gun laws and yet very serious violence problems. Looking at a 'war zone' is not very helpful. Kopel: Countries that are lax by European standards (e.g., Norway, Belgium, Czech Republic, Lithuania) are not generally reported to be more dangerous than countries with are severe, by European standards (Romania, Great Britain, Spain, Germany). Rather than looking at a few data points Killias looked at 14 Title : International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide Author : Killias Updated: 04-30-96 Martin Killias presents the results of the International Crime Survey (ICS) with respect to the relationship between suicide/homicide and gun ownership rates in the 14 countries which participated. While it is clear that the study does not include all countries of the world, this does not reduce the applicability of these findings to the countries which were included. While undoubtably other factors contribute to homicide and suicide, the findings that gun ownership rates correlate strongly with total and with-gun homicide and suicide rates (as well as fraction of homicides with a firearm) but not non-gun homicide and suicide rates indicate that other means were not used to substitute when gun ownership rates are reduced. Indeed these data support findings by Cook and Kleck and McDowell that gun ownership rates increase the use of guns in robbery and assault (Kleck). Cook has shown that for robbery this increases the death rate and data from Kleck indicate that "offender gun present" increases the likelyhood of death for the victim of the crime. The data also support the findings by Cook and Kleck that fraction of suicides commited wth firearms correlates strongly with gun ownership rates (0.915) and as such is a good 'predictor' of gun ownership rates. Rates of homicide, suicide and household gun ownership in 14 countries. ========================================================================= Rate per Million _______________________________________ Homicide Suicide with a with a % of households Country Overall Gun Overall Gun with guns _______________________________________________________________________ Australia 19.5 6.6 115.8 34.2 19.6 Belgium 18.5 8.7 231.5 24.5 16.6 Canada 26.0 8.4 139.4 44.4 29.1 England/ Wales 6.7 0.8 86.1 3.8 4.7 Finland 29.6 7.4 253.5 54.3 23.2 France 12.5 5.5 223.0 49.3 22.6 Holland 11.8 2.7 117.2 2.8 1.9 N. Ireland 46.6 35.5 82.7 11.8 8.4 Norway 12.1 3.6 142.7 38.7 32.0 Scotland 16.3 1.1 105.1 6.9 4.7 Spain 13.7 3.8 64.5 4.5 13.1 Switzerland 11.7 4.6 244.5 57.4 27.2 USA 75.9 44.6 124.0 72.8 48.0 West Germany 12.1 2.0 203.7 13.8 8.9 ________________________________________________________________________ Spearman Rank Correlations between % of households owning guns and r value p value ________________________ Proportions of homicides with a gun 0.608 <0.02 Proportions of suicides with a gun 0.915 <0.001 Rate of homicide with a gun] 0.746 <0.01 Rate of suicide with a gun 0.900 <0.001 Overall rate of homicide 0.658 <0.02 Overall rate of suicide 0.515 <0.05 Rate of homicide by means other than a gun 0.441 NS Rate of suicide by means other than a gun -0.015 NS _________________________________________________________________________ NS is Not Significant Kallias, Martin, International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide, Can Med Assoc J, 1993, 148, 1721-1725 Positive correlations were found between the rates of household gun ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lowere rate of gun ownership. Conclusions: Larger studies are needed to examince more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of suicide or homicide. Ah, here comes Killias again, but, whether his study was accurate or not (and it seems to lose its worth once an outlier or two are removed and guns in Swiss households are acknowledged to be in Swiss households), it's irrelevant to this. The question wasn't what the net effect of gun laws or gun availability was, but whether there existed a single western country with lax gun laws and a crime rate comparable to a bunch of others. The last time I looked, Israel did not have a problem with violent crime. Jews don't do that sort of thing. Our mothers won't allow it. PHB -- Some scientists say that the major building block of the Universe is hydrogen, because it is the most plentiful element. But my theory is that the Universe is made up of stupidity, because it is more plentiful than hydrogen. -Frank Zappa ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: Trib Article Date: 07 May 1997 15:07:58 -0600 > Citing studies at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research > Center in Seattle and elsewhere, the researchers say guns don't > protect nearly as often as the ads imply and, in fact, they make > homes more dangerous. FROM: Don Kates I am in receipt of three communications which may be of interest. 1) Prof. Horrocks, Richard Munday and several other English analysts have received Home Office figures on crime and gun ownership. These indicate an INVERSE correlation, i.e., the areas of England and Scotland w/ the greatest gun ownership have the highest level of violent crime and homicide. [NOTE that this correlates w/ the American phenomenon that: a) geographic areas with the highest firearms ownership have the least violence; and b) demographic groups with the highest levels of gun ownership have very low levels of homicide, much lower than the demographic groups w/ the highest levels.] To get this British research I believe that all you need to do is write ftp//ftp.islandnet.com/ForgeConsulting/res/crimstat.zip. NOTE: I don't understand anything about internets, BBS, computers etc. All I am doing here is printing what is on the bottom of the fax they sent me. 2) An entirely different "English" source, Derek Bernard on the Isle of Jersey, suggests another line of inquiry: In 1971 Ireland confiscated all legally held handguns. Since then Irish homicide has steadily risen. At least that is what Bernard believes, based on isolated newspaper comments by Irish police officials. Bernard does not have access to international criminological statistics. Anyone who does should send him such Irish statistics as they possess at 44-534-6946-0; fax -6946-6; Chalet Abaco, Green Rd., St. Clement, Jersey, British Isles JE2 62A -- Some scientists say that the major building block of the Universe is hydrogen, because it is the most plentiful element. But my theory is that the Universe is made up of stupidity, because it is more plentiful than hydrogen. -Frank Zappa ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: Trib Article Date: 07 May 1997 15:17:50 -0600 Charles Hardy wrote: > > >From today's Tribune... > > Anyone got some stats to end to these clowns? > > [Image] > The Johns Hopkins study says guns are rarely used for defense. It > cites a Bureau of Census survey of 60,000 households that indicates > there have been about 85,000 civilian defensive uses of guns inside > and outside of homes. "the 15th study of the protective uses of guns." That study notes, "...the NSPOF [National Survey of the Private Ownership of Fireams, a study commissioned by the decidedly anti-self-defense Police foundation] data suggest that from 4 to 23 million DGU's [Defensive Gun Uses] occured in 1994...." This cite is particularly useful because the author, Prof. Phil Cook of Duke U., has been Kleck's arch-critic in the academic literature and HCI's most frequently cited researcher in opposing Kleck. Cook has been deriding Kleck & Gertz 2.5 million since before it was published. In a paper presented on 11/20/96 to the American Society of Criminology entitled "You Got Me: How Many Defensive Gun Uses Per Year?" (draft date 10/24/96) Cook describes how he reproduced Kleck & Gertz survey and he found a _low_end_ estimate of 4 million protective uses annually. It is somewhat amusing that after finally admitting the validity of Kleck's work, Cook's last paragraph in the paper reads: "To sum up, surveys are a decidedly flawed method for learning about the frequency with which innocent victims of crime use a gun to defend themselves. On the other hand, even if we could develop a reliable estimate of this frequency, it would only be of marginal relevance to the ongoing debate over the appropriate regulation of firearms commerce, possession, and use." When Cook disputed Kleck's data, he felt that the number of defensive uses was relevant to the debate. Now, after validating Kleck & Gertz' work, Cook, to the sound of our raucous laughter, dives into an epistemological abyss ("knowledge is unknowable") for cover. Edgar A. Suter MD National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Inc -- Some scientists say that the major building block of the Universe is hydrogen, because it is the most plentiful element. But my theory is that the Universe is made up of stupidity, because it is more plentiful than hydrogen. -Frank Zappa ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Re: Trib Article Date: 07 May 1997 15:19:24 -0600 >Kopel: Most Western nations have violence rates at least as high as >(usually higher than), the rates in Switzerland, which is lax gun >control >by most people's definition of term. > >Kopel: Northern Ireland has very repressive gun laws, and a very serious >violence problem. > >Israel has very loose gun laws and yet very serious violence problems. >Looking at a 'war zone' is not very helpful. > >Kopel: Countries that are lax by European standards (e.g., Norway, >Belgium, Czech Republic, Lithuania) are not generally reported to be >more >dangerous than >countries with are severe, by European standards (Romania, Great >Britain, >Spain, >Germany). > >Rather than looking at a few data points Killias looked at 14 > >Title : International correlations between gun ownership and rates of > homicide and suicide >Author : Killias >Updated: 04-30-96 > > Martin Killias presents the results of the International Crime > Survey (ICS) with respect to the relationship between > suicide/homicide and gun ownership rates in the 14 countries >which > participated. > > While it is clear that the study does not include all countries >of > the world, this does not reduce the applicability of these > findings to the countries which were included. While >undoubtably > other factors contribute to homicide and suicide, the findings > that gun ownership rates correlate strongly with total and > with-gun homicide and suicide rates (as well as fraction of > homicides with a firearm) but not non-gun homicide and suicide > rates indicate that other means were not used to substitute >when > gun ownership rates are reduced. > > Indeed these data support findings by Cook and Kleck and >McDowell > that gun ownership rates increase the use of guns in robbery >and > assault (Kleck). Cook has shown that for robbery this >increases > the death rate and data from Kleck indicate that "offender gun > present" increases the likelyhood of death for the victim of >the > crime. > > The data also support the findings by Cook and Kleck that >fraction > of suicides commited wth firearms correlates strongly with gun > ownership rates (0.915) and as such is a good 'predictor' of >gun > ownership rates. > > > >Rates of homicide, suicide and household gun ownership in 14 countries. >========================================================================= > Rate per Million > _______________________________________ > Homicide Suicide > with a with a % of >households >Country Overall Gun Overall Gun with guns >_______________________________________________________________________ >Australia 19.5 6.6 115.8 34.2 19.6 >Belgium 18.5 8.7 231.5 24.5 16.6 >Canada 26.0 8.4 139.4 44.4 29.1 >England/ >Wales 6.7 0.8 86.1 3.8 4.7 >Finland 29.6 7.4 253.5 54.3 23.2 >France 12.5 5.5 223.0 49.3 22.6 >Holland 11.8 2.7 117.2 2.8 1.9 >N. Ireland 46.6 35.5 82.7 11.8 8.4 >Norway 12.1 3.6 142.7 38.7 32.0 >Scotland 16.3 1.1 105.1 6.9 4.7 >Spain 13.7 3.8 64.5 4.5 13.1 >Switzerland 11.7 4.6 244.5 57.4 27.2 >USA 75.9 44.6 124.0 72.8 48.0 >West Germany 12.1 2.0 203.7 13.8 8.9 >________________________________________________________________________ >Spearman Rank Correlations > between % of households > owning guns and r value p value > ________________________ >Proportions of homicides with a gun 0.608 <0.02 >Proportions of suicides with a gun 0.915 <0.001 >Rate of homicide with a gun] 0.746 <0.01 >Rate of suicide with a gun 0.900 <0.001 >Overall rate of homicide 0.658 <0.02 >Overall rate of suicide 0.515 <0.05 >Rate of homicide by means other > than a gun 0.441 NS >Rate of suicide by means other > than a gun -0.015 NS >_________________________________________________________________________ >NS is Not Significant > > Kallias, Martin, International correlations between gun >ownership > and rates of homicide and suicide, Can Med Assoc J, 1993, 148, > 1721-1725 > > Positive correlations were found between the rates of household > gun ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as > well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed >with a > gun. There was no negative correlation between the rates of > ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by >other > means; this indicated that the other means were not used to > "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lowere > rate of gun ownership. > > Conclusions: Larger studies are needed to examince more >closely > possible confounding factors such as the national tendency >toward > violent solutions and more information on the type and > availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. > Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest >that > the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of > suicide or homicide. > > >Ah, here comes Killias again, but, whether his study >was accurate or not (and it seems to lose its worth >once an outlier or two are removed and guns in Swiss >households are acknowledged to be in Swiss households), >it's irrelevant to this. The question wasn't what the >net effect of gun laws or gun availability was, but >whether there existed a single western country with >lax gun laws and a crime rate comparable to a bunch of >others. >The last time I looked, Israel did not have a problem >with violent crime. Jews don't do that sort of thing. >Our mothers won't allow it. > >PHB > > >-- >Some scientists say that the major building block of the Universe >is hydrogen, because it is the most plentiful element. But my >theory is that the Universe is made up of stupidity, because it is >more plentiful than hydrogen. > -Frank Zappa WHERE did you get all this stuff? Don't tell me you've got it all stored in your head!! Would you be willing to help me write a letter to the idiotor? Love, Sarah PS: I'm going to try to find the JAMA article. Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Trib Article Date: 07 May 1997 16:53:23 -0600 > One Harborview study cited by the report's authors shows that a > homicide of a resident was 2.7 times more likely in a household with > guns than in one without. Another study found that a suicide in a > household with guns was five times more likely than a suicide in a > household without. Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns John R. Lott, Jr. School of Law University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60637 and David B. Mustard Department of Economics University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60637 July 26, 1996 * The authors would like to thank Gary Becker, Phil Cook, Clayton Cramer, Gertrud Fremling, Ed Glaeser, Hide Ichimura, Don Kates, Gary Kleck, David Kopel, William Landes, David McDowall, Derek Neal, Dan Polsby, and Douglas Weil and the seminar participants at the University of Chicago, American Law and Economics Association Meetings, and the Western Economic Association Meetings for their unusually helpful comments. Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns Abstract Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears toproduce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly. On the other hand, consistent with the notion of criminals responding to incentives, we find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth and where the probabilities of contact between the criminal and the victim are minimal. The largest populationcounties where the deterrence effect on violent crimes is greatest are where the substitution effect into property crimes is highest. Concealed handguns also have theirgreatest deterrent effect in the highest crime counties. Higher arrest and conviction rates consistently and dramatically reduce the crime rate. Consistent with other recent work (Lott, 1992b), the results imply that increasing the arrest rate, independent of the probability of eventual conviction, imposes a significant penalty on criminals. The estimatedannual gain from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Trib Article Date: 07 May 1997 17:02:14 -0600 Charles Hardy wrote: > > >From today's Tribune... > > Anyone got some stats to end to these clowns? > > [Image] > [Image] [Image] Wednesday, May 7, 1997 [Image] [Image] > > Misleading Ads? Report Says Guns Make Homes Less Safe > > SEATTLE TIMES > Citing studies at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research > Center in Seattle and elsewhere, the researchers say guns don't > protect nearly as often as the ads imply and, in fact, they make > homes more dangerous. > Scientific evidence ``suggests that, on balance, the > substantially increased risk of suicide and homicide associated with > a gun in the home outweighs the potential benefits of relatively rare > opportunities for defensive gun use,'' say researchers at The Johns > Hopkins School of Public Health in today's edition of the Journal of > the American Medical Association. > The new study is appearing just as the National Rifle Association > concludes its annual meeting this week in Seattle. The journal's > editors say the timing of the report's publication is coincidental. > One Harborview study cited by the report's authors shows that a > homicide of a resident was 2.7 times more likely in a household with > guns than in one without. Another study found that a suicide in a > household with guns was five times more likely than a suicide in a > household without. > Footnote from Lott/Mustard regarding one of the studies showing "the substantially increased risk of suicide and homicide associated with a gun in the home": Equally damaging the authors appear to concede in a discussion that follows their piece that their results are highly sensitive to how they define the crimes that they study.Even with their strange sample selection techniques, total murders appear to fall after the passage of concealed weapon laws. Because the authors only examine murders committed with guns, there is no attempt to control for any substitution effects that may occur between different methods of murder. For an excellent discussion of the McDowall et. al. paper see Polsby (1995). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: re:Trib Article Date: 07 May 1997 17:18:49 -0600 And finally for today.... Excerpts from a little paper I did for me stats class. > Will Thompson > > Psych. 250 > > Title of Study > > Protection or Peril? > > An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home > > By Arthur L. Kellerman, M.D., M.P.H., and Donald T Reay, M.D. > > Published New England Journal of Medicine. 1986: 314: pg. 1557-1560 > > General Problem of language > > The single greatest problem with this study is that it seems to be > written with the intent to confuse rather than inform. The authors are > constantly jumping from one set of numbers to another, and it becomes > impossible to tell whether any one statistic is drawn from the set > "All homicides", "Homicides within a dwelling" or "Homicides within > the dwelling where the gun was kept". > > Compounding this muddy use of language and statistics, the authors use > the emotional content of words and numbers rather than statistics to > support their conclusions. They mix percentages with raw data, i.e. > "Forty-two homicides (84 percent) occurred during altercations in the > home, including seven that were later determined ..self-defense. Two > additional homicides ...were...justifiable. Forty-one (82 percent) > resulted in criminal charges."(Pg. 1558, Paragraph 10) The problem > here isn't that one set of statistics is inherently better than > another, it's that the bigger number, whether raw score or percentage, > is used to describe the risks, and the smaller number is used to > describe the benefits of ownership. > > Problems with the definition of the sample > > The sample is not representative of the population about which the > conclusions are drawn. > > The authors conclude that "the advisability of keeping firearms in the > home for protection must be questioned." yet in the body of the study > they state "our case files rarely identified why the firearm involved > had been kept in the home." > > Conclusions are drawn in regard to "guns kept in the home for self > defense" yet 8 cases of suicide were included where the gun was > purchased within two days of the suicide, apparently for the purpose > of suicide. > > In the final paragraph the authors compare the number of bad deaths by > firearm with the number of justifiable homicides. This ratio of 43:1 > is the basis for questioning the risk/benefit of owning a firearm for > protection. The sample only included "deaths (good and bad) by > firearm", it did not include "defensive use where no one was killed or > injured" or any other category of "houses with firearms". Therefore, > no conclusion can be drawn about the efficacy of gun ownership for > protection. > > Problems with definition of terms > > Data is placed into groups which mix different types of score. > > The group "friends and acquaintances" may well contain justifiable and > non-justifiable homicides. Again, I believe the surface emotional > value of the term was used to influence the casual reader. There is no > way to tell how many "friends" were murdered or accidentally killed > compared to how many "acquaintances" were killed. It is possible, > (though admittedly unlikely) that every death in this category was a > case of one gang leader killing a rival, though "acquainted", gang > leader. There could have been nothing but long term abuse victims > killing their abusers in self-defense. The problem here is that there > is just no way to know, yet the category is used to support the "risk" > side of the equation. > > Cases in which "charges were filed" against the shooter are defined as > a non-defensive gun use, even though in many precincts, charges of > some type are always filed against the shooter, even if those charges > are as trivial as "possession of a weapon at a federal crime scene". > These charges are often dropped after the shooter's gun has been > confiscated. Often a defender is charged with felony homicide and > later found to have acted in self-defense. Again, the reader has no > way of knowing how many of what the study defined as homicides were > actually found to be justifiable or self-defense. > > The term "Defensive firearm use", as used by the authors, requires > that the aggressor must end up dead. In actuality, a defensive gun use > my involve nothing more than showing the aggressor that one is armed. > > Lack of controls > > The study seems to me to be a "descriptive" study, yet is presented > and has been used as an "inferential" study. If it were truly > inferential, there should be some sort of independent variable. Stated > as in our "rule of thumb" test, "The effect of guns kept in the home > on the number of homicides in the home", the two (minimal) levels of > the Independent Variable could be "homicide rates in homes with and > without firearms" or possibly, "homes with firearms with and without > homicides". Starting from "homes with firearms and homicides" and then > generalizing backwards is faulty methodology, it is "using the word to > define the word". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Column, May 11 (fwd)] Date: 07 May 1997 18:41:49 -0600 Any NRA associated reps want to coment on this? ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 11, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Gun control, NRA-style It started with state Sen. Carol Martin, of Oklahoma's 24th District, out in Comanche. In a "to whom it may concern" letter sent to Gun Owners of America -- the smaller and more principled competitor of the massive National Rifle Association -- Ms. Martin reports that in 1996, she "offered a Vermont-style right-to-carry amendment in the Oklahoma State Senate," eventually drawing the support of about one-third of the members. Vermont is the only state in the union that allows anyone -- resident or non-resident -- to carry a concealed weapon about his or her person at any time, without having to apply for any kind of permit. (Not at all accidentally, Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America.) Thus, the model for a "concealed carry" bill that truly acknowledges gun ownership as a (start ital)right(end ital) is known in legislative circles as "Vermont carry." In her March 31 letter, Sen. Martin reports returning a call from NRA lobbyist Mary Anne Bradfield "around June 12, 1996, AFTER my amendment failed. ... "My conversation with Ms. Bradfield was the first direct contact I had with the NRA-ILA since I defeated an NRA-ILA-endorsed incumbent in 1994. This incumbent, a Democrat, had come out publicly for banning semi-automatic firearms and against even a permit-style concealed carry law. "Ms. Bradfield's tone was both annoying and condescending. The gist of the conversation was that Ms. Bradfield was upset about my motion to establish Vermont-style right-to-carry in Oklahoma, and that I got 'so-called good' gun people voting" for such a bill. Sen. Martin's letter mentions that Colorado legislators report being similarly lobbied against "Vermont carry" initiatives by the NRA's lobbyists. "I understand that some members have been 'threatened' with 'F' ratings if they vote for Vermont-style right-to-carry," she reports. It seems to be more than a rumor. State Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, of Colorado's 65th District, far to the northeast around Fort Morgan, picks up the tale in an April 2 letter to Dudley Brown, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners: "Last week I had a conversation with NRA lobbyist Mary Anne Bradfield, the state liaison for Colorado. "Ms. Bradfield echoed the sentiments of Steve Schreiner of the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, who rudely told me that any attempt to amend Senate Bill 96 with a 'Vermont Law' would be viewed as anti-gun. Ms. Bradfield was even brash enough to threaten me with lowering my NRA rating, telling her members that I am anti-gun. ... "I pledged to support the 'Vermont Law' (i.e. carrying concealed without government permit) because I believe wholeheartedly in our right to personal protection," Ms. Musgrave's letter continues. "It is outrageous that an NRA lobbyist would suggest that voting to make it easier for citizens to carry a firearm is 'anti-gun.' "Am I to believe that the NRA rates lawmakers based on their willingness to comply with a lobbyist's wishes, no matter how inane? That would come as a shock to NRA members, who expect ratings to reflect a candidate's views and record on supporting the Second Amendment. ..." I asked Dudley Brown what he thought was going on. "It's almost like you have to threaten killing the bill or they're never going to fix it," said the defense rights activist, obviously exasperated. "That's exactly what we did when the bill came out of the senate side. We did a lot of threatening that this bill was dead because they'd put some criminal safe zones in there ... areas where you cannot carry, they're prohibited by law. ... Musgrave when she was on the floor talking about those, she was just tearing into them. Well, we got those taken out of the bill. But the NRA and all their little lackeys kept saying, 'Let's pass it, it's better than nothing.' ..." Freshman Colorado state Rep. Barry Arrington confirms the NRA position on "Vermont carry": "They opposed it. They suggested that they would look upon a vote for that unfavorably." When confronted, "they backed way off that," Mr. Arrington reports. "Mary Anne Bradfield denies vociferously ever threatening to lower the rating to an 'F' if you vote for Vermont carry, though that's the impression that I got; she did say the NRA would view it as an anti-gun vote." The name of Mary Anne Bradfield kept coming up, so I called the lady direct, at NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Va. "That's not accurate," Ms. Bradfield said of the reports that she has repeatedly warned state lawmakers not to support "Vermont Carry." But Ms. Bradfield, though sweet as honey, said she was not allowed to discuss any specifics. "We have a policy that everything has to go through our press department," she told me on a Tuesday afternoon, May 5, "and they are all in Seattle (for the annual NRA membership meeting) and not back yet. It's just policy. You know how that is, I'm you sure you run into a lot of organizations that have these kinds of rules and regulations. ... I almost have to laugh about all this, it's so out of control. I do want to respond, believe me." Ms. Bradfield promised to have an official NRA spokesman call me. By press time, none had. Meantime, Colorado State Rep. Carolyn Musgrave returned my call, and (start ital)was(end ital) willing to talk: "I feel like I was taken to task by Mary Anne Bradfield," Rep. Musgrave said. "I was the one who offered the Vermont Carry bill last year, so it was natural that I'd be the one to offer it again this year. But she said she didn't want me to do that. She said I'd be rated as 'anti-gun' if I proposed it. "I was made distraught by that; I'm a member of the NRA. ... I was disappointed that the NRA was going to downgrade my rating as a supporter of gun rights." I asked Rep. Musgrave if she's having any second thoughts about her four-year membership in the organization. "Yes, I'm beginning to have some doubts about that. Being a politician, I know about the art of compromise. But I also know the importance of voting your conscience, and standing on principle. She told me if I offered the Vermont Carry amendment, the liberals would back it and it would pass, and then Gov. Romer would be sure to veto it. Well, I don't think that's very realistic, to expect a bunch of liberals from the suburbs of Denver to vote for Vermont Carry. That could get a bit sticky to explain to their liberal constituents. And let's face it, Mr. Romer is now the head of the Democratic National Committee; he's going to veto this bill anyway. "I think we ought to not cave in on something like this, not let the threat of a veto prevent us from presenting the best bill we can. Why do we make law-abiding citizens jump through all these hoops when the criminals carry, anyway? I say, give law-abiding citizens a chance to exercise their Second Amendment rights." Next time -- State Sen. Carol Martin, Oklahoma's gun rights champion, explains why the NRA backed her anti-gun opponent. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "Not a second to be spent in seeking a fight, long hours devoted to avoiding it, and, if a fight is imposed upon us, however much time is necessary to win it." -Mark Helprin, "Mr. Clinton's Foreign Policy", WSJ, Aug 12, 96 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Column, May 14 (fwd)] Date: 07 May 1997 18:47:30 -0600 Or maybe this one? ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 14, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'An organization without honor, principle or integrity' In Nevada, the "concealed carry permit" bill OKd by the 1995 Assembly, with NRA backing, calls for handgun "carry" permits to be issued only after the petitioner proves he or she has taken a $100 safety class. Then, the permit is issued only for the weapon with which the applicant has passed the "safety class" -- by serial number. The idiocy of contending this has anything to do with "safety" should be obvious. If I pass my driver's license road test in an old Plymouth with a manual transmission, is that license invalid when I later trade in the Plymouth for a Chevy with an automatic? Do I have to go take a new road test and get a new driver's license every time I want to drive another car .... a license good only for a single automobile? Of course not. The only reason to force a "concealed carry permit holder" to get a separate permit for each weapon, once he or she has passed the background check and "safety" rigmarole, is so police can collect a list of the serial numbers of every weapon out there, and the addresses of the sock drawers in which each one is kept. "There's a story behind how we got that," said an active west-coast gun lobbyist when I took him to lunch last week. "I hate to criticize anyone by name, but at the time that was going through the Legislature in Carson City, the NRA changed the people who were assigned there. They pulled one team out, and threw in new people. And the new people knew nothing about legislative procedure. (Former Nevada state Sen.) Sue Lowden actually asked me at one point, 'Why did you guys want this bill? What the hell are we doing with this "one gun" thing on the permit? You ought to be able to carry any gun you want. We could have gotten through a much better bill, if you'd just asked for it'." ("Gosh, we're going back a couple of years now," responded Ms. Lowden when I reached her at home one recent evening, helping one of her offspring with a homework project. "Probably during a hearing I did ask those questions. Yes, that sounds like something I would ask.") Clarence Lovell of Colorado, a wealthy retired chemist now aged 77, served 14 years on the NRA's national board of directors, leaving that post in 1985. "(Colorado State Rep.) Marilyn Musgrave was gonna support Vermont-type carry, and she was intimidated by Steve Schreiner and an NRA field representative," he reports. "This is a bad bill," Mr. Lovell says of the concealed-carry measure that finally landed on Gov. Romer's desk, recently. "I'm scared to death the son-of-a-bitch'll sign it. This is a bill that has $120 for three years and also has a damned training requirement, which God knows what it'll cost ..." In other states, Mr. Lovell reports, "Invariably when the NRA has gotten this (type of bill) through, we've lost the right to carry a gun in a car, and they've upgraded it from a misdemeanor to a felony. ... "Our state Constitution, article 2 section 13, says the right to keep & bear arms shall not be called into question. ... The NRA's screwing us, they're setting us up, they stuck us with that damned instantaneous background check. "You have to have a background check, government permission to buy a damned gun, because they hide behind skirts, put a bunch of moon-eyed females up there. The dumbest people I know are in gun clubs. The NRA members are probably about the worst informed, the kind of people who want someone to take them to the bathroom. ... Every right that we have lost in the past 20 years had been deliberately given away by the NRA and their bureaucrats. ... All they want is power, money, and recognition." The NRA's willingness to stress "the sporting use of arms has degraded our Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is to protect our right to resist government tyranny. Instead the NRA has become the country's largest sportsman organization and the country's largest cop organization." Is that bad -- the large number of police officers in the NRA? "They'll kick your door in just as fast as anyone else. ... Wayne LaPierre gets $190,000; their hands are in the cookie jar; what would they do for a living? This is their career and they keep it going. In Pennsylvania their field staff helped pass the worst gun law in the history of the state, and they got a thank-you letter from Sarah Brady" (on the stationery of Handgun Control Inc. -- this reporter has seen the letter.) "It's an organization without honor, principle or integrity. I'll have to stay with Gun Owners of America. Basically, never trust a hired gun, they'll sell you out. These little whiners that want someone to blow their nose for them are gonna get in trouble every time. You've got to fight it yourself, at the local level." State Sen. Carol Martin of Oklahoma, whose March 31 letter about the NRA started us down this path last week, returned my call one recent morning before the cats had had their breakfast: "When I ran, I was supported by Gun Owners of America," she says. Sen. Martin's opponent, incumbent Democrat Larry Lawler, "was supported by the NRA even though he opposed concealed carry. ... If it's an incumbent, even if they're not right on the issues, they'll continue to support him. Before I got up here there was never even a vote on any gun issues. They were out supporting him, giving him an 'A' rating even though his questionnaire was totally bogus." Oklahoma's current concealed carry bill "has a lot of things in it that I did not like, that they (the NRA) were backing," Sen. Martin explains. "We've had to go back in and repeal them over the past two years. It still requires some kind of training, and you have to pay for the permit and the classes. ... "We refused to put the serial number in the bill because we feel that that is registering the gun, and that's what Hitler did, is register guns and then seize them. If a law-abiding citizen wants to carry a gun, why do they always need to get the government's permission? I just think they (the NRA) have been infiltrated by more liberal-minded people, especially at the top, and they no longer reflect the grassroots citizens, who want these rights defended." Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "Not a second to be spent in seeking a fight, long hours devoted to avoiding it, and, if a fight is imposed upon us, however much time is necessary to win it." -Mark Helprin, "Mr. Clinton's Foreign Policy", WSJ, Aug 12, 96 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Letter to Editor Date: 08 May 1997 11:22:58 -0600 The following letter has been sent to the Tribune. There is no way on this green earth they are going to print another pro-gun letter from me so somebody please drop them a letter on the same topic. Rember to include full name, address, and phone number. Letters can be submitted via email to and snail mail to SL Tribune 143 S. Main SLC, UT 84111. The articles I mentioned ran in this last Saturday's or Sunday's paper. SL Tribune Dear Editor Thank you for printing the articles on the Alta View Hospital incident. It is important to remember our history so we can avoid repeating mistakes. Reading these articles convinced me of the irony, shortsightedness, and foolishness of those now clamoring for a legislative ban on concealed weapons in hospitals and other "sanctuaries". In the wake of the Alta View siege, many health care professionals realized how vulnerable they were to harm and that "hospital security" was an oxymoron. However, under Utah's old discriminatory system of issuing concealed weapons permits they could not legally carry a weapon for self defense. Faced with the decision to either obey the law or provide for their own protection, many doctors and nurses decided it was "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and began carrying weapons in violation of State law. Largely due to the pleas of these respected members of our community Utah adopted its current "non-discretionary" concealed weapon permit law under which every law abiding adult may obtain a permit after passing safety and background checks. No longer must doctors, nurses, shift workers, co-eds taking night classes, nor anyone else choose between obeying the law and providing for their own protection while away from home. However, nullifying concealed carry permits in hospitals, universities, or other "sanctuaries" will once again force model citizens to decide between compliance with an arbitrary law and their own safety. Madmen are no more likely to honor the sanctity of hospitals or universities today than Worthington was five years ago. Neither hospitals nor schools are any more equipped to safeguard their patrons and employees from those madmen today than they were then. Remember your history. And no, I do not have a permit. But neither do I fear those who do. Sincerely Charles Hardy -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "There are no victims, only volunteers. You volunteer by appearing uncertain and afraid. You volunteer by being (as grass-eaters invariably are) unprepared to deal with the dangers of life." - Cooper's Corner ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ABC-TV's new program "GUN" Date: 08 May 1997 16:54:00 -0700 Posted to rkba-co by "C.F.Inston" ----------------------- C.F.Inston wrote: Here's the sponsor list for ABC-TV's new program "GUN": Kodak (Another Kodak Anti-Gun Moment) Dominos Pizza (2 entries) [driver carries less than twenty dollars worth of ammo] Plax Dental Rinse [the tartar/homicide link needs grant money for research] Pillsbury [a *doughboy* against guns?] J.C.Penny (Doin' It Left) McDonalds (2 entries) Certs breath mints [breathe on me again and I'll shoot you] Subway Sandwich stores (Your Way, Right Away, the Anti-Gun Way)[don't rob us] SAAB (http://www.saabusa.com)[a saab story about your rights] Key bank (Free Trigger Locks?) Dodge (Ram Tough Against Guns) Nike (Just Anti-Gun Do It) Allegra (A prescription drug)[without which you will surely shoot someone] Alpha Hydrox moisture cream for women (Wrinkles cause gun-homicides?) Burger King (Have It Your Anti-Gun Way)[don't rob us either] Listerine (Kills the Germs That Cause Gun Violence) Kelloggs (Best To You Each Anti-Gun Morning) Sears ('Nuff Said) ______________________________ In the premier episode a suicide loses *THE* gun to a bum who sells it to an ex-con motel clerk who attempts to sell it to a street-punk-criminal kid who shoots said clerk and lets an accomplice use it in a convenience store hold-up. Typical bad TV. Tune in next week and it'll sing show tunes! (wearing a toupee) Counting to ten, Charles 'Chuck' Inston ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Knife murder in Baltimore! Date: 08 May 1997 16:54:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Originally To: right2arms@pobox.com Last night around 10:00 a 12 year old girl stabbed a 14 year-old girl in the neck. DOA. Aside from the obvious, "What are they doing in Downtown Baltimore at 10:00 on a school night?" is this another example of the horrors of "knife ownership?" This prompted me to get out my '93, '94, and '95 UCRs and I was horrified. Simply horrified. You heard it here first... As it turns out, knives were used 24 times in "justifiable homicides" by civilians in 1995. However, tragically, 2538 people were murdered with knives in 1995! Do YOU own a knife? Did you know that you are 105 times more likely to be killed by a knife than to use a knife in lethal self-defense? Not only that, but the '95 UCR shows that NO COPS used knives in '93, '94, or '95 in justifiable homicides, so COPS HAVE NO NEED FOR KNIVES! They should all be banned!! Banned, I tell you!! Why do you need more than one knife? Why are there so many different kinds of knives? What about those knives with no sporting purpose? Do it for the children! There should be a waiting period for knife purchases. Any parent who leaves a knife where a kid can get it should go to prison. Did you know there are no federal safety standards for knives, yet there are for Teddy Bears? Hey, if it saves just one life... Can a knife cut through a bullet-proof vest? Who hunts a deer with a knife? You can't defend yourself with a knife, and anyway, you're more likely to be killed with one. Did I miss anything? Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Citizen's Self-Defense Act Date: 08 May 1997 16:54:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- More Reps. Jumping on the Bandwagon -- Hotline updated with new Western Union message by Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585, fax: 321-8408, http://www.gunowners.org (Friday, May 2, 1997) Good work on pushing the Citizen's Self-Defense Act. Dozens of you sent Western Union mailgrams to your Representatives asking them to cosponsor HR 27, the Citizen's Self Defense Act. Eleven new cosponsors have now jumped on board, bringing the total to 52. This bill has more cosponsors than any other pro-gun bill in the Congress. The bill is important as it would protect anyone who uses a gun in self-defense, even if the gun used was carried without a permit or possessed without a license. (Certainly, Bernie Goetz could have benefited from this bill becoming law.) Thanks to your help, Chenoweth's bill becomes the leading repeal bill. Since our last alert, six more cosponsors have signed onto Rep. Helen Chenoweth's bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun ban. Her bill (HR 1009) now has 21 cosponsors, which is four more than the compromise bill introduced by Rep. Bob Barry (R-GA). Rep. Chenoweth's office has informed GOA that the six new cosponsors are Reps. Jim Bunning (R-KY), John Cooksey (R-LA), Michael Crapo (R-ID), David McIntosh (R-IN), Floyd Spence (R-SC) and J.C. Watts (R-OK). ACTION ITEMS: 1. GOA has updated the Western Union Hotline (1-800-651-1486) to now send messages in support of repealing the Lautenberg gun ban. These mailgrams will push support for H.R. 1009, as well as answer the typical reasons that Congressmen give for keeping the gun ban in place. Many of these guys are on the fence, and we just need to give them a forceful push to get them as cosponsors. So let's swamp them in Western Union mailgrams! The Hotline is also set up to send Thank You letters to all the Representatives that have cosponsored H.R. 1009. A fee of $6.95 will be charged to your phone bill. 2. To really put the heat on, get GOA's five sample "Letters to the Editor" and get them placed in your local papers. Each of these letters will challenge your Representative to cosponsor H.R. 1009. Each letter will identify him by name as being one of the Congressmen who still have yet to support the full repeal of the Lautenberg gun ban. Moreover, each letter will give powerful arguments for the repeal of Lautenberg. Placing these letters in the newspapers in your Congressman's district will force him to either get on the bill or to continue "putting out brushfires." There are five letters in all, so you can send one and get your family and friends to send the others. You can get these "Letters to the Editor" by faxing GOA a request for them at 703-321-8408. Or, you can visit the GOA website at http://www.gunowners.org/coslettb.htm to get copies of the letters. FINAL NOTES: The fax alert of April 11 incorrectly described Rep. Jay Dickey as being from AZ (Arizona). Rep. Dickey, who has now cosponsored both the Lautenberg and semi-auto ban repeals, is in fact from AR (Arkansas). Apologies to our members in both states. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Judge kills attacker in self-defense Date: 08 May 1997 09:29:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to the AZRKBA list by Sixth Mesa <6mysmesa@1EAGLE1.COM> Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Dan Day" On April 29, a man licensed to carry a concealed handgun was driving down a street in downtown Houston when he was flagged down by an acquaintance, Vidal Ramerez Jr, who told the driver that someone had just stolen Ramirez' briefcase. The driver, Werner Voigt, age 60, looked down the street, saw the robber running away with the briefcase, and drove after him. A few blocks later, Voigt caught up with the robber, pulled over, and demanded that the robber give back Ramirez' briefcase. The robber, Ronnie Tucker, described in the newspaper reports as "enraged", slammed the case on the hood of Voigt's car and began beating him. Voigt drew his licensed 9mm pistol and shot Tucker. Tucker then continued to beat Voigt and according to police spokesman Robert Hurst, "was getting the upper hand". Voigt shot again, and this time Tucker stumbled and fell, dying at the scene. The newspaper (the Houston Chronicle) has a photo of Voigt holding an ice pack on his bloody face. He was treated at an area hospital for a broken nose. Voigt's glasses were also broken during the altercation. A number of points of interest: 1. A followup story the next day revealed that fifteen minutes prior to the shooting, Tucker had attacked a woman who was five months pregnant. In an article under the title "Beaten pregnant woman backs judge in shooting of attacker", Fedalma Guice, age 32, had just come out of her doctor's office when Tucker came up to her and began rambling about something Tucker claimed he had supposedly told her 13 years ago. She said Tucker suddenly attacked her, hitting her in the head repeatedly. "He was hitting me hard with all of his strength. He was so strong and powerful," she said. "I didn't want him to hit me in the stomach. I told him I was pregnant." "If I had a gun, I would've done the same thing [Voigt] did," she said. She said she tried to flag down two Houston Police Department cars, but both drove on. One drove by during the beating itself. The article says, "Guice believes that had the HPD cars stopped, Tucker would not have made it to LaBranch" (where he attacked Voigt and was shot). 2. This got prominent coverage because Voigt happens to be State District Judge Werner Voigt. The headline read, "Judge shoots, kills man in scuffle on street". Had this happened to an ordinary citizen, it would probably have been buried, or covered as "Man dead after downtown shooting", with the Good Samaritan angle downplayed or missing. I'm not just being cynical, that's how self defense shootings are too often covered (or not covered). Instead, since it involved a judge, it got a brief mention in the evening edition of the 29th, a top-of-front-page story with two photos on the 30th along with a map of the events inside the paper, two separate related stories on the 30th and two *more* related stories on May 1. (How was coverage outside Houston, and outside Texas?) 3. In Texas, judges need licenses to carry concealed handguns, just like ordinary citizens do, as detailed in the accompanying Houston Chronicle story entitled "Judges must pass gun tests; many carry arms". Up until 1989, any judge could have done so without a license, but in 1989 the Attorney General ruled that they needed a license. Voigt had one. 4. Nothing in the events was precipitated by Voigt's being a judge, and the same thing could have happened to any citizen. 5. Houston lawyer Terry Gaiser, a longtime friend of Voigt's, was quoted as saying, "Werner is disabled, he can't run, he limps severely when he walks. If he was attacked by anyone able-bodied he couldn't get away." And, as previously noted, he is 60 years old. 6. Another Voigt acquaintance, Houston criminal defense attorney Connie B. Williams, said, "I think if Werner Voigt did that, he had no other alternatives, from what I know about the kind of guy he is. I do know he had a lot of compassion for defendants from watching him in court. He had an ability and willingness to listen." 7. This was not the first time Voigt had risked himself for others. His girlfriend, Emily Nedell, recounted the time that she was riding with Voigt and he saw a man beating a woman on the street. She said, "He stepped in and told her to get into the car and dropped her off at the Montrose [Street] police station. He was very calm, very cautious. The man was yelling at him, screaming at him and throwing the girl's stuff at the car." 8. Nedell also was quoted as saying, "He has to carry that damned gun wherever he goes. I'm always saying, 'Don't carry it, nothing's gonna happen,' and he says, 'You never know when something might happen, you never know'... He will now say, 'I told you so.'" 9. Tucker, the robber, had a criminal history, being convicted of theft in 1979, assault in 1982, and was charged with a 1990 drug case. A 1991 robbery and assault case, which ironically was tried in Voigt's own court, resulted in Tucker being found mentally incompetent to stand trial. 10. Tucker was described in the article as, "Tucker, who police say had assaulted and robbed several other people downtown in recent days..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Patterns 1/2 Date: 08 May 1997 23:20:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hi all This was originally posted 24 Oct 1996 to the UK Cybershooter list. While it was specifically written to help members of the British shooting community understand what was happening to them, I think it has broader relevance for us all. My comments below... ________________________Begin Message________________________ Dear All. I am not a shooter, but I live with one...No doubt my partner, Stuart, has been helping out as much as he can. However, I would like to give you a few pointers which may help in your pursuit of personal choice and freedom which is currently under attack. I am researching for my PhD, and part of that study involves culture, social and communication studies. There are a few key concepts that you may find helpful which are in constant use within society and have been documented and researched. Once you know how the patterns of social communication work, then perhaps you may all be able to find some way of breaking the classic cycle (trap) that society has currently placed you in...especially when it comes to the 'morality' issue. 1. Amplification of deviance. The process whereby initial activity, labelled as deviant, is increased or 'amplified' as a result of social reaction which is largely coordi- nated and articulated by the mass media. The concept has been developed particularly by Wilkins (1964) who argued that under certain conditions when a society receives a simplified, stereotypical and often misleading information about groups and activities labelled as deviant, it reacts in such a way as to produce more deviance. Initial information generates a response, which in turn uncovers and may promote even greater deviant activity. This underscores the role of the mass media in providing information, particularly their provision of labels and definitions of deviancy. Young (1981) suggests they are 'guardians of the consensus'. a) An apparent 'crime wave' appears, orchestrated by mass media which generates increased public concern. b) Public concern, expressed and represented by mass media, pressure groups and political demands focuses the attention of the police and control agencies on the deviant activity. c) This increase of attention boosts arrest rates apparently uncovering greater or increasing deviance. e) This accelerates the crime wave and further public sentiments and concern (go back to (a)) This concept (cycle) offers a useful way both to think through and to analyse the shootings sports within this concept, and break the pattern. You should consider: Agenda setting. Labelling. Moral Panic. The stereotypic shooting image. 2 Moral Panic: An important concept which highlights the processes of interplay between forces of social reaction and control, the mass media and certain forms of deviant activity. The term has been introduced into the analysis of mass media and their capacity to generate social concern by Cohen (1972) who describes the process as one where 'A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerge to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests. a) The occurence and signification of an initial event, which attracts often dramatic media coverage, and sets in motion often intensive media surveillance and research routines. These are organised and aligned to identify any subsequent events which may be coded as similar. b) In the wake of initial impact, media coverage starts to work from the event in particular, to the wider social implications and issues that such an event is defined as raising. Drawing particularly upon primary definers and 'accredited witnesses', who represent 'expert' and professional opinion, and possibly 'moral intrepreneurs' who contend in defining the event as symptomatic of wider breakdowns in moral and social fibre and fabric, the media fuel public debate, concern, outrage, and sensitivity. This may be further inflated and intensified by media indentification of other events and occurences that have subsequently taken place. These may under certain conditions, become defined and interpreted as the progressive discovery that the problem or event in particular is in fact a part of a widespread and correspondingly more menacing social problem. In this way the initial event becomes constructed as 'the tip of the iceberg', the first 'wave' or 'flood', an early 'blow' in a developing 'battle', and so on. This spiralling public attention, and its replay through the media, notably in the form of news, in itself may lend increased urgency and severity to: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Patterns 2/2 Date: 08 May 1997 23:20:00 -0700 c) Social control, exercised especially though not always exclusively in the form of state responses to the 'problem' drastically and dramatically revealed. The judicial, legislative and administrative responses and penalities will often be articulated within the definitions and frameworks provided in preceeding stages. It would appear that shooters have been caught in both of these traps. The best way to get out of these cycles is to either break the cycle or play your own orchestrated cycle out to the media. I suggest that someone spends a day in the reference library looking up 'communication and media' studies in order to try and find an experience in the past that was able to break the cycle. There is a lot of very nasty social engineering going on here, and you are all the scapegoats of a repressive and frightened government. The definitions I have typed above are from a good source book called Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural studies. (Routledge Tim O Sullivan ISBN 0-415-06173-3.) Unfortunately you are also struck with another social engineering pattern within the new 'morality' issues currently raised...recognise the pattern??? I hope this hasn't been to arduous to read, but what is happening here is a classic case.. You must be clever, play them at their own game, and orchestrate a positive, intelligent and well thought plan of flooding the mass media with an 'alternative cycle'. _______________END FORWARDED MESSAGE_____________ I've had this note since it was written. We must understand the dynamics and influences between our society and the media. I hope this note will make us each aware that this is both a high art and a science. And that there are superb practioners among us orchestrating campaigns against freedom and liberty. "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion." - Josef Goebbels, 1923 "What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." - Adolf Hitler "I'm going to cut my Political Attackers out of American Politics; They are a Cancer!" - William J. Clinton "If you thought massive government propaganda was the special preserve of communist countries, think again." - William E. Simon, fmr Secretary of the Treasury It's an old story. It has happened before. It will happen again. It can and will happen to you, to me, to our families if we allow it to through our inaction and ignorance. The state does not have to kill its enemies to silence them, it needs only to make them irrelevant. They are first marginalized, then painted as extremists and finally vilified and destroyed. We are all vulnerable. In todays world, each of us is subject to being singled out for our views and associations and then being attacked. Whoever we are, shooters, Libertarians, Republicans, patriots, veterans, seniors, conservatives, self-employers, blacks, WASPs, Mormons, Jews, or CPAs, we can be attacked and made irrelevant through the methods touched on in this note. The methods are defined, the cycle illustrated above is predictable and hauntingly familiar to us. Learn the pattern. Learn how to counter with truth and reason. We see the pattern everywhere we look. We see it used against those who support the right to keep and bear arms, painted first as nuts, now as terrorists. If we do not all reply, we will all be disarmed. We see it happening to the Internet, painted as a haven for child molestors and perverts. If we do not reply, we will not be able to post any truth there, either. We see it against those who exercise their free speech on the radio, painted as liars and freaks. If we do not reply, we will return to the bland conformity of the evening news. We see it happening all around us, do we take the time to understand, to reply, to fight back? We must UNDERSTAND what is happening. Most people do not react. Too many that do react do so with rhetoric and emotion, exactly the way that makes them even more vulnerable. Valor and truth are insufficient unless allied with intelligence and knowledge. "All people, Jews or gentiles, who dare not defend themselves when they know they are right, who submit to punishment not because of what they have done, but because of who they are, are already dead by their own decision" - Dr. Bruno Bettelheim, Psychologist & former prisoner at Dachau and Buchenwald. ttfn John ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Fwd Re: Column, May 11] Date: 09 May 1997 10:21:49 -0600 Don't let our legislators catch wind of this or they'll be implementing the same thing here. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- My wife and I pay an exorbitant fee each three years in order to carry a concealed weapon if we so desire. About two years ago there was a "compromise" clause stuck into a Florida law supposedly designed to mollify objectors to our present carry law. The new law required that the names of all concealed carry permit holders be scanned through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement crimes list every SIX WEEKS in order to assure someone or other that we legitimate citizens had not committed some crime or other. My wife and I are scanned through the criminal justice system EVERY SIX WEEKS. Had we chosen to ignore the law, no one would be peeking into our lives. I called the various offices and found that there is no similar following of discharged criminals or even of parolees. I believe that they have since started to do this kind of follow-up with registered sex offenders. I called Marion Hammer, who lives in Tallahassee and at that time had not yet become president of the NRA. SHE FOUND NOTHING OBJECTIONABLE ABOUT THE LAW. Any law which treats a law-abiding citizen like a sex offender...and it is a "move to keep the anti-gunners off our backs." Marion has been the long-time lobbyist for Unified Sportsmen of Florida, a group I fled when it supported the ban on mail-order guns as a "move to keep the anti-gunners off our backs." I discovered at that time that retail firearms dealers were in favor of the bill because it would kill their mail-order competition. "Unified Sportsmen" was really a "go-along"lobby for the firearms dealers of Florida and not for the individual gun owner as it touted itself to be. Maybe Moses can straighten out the NRA. Art ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!" -- Patrick Henry (1736-1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: excerpts from the Urban Institute's Brady study Date: 09 May 1997 12:14:21 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5D5686E4EE8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As part of the Crime Act, the govt. was required to commission a study 30 months? after enactment to study the impact of the black gun and bad magazine ban. Here is the address of the final study, along with some notable (I think) excerpts, which of course, are being forwarded for educational purposes. Most noteworthy to me is the evenhanded language, especially considering how many HCI folks contributed and how many "gun wingnuts" didn't contribute. Most of the findings agree with "our" original stand on the Brady Bill, most interesting to me is the increase in number of wounds in non-fatal shootings since the magazine ban. So...for your educational enjoyment.... --------------5D5686E4EE8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="uistudyoverview.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="uistudyoverview.txt" >> http://www.urban.org/crime/aw/AWFINAL1.htm > >Using a variety of national and local data sources, we found >no statistical evidence of post-ban decreases in either the >number of victims per gun homicide incident, the number of >gunshot wounds per victim, or the proportion of gunshot >victims with multiple wounds. Nor did we find assault weapons >to be overrepresented in a sample of mass murders involving >guns (see Appendix A). > >******************** > >At least three considerations appear to have motivated the >Subtitle A bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines: >arguments over particularly dangerous consequences of their use, >highly publicized incidents that drew public attention to the >widespread availability of military-style weapons, and the >disproportionate use of the banned weapons in crime. > > >The argument over dangerous consequences is that the ban targets >a large array of semiautomatic weapons capable of accepting >large-capacity magazines (i.e., magazines holding more than >10 rounds). > >There is very little empirical evidence, however, on the direct >role of ammunition capacity in determining the outcomes of >criminal gun attacks (see Koper 1995). The limited data which >do exist suggest that criminal gun attacks involve three or >fewer shots on average (Kleck 1991, pp.78-79; McGonigal et al. >1993, p.534). Further, there is no evidence comparing the >fatality rate of attacks perpetrated with guns having large- >capacity magazines to those involving guns without large- >capacity magazines (indeed, there is no evidence comparing the >fatality rate of attacks with semiautomatics to those with other >firearms). But in the absence of substantial data on the >dynamics of criminal shootings (including the number of shots >fired and wounds inflicted per incident), it seems plausible >that offenders using semiautomatics, especially assault >weapons and other guns capable of accepting large-capacity >magazines, have the ability to wound more persons, whether >they be intended targets or innocent bystanders (see Sherman >et al. 1989). This possibility encouraged us to attempt to >estimate the effect of the ban on both the number of murder >victims per incident and the number of wounds per murder victim. > >The potential of assault weapons to kill multiple victims >quickly was realized in several dramatic public murder incidents >that occurred in the decade preceding the ban and involved >assault weapons or other semiautomatic firearms with large- >capacity magazines (e.g., see Cox Newspapers 1989; Lenett 1995). >In one of the worst mass murders ever committed in the United >States, for example, James Huberty killed 21 persons and wounded >19 others in a San Ysidro, California, McDonald's on July 18, >1984, using an Uzi handgun and a shotgun. On September 14, 1989, >Joseph T. Wesbecker killed seven persons and wounded thirteen >others at his former workplace in Louisville, Kentucky before >taking his own life. Wesbecker was armed with an AK-47 rifle, >two MAC-11 handguns, and a number of other firearms. One of the >most infamous assault weapon cases occurred on January 17, 1989, >when Patrick Edward Purdy used an AK-47 to open fire on a >schoolyard in Stockton, California, killing 5 children. > >There were additional high profile incidents in which offenders >using semiautomatic handguns with large-capacity magazines killed >large numbers of persons. In October of 1991, a gunman armed with >a Glock 17, a Ruger P89 (both the Glock and Ruger models are >semiautomatic handguns capable of accepting magazines with more >than 10 rounds), and several large-capacity magazines killed >23 people and wounded another 19 in Killeen, Texas. In a December >1993 incident, six people were killed and another 20 were wounded >on a Long Island commuter train by a gunman equipped with a >semiautomatic pistol and large-capacity magazines. > >These events have been cited as jarring the public consciousness, >highlighting the public accessibility of weapons generally >associated with military use, and demonstrating the apparent >danger to public health posed by semiautomatic weapons with >large-capacity magazines. These considerations, along with the >claim that large-capacity magazines were unnecessary for hunting >or sporting purposes, reportedly galvanized public support for the >initiative to ban these magazines (Lenett, 1995). > >Debate over assault weapons raged for several years prior to the >passage of the 1994 Crime Act. Throughout that time, different >studies, news reports, policy debates, and legal regulations >employed varying definitions of assault weapons. Yet, in general >terms, the firearms targeted in these debates and those ultimately >prohibited by the federal government's ban consist of various >semiautomatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns, most of which accept >detachable ammunition magazines and have military-style features. >Mechanically, the most important features of these guns are their >semiautomatic firing mechanisms and the ability to accept >detachable magazines, particularly large-capacity magazines. However, >these traits do not distinguish them from many other semiautomatic >weapons used for hunting and target shooting. Therefore, some have >argued that assault weapons differ only cosmetically from other >semiautomatic firearms (Kleck 1991; Cox Newspapers 1989). > >Nonetheless, proponents of assault weapons legislation argued that >these weapons are too inaccurate to have much hunting or sporting >value. Furthermore, they argued that various features of these >weapons, such as folding stocks and shrouds surrounding their >barrels, have no hunting or sporting value and serve to make these >weapons more concealable and practical for criminal use (Cox >Newspapers 1989). To the extent that these features facilitated >criminal use of long guns or handguns with large-capacity magazines, >one could hypothesize that there would be an increase in the >deadliness of gun violence. Proponents also claimed that some of >these weapons, such as Uzi carbines and pistols, could be converted >rather easily to fully automatic firing. 3 > >To buttress these arguments, proponents of assault weapons legislation >pointed out that assault weapons are used disproportionately in crime. >According to estimates generated prior to the federal ban, assault >weapons represented less than one percent of the over 200 million >privately-owned guns in the United States; yet they were reported to >account for 8% of all firearms trace requests submitted to BATF from >1986 to 1993 (Lenett 1995; also see Zawitz 1995). Moreover, these >guns were perceived to be especially attractive to offenders involved >in drug dealing and organized crime, as evidenced by the relatively >high representation of these weapons among BATF gun trace requests >for these crimes. To illustrate, a late 1980s study of BATF trace >requests reported that nearly 30% of the guns tied to organized crime >cases were assault weapons, and 12.4% of gun traces tied to narcotics >crimes involved these guns (Cox Newspapers 1989, p.4). > >Further, most assault weapons combine semiautomatic firing capability >with the ability to accept large-capacity magazines and higher stopping >power (i.e., the ability to inflict more serious wounds). 4 Thus, >assault weapons would appear to be a particularly lethal group of >firearms. However, this is also true of many non-banned semiautomatic >firearms. Moreover, there have been no studies comparing the fatality >rate of attacks with assault weapons to those committed with other >firearms. > >Nonetheless, the involvement of assault weapons in a number of mass >murder incidents such as those discussed above provided an important >impetus to the movement to ban assault weapons. Commenting on Patrick >Purdy's murder of five children with an AK-47 rifle in Stockton, >California in 1989, one observer noted, "The crime was to raise >renewed outcries against the availability of exotic military-style >weapons in our society. This time police forces joined forces with >those who have traditionally opposed the widespread ownership of guns" >(Cox Newspapers 1989, p.i). Later that year, California became the >first state in the nation to enact an assault weapons ban, and the >federal government enacted a ban on the importation of several foreign >military-style rifles. > >******************************************** >The relative infrequency of BATF trace requests for assault weapons >is consistent with other findings summarized in Koper (1995). During >the two years preceding the 1989 import ban, the percentage of traces >involving assault weapons reportedly increased from 5.5 to 10.5 percent >for all crimes (Cox Newspapers, n.d., p.4), and was 12.4 percent for >drug crimes. Because law enforcement agencies are thought to request >BATF traces more frequently in organized crime and drug crime cases, >many criminal researchers (including ourselves) believe that raw trace >request statistics overstate the criminal use of assault weapons in >crime. Based on more representative samples, Kleck (1991) reports >that assault weapons comprised 3.6 percent or less of guns confiscated >from most of the Florida agencies he surveyed, with only one agency >reporting as high as 8 percent. Similarly, Hutson et al. (1994) report >that assault weapons were involved in less than one percent of 1991 >Los Angeles drive-by shootings with juvenile victims. Based on his >reanalysis of 1993 New York City data, Koper (1995) concluded that >assault weapons were involved in only 4 percent of the 271 homicides >in which discharged guns were recovered and 6.5 percent of the 169 >homicides in which ballistics evidence positively linked a recovered >gun to the crime. > >Koper (1995) also summarizes findings which suggest that criminal >self-reporting of assault weapon ownership or use may have become >"trendy" in recent years, especially among young offenders. The >percentages of offenders who reported ever using weapons in >categories that may have included assault weapons was generally >around 4 percent in studies conducted during the 1980s, but rose to >the 20- to 30-percent range in surveys of youth reported since 1993, >when publicity about such weapons was high (see, e.g., Knox et al., >1994; Sheley and Wright, 1993). > >***************************************************** > >>From 1980 through August of 1994 (the pre-ban period), there were >184,528 gun homicide incidents reported to the SHR. These cases >involved 192,848 victims, for an average of 1.045 victims per gun >homicide incident. For the post-ban months of September 1994 through >December 1995, there were 18,720 victims killed in 17,797 incidents, >for an average of 1.052 victims per incident. Thus, victims per >incident increased very slightly (less than 1 percent) after the >Crime Act. A graph of monthly means presented in Figure 6-1 suggests >that this increase predated the assault weapon ban. Nevertheless, an >interrupted time series analysis also failed to produce any evidence >that the ban reduced the number of victims per gun homicide incident. > >********************************************************* > >Despite these ambiguities, we can at least say that this examination of >SHR data produced no evidence of short term decreases in the lethality >of gun violence as measured by the mean number of victims killed in gun >homicide incidents. > >****************************************************** > >>From the Milwaukee, Seattle, and Jersey City data, we were able to >ascertain the number of gunshot wounds suffered by gun murder victims. >Relevant data comparing pre-ban and post-ban cases are displayed in >Table 6-3. The average number of gunshot wounds per victim did not >decrease in any of these three cities. Gunshot wounds per victim >actually increased in all these cities, but these increases were not >statistically significant. > >********************************************* > >The proportion of San Diego County's gun homicide victims sustaining >multiple wounds increased very slightly after the ban (see Table 6-4), >thus providing no evidence of a ban impact. Nor do there appear to >have been any significant temporal trends before or after the ban >(see Figure 6-5). > >************************************************* > >Pre-ban/post-ban comparisons for fatal, non-fatal, and total gunshot >cases from WRISS are presented in Table 6-4. The proportion of multiple >wound cases decreased only for gun homicides. This decrease was not >statistically significant, but the sample sizes were very small and >thus the statistical power of the test is rather low. Nonetheless, >the non-fatal wound data, which are arguably less biased than the >fatal wound data, show statistically meaningful increases in the >proportion of cases with multiple wounds. Figure 6-6 through Figure >6-8 present monthly or quarterly trends for each series. These trends >fail to provide any visual evidence of a post-ban reduction in the >proportion of multiple wound gunshot cases. Thus, overall, the >Boston data appear inconclusive. > >*************************************************** > >Our multi-site analysis of gunshot wounds inflicted in fatal and >non-fatal gunshot cases failed to produce evidence of a post-ban >reduction in the average number of gunshot wounds per case or in the >proportion of cases involving multiple wounds. These results are >perhaps to be expected. Available data from national gun trace >requests to BATF (see Chapter 5), Milwaukee (this chapter), and >other cities (see Chapters 2 and5) indicate that assault weapons >account for only 1 to 7 percent of all guns used in violent crime. >Likewise, our analysis of guns used in homicides in Milwaukee >suggests that a substantial majority of gun homicides (approximately >three-quarters) are not committed with guns having large-capacity >magazines. Further, victims killed with large-capacity magazines in >Milwaukee were shot three times on average, a number well below the >ten-round capacity permitted for post-ban magazines. This does not >tell us the actual number of shots fired in these cases, but other >limited evidence also suggests that most gun attacks involve three >or fewer shots (Kleck 1991; McGonigal et al. 1993). Finally, a >faster rate of fire is arguably an important lethality characteristic of >semiautomatics which may influence the number of wounds inflicted in gun >attacks; yet one would not expect the Crime Act to have had an impact >on overall use of semiautomatics, of which assault weapons were a >minority even before the ban. > --------------5D5686E4EE8-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: UN & Gun Control - Propaganda Starts Date: 09 May 1997 15:16:15 -0600 >Return-Path: >From: 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com >X-Sender: 6mesa@mithoff.1eagle1.com. >Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 14:21:23 -0700 >Subject: UN & Gun Control - Propaganda Starts > > >U.N. presses for action on worldwide gun control >08:53 a.m. May 05, 1997 Eastern > >By Elizabeth Fullerton > >VIENNA, May 5 (Reuter) - Momentum is gathering for worldwide action on gun >control to stem the increasing number of deaths from firearms among >civilians, a U.N. crime body said on Monday. > >The United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice is >expected to approve a resolution this week to urge countries to impose >tighter restrictions on gun ownership and export. > >``We strongly believe that effective national regulation is important to >international controls, particularly on the illicit movement of small > arms,'' Australian commission delegate Daryl Smeaton told Reuters. > >The controversial issue of gun control came under the spotlight in >Australia and Britain last year following the massacre of 35 people at the >Tasmanian tourist resort of Port Arthur and the murder of 17 people, >mostly children, at a school in the Scottish town of Dunblane. > >In the first comparative study of its kind from 50 countries around the >world, a U.N. report showed that 41 percent of U.S. households owned at >least one gun, compared with 16 percent in Australia and four percent in >Britain. > >Smeaton said there was no plan for a legally binding convention on gun >control but that the resolution looked likely to have broad support from >member states, including the United States, despite pressure from the >powerful gun lobby. > >The commission is holding its sixth session in Vienna which is due to end >on Friday. > >``At this stage we understand that the U.S. will be able to support the >resolution as it is drafted and that is a very, very encouraging sign,'' >Smeaton said. > >The study showed that around 14 people per 100,000 die annually in the >United States from firearms-related deaths, including homicides, suicides >and accidents. That amounts to 37,000 people in a population of 265 >million. > >Burkina Faso had the highest figure at 26 people per 100,000, followed by >Jamaica with 18 per 100,000. > >Smeaton said the key measures proposed in the resolution to improve gun >control were: appropriate penalties for misuse, effective record keeping >of firearms, a licensing system of manufacturers and firearm owners, >effective identification procedures and safe storage measures. > >``We have certainly got good statistical evidence that shows where you do >introduce regulation to control the use of firearms you can cause dramatic >reductions in homicide and suicide rates,'' he noted. > > > >Copyright 1997 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. > >Reposted for non-profit educational and research purposes. > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: UN & Gun Control - Propaganda Starts Date: 09 May 1997 14:37:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hi! Although we've been following this on the U.N. site for a while now, and even though this contains no new information, am posting it here as an example of the startup of the publicity push in the U.S. to build support for this measure. Please keep yesterday's posting about the "nasty social engineering" that's going on in mind when you read this. The British guy said we "must be clever, play them at their own game, and orchestrate a positive, intelligent and well thought plan of flooding the mass media with an 'alternative cycle'." Any suggestions? Barb :-) ************************************************************************ U.N. presses for action on worldwide gun control 08:53 a.m. May 05, 1997 Eastern By Elizabeth Fullerton VIENNA, May 5 (Reuter) - Momentum is gathering for worldwide action on gun control to stem the increasing number of deaths from firearms among civilians, a U.N. crime body said on Monday. The United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice is expected to approve a resolution this week to urge countries to impose tighter restrictions on gun ownership and export. ``We strongly believe that effective national regulation is important to international controls, particularly on the illicit movement of small arms,'' Australian commission delegate Daryl Smeaton told Reuters. The controversial issue of gun control came under the spotlight in Australia and Britain last year following the massacre of 35 people at the Tasmanian tourist resort of Port Arthur and the murder of 17 people, mostly children, at a school in the Scottish town of Dunblane. In the first comparative study of its kind from 50 countries around the world, a U.N. report showed that 41 percent of U.S. households owned at least one gun, compared with 16 percent in Australia and four percent in Britain. Smeaton said there was no plan for a legally binding convention on gun control but that the resolution looked likely to have broad support from member states, including the United States, despite pressure from the powerful gun lobby. The commission is holding its sixth session in Vienna which is due to end on Friday. ``At this stage we understand that the U.S. will be able to support the resolution as it is drafted and that is a very, very encouraging sign,'' Smeaton said. The study showed that around 14 people per 100,000 die annually in the United States from firearms-related deaths, including homicides, suicides and accidents. That amounts to 37,000 people in a population of 265 million. Burkina Faso had the highest figure at 26 people per 100,000, followed by Jamaica with 18 per 100,000. Smeaton said the key measures proposed in the resolution to improve gun control were: appropriate penalties for misuse, effective record keeping of firearms, a licensing system of manufacturers and firearm owners, effective identification procedures and safe storage measures. ``We have certainly got good statistical evidence that shows where you do introduce regulation to control the use of firearms you can cause dramatic reductions in homicide and suicide rates,'' he noted. Copyright 1997 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: There's an M1 Garand crime wave? Date: 09 May 1997 14:37:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Just an update on this anti initiative. IMO, it ties in to the publicity earlier in the week promoting international gun control through the United Nations. Barb :-) Thursday May 8 7:13 PM EDT Bill Sought to Ban Military Firearm Imports WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A bill to ban imports of surplus military firearms back into the United States was introduced Thursday in the House and the Senate. Guns such as the M-1 carbine were given or sold by the United States to some 20 nations over the last 50 years. Sponsors of the bill said many of the 2 1/2 million weapons were now being imported to the United States and used by criminals. "These wartime weapons are the kinds of guns that criminals can easily convert into illegal, fully automatic weapons," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, said at a news conference. Lautenberg said many of the weapons were coming from Iran, once a U.S. ally but now estranged from Washington. "The Ayatollah (Khomeini) must be laughing in his grave," Lautenberg said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader. Lautenberg was joined in introducing the bill by Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Reps. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island and Carolym Maloney of New York, all Democrats. They said it would allow collectors to buy imports of rifles from the Second World War or earlier. "The Anti-Gun Invasion act will slam the door on weapons, once intended to help our allies, from coming back into our country and getting into the hands of criminals," Kennedy said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA: Friend or ? Date: 09 May 1997 22:26:00 -0700 FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 14, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'An organization without honor, principle or integrity' In Nevada, the "concealed carry permit" bill OKd by the 1995 Assembly, with NRA backing, calls for handgun "carry" permits to be issued only after the petitioner proves he or she has taken a $100 safety class. Then, the permit is issued only for the weapon with which the applicant has passed the "safety class" -- by serial number. The idiocy of contending this has anything to do with "safety" should be obvious. If I pass my driver's license road test in an old Plymouth with a manual transmission, is that license invalid when I later trade in the Plymouth for a Chevy with an automatic? Do I have to go take a new road test and get a new driver's license every time I want to drive another car .... a license good only for a single automobile? Of course not. The only reason to force a "concealed carry permit holder" to get a separate permit for each weapon, once he or she has passed the background check and "safety" rigmarole, is so police can collect a list of the serial numbers of every weapon out there, and the addresses of the sock drawers in which each one is kept. "There's a story behind how we got that," said an active west-coast gun lobbyist when I took him to lunch last week. "I hate to criticize anyone by name, but at the time that was going through the Legislature in Carson City, the NRA changed the people who were assigned there. They pulled one team out, and threw in new people. And the new people knew nothing about legislative procedure. (Former Nevada state Sen.) Sue Lowden actually asked me at one point, 'Why did you guys want this bill? What the hell are we doing with this "one gun" thing on the permit? You ought to be able to carry any gun you want. We could have gotten through a much better bill, if you'd just asked for it'." ("Gosh, we're going back a couple of years now," responded Ms. Lowden when I reached her at home one recent evening, helping one of her offspring with a homework project. "Probably during a hearing I did ask those questions. Yes, that sounds like something I would ask.") Clarence Lovell of Colorado, a wealthy retired chemist now aged 77, served 14 years on the NRA's national board of directors, leaving that post in 1985. "(Colorado State Rep.) Marilyn Musgrave was gonna support Vermont-type carry, and she was intimidated by Steve Schreiner and an NRA field representative," he reports. "This is a bad bill," Mr. Lovell says of the concealed-carry measure that finally landed on Gov. Romer's desk, recently. "I'm scared to death the son-of-a-bitch'll sign it. This is a bill that has $120 for three years and also has a damned training requirement, which God knows what it'll cost..." In other states, Mr. Lovell reports, "Invariably when the NRA has gotten this (type of bill) through, we've lost the right to carry a gun in a car, and they've upgraded it from a misdemeanor to a felony. ... "Our state Constitution, article 2 section 13, says the right to keep & bear arms shall not be called into question. ... The NRA's screwing us, they're setting us up, they stuck us with that damned instantaneous background check. "You have to have a background check, government permission to buy a damned gun, because they hide behind skirts, put a bunch of moon-eyed females up there. The dumbest people I know are in gun clubs. The NRA members are probably about the worst informed, the kind of people who want someone to take them to the bathroom. ... Every right that we have lost in the past 20 years had been deliberately given away by the NRA and their bureaucrats. ... All they want is power, money, and recognition." The NRA's willingness to stress "the sporting use of arms has degraded our Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is to protect our right to resist government tyranny. Instead the NRA has become the country's largest sportsman organization and the country's largest cop organization." Is that bad -- the large number of police officers in the NRA? "They'll kick your door in just as fast as anyone else. ... Wayne LaPierre gets $190,000; their hands are in the cookie jar; what would they do for a living? This is their career and they keep it going. In Pennsylvania their field staff helped pass the worst gun law in the history of the state, and they got a thank-you letter from Sarah Brady" (on the stationery of Handgun Control Inc. -- this reporter has seen the letter.) "It's an organization without honor, principle or integrity. I'll have to stay with Gun Owners of America. Basically, never trust a hired gun, they'll sell you out. These little whiners that want someone to blow their nose for them are gonna get in trouble every time. You've got to fight it yourself, at the local level." State Sen. Carol Martin of Oklahoma, whose March 31 letter about the NRA started us down this path last week, returned my call one recent morning before the cats had had their breakfast: "When I ran, I was supported by Gun Owners of America," she says. Sen. Martin's opponent, incumbent Democrat Larry Lawler, "was supported by the NRA even though he opposed concealed carry. ... If it's an incumbent, even if they're not right on the issues, they'll continue to support him. Before I got up here there was never even a vote on any gun issues. They were out supporting him, giving him an 'A' rating even though his questionnaire was totally bogus." Oklahoma's current concealed carry bill "has a lot of things in it that I did not like, that they (the NRA) were backing," Sen. Martin explains. "We've had to go back in and repeal them over the past two years. It still requires some kind of training, and you have to pay for the permit and the classes. ... "We refused to put the serial number in the bill because we feel that that is registering the gun, and that's what Hitler did, is register guns and then seize them. If a law-abiding citizen wants to carry a gun, why do they always need to get the government's permission? I just think they (the NRA) have been infiltrated by more liberal-minded people, especially at the top, and they no longer reflect the grassroots citizens, who want these rights defended." Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Charleton Heston on KGO-AM Date: 10 May 1997 21:05:24 -0600 Moses blows his cover already... Under Charleton Heston's stewarship the NRA is going to "get (the right wing folks) off the board and out of the picture. Heston: AK-47's are inappropriate for private ownership, of course. Heston: I'm not even- don't even think it (The Brady Bill) should be repealed because it doesn't do anything. A plague of locusts on them all! And may their children be the first to be sold into slavery under Pharaoh Bubba! > DATE May 6, 1997 > TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT) > STATION KGO-AM (ABC) >LOCATION San Francisco > PROGRAM Morning Drive Time > > Ted Wygant, anchor: > > Well this is very appropriate to talk with Moses as > we talk about it, at least. Now let's say good morning > to the man who played it so well, Charleton Heston. > Good morning, sir! > > Charleton Heston (Actor/NRA Board Member): And good > morning to you, Mister Wygant. > > Wygant: Well, we're delighted to have you with us, and > we appreciate your time because you have taken on a > task that I think a lot of folks might have backed > away with because a lot of concern about the National > Rifle Association. > > Heston: Our country belongs to Hercules, doesn't it? > > Wygant: Yeah, right. What made you do it? How come > you want to get in the middle of this? > > Heston: Well, I've, of course, been- found myself in > the arena, if you will, on a number of public sector > causes. I suppose starting back when I started > demonstrating for civil rights back in 1961. Long > before it got fashionable in Hollywood. And then the > Screen Actors Guild, and the National Endowment For The > Arts, and the Separate Theater Group, and so on- and > then the Presidential Task force, and the Arts and > Humanities. And I've been a member of- of the National > Rifle Association for, oh, twenty years or more. When > I was a kid in Michigan, in the Depression, I lived in > a little hamlet in Northern Michigan with about, oh, > a hundred houses which contained easily two hundred and > fifty, three hundred fire arms of various kinds. > Mostly being used for hunting, of course- food for the > table. But I was asked, as is true with all of the > jobs I've done. Somebody asked me. > > Wygant: Well, you've got quite a task. And- and > you've been named first vice president. You- you're a > member of the board at-at one point, and gee, you just > zipped right up. > > Heston: I just was elected to the board on Saturday. > > Wygant: Yeah. > > Heston: It's the primary defender of the second > amendment of the Bill Of Rights, which is, of course, > a core document. The Bill Of Rights is right at the > basis of the American idea, those wise old dead white > guys that made up the country knew what they were > about. And you- it is a mainstream issue. Most > Americans, in fact, support the second amendment's > right to bear and carry arms, and there are, as you > suggest, a few extremists, and some of them are- are on > the board. And we have, however, we- they elected- or > re-elected in the case of Wayne LaPierre, and elected > in my case and Cain Robinson's case- police chief Cain > Robinson is now second vice president. We re-elected > Marion Hammer as president. > > Wygant: Mister Heston, could I ask you to stand by > here for just a moment? We have to get to traffic, but > I- I do want to continue talking with you. Could you > hang in for a minute? > > Heston: Yeah. > > Wygant: Okay, good. Thanks. > > **************** > > Wygant: Okay, right now let's get back to Charleton > Heston talking to us from his home in Southern > California. Let me ask you, you mentioned that there > are some right wing folks- far right wing, still around > the NRA. Are you going to try to get them off the > board and out of the picture? > > Heston: That- that's certainly the intention, and I > think it's highly doable. Wayne LaPierre is- is a > superb leader, Marion Hammer's a strong president. > And I think Cain Robinson and I can provide some useful > support there. > > Wygant: Now the image of- of the NRA has been an > organization that supports the right of people to buy > any legal firearms, and, of course, you go to any- any > gun store- gun shop and you see things there that are > big, and brutal, and deadly, and far more than you need > for- for hunting or home protection. Do you stand by- > I mean, the image is... > > Heston: AK-47's are inappropriate for private > ownership, of course. > > Wygant: Yeah, but the image is that they're- the fire > power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a > homeowner would need. Why is it necessary to have > those guns available anyway? > > Heston: I just got through telling you. The > possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely > inappropriate. > > Wygant: Right, but AK-47's one thing, but I've been in > a gun shop- I've been in gun shops, and there's fire > power there that doest's seem necessary and that people > worry about being out there in- in the hands of, you > know, potential criminals. > > Heston: I'm not certain what you're point is- that > there are guns available in gun stores? > > Wygant: No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would > need. In other words, why does the NRA support guns > that have overkill? Let's put it that way. Shouldn't > there be some sort of limit? > > Heston: Well, for any certain time, AK-47"s are > entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the- > the problem, of course, is not guns held by private > citizens, but guns held by criminals. And where we > have failed, where the government has failed is with > entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is > meaningless. I'm not even- don't even think it should > be repealed because it doesn't do anything. and it's > been in- on the books for more than two years. In the > course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people > have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons > with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm. > > Wygant: Well, we've- we gotta- I really appreciate > talking with us. It'll be interesting to see- > interesting to see how you handle the public image of > the National Rifle Association and those in the far > right in the group. And if you don't mind, we'd like > to talk to you again. > > Heston: I hope we can do that. > Wygant: Alright, thanks very much. > > Heston: Mister Wygant. > > Wygant: Thank you. Charleton Heston from his home in > Southern California, and the KGO Radio News time is > 8:23. These opinions are my own and not necessarily representative of any organization or person with which I'm affiliated. Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: AK-47s are "inappropriate" Date: 11 May 1997 00:07:00 -0700 Forwarded message I have an *extremely* hard time squaring Mr. Heston's comments with the original (and current) intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was (and is) to ensure that citizens possess(ed) the same firepower as foreign (or domestic) enemy governments might possess... DATE May 6, 1997 TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT) STATION KGO-AM (ABC) LOCATION San Francisco PROGRAM Morning Drive Time Ted Wygant, anchor: Well this is very appropriate to talk with Moses as we talk about it, at least. Now let's say good morning to the man who played it so well, Charleton Heston. Good morning, sir! Charleton Heston (Actor/NRA Board Member): And good morning to you, Mister Wygant. Wygant: Well, we're delighted to have you with us, and we appreciate your time because you have taken on a task that I think a lot of folks might have backed away with because a lot of concern about the National Rifle Association. Heston: Our country belongs to Hercules, doesn't it? Wygant: Yeah, right. What made you do it? How come you want to get in the middle of this? Heston: Well, I've, of course, been, found myself in the arena, if you will, on a number of public sector causes. I suppose starting back when I started demonstrating for civil rights back in 1961. Long before it got fashionable in Hollywood. And then the Screen Actors Guild, and the National Endowment For The Arts, and the Separate Theater Group, and so on, and then the Presidential Task force, and the Arts and Humanities. And I've been a member of, of the National Rifle Association for, oh, twenty years or more. When I was a kid in Michigan, in the Depression, I lived in a little hamlet in Northern Michigan with about, oh, a hundred houses which contained easily two hundred and fifty, three hundred fire arms of various kinds. Mostly being used for hunting, of course, food for the table. But I was asked, as is true with all of the jobs I've done. Somebody asked me. Wygant: Well, you've got quite a task. And, and you've been named first vice president. You, you're a member of the board at, at one point, and gee, you just zipped right up. Heston: I just was elected to the board on Saturday. Wygant: Yeah. Heston: It's the primary defender of the second amendment of the Bill Of Rights, which is, of course, a core document. The Bill Of Rights is right at the basis of the American idea, those wise old dead white guys that made up the country knew what they were about. And you, it is a mainstream issue. Most Americans, in fact, support the second amendment's right to bear and carry arms, and there are, as you suggest, a few extremists, and some of them are, are on the board. And we have, however, we, they elected, or re-elected in the case of Wayne LaPierre, and elected in my case and Cain Robinson's case, police chief Cain Robinson is now second vice president. We re-elected Marion Hammer as president. Wygant: Mister Heston, could I ask you to stand by here for just a moment? We have to get to traffic, but I, I do want to continue talking with you. Could you hang in for a minute? Heston: Yeah. Wygant: Okay, good. Thanks. Wygant: Okay, right now let's get back to Charleton Heston talking to us from his home in Southern California. Let me ask you, you mentioned that there are some right wing folks; far right wing, still around the NRA. Are you going to try to get them off the board and out of the picture? Heston: That, that's certainly the intention, and I think it's highly doable. Wayne LaPierre is, is a superb leader, Marion Hammer's a strong president. And I think Cain Robinson and I can provide some useful support there. Wygant: Now the image of, of the NRA has been an organization that supports the right of people to buy any legal firearms, and, of course, you go to any, any gun store, gun shop and you see things there that are big, and brutal, and deadly, and far more than you need for, for hunting or home protection. Do you stand by, I mean, the image is... Heston: AK-47s are inappropriate for private ownership, of course. Wygant: Yeah, but the image is that they're, the fire power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a homeowner would need. Why is it necessary to have those guns available anyway? Heston: I just got through telling you. The possession; private possession of AK-47s is entirely inappropriate. Wygant: Right, but AK-47s one thing, but I've been in a gun shop; I've been in gun shops, and there's fire power there that doesn't seem necessary and that people worry about being out there in, in the hands of, you know, potential criminals. Heston: I'm not certain what you're point is; that there are guns available in gun stores? Wygant: No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would need. In other words, why does the NRA support guns that have overkill? Let's put it that way. Shouldn't there be some sort of limit? Heston: Well, for any certain time, AK-47s are entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the problem, of course, is not guns held by private citizens, but guns held by criminals. And where we have failed, where the government has failed is with entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is meaningless. I'm not even, don't even think it should be repealed because it doesn't do anything. And it's been in, on the books for more than two years. In the course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm. Wygant: Well, we've, we gotta, I really appreciate talking with us. It'll be interesting to see, interesting to see how you handle the public image of the National Rifle Association and those in the far right in the group. And if you don't mind, we'd like to talk to you again. Heston: I hope we can do that. Wygant: Alright, thanks very much. Heston: Mister Wygant. Wygant: Thank you. Charleton Heston from his home in Southern California, and the KGO Radio News time is 8:23. - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Heston says AK47's inappropriate for private ownership Date: 11 May 1997 22:43:09 -0600 >Return-Path: >From: 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com >X-Sender: 6mesa@mithoff.1eagle1.com. >Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 09:34:20 -0700 >Subject: Heston says AK47's inappropriate for private ownership > >Did Heston's interview on KGO actually surprise anyone? Do we believe the >country club republican (liberal) set won yet? > >If I had the ability to communicate with Heston, I would ask him if 1., >does he represent the NRA when he says that AK's are inappropriate, 2., >does he know the fundamental difference between an M1 Carbine with a 30 rd >mag, a Ruger 10-22 with a 30 rd mag, a Mini 14, an M1 Garand, or M1A, and a >SEMI-auto Kalashnikov type or SKS with a 30 rd mag? Answer: There is little >if any >difference is capacity and function or potential for application. > >I happen to know he DOES know there's little difference. I wager that in >that little interview,(no accident on a major station in the liberal >bastion of the San Francisco Bay Area), the NRA has publicly shown you its >leadership's colors, goals and future direction. Those of you that want to >keep your semi's of any type are now "Extremists", "Thugs", "Militia >Types". Funny, I've always admired those militia types that were at >Lexington/Concord. Now, they've turned one of the strongest traditions in >the Free Republic to a pejorative propagandisch term worthy of Joe >Goebbels. How does it feel to be co-opted by beltway bureacrats led by Moses? > >Anyway, back to the NRA and Chuck Heston. Anybody still think my prediction >of National Firearms Act application to semiautos is nuts? No biggie, >they'll be grandfathered in to your possession and when you sell them a tax >is paid (probably $1000) and the buyer gets printed and mug shots and local >permission to own them. That is, if you are the law obeying type. (White, >wealthy, powerful, the NRA doesn't want the poor or minorities to have this >kind of firepower, but does defend their right to own cheaply made handguns >which are no threat against oppression, remember?) > >Just remember, Heston said no one has a reason to own an AK, but we LE >forensics folks know he's really talking about ALL semis, not just the ugly >ones. Grab yer ankles, kiddies, Moses is the NRA, and he ain't leading you >across the red sea this time, this time he's leading you and your ugly or >non-pc guns to perdition and confiscation. They'll get them all eventually, >like they did in Austrailia and England, and are doing in Europe. Why? >Because 98% of you will turn in your guns AND your neighbors who didn't >turn theirs in. > >The remaining 2%? Aye, there's the rub....I'm sure the NRA and the federal >government will not be pleased with that 2%. Then, maybe not, Hell, they >never appeared in Aussieland or England. We all deserve what's coming at us >because we kept stupidly believing compromise would work. Even know most of >you still believe it. Any of you froggies feel the heat yet? > >Oh yes, one more question...why did Jeff Cooper of Gunsite and Robt Brown >from SOF support Heston? Because they think an AK is inappropriate for >private ownership, along with an M1 Carbine, M1A, M1 Garand or a ruger 10-22? >Think about it, froggies. Think about it, while there is still precious >little time left. > >Joe Horn, Former NRA Life, GOA Life, JPFO >Permission to crosspost with attribution granted. > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: POTUS making anti-gun noises again Date: 12 May 1997 08:31:00 -0700 ----- Forwarded message ----- Cc: L&J POTUS I and his empress, FLOTUS, are *the* experts at dissembly, equivocation, and elastic veracity. The much-touted 186,000 "saves" of the Brady Act have been exposed as (last-known figure) *seven* actual violations of law, *none* of which have been prosecuted! Questions, then: * WHAT constitutes "Boston", for purposes of this discussion? * WHAT constitutes a "child" in the above discussion? * Does the "guns as third leading cause of death" for children statistic include justifiable homicides by police and citizens defending themselves against violent youths and/or gang-related criminal homicides? * WHAT constitutes a "child" in the NIJ's "185 accidental deaths" statistic? * What constitutes an "accidental" shooting? Suicide, perhaps? Remember, these speeches are hand-crafted by EXPERTS to convey the desired message to those who accept at face value without analyzing the meaning of the words. As such, they might bear little, if *any*, resemblance to fact *or* to truth! (186,000 actually equals *seven*!) :( David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte Wheeling, Illinois Replies/Abuse: gonzalez@mcs.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Potus is on his gun-grabbing band wagon again. THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary (San Jose, Costa Rica) ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release May 10, 1997 RADIO ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATION PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good morning. This morning I want to talk about the responsibility we share to protect our children from the scourge of violent crime, and especially from crime committed by other young people. [snip] But with all these advances, our children cannot live out their dreams if they are living in fear of gangs and guns. That's why I have worked so hard to reverse the tide of crime. We passed the tough Crime Bill that's putting 100,000 new community police on our streets. We passed the Brady Bill, which has stopped over 186,000 felons, fugitives and stalkers from buying handguns. We banned deadly assault weapons. We initiated the biggest antidrug effort ever to make our children, schools and streets safe, drug-free and gun-free. This strategy is working. Serious crime has dropped five years in a row. But, sadly, crime among young people has been on the rise. According to a report by the Justice Department's juvenile division, unless we act now, the number of juveniles arrested for violent crimes will more than double by the year 2010. That means we must launch a full-scale assault on juvenile crime based on what we know works. This February I sent legislation to Congress that would declare war on gangs with new prosecutors and tougher penalties. It would also extend the Brady Bill so that someone who commits a violent crime as a juvenile is barred from buying a gun as an adult. It would require that child safety locks be sold with guns to keep children from hurting themselves or each other. It would help keep schools open after hours, on weekends and in the summer to keep children off the streets and out of trouble. This is a tough and balanced approach based on what is actually working at the local level. In Boston where many of these efforts are already in place, youth murders have dropped 80 percent in five years, and not one child has been killed with a gun in over a year and a half. Unfortunately, this Thursday, the House of Representatives passed the Juvenile Justice bill that falls far short of that promise. The House bill is weak on guns and it walks away from the crime prevention ini- tiatives that can save a teenager from a life of crime. And as drafted, it would actually only reach a few states with the good it does do. The House bill does not ensure the new antigang prosecutors we desper- ately need to pursue and punish violent juveniles. It does not support efforts, such as Boston's Operation Night Life, where police and proba- tion officers make nightly visits to the homes of young probationers to make sure they live up to the strict rules of their probation. The bill does not fund anticrime initiatives to keep our schools open later and on weekends so young people can stay under the watchful eye of parents, educators and community leaders instead of on street corners where the most common influences are bad ones. We know juvenile crime peaks right after the school day ends. We've got to engage our children during those hours, to steer them away from gangs. You know, just a couple of weeks ago I sponsored the Service Summit in Philadelphia, along with all our former Presidents and General Colin Powell. The summit was dedicated to getting every young American to make the most of his or her life, enlisting millions and millions of volun- teers to guarantee children a healthy start, access to basic skills, a mentor, a safe environment and the chance to serve themselves. Republi- cans and Democrats alike applauded this summit. It highlighted successful efforts to guarantee children a safe environment. Now, this bill the House passed ignores the real spirit of the summit. It's bipartisanship and it's focused on what works. The plain evidence of what is working right now to save our children is nowhere apparent in this bill. It's the same old tough rhetoric without any prevention, without any change in the environment to make it harder for gangs to function, or without real toughness in every state in America. Perhaps most troubling, the House bill rejects my call to cut off young people's access to guns, now the third leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 13 and 24. We must begin with the simple precaution of child safety locks. It's heartbreaking when a gun owned by a law-abiding parent is used by a child to hurt themselves or others. According to a National Institute of Justice survey, 185 children died in 1994 because of accidental shootings. Now, if we can have safety pre- cautions to prevent children from opening bottles of aspirin, surely we can have the same safety precautions to prevent children from using guns. Extending the Brady Bill is critical as well. If you commit a violent crime as a 17-year-old, you should not be able to buy a gun on your 21st birthday. I challenge Congress to pass a real juvenile justice bill, one that's tough on gangs and tough on guns and is serious about the kind of prevention efforts we know will work. To me, a juvenile justice bill that doesn't limit children's access to guns is a bill that walks away from the problem. Not a single hunter would lose a gun because of child safety locks. Not a single law-abiding citizen would be denied a gun if we extend the Brady Bill to those with violent juvenile records. But countless young lives would be saved if stolen guns became useless guns and if lawless juveniles became gunless adults. If Congress really wants to get tough on juvenile crime, then it's time to get tough on guns and take them out of the hands of violent juveniles. We've come a long way in the last four and a half years. But to really make sure we prepare our children for the 21st century, we have got to give them a safe and orderly environment where they can make the most of their future and of the world they will soon inherit. Thanks for listening. END Pat Fosness listowner rkba-co "For every honest, inoffensive, harmless citizen, there is a bureaucrat waiting to goof him up" -- Mike Royko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: When Is the Proper Time to Resist with Force? Date: 12 May 1997 16:32:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- In an earlier post, I strongly recommended the book Unintended Consequences, by John Ross. Here is a small passage (from p. 337-338) where Henry Bowman, one of the heroes of the book (who teaches an off-campus personal protection class), poses a question to his college political science class concerning avoiding enslavement by the state: "A woman's confronted by a big, strong, stranger. She doesn't know what he's planning, and she's cautious. Getting away from him's not possible. They're in a room and he's standing in front of the only way out, or she's in a wheelchair--whatever. Leaving the area's not an option. "So now he starts to do thing she doesn't like. He asks her for money. She can try to talk him out of it, just like we argue for lower taxes, and maybe it will work. If it doesn't, and she gets outvoted, she'll probably choose to give it to him instead of getting into a fight to the death over ten dollars. You would probably choose to pay your taxes rather than have police arrive to throw you in jail. "Maybe this big man demands some other things, other minor assaults on this woman's dignity. When should she claw at his eyes or shove her ballpoint pen in his throat? When he tries to force her to kiss him? Tries to force her to let him touch her? Tries for force her to have sex with him?"... "Those are questions that each woman has to answer for herself. There is one situation, though, where I tell the women to fight to the death. That's when the man pulls out a pair of handcuffs and says, 'Come on, I promise I won't hurt you, this is just so you won't flail around and hurt either of us by accident. Come on, I just want to talk, get in the van and let me handcuff you to this eyebolt here, and I promise won't touch you. I'm not asking you to put on a gag or anything, and since you can still scream for help, you know you'll be safe. Come on. I got a full bar in here, and color TV, and air conditioning, great stereo, come on, just put on the cuffs.' "I tell women that if that ever happens, maybe the man is telling the truth and may after talking to her for a while he'll let her go and she will have had a good time drinking champagne and listening to music. But if she gets in the van and puts her wrists in the handcuffs, she has just given up her future ability to fight, and now it is too late." ... "How do you spot the precise point where a society is standing at the back of the van, and the State has the handcuffs out? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Letter to Editor Date: 13 May 1997 14:13:41 -0600 The following is from today's DesNews. I don't know the author, but thought it argued in such a way as to be well worth sharing. READERS' FORUM [Image] Accountability is needed Last updated 05/13/1997, 09:34 a.m. MST Recently an article was published locally that originated in the Seattle Times. This was a "scientific" finding by a consortium called the Harborview Injury Prevention Center, (fortified by Johns-Hopkins) stating that if there is a gun in the home, there is a 2.7 times likelihood that you can be harmed by a gun. Is this news? The anti-gun crowd has tried for 20 years to foist a similar statistic upon an unwary public. What an idiotic statistic; 2.7 times what? If I never ride in an automobile, will the possibility of my not being injured by an automobile be reduced by 2.7 times. If I never operate farm equipment, are my chances of not being harmed on the farm lessened. If I never look a gang member in the eyes will I never get beat to a pulp with a tire iron. If I never go outside will I never get do-do-ed by a bird. What an idiotic statistic. Any action by a person, should come with some personal accountability. Any tool used illegally, is, in fact, illegal. So what is the point, Harborview. There is a rather simple way to help with some of the "problem," but is fought tooth-and-nail by the anti-gunners, for kids as well as adults, it is "education and training." So why do the antis fight it. Because when people learn about guns, they realize the use for a gun. They might even become interested. And this is not part of the agenda. Derrill Foster West Bountiful [Image] [Image] Return to front page [Image] -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." -- Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: FFA Seeks Federal Grant to "Educate" Kids Date: 14 May 1997 11:03:55 -0600 >>> From: Gary Chiurazzi >>> Newsgroups: rec.hunting >>> Subject: FFA Seeks Federal Grant to "Educate" Kids >>> Date: Monday, May 12, 1997 12:06 PM >>> >>> [FWD FROM THE BOWSITE ALERT LIST] >>> >>> This press release just came in from the Fund for Animals - a radical >>> anti-hunting group. They, along with our beloved football coach, Marv >>> Levy, have produced an anti-hunting video specifically targeted at young >>> children . >>> >>> The video was produced last year, but the fund is now asking for a >>> federal grant (you heard correct, they want us to fund a project to >>> brainwash these kids) to distribute this video to public schools. >>> >>> Please call, e-mail, or write, and tell them that we will not tolerate >>> our tax dollars being used to help promote the selfish agenda of a >>> radical anti-hunting group. At this time, the fund has only applied for >>> the app and we have no knowledge of the USFWS' position. Lets squash >>> this one early before it becomes an issue. >>> >>> Public Affairs Office >>> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service >>> 1849 C St., NW, MIB 3012 >>> Washington, D.C. 20240 >>> Telephone (202) 208-4131 >>> Fax (202) 208-6965 >>> Email to: >>> Mitch_Snow@mail.fws.gov >>> >>> >>> Here's a copy of their press release: >>> >>> ************************** >>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, May 12, 1997 >>> >>> CONTACT: Norm Phelps, 301-739-7087 >>> Mike Markarian, 301-585-2591 >>> >>> R-E-S-P-E-C-T! >>> Anti-Hunters ask Fish and Wildlife Service to Fund "Project Respect" for >>> Schools >>> >>> The Fund for Animals, the nation's largest anti-hunting organization >>> with hundreds of thousands of members nationwide, has just applied for a >>> $142,000 grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund "Project >>> Respect: An Educational Program for Young People." >>> >>> Anyone can apply for Fish and Wildlife Service grants, providing the >>> projects meet criteria listed in the Federal Register. The Fund feels >>> that "Project Respect" would meet the criteria to "provide innovative >>> approaches to introducing people to hunting and fishing including >>> emphasis on families" and "promote natural resources and environmental >>> education of K through 12 students." >>> >>> Says Norm Phelps, program coordinator for The Fund for Animals, >>> "Teaching students to respect wildlife, rather than to use them as >>> moving targets, is the most innovative approach we've heard yet. The >>> Fish and Wildlife Service, which is supposed to be a public service >>> agency, has funded only one side of the hunting debate. It's time >>> students hear the other side -- the animals' side." >>> >>> The Service gave two grants totaling $330,000 to the Council for >>> Wildlife Conservation and Education (an arm of the National Shooting >>> Sports Foundation, a trade association for firearms and ammunition >>> manufacturers) for pro-hunting videos distributed to schools. The Fund >>> for Animals believes that students should hear both sides of the hunting >>> debate, and if the federal government funds pro-hunting materials it >>> should also fund anti-hunting materials. >>> >>> The Fund for Animals has produced a half-hour video for students called >>> "What's Wrong With Hunting," featuring Coach Marv Levy of the Buffalo >>> Bills, Alexandra Paul of Baywatch, Tiffani-Amber Thiessen of Beverly >>> Hills 90210, Craig Paquette of the Kansas City Royals, and many wildlife >>> biologists and humane professionals who debunk the hunting myths. The >>> Fund has also produced a booklet for teenagers called "Think Like the >>> Animal: Questions to Ask Before You Kill," and an "Animal Crusaders" >>> newsletter for elementary school teachers. The Fund's "Project Respect" >>> program will include increased distribution of the video, the >>> development of curriculum units for elementary, middle, and high school >>> teachers, and an interactive CD-ROM for schools. >>> >>> For a complete copy of The Fund for Animals' 14-page grant proposal, or >>> to view the "What's Wrong With Hunting" video, please call our campaign >>> office at 301-585-2591. >>> >>> # # # >>> >>> >>> ***************************************************************** >>> Copyright 1997 The Bowsite Network. This Message Network is provided as >>> a free service from The Bowsite (http://www.bowsite.com) as a means to >>> alert bowhunters, hunters, and sportsmen, to threats and pending >>> legislation. We occasionally use this list for important news items. >>> Recognized, Pro-Hunting groups are granted a license to distribute, >>> publish, and/or print these messages. All other groups and individuals >>> must have written permission to do so by the owners/operators of The >>> Bowsite. Note: To remove yourself from this list, or change your e-mail >>> address, please send an Email to: archers-alert-request@majordomo.com >>> and in the body (not the subject line) type: unsubscribe Thank You! >>> >> > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Cover Up in Oklahoma video Date: 14 May 1997 11:40:58 -0600 Please distribute widely! An UNCOPYRIGHTED, non-professional video, "Cover Up in Oklahoma" is now available. This video convincingly demonstrates that the Murrah Building was destroyed by explosives INSIDE the building,placed there by people with FREE ACCESS to the building, and implies strongly that the government and the media are engaged in a cover-up. While not all of it is convincing (in my opinion), overall it presents a very substantial case for yet more murders and coverup either by, or with the knowledge of, the federal government. The video is available from the producer, Jerry Longspaugh (longspaugh@aol.com). I am also offering the video (with Mr. Longspaugh's support and consent!) for a DONATION of $15 to cover tapes, copying and mailing costs. Because the tape in not copyrighted, you may copy and distribute it at will. To order, please send a money order or check to the address in my signature. Thanks! In liberty, Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: INFO: CO - Right to Carry Legislation Date: 14 May 1997 12:30:32 -0600 >May 13, 1997 > >COLORADO > >Dear Friend, > > I am writing on behalf of Mary Anne Bradfield, NRA-ILA's >Colorado Liaison. I feel the need to write this letter to >explain the circumstances surrounding the so-called Vermont-style >"right to carry" legislation introduced during this session. > > At the outset, I want to make one thing crystal clear: NRA >supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm >for self-defense. We have worked tirelessly at every level of >government, particularly in our nation's state capitols, to >ensure that this fundamental freedom is preserved. We have >fought, often with little or no support from other members of the >pro-gun community, to gain passage of "right to carry" laws in 31 >states across our nation. In short, we have earned our >reputation as the "citizens' self-defense lobby." > > These victories did not come easily. It was only through >the skill of our liaisons, such as Mary Anne Bradfield, and the >hard work of the entire NRA team, including our members like you >at the grassroots level, that we were able to achieve these >accomplishments. It was only through our knowledge of the >legislative and political processes that we have been able to do >what none of our opponents, and only a few of our staunchest >supporters, thought possible - make "right to carry" the rule, >not the exception. > > Naturally, everyone at NRA headquarters was ecstatic when, >during this session of the legislature, lawmakers in Colorado >were on the verge of doing something they had never done before - >passing "right to carry" legislation and sending it to the >Governor's desk. We all knew that Mary Anne had made a >substantial commitment of time and resources to help shepherd >this critical legislation through the difficult legislative >process. After all, while the members of the House had >traditionally been receptive to "right to carry" in the past, the >Senate had always been the place where these bills went to die. > > This year, however, things had been different. The Senate >actually approved "right to carry" legislation first, and all >that was left for us to do was gain its passage in the much more >friendly House of Representatives. But then, as the clock wound >down on the session, the so-called "Vermont-style" legislation >reared its head. Supporters of this approach to "right-to-carry" >indicated to Ms. Bradfield that they would attempt to amend the >Senate-passed version of the "right to carry" bill by gutting its >substance and replacing it with "Vermont-style" language. > > Now, I think it is safe to say that everyone in the pro-gun >community looks forward to the day when all law-abiding citizens >can exercise their right to self-defense without first obtaining >a permit. But we must also recognize that such a day has not yet >arrived. Ms. Bradfield realized this, and she also realized that >amending the carry bill in any way would have severely limited >its chances for final passage in the Senate. More importantly, >she knew that sending it back to the Senate with "Vermont-style" >language would have killed it, no doubt about it. > > Although she realized the very real danger this amendment >posed to SB 97-96 and the issue of "right to carry" in Colorado, >Ms. Bradfield did not threaten its supporters, as has been >alleged. Instead, she simply urged them to leave the existing >"right to carry" legislation alone, and to offer their "Vermont- >style" bill as a separate, stand-alone piece of legislation, >which NRA would endorse along with SB 97-96. After all, if >"Vermont-style" had the support in Denver that its backers >claimed it did, than introducing a separate bill should have been >no problem. But perhaps they already knew what we had been >saying all along - that this kind of legislation simply had no >chance whatsoever of making it to Governor Romer's desk. In >fact, the only thing this amendment would have accomplished would >have been to give those legislators with any doubts at all about >"right to carry" a very convenient excuse to oppose it. > > NRA unequivocally supports the right to self-defense, the >primary civil right. We believe law-abiding citizens should be >able to exercise this right as easily as possible. But we must >face the simple fact that many people in Colorado today have no >right to carry at all, and we must do all we can to secure this >fundamental freedom. SB 97-96 did just that. NRA supporters in >the legislature who desired to pass a "right to carry" bill >warned us that any amendments to SB 97-96 would doom its passage >in either house. As of the date of this letter, the fate of >SB 97-96 is in the hands of Governor Romer. We hope you will >join with thousands of Coloradans in urging Governor Romer to >sign this life saving bill. His toll-free telephone number is >1-800-283-7215, or you may also reach him at (303) 866-2471. > >Sincerely, > >Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director >NRA Institute for Legislative Action > Dear Ms. Metaksa: Regarding the above post, I would like your comments on this letter written by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado. Your note seems to imply that Rep. Musgrave's charges are unfounded, and perhaps even mendacious. Accusing a lobbyist of threatening legislators is a serious charge. Accusing legislators of lying is also a serious charge. As a firearms lobbyist myself, I understand the need for compromise at certain times, although I do not believe in compromising essential principles. However, if Ms. Bradfield acted in a manner that is unprofessional, unethical, or otherwise reflects poorly on the NRA, I would expect that she would be disciplined or removed from her position, not defended. I would appreciate clarification of these issues, especially since recent events have made me reconsider continuing my membership in the NRA. This letter is being distributed widely through the Internet, and your anticipated response will be distributed promptly also. Thank you. Sincerely, Sarah Thompson, M.D. (This letter represents MY OWN opinion, and not necessarily that of any organization with which I am affiliated.) -------- [Official letterhead, State of Colorado seal] Mr. Dudley Brown, Executive Director Rocky Mountain Gun Owners P.O. Box 3114 Denver, CO 80201 April 2, 1997 Dear Mr. Brown: Last week I had a conversation with NRA lobbyist Mary Anne Bradfield, the state liaison for Colorado. Ms. Bradfield echoed the comments of Steve Schreiner of the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, who rudely told me that any attempt to amend Senate Bill 96 with a "Vermont Law" would be viewed as anti-gun. Ms. Bradfield was even brash enough to threaten me with lowering my NRA rating, telling her members that I am anti-gun. In 1996, I carried a "Vermont Law" amendment to the concealed carry bill. I am proud that we got 18 votes for this measure and forced legislators to stand and be counted. Also in 1996, I singed a pledge in an candidate survey by the Firearms Coalition of Colorado and Gun Owners of America to support the "Vermont Law." I pledge to support the "Vermont Law" (i.e. carrying concealed without government permit) because I believe wholeheartedly in our right to personal protection. It is outrageous than an NRA lobbyist would suggest that voting to make it easier for citizens to carry a firearms is "anti-gun." Am I to believe that the NRA rates lawmakers based on their willingness to comply with a lobbyist's wishes, no matter how inane? That would come to a shock to NRA members, who expect ratings to reflect a candidate's views and record on supporting the Second Amendment. I may represent the most pro-gun district in the state of Colorado, and I can assure you that I support the Second Amendment, regardless of the rantings of lobbyists wishing to set public policy behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. I know that Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is not afraid of public scrutiny of their legislative agenda. I hope this information is useful. Sincerely, State Representative Marilyn Musgrave House District 65 Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Charlton Heston clarifies KGO interview for SOF Date: 14 May 1997 12:52:07 -0600 >Press Release PIRN 9712 >Public Intelligence Review and Newsletter >submitted by Richard Rongstad >May 14, 1997 > >Charlton Heston clarifies KGO interview for SOF > >On May 11, 1997, Firearms Coalition (FCO) forwarded a transcript to the >FCO Internet mailing list that contained a May 6 on-the-air conversation >between KGO Radio's Ted Wygant and Charlton Heston, and Heston was quoted >three times saying words to the effect; "AK-47's are inappropriate for >private ownership, of course...". > >Heston later clarified his statements in a letter to Robert Brown, >publisher of Soldier of Fortune magazine. > >Heston had to repeat his AK-47 remarks to KGO host Ted Wygant three >times. Wygant circled around the new NRA First Vice President and >pecked at Heston and the assault rifle question using terms like "big, >and brutal, and deadly" and then saying that such guns are "far more >than you need for, for hunting or home protection". Wygant's choice of >words and manner and style of interview represent a red flag for NRA >members and gun owners who frequently dismiss mainstream media coverage >of guns as shallow, narrow and dangerously misleading. They say that >the basic purpose of gun ownership "Ain't about duck hunting", or even >personal defense, but rather a practical limit on government tyranny. > >Soldier of Fortune magazine and publisher Robert Brown obtained a copy >of the KGO transcript, and after word reached Heston about the concern >his remarks caused, sent Brown a letter. SOF has made Heston's letter >to Colonel Bob Brown available for reading on the Internet (below). > >The source of the transcript of the Ted Wygant, Charlton Heston >on-the-air conversation is listed as Video Monitoring Services of America >with an address in San Francisco, California. > >The KGO transcript sent out by FCO may be viewed at: > URL -- http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/pirn9711.htm > >BEGIN HESTON LETTER -----@ >In a message dated 97-05-13 21:13:21 EDT, Editors at Soldier of Fortune >Magazine wrote: >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Dear Colonel Brown, > >Thank you for asking me for a clarification of my comments in an >interview on KGO radio. When I spoke of AK-47 firearms on May 6th, I was >talking about the Soviet military rifle -- a fully automatic, not a >semiautomatic, firearm -- and what I thought was common knowledge. >Namely, that federal law has strictly regulated the private ownership of >such fully automatic firearms for 63 years. > >I didn't favor a cap put on this procedure in 1986 by the United States >Congress because no legally owned fully-automatic firearm had ever been >used in a crime. > >Regrettably, the distinction between classes of firearms is still not >understood thanks to distortions spread by the media and those who'd >destroy the Second Amendment. > >That's why I lobbied against the Clinton gun ban as a private citizen in >1994, and that is why I'll be honored to continue defending the Second >Amendment as First Vice President of the National Rifle Association. > > >Sincerely, > >ORIGINAL SIGNED > >Charlton Heston Huh?? Is it ME or is this clarification as clear as mud? Would someone please explain to me what Heston is really saying? Does he, or does he not, support my right to have any firearm I choose? Befuddled Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: lessons learned Date: 14 May 1997 12:37:00 -0700 Posted to texas-gun-owners by twb@fame.com (Timothy Barney) {this concerns the NRA leadership, future direction, and my response} I was just re-reading the transcript. I had read the "clarification". It's clear to me that Heston wants Knox off the board, and to deliberately take the NRA in a wrong direction. Together with Wayne, they will succeed. My dues aren't paying Wayne over a $100,000 per year for nothing - he's good at something. Unfortunately that something is being put to use against *my* agenda, which is the constitution. I'll be getting things in order tonight to mail out my letter of resignation. I feel _good_ sending money to GOA or JPFO. *REAL* good. I feel hollow and depressed sending money to the NRA, their fine educational materials not withstanding. We moved to an old farm last year and we're fixing and restoring it. It's slow and takes time, but the foundation and posts and beams are strong - so there's hope there's utility in it. Next door is a farm that is run down. The posts and beams are rotted and need to be replaced. The foundation is cracked and leaking. To put any money into it would be hopeless futility. There comes a point when you have to start over. Many denominations have gone this route, and small house churches and independent churches are spouting up like green leaves of grass after a spring rain in the place of a scorched grass-fire. A remnant is relunctantly fleeing those institutions that have become rotted in the leadership and whose rot has spread to the organization. The Pilgrams and Puritans had this issue before them. To stay in the Anglican church with its corruptness and influence it or to leave. The Pilgrams left, the Puritans stayed to purify. Eventually the Puritans left also. Remember, I once stated my lessons learned; that we cannot change the organization in opposition to its leaders. If the leadership is bad, and won't change, there is no hope for that organization. Let it die and shrivel. John Hancock had a beautiful house, a mighty fine house, that he built and enjoyed. When the Tories took it over as a HQ for their local activities, Hancock blew up the house with cannon rather than see it used against the American cause. I'd hate to see the NRA go away, with all its mighty fine programs and materials. But I'd hate more to see the organization used against the American cause. A subtle enemy in the ranks causes the most hurt. Extremist? Call me a constitutional fundamentalist, thank you. I could be accused of idealism. From my perspective, I'm being realistic in my expectations of the NRA, and realistic in my view of their future. relunctantly, timothy PS: Oh, and how did the leadership get bad? By failure of the "people". This applies to the NRA, our mainline churches, and our government. ALL authority is put in place under God's direction. We get the leadership we deserve. If and when the "people" repent of our personal sins, then godly leadership will be restored to us I believe. In the meantime, I'll support that which is good and oppose that which is bad. I'm doing my part to truly repent and live accordingly. May each of us seek God's ways in our lives, and follow His will for each of us. http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: NRA-ILA betrays Vermont Carry -Forwarded -Forwarded Date: 14 May 1997 15:25:57 -0700 Received: from mailhost.NRA.org by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09823; Wed, 14 May 1997 11:24:36 -0600 Received: from wbg-va2-11.ix.netcom.com (wbg-va2-11.ix.netcom.com [205.184.195.75]) by mailhost.NRA.org (8.6.11/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA25194 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 13:16:27 -0400 Message-ID: <3379F7C4.CEE@nra.org> Reply-To: groots@NRA.org Organization: NRA Institute for Legislative Action X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DAVID SAGERS wrote: > > Received: from mail.xmission.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id VAA22738; Thu, 1 May 1997 21:47:30 -0600 > Received: from domo by mail.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.61 #1) > id 0wN9Ox-00035r-00; Thu, 1 May 1997 21:52:55 -0600 > Received: from mars.aros.net [207.173.16.20] > by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.61 #1) > id 0wN9Om-000357-00; Thu, 1 May 1997 21:52:44 -0600 > Received: from default (pm1-4.slc.aros.net [207.173.24.5]) > by mars.aros.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP > id VAA27078; Thu, 1 May 1997 21:48:49 -0600 (MDT) > Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970501215048.006f9cbc@aros.net> > X-Sender: righter@aros.net > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) > Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 21:50:48 -0600 > To: gardner@intermountain.com, magnum@aros.net, gunmoll@therighter.com, > will@phbtsus.com, AJChwick_Family@CompuServe.Com, agr@aros.net, > cdhart@laurie.net, donelle@snowcrest.net, A2Fast4U@aol.com, > drbraces@drbraces.com, edgarsuter@aol.com, sfbearcop@aol.com, > jimmijet@juno.com, jerry@avana.net, jbovard@his.com, > 102062.2510@CompuServe.Com, 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com, JohnNo6@erols.com, > keeva@mindspring.com, larry@americanselfdefense.com, > 70274.1222@CompuServe.Com, , chris@wn.net, > WAGC@aol.com, drgotww@aol.com, safari@zebra.net, > utah-firearms@xmission.com > From: Sarah Thompson > Subject: NRA-ILA betrays Vermont Carry > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Sender: owner-utah-firearms@xmission.com > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: utah-firearms@mail.xmission.com > > >Gun rights activist, Tim Casey, has scanned in two letters from Colorado > >and Oklahoma state legislators regarding the ILA's threats to give F > >ratings to anyone who voted for Vermont style carry in Colorado. > > > >Please, read it for yourself at: > > > >http://www.wizard.net/~kc/co.jpg > > > >and > > > >http://www.wizard.net/~kc/ok.jpg > > > > > >Those going to Seattle, look at this information first! > > > > > Does ANYONE know what's going on here? Is this true? And if it is, could > any of the NRA people receiving this explain WHY? > > Thanks! > > Sarah > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. > PO Box 1185 > Sandy, UT 84091-1185 > (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) > http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! > http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! > GO JAZZ!! Thank you for your note expressing your concerns of the allegations made regarding NRA-ILA State Liason Mary Anne Bradfield. Here is a letter from Tanya Metaksa on this matter, which I hope will straighten out any confusion on NRA policy, positions on Right to Carry, and Ms. Bradfield: May 13, 1997 COLORADO Dear Friend, I am writing on behalf of Mary Anne Bradfield, NRA-ILA's Colorado Liaison. I feel the need to write this letter to explain the circumstances surrounding the so-called Vermont-style "right to carry" legislation introduced during this session. At the outset, I want to make one thing crystal clear: NRA supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense. We have worked tirelessly at every level of government, particularly in our nation's state capitols, to ensure that this fundamental freedom is preserved. We have fought, often with little or no support from other members of the pro-gun community, to gain passage of "right to carry" laws in 31 states across our nation. In short, we have earned our reputation as the "citizens' self-defense lobby." These victories did not come easily. It was only through the skill of our liaisons, such as Mary Anne Bradfield, and the hard work of the entire NRA team, including our members like you at the grassroots level, that we were able to achieve these accomplishments. It was only through our knowledge of the legislative and political processes that we have been able to do what none of our opponents, and only a few of our staunchest supporters, thought possible - make "right to carry" the rule, not the exception. Naturally, everyone at NRA headquarters was ecstatic when, during this session of the legislature, lawmakers in Colorado were on the verge of doing something they had never done before - passing "right to carry" legislation and sending it to the Governor's desk. We all knew that Mary Anne had made a substantial commitment of time and resources to help shepherd this critical legislation through the difficult legislative process. After all, while the members of the House had traditionally been receptive to "right to carry" in the past, the Senate had always been the place where these bills went to die. This year, however, things had been different. The Senate actually approved "right to carry" legislation first, and all that was left for us to do was gain its passage in the much more friendly House of Representatives. But then, as the clock wound down on the session, the so-called "Vermont-style" legislation reared its head. Supporters of this approach to "right-to-carry" indicated to Ms. Bradfield that they would attempt to amend the Senate-passed version of the "right to carry" bill by gutting its substance and replacing it with "Vermont-style" language. Now, I think it is safe to say that everyone in the pro-gun community looks forward to the day when all law-abiding citizens can exercise their right to self-defense without first obtaining a permit. But we must also recognize that such a day has not yet arrived. Ms. Bradfield realized this, and she also realized that amending the carry bill in any way would have severely limited its chances for final passage in the Senate. More importantly, she knew that sending it back to the Senate with "Vermont-style" language would have killed it, no doubt about it. Although she realized the very real danger this amendment posed to SB 97-96 and the issue of "right to carry" in Colorado, Ms. Bradfield did not threaten its supporters, as has been alleged. Instead, she simply urged them to leave the existing "right to carry" legislation alone, and to offer their "Vermont- style" bill as a separate, stand-alone piece of legislation, which NRA would endorse along with SB 97-96. After all, if "Vermont-style" had the support in Denver that its backers claimed it did, than introducing a separate bill should have been no problem. But perhaps they already knew what we had been saying all along - that this kind of legislation simply had no chance whatsoever of making it to Governor Romer's desk. In fact, the only thing this amendment would have accomplished would have been to give those legislators with any doubts at all about "right to carry" a very convenient excuse to oppose it. NRA unequivocally supports the right to self-defense, the primary civil right. We believe law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise this right as easily as possible. But we must face the simple fact that many people in Colorado today have no right to carry at all, and we must do all we can to secure this fundamental freedom. SB 97-96 did just that. NRA supporters in the legislature who desired to pass a "right to carry" bill warned us that any amendments to SB 97-96 would doom its passage in either house. As of the date of this letter, the fate of SB 97-96 is in the hands of Governor Romer. We hope you will join with thousands of Coloradans in urging Governor Romer to sign this life saving bill. His toll-free telephone number is 1-800-283-7215, or you may also reach him at (303) 866-2471. Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director NRA Institute for Legislative Action =+=+=+=+ This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA. This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is available at: http://WWW.NRA.Org -- X-Mailer: Chameleon V0.05, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NRA-ILA Grassroots Division 05/08/97 E-mail: groots@nra.org National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 (800) 392-8683 http://www.nra.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: NRA-ILA betrays Vermont Carry -Forwarded -Forwarded Date: 14 May 1997 16:46:34 -0600 On Wed, 14 May 1997, DAVID SAGERS posted: > >Thank you for your note expressing your concerns of the allegations made >regarding NRA-ILA State Liason Mary Anne Bradfield. Here is a letter >from Tanya Metaksa on this matter, which I hope will straighten out any >confusion on NRA policy, positions on Right to Carry, and Ms. Bradfield: David, It was Sarah who expressed concern. Mine was left unspoken because after hearing about Arizona grassroot organizations having to battle the NRA on this very issue 2 years ago, I had no doubt they would do it. Tonya's letter is a nice case of CYA to the membership. She raises valid points about when it *may* be prudent to pursue a (contrary to NRA nomenclature) privlege-to-carry approach (ie non-dis permits) rather than the ONLY right-to-carry approach (ie Vermont carry). However, are we to believe that a pro-gun legislator would lie about being threatened by an NRA lobbyist? The NRA *may* have had decent, political reasons to oppose amending a given bill. But I have no doubt they went so far as to threaten the ratings of pro-gun legislators to achieve their ends. Now they don't even have the honesty to admit that they used every tool they could, some of them dirty, to get a bill passed. Beyond that, it is clear from the NRA's past actions in Arizona (which could feasibly be the second State to achieve Vermont carry with a little work) along with this newest report and what they have done in other States, that they are much more interested in achieving nation-wide CCW reciprocity than they are in achieving Vermont carry. In State after State the NRA has introduced non-dis ccw bills that were not the least restritive bill likely to pass in that State. Rather they have introduced bills which required background checks and levels of training very consistent with existing permit systems in other States. This makes reciprocity easier because most States will only recognize out-of-State permits that are essentially as restritive as their own. Reciprocity is a fine idea. But it also straddles every State with some lowest common denominator of freedom wrt RKBA. Arizona has never required a permit to carry a gun openly. But their NRA sponsored CCW permit requires the same fingerprints sent to the FBI, photograph, and roughly $100.00 worth of training as most other non-dis States. Now common sense tells me that if I can walk around scaring the sheep with my bazooka openly displayed on my hip with no need of State mandated training or background checks, then it shouldn't be politically infeasable to allow me to put 2mm of clothing over that bazooka so the sheep don't know they are suppose to be nervous. Also, if they every do achieve some form of nation-wide reciprocity, how easy is it going to be to move from the firmly entrenched permit system towards Vermont style. In fact, Vermont will be pushed to adopt a permit system so that their residents may be accorded as privlege in other States that which Vermont now affords every person withing their boundaries as right. That doesn't even take into account all the supposedly pro-gun folks who develop a vested financial interest in keeping permit systems in place, namely the instrutors of the State mandated classes. Training is great and hard to argue with, but there is nothing to boost business like mandating it under force of law. And what about all those govt agencies who so easily keep a record of the staunchest gun owners, those who want or need to carry on a regular basis? Same thing with Brady. Instant background checks were a move up for some States. But prior to that (and I've seen the fax the NRA sent out extolling the virtures of nation-wide instant checks) I didn't need any background check to buy a gun here in Utah. Thank you NRA for dragging me down to the level of NJ or MA. Heck, if I wanted their laws I'd live there. Now Heston comes out and says AKs are not appropriate for private ownership. I don't care if he was talking about full auto rather than semi-auto. The NRA does not support my RIGHT to OWN and CARRY guns. They are about duck hunting. The 2nd is about checking government power. End of story. I'm afraid I must agree with Scott on this one. The NRA is too far gone. They and their local affiliates will not be getting a dime from me until they shape up. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "When values are sufficient, Laws are unnecessary. When values are insufficient, Laws are unenforceable." -Barry Asmus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Date: 14 May 1997 16:55:35 -0600 Sarah asked: >Huh?? Is it ME or is this clarification as clear as mud? >Would someone please explain to me what Heston is really saying? >Does he, or does he not, support my right to have any firearm I choose? Sorry, but it is just you. His explanation is very clear. NO! Neither he nor the NRA support your right to own "every terrible instrument of the soldier". They only support your *privilege* of owning guns that have "legitimate sporting purposes" and then only after proving you are not a criminal by passing a background check and then registering that gun with the govt and only if said gun is purchased face-to-face with a dealer registered with the govt and if it is a pistol, only in your State of residence. Neither do they support your *right* to carry guns on or about your person. They only support your *privilege* to do so (with restrictions on politically sensitive spots like schools and any place that might serve adult beverages) and only after passing various background checks, training classes, and paying a fee for the permit in addition to any fees for the classes, fingerprinting, etc. Hope this clears things up. ;) -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [confiscation...] Date: 14 May 1997 18:24:20 -0600 Food for thought... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- from http://www.2ndamendment.net/2amd7.html What To Do If The Police Come To Confiscate Your Militia Weapons By Howard J. Fezell, Esq. This essay originally appeared in the June, 1990 issue of DOWNRANGE, the official publication of the Maryland State Rifle & Pistol Association. As California and New Jersey have enacted bans on the sale and unlicensed possession of militia-style semi-automatic rifles, every Marylander who professes loyalty to the Constitution should consider what action he or she will take in the event that Congress, or our own General Assembly were to follow suit. The points addressed in this article are premised on three assumptions. 1. Either Congress, or our General Assembly has enacted legislation prohibiting or severely restricting the possession of weapons protected by the Second Amendment (e.g., military pattern semi-automatic rifles). 2. The reader has already decided to uphold the Constitution and not turn over his or her "prohibited" firearms under any circumstances, nor to register such weapons in order to facilitate their future confiscation. The reader has also failed to respond to government directives to dispose of or surrender such firearms. 3. The reader has secured all "prohibited" firearms away from his or her principal residence so as to prevent their unconstitutional seizure by the authorities. What do you do when the police show up on your doorstep demanding the surrender of your militia weapons? In responding, bear in mind that you have two important rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. If the police want to search your house without your consent, they need a warrant. Warrants may only be issued upon a showing of probable cause, supported by an affidavit. The facts contained in the affidavit must do more than support a mere suspicion. The test is whether the information in the affidavit would justify a person of prudence and caution in believing that an offense is being committed, e.g. that "prohibited" weapons can be found on your premises. The requirement of probable cause for the issuance of warrants is one of your most precious constitutional protections. NEVER GIVE THE AUTHORITIES YOUR CONSENT TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE, YOUR CAR, YOUR PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR ANY OTHER PREMISES UNDER YOUR CONTROL. Consent dispenses with the necessity of probable cause. While lacking probable cause, if the police conduct a search with your consent and seize evidence for use against you in court, your lawyer will not be able to suppress it on the basis that the search was warrantless. The Fifth Amendment protects you against giving evidence against yourself, i.e., your right to remain silent. Just as you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself in a criminal trial, neither can you be compelled to answer a policeman's questions about that AR-15 you bought a couple of years ago and never surrendered. Don't be bashful about invoking this right. It's always better to remain silent and appear guilty than to open your mouth and prove it. At the outset of any contact with the police, ask them if they have a warrant to search your premises, or a warrant for your arrest. Without one or the other, don't let them inside your front door. If they have neither, politely request that they leave and gently close the door. If you have an attorney, keep one of his cards in your wallet. Give it to the officer in charge and request that all inquiries be made through your counsel. Remember, the police wouldn't be at your doorstep if you were not the target of a criminal investigation. You have no obligation whatsoever to cooperate with people wo intend to unlawfully confiscate your property and put you in jail. They can't arrest you for keeping your mouth shut and going about your business. The police may still persist in trying to question you, or ask your consent to "take a look around". Again, if you have an attorney, give the officer in charge one of his or her cards and request that all inquiries be made through your counsel. Above all, remember that you have the right to break off this conversation. Do so immediately. In some instances where the police lack a search warrant, they will tell you that it's a simple matter for them to obtain one and they "just want to save everybody a lot of time". This is hogwash. Politely tell them to go get one, and close the door. If they suggest that it will "go a lot easier on you" should you give them your consent to search, tell them to call your lawyer, and close the door. In the event the police do in fact have a warrant either to arrest you or to search your premises, do not offer any resistance. You will have other battles to fight (presumably with the weapons you have hidden) and you want to be alive and kicking when the time comes. You are a member of the militia and we don't want to lose you or your weapon. You also don't want to do anything to endanger your family or deprive them of a home. Don't be foolish and engage the authorities in a firefight that you have no chance of winning. On the other hand, you are not obliged to do anything to make the officers' job easier, such as giving them the combintation to your gun safe. You have the right to remain silent and should take advantage of it. That may cause the authorities to forcibly open your safe, with resultant damage. But let them work at their task. After all, it's their search warrant. Politely request to see a copy of any warrants, and above all, remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. Tell the officers that you do not want to say anything or answer any questions -- and that you want to talk to an attorney immediately. If you already have a lawyer, request permission to telephone him or her. If you have been taken into custody, the police are obliged to cease and desist from interrogation once you have asserted your right to remain silent and requested the assistance of legal counsel. Your spouse and children will be natural targets of interrogation for the authorities. Do they know where your firearms are hidden? Although Maryland law generally prohibits your spouse from testifying against you in a criminal trial, that will be of no help of he or she breaks down under questioning and the authorities know where to retrieve your guns. Never forget that your objective is to safeguard your weapons and ammunition for the defense of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If you or a family members are subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury or other judicial or governmental body, get an attorney immediately. Legal counsel can be very helpful, either in trying to quash the subpoena or helping to invoke one's rights against self-incrimination. Never, under any circumstances, should you lie to the authorities. Simply exercise your right to remain silent. Don't try to snow them with phony bills of sale that can easily be checked out and used to impeach your credibility in court should you decide to testify. Above all, don't file a false police report that your guns were lost or stolen. Making a false report to a police officer that results in an investigation being undertaken is a criminal offense in Maryland. Remember, you are not a criminal. Your ultimate goal is to defend the Constitution. Likewise, don't fall for any of the authorities' lies. Police love to play "Mutt & Jeff" (also known as "Good Cop - Bad Cop"). One officer comes across as a real hardcase, telling you about all the jail time you're looking at. After a few minutes of this, his partner takes you aside, offers you a cigarette, and in a friendly tone tells you that he "only wants to help you". He only wants to help you confess. Tell Mr. Nice Guy you want to talk with a lawyer. Another police tactic is to tell you that a friend of yours has confessed and given them a statement implicating you for all all kinds of things. They're just trying to rattle your cage and make you blurt something out. Keep your mouth shut and let your attorney handle the police. If they really have such a statement, your counsel will be able to discover it. If the authorities have a warrant to search your home, they might imply (sometimes none too subtlely) that if you do not come across with that they're looking for they will tear the place apart. Don't give in. Just keep your mouth shut. If you hand over your "prohibited" weapons, you've just given them all the evidence they need to put you in prison. Even if you fall for this scare tactic, the police may still trash your house. Although this is the rare exception, not the rule, such conduct is not unheard of. In the event you are on the receiving end of a search warrant, do not be pressured into signing any inventories of property seized without first consulting with an attorney. There might be something on that list that is prohibited according to some obscure regulation that you've never heard of. Also be sure that you or some family member receive an itemized list of any property seized. Under Maryland law the police are obliged to sign one and leave it at the premises from which the property is taken. If it is subsequently determined that the authorities took anything that was not within the scope of their warrant, your attorney should motion the court for its prompt return. Hopefully, you will never have to avail yourself of the advice set forth above. The best thing you can do to keep the Free State really free is to make a healthy contribution to the cause, show up to testify in Annapolis next Winter, and keep up the pressure on your Delegate and Senator. Remember, the battle to defend our liberties has already begun - and you are one of the Constitution's foot soldiers. ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent *the people* of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..." -- Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg. 86-87. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Martial Artist's Perspective On Gun Control Date: 15 May 1997 12:08:54 -0600 This speaks for itself! Sarah >Dale Seago on from ba-firearms list. > >---------- > > The idea that one "shouldn't _have to_ have a gun" is one of the most >commonly heard statements against firearm ownership. It amounts to a wish >that we could all just get along, that we shouldn't _have to_ live in a >world where violence may be perpetrated by one human being upon another. > > Weapons of one kind or another have always been used by those who wish to >prey on others, for the simple reason that they confer an ad- >vantage upon the user. They haven't always been firearms: When Cain killed > Abel in the Biblical story, he didn't use an Uzi. > > The Yagyu family scrolls describe the sword as being of two >kinds. There is the "sword that kills" when used for narrowly personal, >predatory, or other unjust ends; and there is the "sword that gives life" >when used in the service of justice, to protect the weak and help- >less, etc. In exactly the same sense, today there is the gun that kills >and the gun that gives life. > > Weapon-control laws (regardless of the weapon involved) are at their root >statements of belief about human nature. They may reflect a view that man >is essentially evil and must therefore be prohibited ac- >cess to anything which can be used for an evil purpose. When imposed by a >despotic government or by one which is moving in that direction, they may >reflect an accurate fear that those governed may rise up and replace such >government, as eventually occurred in England's North American colonies. > > I believe that human beings are, mostly, basically good. That's >essentially a "statistical" view that there are far more inherently "good >guys" in society than "bad guys". If this is so, then weapon- >control laws are unnecessary, as armed or potentially armed "good guys" >vastly outnumber the potential predators. The predators will still seek an >advantage, of course, as they have done throughout history. That ad- >vantage may be found in a weapon (gun, knife, club, broken bottle, paving >brick); sheer individual size and muscle power; or superior force of num- >bers. The predators will ALWAYS try to find SOMETHING to confer an ad- >vantage. Disarming the potential victims does nothing to improve the >situation. > > If a particular weapon is made generally unavailable, something else will >take its place as the "weapon of choice" of the predators and will then >have to be banned in turn. The United Kingdom has been imposing >increasingly strict gun-control laws for quite some time. Far from pre- >venting the recent massacres in Scotland and Tasmania, they only ensured >that no adult victims had a prayer of stopping the acts in progress. Now >England is going further, moving toward a complete ban on private owner- >ship of all firearms of whatever caliber. Yet even that is not enough, as >now it is also being found necessary to enact very strict "knife con- >trol" in England. The "politically correct" approach to "violence con- >trol" in the United States looks to England as a model for the approach to >take here. > > An inevitable result of this approach is that, eventually, they WILL get >around to the same sorts of controls and restrictions on mar- >tial arts. If no one (except agents of the state) has any knowledge or >formal training which will allow them to harm others at will, then "ob- >viously" violence will cease to exist, just as: if people don't have >access to firearms they won't be murdering each other with them; if they >can't carry knives they won't be murdering each other with them; and so >on. > > Look for emphases at first on legislation to ensure higher >safety standards, requiring certain kinds of equipment to ensure that >students won't be injured in their practice. Concurrent with this is >promulgation of the idea that the "proper" place of martial art is in the >realm of sport. (This allows separation and "demonization" of arts taught >or used in any other way, paving the way for their later sup- >pression, just as has been done with "non-sporting" firearms in England >and is being done in the U.S.) Next: Attacks on/legislation against >martial arts which place any emphasis on effective weapons use, such as >the culturally Malaysian arts from the Philippines, Indonesia, and >Sumatra. . .or the Japanese arts of the Bujinkan. After that, anything >which anyone may perceive as remotely effective for actual physical >self-defense becomes fair game. > > This is an inevitable result of the attitude that society or government >is supposed to somehow be responsible for the protection of the >individual: ultimately, if I am to feel safe, the government must suppress >anything which frightens me. > > We're well on the way to this in the United States. As my >friend Robert Galeone (whom I brought onto the list. . .mea culpa!) wrote >the other day: > > ". . .we live in a world in which the role of the martial > is VERY ill defined, and to the extent that one masters his > craft he is often a pariah. Consider the tendency of the > school system to expel BOTH the aggressor and the victim of > that aggression. . ." > >I've seen this. One student assaults another on the playground or >elsewhere on the school premises. The attacker is expelled or sus- >pended - and so is the defender, for fighting back. Our institutions and >the public at large are losing the ability to distinguish morally between >aggressive violence and defensive or protective use of force; AND policies >are being instituted which punish both equally. Galeone continues: > > "Consider 'zero tolerance' edicts expelling first-graders > for carrying a pen-knife into school. It seems to me that > the entire spectrum of the 'use of force' is very, very > relevant to a martial artist. He has to survive not only > aggression, but also a judicial system which will be VERY > adversarial should he survive the physical confrontation." > >I've also seen these "zero weapons tolerance" policies in action in our >public schools, as in the case of a little girl who was found to have a >butter knife in her lunch box which she'd brought from home, and was >expelled. . .or that of the little boy who was expelled for having a gun >on the premises. The "firearm" in question was a one-inch- long plastic >REPRESENTATION of a firearm: a part of his "G.I. Joe" toy set from home. > > We are training our children to be slaves dependent on "super- >ior authority" for the most fundamental life-and-death decisions, and are >rushing headlong to ensure that no one will have any MEANS to ex- >ercise the most fundamental human right: the right to protect self and >others from life-threatening physical violence. > > As martial artists, where do we draw the line? I think for the most part, >we're taking the approach decried by Reverend Niemoller in Nazi Germany in >his famous poem, in which he said nothing when they came for the Jews >because he wasn't one. . .and so on down the line of newly-prohibited >persons until, when they finally came to take HIM away, there was no one >to speak up for him. > > It's not a matter of thinking everyone should have a gun, but one of >being pro-individual choice on self-defense. Do you speak up now? Or do >you wait until they finally work down the list to whatever particular >martial art YOU practice? > >Dale Seago >Bujinkan San Francisco Dojo www.bricelaw.com/seago1.htm > >---------- > >John > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------- >jmaraldo@ix.netcom.com >----------------------------------------------------------- > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Heston stumble authored by NRA PR FIRM. Date: 15 May 1997 12:13:16 -0600 >Return-Path: >From: 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com >X-Sender: 6mesa@mithoff.1eagle1.com. >Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 08:47:14 -0700 >Subject: Heston stumble authored by NRA PR FIRM. > >I am informed on good authority that this fiasco was the creation of the >NRA's paid Public relations firm, Ackerman McQueen. Either they (Ackerman >Mcqueen) (or the NRA-ILA) don't like semi auto AK47's, or they sent the >message whoever in the NRA hired them and paid them to send, worsened by >the fact that Mr. Heston, who has already demonstrated he IS informed about >the law, obviously knew better and proceeded to sell out semi-auto >ownership, dissenters on the board and Brady Bill opposition in one blow. >One must pay close attention to the PRECISE language used by NRA reps >nowadays, so close is their conduct of PR and spin modeled after the >Clinton Administration methodology. > >As evidenced by his so called "clarification", (likely dictated by Robt. >Brown of SOF) Mr. Heston SUPPORTS Brady and is going to "get rid" of the >"extremists" on the NRA. Plus he has still not endorsed semi auto ownership >of Kalashnikovs. The NRA has become like the Clinton administration using >these liberal debate chiller epithetical ad hominems, i.e., "extremists", >"militia" and "John Birch" to stop honest dissent and opposition to the >NRA's very apparent NEW direction: to the LEFT! > >Besides Wayne LaPierre and Charleton Heston, the last persons I heard using >the term "extremist" were the archliberals Gephardt and Daschle and >Stephanopoulis and Panetta and Hillary and Clinton, to name a few others >also highly concerned about "extremists". > >The only way to deal with this is petition for by-law change giving the >members at large the ability to fire staff and board by general referendum, >or some similar method. > >Don't quit yet, finance the other guys, GOA and JPFO, who have balls and >know WHO and WHAT they are working for, and remain in the NRA to effect its >change to a rights defense organization, not a defacto organ or accomplice >of the State. Either that, or force them to admit that they are nothing >more than a Country Club bolt/trap/skeet gun club who are afraid of >controversy. Then the rest of us who disagree or own semis can leave with a >clear conscience and go where our rights are cherished and defended. > >JOE HORN, NRA LIFE (changed my mind, I'm STAYING and FIGHTING), GOA LIFE, JPFO > > > > >"Extremism in the pursuit of Liberty is no vice" > United States Senator (R-AZ) Barry Goldwater > > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: [Fwd: Re: 2.7 times] Date: 15 May 1997 13:35:16 -0600 Regarding Charles' request for stats...I sent a bunch of stuff, none of which directly applied to the 2.7 times crap-o-la. I asked Ed Suter to send me his rebuttal of the Kellerman's 2.7 study, as always, he was nice enough to send it to me. It's very good. A couple of months ago JPFO published a nearly line by line _destruction_ of another 2.X times study. I'm not going to transcribe that, it was four pages long. Besides, they can use the money. Considering the statements from Pharaoh's handboy(?), order the back issue of the Sentinal from JPFO when you send in your membership... :) Aaaaaannnd now, for your reading pleasure....Dr. Ed Suter: > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review > > (Copyright 1994 Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia - Permission to distribute with full attribution granted) > > by Edgar A. Suter MD > National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy > > 5201 Norris Canyon Road, Suite 140 > > San Ramon CA 94583-5405 USA > > Abstract > > > > Introduction > > > > > > Webster et al.6,7 use powerful images of children in carefully crafted comparisons to mislead us. Mentioning "Gunshot wounds are the third most common cause of injury deaths among children aged 10 to 14 years..." assiduously avoids noting that only the first leading cause of death amongst children, motor vehicle accidents , is horrific. [See Graph 5: "Children's Accidental Deaths"] > > How do guns compare with other causes of death? [See Graph 6: "Actual Causes of Death"] The 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Study, a non-psychiatric inpatient sample from New York state, suggests that doctors' negligence kills annually three to five times as many Americans as guns, 100,000 to 150,000 per year. With sad irony it has become vogue for medical politicians to claim that guns, rather than medical negligence, have become a "public health emergency." [See Graph 7: "Estimated Annual US Dea > > > > > > The benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected - not the burglar body count... > > the "43 times"Êfallacy > > Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60. > > methodological and conceptual errors: > > * prejudicially truncated data > > * nonsequitur logic > > * correct methodology described, but not used, by the authors > > * repeated the harshly criticized methodology of Rushforth from a decade earlier > > * deceptively understated the protective benefits of guns > > To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists often claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." This is Kellermann and Reay's flawed risk-benefit ratio for gun ownership,25 heavily criticized for its deceptive approach and its nonsequitur logic.10,26,27 Clouding the public debate, this fallacy is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby. > > The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected - not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal,10 any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000. > > Interestingly, the authors themselves described ,but did not use , the correct methodology. They acknowledged that a true risk-benefit consideration of guns in the home should (but did not in their "calculations") include "cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm [and] cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed...."25 > > Kellermann and Reay had repeated the harshly criticized folly of Rushforth28 from a decade earlier. In 1976 Bruce-Biggs criticized Rushforth noting that the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved and the property protected, not the burglar body count.29 Kellermann and Reay would have done well to heed that simple caveat. Objective analysis, even by their own standards, shows the "more likely to kill a family member than intruder" comparison to be deceptively appealing, though only a spe > > > > At his presentation to the October 17, 1993 Handgun Epidemic Lowering Program conference, Kellermann emotionally admitted his anti-gun bias, a bias evident in the pattern of Kellermann's "research." > > The "43 times" fallacy becomes the "2.7 times" fallacy... > > Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91. > > methodological and conceptual errors: > > * used only one logistic regression model to describe multiple socially distinct populations > > * psychosocially, economically, and ethnically unrepresentative study populations > > * study populations, compared to general population, over-represented serious social dysfunction and financial instability, factors that would expectedly increase risks of homicide > > * unrepresentative nature of dysfunctional study populations prevents generalizing results to population at large > > * when properly used, an "odds ratio" only estimates relative risk of study and control populations - misleading because the ratio gives no estimate of actual or baseline risk > > * one week after publication of this article, during his presentation to a gun prohibition advocacy group, H.E.L.P. Conference (Chicago, October 18, 1993), the lead author emotionally admitted his anti-gun bias, and > > similar to Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.: > > * ignored criticisms of 1986 methodology, so, for the second time, repeated the harshly criticized methodology of Rushforth from 1976 > > * nonsequitur logic > > * In 1986, correct methodology described, but never used, by the lead author > > * failed to consider the protective benefits of guns > > Kellermann and his co-authors have persisted in their discredited methodology. In a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article,32Kellermann et al. once again attempted to prove that guns in the home are a significant risk. > > > > The unrepresentative nature of the case and control groups undercut the authors' attempts to generalize from this study to the nation at large. The results cannot even be generalized to the counties studied because both the case and control groups did not even represent the ethnic or socioeconomic diversity of the counties studied. With so many complex variables, the authors should have used multiple logistic regression models, but, with their a priori bias, used only one logistic regression mod > > Interestingly, according to the authors' own data, guns were next to last in importance of the "risk factors" studied. Alcohol, living alone, family violence, and renting one's home held more risk than guns according to the authors' calculations, yet the most important risks were barely mentioned in the publicity or the authors' discussion. [See GraphÊ8: - "Kellermann's Homicide Odds Ratios"] It appears that the authors were more concerned about generating a headline-grabbing "factoid," exaggera > > "Proving" a foregone conclusion... > > Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the Home in Relationship to Gun Ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327: 467-72. > > methodological and conceptual errors: > > * an "adjustment" to eliminate suicide outside the home for the stated purpose of exaggerating the focus on guns > > * ignored the vast body of data on suicide method substitution > > * the authors virtually ignored their own data showing that factors, such as psychotropic medications, drug abuse, living alone, and hospitalization for alcoholism, have much higher correlations with suicide than guns > > * failed to address the important social and ethical dilemma - how to reduce overall suicide rates > > * ignored the role of failing health in the suicide of the elderly > > In another effort to prove that guns in the home are a significant risk, Kellermann and his co-authors purported to examine certain correlates of suicide.33 Though the authors' own data showed higher correlations between suicide and psychotropic medications, drug abuse, living alone, and hospitalization for alcoholism, the article focused on guns. [See GraphÊ9: - "Kellermann's Suicide Odds Ratios"] > > The authors' "adjustment" - their word - that eliminated the 30% of suicides outside the victim's home intentionally skewed the data towards their foregone conclusion. The authors candidly acknowledged their bias - "Our study was restricted to suicides in the victim's home because a previous study has indicated that most suicides committed with guns occur there..." [emphasis added]. > > > > Guns are often portrayed as uniquely lethal as tools of suicide, yet, amongst tools of suicide, guns are neither uniquely available, uniquely lethal, nor causal of suicide.10 [See Graph 11: "Suicide Method Lethality"] The authors' preoccupation with guns bypasses the real social dilemma, reducing the total suicide rate. Changing merely the method of death is an inadequate response to a grave social problem. Is suicide from hanging or auto exhaust so much more "politically correct" that research, > > Where is lawful self-defense "murder"? > > Kellermann AL and Mercy JA. "Men, Women, and Murder: Gender-specific Differences in Rates of Fatal Violence and Victimization." J Trauma. 1992; 33:1-5. > > methodological and conceptual errors: > > * most women kill in defense of themselves and their children. In these common circumstances, lawful self-defense by women against their attackers is not "murder" in any jurisdiction > > * the authors' discussion focused almost entirely on guns though the data on knives and other weapons are virtually identical > > * the authors failed to note that during the study period the domestic homicide rate nearly halved > > * provided no primary research, instead provides largely faulty analysis of FBI Uniform Crime Reports data > > * though purporting to assess an aspect of risk, the authors failed to analyze the protective uses of guns - lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs saved, and property protected - no true risk-benefit analysis > > * ignored data that suggest guns are actually the safest and most efficacious means of resisting assault, rape, and even non-violent crime > > * offered no new insights or solutions to the problem of domestic abuse > > > > Would it be more "politically correct" if women or children were killed by their attackers - the common outcome when women do not defend themselves and their children with guns? Should women, children, the elderly, the physically challenged, or anyone rely on riskier or less effective means of self-protection? Or... should innocent victims defend themselves with the safest and most effective means of defense until such time as prevention strategies become significantly more effective? > > > > > > The most meaningful conclusion from this study, the conclusion missed by Kellermann and Mercy, is the tremendous restraint shown by women, that they kill so few of their contemptible abusers. Interestingly, during the study period of this article, 1976-87, the domestic homicide rate fell from 2.4 to 1.4 per 100,000 39,40 and the number of teen and child gun accident fatalities fell from 530 to 280 41 - all this while increasing numbers of guns were in the hands of US citizens. It is also worth n > > > > Why are the Black and Hispanic homicide rates so high in Seattle? > > Sloan JH, Kellermann AL, Reay DT, et al. "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities." N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1256-62. > > methodological and conceptual errors: > > * attempted a simplistic single-cause interpretation of differences observed in demographically dissimilar cities and cultures > > * purported to evaluate the efficacy of Canadian gun control without evaluating the situation before the law > > * the Vancouver homicide rate increased 25% after the institution of the 1977 Canadian law > > * failed to acknowledge that, except for Blacks and Hispanics, homicide rates were lower in the US than in Canada > > Sloan, Kellermann, and their co-authors attempted to prove that Canada's gun laws caused low rates of violence.42 In their study of Vancouver, the authors failed to compare homicide rates before and after the law. As Blackman noted,43 they had ignored or overlooked that Vancouver had 26% more homicides after the Canadian gun ban, an observation that should warrant scientific exploration and generate a healthy skepticism of the authors' foregone conclusions. Blackman's critique and analogy were s > > "... The Vancouver-Seattle 'study' is the equivalent of testing an experimental drug to control hypertension by finding two ordinary-looking, middle class white men, one 25 years old and the other 40, and without first taking their vital signs, administering the experimental drug to the 25-year-old while giving the 40-year-old a placebo, then taking their blood pressure and, on finding the younger man to have a lower blood pressure, announcing in a 'special article' a new medical breakthrough. I > > Since its publication this article on gun control is among those most frequently cited, though this small scale (two cities) study has been thoroughly debunked by three large scale (national and multi-national) studies.44,45,46 Kellermann and Sloan's biased interpretation of their data, asserting that guns are to blame for crime, assaults, and homicide, is even refuted by their own statistics. > > > > Could guns have some special evil influence over Blacks and Hispanics, but not others? Hardly! The authors failed to identify the inescapable truth. The roots of inner-city violence lie in the disruption of the family, the breakdown of society, desperate and demoralized poverty, promotion of violence by the media,47,48 the profit of the drug trade, the pathology of substance abuse, child abuse, disrespect for authority, and racism - not in gun ownership. > > > > Foretelling the future - gun prohibitionists and criminals share a crystal ball... > > Loftin C, McDowall D, Wiersema B, and Cottey TJ. Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia. N. Engl J Med 1991; 325:1615-20. > > methodological and conceptual errors: > > * the apparent, temporary, and minuscule homicide drop occurred 2 years before the Washington DC law took effect > > * the "interrupted time series" methodology as used by Loftin et al. has been invalidated > > * the study used raw numbers rather than population-corrected rates - not correcting for the 20% population decrease in Washington, DC during the study period or for the 25% increase in the control population - exaggerating the authors' misinterpretations > > * the study conveniently stopped as Washington, DC's overall homicide rate skyrocketed to 8 times the national average and the Black, male, teen homicide rate skyrocketed to 22 times the national average > > * used a drastically dissimilar demographic group as control > > * the authors virtually failed to discuss the role of complicating factors such as the crack cocaine trade and criminal justice operations during the study period > > Loftin et al. attempted to show that Washington, DC's 1976 ban on new gun sales decreased murder.49 Loftin and his co-authors, using tax money, produced "research" with several negating flaws that were ignored or overlooked by "peer review" and the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine -perhaps a corollary of the editor's no-data-are-needed2 policy. > > Not only has the "interrupted time series" methodology as used by Loftin et al. has been invalidated,50 but the temporary and minuscule homicide drop began during 1974, 2 years before the gun law - How could the law, even before its proposal, be responsible for the drop? Since homicidal maniacs and criminals could not clairvoyantly anticipate the law, other causalities should have been considered. The authors, however, side-stepped the question and dismissed non-gun causalities without any analy > > The study conveniently stopped as the Washington, DC homicide rate skyrocketed. If the gun freeze law, which has not changed, were responsible for the homicide drop, we would expect the "drop" to continue. If the "guns-cause-murder" theory is valid and if the gun freeze were effective, as "grandfathered" guns leave circulation (owner moves, dies, guns become unserviceable, etc.), the homicide rate should drop steadily. Quite the opposite is observed. The 1976 Washington, DC homicide rate before > > Justifiable and excusable homicides, including those by police officers, were treated the same as murders and were not excluded from the study. The study used raw numbers rather than population-corrected rates. This did not correct for the 20% population decrease in Washington, DC during the study period or for the 25% increase in the control population - exaggerating the authors' misinterpretation. The study used the adjacent suburbs as a control group, an area with demographics drastically dif > > The authors examined and allowed only a single cause interpretation - guns are to blame. They offhandedly discarded any other possible explanation. They specifically ignored the role of the crack cocaine trade, FBI stolen property and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms illegal weapon sting operations in progress during the study, and measures instituted during the study period that improved the efficiency of the Washington DC court system. They generally ignored the role of poverty and myri > > Homicide has declined for every segment of American society except teenage and young adult inner-city residents. The Black teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000,53 yet less than 7 per 100,000 for rural, middle-aged white men,54 the US group for whom gun ownership has the highest prevalence.10 If the "guns-cause-violence" theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged "easy purchase" source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, not have a murder rate comparable to > > Even in their responses to criticism,55 the authors' intransigent bias is evident. Their position? If a drop in murder is discovered (or statistically contrived), gun control must receive the credit, but when attention was drawn to the failures of gun control and their study design, the skyrocketing murder rate must be credited to "other causes." Shall we examine gun control as science or religion? It appears that the faith of true believers is unshakable heedless of data and the scientific meth > > Aberrant data, illogical analysis, weak analogies, and gross exaggerations are not a basis for public policy... > > Koop CE and Lundberg GD. "Violence in America: A Public Health Emergency." JAMA. 1992; 267: 3075-76. > > methodological and conceptual errors: > > * claimed 1 million US gun homicides per year - a 35-fold exaggeration > > * lumped gun accidents, homicides, and suicide in a comparison with automobile accidents alone > > * used data from 2 exceptional states, rather than data from the 48 states where gun deaths were falling faster than auto deaths > > * the authors' weak analogy concluded that registration and licensing of guns would decrease deaths, though offering no data to show that registration and licensing of automobiles resulted in such a decrease > > * postulated that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are also appropriate to an inalienable human right to self-preservation(gun ownership). > > * dismissed - without analysis or authority - the constitutional and natural rights to gun ownership > > * though the authors promote a public health model of gun ownership, the "bullet as pathogen" vogue, guns meet none of Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity > > An editorial by Koop and Lundberg56 promoting the guns and autos analogy demonstrated deceptions common amongst prohibitionists - the inflammatory use of aberrant and sculpted data to reach illogical conclusions in the promotion of harmful and unconstitutional policy. The authors attempted to draw a comparison between motor vehicle accidental deaths with all gun deaths. > > aberrant and sculpted data > > "One million US inhabitants die prematurely each year as the result of intentional homicide or suicide" is a 35-fold exaggeration57 Whether carelessness or prevarication, such a gross distortion evokes, at best, questions regarding competence in this field. > > It is doubtful that the authors would lump deaths from surgery, knife attacks, and hara kiri to contrive some inference about knives, but to claim that Louisiana and Texas firearms deaths exceed motor vehicle accidents,58 it was necessary to total firearm accidents, homicides, and suicides. Koop and Lundberg, as promoters of the fashionable "public health model" of gun violence, should know that the root causes and, hence, prevention strategies are very different for accidents, homicides, and > > In the forty-eight other states the converse is noted, firearms accidents (and most other accidents) fell 50% faster than motor vehicle accidents - between 1980 and 1990, a 33% rate drop nationally for guns compared to a 21% drop for motor vehicles.59 Should we base public policy on contrivances and exceptions? > > illogical conclusions > > Koop and Lundberg referenced a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report58 that claimed seven reasons for the fall in motor vehicle accidents - better cars, better roads, passive safety devices, children's car seats, aggressive drunk driving enforcement, lower speed limits, and motorcycle helmets - but did not claim licensing or registration of cars was responsible for the fall. It is by a fervent act of faith, rather than one of science or logic, that Koop and Lundberg proposed their scheme. > > > > harmful and unconstitutional nostrums > > Crime and homicide rates are highest in jurisdictions, such as Washington, DC, New York City, Chicago, and California, where the most restrictive gun licensing, registration, and prohibition schemes exist. Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3 > > > > The new prohibition - enforceability and constitutionality > > The deceptions in the medical literature are not restricted to scientific issues. The insurmountable practical and constitutional impediments to gun bans are either offhandedly or deceptively60 discounted. Neither practical matters, such as the massive expense and civil rights violations necessary to enforce gun bans,61 nor historical matters, such as the racist and oppressive roots of gun control,62,63,64,65,66 are discussed by medical politicians who advocate gun bans. > > Besides unenforceability, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an insurmountable impediment to gun bans. Gun prohibitionists mistakenly predicate that controls appropriate to a privilege, driving, are appropriate to an inherent, irrevocable, and constitutionally protected right. While certain state and federal gun controls may be constitutional, gun prohibitions are clearly unconstitutional. Gun controls may not be so onerous as to regulate the right into meaningless, virtual nonexistence. > > Failure to recognize that the National Guard is a component of the US Army and not equivalent to the Second Amendment's "militia"67 has allowed prohibition advocates to misconstrue the protections guaranteed to individual citizens by the Second Amendment. Considerable legal scholarship also finds protection of gun civil rights in "unenumerated rights" protected by the Ninth Amendment,68 the natural right to self-protection,69 and in the "privileges, immunities, equal protection" and "due proc > > Despite plausible misinterpretations by physicians72 and Handgun Control Inc.73 and other prohibitionist74 attorneys about the function and definition of "militia," > > "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age... and under 45 years of age."75 > > > > The US Supreme Court has rejected such convoluted logic. In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez,80 a Fourth Amendment case holding that the warrant requirement is inapplicable to the search of a home in a foreign country, the Supreme Court noted that "the people" who have the right to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to be secure in their papers and effects are one and the same "the people" who have the right to keep and bear arms. > > > > These important civil rights matters will be discussed in detail in a forthcoming article. > > Conclusions > > Utopia is not one of the available solutions to violence in our society. Only incremental improvements are attainable through repeal of victim disarmament laws and through implementation of effectual, affordable measures. Objective assessment of the risks and benefits of various proposals will assist development of rational and effectual public policy. Hysterical, ineffectual, unconstitutional, and merely symbolic measures only squander time, money, and energy that are better devoted to effectua > > The author hopes that sufficient data and analysis have been provided so that the reader questions common, but erroneous, assumptions about guns and gun bans and to generate deserved skepticism of the medical literature on guns and violence. > > The responsible use and safe storage of any kind of firearm causes no social ill and leaves no victims. In fact, guns offer positive social benefit in protecting good citizens from vicious predators. The overwhelming preponderance of data we have examined shows that between 25 to 75 lives may be saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Guns also prevent injuries to good people, prevent medical costs from such injuries, and protect billions of dollars of property every year. In view of the ov > > > > If devotees of the "true faith" of gun prohibition and pacifists who deny we have a right to self defense wish to eschew the safest and most effective tools of self-protection, they are welcome to do so. In this imperfect world their harmful philosophy must not be imposed upon an entire society. In essence, society should adopt a "Pro-Choice"Êapproach to self-defense and gun ownership. > > Endnotes > > 1 Kates DB. "Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the Battle over Gun Control" in Eastland, T. The Public Interest Law Review 1992. Carolina Academic Press. 1992. > > 2 Kassirer JP. Correspondence. N Engl J. Med 1992; 326:1159-60. > > 3 Kassirer JP. "Guns in the Household." N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1117-19. > > 4 National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1992. Chicago: National Safety Council. 1993. > > 5 Schwab CW. "Violence: America's Uncivil War - Presidential Address, Sixth Scientific Assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma." J Trauma. 1993: 35(5): 657-665. > > 6 Webster DW, Wilson MEH, Duggan AK, and Pakula LC. Firearm Injury Prevention Counseling: A Study of Pediatricians' Beliefs and Practices. Pediatrics 1992; 89: 902-7. > > 7 Webster DW, Wilson MEH, Duggan AK, and Pakula LC. Parents' Beliefs About Preventing Gun Injuries to Children. Pediatrics 1992; 89: 908-14. > > 8 Wright JD. and Rossi PH. Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 1981. > > 9 Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986. > > 10 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. > > 11 Kopel DB. The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? New York: Prometheus Press. 1992. > > 12 Kopel DB. "Children and Guns: Sensible Solutions." Golden CO: Independence Institute. 1993. > > 13 Kopel DB. "Why Gun Waiting Periods Threaten Public Safety." Golden CO: Independence Institute. 1993. > > 14 Kates DB. Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. 1990. > > 15 Fackler ML, Malinowski JA, Hoxie SW, and Jason A. "Wounding Effects of the AK-47 Rifle Used by Patrick Purdy in the Stockton, California, Schoolyard Shooting of January 17, 1989." Am J Forensic Medicine and Path. 1990; 11(3): 185-90. > > 16 Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics: A Review of Common Misconceptions." JAMA. 1988; 259: 2730-6. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Cry from Australia to the USA Date: 15 May 1997 11:34:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Organization: Militia of Montana Forwarded message from Australia. Looks like things are starting to get serious down there. Randy _____________________________________________________________________ Good day to you. I like your site. I am in Australia and the amnesty is finished. Stick up for your rights now! Speaking out is easy than what we now face here. Gun owners who did not comply with new regulations in Australia are now faced with the fact that their name is flagged on Govt. computers, they are liable to four (4) years imprisonment and a fine that is about the cost of an average house. Those with firearms licences and those who did not hand in their weapons are liable to search of person or premises without warrant. People cannot organise because what the Govt. has done is now legislated, enacted law. Therefore any attempt to communicate or organise is liable to the charge of subversion. If an individual says to another "I would suggest that you do not hand in your firearm" the speaker may be charged with subverting another to commit a criminal act. They have started mounting raids to retrieve firearms and this is likely to intensify. WHATEVER YOU GUYS DO, FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T REGISTER YOUR WEAPONS. It really is happening and it seems to be global. US brothers, watch your six. If you don't with the politicians then you will have to watch it for real against your own troopers. Australia to America: God bless you and pray for us poor bastards down under. ______________________________________________________________________ Join the Militia of Montana mailing list! Send Email to: mom-l-info@logoplex.com in body of message put: subscribe mom-l Militia of Montana - http://www.logoplex.com/resources/mom Militia Of Montana Tel: 406-847-2735 P.O. Box 1486 Fax: 406-847-2246 Noxon, MT 59853 mom@logoplex.com =================================================================== LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE AND DISCUSSION GROUP "The only Libertarian-oriented political discussion group on the Fidonet Z1 Backbone"... Fidonet 1:346/16 -*- SYSOPS AREAFIX: LIB_NW Visit Liberty Northwest on the Web http://www.saldivar.com/lib_nw/ Email Subscriptions via the Internet: subscribe@lib_nw.circuit.com ...Liberty is NEVER an option... only a condition to be lost! =================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Cry from Australia to the USA -Forwarded Date: 15 May 1997 15:32:08 -0700 Received: from mail.xmission.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10834; Thu, 15 May 1997 15:18:04 -0600 Received: from domo by mail.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.62 #1) id 0wS7u1-0005BY-00; Thu, 15 May 1997 15:17:33 -0600 Received: from xmission.xmission.com [198.60.22.2] (admn) by mail.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1) id 0wS7tv-0005B8-00; Thu, 15 May 1997 15:17:27 -0600 Received: (from admn@localhost) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.5/8.7.5) id PAA26170 for utah-firearms@xmission.com; Thu, 15 May 1997 15:17:20 -0600 (MDT) X-Authentication-Warning: xmission.xmission.com: admn set sender to utahnet!scott.bergeson using -f Message-ID: <8D7E2B6.01F500644D.uuout@ucs.org> Organization: Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA 801-281-8770 X-Mailreader: PCBoard Version 15.22 X-Mailer: PCBoard/UUOUT Version 1.20 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-utah-firearms@xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: utah-firearms@mail.xmission.com Apparently-To: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Organization: Militia of Montana Forwarded message from Australia. Looks like things are starting to get serious down there. Randy _____________________________________________________________________ Good day to you. I like your site. I am in Australia and the amnesty is finished. Stick up for your rights now! Speaking out is easy than what we now face here. Gun owners who did not comply with new regulations in Australia are now faced with the fact that their name is flagged on Govt. computers, they are liable to four (4) years imprisonment and a fine that is about the cost of an average house. Those with firearms licences and those who did not hand in their weapons are liable to search of person or premises without warrant. People cannot organise because what the Govt. has done is now legislated, enacted law. Therefore any attempt to communicate or organise is liable to the charge of subversion. If an individual says to another "I would suggest that you do not hand in your firearm" the speaker may be charged with subverting another to commit a criminal act. They have started mounting raids to retrieve firearms and this is likely to intensify. WHATEVER YOU GUYS DO, FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T REGISTER YOUR WEAPONS. It really is happening and it seems to be global. US brothers, watch your six. If you don't with the politicians then you will have to watch it for real against your own troopers. Australia to America: God bless you and pray for us poor bastards down under. ______________________________________________________________________ Join the Militia of Montana mailing list! Send Email to: mom-l-info@logoplex.com in body of message put: subscribe mom-l Militia of Montana - http://www.logoplex.com/resources/mom Militia Of Montana Tel: 406-847-2735 P.O. Box 1486 Fax: 406-847-2246 Noxon, MT 59853 mom@logoplex.com =================================================================== LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE AND DISCUSSION GROUP "The only Libertarian-oriented political discussion group on the Fidonet Z1 Backbone"... Fidonet 1:346/16 -*- SYSOPS AREAFIX: LIB_NW Visit Liberty Northwest on the Web http://www.saldivar.com/lib_nw/ Email Subscriptions via the Internet: subscribe@lib_nw.circuit.com ...Liberty is NEVER an option... only a condition to be lost! =================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: A Visitor From The Past Date: 15 May 1997 16:20:03 -0700 A Visitor From The Past by Thelen Paulk I had a dream the other night that I didn't understand. A figure walking through the mist with a flintlock in his hand. His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed. He took off his three cornered hat, and speaking low to me he said: We fought a revolution, to secure our liberty. We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny. For future generations, this legacy we gave. In this, the land of the free and home of the brave. The freedoms we secured for you, we hoped you'd always keep. But tyrants labored endlessly while your parents were asleep. Your freedoms gone, your courage lost, you're no more than a slave. In this, the land of the free and home of the brave. You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun. Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one. On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent. Although you have no voice in saying how the money's spent. Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate, and your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state. You read about the current news in a regulated press, and you pay a tax you do not owe, to please the I.R.S. Your money is no longer made of Silver nor of Gold. You trade your wealth for paper, so your life can be controlled. You pay for crimes that make our Nation turn from God in shame. You've taken Satan's number, as you've traded in your name. You've given government control, to those who do you harm. So they can padlock churches, and seize the family farm. And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail. Harass your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail. Your public servants don't uphold the solemn oaths they've sworn, and your daughters visit doctors, so their children won't be born. Your leaders send artillery and guns to foreign shores, and send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people's wars. Can you regain the freedoms for which we fought and died? Or don't you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride?And are there no more values for which you'll fight to save? Or do you wish your children to live in fear and be a slave? O Sons of the Republic; Arise! Take a stand! Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land! Preserve our Great Republic, and each God-given Right! And pray to God, to keep the torch of Freedom burning bright! As I awoke he vanished in the mist from whence he came. His words were true, we are not Free, but we have ourselves to blame. For even now as tyrants trample each God-given Right, We only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight. If he stood by your bedside, in a dream, while you were asleep, and wondered what remains of the freedoms he fought to keep, What would be your answer, if he called out from the grave; IS THIS STILL THE LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE??? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: NRA petition Date: 15 May 1997 16:30:36 -0700 ------- Forwarded Message *** Please Cross Post Freely *** Dear Fellow Firearms Activists: This post is about the NRA=B9s bylaws and changes that we, the = members, must make to bring the association back into the hands of = the membership. Like many of you, I have been an activist busy trying to protect our = firearms rights. I have not given a lot of attention to the how's = and why's of the internal workings of our association. I have = complained when things did not go the way I thought they should, but = I have been too busy with the ongoing "fight" to let my = disappointments fester. Now, all this has changed for me. Recent events have caused me take a long, hard look at our = association, and I have tried to look at it as impartially as = possible. However, no matter how I look at our association, there is = one basic fact that is inescapable. We the members have almost no say in what goes on. A prime example is the election of the Executive Vice President of = our association. This is the single most important job at the NRA. = Over the years, we the members have given away our rights to have a = say in this area. A wise person asked me, "Would you let your Congress elect your = President?" I answered no. The person then said, "So why would you = let your Board of Directors elect your Executive Vice President?=B2 = This perspective really got me to thinking, and doing some research = into our bylaws. We have the power to change the present setup, as well as other = things we do not like. We have to want to change it because it = requires a lot of us to do it. It takes 500 eligible-to-vote members = to sign a petition and have it back at the NRA Secretary's desk by = September 1st. I have written such a petition. I took it with me to Seattle to get = signatures. I got some, but with all that was going on at the = Convention, I was not able to devote much time to it. But now the Convention is over. The time has come to begin this = project in earnest. The petition states that we the members--and ONLY we the members--can = vote for the EVP, and that our choice can not be disputed. The petition also allows anyone who can get 500 signatures to run = against the current EVP by having his or her name placed on the = ballot. In this way, the selection of the EVP candidates will be = taken out the hands of a few and put into the hands of the many. I am distributing this post because I am looking for 500 voting = members who want to do something to help bring the power in our = organization back to the members where it belongs--and away from the = few who presently have it. If you are interested in helping, please e-mail your name and address = to me so that I can snail mail you one hard copy of the petition. = After you receive it, make copies of it, and take it to different gun = clubs, shooting ranges, and the like. Let's show those who think we don't care enough about our association = that they are mistaken. Lets make some changes that really matter. Now. Sincerely, Joel Friedman Benefactor Member e-mail: mochi1@ix.netcom.com *** Please Cross Post Freely *** ------- End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gun Control Article Date: 16 May 1997 09:10:00 -0700 This must have been where Karen Shepherd got her marching orders. Anyone know what 'LCAV' stands for? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>I thought since there is so much with the gun control coming up, >>that this article was very timely........Love Carolina By Harry V. Martin Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995 "The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson Gun control is one of the hottest topics of the nineties. There has been a series of legislation on both the State and Federal level attempting to control the ownership and sale of guns. There are currently 31 bills in the State Legislature right now that address the gun control issue. The debate over gun control centers on the issue of safety, on one side, and freedom on the other. Public opinion polls show the majority of Americans now favor some form of gun control. But at the same time the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to bear arms. The increased possession of guns by gangs and criminals has caused great alarm, some mass killings such as the Stockton School Yard shootings and the Yseda McDonald's shootings have increased that alarm. But in the quest for gun control also comes the erosion of rights. This erosion is found in a confidential memorandum concerning a White House brainstorming session over how to control guns over the next five years and also projections into the next 15 years. The plan, outlined on Dec. 29, 1993, states: "What was only a dream ten years ago can be a reality as early as this year. After the meeting, the following ideas were the result of brainstorming session to guide the focus of gun control ini- tiatives over the next five years. These may not be politically feasible ideas for 1994, but we are confident that with continued pressure we can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years." That White House session was held on Friday, December 17, 1993. The plan outlines how the media is to receive one press release a day to keep the gun control issue on a high profile with the public. "Many local news organizations have been very active in keeping the gun control issue resolutely in view," the report states. The plan is as follows: 1. National licensing of all handgun purchases. This is the top priority. 2. Licenses fors rifle and shotguns. 3. State licenses for ownership of firearms. The license has to be signed by three public officials. 4. Reduction of the number of guns to require an Arsenal license. Ownership of five guns and 250 rounds of ammunition would be considered a arsenal. An arsenal license fee would be at least $300 annually up to $1000. An arsenal license would not be permitted in counties with populations of more than 200,000. 5. Require a Federally approved storage safe for all guns. 6. Inspection license. Mandatory inspection of all safes with an annual fee. 7. Ban the manufacturing of weapons in counties with a populations of more than 200,000. 8. Banning all military style firearms. 9. Banning any machine gun parts or parts which can be used in a machine gun. 10. Banning the carrying of a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other. 11. Banning replacement parts except barrel and trigger group. 12. Elimination of the Curio Relic list. 13. Control of ammunition belonging to certain surplus firearms. 14. Eventual ban of handgun possession. A total ban within five years. 15. Banning of any ammo that fits military guns dating back to as far as 1945. 16. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder. 17. Ban on the possession of explosive powders. 18. Banning of high powered ammo or wounding ammo. 19. A national license required for possession of ammunition. 20. Banning or strict licensing of all reloading components. 21. National registration of ammunition or ammo buyers. 22. Requirement of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing. 23. Restricting gun ranges to counties with populations of less than 200,000. 24. Special licensing of ranges, which also requires each existing or new shooting range required to get written permission of all property owners within a radius of seven miles. 25. Special Range tax to visitors, requiring the collection of a minimum of $85 per visit per person. 26. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges. 27. Banning gun shows. 28. Banning of historical military reenactments. 29. Making unlawful the assembly of more than four armed individuals who are not peace officers or military. 30. Begin to curb hunting on all public lands. 31. Making gun owners records and photos a matter of public record. 32. Random Police checks for weapons including vehicle stops and checks at all levels and in all types of neighborhoods. The fifteen year plan would call for the following: 1. Banning of all military accouterments including clothing, pouches, gear, boots, etc. 2. Stricter guidelines for violence in television and movies. 3. The total elimination of arms from the society. 4. Control of dangerous literature. Handgun license fees are suggested at $50-$75 the first two years, rising to $150 to $250 annually the following two years, and $550 to $625 annually from year five through eight. A range license would be $12,100 a year. Implementation of these programs the White House conference group seeks a low-key approach. "Pending issues to be given at the appropriate time to the LCAV office for investigation as to feasibility, implementation and public reaction. At no time should these suggestions be made public before we can ascertain the current public reaction and provide the results of these studies to the LCAV attorneys." It adds, "There are some ideas which are ahead of their time and would only be feasible through a concerted Public Relations campaign over the period of years. A Public Relations campaign includes press releases, press conferences, direct lobbying and constant pressure via the national media." How does this compare with the Second Amendment of the Constitution? The regulations are not compatible and also violate right of free assembly, as well. America, faced with violence and bloodshed, is torn between protecting herself from the criminals and maintaining the right of free citizens, non-criminals, to bear arms and protect themselves against the criminal element, or perhaps, as Thomas Jefferson suggested, a tyrannical government. The debate is just beginning, but rather than wait for the secret White House plan to gradually filter out into the public, we felt it was our responsibility to bring it to our readership as a whole so they can commence their own debate. How far is protection and how much is Big Brother? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Gun Control Article -Forwarded Date: 16 May 1997 09:40:34 -0700 A few years ago I would not have believed this, but after so many Klinton scandals and anti-freedom maneuvers its no longer possible to brush off any report of big government plans to destroy the Constitution. ===================================================== Forwarded: This must have been where Karen Shepherd got her marching orders. Anyone know what 'LCAV' stands for? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>I thought since there is so much with the gun control coming up, >>that this article was very timely........Love Carolina By Harry V. Martin Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995 "The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson Gun control is one of the hottest topics of the nineties. There has been a series of legislation on both the State and Federal level attempting to control the ownership and sale of guns. There are currently 31 bills in the State Legislature right now that address the gun control issue. The debate over gun control centers on the issue of safety, on one side, and freedom on the other. Public opinion polls show the majority of Americans now favor some form of gun control. But at the same time the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to bear arms. The increased possession of guns by gangs and criminals has caused great alarm, some mass killings such as the Stockton School Yard shootings and the Yseda McDonald's shootings have increased that alarm. But in the quest for gun control also comes the erosion of rights. This erosion is found in a confidential memorandum concerning a White House brainstorming session over how to control guns over the next five years and also projections into the next 15 years. The plan, outlined on Dec. 29, 1993, states: "What was only a dream ten years ago can be a reality as early as this year. After the meeting, the following ideas were the result of brainstorming session to guide the focus of gun control ini- tiatives over the next five years. These may not be politically feasible ideas for 1994, but we are confident that with continued pressure we can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years." That White House session was held on Friday, December 17, 1993. The plan outlines how the media is to receive one press release a day to keep the gun control issue on a high profile with the public. "Many local news organizations have been very active in keeping the gun control issue resolutely in view," the report states. The plan is as follows: 1. National licensing of all handgun purchases. This is the top priority. 2. Licenses fors rifle and shotguns. 3. State licenses for ownership of firearms. The license has to be signed by three public officials. 4. Reduction of the number of guns to require an Arsenal license. Ownership of five guns and 250 rounds of ammunition would be considered a arsenal. An arsenal license fee would be at least $300 annually up to $1000. An arsenal license would not be permitted in counties with populations of more than 200,000. 5. Require a Federally approved storage safe for all guns. 6. Inspection license. Mandatory inspection of all safes with an annual fee. 7. Ban the manufacturing of weapons in counties with a populations of more than 200,000. 8. Banning all military style firearms. 9. Banning any machine gun parts or parts which can be used in a machine gun. 10. Banning the carrying of a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other. 11. Banning replacement parts except barrel and trigger group. 12. Elimination of the Curio Relic list. 13. Control of ammunition belonging to certain surplus firearms. 14. Eventual ban of handgun possession. A total ban within five years. 15. Banning of any ammo that fits military guns dating back to as far as 1945. 16. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder. 17. Ban on the possession of explosive powders. 18. Banning of high powered ammo or wounding ammo. 19. A national license required for possession of ammunition. 20. Banning or strict licensing of all reloading components. 21. National registration of ammunition or ammo buyers. 22. Requirement of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing. 23. Restricting gun ranges to counties with populations of less than 200,000. 24. Special licensing of ranges, which also requires each existing or new shooting range required to get written permission of all property owners within a radius of seven miles. 25. Special Range tax to visitors, requiring the collection of a minimum of $85 per visit per person. 26. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges. 27. Banning gun shows. 28. Banning of historical military reenactments. 29. Making unlawful the assembly of more than four armed individuals who are not peace officers or military. 30. Begin to curb hunting on all public lands. 31. Making gun owners records and photos a matter of public record. 32. Random Police checks for weapons including vehicle stops and checks at all levels and in all types of neighborhoods. The fifteen year plan would call for the following: 1. Banning of all military accouterments including clothing, pouches, gear, boots, etc. 2. Stricter guidelines for violence in television and movies. 3. The total elimination of arms from the society. 4. Control of dangerous literature. Handgun license fees are suggested at $50-$75 the first two years, rising to $150 to $250 annually the following two years, and $550 to $625 annually from year five through eight. A range license would be $12,100 a year. Implementation of these programs the White House conference group seeks a low-key approach. "Pending issues to be given at the appropriate time to the LCAV office for investigation as to feasibility, implementation and public reaction. At no time should these suggestions be made public before we can ascertain the current public reaction and provide the results of these studies to the LCAV attorneys." It adds, "There are some ideas which are ahead of their time and would only be feasible through a concerted Public Relations campaign over the period of years. A Public Relations campaign includes press releases, press conferences, direct lobbying and constant pressure via the national media." How does this compare with the Second Amendment of the Constitution? The regulations are not compatible and also violate right of free assembly, as well. America, faced with violence and bloodshed, is torn between protecting herself from the criminals and maintaining the right of free citizens, non-criminals, to bear arms and protect themselves against the criminal element, or perhaps, as Thomas Jefferson suggested, a tyrannical government. The debate is just beginning, but rather than wait for the secret White House plan to gradually filter out into the public, we felt it was our responsibility to bring it to our readership as a whole so they can commence their own debate. How far is protection and how much is Big Brother? Received: from mail.xmission.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA11358; Fri, 16 May 1997 09:15:16 -0600 Received: from domo by mail.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.62 #1) id 0wSOkn-0005iD-00; Fri, 16 May 1997 09:17:09 -0600 Received: from xmission.xmission.com [198.60.22.2] (admn) by mail.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.62 #1) id 0wSOkk-0005hV-00; Fri, 16 May 1997 09:17:06 -0600 Received: (from admn@localhost) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.5/8.7.5) id JAB27245 for utah-firearms@xmission.com; Fri, 16 May 1997 09:16:58 -0600 (MDT) X-Authentication-Warning: xmission.xmission.com: admn set sender to utahnet!scott.bergeson using -f Message-ID: <8D7F226.01F500646F.uuout@ucs.org> Organization: Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA 801-281-8770 X-Mailreader: PCBoard Version 15.22 X-Mailer: PCBoard/UUOUT Version 1.20 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-utah-firearms@xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: utah-firearms@mail.xmission.com Apparently-To: This must have been where Karen Shepherd got her marching orders. Anyone know what 'LCAV' stands for? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>I thought since there is so much with the gun control coming up, >>that this article was very timely........Love Carolina By Harry V. Martin Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995 "The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson Gun control is one of the hottest topics of the nineties. There has been a series of legislation on both the State and Federal level attempting to control the ownership and sale of guns. There are currently 31 bills in the State Legislature right now that address the gun control issue. The debate over gun control centers on the issue of safety, on one side, and freedom on the other. Public opinion polls show the majority of Americans now favor some form of gun control. But at the same time the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to bear arms. The increased possession of guns by gangs and criminals has caused great alarm, some mass killings such as the Stockton School Yard shootings and the Yseda McDonald's shootings have increased that alarm. But in the quest for gun control also comes the erosion of rights. This erosion is found in a confidential memorandum concerning a White House brainstorming session over how to control guns over the next five years and also projections into the next 15 years. The plan, outlined on Dec. 29, 1993, states: "What was only a dream ten years ago can be a reality as early as this year. After the meeting, the following ideas were the result of brainstorming session to guide the focus of gun control ini- tiatives over the next five years. These may not be politically feasible ideas for 1994, but we are confident that with continued pressure we can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years." That White House session was held on Friday, December 17, 1993. The plan outlines how the media is to receive one press release a day to keep the gun control issue on a high profile with the public. "Many local news organizations have been very active in keeping the gun control issue resolutely in view," the report states. The plan is as follows: 1. National licensing of all handgun purchases. This is the top priority. 2. Licenses fors rifle and shotguns. 3. State licenses for ownership of firearms. The license has to be signed by three public officials. 4. Reduction of the number of guns to require an Arsenal license. Ownership of five guns and 250 rounds of ammunition would be considered a arsenal. An arsenal license fee would be at least $300 annually up to $1000. An arsenal license would not be permitted in counties with populations of more than 200,000. 5. Require a Federally approved storage safe for all guns. 6. Inspection license. Mandatory inspection of all safes with an annual fee. 7. Ban the manufacturing of weapons in counties with a populations of more than 200,000. 8. Banning all military style firearms. 9. Banning any machine gun parts or parts which can be used in a machine gun. 10. Banning the carrying of a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other. 11. Banning replacement parts except barrel and trigger group. 12. Elimination of the Curio Relic list. 13. Control of ammunition belonging to certain surplus firearms. 14. Eventual ban of handgun possession. A total ban within five years. 15. Banning of any ammo that fits military guns dating back to as far as 1945. 16. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder. 17. Ban on the possession of explosive powders. 18. Banning of high powered ammo or wounding ammo. 19. A national license required for possession of ammunition. 20. Banning or strict licensing of all reloading components. 21. National registration of ammunition or ammo buyers. 22. Requirement of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing. 23. Restricting gun ranges to counties with populations of less than 200,000. 24. Special licensing of ranges, which also requires each existing or new shooting range required to get written permission of all property owners within a radius of seven miles. 25. Special Range tax to visitors, requiring the collection of a minimum of $85 per visit per person. 26. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges. 27. Banning gun shows. 28. Banning of historical military reenactments. 29. Making unlawful the assembly of more than four armed individuals who are not peace officers or military. 30. Begin to curb hunting on all public lands. 31. Making gun owners records and photos a matter of public record. 32. Random Police checks for weapons including vehicle stops and checks at all levels and in all types of neighborhoods. The fifteen year plan would call for the following: 1. Banning of all military accouterments including clothing, pouches, gear, boots, etc. 2. Stricter guidelines for violence in television and movies. 3. The total elimination of arms from the society. 4. Control of dangerous literature. Handgun license fees are suggested at $50-$75 the first two years, rising to $150 to $250 annually the following two years, and $550 to $625 annually from year five through eight. A range license would be $12,100 a year. Implementation of these programs the White House conference group seeks a low-key approach. "Pending issues to be given at the appropriate time to the LCAV office for investigation as to feasibility, implementation and public reaction. At no time should these suggestions be made public before we can ascertain the current public reaction and provide the results of these studies to the LCAV attorneys." It adds, "There are some ideas which are ahead of their time and would only be feasible through a concerted Public Relations campaign over the period of years. A Public Relations campaign includes press releases, press conferences, direct lobbying and constant pressure via the national media." How does this compare with the Second Amendment of the Constitution? The regulations are not compatible and also violate right of free assembly, as well. America, faced with violence and bloodshed, is torn between protecting herself from the criminals and maintaining the right of free citizens, non-criminals, to bear arms and protect themselves against the criminal element, or perhaps, as Thomas Jefferson suggested, a tyrannical government. The debate is just beginning, but rather than wait for the secret White House plan to gradually filter out into the public, we felt it was our responsibility to bring it to our readership as a whole so they can commence their own debate. How far is protection and how much is Big Brother? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Waco: The Rules of Engagement Date: 16 May 1997 17:34:20 -0600 ### # # ###### #### ### # # # # ### # ##### #### # # # # # # # # ### # ###### #### ### The Tower Theatre Salt Lake City, UT Showing June 20 yes yes yes -- Some scientists say that the major building block of the Universe is hydrogen, because it is the most plentiful element. But my theory is that the Universe is made up of stupidity, because it is more plentiful than hydrogen. -Frank Zappa ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: ALERT!! New Lautenberg Bill Date: 17 May 1997 11:37:01 -0600 ALERT! ALERT! - This one needs to be put out of its misery! Sarah >For those of you who thought Dr. Sarah Thompson's correspondent, Mr. >Harry V. Martin, was blowing old smoke, see Senator Lautenberg's new bill >to repeal federally the right to carry laws now in 31 states covering a >majority of Americans. A majority of states have right to carry laws just >like they did not have waiting period laws prior to 1994. Those who hate >guns and their owners, having lost in the states ("laboratories of >democracy"), now want Congress to give them the victory they can't get >from the people. > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>New Lautenberg atrocity. >> >> >>Subject: S. 707 -- Full Text >> >>-------------- >>S 707 >>105th CONGRESS >>1st Session >> >>To prohibit the public carrying of a handgun, with appropriate >>exceptions for law enforcement officials and others. >> IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES >> May 6, 1997 >>Mr. LAUTENBERG introduced the following bill; which was read twice >>and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary >> A BILL >>To prohibit the public carrying of a handgun, with appropriate >>exceptions for law enforcement officials and others. >>[Italic->] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of >>Representatives of the United States of America in Congress >>assembled, [<-Italic] >>SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. >>This Act may be cited as the `Concealed Weapons Prohibition Act >>of 1997'. >>SEC. 2. FINDINGS. >>The Congress finds and declares that-- >> (1) crimes committed with handguns threaten the peace and >>domestic tranquility of the United States and reduce the >> security and general welfare of the Nation and its people; >> (2) crimes committed with handguns impose a substantial >> burden on interstate commerce and lead to a reduction in >> productivity and profitability for businesses around the Nation >> whose workers, suppliers, and customers are adversely affected >> by gun violence; >> (3) the public carrying of handguns increases the level of >> gun violence by enabling the rapid escalation of otherwise >> minor conflicts into deadly shootings; >> (4) the public carrying of handguns increases the likelihood >> that incompetent or careless handgun users will accidently >> injure or kill innocent bystanders; >> (5) the public carrying of handguns poses a danger to >> citizens of the United States who travel across State lines for >> business or other purposes; and >> (6) all Americans have a right to be protected from the >> dangers posed by the carrying of concealed handguns, regardless >> of their State of residence. >> SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL ACT. >> Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding >> at the end the following: >> `(y)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful >> for a person to carry a handgun on his or her person in public. >> (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the following: >> (A) A person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to State >> law who is-- >> `(i) a law enforcement official; >> `(ii) a retired law enforcement official; >> `(iii) a duly authorized private security officer; >> `(iv) a person whose employment involves the transport of >> substantial amounts of cash or other valuable items; or >> `(v) any other person that the Attorney General >> determines should be allowed to carry a handgun because of >> compelling circumstances warranting an exception, pursuant >> to regulations that the Attorney General may promulgate. >> `(B) A person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to a >> State law that grants a person an exemption to carry a handgun >> based on an individualized determination and a review of >> credible evidence that the person should be allowed to carry a >> handgun because of compelling circumstances warranting an >> exemption. A claim of concern about generalized or unspecified >> risks shall not be sufficient to justify an exemption. >> `(C) A person authorized to carry a handgun on his or her >> person under Federal law.'. (posted by Joe Olson, NRA BOD) Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: HESTON TO THE RESCUE Date: 17 May 1997 19:00:21 -0600 Rescue? No thanks! Sarah >Sender: owner-cebs@UserHome.com > > > HESTON TO THE RESCUE > > William F. Buckley Jr. > > 5/16/97 > > The quarrel within the National Rifle Association is of zero >interest to the public at large if it is nothing more than a >quarrel between Wayne LaPierre and a challenger for control of >the huge and effective lobby. That it is something more than >factional strife is suggested by board member/actress Susan >Howard who, in the report by Katharine Seelye of The New York >Times, complained that the NRA was now "held in such low esteem >that members were practically spat upon by strangers." > > The low esteem of the NRA is said to trace substantially to >the Oklahoma bombing. Since what happened in Oklahoma City hasn't >anything to do with firefights in which pistols and rifles were >used, it isn't clear why the NRA is held to blame. One assumes >that a common property -- guns emit violence, bombs emit violence >-- has something to do with it. Still, the NRA is in trouble, and >the election of Charlton Heston as first vice president is a very >good move. > > Mike Beko of Ohio opposed the election of Heston on the >grounds that it is nothing more than a venture in image-making >designed to reingratiate the lobby with Republicans in Washington >who have done nothing for the gun lobby, neglecting even to >overturn the ban on assault weapons or to "get the Bureau of >Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms back in their cages." > > Well, if Heston is going to emerge as a spokesman for the >NRA, he has a job on his hands. Those of us who have experienced >Heston at close quarters know him to be a conservative who is >given to reflection on the right and wrong of public policies. >His solomonic tones and august presence are much esteemed, and to >the charge over the weekend that in submitting his name for >election he was engaging in doing more than a bid to elevate his >influence, he replied modestly that both the Democratic and the >Republican parties in California have over the years sought him >as a candidate for public office. He does not need any more >public recognition than what he has already earned as Moses, Ben >Hur and Michelangelo. > > What the NRA needs, of course, is to climb back from the >fanatical perch on which it now dangles in consequence of its >adherence to ACLU-type reasoning. The lawyers call the mode "the >slippery slope." It is the argument that if you give one inch, >they will take one mile. > > As a philosophical postulate, it is appealing. The trouble >is, it is ungrounded in reality. The late Sidney Hook, a >brilliant and influential philosopher and analyst, wrote a book >called "The Paradoxes of Freedom" in which he made a devastating >case against Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. Black was an >absolutist in his interpretation of the First Amendment. It tells >us that Congress "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of >speech" -- therefore, no libel or slander law is constitutional. > > Hook pointed out that Congress has to navigate among >conflicting constitutional liberties, if they are taken to >absolute lengths. I have a Sixth Amendment right to "compulsory >process for obtaining witnesses" in my favor; you have a Fifth >Amendment right to decline to be a witness against yourself. The >First Amendment guarantees us the freedom to exercise our >religion and the guarantee against a state religion: Is it OK to >hang the Ten Commandments on the public school wall? > > Under the slippery slope, if a society bans the sale of de >Sade, it will end up banning the sale of "Ulysses." The NRA takes >the position that the Second Amendment's right of the people to >"keep and bear arms" is a slippery-slope proposition -- and >therefore a ban on a citizen's right to buy an "assault weapon" >jeopardizes the right of the citizen to own a rifle. > > The definition of the right to bear arms is a flexible >thing. During the 1930s, the Supreme Court upheld a ban against >sawed-off shotguns, on the grounds that they were of no practical >value except to bank robbers and Mafia executioners. Along came >World War II, which revealed that sawed-off shotguns were also >useful in trench warfare -- definitions change, even as the law >of libel was changed by The New York Times vs. Sullivan, which >requires a plaintiff to prove "actual" malice before proceeding >against a public figure. > > The NRA's absolutism begs the influence of such as Heston to >qualify. We cherish the right to own a weapon of self-defense, >and some even pause over the restrictions against handguns in >most large cities. But the argument is empirical, not >philosophical; and Charles Heston, who played Captain Queeg in >"The Caine Mutiny" onstage, knows about the constant struggle >between philosophical affirmations (the captain is in charge of >the ship), and real-life situations (when mutiny beckons). > > COPYRIGHT 1997 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Tanya replies (1) Date: 17 May 1997 22:59:01 -0600 >Return-Path: >Date: Sun, 18 May 97 00:16:53 EDT >From: Tanya Metaksa >Subject: RE: INFO: CO - Right to Carry Legislation >To: Sarah Thompson , nra-contact@nra.org > >Dear Sarah, >I believe that my letter dated May 13 answered the question as >to Mary Anne Bradfield's alleged threatening or legislators >during the legislative session in Colorado. In fact, the May >13th letter stated "she did not threaten". I am confident that >she did not, would not and will not abdicate her professional >responsibility to treat everyone with the utmost respect and >courtesy. I have countless letters from legislators across the >country commending Mary Ann on her ability to persuade in a >non-confrontational manner. I you haven't met her, please take >the opportunity to meet her when she is in Colorado. I think >you will find her a conscientious lobbyist on behalf of Colorado >NRA members. > >As we all know now, Governor Roemer vetoed SB 97-96 a few days >ago. It is obvious that he would have vetoed Vermont style >legislation as well. We, at NRA, intend to again work in 1998 >toward making right to carry in Colorado equitable throughout >the state. > >Thanks for your inquiry and I look forward to working with you >in the future. > >Tanya K. Metaksa > >--- On Wed, 14 May 1997 12:30:32 -0600 Sarah Thompson > wrote: > >>>May 13, 1997 >>> >>>COLORADO >>> >>>Dear Friend, >>> >>> I am writing on behalf of Mary Anne Bradfield, NRA-ILA's >>>Colorado Liaison. I feel the need to write this letter to >>>explain the circumstances surrounding the so-called >Vermont-style >>>"right to carry" legislation introduced during this session. >>> >>> At the outset, I want to make one thing crystal clear: >NRA >>>supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to carry a >firearm >>>for self-defense. We have worked tirelessly at every level of >>>government, particularly in our nation's state capitols, to >>>ensure that this fundamental freedom is preserved. We have >>>fought, often with little or no support from other members of >the >>>pro-gun community, to gain passage of "right to carry" laws in >31 >>>states across our nation. In short, we have earned our >>>reputation as the "citizens' self-defense lobby." >>> >>> These victories did not come easily. It was only through >>>the skill of our liaisons, such as Mary Anne Bradfield, and >the >>>hard work of the entire NRA team, including our members like >you >>>at the grassroots level, that we were able to achieve these >>>accomplishments. It was only through our knowledge of the >>>legislative and political processes that we have been able to >do >>>what none of our opponents, and only a few of our staunchest >>>supporters, thought possible - make "right to carry" the rule, >>>not the exception. >>> >>> Naturally, everyone at NRA headquarters was ecstatic >when, >>>during this session of the legislature, lawmakers in Colorado >>>were on the verge of doing something they had never done >before - >>>passing "right to carry" legislation and sending it to the >>>Governor's desk. We all knew that Mary Anne had made a >>>substantial commitment of time and resources to help shepherd >>>this critical legislation through the difficult legislative >>>process. After all, while the members of the House had >>>traditionally been receptive to "right to carry" in the past, >the >>>Senate had always been the place where these bills went to >die. >>> >>> This year, however, things had been different. The >Senate >>>actually approved "right to carry" legislation first, and all >>>that was left for us to do was gain its passage in the much >more >>>friendly House of Representatives. But then, as the clock >wound >>>down on the session, the so-called "Vermont-style" legislation >>>reared its head. Supporters of this approach to >"right-to-carry" >>>indicated to Ms. Bradfield that they would attempt to amend >the >>>Senate-passed version of the "right to carry" bill by gutting >its >>>substance and replacing it with "Vermont-style" language. >>> >>> Now, I think it is safe to say that everyone in the >pro-gun >>>community looks forward to the day when all law-abiding >citizens >>>can exercise their right to self-defense without first >obtaining >>>a permit. But we must also recognize that such a day has not >yet >>>arrived. Ms. Bradfield realized this, and she also realized >that >>>amending the carry bill in any way would have severely limited >>>its chances for final passage in the Senate. More >importantly, >>>she knew that sending it back to the Senate with >"Vermont-style" >>>language would have killed it, no doubt about it. >>> >>> Although she realized the very real danger this amendment >>>posed to SB 97-96 and the issue of "right to carry" in >Colorado, >>>Ms. Bradfield did not threaten its supporters, as has been >>>alleged. Instead, she simply urged them to leave the existing >>>"right to carry" legislation alone, and to offer their >"Vermont- >>>style" bill as a separate, stand-alone piece of legislation, >>>which NRA would endorse along with SB 97-96. After all, if >>>"Vermont-style" had the support in Denver that its backers >>>claimed it did, than introducing a separate bill should have >been >>>no problem. But perhaps they already knew what we had been >>>saying all along - that this kind of legislation simply had no >>>chance whatsoever of making it to Governor Romer's desk. In >>>fact, the only thing this amendment would have accomplished >would >>>have been to give those legislators with any doubts at all >about >>>"right to carry" a very convenient excuse to oppose it. >>> >>> NRA unequivocally supports the right to self-defense, the >>>primary civil right. We believe law-abiding citizens should >be >>>able to exercise this right as easily as possible. But we >must >>>face the simple fact that many people in Colorado today have >no >>>right to carry at all, and we must do all we can to secure >this >>>fundamental freedom. SB 97-96 did just that. NRA supporters >in >>>the legislature who desired to pass a "right to carry" bill >>>warned us that any amendments to SB 97-96 would doom its >passage >>>in either house. As of the date of this letter, the fate of >>>SB 97-96 is in the hands of Governor Romer. We hope you will >>>join with thousands of Coloradans in urging Governor Romer to >>>sign this life saving bill. His toll-free telephone number is > >>>1-800-283-7215, or you may also reach him at (303) 866-2471. >>> >>>Sincerely, >>> >>>Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director >>>NRA Institute for Legislative Action >>> >> >>Dear Ms. Metaksa: >> >>Regarding the above post, I would like your comments on this >letter written >>by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado. Your note seems to imply >that Rep. >>Musgrave's charges are unfounded, and perhaps even mendacious. >> >>Accusing a lobbyist of threatening legislators is a serious >charge. Accusing >>legislators of lying is also a serious charge. >> >>As a firearms lobbyist myself, I understand the need for >compromise at certain >>times, although I do not believe in compromising essential >principles. >>However, if Ms. Bradfield acted in a manner that is >unprofessional, unethical, >>or otherwise reflects poorly on the NRA, I would expect that >she would be >>disciplined or removed from her position, not defended. >> >>I would appreciate clarification of these issues, especially >since recent >>events have made me reconsider continuing my membership in the >NRA. >> >>This letter is being distributed widely through the Internet, >and your >>anticipated response will be distributed promptly also. >> >>Thank you. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Sarah Thompson, M.D. >> >>(This letter represents MY OWN opinion, and not necessarily that of any >>organization with which I am affiliated.) >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>-------- >>[Official letterhead, State of Colorado seal] >> >>Mr. Dudley Brown, Executive Director >>Rocky Mountain Gun Owners >>P.O. Box 3114 >>Denver, CO 80201 >> >>April 2, 1997 >> >>Dear Mr. Brown: >> >>Last week I had a conversation with NRA lobbyist Mary Anne Bradfield, the >>state liaison for Colorado. >> >>Ms. Bradfield echoed the comments of Steve Schreiner of the Firearms >>Coalition of Colorado, who rudely told me that any attempt to amend Senate >>Bill 96 with a "Vermont Law" would be viewed as anti-gun. Ms. Bradfield >>was even brash enough to threaten me with lowering my NRA rating, telling >>her members that I am anti-gun. >> >>In 1996, I carried a "Vermont Law" amendment to the concealed carry bill. >>I am proud that we got 18 votes for this measure and forced legislators to >>stand and be counted. >> >>Also in 1996, I singed a pledge in an candidate survey by the Firearms >>Coalition of Colorado and Gun Owners of America to support the "Vermont Law." >> >>I pledge to support the "Vermont Law" (i.e. carrying concealed without >>government permit) because I believe wholeheartedly in our right to >>personal protection. >> >>It is outrageous than an NRA lobbyist would suggest that voting to make it >>easier for citizens to carry a firearms is "anti-gun." >> >>Am I to believe that the NRA rates lawmakers based on their willingness to >>comply with a lobbyist's wishes, no matter how inane? That would come to a >>shock to NRA members, who expect ratings to reflect a candidate's views and >>record on supporting the Second Amendment. >> >>I may represent the most pro-gun district in the state of Colorado, and I >>can assure you that I support the Second Amendment, regardless of the >>rantings of lobbyists wishing to set public policy behind closed doors and >>away from public scrutiny. >> >>I know that Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is not afraid of public scrutiny of >>their legislative agenda. I hope this information is useful. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>State Representative Marilyn Musgrave >>House District 65 Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Tanya replies (2) Date: 17 May 1997 23:02:36 -0600 >Return-Path: >Date: Sun, 18 May 97 00:29:38 EDT >From: Tanya Metaksa >Subject: FW: RE: INFO: CO - Right to Carry Legislation >To: Sarah Thompson > >Another letter regarding the Mary Anne Bradfield situation that >you may want to circulate. >Tanya >--- On Wed, 14 May 97 10:20:00 PDT "Herpin Jr, William B., >Contr." wrote: > >> >>Tanya, thank you for providing the clarification and background >on the NRA's >>involvement in our fight to get a "shall issue" change to our >concealed >>carry law in Colorado. The letter from Colorado State >Representative >>Musgrave to the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners about Mary Anne >"threatening" her >>NRA rating was very disheartening. We don't need people like >Sarah Brady if >>we are going to fracture our support ourselves. I had a nice >dinner with >>Mary Anne and Jason Sack just before SB-96 went to the >Governor's desk (and >>before the Musgrave letter was published). I was impressed >with her >>knowledge of Colorado politics and her desire to help us get >SB-96 passed. >> >>I also want to thank you for the NRA-ILA's support for my >campaign for the >>Colorado Springs City Council with your endorsement. As a first time >>candidate in a city council race which saw more money being spent than ever >>before, people say I did well in the District 4 race where I got 30% to the >>winner's 37% considering I was out spent 10 to 1. I believe it is very >>important for us to get pro-2nd Amendment people on every elective body at >>every level if we are going to regain and protect our rights. Likewise, it >>was good talking to you on Chuck Baker's "On the Carpet" show. I'm sorry I >>was unable to make it to your book signing in Denver last Saturday, but we >>had already made family plans. >> >>Again, thanks for providing the info...hope it helps but this issue to rest. >> Now, if you can just get "Moses" to call Governor Romer and urge him to >>sign SB-96!! >> >>Bernie Herpin >>Vice President, Pikes Peak Chapter, Firearms Coalition of Colorado >>Colorado Springs, CO >> ---------- Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Caution: long, inflammatory message! Date: 19 May 1997 11:07:52 -0600 >"Tough Love" >by John Taylor >Monday, May 19, 1997 > >There comes a time when you just have to apply the Reagan Rule (that's >Nancy, not Ronald), and "Just Say No". Sometimes, it's the only way to >show someone you love them. Recent events within the power structure in >the NRA (lately referred to by some as the "Necrotic Republican >Apologists") are indicators that such a time has come for rank-and-file >members of the organization. > >Regardless of which side a member might have backed in the recent >internecine feud -- or perhaps other members found, as did I, little to >cheer for on _either_ side -- it has become clear that the NRA is not, >and for some time has not been, an organization responsive to, >solicitous of, or even interested in the welfare of its members. This >despite the simple fact that a core of contributing members make >possible all the organization's expenditures, be they lavish, foolish, >or simply ineffective. > >The ascendency of (former?) gun rights icon Charlton Heston to the >position of First Vice President (after a brief courtesy stop on the >Board of Directors) demonstrates that even the superficial attempts to >pander to the membership (direct election of the 76th board member) have >been subverted by the need of the organization's inner circle to >maintain complete control of the association's affairs. This heightened >perception of need for tight control may well have something to do with >the appearance that the NRA's "leadership" is no longer as interested in >supporting gun rights as they are in featherbedding. > >There is a school of thought that says, "We have to support the NRA. >They're the biggest gun rights organization on the planet; they're our >only hope; if we fight among ourselves, we'll destroy ourselves ..." >etc., etc., etc. I submit to the membership that (a) support, as with a >wayward child, requires neither coddling nor covering up for >transgressions; (b) they're only a "hope" for us as long as they're >working for us; (c) if we don't get back on track, we'll destroy >ourselves through simple neglect of duty. > >The most successful and popular ad campaign in the organization's >history was called, simply, "I'm the NRA". (I've always been convinced >that the campaign was dropped because too many members began to actually >dare to _believe_ it.) It's true -- I'm the NRA, as are you who >contribute time, money, and other support. Without that constant >infusion, the organization will become paralyzed. > >And that -- paradoxical as it may seem -- is exactly what I propose. I >propose that every contributing member begin, right this minute, to cut >off the flow of air to this over-fueled monstrosity. Not to kill it -- >not at all -- but merely to bring it to its knees, gasping, forcing it >to say, in tones feeble through lack of sustenance, "What do you want of >me, that I may live on?" At which time, the battle will be over, and we >will have won. > >But what do we want? What is the solution to our dilemma? How do we rein >in this beast, bring it to a halt, and set it back on the right path, >restored and re-invigorated? First, I submit that it is emphatically >_not_ by purging the organization of its so-called "extremists". > >The "extremists" in the NRA are that very core that is most activist, >most caught up in the life-or-death struggle that rages on around the >insulated, uninvolved, country-club-minded set that constitutes the bulk >of our membership. It is these "extremists" who give of their time and >money beyond any reasonable expectation. It is these "extremists" who >are there _all_ the time, not just when their particular ox is in danger >of being gored (or perhaps "clintoned"). > >It is these "extremists" who read about, write about, and even >exclusively "live and breathe" the constant struggle between the >controlling state and the free individual. If we purge ourselves of >these "extremists", we've cut out our own heart and brain, and the body >will soon cease to exist. > >Second, we, the membership, must demand that the NRA's leaders defend >our rights unequivocally, aggressively, and resolutely. The war can be >successfully fought only by those with a total commitment to winning. >There is no compromise when it comes to principle. That assertion bears >repeating. There is _no_ compromise when it comes to principle. > >Third, we must begin, today, an active campaign to regain the ground we >have lost. It is insufficient to merely oppose further limitations. We >must begin to actively campaign for repeal of _all_ anti-gun laws, >starting with those at the federal level, all of which are demonstrably >unconstitutional. > >We must unrelentingly seek, educate, and support, legislators, NRA >officers, board members, and associates who are dedicated to repeal of >NFA '34, GCA '68, import bans, "appearance" bans, registration laws, >permit laws, licensing laws, record-keeping laws, as well as all >"executive orders", "rules and procedures", "interpretations", and other >unauthorized edicts. > >We must reject all local and state anti-gun laws as inconsistent with >the supreme law of the land. We must reject any and all anti-gun court >interpretations as unconstitutional. All such restrictions must be >rejected unequivocally, repeatedly, and summarily. We must no longer >tolerate infringement in _any_ form. > >If we want to restore our rights to their intended status, we cannot do >so by accepting a "small infringement" instead of a big one. Our purpose >must be clear and unequivocal. If an initiative is introduced that >intends to support us, but falls short of meeting a simple test of >constitutionality, then we must be strong enough to not support it in >any substantive way. We can affirm the intent without conceding our >rights or compromising our position. > >If our goal is to re-direct our efforts to meet these goals, we must >have a plan. I submit that the agenda is simple. There are three things >we must do, beginning immediately. > >1. Stop contributing to the NRA -- time, money, or any other resources. >As harsh as it seems, this is the only way we have a chance to get their >attention. This will be difficult, and will require greater sacrifice >than it might appear at first. All direct _and_ indirect contributions >(e.g. "round-up", FONRA dinners, _anything_ that puts money or effort >into the coffers) must cease immediately, and must not be resumed, no >matter how desperate the pleas, until we have regained control of our >NRA. > >2. Every "fund-raiser" must be returned with a long, detailed letter >setting forth what we want, in detail. Every board member must be sent >letters describing the same. Every officer must be flooded with requests >-- no, demands -- for accountability. Each member must take it upon >himself or herself to spread the word, preach the gospel, and recruit as >many other members as possible to _actively_ join the cause. It will not >be sufficient to merely offer support. > >3. Our list of demands must be short, precise, and unequivocal; said >demands must be pressed relentlessly until they are met. Nothing less >than total agreement must be accepted. > >OK, that's the easy part. If you're still with me -- that is, still in >agreement in principle -- here comes the rough part. We've established >that we as the NRA have to be assertive, active, dedicated, and focused >to succeed. But what specifically are we to promote as our >organizational agenda? What are to be our demands? If we're against >compromise, what are we _for_? I offer three simple principles that we >must apply _uncompromisingly_ -- three benchmarks by which we measure >every effort. > >1. No bill, no matter how sympathetic to our cause, may be actively >supported by members' dues, staff time or efforts, or other association >resources if it compromises, in any way shape or form, the principles >behind the Second Amendment. This means that we must actively oppose as >flagrantly unconstitutional (and inimical to liberty) any and all >taxation, licensing, regulation, registration, or other restriction of >the right to keep and bear _any_ arms suitable to the individual. This >includes any and all so-called "right-to-carry" legislation other than a >simple affirmation of the right as described above. Yes, including bills >such as those federalizing the regulation of concealed carry, and state >initiatives that relax restrictive carry laws if they themselves >constitute an infringement of the basic right. > >2. No legislator may be actively supported by members' dues, staff time >or efforts, or other association resources if he or she is not an active >gun rights advocate. No exceptions, regardless of how much he or she >promises -- the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Conversely, >_true_, _proven_ allies _should_ be supported, regardless of political >affiliation, or some qualitative assessment of "viability". Finally, >_no_ candidate should receive support or a positive "rating" from the >NRA if they have ever actively supported "gun control" in any form, >regardless of their reason for doing so. > >3. No NRA initiative that is not _directly_ related to gun rights may be >actively supported by members' dues, staff time or efforts, or other >association resources. This includes all book tours, anti-crime >programs, and any other efforts that are tangential (at best) to gun >rights issues. The funds of the membership may be used _only_ to support >true pro-gun legislation or the repeal of anti-gun legislation. > >We must recognize that there is no future in continuing to attempt to >resist the assaults of the anti-liberty forces, as long as we are >fighting on their turf. We are wasting our effort reacting to attacks >that are launched under conditions that are totally favorable to our >assailants. There is no value in trying to fight our battles in the >media. If we're smart, we'll fight at the grass roots level, and let the >media find us if they can. > >Our fight must be inclusive of others who find themselves targeted by >the government and/or the mass media. We need not embrace all of their >principles, but we do need to recognize, acknowledge, and publicize the >misdeeds of our common enemies. We can gain (and give) much sympathy >merely by pointing out that we are individuals, just like other >individuals, who have been targeted for marginalization and demonization >by those who would control us. > >We must use the tools available to us -- grass roots networks, clubs, >associations, and other informal gatherings -- to create our own network >of individuals who are irrevocably dedicated to protecting our rights. >One of the most potent weapons we have is the internet. The measure of >the degree of fear that the government and media have of the internet >can be found in their efforts to control it and marginalize it, >respectively. > >In summation, we have two tasks at hand. First, we must regain control >of the NRA, and use it, as controlling members, to support our rights. >Second, we must reshape the nature of our gun rights efforts. We must >seize the high ground and hold it against all assaults. Let the enemy >come to us ... and when he does, let him find us prepared. > >--------- >Please re-post and distribute as appropriate. Permission to reproduce >this essay is hereby granted (and encouraged), provided its content is >unaltered and this postscript is attached. Address comments to: > >Snail mail: John Taylor > 10554 Jason Lane > Columbia, MD 21044-2213 >Phone: (410) 730-1265 >E-mail: JohnNo6@erols.com >-- >John Taylor >Maryland Coordinator, LSAC >JPFO - GOA - NRA > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Atrocity In Sonoma] Date: 19 May 1997 10:57:18 -0600 Outside the area but food for thought. Kind of reminds me of the lady who took some nude pictures of a bunch of babies and toddlers playing and otherwise just being cute little kids for a college art class. Entitled the collection something like "Innocence in the nude". Was charged with child porn or something similar. Forget how it turned out. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Some of you receiving this will already have heard about parts of it. Some of you may be surprised that such things happen in America. If so, get over it: It happens. Often. It also explains why I represent the Bujinkan as a school of feudal-era Japanese martial arts, not as a "ninja school" teaching "ninjutsu". A few weeks ago one of my dojo students, Rex Biteng, took some photos to be used in an article for a on-line magazine for which Rex writes. The photos featured Rex, another of my students named Robert Candelaria, and a friend of theirs holding some firearms owned (quite legally) by this third party. Rex took the photos to a chain called Costco, which offers a photo developing service (okay, you can see it coming already, right?). Next thing he knows, people at his bank are telling him that police of- ficers have been showing these photos around and asking questions about his financial affairs. According to Rex, before he picked up the devel- oped photos, someone had seen the guns, called the police, and said they had some photos of gang members with guns. Rex asked me whether I thought he should get a lawyer and go after Costco, and my response was "definitely". Rex is in the middle of the hiring process to become an officer with the San Francisco Po- lice Department, and I warned him that this would almost certainly arise and bite him when they got to the background investigation phase. He ultimately decided to drop the matter: figured that he didn't have the money for a lawyer, wasn't interested in creating further problems or getting anyone in trouble, and the police hadn't bothered to con- tact and talk with HIM so apparently the matter had been dropped. Then I received his e-mail message, below: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dale, Hows it going there??? Well, let me tell you of the recent drama. Feel free to tell anyone you want. At 0700 this morning the santa rosa pd, rohnert park pd, and the sonoma sherriffs (gang task force) raided Robert and my house simultaneously. It was very depressing. A full swat team with their mp-5's and riot shot-guns compleate with their kevlar helmets, black bdu-s and riot shields put my brother, me, my uncle (who is a retired Philippine Marine officer and saw combat duty during his service), and my old grandfather, in hand-cuffs face down. Let me tell you that it is a very scary feeling to have a mp-5 with the safty off pointed at your back when you are truly innocent. They served me a search warrant and confiscated my brothers telescopic baton, my black ruck-sack which included my black bdu's and my tabi that I use for Bujinkan and a photo album of mine with some of the gun pictures in it. It's funny because in that same albulm I have my Guardian Angel pictures in there plus some pictures of when I was at Airborne school in ft. Benning. I told them the whole story and I even had to explain my bdu's that I use for Bujinkan. The investigator told me 'as if he was a expert in the martial arts' that dosen't your dojo use gi's and have ranking systems. I had to explain that Bujinkan is not a normal style that he was use to. In fact, One of the investigatiors who I will not say, treated me as if I was a dumb unintelligent nit. Trying to make me say things that were not true. I even had to explain about a little ninja dash ornament that Jason and I have in mine and his car. I told them about having an attorney present but he just told me that if i had nothing to hide to tell him the information that I knew. So I told them everything. Apparently, I guess you now have to prove your innocence instead of being innocent untill proven guilty. I don't know how Robert faired because I haven't been able to talk to him yet. But I'll keep you up to date on what happens. Your Bujinkan Warrior, Rex (End of forwarded message) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The following night in the dojo I also was able to get Robert's side of things. Pretty much the same story: They cuffed Robert and told his father and stepmother to get out, at which point Robert's 62-year- old stepmother sort of "lost it" and snapped back to her girlhood in France, when the Nazi soldiers came to her village and behaved the same way. She actually attacked one of these modern ones and knocked the fine German-made HK MP5 submachine gun out of his hands. No firearms were found at either residence, and no one was taken into custody. They tried to question Robert, but he informed them that they were welcome to search for the items specified on the warrant, but that if they found nothing and wished to question him about anything else, they would have to arrest him and take him to the station, whereupon he would answer questions only in the presence of an attorney. What, specifically, were they looking for? Following are ex- tracts from the search warrant: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SONOMA SEARCH WARRANT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, to any sheriff, policeman, or peace officer in the County of Sonoma: PROOF, by affidavit, having been made before me by DEPUTY (deleted), SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, that there is probable cause to believe that the property described herein may be found at the locations set forth herein and that it is seizable pursuant to Penal Code 1524, as indicated below by "X"(s), in that it: (3 of 5 possible choices were "x'd") X was used as the means of committing a felony X is possessed by a person with the intent to use it as a means of committing a public offense or is possessed by another to whom he may have delivered it for the purpose of concealing it or preventing its discovery X is evidence which tends to show that a felony has been committed or a particular person has committed a felony you are therefore COMMANDED TO SEARCH the premises located at and described as: (followed by addresses and descriptions of Rex's & Robert'sresidences and vehicles) and the persons of (followed by Rex's & Robert's names and physical descriptions; and) 3. Subject #3, the person depicted in the attached photographs, should he be present at either location; for the following property: 1. AK-47 variant, 7.62x39 with Choate handguards and thumb hole stock with thirty round magazine. This weapon is defined as an assault weapon by 12276(a)(1) PC, which covers the AK-47 and all of its variants; 2. Chicom SKS, 7.62x39 with folding stock and thirty round de- tachable magazine. This weapon is defined as an assault weapon by 12276 (a)(11) PC, when it has a detachable magazine; 3. Any miscellaneous gun pieces, ammunition, gun cleaning items or kits, holsters, ammunition belts, original box packaging, targets, expended pieces of lead, photographs of firearms or any paper work show- ing the purchase, storage, disposition or dominion or control over any guns, ammunition or any of the above items; 4. Articles of personal property tending to establish the ident- ity of persons in control of any premises, storage areas or containers being searched, such as utility company receipts, rent receipts, charge card receipts, tax receipts, airplane tickets and other receipts, checks, deposit slips, savings account passbooks, passports, drivers licenses, vehicle registrations/titles, land titles, escrow papers, legal docu- ments, Social Security cards, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal cards, insurance bills and/or policies, medical records, prescriptions and prescription bottles, doctor bills, hospital bills, cancelled mail, addressed envel- opes, photographs, weapons with serial numbers, keys and safes; 5. To search and/or seize any and all computer equipment, in- cluding any and all storage media, either hardware or software, located within said residence for evidence relating to this crime; 6. Any and all electronic day planners located within said res- idence for any and all evidence pertaining to this crime; You are authorized to defeat any and all security and/or pass- words; and to SEIZE it if found and bring it forthwith before me, or this court, at the courthouse of this court. (signed by the issuing magistrate) (end of warrant excerpts) The firearms in question, as I mentioned earlier, are actually owned by a friend of Rex's & Robert's in the Sacramento area. Robert told the Naz. . I mean, the Nice Officers who the individual is and where he lives. How did the folks in the Sacramento jurisdiction handle it with this third guy? Couple o' folks came to his house, talked with him, looked at the weapons and determined that they either are not the statutorily defined assault weapons mentioned in the warrant (it IS hard to distinguish a lot of these carbines from each other from a pho- tograph alone); or, if they are the weapons described, they are none- theless legally possessed by the owner. And they left, with no arrest of confiscations. Rex, Robert, and their respective families should at this point (in my humble lay opinion) have excellent cases against both Costco (for slander and defamation; also for loss of future income in Rex's case if the San Francisco Police Department now refuses to hire him) and (at least) the Sonoma County Sheriff's department. An important as- pect of self-defense (and of ninpo, for that matter) is to have the right sorts of connections to get things done, and I've contacted an attorney who is interested in looking into the matter. For the record: Yes, I most certainly WILL "go to war", metaphorically speaking, for my people. Regards, Dale Seago ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American .. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." -- Tench Coxe - 1788. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Waco: The Rules of Engagement Date: 19 May 1997 14:40:19 -0600 On Fri, 16 May 1997, WILL THOMPSON posted: >The Tower Theatre > Salt Lake City, UT > > Showing June 20 > >yes yes yes FANTASTIC!! How did this come about? More importantly, showtime(s)? Thanks to the responsible parties. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: Waco: The Rules of Engagement Date: 19 May 1997 15:19:10 -0600 Charles Hardy wrote: > > On Fri, 16 May 1997, WILL THOMPSON posted: > > >The Tower Theatre > > Salt Lake City, UT > > > > Showing June 20 > > > >yes yes yes > > FANTASTIC!! How did this come about? More importantly, showtime(s)? > > Thanks to the responsible parties. > > -- Speculation only.... I know Sarah has been in more or less constant communication with Mike McNulty(sp) about the movie, maybe that helped. Before I left the LPU mailing list Rob Latham was talking about mounting an effort to convince the Tower to play it as a fundraiser for the Libs. Maybe he did and was successful. It's been playing at a lot of "liberal" cities and in a lot of "human rights" film festivals. Tower digs those sorts of things, maybe they just bought off on the reputation. Or it could be simply that the Tower people recognise the importance of the thing.... Showtimes haven't been announced yet. If I hear anything I'll post it immediately. will -- Some scientists say that the major building block of the Universe is hydrogen, because it is the most plentiful element. But my theory is that the Universe is made up of stupidity, because it is more plentiful than hydrogen. -Frank Zappa ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: HESTON TO THE RESCUE Date: 19 May 1997 09:48:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- On 18 May 97 at 17:40, Scott Bergeson wrote: > HESTON TO THE RESCUE > William F. Buckley Jr. > 5/16/97 > The NRA's absolutism begs the influence of such as Heston to > qualify. We cherish the right to own a weapon of self-defense, > and some even pause over the restrictions against handguns in most > large cities. But the argument is empirical, not philosophical; and > Charles Heston, who played Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny" > onstage, knows about the constant struggle between philosophical > affirmations (the captain is in charge of the ship), and real-life > situations (when mutiny beckons). *Humphrey Bogart* played Captain Queeg. -- Mike Goldman "None can love freedom heartily but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." -- John Milton ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation Date: 19 May 1997 09:48:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 16 May 1997 The FULL TEXT (including all graphics) of the recently released "United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation" (E/CN.15/1997/CRP.6, 25 April 1997) is available on BASIC's web site. To download the report, please visit BASIC's Web site at http://www.igc.apc.org/basic/ where the Firearms report is listed as a "new" item on the main page. You can also go directly to the weapons trade index at http://www.igc.apc.org/basic/wtindex.html to find it. The report is posted in both .pdf format (that can be viewed in Adobe Acrobat Reader, printed, saved etc.) and as a zipped Microsoft Word 6.0 file. Also provided are links to free downloads of Acrobat Reader and to WinZip in case you do not already have this software. If you cannot access files in these formats, you can also find a TEXT version of the report (which DOES NOT include the extensive tables and graphs from the report) on the Center for Defense Information's Arms Trade Database (ATDB). Access this at: http://www.cdi.org/ArmsTradeDatabase/CONTROL/Small_Arms/Draft_UN_ International_Study_On_Firearm_Regulation,_April_25_1997.txt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Be Careful Who Develops your Photos.... 1/2 Date: 19 May 1997 19:44:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Sounds as though my students a couple of weeks ago were rather lucky by comparison. . . Regards, Dale Seago Proprietor, Safe & Secure Lifestyles www.bricelaw.com/SponsPage.htm Chief Instructor, Bujinkan San Francisco Dojo www.bricelaw.com/seago1.htm ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Some of you receiving this will already have heard about parts of it. Some of you may be surprised that such things happen in America. If so, get over it: It happens. Often. It also explains why I represent the Bujinkan as a school of feudal-era Japanese martial arts, not as a "ninja school" teaching "ninjutsu". A few weeks ago one of my dojo students, Rex Biteng, took some photos to be used in an article for a on-line magazine for which Rex writes. The photos featured Rex, another of my students named Robert Candelaria, and a friend of theirs holding some firearms owned (quite legally) by this third party. Rex took the photos to a chain called Costco, which offers a photo developing service (okay, you can see it coming already, right?). Next thing he knows, people at his bank are telling him that police officers have been showing these photos around and asking questions about his financial affairs. According to Rex, before he picked up the developed photos, someone had seen the guns, called the police, and said they had some photos of gang members with guns. Rex asked me whether I thought he should get a lawyer and go after Costco, and my response was "definitely". Rex is in the middle of the hiring process to become an officer with the San Francisco Police Department, and I warned him that this would almost certainly arise and bite him when they got to the background investigation phase. He ultimately decided to drop the matter: figured that he didn't have the money for a lawyer, wasn't interested in creating further problems or getting anyone in trouble, and the police hadn't bothered to contact and talk with HIM so apparently the matter had been dropped. Then I received his e-mail message, below: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dale, Hows it going there??? Well, let me tell you of the recent drama. Feel free to tell anyone you want. At 0700 this morning the santa rosa pd, rohnert park pd, and the sonoma sherriffs (gang task force) raided Robert and my house simultaneously. It was very depressing. A full swat team with their mp-5's and riot shot-guns compleate with their kevlar helmets, black bdu-s and riot shields put my brother, me, my uncle (who is a retired Philippine Marine officer and saw combat duty during his service), and my old grandfather, in hand-cuffs face down. Let me tell you that it is a very scary feeling to have a mp-5 with the safety off pointed at your back when you are truly innocent. They served me a search warrant and confiscated my brothers telescopic baton, my black ruck-sack which included my black bdu's and my tabi that I use for Bujinkan and a photo album of mine with some of the gun pictures in it. It's funny because in that same albulm I have my Guardian Angel pictures in there plus some pictures of when I was at Airborne school in ft. Benning. I told them the whole story and I even had to explain my bdu's that I use for Bujinkan. The investigator told me 'as if he was a expert in the martial arts' that dosen't your dojo use gi's and have ranking systems. I had to explain that Bujinkan is not a normal style that he was use to. In fact, One of the investigatiors who I will not say, treated me as if I was a dumb unintelligent nit. Trying to make me say things that were not true. I even had to explain about a little ninja dash ornament that Jason and I have in mine and his car. I told them about having an attorney present but he just told me that if i had nothing to hide to tell him the information that I knew. So I told them everything. Apparently, I guess you now have to prove your innocence instead of being innocent untill proven guilty. I don't know how Robert faired because I haven't been able to talk to him yet. But I'll keep you up to date on what happens. Your Bujinkan Warrior, Rex (End of forwarded message) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The following night in the dojo I also was able to get Robert's side of things. Pretty much the same story: They cuffed Robert and told his father and stepmother to get out, at which point Robert's 62-year-old stepmother sort of "lost it" and snapped back to her girlhood in France, when the Nazi soldiers came to her village and behaved the same way. She actually attacked one of these modern ones and knocked the fine German-made HK MP5 submachine gun out of his hands. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Be Careful Who Develops your Photos.... 2/2 Date: 19 May 1997 19:44:00 -0700 No firearms were found at either residence, and no one was taken into custody. They tried to question Robert, but he informed them that they were welcome to search for the items specified on the warrant, but that if they found nothing and wished to question him about anything else, they would have to arrest him and take him to the station, whereupon he would answer questions only in the presence of an attorney. What, specifically, were they looking for? Following are extracts from the search warrant: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SONOMA SEARCH WARRANT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, to any sheriff, policeman, or peace officer in the County of Sonoma: PROOF, by affidavit, having been made before me by DEPUTY (deleted), SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, that there is probable cause to believe that the property described herein may be found at the locations set forth herein and that it is seizable pursuant to Penal Code 1524, as indicated below by "X"(s), in that it: (3 of 5 possible choices were "x'd") X was used as the means of committing a felony X is possessed by a person with the intent to use it as a means of committing a public offense or is possessed by another to whom he may have delivered it for the purpose of concealing it or preventing its discovery X is evidence which tends to show that a felony has been committed or a particular person has committed a felony you are therefore COMMANDED TO SEARCH the premises located at and described as: (followed by addresses and descriptions of Rex's & Robert'sresidences and vehicles) and the persons of (followed by Rex's & Robert's names and physical descriptions; and) 3. Subject #3, the person depicted in the attached photographs, should he be present at either location; for the following property: 1. AK-47 variant, 7.62x39 with Choate handguards and thumb hole stock with thirty round magazine. This weapon is defined as an assault weapon by 12276(a)(1) PC, which covers the AK-47 and all of its variants; 2. Chicom SKS, 7.62x39 with folding stock and thirty round detachable magazine. This weapon is defined as an assault weapon by 12276 (a)(11) PC, when it has a detachable magazine; 3. Any miscellaneous gun pieces, ammunition, gun cleaning items or kits, holsters, ammunition belts, original box packaging, targets, expended pieces of lead, photographs of firearms or any paper work showing the purchase, storage, disposition or dominion or control over any guns, ammunition or any of the above items; 4. Articles of personal property tending to establish the identity of persons in control of any premises, storage areas or containers being searched, such as utility company receipts, rent receipts, charge card receipts, tax receipts, airplane tickets and other receipts, checks, deposit slips, savings account passbooks, passports, drivers licenses, vehicle registrations/titles, land titles, escrow papers, legal documents, Social Security cards, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal cards, insurance bills and/or policies, medical records, prescriptions and prescription bottles, doctor bills, hospital bills, cancelled mail, addressed envelopes, photographs, weapons with serial numbers, keys and safes; 5. To search and/or seize any and all computer equipment, including any and all storage media, either hardware or software, located within said residence for evidence relating to this crime; 6. Any and all electronic day planners located within said residence for any and all evidence pertaining to this crime; You are authorized to defeat any and all security and/or passwords; and to SEIZE it if found and bring it forthwith before me, or this court, at the courthouse of this court. (signed by the issuing magistrate) (end of warrant excerpts) The firearms in question, as I mentioned earlier, are actually owned by a friend of Rex's & Robert's in the Sacramento area. Robert told the Naz. . I mean, the Nice Officers who the individual is and where he lives. How did the folks in the Sacramento jurisdiction handle it with this third guy? Couple o' folks came to his house, talked with him, looked at the weapons and determined that they either are not the statutorily defined assault weapons mentioned in the warrant (it IS hard to distinguish a lot of these carbines from each other from a photograph alone); or, if they are the weapons described, they are nonetheless legally possessed by the owner. And they left, with no arrest or confiscations. Rex, Robert, and their respective families should at this point (in my humble lay opinion) have excellent cases against both Costco (for slander and defamation; also for loss of future income in Rex's case if the San Francisco Police Department now refuses to hire him) and (at least) the Sonoma County Sheriff's department. An important aspect of self-defense (and of ninpo, for that matter) is to have the right sorts of connections to get things done, and I've contacted an attorney who is interested in looking into the matter. For the record: Yes, I most certainly WILL "go to war", metaphorically speaking, for my people. Regards, Dale Seago To subscribe send a message to majordomo@pobox.com with the following line in the body: subscribe right2arms ***Visit http://www.wizard.net/~kc/firearms.html to learn more about guns in America*** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Ideology vs. Facts -- WSJ Date: 22 May 1997 21:27:25 -0600 This is an excellent article that anyone who deals with statistice MUST READ! Sarah >Pay especial attention to the quote...it is the mantra that pervades society >today whether the issue is drugs, cars, water, air, guns or any of an array >of subjects. It is dishonest...it is suppressing information or skewing it >to meet a perceived social goal on the part of the researcher. > >>QUOTE:=20 >> >>"...there is an increasing tendency to let considerations of >>consequence determine the presentation of findings--a tendency that has >>become the standard in much of social science, where not only the >>presentation but the finding itself is often molded in a cast of ideology." >> >>--- >> >>WSJ >>May 22, 1997 >> >> Why Scientists Filter >> The Facts on Smoking >> >> By STEVEN GOLDBERG >> >> Lest you think that this is an entreaty to >> persuade you to smoke, let me begin by >> stipulating that smoking is bad for you. It may >> kill you. Smoking is really stupid. Don't do it. >> >> That out of the way, we can turn to our subject: >> the conflicting goals of public health and >> science. >> >> The question of the danger that a practice >> entails is an empirical question, one amenable >> to a scientific answer. For example, the >> probability that taking a two-week hike this >> summer will get you killed by lightning could be >> established empirically--let's say it's one in >> three million, vs. one in 60 million odds of >> being hit by lightning during the same period >> under normal circumstances. >> >> If science had established these numbers, going >> on the hike would increase 20-fold your risk of >> being hit by lightning. What should you do? >> That's not a scientific question. It is a >> question of the strength of your particular >> impulses, desires, fears and other subjective >> factors. >> >> In other words, science can tell you the odds, >> but not whether they're worth taking. >> >> The same is true of medicine: Your doctor can >> tell you that doing X will increase your chances >> of dying young. He may be able to tell you how >> much likelier you are to die prematurely if you >> do X (e.g., five times as likely as if you don't >> do X) or the probability that doing X will kill >> you prematurely (e.g., one in 20). But the >> doctor can't tell you if doing X is the right or >> wrong choice. Only you, armed with the empirical >> data, can make the subjective decision of >> whether doing X is worth the risk. >> >> Which brings us to smoking. Over the years I've >> noticed that you can't get through the day >> without being warned that if you smoke, you're Y >> times as likely to get lung cancer as if you >> don't smoke. (According to the American Cancer >> Society, the figure is 20 times.) But I've never >> seen anyone cite the absolute likelihood (i.e., >> if you smoke, you run a one-in-Z chance of >> getting lung cancer). >> >> For a long time I assumed, without thinking, >> that this meant "they" didn't know the absolute >> likelihood. Then, thinking back to the graduate >> statistics courses I took in the years following >> the Civil War, I realized that you can't >> ascertain the relative risk unless you know the >> absolute risk. >> >> So I wrote to several public-health >> organizations that were citing relative-risk >> figures, asking for the absolute figures. >> Without exception, they wrote back that they >> didn't know the answer, or that the answer was >> too difficult to calculate. I knew that this >> wasn't true, and wondered why they were telling >> me this. In due course I figured it out. >> >> Those who work for these >> organizations--including scientists who study >> the medical aspects of smoking--are devoted to >> saving lives, which means they try to provide >> smokers with the evidence that will persuade >> them to kick the habit. But the goal of >> persuasion is not always congruent with the >> demands of scientific accuracy. >> >> To understand why, suppose that someone who >> smokes a pack and a half of cigarettes a day has >> a one-in-eight chance of contracting lung >> cancer. To scientists and most nonsmokers, >> anyone who would take such a risk just to smoke >> must be one sandwich short of a picnic. However, >> the heavy smoker has been so traumatized by the >> incessant message that smoking is bad--and has >> had to stand in the rain outside the office so >> often in order to get his fix--that he'd >> consider himself lucky if he had a 50-50 chance >> of avoiding death by tar and nicotine. >> >> Tell a smoker the truth, and he'll be thrilled >> to hear he has a seven-in-eight (or whatever) >> chance of avoiding lung cancer. Where the >> scientist sees death, the smoker sees life. And >> so the scientist, understanding this, tells you >> that he can't answer the simple question: What >> is the probability that a smoker will get lung >> cancer? >> >> It is a commandment of pure science that an >> empirical finding should be presented without >> concern for the human consequences. Usually our >> ability to predict those consequences is so >> pathetically limited (take my word for it--I'm a >> sociologist) that this is only a theoretical >> problem. >> >> But we can now predict with virtual certainty >> that the more people smoke, the more people will >> die prematurely. Scientists working in this area >> would have to be inhuman to put aside their >> desire to save lives in the name of pure >> science. Thus, I am not suggesting that they >> stop suppressing the figure that would reassure >> the smoker. But I am suggesting that it be made >> clear this is what the scientist is doing. >> >> If the issue were just smoking, none of this >> would be worth mentioning. But there is an >> increasing tendency to let considerations of >> consequence determine the presentation of >> findings--a tendency that has become the >> standard in much of social science, where not >> only the presentation but the finding itself is >> often molded in a cast of ideology. In these >> cases the skewing is based not on an >> understanding of an unarguable causal >> relationship like that between smoking and >> cancer, but on an ideological view of the world >> that may or may not reflect reality. This, in >> the long run, is a threat to society that >> deserves to be taken as seriously as smoking. >> >> ----- >> >> Mr. Goldberg is chairman of the sociology >> department at New York's City College. >> =20 >> =20 >> Copyright =A9 1997 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights >> Reserved. >> >> >Ron Moore > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: (fwd) An Open Letter To The NRA Date: 23 May 1997 15:14:42 -0600 >FORWARDED On Fri, 23 May 1997 01:29:21 PST, clovis@wartech.com wrote: > >Posted to texas-gun-owners by clovis@wartech.com >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >May 21, 1997 > > >Wayne LaPierre >National Rifle Association >11250 Waples Mill Road >Fairfax, VA 22030 > > > >Mr. LaPierre: > > >Since 1991 I have watched, with growing discomfort, the NRA's slide from >being >a responsible Civil Rights and Shooting organization into its present state >of >disrepair and disrepute. Had I known at the time of acquiring my Life >Membership what I know now of the NRA's headlong slide into becoming just >another extention of the usual Beltway Slimes and Jackbooted Thugs, I'd save > >my money. > > >You call me an Extremist because I believe I have a Natural Right to my >life, >liberty and my pursuit of happiness. You call me an extremist because I >distrust any official who distrusts my gun despite 47 years of living in >which I have not a single discredit or stain to my name. > >I suggest, sir, that the reason for Militias is that you are a traitor. You > >were silent about Waco, about Ruby Ridge, and quickly retreated when the >same >Beltway Slimes who orchestrated Waco and Ruby Ridge called you on calling >them >what they are. You caved in. Or, perhaps more properly, you were never on > >our side to begin with; perhaps your whole career with the NRA is nothing >more >than a soft living and the thrill and convenience of being "Where the action > >is" that is, with the other tax-eating, counter-productive cretins who pass > >for a government. > >You fear me. And this you have in common with the same, supposedly hated >"Anti-Gunners" you pretend to rail against. > >The truth, Mr. LaPierre, is that I do not hate anyone. I do not need to. I > >can defend myself. The cowardice of the anti-gunner revolts me, and I feel > >a certain loathing for them as a result. But hate those whom I can >personally >scare into a permanent retreat with a harsh word or glance? This is like >hating a rabbit. You may feel this, but hatred of the timid and gullible is > >beneathe me. They merit my pity more than my anger. > >What I have against you, the Board and the rest of the existing organization > >is that you are traitors. Since you were On Watch, we got the 10 round >magazine ban, and countless hundreds of local ordinances further eroding the > >most precious of all rights -- the right of the means to one's own defense. > >Without that right, the right of self-defense on the books of our state laws > >is a sham. Without that right, this nation is open from anything from >Stalinism to Hitlerism. And you play with the men who, in their >collectivist >wisdom, bring us closer to this kind of national government on a daily >basis. > >Let us be generous. Perhaps you began with good intentions, a clear mind >and >an honest heart. But given how much insult and assault we endure under your > >leadership, I cannot believe that these qualities endure in yourself and the > >other professional staff members. > >The truth is that you need the likes of misbegotten men such as Charles >Schumer, Ted Kennedy and other infamous malingerers who daily defile the >American Tradition. If they do not succeed at creeping forward in the >erosion of our most sacred rights, you cannot credibly pen another earnest >begging letter demanding more funds to fight the good fight. Like any man >selling insurance, you thrive on the frequency of disaster. Who would buy >flood insurance without frequent floods? > >And who would send money, much of which is earmarked for Beltway Parties and > >other excresences (none of which have done any of us any good, I might add), > >if there were no "impending flood." The greatest flood I see is the flood >of >letters from you and ILA insisting that I must send more money. And there >must be more money for that white elephant of a building you, in your >infinite >wisdom, used to to flatter your egotism and play Beltway Establishment. > >Neal Knox is right. You have effectively bankrupted the organization, are >on >a feeding frenzy of "In Crowd" excesses. And to stifle dissent, to add >insult >to injury, you refer to members such as myself, the members who believe that > >we really do have rights, rights that predate government, that supersede >what >any government might say, and call us "Extremists." > >I am the NRA. I am why you have a job to begin with. > >Membership has fallen precipitously. Instead of fighting for Vermont Style > >carry laws, that is, restoration of our long abused rights, you compromise >with Schumer and Kennedy their continuing flood of abuse. > >But I shall not withdraw from the NRA, Mr. LaPierre. I am making it one of > >my personal charters to point out your failures and betrayals, and to >restore >the NRA, first by starving it for money so that leeches upon our formerly >fine organization must find someone else to bleed white, or starve and, >second, >by funneling what monies I have for the fight to GOA and JPFO. > >You don't compromise your right to life, Wayne. Once your life is ended, it > >is all over. Neither does one compromise one's right to the means of >defending >that life, for without an effective defense, that life may be ended by the >first demented felon who takes a fancy to murder. > >This is not extremism, Wayne. It is the essence of good sense. > >Since you have parted ways with good sense, and principle, and honor, I have > >no money to give you. I will not pay to support yet more corruption, yet >more Beltway Perversion and Deviance, yet more assaults upon the America >that once was strong, but which has been vastly weakened by this pattern of > >treason. > >I am writing to let you know, Wayne, that myself, and perhaps most members >of >the Association, will have no truck with you again, no moral or letter >writing >or fiscal support, for you or your programs until you return to first >principles. > >Ownership of arms is an unquestioned, guaranteed right that predates and >supercedes any governmental edict. The abuses must stop, and must be >attacked without any flagging until they are erased. You are not doing >this. >You have no intention of doing this. And in demonstrating this to me, you >have entirely lost my support. > >You have subverted the NRA itself, turning it into a nearly autonomous >Beltway organization not accountable to, nor mindful of, the purpose and >intention for which it was formed, and which was responsible for its great >years of growth. > >We, the members, are the NRA. You are at best only a caretaker. And you >have betrayed your oath. Without us, you are nothing -- an unemployed bum >living under a bridge, to be blunt about it. Without you, we not only >exist, >but may fare better with GOA and JPFO. > >It is frustration with your treachery against us that has led to such >disturbing spectres as the many public and secret Militias. You are the >problem, not the solution. You and your treachery has closed off most of >our last avenue to peaceful petition for, and redress of, grievances. You >betray us; you betray your faithful friends; and then you denounce us in >public as "Extremists" to cover the full extent of your crimes and frauds. > >If you want money, call HCI. You are more their friend than mine. > >My remaining activites with the NRA will be to see the last of you, of Tanya > >Metaksa and the rest of your Rogues Gallery. > >Painting men such as myself, men who hold to the original principles of this > >nation, who believe that we have inalienable rights, as Extremists, as >deranged psychopaths, is the last, unbearable treachery. > >I am done with you, and will not rest until you are expunged from our midst. > > > > > >Sincerely, > > > >W. Frank Warren >BGT2101W > > > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Good Housekeeping supports gun bans Date: 23 May 1997 15:39:16 -0600 Sender: owner-cebs@UserHome.com Good Housekeeping magazine has come out in favor of the trigger lock requirement and onerous gun control laws including registration and the one-gun-a-month proposal by Schumer. It seems that the anti-gun zealots are trying to enlist support of the Soccer Moms. The article was published in the June 1997 issue, but can be read on-line at: http://homearts.com/gh/family/67gunsf1.htm You can enter the on-line forum and leave your comments at: http://homearts.com/instpost/instafc.htm Those of you who feel inclined to send a letter to the editor may do so to the following address Letters Editor Good Housekeeping 959 Eighth Ave. New York, NY 10019 You can fax letters to: (212) 649-2378 Show no mercy! Val Val W. Finnell, MD vfinnell@nvcdl.org |><| Mid-Atlantic Region Coordinator, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, Inc. Medical Liaison / Webmaster, Northern Virginia Citizens Defense League NRA GOA NVCDL web site: http://www.nvcdl.org "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth." --Revelation 3: 15-16 (NIV) <<<< Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 (801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! GO JAZZ!! KARL MALONE - MVP!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sarah Thompson Subject: Cannon supports Lautenberg repeal Date: 24 May 1997 00:16:44 -0600 Rep. Chris Cannon is one of the newest co-sponsors of HR 1009, the FULL repeal of the Lautenberg Bill, introduced by Rep. Chenoweth of Idaho. Please call, write, or fax Rep. Cannon and thank him for supporting our rights and representing his constituents. Also please contact our other two Reps (Hansen and Cook), and urge them to sign on as well. If someone has the address/phone handy, please post it. If not, I'll track it down tomorrow. Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. Women's Firearms Alliance, Inc. gunmoll@therighter.com 201 S. Main St. Suite 900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801) 535-4630 http://www.womensfire.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Dissonance Date: 24 May 1997 18:01:00 -0700 "Dissonance and Dissidents" by John Taylor Friday, May 23, 1997 My /American Rifleman/ came in the mail today, and as usual, I read it cover-to-cover as soon as I got back from the mailbox. In it I found the usual quality articles about hunting tactics and hardware, and the latest from the pens of our three chief officers. Maybe I'm just too sensitized, but did anybody besides me notice that every day in every way we're beginning to look less like "the world's oldest civil rights organization" and more like "the world's oldest 'gun control' organization"? Let me explain. Wayne LaPierre's column, "Standing Guard" [1] is devoted to "dissing" the Joseph Goebbels of the House of Representatives, Charles "The F is for Fascist" Schumer. Schumer's latest attempted rape of the Constitution is hilariously titled the "Twelve is Enough Anti-Gunrunning Act" (HR12), and amounts to no more than another version of the same old same old from the Enemies of Liberty. But perhaps more surprising than Schumer's sleazy attempt to gut the Bill of Rights is Wayne LaPierre's response. In Wayne's World, Schumer's bill is bad because it's unnecessary -- we already have perfectly fine gun laws on the books that need to be more strictly enforced. Excuse me? Do I read this right? The existing unconstitutional code is more than adequate to maintain order, and should be used to the fullest to accomplish Schumer's goals? And we're on _whose_ side? To quote LaPierre, "All states -- when it comes to criminal commerce in firearms -- have the same law and it's there in black and white for anyone to read, especially Chuck Schumer who ought to be demanding that the U.S. Justice Department do its job and enforce the law. It is a law which now -- today -- could be used to arrest, try, and convict armed criminal predators who crawl our streets." The law LaPierre refers to is the hideous Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68), whose provisions have, for almost three decades, been used to infringe almost exclusively the rights of honest citizens. This act, relacing the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, imposed harsh restrictions on the sale and transfer of firearms, allowed the Federal government to determine what type of firearms you may possess, and set in place the mechanism for all current "gun control" schemes. GCA '68 is the Holy Grail of the anti-gunners. It is the law about which Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (a _real_ pro-gun civil rights group) says "GCA '68 ties your hands and keeps you from carrying out your legal duty to ensure your own self-defense. GCA '68 thus undermines a pillar of U.S. law and helps criminals to kill law-abiding Americans. Hitler would be pleased." [2] And GCA '68 is the existing law Wayne LaPierre refers to when he says that "criminal sanctions under existing law" should be enforced. LaPierre cites provisions of GCA '68 that would apply to a hypothetical "gunrunner" who unlawfully buys and sells handguns. The cumulative penalties are impressive in LaPierre's scenario -- 995 years in federal prison. (Of course Wayne cheats a little by making the "gunrunner" a "multi-convicted felon; a drug user; a fugitive from justice." And his "customers" are constructed as "... also career criminals; all convicted felons; in the illegal drug trade; two are fugitives." In addition to making them a presumably unsavory lot, these conditions allow LaPierre to "pad" the firearms violation penalties with a few extra years for drug and fugitive charges -- a cheap trick. But perhaps more important, the entire construction is missing one vital element that seemingly applies in every crime -- the victim. None of the hypothetical charges involve a crime against a person. There are no bleeding children, no grieving widows to enlist in the cause of "gun control" -- no victims at all. Oh, well, I guess one could argue that "society" was victimized, but that position looks pretty feeble. No, all the gun-related penalties are for crimes _that are nothing more than administrative creations of GCA '68_. That's right; no one stole anything, no one violated anyone else's rights, no one initiated force of any kind against anyone else in this little scenario. These "gunrunners" simply failed to comply with the law whose model was The Nazi Weapons Law of 18 March, 1938. And we (we're the NRA!) seem to think that we don't need any new laws _because this one will do just fine_! *** Moving on, we find an essay by Tanya Metaksa later in the same issue of the "house organ", entitled "Sliding Down the Slippery Slope". In it Mrs. Metaksa (quite rightly) asserts, "We will never lose our civil liberties all at once, by dictator decree. If the day ever comes in America when we lose our guns, it will be because once we compromised our beliefs and started down the slippery slope of waiting periods, gun bans, mandatory storage laws and the like. It [sic] became easier and easier just to go along for the ride." Yet, earlier in the article, Mrs. Metaksa is attempting to refute the assertion of a Clinton official in the Department of Justice who stated, "The current state of federal law does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type." Mrs. Metaksa rebuts the official by referring to ... did you guess it? ... GCA '68! Says Metaksa about that law, "Congress affirmed the gun-owning rights of the individual citizen, stating that the law was not intended to 'place any undue or necessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law- abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity. ...'" Are we so naive that we actually believe such hooey from Congress? If we believed it in 1968, haven't the events of the recent past proved that at best that intent has been subverted? Do we really look so favorably on a law whose very presence lends credibility to the Charles Schumers of this country when they propose their statist legislation? Don't we _oppose_ "gun control"? Notes: [1] Wayne LaPierre, "Standing Guard", American Hunter, June 1997, pp. 10-11 [2] "The War on Gun Ownership Still Goes On!", 1993, bound in: Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman, _"Gun Control" -- Gateway to Tyranny_, 1993 Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 2872 South Wentworth Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53207, (414) 769-0760 [3] Tanya K. Metaksa, "Sliding Down the Slippery Slope", American Hunter, June 1997, pp.44-45 Copyright (c) 1997 by John C. Taylor. The reader is encouraged to circulate this essay widely. Permission to reproduce this essay is hereby granted (and encouraged), provided its content is unaltered and this postscript is attached. Address comments to: Snail mail: John Taylor 10554 Jason Lane Columbia, MD 21044-2213 Phone: (410) 730-1265 E-mail: JohnNo6@erols.com -- John Taylor (410) 730-1265 ----------------- Principio Obstate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Dissonance Date: 24 May 1997 15:17:00 -0700 "Dissonance and Dissidents" by John Taylor Friday, May 23, 1997 My /American Rifleman/ came in the mail today, and as usual, I read it cover-to-cover as soon as I got back from the mailbox. In it I found the usual quality articles about hunting tactics and hardware, and the latest from the pens of our three chief officers. Maybe I'm just too sensitized, but did anybody besides me notice that every day in every way we're beginning to look less like "the world's oldest civil rights organization" and more like "the world's oldest 'gun control' organization"? Let me explain. Wayne LaPierre's column, "Standing Guard" [1] is devoted to "dissing" the Joseph Goebbels of the House of Representatives, Charles "The F is for Fascist" Schumer. Schumer's latest attempted rape of the Constitution is hilariously titled the "Twelve is Enough Anti-Gunrunning Act" (HR12), and amounts to no more than another version of the same old same old from the Enemies of Liberty. But perhaps more surprising than Schumer's sleazy attempt to gut the Bill of Rights is Wayne LaPierre's response. In Wayne's World, Schumer's bill is bad because it's unnecessary -- we already have perfectly fine gun laws on the books that need to be more strictly enforced. Excuse me? Do I read this right? The existing unconstitutional code is more than adequate to maintain order, and should be used to the fullest to accomplish Schumer's goals? And we're on _whose_ side? To quote LaPierre, "All states -- when it comes to criminal commerce in firearms -- have the same law and it's there in black and white for anyone to read, especially Chuck Schumer who ought to be demanding that the U.S. Justice Department do its job and enforce the law. It is a law which now -- today -- could be used to arrest, try, and convict armed criminal predators who crawl our streets." The law LaPierre refers to is the hideous Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68), whose provisions have, for almost three decades, been used to infringe almost exclusively the rights of honest citizens. This act, relacing the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, imposed harsh restrictions on the sale and transfer of firearms, allowed the Federal government to determine what type of firearms you may possess, and set in place the mechanism for all current "gun control" schemes. GCA '68 is the Holy Grail of the anti-gunners. It is the law about which Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (a _real_ pro-gun civil rights group) says "GCA '68 ties your hands and keeps you from carrying out your legal duty to ensure your own self-defense. GCA '68 thus undermines a pillar of U.S. law and helps criminals to kill law-abiding Americans. Hitler would be pleased." [2] And GCA '68 is the existing law Wayne LaPierre refers to when he says that "criminal sanctions under existing law" should be enforced. LaPierre cites provisions of GCA '68 that would apply to a hypothetical "gunrunner" who unlawfully buys and sells handguns. The cumulative penalties are impressive in LaPierre's scenario -- 995 years in federal prison. (Of course Wayne cheats a little by making the "gunrunner" a "multi-convicted felon; a drug user; a fugitive from justice." And his "customers" are constructed as "... also career criminals; all convicted felons; in the illegal drug trade; two are fugitives." In addition to making them a presumably unsavory lot, these conditions allow LaPierre to "pad" the firearms violation penalties with a few extra years for drug and fugitive charges -- a cheap trick. But perhaps more important, the entire construction is missing one vital element that seemingly applies in every crime -- the victim. None of the hypothetical charges involve a crime against a person. There are no bleeding children, no grieving widows to enlist in the cause of "gun control" -- no victims at all. Oh, well, I guess one could argue that "society" was victimized, but that position looks pretty feeble. No, all the gun-related penalties are for crimes _that are nothing more than administrative creations of GCA '68_. That's right; no one stole anything, no one violated anyone else's rights, no one initiated force of any kind against anyone else in this little scenario. These "gunrunners" simply failed to comply with the law whose model was The Nazi Weapons Law of 18 March, 1938. And we (we're the NRA!) seem to think that we don't need any new laws _because this one will do just fine_! *** Moving on, we find an essay by Tanya Metaksa later in the same issue of the "house organ", entitled "Sliding Down the Slippery Slope". In it Mrs. Metaksa (quite rightly) asserts, "We will never lose our civil liberties all at once, by dictator decree. If the day ever comes in America when we lose our guns, it will be because once we compromised our beliefs and started down the slippery slope of waiting periods, gun bans, mandatory storage laws and the like. It [sic] became easier and easier just to go along for the ride." Yet, earlier in the article, Mrs. Metaksa is attempting to refute the assertion of a Clinton official in the Department of Justice who stated, "The current state of federal law does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type." Mrs. Metaksa rebuts the official by referring to ... did you guess it? ... GCA '68! Says Metaksa about that law, "Congress affirmed the gun-owning rights of the individual citizen, stating that the law was not intended to 'place any undue or necessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law- abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity. ...'" Are we so naive that we actually believe such hooey from Congress? If we believed it in 1968, haven't the events of the recent past proved that at best that intent has been subverted? Do we really look so favorably on a law whose very presence lends credibility to the Charles Schumers of this country when they propose their statist legislation? Don't we _oppose_ "gun control"? Notes: [1] Wayne LaPierre, "Standing Guard", American Hunter, June 1997, pp. 10-11 [2] "The War on Gun Ownership Still Goes On!", 1993, bound in: Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman, _"Gun Control" -- Gateway to Tyranny_, 1993 Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 2872 South Wentworth Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53207, (414) 769-0760 [3] Tanya K. Metaksa, "Sliding Down the Slippery Slope", American Hunter, June 1997, pp.44-45 Copyright (c) 1997 by John C. Taylor. The reader is encouraged to circulate this essay widely. Permission to reproduce this essay is hereby granted (and encouraged), provided its content is unaltered and this postscript is attached. Address comments to: Snail mail: John Taylor 10554 Jason Lane Columbia, MD 21044-2213 Phone: (410) 730-1265 E-mail: JohnNo6@erols.com -- John Taylor (410) 730-1265 ----------------- Principio Obstate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gunmoll@therighter.com Subject: Memorial Day and Murderers Date: 26 May 1997 19:10:39 -0600 Hello all! Happy Memorial Day! (I STILL think that's an oxymoron if you actually THINK about it.) This is the day we look back and honor the heroes of our glorious and heroic wars (Revolutionary, WW I, WW II, and somewhat arguably the Civil War.) It's the day we feel sorry for those who lost their lives in the barely remembered or acknowledged Korean War, and those who sacrificed their lives in Vietnam without even the support of most of their countrymen. We honor those who lost their lives in the glorious "Mother of all wars" in Desert Storm, and conveniently forget those who are suffering with the officially nonexistent Gulf War Syndrome. Parade magazine has a photo of Gen. MacArthur cum glorious war hero on its cover. The local paper suggests that today is also an appropriate time to remember the victims of Oklahoma City, and TWA Flight 800. No one remembers that Timothy McVeigh is a war hero, (although that used to count for something) and everyone assumes he's a mass murderer. I haven't heard any suggestions that we honor those who died at Ruby Ridge or Waco. Would it be sacriligeous to suggest that we mix some truth with the emotion? Yes, my flag is flapping in the breeze against a perfect background of blue sky and snow-peaked mountains. I refuse to participate in the orgy of Memorial Day commercialism that grips most of the country. I AM an American - but my allegiance is to the Constitution, to truth, to justice, and to my fellow Americans, NOT to my government which has done nothing to earn either my support or my respect. And while I honor our flag, I will not pledge my allegiance it it, or to any object. My allegiance is to the principles upon which this country was founded. My flag flies in honor of those who died so that this nation might live. It flies for my friends and classmates who died in Vietnam. It flies for the young soldier to whom I gave a medical clearance shortly before the start of Desert Storm. He was excited; I felt sick. I don't know what happened to him, nor do I even remember his name. It flies for my father-in-law (fortunately still with us today) who saw heavy duty in the Pacific during WW II, and was among the first to land in Nagasaki after the bomb. My flag flies also for those murdered by our government at Ruby Ridge, and at Waco. It flies for those who lost their lives in Oklahoma City - and I believe they were murdered by our government no less than the victims of Waco. These are aberrations, you might say. I say they are not. They are the symptoms of a nation divided, you say. I say things are no different than they were after "The Great War" or after WW II. I say to you that Gen. MacArthur was a murderer. I say to you that Gen. Eisenhower was a murderer. I tell you that Gen. Patton conspired to finish Hitler's work of eliminating the Jews. My flag will NEVER fly for any of these "war heroes". I know that killing is inextricable from war. But there is a difference between killing and murder. The Ten Commandments do not say "Thou shalt not kill". They do say "Thou shalt not murder". No nation should murder its own citizens, and especially not its veterans. No one should kill people in order to save them, or save people in order to kill them. Keep reading..... >http://www.umi.com/hp/Support/K12/GreatEvents/WWIBonus.html >> [UMI's Resources for Schools] >> >> WWI Veterans' Bonus March 1932 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Great Events VI as reported in The New York Times >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Following World War I, the U.S. federal government anticipated that >> its war-risk insurance plan would adequately protect American soldiers >> and sailors who had served during the war, and that there would be no >> demand for compensation to those who had suffered no injury during >> their service in the army or navy. In 1924, however, Congress enacted >> a law, over the veto of President Calvin Coolidge, providing for a >> system of adjusted compensation based on length of service, with a >> distinction made in favor of service overseas. Under this plan, >> veterans entitled to receive $50 or less were to be paid in cash; >> those entitled to receive more than $50 were to receive certificates >> maturing in 20 years. >> >> In order to meet full payment of these certificates when they matured >> in 1945, Congress provided that a trust fund be created through the >> appropriation of twenty annual installments of $ 112 million each. >> This would yield a total of $2.24 billion. Interest compounded >> annually would increase this sum approximately to the amount required >> to meet the face value of the certificates at maturity. By April 1932, >> there were 3,662,374 of those certificates outstanding, bearing an >> aggregate face value of $3.638 billion. By this time eight annual >> installments of $ 112 million had been paid into the fund by Congress, >> making a total of $896 million, and accrued interest had added $95 >> million, bringing the fund to $991 million. >> >> However, because of the national depression, in 1931 Congress expanded >> the privilege of borrowing with an amendment adopted over the veto of >> President Herbert Hoover, increasing the loan value of the >> certificates from 22 1/2 per cent to 50 per cent of face value. >> >> By April 1932, loans amounting to $1.248 billion were outstanding. The >> difference between this figure and the total face value of the >> certificates, $3.638 billion, was $2.390 billion. This was the >> additional sum which the veterans would receive if Congress, again >> over the President's veto, approved a new proposal for immediate >> redemption of the certificates at face value, thirteen years before >> maturity in 1945. >> >> This early redemption capability came to be referred to by members of >> Congress and veterans groups as a bonus, and during the early months >> of 1932 the bonus was a topic of ongoing discussion in the >> legislature. Because of the opposition of President Hoover and many >> senators and members of the House, due primarily to the fact that the >> country was trying to work its way out of the depression and this >> action would put a severe strain on the federal budget, veterans >> groups began to organize around the country with the idea of marching >> on Washington, D.C. to press their demands. >> >> Beginning in May, 1932, groups of World War I veterans began difficult >> journeys across the country, traveling in empty railroad freight cars, >> in the backs of trucks, in cars, on foot and by any other means that >> became available. By mid-June it was estimated that as many as 20,000 >> veterans and some family members had arrived in Washington, and were >> camping out, often in dirty, unsanitary conditions, in parks and >> military bases around the city, depending on donations of food from a >> variety of governments, churches and private citizens. >> >> On June 16, the House passed the bonus bill by a vote of 209-176, but >> on June 18, the Senate defeated the bill 62-18. >> >> At this point, the federal and district governments began to make >> arrangements to force the veterans to go home, but very few accepted >> the offer, vowing to stay until they received their bonus. >> >> Throughout July the veterans, known as the Bonus Expeditionary Force, >> continued to hold marches and rallies despite the fact that they were >> receiving ultimatums to leave, with the White House proposing use of >> troops to force an evacuation. >> >> Then on July 29,1932, troops did storm several buildings that the >> veterans were occupying as well as their main camp, setting tents on >> fire and forcing an evacuation. When it was over, one veteran had been >> killed and about 50 veterans and Washington police had been injured in >> various confrontations. (These troops were lead by Eisenhower and MacArthur - ST) >> Over the next several months, a much smaller group of Bonus >> Expeditionary Force members continued to pressure Congress, and in May >> 1933 about 1,000 veterans marched again on Washington. Newly-elected >> President Franklin Roosevelt also opposed the bonus but demonstrated >> his concern for the unemployed veterans by issuing an executive order >> permitting the enrollment of 25,000 of them in the Citizens' >> Conservation Corps for work in forests. When the veterans realized >> that President Roosevelt would also veto the bonus bill but was >> offering an alternative solution they gradually backed away from their >> demands, and the issue of the veterans' bonus eventually faded from >> the news. >> >> Reading List >> >> Books >> >> Allen, Fredick L., Since yesterday; the nineteen-thirties in >> America, September 3, 1929-September 3, 1939, New York: >> Harper & Brothers, 1940. >> >> Watkins, T.H., The great depression: America in the 1930s, >> Boston: Little Brown, 1993. NEVER FORGET. NEVER AGAIN. In liberty and with gratitude for those who died for it, Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com "Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little." --Tom Stoppard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sawyer Subject: Good Housekeeping article: sent fax Date: 27 May 1997 10:08:05 -0600 Regarding the post about the Good Housekeeping article, I just sent them the following fax. I'm posting it here in case anybody might get some use out of its wording. ----------- Good Housekeeping Fax: (212) 649-2378 Dear Editors: Flying in the face of common sense and respect for the rights of others, you published an article in your June =9297 issue supporting the so-calle= d gun-control efforts of Representative Schumer. You also support mandating how we gun owners store our firearms. Responsible gun ownership does involve keeping unsupervised, uneducated children from loaded weapons. It does not involve forcing all owners, regardless of whether they even have children, to lock the guns and store them so they may be inaccessible when they are needed most. Guns are used more than 2 million times in self-defense in the U.S. each year, and your assertion that an inanimate object like a firearm is part of the problem is absurd. The next time you consider publishing an article supporting something as ludicrous as "gun control" to answer the meaningless cry of "Think of the children!" think instead of how you can actually help the children. Tell your readers the following: Educate your children about firearms. Don=92t tell them that guns are "evil," because children will eventually see through that and wonder that their parents could be so simple-minded. Let them touch a gun, teach them how to safely handle a gun, tell them of the damage a bullet can do, show them what happens when a bullet hits a tin can. With your help, let them shoot it so they can see how powerful and how scarey it can be. Yes, they may still someday misuse a firearm. But if you teach them first, they will at least know better. No, I don=92t expect this letter to change your liberal editorial slant. But I do expect it to help your readers make more informed opinions than your short-sighted articles feign to allow. Sincerely, Mike Sawyer 453 W 1750 N Lehi, UT 84043 -- = Mike Sawyer, KC7URN (msawyer@callware.com) Technical Writer CallWare Technologies, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Sawyer Subject: Good Housekeeping, cont. Date: 27 May 1997 10:31:44 -0600 Regarding the Good Housekeeping article, I just connected to their web site and read the most recent comments people have entered. Out of about 30 I read, only ONE was supportive of the article! Visit the site, and keep the pressure on! http://homearts.com/instpost/instafc.htm -- Mike Sawyer, KC7URN (msawyer@callware.com) Technical Writer CallWare Technologies, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: 2nd Amendment Court Cases Date: 28 May 1997 09:49:00 -0700 Part 1 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This is an excerpt from a document entitled "Second Amendment Related Court Cases" at http://www.nysrpa.org/e&tcourt.htm: [begin excerpt] This issue was again resolved adverse to the government in United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287, 294, 56 S.Ct. 223, 226, 80 L.Ed. <--- 233 (1935). A statute provided for a federal assessment for one who violated a state liquor law. The Court held that it would be invalid "if, in fact, its purpose is to punish rather than to tax." Id. No federal jurisdiction existed to enforce alcohol Prohibition, because the Eighteenth Amendment had been repealed. Id. Similarly, no federal jurisdiction exists to ban mere possession of machine guns, and the NFA provisions at issue are not supported by the tax power to the extent they enforce a prohibition rather than taxation. As Constantine held, "a penalty cannot be converted into a tax by so naming it ...[W]e hold that it is a penalty for the violation of State law, and as such beyond the limits of federal power." Id. The Court explained: The condition of the imposition is the commission of a crime. This, together with the amount of the tax, is again significant of penal and prohibitory intent rather than the gathering of revenue. Where, in addition to the normal and ordinary tax fixed by law, an additional sum is to be collected by reason of conduct of the taxpayer violative of the law, and this additional sum is grossly disproportionate to the amount of the normal tax, the conclusion must be that the purpose is to impose a penalty as a deterrent and punishment of unlawful conduct. We conclude that the indicia which the section exhibits of an intent to prohibit and to punish violations of State law as such are too strong to be disregarded, remove all semblance of a revenue act and stamp the sum it exacts as a penalty. In this view the statute is a clear invasion of the police power, inherent in the States, reserved from the grant of powers to the federal government by the Constitution. Id. at 295-96, 56 S.Ct. at 227. It is well established that Congress may tax both legal and illegal activities. Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 44, 88 S.Ct. 697, 700, 19 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).4 Gambling and other acts which may be illegal under state law may be taxed, and registration may be required to assist in collection of the tax as long as registration information is not shared with the police, since such sharing would violate the privilege against self-incrimination. Id. Registration is among the "ancillary provisions calculated to assure their [i.e., the taxes] collection."5 Id. at 42, 88 S.Ct. at 699. In contrast with the federal taxation and registration of conduct made illegal under state law, which the courts have upheld, the case at bar involves federal taxation and registration requirements which the government interprets as repealed by a federal statute making post-1986 machine guns illegal. In short, the government registers gamblers and accepts their tax payments; it refuses to accept registrations and tax payments for the making of machine guns. Continued in next message ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: 2nd Amendment Court Cases Date: 28 May 1997 09:49:00 -0700 Part 2, continued from previous message The prosecution also asserts that "machine guns may still be manufactured, and therefore taxed, under 18 U.S.C. s922(o)(2)(A)." Response at 6. Yet, the government has successfully argued that that provision allows manufacture only for official government use. Farmer v. Higgins, 907 F.2d at 1042-44. Manufacture for government use is exempt from any tax. 26 U.S.C. ss5852, 5953. Also, this argument fails to address the fact that the United States refuses to register any post-1986 machine guns, thereby severing any tax nexus for this registration requirement, with which compliance is impossible. In its motion to reconsider, the prosecution reiterates that the government can tax an item or activity which is illegal. Yet, the very framing of this proposition presupposes that the activity can and will be taxed. By contrast, in the case at bar, the government interprets 18 U.S.C. s922(o) to prevent the registration and taxation of post-1986 machine guns made for private purposes under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. s5801 et seq. The prosecution relies on Marchetti v. United States, supra, 390 U.S. at 44, 88 S.Ct. at 700, which held that reporting requirements for taxation of illegal gambling may not violate the privilege against self-incrimination. Yet, implicit in Marchetti, is the rationale that registration provisions are Constitutional if and only if they assist in collection of revenue. As Marchetti states: The taxes are supplemented by ancillary provisions calculated to assure their collection. In particular, s4412 requires those liable for the occupational tax to register each year with the director of the local internal revenue district. Id. at 42, 88 S.Ct. at 699. Illegal gamblers are allowed to register and pay the tax. Alleged makers of machine guns after 1986 are not. The prosecution also relies on dictum in a footnote in Minor v. United States, 396 U.S. 87, 90 S.Ct. 284, 24 L.Ed.2d 283 (1969), which held that a reporting requirement by drug buyers does not violate a drug seller's privilege against self- incrimination. The prosecution, relying on a statement in the dissenting opinion (396 U.S. at 100, 90 S.Ct. at 290), claims that it was impossible to pay the drug tax in that case. The Act in question required dealers to register with the Internal Revenue Service and pay a special occupational tax, and required producers or importers to purchase stamps and affix them to the package. Registered dealers could secure order forms to transfer drugs. Id. at 94, 90 S.Ct. at 287. While the Court focused on the self-incrimination issue, it noted that "there were some 400,000 registered dealers under the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1967 and that registered dealers can readily get order forms issued in blank." Id. at 97, 90 S.Ct. at 289. As the Court noted, a tax measure is valid even though it may deter an activity, revenue is negligible, or the activity may be illegal. 396 U.S. at 98 n. 13, 90 S.Ct. at 289 n. 13.6 Indeed, since being passed in 1934, the National Firearms Act has imposed occupational taxes, making and transfer taxes of $200 per firearm, and stringent registration requirements. Yet, these taxation requirements did not amount to a prohibition, and registration retained a tax nexus. In any event, the interpretation of the Constitutional basis of the specific statute in this case is governed by Sonzinsky v. United States, supra, 300 U.S. 506, 57 S.Ct. 554 and its progeny, not by dictum in a footnote in an unrelated narcotics case. Sonzinsky held that "the mere registration provisions ... are obviously supportable as in aid of revenue purpose." Id. at 513, 57 S.Ct. at 555. Haynes v. United States, supra, 390 U.S. at 87, 88 S.Ct. at 725, repeated that the National Firearms Act is a tax measure, and that registration is "calculated to assure [tax] collection." Id. at 88-89, 88 S.Ct. at 725-26. The Act was described as a tax measure again in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 602-03, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 1114-15, 28 L.Ed.2d 356 (1971). The enactment of 18 U.S.C. s922(o) in 1986 removed the Constitutional legitimacy of registration as an aid to tax collection. This is because the government interprets and enforces s922(o) to disallow registration, and refuses to collect the tax. Farmer v. Higgins, 907 F.2d 1041, 1042-44 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, ---U.S.---, 111 S.Ct. 753, 112 L.Ed.2d 773 (1991). Thus, s922(o) undercut the Constitutional basis of registration which had been the rule since Sonzinsky. Finally, the prosecution quotes an enactment passed in 1968 that the provisions of Title I of the Gun Control Act shall not modify or affect the National Firearms Act.7 However, the 1968 Congress cannot bind the Congress of 1986, which decided to ban transfer and possession of machine guns. P.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 453 (May 19, 1986).8 Further, a congressional declaration in 1968 does not solve a Constitutional problem which arose in 1986. The ban enacted in 1986, and the government's refusal to accept registrations and tax payments, simply left the registration requirements with no Constitutional basis. It is the duty of the judiciary to declare such laws unConstitutional. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 176-77, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. s922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machine gun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machine gun. As applied to machine guns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unConstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED. [end excerpt] # # # ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ======================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: 2nd Amendment Court Cases Date: 28 May 1997 15:30:37 -0600 I didn't quite catch in the excerpt whether this was a recent case or where it was heard. Does this mean that certain aspects of the NFA have been ruled unconstitutional in some or all of the country? -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. "Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Slippery Slope - Ronnie Edelman Date: 29 May 1997 08:54:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: Multiple recipients of list S. & T.--- Great commentary, O Scary Diminutive One! When that letter first surfaced, I recognized the surname and spent part of an afternoon in my public library, attempting to determine if any familial bond exists between Ronnie Edelman and Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund and Hillary's mentor, whose husband, Robert, is chief counsel over at Donna Shalala's HHS Department. (Marian and Robert have three children, all male, named for O.T. biblical prophets.) In my research, I came across several references which suggest that former civil-rights litigant Ronnie Edelman might be *female* (Could "Ronnie" be short for "Veronica"?), rather than male, as indicated by Mrs. Metaksa (note my added emphasis) in the below article. Anyone out there know for sure whether "Ronnie" is male or female and if there's any connection to friends-of-the-Clintons Marian W. and Peter B. Elelman? (Not that it matters, but--given the nepotistic/incestuous crowd currently in power--it sometimes helps to know family ties when assessing policy philosophy and/or motivation, *a la* Barney Frank/Anne Lewis or Cokie Roberts/Hale Boggs!) David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte Wheeling, Illinois Replies/Abuse: gonzalez@mcs.com -------------------- On Tue, 27 May 1997 Emmilene@aol.com wrote: Tanya Metaksa The current state of federal law does not recognize that the second amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type. If you doubt for a second how this Adminstration regards our right to keep and bear arms, forget it fast. We now have in black and white what Bill Clinton, Al Gore and janet Reno think of your right to keep and bear arms. The following is a letter written on behalf of the president by Ronnie L. Edelman, a Department of Justice official. "The Second Amendment, whether in regard to handguns or all guns, is a matter of growing scholarly debate. The current state of federal law does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type. Instead, the Second Amendment is deemed to be a collective right belonging to the state and not to an individual. Accordingly, the Second Amendment is interpreted by this administration as prohibiting the federal government from preventing a state government from forming or having a state-recognized militia force. With this understanding in mind, the source of citizens' authority to possess a handgun has never been particularly identified in American laws, beginning in 1934, no administration has sought to clarify this ambiguity." I suggest, Mr. Edelman, that you read the Gun Control Act of 1968. ^^ ^^^^^^^ Congress affirmed the gun-owning rights of the individual citizen, stating that the law was not intended to "place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropritate to the purpose of hunting, trap-shooting, target shooting, personal pretection, or any other lawful activity." Edelman did manage to stumble onto the truth - the Second Amendment is a matter of growing scholarly debate. But if Edelman or his bosses had ^^^ bothered to follow that debate over the past two decades, they'd know that it is rather one-sided. They'd also know their side, the "collective right" side, is losing and losing overwhelmingly. As historian Joyce Lee Maclcolm told Congress in 1995: "It is very hard to find an historian who now believes it (the Second Amendment) is only a collective right. As it has become more thoroughly researched, there is general consensus that in fact it is an individual right. There is no one for me to argue against anymore." Unfortunately, the Clinton-Gore Administration doesn't let the facts slow down its drive to vilify gun owners, such as those hunters and target shooters who own cartridges that President Clinton shamelessly says "cut through a police vest like a hot knife through butter." Nor does this administration worry about facts in its rush to add new groups of citizens, such as thoseguilty of misdemeanor domestic abuse offenses, to the Gun Control Act's prohibited list. To further its civil liberties-trashing agenda, this Administration, encourages political rather than scientic research at the Federal Centers for Disease Control and prevention. One of the latest gunowner smears appears in the February 1997 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. The authors of this taxpayer-funded propaganda masquerading as science suggest that those of us who own "automatic or semi-automatic firearms are more likely...to binge drink frequently," than those who prefer other types of guns. The authors not only admit that there is "no strong consensus within the alcohol resarch community on the definition of binge drinking," they also show shocking ignorance of the technical features of firearms "What distinguishes auto-matic and semi-automatic fireams" from other types of firearms, the write, "is that they can be spray fired." The authors are smart enough to leave themselves an out. They write "It is doubtful that binge drinking causes an individual to purchase a certain type of firearm or that owning a particular type of firearms causes one to drink heavily." But you can see where this latest"research" is heading. One night Peter Jennings or Dan Rather will dramatically announce: "According to government research, semi-automatic firearms are not only more deadly than other types, they also are the guns of choice of thoose who drink to excess." It won't matter that millions of responsible American gunowners know that guns and alcohol don't mix, and that we constantly preach that fact. Facts won't matter to the Clinto crowd when it next seeks to deprive another whole category of citizens of their Second Amendment rights. The fact that as responsible gunowners, we make responsible choices in our lives doesn't matter much in some offices on Capitol hill either. Rep. Charles Schumer demands to know "Who needs to buy more than one handgun a month?" Schumer, along with Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others, also think its the government's business to dictate how you store property in your home. In their eyes you can't be trusted to be responsible enough to store your guns safely. Do it their way or one day in the future you'll be held criminally liable of a thief breaks into your home, steals a gun and then misuses it in a crime. (and will the criminal wait while you unlock the lock, reload, then yell ok, now.?) We will never lose our civil liberties all at once, by dictator decree. If the day ever come in America when we lose our guns, it will be because once we comporomised our belieifs and started down the slippery slope of waiting periods, gunbans, mandatory storage laws and the like. It became easier and easier just to go along for a ride. Emmilene "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and to prize the rights God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Infamous writer, printer and renegade compatriot of T. Jefferson, B. Franklin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jwaldron@halcyon.com Subject: Re: Slippery Slope - Ronnie Edelman Date: 29 May 1997 09:15:11 -0700 On Thu, 29 May 97, scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) wrote: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 05:06:33 -0500 (CDT) >From: David Gonzalez >Subject: Re: Slippery Slope - Ronnie Edelman > >Great commentary, O Scary Diminutive One! > >When that letter first surfaced, I recognized the surname and spent part >of an afternoon in my public library, attempting to determine if any >familial bond exists between Ronnie Edelman and Marian Wright Edelman, >founder of the Children's Defense Fund and Hillary's mentor, whose husband, >Robert, is chief counsel over at Donna Shalala's HHS Department. (Marian >and Robert have three children, all male, named for O.T. biblical prophets.) > >In my research, I came across several references which suggest that former >civil-rights litigant Ronnie Edelman might be *female* (Could "Ronnie" be >short for "Veronica"?), rather than male, as indicated by Mrs. Metaksa >(note my added emphasis) in the below article. > >Anyone out there know for sure whether "Ronnie" is male or female and if >there's any connection to friends-of-the-Clintons Marian W. and Peter B. >Elelman? (Not that it matters, but--given the nepotistic/incestuous crowd >currently in power--it sometimes helps to know family ties when assessing >policy philosophy and/or motivation, *a la* Barney Frank/Anne Lewis or >Cokie Roberts/Hale Boggs!) > >David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte >Wheeling, Illinois Duh, Anne Lewis... is she Mrs Barney Franks? Joe W, Smarta** Bellevue, WA