From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Cops on Gun Laws Date: 01 Jul 1997 08:46:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The San Diego Police Officers Association polled its members about gun control on 05 May 1997 and published the results in their official newsletter, "The Informant". Note that the actual questions asked are stated here to prevent confusion. Anyone who has taken a survey knows the pitfalls of vague or misleading questions. 1. Do you support an assault weapons ban? NO - 82.1% 2. Do you support a limitation on magazine capacity? NO - 82.2% 3. Do you support a law-abiding private citizen's right to carry a concealed weapon? YES - 84.9% 4. Do you believe that armed, law-abiding citizens are a threat to you as a police officer? NO - 87.8% 5. Have recent gun laws (weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, and increased waiting periods) reduced violent crime in your area? NO - 94.2% 6. Would you support a point of sale background check (instant check) for the purchase of a firearm? YES - 92.1% 7. Does gun ownership by private citizens increase public safety? YES - 87.1% 8. Do you believe the criminal justice system needs streamlining and reform? YES - 99.2% 9. Do you believe in the death penalty? YES - 99.2% 10. Do you believe that restrictive gun laws will reduce violent crime? NO - 92.1% 11. Do you believe that gun buy-back or turn-in programs take guns out of the hands of criminals? NO - 98.5% 12. Do you believe that misuse of a firearm in a crime should result in stiff, mandatory sentences with no plea bargaining? YES - 95.6% These results are consistent with similar polls taken all across the U.S. for over 20 years. Please contact the San Diego Police Officers Association for copies of this poll or talk to your local police officer about his/her views on gun control. Vote NO on I-676. Lance Parker parker@nym.alias.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Unraveling Some Brady Law Falsehoods Date: 02 Jul 1997 20:39:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [www.FreeRepublic.com] Unraveling Some Brady Law Falsehoods Los Angeles Times July 2, 1997 By JOHN R. LOTT JR. The Brady law has received much credit for the country's rapidly dropping crime rate. Yet with the Supreme Court striking down the law's background check requirements, it faces its ultimate test. If President Clinton and gun control advocates are correct, the court's decision will unleash a new crime wave. The Justice Department continually releases "new" studies crediting the law with reducing crime. Actually, the downward crime trend started in 1991, well before the Brady law became effective in March 1994. My research shows that this decline is in great measure because of higher arrest rates and more states allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. Others estimate that the Brady bill had a much smaller effect on gun sales than the 100,000 rejections its proponents claim. Last year the General Accounting Office reported that initial rejections numbered about 60,000, and more than half were for purely technical reasons, mostly paperwork errors that eventually were corrected. A much smaller number of rejections, 3,000, were due to violent crime convictions--and presumably many of these people just proceeded to buy a gun on the street. Brady law backers have focused almost exclusively on the value of background checks, the one part of the law that the Supreme Court specifically struck down. Yet there never was much controversy over this issue: When Congress debated the law, no one, not even the National Rifle Assn., opposed background checks. The dispute was over a five-day waiting period versus an "instant check." Ultimately, the success of background checks and waiting periods must be judged by their impact on crime. To seriously evaluate their impacts, however, one must recognize that other legal changes also occurred. For example, during 1995 and 1996, 10 more states adopted nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws. In the belief that concealed handguns deter crime, 31 states now grant permits automatically to citizens who have no significant criminal records or histories of major mental illness. In all 31 states, more people now carry legally concealed handguns. Considerable evidence supports the notion that permitted handguns deter criminals. Polls show that there are at least 760,000 and possibly as many as 3.6 million defensive uses of guns per year. In 98% of the cases, people simply brandish weapons to stop attacks. This is further reflected in the different rates of "hot burglaries," where a resident is at home when a criminal strikes. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun control laws, almost half of all burglaries are "hot." The U.S., with laxer restrictions, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13%. This difference is no accident. Surveys of convicted American burglars indicate that the fear of potentially armed victims causes them to spend more time than their foreign counterparts "casing" a house to ensure that nobody is home. Felons frequently comment that they avoid late-night burglaries because "that's the way to get shot." Fortunately, we can disentangle the different effects of waiting periods, background checks and concealed handgun laws, as many states adopted these different laws at different times. In a study examining these differences (published in the January issue of the Journal of Legal Studies) David Mustard and I analyzed the simultaneous effect on crime from background checks, state waiting periods, the lengths of waiting periods, nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws and other gun laws. Our research examined crime rates over 16 years in all 3,054 U.S. counties. The largest previous gun control study examined only 170 cities within a single year. We also accounted for changes in arrest and conviction rates, changes in prison sentence lengths and general variables affecting crime such as unemployment, income and poverty. While arrest and conviction rates were the most important determinations of crime rates, of all the different gun laws, liberal concealed handgun laws were the most important. Passing these handgun laws caused murders to decrease by least 8%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robberies by 3%. The percentage drops were largest in the most urban, most crime-prone counties, and women benefited much more than men from carrying concealed handguns. In contrast, no evidence indicated that either waiting periods or background checks lowered crime rates. Yet research does not convince everybody. Perhaps the Supreme Court's decision will be able to shed light on how effective the Brady law was. Will crime rates shoot up as quickly without the nationwide background checks as gun control advocates claimed that they fell because of them? My bet is that they will not. Will gun control advocates take me up on that wager? - - - John R. Lott Jr. Is a Visiting Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School Copyright Los Angeles Times ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Party Pooper -Forwarded Date: 08 Jul 1997 14:34:14 -0700 Its time to be a party pooper, as I have to tell NRA that I don't support their instant background check (and registration) as follows: Dear Ms. Metaska: I have written this letter to object to your and NRA's support of the instant background check. An instant background check has several problems: 1. It violates the constitutional requirement of the presumption of innocence in that it requires a person to prove their innocence before they can exercise a civil right to buy a firearm. 2. It is most clearly an infringement of the Second Amendment. 3. An instant computer check has been used before to create an instant list of gun purchasers and de facto registration of gun owners. Perhaps you are familiar with the attempts in Philadelphia and Texas to compile lists of gun owners through existing information. Any compromise of our principles is a compromise of my basic civil rights and cannot be accepted. It may seem politically wise to accept a small intrusion of my sacred rights in order to avoid a larger intrusion. But, in the end, we all have lost our civil rights. When was the last time we restored civil rights through a compromise? If a mugger threatens to kill me and take my money and I negotiate to give him my money if he doesn't kill me, I have been robbed just the same. Perhaps I am simply an extremist that Charlton Heston discussed weeding out of the NRA in his infamous radio interview. If I am an extremist because I will not compromise my principles, then I am proud to be called that and would encourage you to join me. If I am to be weeded out of the NRA because I will not compromise my principles, I will volunteer to go; but I will also take my money and my time. I have adopted the *Tough Love* approach discussed by John Taylor, attached, when it comes to NRA support of compromises to my civil rights. I suggest you read it if you have not recently reviewed it. Sincerely Neil Sagers _________________________________________ "TOUGH LOVE" By John Taylor, the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus Maryland Coordinator 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 ascendancy 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [INFO] GOA Web Page -Forwarded Date: 09 Jul 1997 10:01:49 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA09963; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 19:04:08 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA24975; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 21:10:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma024958; Sun Jul 6 21:09:29 1997 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: jbp@es.rti.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Noban: In case you have not seen it, it is a MUST to check out the GOA web page. Dang, this is a great effort! http://www.gunowners.org/index.html#pet Even mentions the efforts to repeal the AW ban, so this message is actually on topic for this list. (!) There is lots to like about this web page, and two features that I thought were particularly cool are: 1. The petition from WAGC to be delivered to Congress to repeal Lautenberg. Sign this petition and then go look at all the signatures they have from all over the country. See your friends. This is great! 2. Auto-emailer to Congress. You can send an email to as many as ALL the critters that have email at once (of course their auto-responses will spam you, but hey...). Just send to your Rep. and Senators if you insist on not getting carried away. I like having something to _do_ on a pro-rkba web page, not just read the usual stuff. GOA's page does not disappoint. Enjoy! John Posthill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: AARP and Guns -Forwarded Date: 09 Jul 1997 10:19:15 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12076; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 10:06:07 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA22765; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 12:10:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma022742; Wed Jul 9 12:09:43 1997 Message-Id: <970709120009_1479118867@emout06.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: ASSETNJ@aol.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list AARP's Position On Gun Control For more than a decade, the Association has urged the federal government to control the availability of handguns because of their frequent use in the commission of violent crime. Handguns continue to present a serious threat to citizens of all ages. Every year, more than 23,000 Americans are killed with handguns. At least $1 billion is spent annually on medical costs associated with the treatment of individuals who have been shot. The prevalence of violence in some neighborhoods has resulted in many older persons becoming virtual prisoners in their homes. Increasingly, individuals living in the inner city are suffering the loss of children and grandchildren who are the victims of violent crimes and senseless shootings. In many states, juveniles are permitted to own and carry guns, contributing to this rising tide of violence. Further the lack of restrictions on handgun sales in certain states enables gun runners to sell guns in states where sales are limited. This lack of uniformity among the states significantly undermines their ability to control handgun availability. Increased criminal activity involving automatic and semiautomatic weapons persuaded the Association in 1989 to expand its earlier gun control policy to include these weapons. This policy reads as follows: The federal government must control the availability of handguns and semiautomatic and automatic weapons because of their frequent use in the commission of violent crimes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: AARP and Guns -Forwarded Date: 09 Jul 1997 10:41:11 -0600 DAVID SAGERS wrote: > Increased criminal activity involving automatic and semiautomatic weapons > persuaded the Association in 1989 to expand its earlier gun control policy to > include these weapons. This policy reads as follows: > > The federal government must control the availability of handguns and > semiautomatic and automatic weapons because of their frequent use in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > commission of violent crimes. Ahhhh fer ch**sakes....auto's used frequently? It's actually somewhat heartening, in an admittedly twisted way, to have my basic theorem "supported" yet again: People are stupid! -- 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: "Kevin S. Van Horn" Subject: training Date: 09 Jul 1997 12:32:53 -0600 Where's a good place to get some basic firearms training? I live in south Utah county (Payson). ---------------------------- Kevin S. Van Horn, Ph.D. KSVH Software and Consulting kevin.s.vanhorn@iname.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" Subject: Re: training Date: 09 Jul 1997 12:38:19 -0600 >Where's a good place to get some basic firearms training? I live in >south Utah county (Payson). > >---------------------------- >Kevin S. Van Horn, Ph.D. >KSVH Software and Consulting >kevin.s.vanhorn@iname.com Well, I'll take you out shooting. The various gun stores also usually have people associated with them who are NRA trainers. You can call Gunnies in Orem and ask them what sort of stuff they offer or know about. Also, Van Wagenens in Orem has flyers and posters from various people up usually (at least when I have been there). Chad Chad Leigh Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net chad@pengar.com info@pengar.com info@shire.net Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites. WWW Wholesale including virtual domains. Tango. PHP/FI Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Subject: Re: training Date: 09 Jul 1997 12:53:27 -0600 Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: > > Where's a good place to get some basic firearms training? I live in > south Utah county (Payson). > > ---------------------------- > Kevin S. Van Horn, Ph.D. > KSVH Software and Consulting > kevin.s.vanhorn@iname.com Kevin, You might try Wahsatch Shooters at Layton. Bill Filiaga does courses there and others probably do as well. I don't have their phone number with me. Good shooting, Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: AARP and Guns -Forwarded Date: 09 Jul 1997 13:08:12 -0600 S. Thompson wrote: > > >AARP's Position On Gun Control > > > >For more than a decade, the Association has urged the federal government to > >control the availability of handguns because of their frequent use in the > >commission of violent crime. > > > >Handguns continue to present a serious threat to citizens of all ages. Every > >year, more than 23,000 Americans are killed with handguns. At least $1 > >billion is spent annually on medical costs associated with the treatment of > >individuals who have been shot. > > > >The prevalence of violence in some neighborhoods has resulted in many older > >persons becoming virtual prisoners in their homes. Increasingly, individuals > >living in the inner city are suffering the loss of children and grandchildren > >who are the victims of violent crimes and senseless shootings. > > > >In many states, juveniles are permitted to own and carry guns, contributing > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > >to this rising tide of violence. Further the lack of restrictions on handgun > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >sales in certain states enables gun runners to sell guns in states where > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >sales are limited. This lack of uniformity among the states significantly > >undermines their ability to control handgun availability. > > > >Increased criminal activity involving automatic and semiautomatic weapons > >persuaded the Association in 1989 to expand its earlier gun control policy to > >include these weapons. This policy reads as follows: > > > >The federal government must control the availability of handguns and > >semiautomatic and automatic weapons because of their frequent use in the > >commission of violent crimes. > > > OK, Folks - here it is: Today's Quiz! > > Which states allow juveniles to own handguns? > Which states have no restrictions on the purchase of handguns? > > The first person to answer correctly will win a fully-automatic handgun > suitable for giving to their favorite child or grandchild. > > Sarah > > PS: Feel free to post if you think others would like to enter! -- 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: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: AARP and Guns -Forwarded Date: 09 Jul 1997 13:40:33 -0600 On Wed, 09 Jul 1997, WILL THOMPSON posted: >> OK, Folks - here it is: Today's Quiz! >> >> Which states allow juveniles to own handguns? >> Which states have no restrictions on the purchase of handguns? >> >> The first person to answer correctly will win a fully-automatic handgun >> suitable for giving to their favorite child or grandchild. >> >> Sarah >> >> PS: Feel free to post if you think others would like to enter! Actually, I would like to enter. And I will allow the prize to be semi-automatic firearm suitable for the giving to my favorite child. Both Utah and Arizona specifically allow minors to posses handguns. In Utah it must be with parental consent though it has gotten much stricter in the past 10 years. I do not know if Arizona requires that. Also, while living in Arizona 18 months ago I learned that, at that time at least, the Arizona CCW law did not have an age restriction as a co-worker had assisted his underage daughter in obtaining a permit to CCW. I would be willing to bet that Vermont does not restrict the ownership of handguns to minors nor prohibit them from possessing them on or about their person in a peaceful manner. For part two, prior to Brady, Utah had no restrictions on the sale of handguns except for prohibiting their purchase or possession by felons and other federally prohibited persons. Other regulations re handgun sales were federally imposed. I would guess once again that places like Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska, have very few or no regulations concerning handgun purchases that would affect non-felons or the mentally ill except for those imposed by the feds. I purchased my first handgun at age 17 or 18 from my older brother. Purchased my second one at 20 from a private party. Is this close enough to win my prize or do I need to find statute cites? ;) We must be careful not to give tacit approval to regulations by arguing about whether they exist. The appropriate response to the assertion that some States may not prohibit minors from owning guns is, "Good for them! How else are the youth to learn one of their great civic responsibilities and rights?" -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." - [This was Madison's original proposal for the "Second Amendment" -- James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: [gunmoll@therighter.com] To the NRA Date: 09 Jul 1997 14:50:21 -0600 July 8, 1997 Ms. Marion Hammer Mr. Wayne LaPierre, Jr. National Rifle Organization 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Dear Ms. Hammer and Mr. LaPierre, I have received several requests from each of you to renew my membership in the National Rifle Association. I am unwilling to do so now, or in the foreseeable future. You see, I'm one of those "extremists" whom you feel you need to purge from the ranks of the organization. I know better than to go where I'm not wanted. I certainly know better than to pay for such treatment. I believe that many, though still a minority, of our law enforcement agents do behave like "jack-booted thugs" and that calling them what they are is appropriate and necessary. I believe that federal law enforcement should be severely curtailed and should always work under the supervision of local law enforcement. I believe the Second Amendment guarantees me the right to own any weapon I choose, specifically including fully automatic "machine guns". In fact, if the Second Amendment is to have any meaning, then we are obligated to own fully automatic weapons and weapons of mass destruction in order to resist the depredations of a corrupt, unconstitutional government that would sell us and our children into slavery. I believe I do not need anyone=92s permission to own or carry the weapon of my choice. I most assuredly do not need anyone's permission to defend myself, my family, or my property. I will not beg, and I will not subject myself to degradation by a government that presumes I am "guilty" until it determines my innocence. I do not, and will never, concede that the police, the military, the legislature, the ATF, our despicable president, or anyone else is my intellectual or moral superior and has the right to judge me. Only a fully informed jury of my peers may do that, and then only where it has lawful jurisdiction. I believe that all gun control laws are inherently evil. It is not enough to say that Brady will "sunset". If you're willing to tolerate evil for one day, will you tolerate it for two? If you are willing to tolerate it for two days, will you tolerate it for a year? And if you tolerate it for a year, why should anyone believe you will not tolerate it forever? Honor and integrity dictate that we demand a repeal now! Domestic abuse is a heinous crime and must be treated as such. But I will never condone the removal of rights as punishment for a misdemeanor. Likewise I will never condone the removal of a person's right to self-defense in response to a non-violent crime, nor will I condone the denial of basic rights to those persons who, through no fault of their own, suffer from a mental illness, but pose no threat to others. I find your support for the overturning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which denies First Amendment rights as "necessary to get tough on crime", abhorrent; it is an indication of your true nature and goals. NRA-ILA has done many wonderful things. Your educational programs are excellent, have taught the joys of gun use and ownership to many, and have no doubt prevented many deaths and injuries due to your emphasis on safety training. There is no better firearms safety program for children than Eddie Eagle. Your research and legislative resources have been invaluable to me. However, the time for compromise is past. This is no longer about hunting, or target shooting. It's not about safety. It's not about begging for permission to exercise rights that existed long before either government or man. It's about survival: individual survival and family survival. It's about survival of the form of government envisioned by the founders of this nation. It's about the survival of the gun culture in the face of a government that would willingly commit genocide against it. If you think I'm a wild-eyed radical, just look to Clinton's soul mate, Tony Blair, who has publicly announced that gun bans have nothing whatever to do with public safety; that the issue is the elimination of the gun culture. Far too many others have attempted genocide against my people. I will not close my eyes. I will not lie down. I will not go willingly. I will resist until there is nothing left of me to resist. I will not register my guns, my ammunition, myself, or my family. I will not consent to background checks, especially when performed by a fascist government. I will not ask permission from anyone to do what is right. When you decide to stop selling our birthright, When you decide to stop supporting permits, When you proclaim that each and every one of us is innocent until proven guilty; that we need not subject ourselves to "background checks", registration or bureaucracy, When you refuse to tolerate evil, When you are willing to call evil by its rightful name, When you are willing to call genocide by its rightful name, When you stop distracting yourselves and others with peripheral issues, When you learn that a compromise with the devil is no compromise at all, Then, and only then, will you have my support. Until that time, may your chains rest lightly. Sincerely, Sarah B. Thompson, M.D. Permission to distribute and/or copy granted provided this letter is reproduced in its entirety, without changes, and full attribution is given. Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same=20 object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right,=20 it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their=20 future security..." The Declaration of Independence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Start Your Own Newspaper! Date: 10 Jul 1997 15:50:00 -0700 From Ed Wolfe (ewolfe@involved.com), posted to IP A few months ago, some of us were discussing starting our own newspapers to counter the biased media. The Oregon Observer is now offering an instructional video to help others get started with their own paper. This kind of paper WORKS. Just last week another Code Enforcement Officer resigned in Oregon due to an article in the Oregon Observer. If you want to know what you can do to help take back our country from the slime that are controlling the masses, fight them at their own game. Be your own media. Check this out: How To Start Your Own State-Wide Newspaper... Get The Video! You've been asking for it, now it's available to you from, "America's Hardest Hitting Newspaper" The Oregon Observer. Edward Snook takes you step by step through what it takes to have a successful and hard hitting newspaper in your own state. With your video you also get a written list of equipment needed and access to assistance from The Oregon Observer Staff when you need questions answered. Starting out, many situations will arise which are not talked about on the video and may be unique to your area or circumstances. As valuable as the video is, the continued support program is equally important. You will also receive back issues of The Oregon Observer, which will give you a hands-on visual example of the type of newspaper that works, The Oregon Observer way. Exposure is the answer...Do it the right way and succeed! Order your video today for only $79.00, which includes shipping and handling. Send your order and payment to: The Oregon Observer 19093 S. Beavercreek Rd. #333, Oregon City, Oregon 97045 or Order with your Visa or Mastercard by calling: (503) 557-9180 http://www.oregonobserver.com To subscribe or unsubscribe, email majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point or unsubscribe ignition-point http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Whiskey Rebellion July 16 Date: 10 Jul 1997 15:50:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Covenant Syndicate July 7, 1997, vol. 1, no. 27 (Back Issues posted at: http://capo.org/opeds/opeds.html) ********************* The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 Elmer E. Specht (SPECHTELME@aol.com) Be sure to celebrate, and encourage others to do so, the upcoming 203rd anniversary of Whiskey Rebellion Day --- July 16th. Back when we knew how to run a country, the farmers of western Pennsylvania (and others in Carlisle, PA; Hagerstown, MD; and various parts of Virginia later joined the fray) rose up at the imposition of a tax on spiritus frumenti, of which it is duly recorded they produced and consumed prodigious amounts. It seems moonshining was the only way they could get their produce to market in the east, notably Philadelphia, without undesirable spoilage. But Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, in his wisdom, imposed an ad valorem tax amounting to twenty-five percent of the value of the spirits. Thus ired, the western Pennsylvania rustics, restless since June, surrounded the home of the local tax man, one John Neville of Bower Hill, near Pittsburgh, and invited him to depart the county. He thought to demur, having some militiamen with him, and succeeded in killing one Oliver Miller in what was the opening shot in the rebellion. The "rebels" then fired back, Neville signaled his slaves to fire from the rear, and more blood flowed. Thus it was a scant 24 years between the time the "lobsterbacks" of King George fired on the colonists in Boston (in 1770), killing five, and the time the federal government took to killing its own citizens. The next day, July 17, 1794, James McFarlane, a Revolutionary War veteran, and popular commander of the local militia, was shot dead in what may have been a ruse to lure him into the open, thinking the soldiers defending Neville wished to parley. That ended any hope of peaceful resolution, and the locals proceeded to burn Neville's buildings to the ground as he was spirited away by the federal troops. The federal government responded as one might anticipate, by relying on yet more force. President Washington recruited a militia from the surrounding states (to their everlasting shame) --- which was dubbed, derisively, the "watermelon army." After a few more months, during which time some of Neville's sycophants were tarred and feathered just prior to their hasty and unscheduled departures for the east, the rebels, realizing they could not withstand the onslaught of the government, disappeared into the countryside. Two of these stalwarts were tried for treason, convicted, and pardoned by Washington. Thomas Jefferson condemned the use of military force and Hamilton's arrogation of power by the feds. It was, along with some other intraparty miscues, the (ignominious) end of the Federalist Party. Jefferson was elected as a Republican-Democrat in 1800, defeating John Adams in his bid for a second term. You will not read much, if any, of this in your local newspaper, but I am committed to bringing back the memory of this mirific and glorious event in the history of our great country, so mark your calendars for July 16th accordingly, and drink a toast to those who knew how to deal with corruption and greed in high places, and share a moment of silence for Oliver Miller and James McFarlane, the first two American patriots killed by their own government. Credit where credit is due department: read Thomas P. Slaughter's The Whiskey Rebellion (Oxford University Press) for the whole unvarnished story. ********************* The Covenant Syndicate is presently distributed as a free service to media outlets and select electronic distribution lists. If you enjoy this, feel free to recommend these to your local newspaper for inclusion. For permission to reprint, contact David Hall at: dhall@capo.org P.S. Our columnists are also available for radio/TV interviews or comment. Please contact them directly at their email address for your programs; or for more information, contact David Hall at: dhall@capo.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Mr. Cannon signed on, where is Mr. Cook? Date: 11 Jul 1997 15:34:20 -0700 (Thursday, July 10) -- The momentum in support of Rep. Chenoweth's bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun ban continues to grow. The list of cosponsors to H.R. 1009 is now up to 29, as Rep. Chenoweth's bill continues to be the "bill of choice" for Representatives to cosponsor. (Its nearest competitor has only 17 cosponsors.) As mentioned in last month's alert, GOA personnel will join Rep. Chenoweth and representatives of several grassroots organizations this upcoming Monday to focus attention on the dangers of the Lautenberg gun ban. GOA will be calling on other Representatives to join Mrs. Chenoweth and cosponsor H.R. 1009. Check out the following list of cosponsors to H.R. 1009. If your legislator is not listed, send him a Western Union mailgram and encourage him to get on the stick! BUNNING (R-KY) KIM (R-CA) CANNON (R-UT) LaHOOD (R-IL) CHAMBLISS (R-GA) LEWIS, R (R-KY) COBURN (R-OK) McINTOSH (R-IN) COOKSEY (R-LA) PAUL (R-TX) CRAPO (R-ID) PICKETT (D-VA) CUBIN (R-WY) SKEEN (R-NM) DICKEY (R-AR) SMITH (R-MI) DOOLITTLE (R-CA) SPENCE (R-SC) GIBBONS (R-NV) STUMP (R-AZ) GOODE (D-VA) THORNBERRY (R-TX) HASTINGS (R-WA) WATTS (R-OK) HERGER (R-CA) WICKER (R-MS) HILL (R-MT) YOUNG, D (R-AK) HOSTETTLER (R-IN) Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585, fax: 321-8408, http://www.gunowners.org Received: from multiverse.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA13941; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 07:20:36 -0600 Received: from whqvax.picker.com (whqvax.picker.com [144.54.1.1]) by multiverse.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/dml/dilbert2.0) with SMTP id JAA15462 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:23:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ct.picker.com by whqvax.picker.com with SMTP; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 9:22:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from burton.ct.picker.com ([144.54.57.68]) by ct.picker.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02505; Fri, 11 Jul 97 09:22:55 EDT Received: by burton.ct.picker.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07798; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:22:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199707111322.JAA07798@burton.ct.picker.com> X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII GOA set for new offensive as more Reps. jump on the full Lautenberg repeal -- Last chance to send Western Union Mailgram and sign petition by Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585, fax: 321-8408, http://www.gunowners.org (Thursday, July 10) -- The momentum in support of Rep. Chenoweth's bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun ban continues to grow. The list of cosponsors to H.R. 1009 is now up to 29, as Rep. Chenoweth's bill continues to be the "bill of choice" for Representatives to cosponsor. (Its nearest competitor has only 17 cosponsors.) As mentioned in last month's alert, GOA personnel will join Rep. Chenoweth and representatives of several grassroots organizations this upcoming Monday to focus attention on the dangers of the Lautenberg gun ban. GOA will be calling on other Representatives to join Mrs. Chenoweth and cosponsor H.R. 1009. Check out the following list of cosponsors to H.R. 1009. If your legislator is not listed, send him a Western Union mailgram and encourage him to get on the stick! BUNNING (R-KY) KIM (R-CA) CANNON (R-UT) LaHOOD (R-IL) CHAMBLISS (R-GA) LEWIS, R (R-KY) COBURN (R-OK) McINTOSH (R-IN) COOKSEY (R-LA) PAUL (R-TX) CRAPO (R-ID) PICKETT (D-VA) CUBIN (R-WY) SKEEN (R-NM) DICKEY (R-AR) SMITH (R-MI) DOOLITTLE (R-CA) SPENCE (R-SC) GIBBONS (R-NV) STUMP (R-AZ) GOODE (D-VA) THORNBERRY (R-TX) HASTINGS (R-WA) WATTS (R-OK) HERGER (R-CA) WICKER (R-MS) HILL (R-MT) YOUNG, D (R-AK) HOSTETTLER (R-IN) ACTION: This is your last chance to send a Western Union mailgram in support of H.R. 1009, the only bill in the Congress that will fully repeal the Lautenberg gun ban. Call 1-800-651-1486. Get your neighbors and gun clubs to send a message as well, as GOA will soon be changing the mailgram message. A fee of $6.95 will be charged to a person's phone bill for a mailgram requesting their Congressman to cosponsor the Chenoweth bill. ACTION: Sign the Women Against Gun Control Petition. At Monday's press conference (mentioned above), Women Against Gun Control (WAGC) will present Rep. Chenoweth with petitions in support of the Lautenberg repeal -- petitions that many of you have signed. Note: if you have not as yet signed the WAGC petition, a cgi version is at http://www.gunowners.org/petition.htm on the GOA website. We will append your personal information and any comment you care to make to a copy of the petition and deliver it to WAGC. Men and women both are invited to sign. Help make the presentation of the petition a tremendous moment. If you do not have web access, we will fax or e-mail you a copy upon request. ******************************************************************** Victory in the States! Bureaucrats Throw in the Towel on Fingerprints (for now) Gun owners and liberty activists won a stunning victory in Alabama by defeating the Department of Public Safety's plan to fingerprint driver's license applicants and encode the print in government computers. Understanding that computerizing fingerprints into driver's license data bases is part of the architecture for gun owner registration, GOA joined efforts to oppose this scheme. Confirming GOA concerns was a statement by U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich on CNN calling for the computerized scanning of gun buyers fingerprints through the so-called "national instant check." Thanks need to go to Linda Muller's "Fight the Fingerprint" e-mail list ( http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml ), Cyndee Parker's Coalition to Repeal the Fingerprint Law in Georgia ( http://www.mcwebs.com/repeal ), and all those who helped them as well. Gun Owners rising up against FBI Fingerprint Registration Gun owners are winning victories against fingerprinting in suprising places. On Monday, July 7, 1997 the board in the major suburban Virginia jurisdiction of Fairfax County (just outside of Washington, DC) defeated a proposal to fingerprint concealed carry applicants on a 5 to 5 tie vote. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, South Dakota and, of course, Vermont are among several states that do not fingerprint persons who get concealed carry permits. Pennsylvania, with over five hundred thousand permits issued, has little or no problem with honest gun owners carrying for self-defense. Sadly an effort in Ohio to fingerprint concealed carry applicants is being led by Reps. Bill Batchelder (R-81) and Joy Padgett (R-95). GOA informed Rep. Batcheleder in a one-on-one meeting of the success of the Pennsylvania process which eschews fingerprints. Yet, he and Rep. Padgett continue to ignore grassroots activists, and thus, are feeling the heat from gun owners who oppose fingerprints, high fees and other anti-gun carry restrictions. ******************************************************************** Are you receiving this as a cross-post? You can subscribe to our E-mail Alert Network directly. Address your request to goamail@gunowners.org and include in the body of the message either your state of residence or the word "all". If you subscribe by state, you will receive every federal alert plus alerts which are specific to your home state. Requesting "all" means you will receive all alerts generated whether federal or state in nature. That address should also be used if you wish to unsubscribe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Mr. Cannon signed on, where is Mr. Cook? Date: 11 Jul 1997 16:35:10 -0600 Afraid to offend the liberals. I plan to attend his next town meeting and call him on this one. If we have roughly the same turnout of conservatives as we did last time, he may have some explaining to do. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Three millions of People, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." -- Patrick Henry (1736-1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: FBI INFORMANT Date: 14 Jul 1997 15:43:25 -0700 McCurtain Daily Gazette (Idabel, Oklahoma) 1 July 1997 THE REV. ROBERT MILLAR IDENTIFIED AS FBI INFORMANT By J.D. Cash Tulsa-- Near pandemonium broke out in a federal courtroom here Monday when a senior agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shocked observers by telling the court that the spiritual leader of Elohim City, the Rev. Robert Millar, was a confidential informant for the FBI. The McCurtain Daily Gazette has long been reporting that Elohim City is a religious and paramilitary compound in east-central Oklahoma that is frequented by some of the most dangerous members of the neo-Nazi iunderground in the United States and Canada. Although residents of the cult have continued to deny it publicly, the Gazette has reported that its sources believe one of those shadowy figures was Timothy McVeigh.Stories published in this newspaper have also exposed Elohim City as the center of a wide-ranging conspiracy to overthrow the federal government by members of a group called the Aryan Republican Army. Several of those members have since been arrested on charges related to a string of bank robberies across the midwestern United States. The incredible revelation that the leader of Elohim City himself was part of a government intelligence operation came during a pre-trial hearing associated with the upcoming trial of another confidential informant and frequenter of the compound, Carol E. Howe. Howe, a former Tulsa beauty queen, debutante and one-time paid undercover informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, is scheduled to stand trial later this month for conspiracy charges associated with making bomb threats and possession of bomb-making components. Howe was indicted shortly after the Gazette reported that she intended to be a key witness in the trial of Timothy McVeigh.U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch, who presided over the McVeigh trial, refused to let Howe testify in Denver-- ruling that her information that Elohim City was the center of the bombing conspiracy "might confuse the jury." Under questioning Monday by Howe attorney Clark Brewster of Tulsa, Special Agent Peter Rickel stunned everyone when he reluctantly admitted that the man Elohim City cult members call "Grandpa" is really a cooperating source for the FBI. Millar's status as a confidential informant began in the fall of 1994.The FBI admitted in court that Millar was a paid confidential informant, although the amount of his paycheck was not revealed. When Rickel disclosed this startling information, a senior FBI agent and several U.S. attorneys bolted from the courtroom in an agitated state. Millar's encampment was heretofore considered by experts in domestic terrorism to be the "Switzerland" of the neo-Nazi movement in the United States.Elohim City, a 1,000-acre area of rolling timberland, is the residence of some 80 followers. But more importantly, it has played host to some of this nation's most notable subversives. Thus Millar's position as a mole for the FBI could explain why the compound has never been raided.Despite its use as a hideout for gunrunners, drug dealers, bank robbers and suspected members of the conspiracy that bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Elohim City has enjoyed a reputation as a place fugitives can live without fear of arrest. In the weeks before the Oklahoma City bombing, BATF agent Angela Findley had planned to raid the compound and arrest its security advisor, Andreas Carl Strassmeir. Strassmeir, an illegal alien who migrated to Elohim City from Germany, was supected by Findley of converting semi-automatic weapons to machine guns as well as plotting with other Elohim City residents and visitors to bomb federal installations. Carol Howe reported to Findley during the time she worked for the BATF.Howe told Findley that Strassmeir was the ringleader in the plot to bomb the Oklahoma City federal building and that Millar was preaching twice a day to his flock that the group had to act by April 19, 1995, or they would end up like the Branch Davidians in Waco. The arrest of Strassmeir was scrubbed after senior members of the BATF, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office met in February, 1995 and discussed Findley's plan. Sources have told the Gazette that Strassmeir was also an important source of intelligence for the U.S. government.In January, 1996, shortly after it was discovered that it was Strassmeir that Timothy McVeigh had called for in the days before the bombing, the German national fled to his native Berlin with the aid of German intelligence officers. With Millar now exposed, the loss of Elohim City as a virtual nest of spies for the U.S. intelligence community is almost assured.But such a loss could have consequences far beyond the obvious.If Millar was reporting a wider conspiracy to bomb the Oklahoma City federal building, and those reports were not subsequently turned over to Timothy McVeigh's defense team, then the withholding of such critical information by the FBI could get McVeigh a new trial. Those reports, as well as Howe's, will likely be sought by the defense teams for both McVeigh and Terry Nichols and may also be subpoenaed by the grand jury convened in Oklahoma City to investigate the bombing. Also those reports could prove important in several civil suits that are pending against the government for its alleged failure to notify the occupants of the Murrah building that there was a heightened risk of danger on April 19, 1995. And Congress is also looking into the government's intelligence role in the bombing. Calls to the compound to get Millar's comments about the situation were not returned. END OF STORY ******************************************** JDT Commentary: Three other observations about the hearing not mentioned by J.D. in his story-- 1. The Feds were particularly interested in a discovery motion that they filed against the accused, Carol Howe. Howe it seems had the effrontery to tape many of her phone calls with Angela Findley, her ATF handler. The government would like to get copies of the tapes before Findley goes on the stand and commits perjury. The Feds are very put out that Ms. Howe would use their own tactics on them. We say: "Bravo, Carol!!" 2. The fed witnesses, while afflicted with a tremendous amount of "earlier onset of Alzheimer's" (as in "I don't recall...." and "I can't remember......") did spend an inordinate amount of time trying to shield Unterscheissfuhrer Dennis Mahon of the White Aryan Resistance from negative allegations made by Carol Howe about bomb making plans, components, etc."It was almost as if Mahon was also a snitch, even though one FBI man denied it on the stand," said one witness in the courtroom interviewed by this writer. Perhaps the Feds and Dennis have reached a "modus vivendi" with each other on the subject of Carol Howe. 3. If Millar really was an FBI snitch/provocateur before the bombing, that would make most of the senior leadership at Elohim City at one time or another to be Federales-- Millar, Ellison, Strassmeir, etc. Indeed, not even in Czarist Russia did the secret police send paidprovocateurs to provoke other paid provocateurs. Elohim City can thus be seen in its true light-- not as an operation infiltrated and suborned by infiltrators-- but rather as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the FBI/ATF. This throws McVeigh's E.C. days in a whole new light.It also begs the question of what happens to Millar now... does he face a new Night of the Long Knives when the E.C. "herrenvolk" find their "Pastor" has been passing the plate to the Feds?? What, too, will happen to Special Agent in Charge Thomas Kukor of the OKC FBI office? I guess we now know what happened when he "sang in the choir" on special trips to E.C. Was Kukor playing "choirboy" or "bagman" for the coverup when he visited Elohim City on his "community outreach program?" One thing is certain: the FBI could open a new money-making opportunity:franchised #Rent-A-Nazi" outlets. They own so many of them they might as well put them to some use that doesn't get buildings blown up and hundreds of people killed. Just a thought. -- Mike Vanderboegh, 1 ACR Editor, The John Doe Times Posted here July 4, 1997 Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ Peter L. Sroufe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: U. Students Can't Be Armed Date: 16 Jul 1997 08:53:43 -0700 Wednesday, July 16, 1997 U. Students Can't Be Armed, Trustees Rule BY DAN EGAN THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE ### ### The University of Utah soon could find itself in the thick of a fight over the state's concealed-weapons law. ### Monday, the U.'s Board of Trustees approved a student-behavior code that prohibits students from carrying weapons on campus unless they have explicit approval from school officials. ### The policy has the backing of many in the university community. ### ``The nature of a university campus is one where there is a free exchange of ideas, and I'd be afraid to exchange my free ideas with someone else if one of us may be armed,'' said U. Police Chief Bob Wilson. ### Gun advocates contend the policy violates the state's 1995 liberalized concealed-weapons law, which allows permit holders to carry their firearms ``without restriction.'' ### ``The university can pass all the laws they want, but legally they cannot restrict concealed-carry permit holders on campus,'' said Joe Venus Jr., publisher of American Gun Review magazine. ### ``It doesn't matter if they are students or average people going to [use] the Marriott Library. It's very clear under state law,'' he said. ### Venus contends the concealed-weapons law gives permit holders the right to take their guns in any public place, though he acknowledged private-property owners, such as churches and private schools, can prohibit guns on their land. ### Brigham Young University, for example, does not allow anyone to bring a gun on campus, said school spokeswoman Carri Jenkins. ### ``Though we're not happy with that, private-property owners can pretty much do what they want,'' said Venus. ### Venus said he intends to meet with U. leaders to discuss the issue, and hopes they will agree with his interpretation of the law. ### If they don't, ``we'll look into this and we'll take whatever action is necessary,'' he said. ### The U. apparently has had a no-gun rule since the late 1970s, said U. attorney Laura Scott. ### Monday's vote affirmed that policy and takes it a step further. The new code also prohibits guns at off-campus university activities such as athletic events. ### The U. isn't the only institution within the state's nine-school higher-education system to have a policy restricting weapons on campus. Weber State, scene of a fatal shooting in 1993, prohibits guns as well. ### Utah State University has a ban against ``unauthorized'' guns, but the policy does not address concealed-weapons permit holders. The school is considering a wider ban similar to the U.'s, said USU Vice President Paul Norton. ### ``Most schools do have their own policies,'' said Patricia Crane, spokeswoman for the Utah System of Higher Education. ``Some only have to do with on-campus housing. Other policies extend further than that.'' ### Higher-education attorney Harden Eyring said the system is interested in changing the law so there could be no question about the issue. ``There is a general sense within the system that campuses would be safer without weapons,'' he said. ### A similar uniform ban would be welcomed in Utah's public schools, said Doug Bates, an attorney for the Utah State Office of Education. ### Bates said individual districts have adopted bans, but he would like to see a uniform gun restriction implemented by a new law. ### State lawmakers said they would consider changing the law during the last legislative session, though they subsequently backed off. ### Steve Gunn, an attorney and board member of Utahns Against Gun Violence, said his group is searching for a sponsor to introduce a new law that would ban concealed weapons in churches, public and private schools and hospitals, among other places. ### ``The law that is on the books now is seriously flawed,'' Gunn said. ``It's one that was passed in haste and without due consideration for its ramifications.'' ### Venus maintains that holders of concealed-weapons permits are responsible gun owners, and no one has been able to demonstrate the new law is a problem. #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: Will Thompson Subject: UofU students/CCW Date: 16 Jul 1997 16:41:49 -0600 Hiya Any other students here who have CCW? Thanks Will ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bruce Lovell Subject: UTAH CCW---2 QUESTIONS Date: 16 Jul 1997 23:04:49 -0600 (MDT) Greetings! I live in Colorado but I have a Utah CCW which I obtained in 1996. I have two questions which hopefully someone on this list can answer: Question 1: When I received my Utah permit the info sheet that came with it said that "If you are stopped by the police you should notify as soon as possible that you have a permit and are carrying or have a firearm in your vehicle, etc" or words to that effect. My question is: Does this really have the force of law or is it just somebody's idea at Public Safety that it would be advisable to tell the officer? Is this requirement actually in the Utah Statute? Question 2: Around the first of this year I heard that an effort was to be made to get the Utah legislature to pass legislation restricting places where one could carry even with a CCW. I heard that places like schools, universities, churches, bars, state and local government facilities, etc were being considered for restrictions. Has any such legislation passed restricting places one can carry? If not, is there much likelihood of passage this legislative season? Bruce A. Lovell PGP Public Key available on request Boulder, Colorado USA E-Mail: lovell@netcom.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: UTAH CCW---2 QUESTIONS Date: 17 Jul 1997 13:38:43 -0600 On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Bruce Lovell posted: >Greetings! I live in Colorado but I have a Utah CCW which I obtained in >1996. I have two questions which hopefully someone on this list can answer: Bruce, I was waiting for someone more knowledgable than myself to answer your questions, but haven't seen anything come through yet. So I'll give it a jab. > >Question 1: > >When I received my Utah permit the info sheet that came with it said that >"If you are stopped by the police you should notify as soon as possible >that you have a permit and are carrying or have a firearm in your >vehicle, etc" or words to that effect. > >My question is: Does this really have the force of law or is it just >somebody's idea at Public Safety that it would be advisable to tell the >officer? Is this requirement actually in the Utah Statute? I have not done a comprehensive search of Utah Statute, but I have purused the various sections dealing with guns a bit. I have never seen anything that would require a person to tell a peace officer about the presence of gun or a permit. I do not have a CCW but almost always keep a gun in the car in a manner legal for one not holding a CCW. My basic theory on traffic stops is this: 1- Avoid giving any reasons to be stopped in the first place. 2- If stopped do not give out any unneeded info. I simply see no need to turn a 2 minute stop over a burned out tail light into a 15 or 30 minute ordeal while some potentially anti-gun (or simply overly nervous) LEO type runs every computer check he can think of. I also see no need to make some officer nervous over something that is none of his business. So long as the probability of him seeing my gun is nill (ie it is under a seat or in a good concealed rig) he doesn't need to know. However, if the likelyhood of him seeing my gun is high, I'd rather tell him about it first so as to show I have nothing to hide and hopefully decrease any perceived threat. This would be the case if the gun were sitting on the seat, in the glove box on top of the registration he just asked for, or if he was about to search me or my car. At that point, with both hands on the wheel, I'd camly and clearly say something to the effect (if I had a permit), "For my safety and yours I'd like you to be aware that I have a State issued permit to carry a concealed weapon and that there is a weapon in the car (or on my person)." Since I don't have a permit I'd ommit that part and substitute something like "in compliance with State law". With a permit I'd be very sure to state that fact very clearly before mentioning the gun so there is no chance for him to mistake my disclosure for a threat. > >Question 2: Around the first of this year I heard that an effort was to >be made to get the Utah legislature to pass legislation restricting >places where one could carry even with a CCW. I heard that places like >schools, universities, churches, bars, state and local government >facilities, etc were being considered for restrictions. > >Has any such legislation passed restricting places one can carry? If not, >is there much likelihood of passage this legislative season? No such legislation has passed. The legislature is out of regular session for a few more months and nothing on this front has come up in the two special sessions of which I am aware. With the hub-bub created and perpetuated by the media and antis, you can be sure it will be on the agenda this winter. In spite of the fact that the only permit holder of whom I am aware who has been convicted of a gun related crime was one of our former legislator who was charged with and plead to discharging a firearm inside city limits (into a soft dirt ditch to scare a fleeing criminal), I'd bet that there will be some kind of restriction placed on CCW permits. First of all, the law is vague on private property and, IMHO, needs to be cleared up so that private property rights are respected. So long as the property is really private and I do not have to enter, I have no problem with the owner restricting guns (or mormons or Jews or whites, blacks, or martians for that matter) so long as they clearly post their position so that I don't violate the law inadvertantly. Retail stores will generate a lot of discussion in this regard. Second, areas like day cares and grade schools are just way too emotional of places not to get restricted. After all, there is virtually no one who is willing to challenge the antis' and media's claims that guns don't belong in schools. And there are VERY few to none who are willing who are both articulate enough to do so well AND are in a position where they will ever be heard. At the very least, expect to see school emplyees and parents disarmed at least during school hours. To be perfectly honest, with the NEA's position on guns, every teacher who continues to pay dues desrves what they get in this area, IMO, though that doesn't justify infringing the rights of other teachers, employees, or parents who need to be on school grounds for some reason.. The trick will be to make sure that the hoplophobes are not able to get Universities and churches thrown in with primary and secondary schools. I have no problem with churches banning guns so long as they are required to post. The antis will want to get the default set to guns being banned unless the church specifically allows it. We need to make sure that the default is that guns are allowed unless the church specifically bans them and posts notices to that effect. Also, both BYU and the UofU have enacted policies against any (non-leo, I'm sure) guns on campus. My opinion is that as private property BYU is free to do so. However, as govt (read public) property, the U should be subject to the State preemption law that prophibits any city or county in the State from enactly gun laws more strict than the State at large. Several school boards have also passed such policies, though I'm not sure how they would enforce it on anyone other than an employee who they could threaten with job related problems. Hope my long winded response helps somewhat. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gun Prohibitionists Dig Dirt, Not Science Date: 18 Jul 1997 11:51:00 -0700 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY! Dear Friends, For quite a while now we've known that the gun-grabbers were interested in disarming all of us in order to gain and keep power. We've known that their so-called "science" was utterly fraudulent, funded by the politically-controlled National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a division of the Centers for Disease Control), and published by "politically correct" medical journals totally devoid of any integrity. Even Congress, hardly a bastion of ethics, was appalled at the degree of fraud and professional misconduct supported and funded with OUR tax dollars. Now however, it appears that the gun-grabbers have abandoned even the pretense of professionalism or scientific inquiry. On July 16, Dr. Katherine Kaufer Christoffel, Medical Director of the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP), sent the following internet message: "In a message dated 07/16/97 08:23:52, kkauferchristoffel@nwu.edu (Katherine Kaufer Christoffel) wrote: "<>" "this group" refers to Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR) "VPC" refers to the Violent Injury Prevention Center, located at Children's Memorial Medical Center in Chicago. HELP is "located at" VPC. In other words, Dr. Christoffel, and her colleagues at VPC/HELP, are no longer interested in scientific debate, or even the most basic level of ethical behavior. No doubt they have finally realized that they have been exposed for the charlatans and quacks they are, and have descended into the muck in the hopes of finding some to sling. Not everyone understands the fine points of scientific research or statistics. Not everyone can evaluate the validity of a scientific study. But EVERYONE knows what "digging dirt" is! Since Dr. Christoffel seems concerned that gun rights advocates are somehow "dirty", I'd suggest that each of us write her a polite note listing our credentials and assuring her that we have no "dirt" in our backgrounds for her to dig up. Her e-mail address is kkauferchristoffel@nwu.edu. Copies should be sent to the other recipients of her request for dirt as well. Their addresses are: kimc@theramp.net, rtanz@nwu.edu and kristinpeterson@nwu.edu. Another copy should go to HELP at cmh-helpnet@nwu.edu. More important, the people and foundations who fund Dr. Christoffel and her colleagues deserve to know exactly what it is that they're funding. Even those persons who are sincerely and honestly ANTI-GUN should be outraged at this sort of misconduct! And since we, as taxpayers, are helping to support these tax-exempt foundations, we have the obligation to demand accountability. HELP is funded primarily by The Joyce Foundation and The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Please write to these foundations and request that they justify their funding for such "scientific inquiry". The Joyce Foundation can be reached at info@joycefdn.org The MacArthur Foundation can be reached at 4answers@macfdn.org A full list of supporters of HELP can be found on their Web Page http://www.childmmc.edu/HELP/helphome.htm Finally, please consider making a donation to Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research. Edgar Suter, M.D., the National Chair, has been at the forefront of those exposing the junk science used by the gun prohibitionists, and he certainly doesn't have millions of dollars in foundation and government funding. (In the interest of honesty, ethics, and full disclosure: I am a member, and Director of Women's Affairs for DIPR, and consider Ed a friend. However, I have no financial interest in the organization at all, and Ed doesn't know I'm including this plea!) Doctors for Integrity in Research Policy, Inc. 5201 Norris Canyon Road Suite 220 San Ramon, CA 94583 EdgarSuter@aol.com voice 510-277-0333 FAX 510-277-1568 For those people who either don't have e-mail access or prefer to use snailmail or fax, addresses are below. HELP Network Children's Memorial Hospital 2300 Children's Plaza, #88 Chicago, Illinois 60614 (773) 880-3826 (773) 880-6615 (Fax) Violent Injury Prevention Center (VIPC) Children's Memorial Hospital 2300 Children's Plaza, #88 Chicago, Illinois 60614 (773) 880-3261 (773) 880-6615 (Fax) Office of Grants Management, Research and Information The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation 140 S. Dearborn St. Ste. 1100 Chicago, IL 60603-5285 USA E-mail: 4answers@macfdn.org (312) 726-8000 If you would like more information on either the research studies, or on Dr. Suter's correspondence with HELP, please contact either me or Dr. Suter. PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY! Thank you! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Righter PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: The Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi Date: 18 Jul 1997 12:34:00 -0700 Forward via Patricia Neill and Monte http://www.proliberty.com/observer Hi Folks - I just thought some of you would get as much of a kick out of the following as I did. I've known Dr. Edgar Suter here on the net for several years; he's a good guy, and has done a lot for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in America. He's had many articles published in a number of important publications. His speech is *usually* a little more down to earth than this rebuttal is, but this situation warranted exactly what he wrote. Many of his medical peers are extreme liberals that equate guns with disease; Edgar's articles invariably take them to task and blow them out of the water. Hope you enjoy this! His answer follows a letter from someone who had rejected one of his articles... :) - Monte American Public Health Association Mervyn Susser, MB, BCh. FRCP(E), DPH Editor, American Journal of Public Health Office of the Editor Columbia University Sergievsky Center P&S Box 16 630 West 168th Street New York, NY 10032 Phone: 212/305-9081 FAX: 212/305-9080 e-mail wilcoxj@sergievsky. cpmc.columbia.edu July 11, 1997 [To:] Edgar A. Suter, MD National Chair Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Policy [sic] 5201 Norris Canyon Road, Suite 220 San Ramon, CA 94583-5405 Ms # 97/019L Letter to the Editor entitled: "Suter re: Stat Methods." Dear Dr. Suter: I am of course under no obligation to answer an open letter, but it might assist you in judging scientific publishing if in this case I respond briefly. Just as obviously you do with much else you read (as I infer from the 2 letters you have sent me) you seem to respect neither the precision of language nor the conventions of scientific discourse. My rejection letter indicated that we have no "place" for your letter, not no "space" as you interpret it. In this instance, that was a polite way of saying that your letter does not measure up to the scientific and literary standards for publication in the Journal. Sincerely, Mervyn Susser, MD MWS/jw cc: Nancy Johnson David Hemenway ******************* July 17, 1997 Dear Dr. Susser, You dissemble. Your boastful claim notwithstanding, there was no nuance to your rejection of my letter criticizing your Hemenway & Richardson polemic. There was no nuance to be lost on me. Your ostentatious and rebuttable claims of high standards aside, your rejection was - and remains - nothing more than a clumsy and transparent effort to conceal the salient and humiliating facts. Your self-acclaimed peer-review escaped noticing that a grossly incompetent piece by known advocates failed the most basic statistical standards, standards that are even espoused, as I referenced, in print for all to see, by your sister prohibitionists at the New England Journal of Medicine. Your self-vaunted peer-review failed to notice that the authors had not reported on critical portions of their survey instrument. Empty puffery and ham-fisted insults can neither undo the egregious errors foisted upon you by the authors nor conceal the dishonesty perpetrated by you upon your readers. You confuse "conventional scientific discourse" with prevarication. AJ Liebling wrote that "Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one." You, Sir, have not yet awakened to one of the most liberating truths of the Information Age. Allow us to stun you awake. We, Sir, own a printing press and the errors of your science and the lapses in your ethics, by the time you receive this, will have been considered by one-thousand times the readership of your insular cellulose fief. Your humble colleague and nagging conscience, Edgar A. Suter MD National Chair Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research Inc. 5201 Norris Canyon Road, Suite 220 San Ramon, CA 94583-5405 voice 510-277-0333 FAX 510-277-1568 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: RELINING AMERICA'S BIRDCAGES Date: 18 Jul 1997 17:00:43 -0700 RELINING AMERICA'S BIRDCAGES By L. Neil Smith Exclusive to _The Libertarian Enterprise_ Historians of the future -- like paleobiologists describing some bizarre underseascape populated with crinoids, trilobites, and giant water-breathing scorpions -- will regard the century we've almost lived through as the "Age of Lies". We all swim in an ocean of lies, every day. Some of us even drown in them. How many people do you know who still believe that Jack Kennedy was shot by a lone assassin? Or that if the Navy says it didn't shoot down TWA 800, then it didn't. Or that the government couldn't possibly have murdered those women and children near Waco? One belief we all share, however, is that if more people knew the truth -- about JFK, TWA 800, Waco, the Federal Reserve, Social Security, or anything else that the government, the public schools, and the media use each other to lie to us about -- we'd have a chance at a better world. For decades, many individuals and entire movements have tried tackling the government on its own terms and failed miserably. Government will be the last thing that changes. It should be obvious by now to anybody with half a brain that politics -- at least at the national level -- is not the answer to any question anybody genuinely concerned with individual liberty ever intended to ask. The school system is in the process of self-destructing, as surely as if Captain Kirk, Scotty, and Mr. Spock were giving it all the proper passwords. Not only has it abandoned any pretense at teaching kids what they must know to become autonomous adults, in favor of pumping them full of fascist propaganda, it's now fallen victim to its own agenda. NEA union members unable to read, write, or calculate themselves, and who know nothing of science, economics, or history, can only pretend to earn their overbloated salaries by battling the "Menace of Midol", enforcing "political correctness", and confiscating pocket knives too small to be of utility for anything but skinning and field-dressing butterflies. There _is_ a way to knock another leg from under the three-legged stool of government, public schools, and media, a workable substitute for conventional politics that demands no compromise on the part of those who wish to be free. What's more, if the enemies of liberty possess no integrity, it can even make that fact an asset, instead of the frustrating liability it's always seemed to be. From now on, whenever you hear reporters lying on radio or television, or read lies they've written in newspapers or magazines -- about the internet, about your right to own and carry weapons, about Waco, about anything -- wait for the next commercial, or take note of the nearest quarter- or half-page advertisement, the kind of ads that constitute a publication's "bread and butter". Now ordinarily, if you did anything about any of the million lies a day the media spew at you and your children, it would simply be to complain about it to a friend in person or on the internet, or write a letter to the editor. A letter you know will be published only if it makes your side look like a gaggle of lunatics. A letter which, if it fails to serve their purposes, the editorial crew will snigger at obscenely, crumple into a sweaty little ball, and toss into the circular file -- "_Missed, dammit!_ How about three out of five?" Instead of going through that useless empty ritual one more time, write your letter to that advertiser, telling him about what you've just read in the publication, or heard on the station, whose bills he pays with his advertising fees. Tell him the intellectual thugs whose wages he pays are lying about all the vital issues of the day. (Each of us has his own pet peeve, and you can stick to that if you prefer.) They're trying to help vile pressure groups and politicians deprive you of your rights. They're trying to get you injured or killed -- and even worse, to get your _children_ injured or killed -- on _his_ nickel! Pretend you're a liberal, or that he is. Don't let it sound intellectual. Keep it easily understandable, expressed in short words and shorter sentences. Stick to one concept per letter. Make your pen or keyboard drip with emotion. Think with your tear ducts (and parts south). Tell him he's helping evil be perpetrated. He pays for it, therefore it's his fault. If he's the average guy who manages a furniture store, he won't know what to do with a letter like this, blaming him for all the world's problems. If he gets a _dozen_, and they all seem independent and spontaneous, he may quit selling furniture and join a monastery! So now it's time to reverse yourself (remember, you're a liberal, or he is) and let him off the hook. Tell him that you don't necessarily hold him responsible. After all, we're men of the world. We know that newspaper and TV people are the "something worse" that _scum_ keeps from floating to the top. But don't forget to ask him this question: if the newspaper or TV station lies about something as simple and basic, for example, as the Bill of Rights, then why should anybody believe anything they have say about _his_ goods or services? Don't threaten or bluster -- nobody actually gives a damn in any case, and your guilt-trip was just a buildup to the punchline -- simply demand an answer to your question. If they'll lie about A and B then why not C and D? Now comes the most important part: be sure and send a copy of your letter to the newspaper or television station. But _don't_ send it to the editorial department. Send it to the _advertising_ manager. He'll pay close attention to it. He never _gets_ any letters, except from the advertisers themselves, bitching that last Tuesday's grocery store double-trucker employed the wrong typeface. Unlike the hairsprayheads and J-school graduates upstairs who only _think_ they run the joint, he doesn't care that you can be credibly blown off as a "right-wing kook". He won't argue with you about what the Second Amendment "really" provides. And he won't sniff haughtily that your letter is eleven words over some 400-word limit. The only thing he cares about is advertising revenue. If he thinks editorial's policy is fiscally harmful, he'll go straight to the top management and -- provided you're consistent and persistent enough -- the First Amendment be damned, they'll come down on editorial like a ton of bricks. Before I wrote this column, I checked with Vin Suprynowicz, the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas _Review Journal_, celebrated syndicated columnist, and editor-in-chief of _The Libertarian Enterprise_. Vin's worked all his adult life at papers of varying size across the country. I asked him if the idea was sound and how many letters might be required to have noticable effect. Vin astonished me by replying that six or seven letters a week for three to five months would probably do the trick. I'd thought it would take many times that number and at least twice that long. If he's only half right, then a mere 300 letters could, in only half a year, change the editorial policy of the most left-wing metropolitan birdcage liners. As if by a miracle (the usual kind, requiring lots of elbow-grease and skull-sweat on our part) the "little men" by whom we find ourselves governed will have lost one more pillar of support. Naturally, there's no reason you can't wage this kind of campaign all by yourself. On the other hand, if you and your friends get together and hold a "Libertyware Party" on a regular basis -- say, monthly -- you can share any research you've done (you may find that addresses are remarkably hard to root out for certain national advertisers who want your money but don't want any other kind of contact with their customers) and plan ways to distribute your letters throughout the month in order to make them appear as independent and spontaneous as you want them to. Be sure you all use different kinds of paper or stationery, different ink colors, and different handwriting, typewriters, or printer typefaces. It sure beats standing in the rain collecting petition signatures. Electoral politics has failed. It's time to take the same energy and put it into an undertaking which can achieve more than our late lamented LPUS ever achieved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Tribune Editorial Date: 21 Jul 1997 08:57:18 -0700 Monday, July 21, 1997 More Gun `Facts' Toni Marie Sutliff's letter (Forum, July 1) was short on facts and long on opinion. I find it odd that her ``fact'' that the Second Amendment protects only the National Guard is not known to two sitting Supreme Court justices. In writing his concurring opinion in the recent Brady Bill case, Justice Clarence Thomas notes that, along with the Tenth Amendment, ``[t]he Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority,'' and that the ``Federal Government's regulatory scheme . . . at least as it pertains to the possession of firearms, runs afoul of that amendment's protection.'' Since the Brady Bill is a restriction on individual possession of firearms and not the National Guard, it appears that Justice Thomas believes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and not a state power. In ``A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law'' (Princeton University Press, 1997), Justice Antonin Scalia states: ``It would . . . be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated Militia -- and to find that purely institutional guarantee accorded a position of great prominence immediately following freedom of religion and freedom of speech.'' Sutliff's ``fact'' that ``guns, especially handguns, have no purpose other than destruction'' is probably true in the frightened minds of the gun banners. However, in the real world a gun's purpose is generally determined by its user. Civilians and police carry guns for the protection of their lives, not to reign down destruction on society. I have friends who have guns that they never intend to shoot; the purpose their guns serve them is simply the joy of owning a beautiful piece of machinery. And, if Sutliff would bother to stop by a shooting range one weekend, she would find people using guns, including those evil, dreaded handguns, for purposes no more sinister and destructive than an enjoyable day of target shooting. On the issue of holding gun manufacturers and retailers liable for the criminal misuse of guns, Sutliff states that we do not hold toolmakers responsible for murders committed with their tools, since the tool manufacturer can reasonably assume the buyer will use the product in a legitimate way. This logic would seem to preclude holding gun manufacturers liable, since most guns sold will be used in a legitimate way and only a very, very small number will ever be used to commit a crime. WILLIAM SCOTT Park City #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: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Gun-Free School Zones Act Date: 18 Jul 1997 15:52:53 -0700 reposted from Newsgroup talk.politics.guns Item from AP: It seems that in urging the Supreme Court to reinstate a federal-level ban on firearms within 1000 feet of schools (the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act), the Clinton administration argues that the national economy is adversely affected by gun-related violence at schools. Therefore, the reasoning continues, Congress was authorized to institute the ban under (you guessed it) the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution. Said Solicitor General Drew S Day III, "This is not about just regulating guns. Congress is concerned with this impact on the national economy." Asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "Is there any violent crime that doesn't affect interstate commerce under your rationale?" Ginsburg later asked Days to cite an example of a law which Congress would NOT have the authority to enact under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Interjected Justice Scalia, "Don't give away anything here. They might want to do it." ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: A well-regulated population... Date: 18 Jul 1997 15:55:32 -0700 WEST MIDLANDS POLICE Explosives & Firearms Department18 June 1997 FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1997 COMPENSATION SCHEME I am directed by the Chief Constable to remind you that the above Act com= es into force on 1 July 1997. Under the terms of the Act, all large calibre= handguns and certain expanding ammunition will become prohibited and must= be handed in under the Government Compensation Scheme. A compensation claim form and a list of values is enclosed. Only one cla= im per certificate holder will be accepted. A similar scheme is available for the small-bore hand guns that you may hold. Ancillary equipment (as per the enclosed list) can also be subject to the= compensation scheme. All items can be surrendered between 4.0 pm and 8.0 pm on the dates liste= d for selected stations or 10.0 am and 6.0 pm at Police Headquarters on any day thoughout the surrender (except Bank Holiday 25 August). If you have any enquiries regarding any matter concerning the compensatio= n scheme, please contact the West Midlands Police Compensation Help Line on= 0121-626 xxxx open between 9.0 am and 5.0 pm Monday to Friday. All compensation application forms and relevant firearms etc. must be handed in not later than 30 September 1997. Yours faithfully R C FORD Inspector for Superintendent -- Notice the way the way they wrap it up into a "compensation scheme". = Sounds almost pleasant, doesn't it? The Government appears to have seriously underestimated the number of affected people, as they have run out of claim forms, and it's doubtful everyone will be notified until after July 1. This letter came with an inch thick pile of guff for me to plough through= =2E = It supposedly lists most popular items, but guns like the Beretta 92FS, SIG-Sauer P220, Colt Series 70 etc are not listed, and only one make of brass, Starline is listed. I am somewhat fortunate in that my certificate expires on the 27th of September, so they're letting me hand it all in then. I hope you never get a letter like this through your door. Here we have = I think the ultimate example as to why gun registration laws should be opposed. Steve. A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy your arms shall no= t be infringed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Preaching to the choir Date: 18 Jul 1997 15:40:33 -0700 Topic No. 6 Message-ID: <199707162138.QAA09818@monarch.papillion.ne.us> On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 16:00:10 -0400 (EDT), Larry Ball wrote: >Mike and all, one thing I did not bring up in my summation of the >article yesterday, neither Kates or Kleck are RKBA fans. They believe >in the gun from its utility value only. They believe in regulation of >the gun by government. In this they are true liberals. The citizen >cannot be trusted to far. Funk discusses this a bit in his review: Kates and Kleck suggest that reasonable controls, such as preventing felons and the insane from possessing firearms, are both constitutional and criminologically sound in light of the current research. But, they maintain, outright prohibition of civilian firearm ownership is neither. While the authors address some constitutional issues, the focus of The Great American Gun Debate is a utilitarian analysis of gun ownership and its effects on criminals and law-abiding citizens alike. This is a strategy that is well worth pursuing: As scholars such as Northwestern Law School's Daniel Polsby have emphasized, the social utility of handguns, not the Second Amendment, is what does and should concern the public most when it comes to gun laws. The authors do note, however, that the academic literature on the Second Amendment is so heavily weighted in favor of interpreting it as protecting the right of individual Americans to possess a firearm that this interpretation has come to be known as the "Standard Model." I think there are two separate arguments here: (1). Constitutional. (2) Practical. Kates and Kleck, particularly Kates, recognize the constitutional argument for RKBA as an individual right to be so persuasive as to be the "standard model." Both, however, recognize that to "Joe and Jane Sixpack," not to mention "Joseph and Janet Champagne," the constitutional argument simply doesn't matter. Kates and Kleck argue that the vast majority of the citizenry are more results-oriented--i.e., they look at the social utility of a position. We in the RKBA/Individual Rights group have not addressed this very well. While IMHO the constitutional argument should settle the issue, the truth is that social utility often predisposes the public, or the justices, to look for a way to defend a particular answer. Accepting (or ignoring, if you wish) that government may constitutionally restrict felons and insane from firearms, the social utility argument then becomes one that both Kleck and Kates argue: society is better off with the armed citizenry described by the Founders and supported by volumes of recent social research (see, e.g., Kleck, Lott, the Vermont and Florida "CCW" experience, etc.) If we had done a better job, starting in at least 1968, of presenting the social utility of firearms as well as the constitutional requirements, then the public would recognize that not only is the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment the correct one, it is the socially desirable one. I'm about 1/3 of the way into John Ross' _Unintended Consequences_, and up to the point I'm at he's done a good job of describing the historical perspective and the genesis of what today is called the "gun culture." Obviously I can't speak for the rest of the book, but I'd suggest anyone subscribing to this list ought to find a copy and read it. Then we need to get it into our libraries and get reviews printed in our Sunday supplements to the Daily Fishwraps of the country, along with Kates' and Kleck's latest and several other recent "pro-RKBA" writings. To sum up, Larry, I'm not sure that you got the point of the Kates/Kleck work: emphasize the social utility because it supports our position and because it's the argument that will persuade them that need persuading. Topic No. 7 Cc: middle@monarch.papillion.ne.us Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970716213528.002dc8f4@inet.skillnet.com> >emphasize the social utility because it supports our position and >because it's the argument that will persuade them that need persuading. Excellent point, Mike, and absolutely correct. We've been preaching to the choir - and giving the wrong sermon too! There are a multitude of examples where the law says one thing, but popular convention says something else. There are still laws in some places which prohibit stores being open on Sunday, require you to honk your auto horn at intersections to warn people on horseback, etc. Nobody even thinks of enforcing them, and every year one or two are removed from the books (thus providing great filler for local newspapers), but plenty of them are still around. For contrast, consider desegregation. Even with the law mandating it, the culture didn't change as requested. "The law" seldom leads "the norm"... it's usually the other way around. Changes typically start in popular culture, and the law only follows sometime later after the change has become pervasive and commonplace. "The law" may win battles, but "the norm" wins the war. RKBA needs to stop chanting the Second Amendment mantra as our only tool and spend more time on cultural norms. On a bright note, I believe this is already happening and we are making progress. However, as with most cultural shifts, those whose position is threatened tend to react with the most vigor early on. We should expect our struggles to be most intense _right now_. If we continue to gain ground, our struggles will lessen due to a combination of our greater strength and their weakened resistance. So right now, Right Now, is the deciding period in this struggle. We've seen the most oppressive gun control laws in this nation's history passed in the last four years (Brady, AWBan); we've also seen some significant strides forward (CCW in 30+ states). The battle lines are shifting back and forth because the balance of power is uncertain and both sides are fighting at a fever pitch. We often complain that we're not seeing enough pro-RKBA legislation at the federal level. Considering Mike's words, perhaps we should worry less about that (hold our legislative ground for the moment), and refocus our proactive energies on the cultural side. We can't legislate an emotional acceptance of gun ownership, any more than we can legislate morality. But if the people (the popular culture) lead, the leaders (and the better RKBA laws) will follow. RLH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: gun control fight of our lives Date: 18 Jul 1997 16:10:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Washington Ceasefire, Washington state's HCI affiliate, has filed >Initiative 676, an initiative that will require testing and licensing >of ALL handgun owners in the state, will allow confiscation of >handguns possessed without said license, will require reporting of >private sales of handguns and which will require trigger locks or >other secure storage devices be provided with all handguns sold or >"transferred". > >The initiative was filed Feb 10th. Supporters have until 3 July to >collect the necessary 179,248 valid signatures to place it on the >November ballot. In a radio debate with Ceasefire president Tom Wales >yesterday, I was told they had 210,000 signatures on hand, with a goal >of 225,000 by next Thursday. (Error rates generally run 10-20%). > >As of last month, more than half of the bankrolling of I-676 was done >by about a dozen liberal Seattleites. Bill Gates gave $35K, his >father another $1K. Five "friends of Bill" gave an additional $10K >apiece. Bill's father hosted another high-roller fund raiser on June >11th (no figures available yet). > >(Full Public Disclosure Commission reporting data can be obtained at >the PDC's web site at www.washington.edu/pdc/. Files 06.txt or 06.zip >give an itemized list of contributors.) > >We anticipate the bad guys will spend hundreds of thousands or more to >promote the initiative over the coming four months. Paul Allen, >Bill's Microsoft co-founder, just spent $5 MILLION to "buy" a stadium >referendum, so apparently Bill feels the need to play billionaire >one-ups-man-ship, at the expense of the Washington gun owner. > >Also disturbing is the fact that Tom Wales is a federal prosecutor. >In 1993, Hillary Clinton used Washington as the test state for the >planned government takeover of health care. The federal bill was >modeled on the one passed in WA that year, with extensive input from >and coordination with HC's health care task force. One must wonder if >the administration has decided to test the possibility of pushing >their gun control agenda at the local level through the initiative >process. Wales certainly seems to have the time available to do this. > His boss, U.S. Attorney Katrine Pflaumer, has contributed $300 to the >initiative as well. > >Leading gun rights groups in the state have formed a political action >committee called Washington Citizens Against Regulatory Excess >(WeCARE) to fight the initiative. Political consultants advise us it >will take about $1 MILLION to get our message across and defeat Bill >and his buds... IF it can be defeated. We welcome contributions from >anywhere in the U.S. (As Paul Allen just reminded us, there is no >limit on spending on initiative campaigns.) > >You can read the complete text of I-676 at >www.halcyon.com/claw/NO-I-676. > > >Joe Waldron >Chairman, WeCARE >Director, Washington State R&P Assn >Director, Washington Arms Collectors >Lobbyist, GOAL of WA >WA State Field Rep, CCRKBA >(425) 454-4915 > >(My apologies to any who find this request for funds offensive. But >we're in the gun control fight of our lives here in WA, a true David v >Goliath battle. If they win in WA, do you think for a minute HCI >won't push similar initiatives in other initiative states? We are >also listed with the PDC, and full disclosure of funds collected and >funds expended will be available on line.) -- Johann Opitz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Some Big "News" Email Addresses -Forwarded Date: 18 Jul 1997 12:15:19 -0700 Received: from wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20616; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:59:28 -0600 Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:07:01 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 *Jus Dare* Some Big "News" Email Addresses Many of you may be interested in writing or forwarding good material to various "news" organizations. abcnews@class.org marketing@cbs.com dateline@nbc.com foxnet@delphi.com editor@jubilee-newspaper.com nightly@nbc.com www@pbs.org sightings@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: The Path To The New World Order -Forwarded Date: 21 Jul 1997 16:29:32 -0700 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA01551; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:10:12 -0600 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id QAA08847; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970721165013_1113167859@emout10.mail.aol.com> If you want to have a good look at the plans for taking control of this country, you only have to look at the history of how they have done it in the past. Look at the similarities! ================= Subj: Nazi Democrats BCC: TWStough Received via the Internet- Lauren Washington Times Letters to the Editor June 7 - Arlington, VA During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have frequently denounced the Republicans as Nazis due to their attempts to control runaway federal spending. How very ironic. I remember the Nazis. Let me share a little about them and recall some of their exploits. First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize". The Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany". Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement. Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and academic elite against the conservative republic. After Der Fuhrer's election ceased being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social phenomenon, party membership was especially popular with educators, bureaucrats, and the press. Being a Nazi was "politically correct". They called themselves "The Children of the New Age of World Order" and looked down their noses at everyone else. As Hitler acquired more power, he referred to his critics as "The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred". Anyone who questioned Nazi high-handedness in the German press was branded a "Conservative Reactionary". Joseph Goebbels, minister of communications, proclaimed a "New World Order". The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypses who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the "New World Order" and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of "terrorists and madmen".Right-wing fanatics of the "Old Order" who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people". Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded an "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act" through Parliament that gave the Gestapo extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). German citizens who refused to surrender their guns when the "jack-boots" (Gestapo) came calling, were murdered in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo were the federal marshals' service of the Third Reich. The S.W.A.T. team was invented and perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the enemies of the German people. When the Policia Bewakken, or local police, refused to take away guns from townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the street and shot to death by the S.A. and the S.S. Those were Nazi versions of the B.A.T.F. and the F.B.I. When several local ministers spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again. The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizens who had prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt against the Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and the military. Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps. Mountain roads throughout central Europe were closed to prevent the escape of fugitives into the wilderness, and to prevent the movement and concealment of partisan resistance fighters. Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the children to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such parents disappeared. Pagan animism became the state religion of the Third Reich and Christians were widely condemned as "right wing fanatics". Millions of books were burned first and then people. Millions of them burned in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried women were paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals for it. Evil was declared as being good, and good was condemned as being evil. World Order was coming and the German people were going to be the "peacekeepers". Yes, indeed, I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or "right wing", or "patriots" or "militias". They were Socialist monsters. -- Thomas Colton Ruthford ==================================== P.S.: Can someone tell me why whole buildings are occupied by CDC far away from the labs? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [Fwd: Re: [mom-l] Brady Law] -Forwarded Date: 21 Jul 1997 16:37:58 -0700 Received: from logoplex.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04935; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:13:49 -0600 Received: (from domo@localhost) by logoplex.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id PAA10806 for mom-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:26:42 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: logoplex.com: domo set sender to owner-mom-l using -f Message-ID: <33B7F12C.6D05@montana.com> Reply-To: nox2128@montana.com Organization: Militia of Montana X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3DC15DD566FB" Sender: owner-mom-l@logoplex.com Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3DC15DD566FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Another thought concerning the recent Court decision. Randy -- ________________________________________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________________________________________ --------------3DC15DD566FB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mailhub.dartmouth.edu (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by paw.montana.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA02802 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:34:09 -0600 (MDT) Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6]) by mailhub.dartmouth.edu (8.8.5+DND/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA23980 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-id: <9145794@dasher.Dartmouth.EDU> Content-Type: text --- You wrote: Now, thanks to the Supreme Court and >Sherriff Mack, gun regisrtation is nationalized. Some victory eh? > His assessment with what has happened with the Brady Law is absolutely correct. I do not believe that Sheriff Mack or Sheriff Prince have sold out. By filing that suit they did win a major victory -- STATES RIGHTS. They need to be commended for standing up to Washington, D.C. Randy --- end of quote --- Randy, I don't have the information handy but perhaps someone who does can point out that there were two things here to be concerned with and they should be treated as different issues. One was the usurpation os the Sheriffs dept would have been a bigger blow to the miitia movement than the registration of guns in that having a Sheriff who is willing to form a posse is a very important strategic maneuver. I talked with Sheriff Mack about this in Boston a couple of years ago and I like what he had to say. Second is that the 5 day waiting period and registration are a seperate issue and not necessarilly part of the Brady bill. Instant checks on my record per se do not bother me if it was just a check of felony convictions and etc. but the other paperwork and information submitted, which ATF has been (illegally) cataloging isn't dependant upon the Brady bill and should be delt with as an an ongoing and unrelated issue. As usual the situation has been oversimplified by some (which I am doing here also but I admit it) and easy answers are thrown at us when in fact the problem isn't easy to understand nor easy to solve. We will successfullly complete our journey by moving one step at a time. The supreme court has just handed down some overdue lip service for the constitution and decisions favoring states rights. We have to keep a fire under them all to keep them moving towards admitting that local issues cannot be effectively handled at the national level. I believe that is what is causing the Supreme Court to step on Congresses toes regarding the overuse of both the commerce clause and the general welfare clause of the Constitution to meddle in local affairs. This also is a complicated area that just can't be dealt with in oversimplified terms. I wish I had more time to write on this but I don't so I'll hand off my opinion in case anyone else can. I believe we are seeing the start of undoing some of the national control over local issues that were invoked to "end discrimination in the south", then the workplace, then the home... We may do well to strike while the iron is hot and concentrate on shedding light on the inability of the national government to positively affect anything more than appearances on the local level while, at times, causing disasterous negative consequences. A terribly high price to pay for no substantial gain. Rick --------------3DC15DD566FB-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [mom-l] WA Initiative 676 -Forwarded Date: 21 Jul 1997 16:37:41 -0700 Received: from logoplex.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04173; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:13:21 -0600 Received: (from domo@localhost) by logoplex.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id VAA21924 for mom-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:10:08 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: logoplex.com: domo set sender to owner-mom-l using -f Message-Id: <199706300110.TAA28694@paw.montana.com> X-Sender: nox2128@montana.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-mom-l@logoplex.com Precedence: bulk Here is the information on I-676 as promise from a list member. Randy >Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 12:36:14 -0800 (AKDT) >X-Sender: cas@alaska.net >To: nox2128@montana.com >From: cas >Subject: Initiative 676 > >>From: "Jay Williams" >>Subject: Initiative 676 >>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 19:22:47 >>BestServHost: lists.best.com >>Sender: api-errors@lists.best.com >>Errors-To: api-errors@lists.best.com >>Reply-To: api@lists.best.com >>To: api@lists.best.com >> >>Initiative 676 will MANDATE: >> >>- LICENSING and REGISTRATION of every handgun owner in Washington; >>-RENEWAL of your "handgun safety license" every five years >>-TRIGGER LOCKS with every handgun sold, both commercial and private sales; >>-REPORTING and REGISTRATION of private sales of handguns; >>-CREATION of a "handgun czar" within the Department of Licensing; >>-CONFISCATION of all handguns possessed without a "handgun safety license" >>-NON-COMPLIANCE will be enforced with criminal charges and jail time! >> >>"Washington Citizens for Handgun Safety," the official sponsor of I-676, is >nothing more than a front for HCI's Washington state affiliate, >>Washington Ceasefire. >> >>"Washington Citizens for Handgun Safety"...raised more than $145,000 in the >first four months of this year.... The single largest donor to >>I-676 is none other than Microsoft co-founder and chairman Bill Gates! Mr. >Gates has donoted $35,000 so far to help deny your right to own >>a handgun. Several other Seattle-area elitists wrote $10,000 checks in >support of this gun-grabbing initiative. >> >>[This is from a letter I got from Washington Citizens Against Regulatory >Excess, chaired by Joe Waldron (jwaldron@halcyon.com). >> >>Washington Citizens Against Regulatory Excess >>P.O. Box 50270 >>Bellevue, WA >>98015-0270 >>(206) 454-4915 >>FAX: (206) 451-3959 >> >>Any of you using Windows 95 can find a better OS in the Mac or OS/2, so >don't worry about having to give up Microsoft products.] >> >>Jay Williams >>jpw@prostar.com >>Sniper Country - http://www.prostar.com/web/sniper >>========================================= >>"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear >>arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in >government." >> >>-Thomas Jefferson >>========================================= >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [mom-l] NRA -vs- Constitution -Forwarded Date: 21 Jul 1997 16:37:29 -0700 Received: from logoplex.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04130; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:20:52 -0600 Received: (from domo@localhost) by logoplex.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id UAA21741 for mom-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:16:15 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: logoplex.com: domo set sender to owner-mom-l using -f Message-Id: <199706300015.SAA26129@paw.montana.com> X-Sender: nox2128@montana.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-mom-l@logoplex.com Precedence: bulk {For those of you who have been following the posts on "Rights v. Privileges" I have renamed this thread more appropriately to "NRA -vs- Constitution".} I could not agree more with following assessments of the NRA by Bill Utterback. For those of you who continue to NOT support Gun Owners of America {GOA} in favor of the NRA are giving your money to an organization that has learned that if the Anti-Gunners go away then the corporate leadership is out of a job. This is simply called Job Security. GOA is for your rights not "Job Security." Please read the posts below and weigh your decision carefully. Randy >X-Sender: butterb@connecti.com >Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:35:20 -0500 >To: piml@mars.galstar.com >From: Bill Utterback >Subject: Re: RIGHTS v. PRIVILEGE >Cc: fezellb@intrepid.net, goamail@gunowners.org, jpfo@prn-bbs.org, > webforeman@fija.org, lsfija@io.com > >Reposting to mailing lists and news groups, e-mailing, faxing, web >page posting, and making hard copies for distribution of this >message are encouraged. > > > >At 11:58 AM 6/29/97 -0400, Howard Fezell wrote: >> >>On ABC's "This Week" program aired 06/28/97 NRA Exec. V.P. Wayne H. LaPierre >>referred to our right to keep and bear arms as a "privilege". To many, this >>would seem an insignificant comment. >> >>However, privleges are granted by the state -- and may be revoked. >> >>Rights, on the other hand, are inalienable. >> >>Those who would like to help educate the NRA's chief executive officer on >>this point may reach him at: National Rifle Association, 11250 Waples Mill >>Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 267-1000. >> >>Howard Fezell (www.2ndAmendment.net) > >================================================================== > >Well, I was about to enjoy a calm, peaceful Sunday morning until >this message came along to really push my button. > >I have a friend in San Antonio, Bob Wheaton, who I have known for >about nine years. Bob is an ex-NRA Life Member and as far back as >I can remember has been loudly complaining that NRA is actively >compromising away our right to keep and bear arms. Back four or >five years ago when I was an NRA member and NRA-ILA contributor, I >used to think that, although NRA's defense of our rights was >sometimes weak, that NRA must know the ins and outs of Washington >politics and must be doing the best job possible considering the >circumstances. > >I have since changed my opinion. For the past few years I have >clearly understood that NRA has become a 'Big Corporation' and the >primary goal of NRA is to continue the salaries and prestige of >the corporate officers. NRA has to be careful not to be too >successful in countering anti-gun legislation because it is in its >vested interest to keep the battle going. The goal of NRA is not >to protect our rights but to feed off the battle. > >The recent internal struggle that ousted Neal Knox from his NRA >position and replaced him with Charleton Heston gives us a primary >spokesman for NRA who publicly states "AK-47's are inappropriate >for private ownership, of course" and " . . .(I) don't even think >it (the Brady Bill) should be repealed . . ." > >The full transcript of the radio interview containing these >remarks follows: > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> 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. > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Now in addition to Heston, we have Wayne LaPierre who publicly >states that our right to keep and bear arms is a "privilege". >Excuse me while I throw up. > >I would like to encourage everyone to divert their contributions >and dues from NRA to the two organizations which truly act to >protect our fight to keep and bear arms: Gun Owners of America >and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Both of >these 'no slack' organizations are worthy of our support. > >Gun Owners of America >8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 >Springfield Virginia 22151 >PH: 703-321-8585 >FX: 703-321-8408 >http://www.gunowners.org/ > >Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership >2872 South Wentworth Avenue >Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53207 >Phone: 414-769-0760 >FAX: 414-483-8435 >http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/jpfo.html > >And let's not forget another equally deserving organization: > >Fully Informed Jury Association >P. O. Box 59 >Helmville, Montana 59843 >Phone/Fax (406) 793-5550 >http://www.fija.org/ > >Roger Cravens recently posted some >pertinent remarks about NRA. His message is copied below: > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>After doing some very serious comparisons between >>Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle >>Association, I decided not to renew my NRA membership. >>And I had been a supporter either as a volunteer or >>financially of the NRA for at least 30 years, both >>while in military career status as well as in non- >>military/civilian status. >> >>I'm now 47 years old, and some member of my family >>(father, uncles, cousins, aunts, etc) have supported >>NRA for as long as I can remember. Even as a kid, >>it was NRA volunteers that taught me how to shoot a >>22 cal single shot rifle as a kid of 5 years old. >> >>But their position on 2d Amendment issues of all >>kinds have become more and more liberal and anti- >>2d Amendment. >> >>I have seen absolutely nothing originate from >>Gun Owners of America that comes close to what >>has come out of NRA in the past 10 years. So >>all of my support, as well as monetary support, >>will be going to GOA from now on. I have also >>been encouraging as many people as possible to >>stop supporting the NRA and start supporting >>GOA. With much better success that I had ever >>hoped for. >> >>I am ashamed to admit that I haven't sent in >>my dues for this year. But I will be soon. >>I have several hot monetary issues I have to >>take care of and pay off first, then I'm >>writing a check to GOA. >> >>A copy of this message has been forwarded to GOA. >> >>GOA: >> >>Please send any and all information on supporting >>and joining your organization to the following >>address. I will send in my annual dues very soon >>after receipt. >> >>Roger D. Cravens, Jr. > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Let me also mention that Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America was >one of the speakers at the Alamo Militia Muster that I >coordinated. Held on November 12, 1994, at the Alamo in downtown >San Antonio, Texas, about 500 active participants in the Texas >Constitutional Militia listened to Larry speak like a true >patriot. His actions and the actions of Gun Owners of America >have never since waivered from no-compromise support of our >absolute right to keep and bear arms - and to form militias. The >NRA, according to Heston, wants to get right wing folks off the >NRA board and out of the picture (see radio interview above for >exact words). > >The militia is the people and the people are the militia. >Although it is essential for the present for the people to >maintain possession of conventional arms as a deterrent to >unconstitutional actions by government, the people/militia must >also learn to use the most effective weapons available. These >weapons, which will see extensive use in the near future, are mass >public demonstrations and mass public civil disobedience. We need >to regain control of the voting process from the computers which >print out whatever totals the controllers desire and awaken the >sleeping majority of American citizens to the necessity of >electing patriots to public office. > >America and American government has fallen far away from the >ideals of the founding fathers. In order to restore limited, >Constitutional government with Liberty and Justice for all, it is >essential to realize that there is very little the government does >that can not be done better and much less expensively by the >private sector. It is essential to realize that government is >authorized to do only those things specifically authorized by our >federal and state constitutions, and that most of what government >does today is unconstitutional. > >In the United States, governments have powers delegated to them by >the people. Governments have only delegated powers, not rights. >Furthermore, any statute must be written under the authority of >powers delegated to the government by the Constitution or that >statute is not law and is null & void. Here is a quote for you: > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form >and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective >for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its >enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An >unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had >never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to >settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. > >Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it >imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or >authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed >under it... > >A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional >law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a >statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded >thereby. > >No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to >enforce it." > >Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 256 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >What are YOU doing to assist in restoring limited, Constitutional >government? A good place to start would be by financially >supporting the organizations listed above. > >for Liberty, >Bill Utterback > >Life Member GOA >Ex-member NRA >Ex-contributor NRA-ILA > >================================================================== > >butterb@connecti.com (backup: butterb597@aol.com) > >"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from >falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the >Government from falling into error." >U.S. Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds, >339 U.S. 382,442 > >World's Smallest Political Quiz: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html > >Libertarian Party: http://www.rahul.net/lp/ > >Fully Informed Jury Association: http://www.fija.org/ > >Gun Owners of America: http://www.gunowners.org/ > >Police Against the New World Order: >http://www.police-against-nwo.com/index.htm > >PGP PUBLIC KEY sent on request. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Domestic Media Email Addresses Date: 22 Jul 1997 11:07:00 -0700 Here are all the domestic media emails I have 71333.1616@compuserve.com, 74763.3324@compuserve.com, BNJeff@register-herald.com, DDimond@gnn.com, Deirdre.eagles@latimes.com, EWeeks@mail.tribstar.com, GM@pacpub.com, Goshennews@tln.net, KTonline@aol.com, Mark_Shenefelt@standard.net, PTWeb@PTConnect.Infi.net, Webmaster@cpubco.com, acton@westworld.com, adlerwk@nytimes.com, aknewspr@alaska.net, allison@infi.net, alpenanews@oweb.com, amiller@lancnews.infi.net, arbus@akron.infi.net, argus@shianet.org, baker@sj-r.com, banner@neosoft.com, baron@aloha.net, barryf@gate.net, bburke@tiac.net, bcb@herald-sun.com, bchebat@ix.netcom.com, bcourter@chatfreepress.mindspring.com, bdrnews1@aol.com, bdwcweb@ns.gamewood.net, bestread@capecod.com, bilodeaj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu, bioteca@ix.netcom.com, bobleb@suite224.net, bocanews@bocanews.infi.net, bodfap@oro.net, breig@buffnews.com, bridg@xsmail.xso.com, bruce12@greene.net, bryan@sjmercury.com, bsicelof@nando.net, bsinatra@hutchnews.com, budde@interactive.wsj.com, bugsy@hdtinfo.com, bugsyvw@fortwayne.infi.net, cabinet@jlc.net, caufiero@edwpub.com, cctimes@capecod.net, cdr@netwalk.com, cgreen@htimes.com, chris1@nando.net, chrisj@direct.ca, chron@neca.com, chronicle@itol.com, cleck@annap.infi.net, cnas-new@seatimes.com, compserv@avpress.com, compub95@aol.com, connpost@snet.net, corrin@clarioncall.com, craig@kconline.com, crdn46a@prodigy.com, creaghd@csps.com, cthomson@delgazette.com, ctnet@atomic.net, cwilson105@aol.com, dailydemo@decaturnet.com, dailyfree@aol.com, danrad@citynet.net, danw@pcnet.com, darienzo@lansol.net, daveb@spokesman.com, david.erdman@mcall.com, davids@aloha.net, dbehling@bossnt.com, dbrowning@ardemgaz.com, dimorris@greenepa.net, director@gazettenet.com, dmanship@theadvocate.com, dmarcus@ecnnews.com, dmnews@dailymail.com, dmussman@theindependent.com, dobenson@intserv.com, dolson@trib.net, dpeak@kcstar.com, dreed@lex.infi.net, dsimons@ljworld.com, dsolomon@tribune.com, dupree@quonline.com, dvh@charlotte.infi.net, dwarren@norwich.net, eam@vvdailypress.com, ebauer@cnc.com, ederge@smtimes.com, editor@athensnewspapers.com, editor@tamnet.com, editor@ydr.com, editorOR@cobweb.net, egazette@cadvantage.com, enstad@gomemphis.com, ericn@journal-courier.com, exex49a@prodigy.com, fischer@citybusiness.com, fredmann@omni.voicenet.com, freepress@ic.mankato.mn.us, fspencer@rich-times-disp.com, gale@heraldnet.com, galvweb@phoenix.net, gendron@trib.infi.net, general@indiancountry.com, ggreene@usa.net, ggriffin@miworld.net, gingern@ocr1.freedom.com, gnoble@enquirer.com, gordon@startext.net, gordy@lubbockonline.com, gqueen@aol.com, greg@oconline.com, hallu@tdn.com, handnews@cdsnet.net, harral@startext.net, herald@frontier.net, hjack@injersey.com, hsweb@hhs.net, ift@fyiowa.infi.net, infoline@mail.llion.org, jamestown@oweb.com, janer@chieftain.com, jcafiero@chattimes.mindspring.com, jdnews@abaco.coastalnet.com, jdreyfu@ibm.net, jellisn@infi.net, jgranati@projo.com, jhazard@chatpub.mindspring.com, jhelems@poncacitynews.com, jim.drummond@uniontrib.com, jimt@howpubs.com, jjt@oweb.com, jking@sptimes.com, joem@portland.com, john@dallasnews.com, johnt@austin360.com, journal@alaska.net, journal@infi.net, journal@swcp.com, jpatton@kern.com, jrbish@cannet.com, jrood@nebweb.com, jsellers@dibbs.net, jsmall@starnews.com, jtoth@bulletin-ol.com, jvillani@plaind.com, jwlewis@bcbr.com, kathelm@ne.infi.net, kearney@dailynews.net, kelb@tl.infi.net, kfratzke@luminet.net, laash@scripps.com, lail@knoxnews.com, lamonitr@rt66.com, lbennett@det-freepress.com, lcichows@usatin.gannett.com, leerozen@seattle-pi.com, lemerson@citizenet.com, lemlloyd@minn.com, lgentry@tribune.com, lgreen@tennessean.com, linhorst@syracuse.com, lkessner@clark.net, lnorton@ohio.net, lstreeter@tri-cityherald.com, madhavi@nj.com, mage@lmtonline.com, mail@stardem.com, markd@courant.com, mcdonald@news-gazette.com, mchan@srv.net, mclaughc@elwha.evergreen.edu, mclein@sbtinfo.com, mds24@topher.net, men@tdi.net, mericson@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu, messenger@seorf.ohiou.edu, mgarcia@express-news.net, mgolub@tribune.com, mikems@freenet.fsu.edu, mquinn@PE.net, mseditor@wilmington.net, mtnmail@rmii.com, mullins@postandcourier.com, nashvillebanner@nashvillebanner.com, ncbr@aol.com, newmex@sfnewmexican.com, news@newsleader.com, newsdesk@oregonnews.com, newsdude@mail.pernet.net, newsexam@kiva.net, newsjobs@newsjobs.com, newsroom@troyrecord.com, nharper@madison.com, nickmoore@thecourier.com, nie@scescape.com, nielsen@nytimes.com, njohnson@glenwoodpost.com, nmalitz@detnews.com, nprater@indol.com, oglesbic@news.jou.ufl.edu, online@minot.com, osb@mercury.net, owens@adnc.com, owens@poststar.com, pachecod@washpost.com, pantagra@pantagraph.com, paper@sirinet.net, paul@evansville.net, paulam@forumcomm.com, pauli@azstarnet.com, pdavis@hjnews.com, pellis@scsn.net, pershing@denver-rmn.com, perutrib@holli.com, peter.winter@cox.com, pgupte@ix.netcom.com, pkincade@fosters.com, plundquist@dmreg.com, pns@gulfsurf.infi.net, ponto@may-uky.campus.mci.net, postcard@shj.com, postherald@aol.com, powerkid@ix.netcom.com, press@datastream.net, publisher@bdtonline.com, publisher@oxfordpress.com, publishr@valleyrecord.com, ralphf@sna.com, rcoats@modbee.com, rddiamond@aol.com, reagan@texnews.com, reed4@csg.infi.net, reporter@web.net, review@excel.net, review@petronet.net, rik@sltrib.com, rlobsing@pcok.com, roger@newsminer.com, rohyde@lonestarbbs.com, rswart@orednet.org, ruttrib@vermontel.com, santori@centuryinter.net, saraglines@ctcentral.com, savage@gate.net, sbwaters@rny.com, scheski@tu.infi.net, schroeder@wenworld.com, scott_w@wyomingnews.com, sentinel@epix.net, sharilyn@savannahnow.com, shaun@racinecounty.com, sip@cyberhighway.net, sjones@pop.adn.com, soravecz@cisnet.com, spaddock@dailyherald.com, speterka@nlla.net, spikew@localsource.com, staff@NantucketBeacon.com, stan@nwarktimes.com, staredit@i-55.com, stevey@startribune.com, stewart@desnews.com, stewart@monroeville.gulf.net, stooley@foto.infi.net, sucook@greenville.infi.net, sunlink@kencaco.telebyte.com, svag24a@prodigy.com, tagres@mcimail.com, tbartel@citypages.com, tbisson@nh.ultranet.com, tbuhr@timesunion.com, telltdo@tdo.infinet, tellus@mailtribune.com, tengdahl@denverpost.com, tex@sfgate.com, tgromak@countypress.com, thonline@wcinet.com, times@cvn.net, tlross@primenet.com, tmnews@intersource.com, tnonline@postoffice.ptd.net, tomnoff@wave.ditell.com, tribune@mail.techplus.com, trunk@amarillonet.com, tsalvetti@fosters.com, tulsaworld@mail.webtek.com, twntlk@aol.com, twoodward@wcinet.com, txmalit@flash.net, unicorn@thepoint.net, vaughn@caller.com, vsafuto@gate.net, vtipton@pd.stlnet.com, wanfried@epix.net, wcr@jgfmedia.com, web@hhcn.com, webeditr@telegram.infi.net, webmaster@amcity.com, webmaster@anderson.com, webmaster@bannernet.net, webmaster@forward.com, webmaster@gtconnect.com, webmaster@indexjournal.com, webmaster@keenesentinel.com, webmaster@ljworld.com, webmaster@lvrj.com, webmaster@theeditor.com, webmeister@ipa.net, webmstr@n-jcenter.com, westnews@homer.libby.org, wnett@azstarnet.com, writeus@newsrecord.com, adask@metronet.com, ArtBell@aol.com, cnn.feedback@cnn.com, tdmned@dallasnews.com, letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com, newsroom@denverpost.com, bob.sablatura@chron.com, edtjhg@chron.com, waswec@chron.com, ctyjch@chron.com, etletter@em1.telegraph.co.uk, rtmag@iglobal.net, kdno@lightspeed.net, webnews@washpost.com, wtletter@wt.infi.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: BLACK SOLDIER SPEAKS OUT ABOUT GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT! Date: 22 Jul 1997 13:24:11 -0700 Received: from legacy.lgcy.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA02219; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:00:15 -0600 Received: from xmission.xmission.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id ta241351; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:07:22 -0600 Received: from xmission.xmission.com (slc308.modem.xmission.com [166.70.2.124]) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id NAA25759; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:05:57 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970722125237.006d3110@xmission.com> X-Sender: devans@xmission.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Cc: discussion@derail.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com X-ListMember: dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us [discussion@derail.org] I know this is kind of lengthy but it follows what I have been told by other soldiers. It saddens me to think we participate in such activities as a nation. We need to get=20 more involved to help stop this nonsense. =20 Donna >From: "R. Parker" >Subject: BLACK SOLDIER SPEAKS OUT ABOUT GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT! > >>AID & ABET POLICE NEWSLETTER >>Constitutional Issues for Lawmen >>Vol. 3, No. 4 >> >> >>BLACK SOLDIER SPEAKS OUT >>ABOUT GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT! >>Dear Confederates, >> >> This is my first communication with your organization. The political >>climate in the military being what it is, I trust you will keep my= identity >>confidential. >> My thoughts and beliefs are somewhat confused these days. But, I want to >>express some feelings I've kept inside for some time. I'm a ____Sergeant= in >>the U.S. ________ with ___ years in service. I've been out of country for 11 >>months this tour. Not certain when I'll return home. Our ____Lieutenant, >>risking his bars, gave several of us copies of your military and police >>publication several months ago. I've read one other over the last few years. >> This issue was very cogent as it covered comparisons of the American >>Constitution with the United Nations charter. The realization that= soldiers >>can't serve under the United Nations without violating our national oath that >>your publication imparts did enhance my blood pressure. It also= reinforced >>in me once again that even though many soldiers feel something is wrong= with >>some of our missions and some of the things we are being commanded to do,= so >>few actually know what is going on in the military and the world today. >> In my career, I've seen first hand, up close, how American soldiers and= the >>soldiers of other nations have been used to take guns and freedom away= from >>poor, black, Asian and Hispanic people who need their guns to try to= retain >>their freedoms by fighting against communist renegade leaders in their own >>nations and governments. The people of Somalia was a prime example. = Going >>in, we were not aware that they were fighting to resist violent Marxist >>forces and endeavoring to live free. "PEACE ENFORCEMENT," they called it. >> As I viewed it, we disarmed the wrong side: the good people in the= towns. >> Forthwith, the people no longer have a way to resist the barbaric, >>UN/U.S.-backed communist War Lords. Some of us lost good friends in that >>"peace enforcement" effort against the poor, Somali people. Many of them, >>for good cause, now detest us. >> In Haiti we accomplished the same, installing a Marxist dictator >>(thankfully, I had no part in that U.S./U.N.-backed communist takeover). >> South Africa, thanks to strong American and European pressures, now= suffers >>under a communist junto. Several million black Christian brothers and >>sisters are being dispatched, as I compose this letter, by the communist >>terror our nation advanced there. Inquiring of our superiors "why," we= get >>no logical answer. World Peace under U.N. communism is a fraud. Our >>military leaders go about bewildered but undaunted. One wonders if they >>understand these geo-political machinations. >> As did most, I entered the military to serve and protect the freedoms and >>property of the people of my own nation against totalitarianism,= communism, >>or fascism (which are all the same). Can anyone logically articulate how= we >>are assisting our country, or these other poor nations' people, by forcing >>them under world communism? This kind of thinking has drawn me some heat, >>regardless. I suppose that since I performed well at removing the= freedoms >>of one nation's people I'm now in a "special unit" in another nation using my >>talents to enslave another people. Several of us, including the= Lieutenant, >>understand that we are once again being used here to undermine the present >>government of this non-communist dictatorship and prepare it to become >>another asset of the United Nations. Understanding this, as you can imagine, >>puts us in a shameful and stressful situation. It's difficult to change >>one's job description from one of guarantor of freedom to one of= facilitator >>of world sla >>very. I don't mean to denigrate other fellow military members, but from= an >>historical position, this enslavement of poor people is particularly >>difficult for Afro-American soldiers. >> Most of us in the U.S. military do not understand what we are a part of. >> Soldiers, and "the folks back home" are told that we're helping the poor and >>oppressed people in other countries. I could live with that, but it's not >>true. It's like we are mercenaries for the highest bidder, not American >>soldiers. We, of course, can't speak out-loud about these feelings, for >>reasons you're already aware of. >> I've heard of your educational activities and publications for several >>years. Your publications are passed around "quietly" because there are= some >>political problems associated with being caught with patriot or >>constitutional materials. We have been instructed that any U.S.= individuals >>or groups that espouse or publish about "patriotic activism," "constitutional >>violations" or government conspiracies are subversives and it will do our >>careers severe damage to express interest or get involved. That speaks >>volumes, since some in the military (including up the Chain) are members= of >>anti-American, leftist movements or groups. This has no deleterious= effect >>on their careers. More factually stated, having a leftist world view is >>somewhat beneficial at promotion time. We see this and more and discuss= it >>quietly. As I see it, more of us are beginning to see the truth and= that's >>good, but it does seem the day may come when we will all have to decide= whom >>and what we will serve. Th >>ere is no longer the pride we once experienced in the days when we served >>only our nation and its people. Will we see a return to those days? >> We ask you to gird yourselves for rough times and continue sending out= the >>newsletters as long as you can. The knowledge passed on through its pages to >>those of us in the active service of the U.N. (not the U.S.) is important and >>timely. In that regard, pass this on to the citizens stateside who are= told >>that "We are now serving under NATO." NATO is a red herring; it's still= the >>U.N. in power. They changed the command to NATO to protect the U.N.= program >>from the growing storm of contention and controversy over their Marxist goals >>and leadership. NATO is under U.N. control, according to past records of >>agreements. (Investigate and be clear.) The test is to look and see what >>colors fly. Look closely and observe the U.N. blue and white. >> Those of us who have seen it first hand, and now understand, are saddened >>that many of our Afro-American brothers and sisters, along with the >>Hispanics, are misled to believe that a one-world system is going to be= our >>people's answer to total equality and freedom. "Quality" time in the >>military has allowed some of us to see the truth. I've beheld communism's >>true FACE, its history written in the drawn, despondent faces of millions. >> "All races and many creeds=85just as dead under that exploitive system!" >> There is one positive thing about communist internal subversive= takeovers. >> They always kill the captured nation's traitors, since they understand that, >>if they would sell-out their own people, they certainly cannot be trusted. >> This serves to help purify the gene-pool! >> The communist leaders are hiding the fact that they are very wealthy from >>money and property they take from the poor, not the rich, yet they speak= of >>"liberation of the poor." They "liberate" the poor of what little they have, >>under the banner of "equality" and secretly live opulent lifestyles >>themselves, secretly always retaining power and untold riches. I see now >>that this is the same falsehood they have instilled in my people in the= U.S. >> Some of us can now see plainly that, under the United Nations world >>government plan, the only difference is, this time Afro-Americans will not be >>enslaved alone. The rich Marxists in America and around the world are no >>respecters of persons. Afro-Americans will be enslaved right along with= all >>other non-wealthy Anglos, Hispanics, Asians, and other indigenous peoples= of >>the world, all made to serve the masters of a "world plantation." There= is >>no satisfaction for my people in this arrangement. Therefore, we must all do >>our part, our duty, and see that this world imperialism does not succeed. >> Sincerest gratitude to all our fellow soldiers and police assisting in= your >>efforts to stop this insidious one-world program, and in addition, for >>sending out the special military newsletters. Tell all there that the= most >>gratifying message you send us is that of assuring us we're not alone in this >>war. >> Well-worn copies of your publications are passed on to members of my unit >>and then on to others. Be advised some of us here will continue to= educate >>as many as we can in regards to real duty and true freedom, until we prevail. >> >>Semper Fi, CO-DE >> >>[STAFF NOTE: We pray this brother and his team stay safe and continue to >>focus upon God, not man. Man without God always has and always will screw up >>the world. Yes, we receive communications regularly from soldiers and lawmen >>in sensitive career positions, who have a need to get some things off= their >>chests, sharing with those who understand. For all those reading this >>letter, believe us when we tell you that we do our very best to keep your >>identities secure. But we do ask for permission to air your thoughts with >>our fellow Americans in uniform. These times of sharing thoughts and >>experiences help many "in the trenches" who may be too afraid (or too= wise) >>to communicate. All original communiqu=E9s are destroyed forthwith.] >> >>Aid & Abet Police Newsletter >>Published for members of Law Enforcement,=20 >> Military, National and Coast Guard. =20 >>Public is welcome. =20 >>Publisher: Police Officer Jack McLamb, Ret. >>Editor: Police Officer A. Rick Dalton >>Writers: National Guardsman Fred Willoughby >> Mr. Louis E. Stradling >>Marketing: Peter Giordano >>http://www.police-against-nwo.com/ >>e-mail at: vampkil@police-against-nwo.com >>FAX (602) 237-2444 >>Ph. (602) 237-2533 >>World HQ: Arizona USA >> >> >> >> >***************************************************************************= * > STOP THE NATIONAL ID CARD AND ITS DATABASES NOW!!!!!! > VISIT OUR WEB SITE www.mcwebs.com.repeal > > Coalition to Repeal the Fingerprints Law > 5446 Peachtree Industrial Blvd. > Suite 133 > Atlanta, GA 30341 > 404-250-8105 > > Cyndee Parker, National Spokesperson > robertabob@mindspring.com > > Debra Cardin, Georgia State Director > bornfree@dscga.com > >"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without >bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so >costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the >odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a >worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, >because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Churchill=20 > > >"We the people are the rightful masters of Congress and the courts, not to >overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the >Constitution." =20 > Abraham Lincoln > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: WeCARE Date: 22 Jul 1997 13:49:58 -0700 HERE IS THE FULL ADDRESS: Joe Waldron Chairman, WeCARE Director, Washington State R&P Assn Director, Washington Arms Collectors Lobbyist, GOAL of WA WA State Field Rep, CCRKBA PO Box 50270 Bell, WA 98015-0270 (425) 454-4915 My apologies to any who find this request for funds offensive. But we're in the gun control fight of our lives here in WA, a true David v Goliath battle. If they win in WA, do you think for a minute HCI won't push similar initiatives in other initiative states? We are also listed with the PDC, and full disclosure of funds collected and funds expended will be available on line. - -- Johann Opitz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Government Kills Date: 23 Jul 1997 10:52:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Well, let's see. There's Gordon Kahl, Joe Love, Chaplin Hill, that guy who was shot down in the ROT thing, and many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many others. And probably still more than that. Let's all get this guy some info he can use. Patty PLEASE DISTRIBUTE & CIRCULATE I'm currently researching a book that documents the multitude of innocent people murdered by the government(s) (local, county and of course the feds) of the United States. I need FIRST HAND, PROVABLE information, not someone ranting on about an incident that may have happened. If you would send the proof first, when that is verified, we'll then ask for the details. I'm trying to cover all the known occurrences (Bonus March, Penn. coal miners strike, atomic testing on our own people, Japanese internment during WWII, Penn. State, the MOVE bombing in Philly, USS Liberty, Ruby Ridge, Waco and many; many more (looks like we'll be able to add Desert Storm). The title of the book is "Government Kills", it's a documentary. I want to blow the blinders off the ignorant masses who still think the government is such a wonderful entity and they're here to help us. The following is a partial list, but it sets the example of what is needed. Proof consists of the following: 1. Photos, video tapes 2. Legal documents 3. Press articles 4. Medical documents 5. Insurance documents Thank you for your time and consideration. Mike Johnson Chairman Arizona Constitutional Rights Committee (ACRC) or snail mail to: P.O. Box 51914 Phoenix, Arizona 85076-1914 Thank you for your courage Mike J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: GOA Alert-- Federal 07/25/97 -Forwarded Date: 25 Jul 1997 16:01:38 -0700 Received: from smtp2.erols.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04386; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:48:42 -0600 Received: from gunowners.org (spg-as64s05.erols.com [207.172.51.132]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA06365; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:27:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199707252027.QAA06365@smtp2.erols.com> Reply-To: Gun Owners of America X-Mailer: Gun Owners of America's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gun Bills Moving in Senate and House Judiciary Committees by Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151, (703)321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org (Friday, July 25, 1997) * Juvenile Crime Bill (S 10). After coming under intense pressure from GOA activists, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has modified a provision that would have treated gun owners like organized crime figures. The original language could have sent a gun dealer, manufacturer or owner to prison for up to twenty years for something as minor as two record-keeping mistakes. After GOA alerted the Senate to these problems, several Senate offices told Gun Owners of America they could not support the bill as it was then drafted. This led to Senator Hatch revising his bill. But several problems remain with S. 10, even as it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee yesterday by a 12-6 vote. The bill would still impose a twenty year sentence for minor mistakes involving semi-automatics, school zones, and supervised handgun use by your kids. There were also several amendments that were added to the bill in committee. Thus, once the dust settles, GOA will update you on the specifics in this bill. S. 10 is not expected to be considered by the full Senate until October. On a brighter note, the Judiciary Committee did kill a provision last week that would have required gun owners to lock up their guns, thus jeopardizing people's ability to defend themselves in an emergency. The amendment, introduced by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI), was narrowly defeated by a vote of 9-8. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) was the only Republican to cross over and join Democrats in voting for the amendment. Gun owners may see this provision resurrected since Sen. Kohl has vowed to offer his amendment once again on the Senate floor. While gun owners hailed the defeat of an anti-gun amendment in a Senate Committee, the Constitution did not completely escape unscathed. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) offered a compromise alternative to the Kohl amendment that would require all dealers to have gun locks, or other gun safety devices, available for sale. The panel approved Hatch's amendment, 10-7. * Forfeit Your Guns Bill (H.R. 1965). The House Judiciary Committee recently passed a forfeiture "reform" bill by a 26-1 vote. This bill would, in most cases, make the forfeiture laws even worse. Indeed, there is a tremendous problem. According to a survey done by The Pittsburgh Press, 80% of the people who had property seized by the federal government were never even charged with a crime. Currently, BATF is allowed to come into your business or your home under some circumstances and seize your firearms and other business and personal property. This authority has been egregiously and repeatedly abused by BATF. Under H.R. 1965, your rights as a gun owner or businessman would be considerably diminished. Let's say that you and two other limited partners own a gun shop, and that BATF decided to come in and seize your business. Under H.R. 1965, BATF could seize your business without a warrant if there were probable cause to believe the property was subject to forfeiture. There would also be a broad definition of your personal assets which BATF could seize because they were "proceeds" of your business. Your partners would not have to be notified until well after the seizure, and would lose their interest in your business if they did not act within 30 days -- and, even then, they may be unable to receive compensation for their interest in your business. BATF could conduct a fishing expedition against you without probable cause, and it could use hearsay evidence against you in initial proceedings. Your right to raise an Eighth Amendment objection to the seizure would be seriously limited, and you would have to demonstrate an extraordinary showing of hardship to get a court to order the BATF to temporarily return the business to you pending trial. If it turned out that BATF had made a mistake, its liability to you would be limited. FOR THE RECORD: No Senator has yet to introduce a repeal of the 1994 semi-auto ban or a full repeal of the Lautenberg gun ban. The House Subcommittee on Crime has yet to schedule any action on H.R. 27 (Bartlett's Self-Defense Bill), H.R. 1009 (Chenoweth's full repeal of the Lautenberg gun ban), or H.R. 1147 (the semi-auto ban repeal). The new 800 number for Capitol Hill is 1-800-522-6721. ******************************************************************** Are you receiving this as a cross-post? You can subscribe to our E-mail Alert Network directly. Address your request to goamail@gunowners.org and include in the body of the message either your state of residence or the word "all". If you subscribe by state, you will receive every federal alert plus alerts which are specific to your home state. Requesting "all" means you will receive all alerts generated whether federal or state in nature. That address should also be used if you wish to unsubscribe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: Preaching to the choir -Forwarded Date: 28 Jul 1997 19:00:20 -0700 Received: from mars.aros.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA01927; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:03:25 -0600 Received: from sarahtho (pm7-0.slc.aros.net [207.173.24.193]) by mars.aros.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id CAA07777; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:09:19 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970722020945.006aecd8@aros.net> X-Sender: righter@aros.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Cc: middle@monarch.papillion.ne.us, noban@mainstream.net, recon@inet.skillnet.com, dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I think there are two separate arguments here: > >(1). Constitutional. (2) Practical. Well, so far I agree. However, I disagree vehemently with the remainder of this discussion. >Kates and Kleck, particularly Kates, recognize the constitutional >argument for RKBA as an individual right to be so persuasive as to be >the "standard model." Both, however, recognize that to "Joe and Jane >Sixpack," not to mention "Joseph and Janet Champagne," the >constitutional argument simply doesn't matter. Kates and Kleck argue >that the vast majority of the citizenry are more results-oriented--i.e., they >look at the social utility of a position. We in the RKBA/Individual Rights >group have not addressed this very well. While IMHO the constitutional >argument should settle the issue, the truth is that social utility often >predisposes the public, or the justices, to look for a way to defend a >particular answer. It is true that "Joe and Jane Sixpack" don't care a bit about the constitution. It is sad, but true, that most of the justices don't either. But think about what you're proposing. Do you really want to concede, a priori, that the constitution is irrelevant? If you do so, I maintain that the battle, and the war, are irrevocably lost. >Accepting (or ignoring, if you wish) that government may constitutionally >restrict felons and insane from firearms, the social utility argument then >becomes one that both Kleck and Kates argue: society is better off with >the armed citizenry described by the Founders and supported by >volumes of recent social research (see, e.g., Kleck, Lott, the Vermont >and Florida "CCW" experience, etc.) If we had done a better job, >starting in at least 1968, of presenting the social utility of firearms as >well as the constitutional requirements, then the public would recognize >that not only is the individual rights interpretation of the Second >Amendment the correct one, it is the socially desirable one. Rights are unchanging and immutable. "Social utility" is NOT. If, someday, someone comes up with statistics that refute Kleck and Lott, will you then willingly turn in your firearms? And who gets to define "social utility" anyway? It was of tremendous social utility for the British to disarm the rebellious colonists. It was of equally great social utility for Hitler to disarm Jews and anyone else who didn't support him. Our current administration believes it is social utility to label any and all dissenters "terrorists" and then deprive them of all rights, harass, imprison, or even murder them. Is that really what you want here? Make no mistake: the argument is most assuredly NOT about the relative niceties of self-defense against muggers and rapists. I'm not discounting this aspect; as a woman, and former victim, I know how important this is. But ultimately the argument is about tyranny; not just the tyranny of one stronger person against one weaker person, but the tyranny of any government, state, church or group that wishes to forcefully inflict its will on any other individual or group. >To sum up, Larry, I'm not sure that you got the point of the Kates/Kleck >work: emphasize the social utility because it supports our position and >because it's the argument that will persuade them that need persuading. There's nothing wrong with Kates's, Kleck's or Lott's work. It's excellent, but it's TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to RIGHTS. Its utility is in demonstrating conclusively that those who favor gun control are de facto supporting murder, rape and assault against innocent citizens. However, if you use "social utility" as your primary argument, you are playing the enemy's game - and the enemy, and its ministry of propaganda (the media), are infinitely better at playing it, and have infinitely more resources, than the RKBA movement ever will. Never, ever agree to play by the enemy's rules! >"The law" seldom leads "the norm"... it's usually the other way around. >Changes typically start in popular culture, and the law only follows >sometime later after the change has become pervasive and >commonplace. "The law" may win battles, but "the norm" wins the war. >RKBA needs to stop chanting the Second Amendment mantra as our only >tool and spend more time on cultural norms. Maybe I'm confused. I thought the GOAL of all this was to create and preserve a culture where respect for the constitution, respect for individual rights and liberties IS the norm! If, instead, the goal is for us gunowners to be safe from "bad guys", while we ignore our neighbors being dragged off to prison in the middle of the night, maybe we're not on the same team. >On a bright note, I believe this is already happening and we are making >progress. However, as with most cultural shifts, those whose position is >threatened tend to react with the most vigor early on. We should expect >our struggles to be most intense _right now_. If we continue to gain >ground, our struggles will lessen due to a combination of our greater >strength and their weakened resistance. Our struggles have not yet peaked. Remember that Tony Blair admitted that the disarmament of British SUBJECTS had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with eliminating the "American gun culture". He was successful, and the vast majority of British sheeple agree with what he did. They're actually foolish enough to believe that handing over their firearms will make the world "safer". What will they do when China decides it wants more than just Hong Kong? Expect no less here. We are living in a fascist state that is just beginning to consolidate its powers. I predict that genocide will be attempted against gun owners here as well. We will be declared "enemies of the state" and "social utility" will be defined as disarming, or exterminating, us, and anyone else misguided enough to take the Constitution literally. The reason we are being "allowed" "permits" is to drug us into forgetting about rights, and to lure us into putting our names and firearms and fingerprints into databases. >We often complain that we're not seeing enough pro-RKBA legislation at >the federal level. Considering Mike's words, perhaps we should worry >less about that (hold our legislative ground for the moment), and refocus >our proactive energies on the cultural side. We can't legislate an >emotional acceptance of gun ownership, any more than we can legislate >morality. But if the people (the popular culture) lead, the leaders (and the >better RKBA laws) will follow. This is partially correct. Legislation is useless. The Constitution is all the "legislation" we need. What we must do is reclaim our rights regardless of what Congress does or does not do. We do need to educate the people - NOT to accept the social utility of firearms, but to understand the concepts of individual rights and liberties. Any other path leads to tyranny. Any other path is doomed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Domestic media Email Addresses Date: 29 Jul 1997 08:25:00 -0700 From Ralph Here are all the domestic media emails I have 71333.1616@compuserve.com, 74763.3324@compuserve.com, BNJeff@register-herald.com, DDimond@gnn.com, Deirdre.eagles@latimes.com, EWeeks@mail.tribstar.com, GM@pacpub.com, Goshennews@tln.net, KTonline@aol.com, Mark_Shenefelt@standard.net, PTWeb@PTConnect.Infi.net, Webmaster@cpubco.com, acton@westworld.com, adlerwk@nytimes.com, aknewspr@alaska.net, allison@infi.net, alpenanews@oweb.com, amiller@lancnews.infi.net, arbus@akron.infi.net, argus@shianet.org, baker@sj-r.com, banner@neosoft.com, baron@aloha.net, barryf@gate.net, bburke@tiac.net, bcb@herald-sun.com, bchebat@ix.netcom.com, bcourter@chatfreepress.mindspring.com, bdrnews1@aol.com, bdwcweb@ns.gamewood.net, bestread@capecod.com, bilodeaj@craft.camp.clarkson.edu, bioteca@ix.netcom.com, bobleb@suite224.net, bocanews@bocanews.infi.net, bodfap@oro.net, breig@buffnews.com, bridg@xsmail.xso.com, bruce12@greene.net, bryan@sjmercury.com, bsicelof@nando.net, bsinatra@hutchnews.com, budde@interactive.wsj.com, bugsy@hdtinfo.com, bugsyvw@fortwayne.infi.net, cabinet@jlc.net, caufiero@edwpub.com, cctimes@capecod.net, cdr@netwalk.com, cgreen@htimes.com, chris1@nando.net, chrisj@direct.ca, chron@neca.com, chronicle@itol.com, cleck@annap.infi.net, cnas-new@seatimes.com, compserv@avpress.com, compub95@aol.com, connpost@snet.net, corrin@clarioncall.com, craig@kconline.com, crdn46a@prodigy.com, creaghd@csps.com, cthomson@delgazette.com, ctnet@atomic.net, cwilson105@aol.com, dailydemo@decaturnet.com, dailyfree@aol.com, danrad@citynet.net, danw@pcnet.com, darienzo@lansol.net, daveb@spokesman.com, david.erdman@mcall.com, davids@aloha.net, dbehling@bossnt.com, dbrowning@ardemgaz.com, dimorris@greenepa.net, director@gazettenet.com, dmanship@theadvocate.com, dmarcus@ecnnews.com, dmnews@dailymail.com, dmussman@theindependent.com, dobenson@intserv.com, dolson@trib.net, dpeak@kcstar.com, dreed@lex.infi.net, dsimons@ljworld.com, dsolomon@tribune.com, dupree@quonline.com, dvh@charlotte.infi.net, dwarren@norwich.net, eam@vvdailypress.com, ebauer@cnc.com, ederge@smtimes.com, editor@athensnewspapers.com, editor@tamnet.com, editor@ydr.com, editorOR@cobweb.net, egazette@cadvantage.com, enstad@gomemphis.com, ericn@journal-courier.com, exex49a@prodigy.com, fischer@citybusiness.com, fredmann@omni.voicenet.com, freepress@ic.mankato.mn.us, fspencer@rich-times-disp.com, gale@heraldnet.com, galvweb@phoenix.net, gendron@trib.infi.net, general@indiancountry.com, ggreene@usa.net, ggriffin@miworld.net, gingern@ocr1.freedom.com, gnoble@enquirer.com, gordon@startext.net, gordy@lubbockonline.com, gqueen@aol.com, greg@oconline.com, hallu@tdn.com, handnews@cdsnet.net, harral@startext.net, herald@frontier.net, hjack@injersey.com, hsweb@hhs.net, ift@fyiowa.infi.net, infoline@mail.llion.org, jamestown@oweb.com, janer@chieftain.com, jcafiero@chattimes.mindspring.com, jdnews@abaco.coastalnet.com, jdreyfu@ibm.net, jellisn@infi.net, jgranati@projo.com, jhazard@chatpub.mindspring.com, jhelems@poncacitynews.com, jim.drummond@uniontrib.com, jimt@howpubs.com, jjt@oweb.com, jking@sptimes.com, joem@portland.com, john@dallasnews.com, johnt@austin360.com, journal@alaska.net, journal@infi.net, journal@swcp.com, jpatton@kern.com, jrbish@cannet.com, jrood@nebweb.com, jsellers@dibbs.net, jsmall@starnews.com, jtoth@bulletin-ol.com, jvillani@plaind.com, jwlewis@bcbr.com, kathelm@ne.infi.net, kearney@dailynews.net, kelb@tl.infi.net, kfratzke@luminet.net, laash@scripps.com, lail@knoxnews.com, lamonitr@rt66.com, lbennett@det-freepress.com, lcichows@usatin.gannett.com, leerozen@seattle-pi.com, lemerson@citizenet.com, lemlloyd@minn.com, lgentry@tribune.com, lgreen@tennessean.com, linhorst@syracuse.com, lkessner@clark.net, lnorton@ohio.net, lstreeter@tri-cityherald.com, madhavi@nj.com, mage@lmtonline.com, mail@stardem.com, markd@courant.com, mcdonald@news-gazette.com, mchan@srv.net, mclaughc@elwha.evergreen.edu, mclein@sbtinfo.com, mds24@topher.net, men@tdi.net, mericson@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu, messenger@seorf.ohiou.edu, mgarcia@express-news.net, mgolub@tribune.com, mikems@freenet.fsu.edu, mquinn@PE.net, mseditor@wilmington.net, mtnmail@rmii.com, mullins@postandcourier.com, nashvillebanner@nashvillebanner.com, ncbr@aol.com, newmex@sfnewmexican.com, news@newsleader.com, newsdesk@oregonnews.com, newsdude@mail.pernet.net, newsexam@kiva.net, newsjobs@newsjobs.com, newsroom@troyrecord.com, nharper@madison.com, nickmoore@thecourier.com, nie@scescape.com, nielsen@nytimes.com, njohnson@glenwoodpost.com, nmalitz@detnews.com, nprater@indol.com, oglesbic@news.jou.ufl.edu, online@minot.com, osb@mercury.net, owens@adnc.com, owens@poststar.com, pachecod@washpost.com, pantagra@pantagraph.com, paper@sirinet.net, paul@evansville.net, paulam@forumcomm.com, pauli@azstarnet.com, pdavis@hjnews.com, pellis@scsn.net, pershing@denver-rmn.com, perutrib@holli.com, peter.winter@cox.com, pgupte@ix.netcom.com, pkincade@fosters.com, plundquist@dmreg.com, pns@gulfsurf.infi.net, ponto@may-uky.campus.mci.net, postcard@shj.com, postherald@aol.com, powerkid@ix.netcom.com, press@datastream.net, publisher@bdtonline.com, publisher@oxfordpress.com, publishr@valleyrecord.com, ralphf@sna.com, rcoats@modbee.com, rddiamond@aol.com, reagan@texnews.com, reed4@csg.infi.net, reporter@web.net, review@excel.net, review@petronet.net, rik@sltrib.com, rlobsing@pcok.com, roger@newsminer.com, rohyde@lonestarbbs.com, rswart@orednet.org, ruttrib@vermontel.com, santori@centuryinter.net, saraglines@ctcentral.com, savage@gate.net, sbwaters@rny.com, scheski@tu.infi.net, schroeder@wenworld.com, scott_w@wyomingnews.com, sentinel@epix.net, sharilyn@savannahnow.com, shaun@racinecounty.com, sip@cyberhighway.net, sjones@pop.adn.com, soravecz@cisnet.com, spaddock@dailyherald.com, speterka@nlla.net, spikew@localsource.com, staff@NantucketBeacon.com, stan@nwarktimes.com, staredit@i-55.com, stevey@startribune.com, stewart@desnews.com, stewart@monroeville.gulf.net, stooley@foto.infi.net, sucook@greenville.infi.net, sunlink@kencaco.telebyte.com, svag24a@prodigy.com, tagres@mcimail.com, tbartel@citypages.com, tbisson@nh.ultranet.com, tbuhr@timesunion.com, telltdo@tdo.infinet, tellus@mailtribune.com, tengdahl@denverpost.com, tex@sfgate.com, tgromak@countypress.com, thonline@wcinet.com, times@cvn.net, tlross@primenet.com, tmnews@intersource.com, tnonline@postoffice.ptd.net, tomnoff@wave.ditell.com, tribune@mail.techplus.com, trunk@amarillonet.com, tsalvetti@fosters.com, tulsaworld@mail.webtek.com, twntlk@aol.com, twoodward@wcinet.com, txmalit@flash.net, unicorn@thepoint.net, vaughn@caller.com, vsafuto@gate.net, vtipton@pd.stlnet.com, wanfried@epix.net, wcr@jgfmedia.com, web@hhcn.com, webeditr@telegram.infi.net, webmaster@amcity.com, webmaster@anderson.com, webmaster@bannernet.net, webmaster@forward.com, webmaster@gtconnect.com, webmaster@indexjournal.com, webmaster@keenesentinel.com, webmaster@ljworld.com, webmaster@lvrj.com, webmaster@theeditor.com, webmeister@ipa.net, webmstr@n-jcenter.com, westnews@homer.libby.org, wnett@azstarnet.com, writeus@newsrecord.com, adask@metronet.com, ArtBell@aol.com, cnn.feedback@cnn.com, tdmned@dallasnews.com, letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com, newsroom@denverpost.com, bob.sablatura@chron.com, edtjhg@chron.com, waswec@chron.com, ctyjch@chron.com, etletter@em1.telegraph.co.uk, rtmag@iglobal.net, kdno@lightspeed.net, webnews@washpost.com, wtletter@wt.infi.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Cook's Town Meetings Date: 30 Jul 1997 08:45:46 -0700 Cook Calls Utahns to Meetings ### Rep. Merrill Cook, R-Utah, has scheduled three town meetings in Salt Lake County next week to answer questions and listen to constituent concerns about transportation, housing and crime. ### Local experts will be on hand for each meeting. ### -- The transportation meeting is 7 to 8:30 p.m. Monday at Sandy City Hall, 1000 Centennial Parkway, Room 211. Panelists include Utah Department of Transportation Director Tom Warne, UTA light-rail project manager Rick Thorpe and Wasatch Front Regional Council Director Will Jeffries. ### -- The housing meeting is 7 to 8:30 p.m. Tuesday at Salt Lake Community College, Technology Building Auditorium, 4600 S. Redwood Road, Taylorsville. ### Panelists will include Marion Willey, director of Utah Nonprofit Housing; Kathy Ricci, director of Salt Lake City capital planning; and John Milchick Jr., state coordinator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. ### -- The crime meeting is from 7 to 8:30 p.m. Aug. 6 at the Salt Lake County Commission Chambers, 2001 S. State St., North Building. Panelists include Salt Lake County Sheriff Aaron Kennard and Salt Lake City Police Chief Ruben Ortega. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: FIST DATABASE Date: 30 Jul 1997 16:50:57 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------467D3FDA7112 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.nauticom.net/www/acsl/fist.htm --------------467D3FDA7112 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="fist.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="fist.htm" ALLEGHENY COUNTY SPORTSMEN'S LEAGUE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT THE DISCOVERY OF ANOTHER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GUN OWNER DATABASE "F I S T" [Image] Just when you thought you were safe from having information on yourself and that of the firearms you purchased entered in to a central computerized gun database comes the Bureau of Justice Statistics a division of the U.S. Justice Department with a computer program designed to do just that. The Allegheny County Sportsmen's League (ACSL) has this time acquired a fully operational database program which was developed for the U.S. Justice Department called "FIST". "FIST" is an acronym which stands for Firearms Inquiry Statistical Tracking. Who's firearms are they tracking -- yours. Yes, in spite of the ruling by Common Pleas Court in Pittsburgh (See Order of the Court --Preston Covey & Allegheny County Sportsmen's League v. City of Pittsburgh)that such a scheme was in violation of state and federal law, the U.S. Justice Department has gone ahead with FIST. In comparison, what the ACSL uncovered in August of 1995 was just a proposal to develop a gun database. FIST is a fully developed program that will collect information on you, your guns, and write that information to a database and send that data to a central file in Washington. This program is being distributed to certain Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEO) through out the country to collect statistics on the number of guns pruchased. The program is being distributed to certain CLEOs throughout the country to collect statistics on the number of guns purchased. It is believed that some 500 CLEO's are already set up to run the FIST program. The software is given free to all the CLEOs for them to collect information on you, the dealer and the type and serial numbers of the guns you purchase (handguns, rifles or shotguns).In addition, the program also would be used to collect information on who applies and are granted concealed weapons permits. The program provides for storing the necessary information on all the dealers in the CLEO's jurisdiction so that this information is linked directly to each firearm purchased. The program is designed to work in conjunction with the Brady law background check especially when the Brady instant check come on line in 1998 when all firearms purchased must go through the national instant check system. The final language in the Brady Law approved by the U.S. Senate has a provision requiring the U.S. Attorney General to establish a national instant criminal background check system that any licensee may contact, by telephone or by other electronic means in addition to the telephone, for information, to be supplied immediately, on whether receipt of a firearm by prospective transferee would violate section 922 of title 18. The U.S. Attorney General was given the authority to develop such computer software, design and obtain such telecommunications and computer hardware, and employ such personnel, as are necessary to establish and operate the system in accordance with this section. These provisions are very vague and it gives the AG great latitude in developing the system. Presently the CLEOs who administers the background check under the Brady 5 day waiting period are primarily the county sheriffs. This program indicates that the AG may be looking to the CLEO s again to conduct the instant check when it comes on line in 1998. "FIST" was developed by the REgional Justice Information Service referred to in the documentation as the REJIS Commission for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in Washington D.C. The developers of this program used Microsoft's Access database, a database program developed by the Microsoft Corporation. This database program is included in the popular Microsoft Office a package of software widely used through the country. FIST is made up of a series of entry screens allowing for imputing of the name, address and social security number of each applicant who applies to purchase or transfers any handgun, rifle shotgun, or who makes application for a concealed weapons permit. Also in the Applicant s personal Info screen there is a series of buttons at the bottom which provide for entry of Dealer Info, Rejection Info, Handgun Info and Misc. Info . [Image] In the "Dealer Info" screen the CLEO enters information on the dealer who submits the request for a background check and the dealer is linked with the applicant and the information on the firearm. [Image] The CLEO also enters your driver s license number. How the CLEO received the inquiry from the dealer, and the disposition of the background check is also recorded. [Image] Selecting the Handgun Info button present the CLEO with a screen that allows for entry on the gun purchased (Make, Model, Caliber, Barrel Length and serial number). While the screen is titled Handgun Info the same information of Rifles and shotguns, or other (possibly NFA transfers) if a rifle or shotgun and selected as the firearm being purchased in the Applicant's Info screen. There are also data screens to record information on the disposition of the background check. The Government wants to know whether the purchase was approved, and if not, what was the reason for the denial. They want to know whether the purchaser who was denied the purchase challenged the action in court, whether there was any court action, or whether the challenge was administratively resolved. All of this information can be put on the central file. [Image] The program documentation explains that the purpose of the program is to "support the CLEO in their normal daily operations. At the same time the data is being entered and used by the CLEO the information that is needed by BJS is being collected automatically without any special forms or procedures being required. The data that will be used for statistical purposes is generated by the CLEO by simply clicking on the appropriate button." The way this would work is when a handgun, rifle or shotgun is purchased each dealer must fill out a federal form 4473, the Brady Form and the state record of purchase collecting all of the necessary information on the gun and the purchaser. The dealer either places a phone call to the CLEO, or sends a fax, to request the instant background check. All of the information collected by the CLEO is entered into the database through the FIST programs entry screens. Every day the database is backed up onto a diskette. Each month this data is then sent to the Bureau of Justice Statistics in Washington on a diskette, or via a modem. There this information could be entered into a master database. All this information is handled in electronic format, no paperwork involved. REJIS explains that the only information that the Bureau of Justice Statistics requires is the number of firearm transfers, how many were approved or disapproved and the reasons for rejection. They explain that all of the data on the applicant remains with the CLEO and it remains the responsibility of the CLEO to insure that it is deposed of in the appropriate manner as the law governing the CLEO require. But that begs an answer to the question, "why then collect the information on the purchaser and the firearm in the first place if it isn't to be used for developing a national registration?" Remember that in December of 1993 President Clinton charged Attorney General Janet Reno with developing a means to establish a national registration scheme. Can "FIST" be used for that purpose, you bet it can. While the Brady Law only allow the CLEO's to retain the data for only 20 days, who is going to do the investigations to insure your rights are protected? Pennsylvania s Act 17 made permenant the collection of information of the purchase of handguns, with long gun coming in 1997. There is nothing to stop the CLEO from backuping the database on a diskette, as they are instructed to do on a daily basis in order to insure that data on the hard dive is protected, and transfer it to another database. Who is going to stop the Justice Department from requiring the whole database? Our source tells us that the BJS requested the complete database file. [Image] Anyone who understands databases know that this information is portable to other databases or other file formats. For example the database can be backed up to a disk and imported into another database like FoxPro or Dbase III or IV very easily. The database can also be imported into a spreadsheet like Lotus 123 or Excel. This type of database translation is done everyday. Now the program documentation warns that the CLEO's should pay particular close attention to both federal and state laws governing what records that they are allow to keep in the FIST database. They instruct the CLEO's on the program's provides features for purging personal information like the name, address and serial numbers of the applicant. However, the documentation also points out that the purge options allows for overriding the purge feature. In fact the default option is No purging allowed. [Image] The Justice Department requires that the information they require be reported at the end of each month. The program's report screen makes that easy. [Image] All the CLEO has to do is select the proper button and he has information on the purshaser of either handgun, rifles and shotguns and those persons who have a concealed weapons purmit. That information is printed out on a easy to read form that can be filed with othe inforamtion that any governmental agency is collecting. [Image] During the Democratic National Convention President Clinton allow Sarah Brady to give a prime time speech touting the so-called success of the Brady Law which she claimed was designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. What most Americans don t know is that once instant check goes into effect in 1998 the purpose of Brady could be used to eventually keep guns out of the hands of everyone by registering everyone who purchases a handgun, rifle and shotgun and who obtain concealed weapons permits in a computerized database like FIST . The most difficult problem with a gun ban is locating the firearms. FIST could solve that problem. As Charles Morgan, a director of the ACLU's Washington D.C. office has been quoted as saying "That even if he is in agreement with the National Rifle Association, the only purpose of registration is for confiscation by one administration or another." During the recent presidentail campaigns,Clinton has repeadly said that he wants to expand upon the Brady law. Bob Dole is proud of the fact that he engineered the deal attaching his instant criminal background check to the Brady law. Bob Dole was responsible for allowing Brady to clear the Senate by claiming a "deal" to reopen the law in the next session of the Congress. He kept that promise like he kept his promise to schedule a vote on the repeal of the assault weapons ban. The instant check provisions in Brady could be our down fall. We have this instant check provision becasue former executive vice president Warrin Cassidy and former ILA executive director Jim Baker agreed to Brady with this provision in place. In February of 1994 the NRA board of directors, realizing that instant check could be used to register gun owners, passed a resolution instructing ILA not to enter into any instant check systems, unfortunally that call was not heeded in Pennsylvania. Soon the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Brady law under the 10th amendment. David T. Hardy, the attorney representing sheriff John Mack from Arizona, will argue the case. We have provided him with a copy of the FIST program. Hopefully it will be a help to this case and the end to this very bad legislation. President Clinton has made gun control an issue in this year s election for President. Bob Dole has distanced himself from gun owners with his statement against the repeal of the semiautomatic ban, and that could have been a factor in him loosing the presidential race. As a result we had only one choice at our disposal to protect our right to private ownership of firearms and that was to elect a pro-gun Congress and hopefully we have accomplished. But it doesn't mean that we stop. We must be involved every day if we are to protect our liberties. --------------467D3FDA7112-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: GOA Alert-- UT 07/30/97 Date: 31 Jul 1997 11:32:00 -0700 ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- I am forwarding the following from the Gun Owners of America, because it concerns our very own Merrill Cook. Jim Elwell ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org Rep. Cook To Hold Town Hall Meetings -- Time to get him on board as a cosponsor July 30, 1997 Representative Merril Cook, Republican from the 2nd District, will be holding three town hall meetings during the first week of August. It is important that the interests of gun owners be represented at these meetings. In a Republican-controlled Congress wherein Newt Gingrich once promised that no gun control legislation would move while he was Speaker, we have seen some of the worst gun bans in recent memory become law while pro-gun bills languish in committee. Rep. Cook is a part of that problem, as he has yet to cosponsor three major pro-gun initiatives: * H.R. 27 (Bartlett), The Citizen's Self-Defense Act of 1997 -- affirms the right to self-defense with a firearm; * H.R. 1009 (Chenoweth), The States' Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997 -- the only bill to completely repeal the Lautenberg gun ban; * H. R. 1147 (Paul), The Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1997 -- repeals the semi-auto ban. Gaining cosponsors is necessary to force reluctant committees to pass bills to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Merril Cook has a GOA rating of 'B' -- he should be expected to cosponsor the above pro-gun bills. ACTION: * Attend one or more of the town meetings if you possibly can. Ask Rep. Cook why he hasn't cosponsored the above pro-gun legislation. Ask him why the Republican Congress appears unwilling to face the anti-gunners on principle. Generally, it is wisest when contacting your legislator to bring up only one piece of legislation at a time. If during the meeting you are only able to address a single bill, please mention H.R. 1009, which currently has the most momentum of the three. * Please let GOA know via fax, e-mail, or telephone if you attend a meeting. We would also appreciate hearing what Rep. Cook has to say when he answers your questions. Note: a common refrain is that legislators view Rep. Bob Barr's half-baked "fix" as the leading Lautenberg repeal bill. If you hear that, remind Rep. Cook that Chenoweth's bill (H.R. 1009) has a far greater number of cosponsors. It is the House Leadership which favors the Barr bill, and you elected Rep. Cook to protect your rights, not to become a toady of the Beltway Brotherhood. * If there is no way you can attend a meeting, help till the soil for those who can by contacting Rep. Cook so that your gun rights will be on his mind as he meets with constituents. Contact info for Rep. Cook: (202) 225-3011 (voice) (202) 225-5638 (fax) cong.merrill.cook@mail.house.gov (e-mail) MEETING SCHEDULE: August 4 at 7:00 PM MTN Sandy City Hall 10000 Centennial Parkway, Room 211 Sandy, UT August 5 at 7:00 PM MTN Salt Lake Comm. College Technology Bldg Auditorium 4600 S. Redwood Road Salt Lake City, UT August 6 at 7:00 PM MTN Salt County Government Center Council Chamber Room 2001 S. State St. Salt Lake City, UT ******************************************************************** Are you receiving this as a cross-post? You can subscribe to our E-mail Alert Network directly. Address your request to goamail@gunowners.org and include in the body of the message either your state of residence or the word "all". If you subscribe by state, you will receive every federal alert plus alerts which are specific to your home state. Requesting "all" means you will receive all alerts generated whether federal or state in nature. That address should also be used if you wish to unsubscribe. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Sen. Bennett Date: 31 Jul 1997 18:01:17 -0700 Empowerment Television Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, providing analysis of the campaign finance hearings being aired gavel-to-gavel on NET, shared some insight into Wednesday's testimony from Michael Cardozo, of the Presidential Legal Expense Trust. Klayman clarified, "Let's go back to the inception of what's going on. From the very beginning of the Clinton administration, it's looking for a way to reach out to lobbyists, influence peddlers, and anyone else to make money - personal enrichment. And that's what this is about, because these aren't campaign contributions. These are moneys that are coming in directly into an account. So, what the Clintons did?they set up a trust?.Now there was never any precedent to set up a trust like this before, in the 218-year history of the United States. No President had ever gone out to the American people, [and] held out his hand for money?.We (Judicial Watch) challenged this trust. We brought a lawsuit. And what we said was, these trustees, all of them together, constitute an advisory committee, kind of like the Hillary Clinton task force. And this should be opened up for full disclosure, because the opportunity for abuse is great. Meanwhile, the trust had said that they were legitimate, that they could do this because they were a governmental operation, not private, but governmental. And that Presidents are allowed, in their official duties, to accept gifts, like from Affairs of State?.So they justified the existence of this trust by saying it was governmental, or public interest. You heard it with Mr. Cardozo, that in fact this was a public purpose because 'we were sparing the President time from having to raise the money himself.' The court, in looking at the argument, found that serious ethical and legal questions were involved. But they couldn't reach this activity, because in the course of the case the trustees argued the exact opposite! They said, 'Well, it's not governmental, it's a private activity. Just getting money for the President.' And the judge dismissed the case on that basis?.Now, what happened is this. Charlie Trie comes in with all this money, and Cardozo and some of the trustees run over to the White House. Now Cardozo was asked months ago on "This Week With David Brinkley," 'Why is it you were at the White House if you're claiming this is a private activity? Why are you in the White House with White House employees, paid for by taxpayers'-Sam Donaldson asked this-and he (Cardozo) said, 'Oh, because, in fact, this is in the public interest, it's a governmental activity.' We have that video! You see, so he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. You've got a very clever individual here, who is simply not honest. Plain and simple, this guy is dishonest." Contact: Judicial Watch 202. 646.5167 * Senator Bennett's Statements Inconsistent Following the completion of today's Senate campaign fund-raising hearings, aired live and in full by NET, Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch commented, "Senator Bennett, while making some rather bizarre statements, actually summed it up well?.He showed how this worked into a web. Why would the President issue a letter dealing with, perhaps, the most secret information that the United States could hold -- whether or not it was planning to go to war over the Straits of Taiwan, or over Taiwan, with Communist China -- in close proximity to the time that Charlie Trie made these donations to the President's legal defense fund? That letter having been written by the National Security Council and Anthony Lake, then his National Security Advisor, you can only assume that Charlie Trie was an agent of Mr. Ng, who was the benefactor of this money. And Mr. Ng, as we know, is tied in with Communist Chinese organizations. So, two and two equals four. Senator Bennett was right. Where Senator Bennett was 'out to lunch' completely?was that he came back and he said, 'Well, I've listened to you, Mr. Cardozo, and I think you're telling the truth. And you're completely exonerated. This trust fund did nothing wrong.' Senator Bennett does not know the law! I mean, that was a shocking, disgraceful display of a US Senator here. This is a violation of the law, what they were doing?.You can't solicit moneys on behalf of the President of the United States. Mr. Cardozo is not to be congratulated. Mr. Cardozo is to be thrown in jail!" Contact: Judicial Watch 202.646.5167 PROGRAMMING NOTE: NET continues its live gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Senate hearings on political fund-raising at 10 a.m. ET / 7 a.m. PT Thursday, hosted by "Morning Watch's" Marianne Fogelson and Tom Fitton doing political commentary, with legal analysis provided by Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch. NET's viewer call-in number is 800-5000-NET. ************************************ You can call his office and Larry Klayman will be glad to send any and all a copy of the specific laws that are being broken.With Larry Klayman's permission NET has been showing clips from the taped depositions of the 30 or so clinton goons,including John Huang's. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: SAFAN NO. 580. Militias: Initiating Contact - [From the Date: 31 Jul 1997 18:14:40 -0700 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA01540; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 08:35:17 -0600 Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id JAA07634; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970731095640_917461325@emout07.mail.aol.com> @@@@ @ O O @ @ ( > ) @ STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!!! \ 0 / SAFAN Internet Newsletter, No. 580, July 31, 1997 / \ * FYI: MILITIAS: INITIATING CONTACT by James E. Duffy and Alan C. Brantley, M.A. FBI Web page: www.fbi.gov/leb/july975.htm Proactive dialogue with certain types of militia groups may help law enforcement agencies diffuse tensions and avert potential flash points. Special Agent Duffy serves with the Critical Incident Response Group's Crisis Management Unit at the FBI Academy. Special Agent Brantley serves with the Profiling and Behavioral Assessment Unit at the FBI Academy. The growth of the organized militia movement represents one of the most significant social trends of the 1990s. This significance is due less to the actual size of the movement-by all measures, militia membership remains an almost imperceptible percentage of the population-than it is to the potential for death and destruction emanating from the most radical elements of the movement. Few Americans knew of the militia movement or antigovernment extremists until the morning of April 19, 1995, when a bomb blast destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Although no apparent direct connection exists between members of any militia group and the bombing, those arrested held and expressed views espoused by some militia groups. Following the bombing, television, newspaper, and magazine features presented in-depth-if somewhat alarmist- expose of the militia movement and the beliefs and values of militia members. While the intense scrutiny given the militia movement during the past few years has served to educate the public, as well as police officials, about the funda- mental beliefs and motivations of militia groups, this scrutiny also has served to raise as many questions as it has answered. What specific factors have fueled the growth of the militia movement? What immediate aims do militia groups wish to achieve? Are militia leaders primarily driven by defensive or aggressive philosophies? What explains the suspicion and distrust many militia members apparently feel toward law enforcement? Of course, such questions can only be answered with any degree of accuracy by militia members themselves. So, to move beyond a surface understanding of the militia movement, logic dictates that law enforcement agencies go to the source, local militia leaders, to learn more detailed information. This suggestion is not as impudent as it might first appear. In fact, as part of a broad-based effort to establish positive contacts between law enforcement agencies and local militia groups, simply establishing a dialogue with militia leaders can go a long way to removing some of the mystery that provides fertile ground for the suspicion and distrust that exist in both camps. This article first summarizes what is known about the militia movement and then suggests a strategy that law enforcement agencies can use to initiate constructive dialogue with militia groups that have not demonstrated a propensity for aggressiveness and violence. The article also includes a threat assessment typology recently developed by the FBI to assist agencies in determining the threat level posed by individual militia groups. MILITIA MEMBERSHIP Most militia organization members are white males who range in age from the early 20s to the mid-50s. The majority of militia members appear to be attracted to the movement because of gun control issues, as epitomized by the Brady Law, which established a 5-day waiting period prior to the purchase of a handgun, and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which limited the sale of various assault-style weapons. Many militia members believe that these legislative initiatives represent a government conspiracy to disarm the populace and ultimately abolish the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The federal government's role in confrontations with the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, and Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, have further fueled conspiratorial beliefs that the government is becoming more tyrannical and attempting to reverse constitutional guarantees. Militia members generally maintain strong Christian beliefs and justify their actions by claiming to be ardent defenders of the Constitution. They often compare the American Colonial period (1607-1783) to their present existence by relating significant Colonial dates and events to lend historical weight to their own beliefs and actions. Many militias claim to represent the ideological legacy of the founding fathers tracing their core beliefs to select writings and speeches that predate the Revolutionary War. Colonists at that time rebelled against the tyranny of King George III and what they saw as the British government's practice of oppression and unjust taxation. Various present-day militias pattern their actions on what they believe their ideological ancestors would do if they were alive today. Using their interpretation of constitutional rights and privileges as their calling, militia members and antigovernment extremists have challenged federal and state laws and questioned the authority of elected officials to govern, tax, and maintain order. In doing so, they have created concerns for law enforcement and public officials who come into contact with them. Still, many militia members and individuals who espouse antigovernment beliefs remain law- abiding citizens and do not advocate terrorist acts. Many organized militias have, in fact, condemned the Oklahoma City bombing and have stated that those responsible for the attack do not represent the philosophy and goals of today's militia groups. Clearly, elements of the militia movement represent a threat to law enforce- ment and to the general public. At the same time, the militia movement is far from the monolithic terrorist conspiracy that some media accounts have portrayed it to be. How can law enforcement agencies determine which groups represent more of a threat than others? How can agency commanders assess the specific beliefs and philosophies of the groups they may encounter in their own jurisdictions? In many cases, all they need to do is ask. INITIATING DIALOGUE Law enforcement officials should make proactive contacts with local militia leaders so that the two sides can voice their concerns and discuss relevant issues in a nonconfrontational way. Agency executives can establish the initial contact simply by calling the local militia leadership and arranging an informal meeting at a mutually agreeable location. By talking, law enforcement officials allow militia representatives to assess the character of the officers apart from the positions they hold. Nonconfrontational dialogue also allows for a moderation of any negative stereotypes that militia members might hold toward law enforcement officers. Conversely, such contact should allow law enforcement representatives the chance to gauge and assess the true, or at least unprovoked, nature of the militia leaders. After making the initial contact, a law enforcement agency should be in a position to arrange for future meetings, especially if a troubling issue arises or a crisis appears imminent. When each side realizes that the other is not as threatening or unreasonable as originally believed, nonconfrontational contacts will reduce anxiety levels and the potential for misunderstanding. At times of impending crisis, established contacts will keep open the avenues of communi- cation, enhancing the opportunities for affected parties to understand the issues and to resolve trouble in a peaceful manner. Such rational problem- solving strategies greatly increase the likelihood of achieving agreement between two groups whose goals may appear to be at cross purposes but, in reality, may be quite similar. Making Contact Since the Oklahoma City bombing, a growing number of law enforcement officials have established regular contacts with militia leaders in their jurisdictions. These contacts have improved understanding and promoted ongoing relationships between leaders of both groups. Contacts with militia groups should be made by ranking departmental personnel who are in a position to speak with authority for the agency. Ideally, the agency's commanding officer should meet with the militia group's leader, as the two can best represent the goals, objectives, and legal positions of their respective organizations. Historically, militia groups have placed more trust in county sheriffs' offices than in other law enforcement agencies, whether they are federal, state, or city. Law enforcement agencies at any level that previously have established contacts with local militia leaders should assist other agencies attempting to do so. In this way, law enforcement invokes a unified presence and demonstrates its ability to work together without territorial conflict, a strength militia leaders will notice. Of course, law enforcement officials should take appropriate strategic precautions when meeting with militia groups. They should advise their agencies of the time and location of any meetings and should make sure meetings take place in areas that afford safety and security. Nature of Contacts Law enforcement agencies should not use contacts with militia groups as a way to gain or confirm intelligence information. Law enforcement possesses many ways to obtain intelligence and should not risk inflaming the suspicions of militia leaders by asking probing questions. Likewise, law enforcement representatives should not volunteer any sensitive information to militia representatives, as such disclosures may expose sources or investigative techniques. During the initial meeting, law enforcement repre- sentatives should set a conversational tone that will lead to an open discussion of issues important to both sides. The goal is to establish an ongoing relationship. During a recent incident in Louisiana involving a barricaded subject with militia connections, the value of a pre-established dialogue became apparent. As the incident unfolded, local militia leaders reached out to their law enforce- ment contacts to verify the information they received from various sources. Because law enforcement officials previously had established trust with militia leaders, the police were able to dispel false information being publicly conveyed by the subject. The subject eventually surrendered peacefully to the FBI and local law enforcement officials. Pre-established contacts allowed law enforcement to provide local militia leaders the facts surrounding the incident and to quell the misinformation and rumors that had spread through elements of the militia community. ASSESSING THE THREAT Law enforcement agencies must exercise caution before initiating contact with militia groups. Because different groups operating within the same geographic area may pose widely varying degrees of threats, law enforcement officials should assess the threat level of a militia before attempting to make contact. In most cases, it is unadvisable to attempt proactive contact with groups that openly advocate violence toward law enforcement or other public agencies. To assist agencies in gauging the threat level posed by militia groups, special agents in the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group developed the Militia Threat Assessment Typology. 1 Law enforcement agencies can use the typology to help determine which groups should and should not be contacted on a proactive basis. Within the typology, category I groups represent the least threat to law enforcement agencies; category IV groups represent the greatest threat. Generally, only militia groups in categories I and II should be considered candidates for proactive contact. Given the type of criminal activity, threatening behavior, and paranoia exhibited by members of category III and IV militia groups, law enforcement officials should refrain from attempting to establish contact with leaders of these groups. SAFEGUARDING INVESTIGATIONS Before law enforcement officials attempt to make contact with leaders of any militia group, they should consult with other agencies that also may have an investigative interest. This allows agencies the opportunity to report the status of their activities and provide information that could prevent a well-intentioned contact from having a negative impact on ongoing investigations. CONCLUSION Communication represents a key component to successful policing. Initiating and maintaining dialogue with the less dangerous elements of the militia movement enable law enforcement agencies to establish communi- cation with militias on constructive, nonconfrontational terms. With communication established, agencies and militia leaders can discuss issues openly and avert potential problems. If crises do develop, law enforcement commanders can use pre-established contacts to reach out to militia leaders and diffuse tensions. As a growing number of agencies have learned, the best time to begin talking is before trouble erupts. Endnote The Militia Threat Assessment Typology was developed by Special Agent Alan C. Brantley and former Special Agent Gregory Cooper of the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group, Quantico, VA. The typology is based on the agents' experience and research into militia groups. For more information concerning the Militia Threat Assessment Typology, contact the authors at the FBI Academy, Quantico, VA 22135. The Militia Threat Assessment Typology Category I Militia Groups # Conduct paramilitary training # Base their organizational philosophies on antigovernment rhetoric # Maintain a primarily defensive philosophical posture. Plans for violent action are contingent upon perceived government provocation # Engage in no known criminal activity. Category II Militia Groups # Conduct paramilitary training # Base their organizational philosophies on antigovernment rhetoric # Maintain a primarily defensive philosophical posture. Plans for violent action are contingent upon perceived government provocation # Engage in criminal activity to acquire weapons and explosives. Criminal activity may range from minor firearms violations, e.g., illicit weapons sales and transfer, to illegal firearms modifications and property crimes. Category III Militia Groups # Conduct paramilitary training # Base their organizational philosophies on extreme antigovernment rhetoric, denoting deep suspicion and paranoia. Group may direct threats toward specific individuals or institutional targets # Maintain a primarily defensive philosophical posture. Plans for violent action are contingent upon perceived government provocation, but response plans are highly detailed and may include an escalation of overt acts beyond planning, such as testing explosive devices, gathering intelligence, and identifying/conducting surveillance of potential targets # Engage in criminal activity, ranging from property crimes to crimes of interpersonal violence, e.g., resisting arrest, armed robberies, burglaries, and attempts to provoke confrontations with government officials. Category IV Militia Groups # Demonstrate many of the same traits and characteristics as category III groups but are likely to be smaller, more isolated cells or fringe groups whose members have grown frustrated with their peers' unwillingness to pursue a more aggressive strategy. Unlike militias in the other categories, category IV groups often maintain an openly offensive, rather than defensive, posture # May grow out of other less threatening militia groups or may evolve independently from any other group associations # Often attract individuals with frank mental disorders. These individuals may either act alone or with a small number of associates who share similar paranoid/disordered beliefs # Plot and engage in serious criminal activity, e.g., homicide, bombings, and other acts of a terrorist nature. \\\\|//// ( o o ) --oO0o------U------oO0o--- "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SAFAN %Dot Bibee (SafanNews@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on http://feustel.mixi.net and http://members.aol.com/Safan1 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: PENNSYLVANIA ACT 17/66 Date: 31 Jul 1997 18:49:28 -0700 NRA MEMBER IS LATEST VICTIM OF ILA'S SUPPORT OF PENNSYLVANIA ACT 17/66 By Michael J. Slavonic, Jr. Chairman, Legislative Committee Allegheny County Sportsmen's League Opponents of Pennsylvania Act17 have pointed out many flaws in the new gun law. We have warned that there may folowing a number of inocent victims as a result of unintended consequences hidden in the law, and law abiding gun owners may loose their constituional rights forever. For example in a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Act 17/66 prohibits law- abiding gun owners in Pennsylvania from purchasing rifles and shotgun in other states under the Volkmer-McClure revision to the federal Gun Control Act. But none so horrible as a member of the NRA, a law-abiding gun owner, having his gun confiscated by the government without having violated any federal or state law. First let me ask if this sounds like a typical Pennsylvania gun owner. He is a law abiding citizen, married with two children. Owns several semi-automatic handguns and rifles, all legally acquired. Possess a valid license to carry which he acquired after a criminal records check was performed by the Sheriff's department. May hunt but mostly target shoots, and considers himself a modest gun collector. Last but not least a member in good standing of the National Rifle Association of America. Sounds like someone you know? It sounds like a lot of people I know. Now imagine that such a person and his wife begin to have some marital difficulties. It could be over money, she feels you are spending too much time in the office, you don't pay enough attention to her and the kids. You want to get a new car and she wants to redecorate the house. You both find it difficult to agree very much at this time, so you believe that your marriage may in trouble. So, in order to settle things down you both agree to a separation with the hope of work things out. Sounds like a scenario that is played out all over Pennsylvania. Imagine further, that during this separation troubles you, and for the first time you have one too many in the privacy of your own home. You lay down to sleep it off. You forget to set the alarm clock, and you fall in to such a sound sleep you fail to get up for work the next day. In fact you fail to answer the phone when your boss calls to find out why you are not coming into work. Concerned that you may be having a medical problem, your boss calls the paramedics. For some reason the paramedics call the police. The police arrive at you home backed-up by several other police officers who are all over you lawn. They pound on your door to awake you and demand entrance. They enter the apartment pre- warned that you have guns, and based on hear-say information, that you may be capable of harming yourself and they handcuff you. You haven't broken any laws, but they feel they need to do something after this big show. They confiscate all of your firearms, and escort you out of your house and involuntarily commit you to the psychiatric ward of a local hospital, charging that you are unable to care for yourself. You are kept at the hospital for three days and released. The medical experts find nothing wrong with you, and declare you are not a threat to yourself or anyone else. You attempt to recover your firearms and the police say no. You will have to get an attorney, and have the court mandate the return of you guns. You are not prepared to for what you are now about to go through. Sounds farfetched? You say this could never happen in a state like Pennsylvania where you have a Constitutional provision that clearly spells out that you have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms? That the National Rifle Association, the premier organization which exists to fight to protect your constitutional right to firearm ownership, is represented by a instate paid employee of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. That this constant vigil would not allow such a law to pass in the Pennsylvania General Assembly without vigorous opposition. A law allowing the government to confiscate your firearms, without you having committed a felony, or for that matter any violation of the law? Well you are wrong; The above scenario actually happened, and recently played out in the Pittsburgh Court of Common Pleas. If the Judge David Cercone, the presiding Judge in this case is correct, amendments to the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act in ACT 17, supported by the Pennsylvania office of NRA -ILA does give the government the right to confiscate your firearms. They can do so if you are involuntarily committed to a mental institution and not seen by a physician within two hours, where a determination must be made that you are not a threat to anyone. If that does not happen you will automatically be prohibit from purchasing and owning any firearm for at least five years. Then, and only then, you will have to petition the courts to grant you relief from disability. This folks is retroactive thanks to your friends in the General Assembly, and those great lobbyist of the major sportsmen organizations. This nightmare actual happened to Russell Laing of Pittsburgh, and the following is from actual court records. Russell Laing is no crack-pot, he is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh and holds a masters degree in Business Administration. He is a senior executive with a large Pittsburgh Business firm. He is a gun owner who owns 10 semi-automatic firearms and less than 900 rounds of ammunition. No more guns and ammunition than owned by most average hunters, shooters and probably, much less than the average gun collector. Certainly not the "veritable arsenal of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition" as described by the Allegheny County District Attorney's office. He has been married to the same woman since 1979 and has two children. And last but not least, he is a member in good standing of the National Rifle Association of America. His crime was that because of, what appeared to be, irreconcilable differences in their marriage Mr. Laing's wife took their children and left him. His employer seeing that the seperation was having a negative impact on his work suggested that he get counseling during this difficult time in his life and he agreed. Instead of helping, the counceling just added to his problems. It was during a telephone conversation to Mr. Laing's home that the counselor Russell was working with heard a clicking noise. She questioned what the noise was and Mr. Laing responded that he was cleaning one of his guns. She told him not to do that, and he agreed. She then reached for another phone and notified the police. The police came to his home escorted him to Allegheny General, and confiscated his firearms. Mr. Laing was immediately released after it was obvious that this was an overreaction on the part of the counselor, and the police returned his firearms. A second incident occurred when Mr. Laing, still unable to get his family life back together had one too many. Because he was not accustomed to consuming this level of alcohol, he fell asleep forgetting to set his alarm for work the next day. The next morning, April 12, 1996, concerned that he had not arrived for work as usual, his boss call the West Deer Paramedics. The Paramedics call the West Deer Police and the Police arrived at the house supported by an army of other officer who positioned themselves all over his lawn, and demanded entry into his house. The police pre-warned that he had firearms, and concerned he may harm himself "involuntarily admitted (him) to the psychiatric unit of Allegheny Valley Hospital [and was d]ischarged after three days." according to court records. Since the physicians attending him found nothing wrong with Mr. Laing he was released. He returned to the police station and requested the return of his firearm collection. This time the West Deer Police insisted that he get a court order before they would allow their return. =============Continued in part 2/2================ Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/ To leave the Hunting listserv list, send a message with SIGNOFF HUNTING in the *body* to listserv@listserv.tamu.edu --------------- MESSAGE firearms-alert.v001.n283.2 --------------- MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Also from rec.hunting; second half of previous. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: rec.hunting Chris Barnes, our esteemed moderator, has approved me posting this in two parts because it is too long to post in one part. =================Posting continues================ Mr. Laing hired Allegheny County Sportsmen's League counsel, and NRA referral, attorney Rob Keenan. Mr. Keenan filed a motion before Judge David Cercone on August 5 1996 for the return of the seized property. On September 4, 1996, the court conducted a hearing on the Motion for "Return of Seized Property". The matter was continued pending a court ordered further psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Laing. On December 3, 1996, the court conducted another hearing on the prior motion for Return of Seized Property. Mr. Keenan sited Dr. Paul Bernstein, the Director of Pennsylvania Psychological Services and Associate Professor at Duquesne University's Graduate School of Counseling, Psychology, and Special Education. Dr. Bernstein gave Mr. Laing the Minnesota Mutiphasic Inventory Test, a test given to police, and concluded: "With a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, Mr. Laing, at this time, is free of emotional dysfunction. As such, he is not a danger to himself nor a threat to others." On December 3, 1996 Judge Cercone granted Mr. Keenan's motion and ordered, "that the West Deer Township Police are to release to Petitioner Russell Laing the following property which was seized by them in April of 1996:" However, that did not end Mr. Laing's nightmare. Allegheny County Deputy District Attorneys office responded by filing a "Motion for Reconsideration" arguing that "The court's order of December 3, 1996 is improper and should be vacated because Mr. Laing, as a result of having been involuntarily committed to a mental institution under Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 P.S. sub-section 7302, is not permitted by Pennsylvania law or Federal Law to possess firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The applicable Pennsylvania statue is Section 6105 ( c)(4)." (This is a provision added from H.B. 7 (2/95) of the much heralded revision to the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act that has been receiving such glowing praise by the supporters of this foolish compromise.) Based on that motion for reconsideration Judge Cercone reversed his December 3, 1996 order, and on December 19, 1996 ruled that his previous order be vacated, disallowing the return of Mr. Laing's firearms. The Judge then ordered another hearing held on January 13, 1997 for the defendant to be able to argue against the District Attorney's motion for Reconsideration. Unfortunately the trap had be laid. Official records of correspondences between the Court, District Attorney and Attorney Rob Keenan tell much of the story. The D.A. argued that simply based on the fact that Mr. Laing was involuntarily committed to a mental institution under Pennsylvania's new gun law, Mr. Laing would be prohibited from possessing a firearm under "relevant parts of section 922(g) of the Gun Control Act 0f 1968, which "provide that [i]t shall be unlawful for any person...who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution...to receive any firearm or ammunition...." Mr. Keenan responded that "First, Section 6105(c)(4) is ambiguous at best when it uses the undefined phrase, involuntarily committed to a mental institution.' Clearly, the present case involved neither commitment' nor adjudication' because there was no evidence of any proceeding after which notice was ever provided to the Pennsylvania State Police pursuant to Section 6111.1(f) of the Uniform Firearms Act." Regarding the DA's argument that Mr. Laing violated federal law, Mr. Keenan wrote, "Next, other jurisdictions have held that the initial or emergency evaluations (analogous to such examinations under Section 302 of the Mental Health procedures Act, do not constitute involuntary commitment' under either the applicable Federal statute (18 U.S.C.A. subsection922(g) or the Pennsylvania parallel statute (18 Pa. C.S.A. subsection6105(f)(4)." The District Attorney responded that if an individual has been "adjudicated as an incompetent or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for inpatient care and treatment under section 302, 303, or 304.... that individual may not possess firearms." The District Attorney continued, "Since a commitment under Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act does not require a judicial determination of incompetence, it is clear that the Legislature did not intend that judicial proceedings be a prerequisite to a finding that the individual had been involuntarily committed.' (emphasis added) Thanks to the Pennsylvania office of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action Pennsylvanian's can loose their constitutional right to firearms ownership because, in approving ACT 17 it was not demanded that the Legislature provide protection for law- abiding citizens from being involuntarily committed with having the right to a judicial proceedings before a finding that a "commitment" had occurred. On February 10, 1997 Judge Cercone ruled that "We believe that pursuant to Pennsylvania law, a detention of an individual pursuant to subsection 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act constitutes an involuntary commitment. This commitment thus triggers the provisions of 18 U.S.C. subsection 922(g)(4), which makes it unlawful for any person who has been committed to a mental institution to possess a firearm. Thus, absent some evidence that Petitioner has successfully availed himself of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. subsection 925(c), we are constrained to deny his petition for the return of the property seized from his home by the West Deer Police." Both Mr. Laing and Mr. Keenan are outraged at this ruling, they have appealed Judge Cercone's ruling in order to avoid having Mr. Laing's firearm collection destroyed. Mr. Laing is a victim. He is a victim of the urge to compromise the rights of the individual gun owner in Pennsylvania in rush to implement an unwise instant criminal background check system for the purchase of both handguns and long guns. In exchange for the instant check system NRA-ILA signed off on reinforcing that fact that the State of Pennsylvania can maintain a state system of gun registration, while rightly prohibiting it to local government. This rush to implement this unwise instant check system resulted in accepting provisions in the new law that allowed the state to confiscate the firearms of anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution based on hear-say evidence. This new provision was agreed to without providing any language that would, at least, give any person the right to judicial proceedings that could have protected Mr. Laing from loosing his right to own firearms for the rest of his life. This is exactly what happened to Russell Laing, and this is what can happen to you if this is allowed to continue. The Allegheny County Sportsmen's League (ACSL) became aware of these provisions when it was introduced as HB-7, which was patterned after the Legislative Recommendation" coming out of the Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Automatic and Semi- Automatic firearms. This select committee first raised the spectra of involuntary commitment being a disqualifying factor for the ownership of guns. The ACSL also opposed Sen. Vincent Fumo's subsequent legislation (S.B. 6) introduced in January 1995, for similar language. However the language now present in the law came from Rep. Robert Godshall's H.B. 7, which was hailed as the sportsmen's compromise by the supports of this legislation. It was HB 7 that served as the basic language which later became ACT 17/66. It is Act 17/66 that gives the government the authority to ban Russell's guns. We let our concerns be know to both the NRA and the Pennsylvania House of Representative of our opposition to any form of language contained in the Legislative Recommendations, but our concerns would not to be addressed. Working with the Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association we attempted to publicize the problems in ACT 17 regarding "involuntary commitment" and wanted to have changes made to the law requiring that a person have the right to a judicial procedure before determination can be made whether his confinement could be considered a "commitment". Our suggestion were not included in "technical amendments" offered by NRA-ILA in 1995. After passage of ACT 17 1st Vice President of the NRA Neal Knox joined us in speaking out against NRA-ILA's support of ACT 17. He wrote in Shotgun News that ILA was wrong in supporting this new law. To add insult to injury, our sportsmen professional lobbyists failed to stop an amendment to the Mental Health Procedures Act making the ban on firearm ownership for any person involuntarily committed to a mental institution retroactive. Senate Bill 1555, printer's No. 2150 reads that "county mental health and mental retardation administrators shall notify the Pennsylvania State Police of the identity of any individual who, before the effective date of this Act, had been adjudicated incompetent or had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for inpatient care treatment under this act or had been involuntarily treated as described in 18. PA.C.S. subsection 6105 (4)." You do not have to have been found to have been declared mentally ill, just that you have been involuntarily committed is reason enough for you to loose your guns. The Allegheny County Sportsmen's League and the Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association have already begun work to develop language to hopefully find a solution to this serious problem with Act 17/66. The solution will not be easy because of the sensitivity of this issue. It should not have been included in the original version of the new law. In fact much of this new law was a mistake. Brenda L. Bernard 6228 W. Weston Drive Crystal River, FL 34429 (352) 563-2274 ----- End of forwarded message from Joseph Olson ----- Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/ To leave the Hunting listserv list, send a message with SIGNOFF HUNTING in the *body* to listserv@listserv.tamu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: You cowards, you gun haters, you don't deserve to live in Date: 31 Jul 1997 19:18:47 -0700 Received: from ez0.ezlink.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01046; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:53:15 -0600 Received: (from list@localhost) by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) id OAA28854; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:46:01 -0600 Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:46:01 -0600 X-Sender: vin@dali.lvrj.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: freewolf@rocketship.com, dan@edfp.com, greggt@indirect.com, GOAslad@aol.com, ad@dali.lvrj.com, 71034.2711@compuserve.com, rkbaesq@ix.netcom.com, lneil@ezlink.com, cartero@netwrx.net, HotLead@ix.netcom.com, htk@vms.cis.pitt.edu, spooner@doitnow.com, rick.rabbit@elmos.com, thenews@cris.com, vinsends@ezlink.com, wburnett@onramp.net, selfgovern@aol.com Resent-Message-ID: <"p2vuP2.0.O27.oVwtp"@ez0.ezlink.com> Resent-From: vinsends@ezlink.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/342 X-Loop: vinsends@ezlink.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vinsends-request@ezlink.com FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED AUG. 10, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'You cowards, you gun haters, you don't deserve to live in America' Aaron Zelman, founder of the Milwaukee-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, interviews Theodore Haas, a former prisoner of the infamous Dachau concentration camp (space allows selected excerpts, only): Q.) How did you end up at Dachau? How old were you? A.) November 9th, 1938 was Kristalnacht -- The Night of Broken Glass, the night synagogues were ransacked and burned, Jewish-owned shops destroyed. ... I was arrested Nov. 10, "for my own personal security." I was 21 years old. My parents were arrested and ultimately died in a concentration camp in France. I was released from Dachau in 1941, under the condition that I leave Germany immediately. This was common procedure before the "Final Solution. ..." Q.) You mentioned you were shot and stabbed several times. Were these experiments, punishment or torture? A.) They were punishment. I very often, in a fit of temper, acted "while the brain was not in gear." The sorry results were two 9mm bullets in my knees. Fortunately, one of the prisoners had a fingernail file and was able to dig the slugs out. ... Q.) What was the routine like at Dachau? A.) Three times a day, we were counted. We had to carry the dead to the square. Each time, we had to stand at attention in all kinds of weather. We stood wearing next to nothing, had weak bladders, while our tormentors had sheepskin coats and felt boots. The bastards really enjoyed watching us suffer. I remember how the guards had a good laugh when one of them "accidentally" let loose with a machine gun, killing about 30 prisoners. Q.) Did the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, "If only we were armed before, we would not be here now"? A.) Many, many times. Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were. It truly frightens me to see how the government, media, and some police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset. In my opinion, the people of America had better start asking and demanding answers to some hard questions about firearms ownership, especially "If the government does not trust me to own firearms, why or how can the people be expected to trust the government?" There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made as**s out of the Nazis. Q.) Do you think American society has enough stability that Jews and other minorities are safe from severe persecution? A.) No. I think there is more anti-Semitism in America (some of it caused by leftist Jewish politicians and organizations who promote gun control schemes) than there was in Germany. ... I perceive America as a very unstable society, due to social tinkering of the Kennedy/Metzenbaum-type politicians. When I first came to this wonderful country after World War II, America was vibrant, dynamic and promising society. There really was an American dream, attainable by those who wanted to work. Now, due to the curse of liberalism, America is in a period of moral decline. ... Q.) What message do you have for ultra-liberal organizations and individuals who want America disarmed? A.) Their ignorance is pitiful -- their lives have been too easy. Had they experienced Dachau, they would have a better idea of how precious freedom is. These leftists should leave America. These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not yet happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to liberty than street criminals or foreign spies. Q.) Some concentration camp survivors are opposed to gun ownership. What message would you like to share with them? A.) I would like to say, "You cowards; you gun haters, you don't deserve to live in America. Go live in the Soviet Union, if you love gun control so damned much." It was the stupidity of these naive fools that aided and abetted Hitler's goons. Anti-gun ownership Holocaust survivors insult the memories of all those that needlessly perished for lack of being able to adequately defend themselves. ... Every Jew should be armed to the teeth, as should every American. ... Membership in Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is $20 per year. The full Theodore Haas interview is available for $1.50 at 2872 S. Wentworth Ave., Milwaukee, Wisc. 53207; or call 414-769-0760. 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 http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WILL THOMPSON Subject: Re: Cook's Town Meetings Date: 30 Jul 1997 10:53:34 -0600 DAVID SAGERS wrote: > > Cook Calls Utahns to Meetings > > > > ### Rep. Merrill Cook, R-Utah, has scheduled three town meetings in > Salt Lake County next week to answer questions and listen to > constituent concerns about transportation, housing and crime. > ### Local experts will be on hand for each meeting. > ### -- The crime meeting is from 7 to 8:30 p.m. Aug. 6 at the Salt Lake > County Commission Chambers, 2001 S. State St., North Building. > Panelists include Salt Lake County Sheriff Aaron Kennard and Salt Lake > City Police Chief Ruben Ortega. Ok...I'll bite. "The crime meeting" ....does this mean 'the meeting is a crime'? ....dya think they'll talk about 'crimes committed by police in the name of law'? ....Yeah, right...Ortega- a local expert.... ;) ....'Spose that the "local experts" will announce that in conjuction with the right honorable Rep. Cook, they are requesting the Utah State Legislature and the Congress of the United States drop the requirement for citizens to beg the gummint for a gun permit. That in order to curb crime, all non-felons should have the right to 'keep and bear arms'. That 'gun control is nothing more than government sanctioned murder, rape and assault' and that as they are all 'servents of the people' they can no longer abide being accomplices. That they have all three taken an oath to uphold and protect the constitution and can not in good conscience(sp) continue to infringe the people's rights. That 'no-knock warrants' are not the price of freedom and will no longer be used in Utah. ? heh BTW-any of y'all going? Gonna carry? (Cook thinks it's alright that he be protected from y'all gun totin wingnuts) -- 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