From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Gun Accidents down Date: 02 Sep 1997 15:46:09 -0600 Look at for an article on the decline of gun accidents and the rise in gun ownership. -- 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 proper means of increasing the love we bear our native country is to reside some time in a foreign one." -- William Shenstone ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Trib Editorial - Police & Assault Weapons Date: 03 Sep 1997 07:45:28 -0700 Wednesday, September 3, 1997 Fearful Reaction ### This disturbing incident surrounding Detective Robert Idle's attempted murder is unsettling -- not just because of the violence or implements of that murderous brutality, but also the reactions hitting our law-enforcement community. ### As both a military combat veteran and a former lawman, I have to take issue with the response caused by Det. Idle's assault. More semand/or full-automatic ``assault rifles'' is not the answer. In my day, I have faced enemies armed with SKS rifles and AK-47s, as well as 12-gauge riot guns and any assortment of weapons. I have witnessed first-hand what a 20-, 30 or 40-round magazine of spent ammo can do. It's devastating. ### The problem is, in the heat of a firefight, when you dump off that much ammo, there's always strays, ricochets and rounds missing the target. Where do these deviate rounds end up? Well, most do no harm. But some will inevitably end up in some innocent bystanders, their homes, cars or God knows where. This isn't worth the risk. ### In my day, both in the military and police work, we practiced, practiced, practiced to pick our targets, aim precisely, and hit the target with the fewest rounds of ammo spent. We did not ``spray away and pray,'' which seems to be the errant wisdom behind this move to arm law-enforcement officers with assault weapons. Isn't this how the arms race started? What's next? Crew-served, belt-fed machine guns, light armored vehicles, or maybe gunships? ### A well-trained officer with a semi-automatic sidearm can outshoot a punk gang-banger any day. But yes, fear is a motivator . . . just the worse type of motivator. ### DAVID CHANDLER ### Salt Lake City ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Our Very Own KGB? Date: 03 Sep 1997 08:30:00 -0700 From http://net.fcref.org/pwcomm/pwc1997/pwc0828.htm OUR VERY OWN KGB?" 08-28-97 By Paul Weyrich I am indebted to Sarah Foster of WorldNET Daily, a publication of the Western Journalism Center in California, for compiling some data about the growing use of lethal weapons by various federal agencies. These agencies are beginning to use their firepower against American citizens as they are tasked with enforcing the many new federal laws which have been enacted, federalizing crimes which heretofore have been handled locally. Foster estimates the number of heavily-armed federal agents at some 60,000 and even provides a convenient list of agencies which have more than 25 personnel under arms. As Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America exclaimed when he was told the number: "Good grief, that's a standing army. It's outrageous." These federal agents have been trained to enforce the more than 3,000 criminal laws and the hundreds of thousands of federal regulations which now carry criminal penalties. This is why the U.S. Park Service now has military-style helicopters and trained snipers which they turn on unsuspecting citizens. One 15-year-old girl, Crystal Graybeel, was sleeping late in her cabin, according to Foster, when federal agents wearing ski masks and armed with machine guns raided the place she was staying on Santa Cruz Island off of the California coast. Although she had nothing to do with the purpose for the raid, she was handcuffed and kept in custody for more than two hours. Most of the island is already owned by the government, but there is one remaining privately held piece of property, a 6,500-acre bow-and-arrow hunting ranch. It seems that the Park Service suspected that Chumash Indian graves which were on the private property were being raided for human remains and artifacts. Caretakers who have been charged with this crime have vehemently denied it, but, meanwhile, those who happened to be there on January 14th of this year were subjected to armed U.S. agents training their guns on U.S. citizens. Maria Daily, the president of the Santa Cruz Island Foundation, put it this way: "It saddens me that the Park Service resorted to Ruby Ridge tactics. This incident crosses the line." The founders of this constitutional republic never intended for the United States to have a federal police force to deal with domestic matters. Yes, we had armed forces and even armed border patrols, but these troops were for the purpose of keeping our potential foreign enemies at bay. In the past, when federal agencies needed to enforce a federal law, they simply contacted the local authorities, who examined the situation. If the local sheriff felt the matter was sufficiently serious, he would obtain a warrant and execute the search or initiate the arrest. Increasingly, however, local authorities have resisted federal orders which they feel are unjust. So the federal government has decided to build its own domestic army to override local authorities. In many cases these federal agents operate on their own initiative, without obtaining proper warrants. In short, we are on our way to building the sort of internal police force which the Communist authorities were noted for. As many of the internal police forces in former Communist nations are being disbanded and laws are being passed to prevent such forces from ever being assembled again, our internal police force is just beginning to gain momentum. Indeed, many of these different agencies are coordinating their efforts so they can plan and execute raids together. The number of trained armed federal agents has increased by 12,000 over the past decade, but in 1996 alone 2,436 were added. Where is the constitutional authority for all of this? When has Congress specifically authorized such a national police force? Who is providing the constitutional guidelines for these armed agents? Who is training them on what is and is not permissible? Are we not at the point where Ruby Ridge cases will become routine in America? Whatever the facts of the matter, the tragic death of an American goat herder, killed by Marine snipers last May on the Texas-Mexico border, shows the need for better training and better control. The improper exercise of force by federal agents is a matter which cries out for examination. As Lisa Dean pointed out on a recent edition of our program "Endangered Liberties" (which airs Thursdays at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific), each of these incidents is looked at as a disconnected matter, when collectively such abuses of power constitute a gross violation of constitutional authority. We join her in calling for Congressional field hearings to examine this issue. Let those who have been victimized by federal agents come forth to testify. I believe the American people would be shocked to learn the truth. For most of our life as an independent nation, the United States managed to enforce federal laws perfectly well without a domestic army. Even the FBI, which built an excellent reputation for doing federal law enforcement work, was very, very careful -- until just recently -- to avoid any situation where local law enforcement officials were overridden. In fact, much of what the FBI accomplished was with the cooperation of local and state officials. Now the agency operates more and more independently. Combined with the drastic increase in other federal agents, this new method of operating around and outside of the local law enforcement structure constitutes a grave danger to our constitutional form of government. Congressman Bill McCollum of Florida has asked the GAO for a series of reports on the increased use of federal agents for federal law enforcement. The next logical step for McCollum would be to take his Committee on the road to conduct field hearings on exactly what is happening in the real world. Never mind what Louis Freeh and all of the others in charge of these domestic troops claim is happening. We must hear from the citizens who know the truth. Field hearings should begin as soon as it is possible to organize them, and you can assist by demanding of the Congress that this be done. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: `48 Hours' to Air Documentary on Utah Militia Date: 03 Sep 1997 11:23:01 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------18E41516343A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.sltrib.com/090397/food_and/2123.htm --------------18E41516343A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="2123.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="2123.htm" [Image] [Image] [Image] Wednesday, September 3, 1997 [Image] [Image] `48 Hours' to Air Documentary on Utah Militia BY KINNEY LITTLEFIELD THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER They call themselves VJs -- though they're not MTV video jocks. They're the young video journalists of Broadcast News Networks in New York City. They're a new breed of scrappy reporters who shoot their subjects with small, silent digital video cameras, letting events play out naturally, breaking barriers between subject and viewer -- blending themselves into stories. At 9 p.m. today you'll see their hip handiwork on CBS's ``48 Hours'' (on KUTV-Channel 2) in a telling one-hour documentary called ``Birth of a Militia.'' An expanded three-hour version will air Oct. 31 as part of the documentary series ``I Witness'' on CBS cable channel Eye on People. ``Birth of a Militia'' explores the lives of a small group of armed white racists in La Verkin, Utah, who call themselves the Rocky Mountain Militia. The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there are about 380 such militias in the U.S. This ``Militia'' is also about Sheriff Glenwood Humphries, who tracks the militia, and BNN VJs Amanda Pike, Craig Santy and Lara Hughey, who spent six weeks shooting the sheriff and militia leaders Johnny Bangerter and David Dalby, their friends and families, earlier this year. ``This new technology is an equalizer,'' Pike, 26, said recently from New York of her guerrilla-style Sony VX 1000 camera. Diminutive digital video equipment has been available in the U.S. for about a year and a half. ``Sure we changed the story some by being there, but not nearly as much as a traditional news crew with lights and a sound man,'' Pike said. ``With digital you don't need a lot of money. You don't need physical strength or several crew members to help you. The camera is an idiot camera. All you need is the passion for the story.'' You see Pike's passion early on in ``Militia,'' when Humphries suddenly, inexplicably, asks her on-camera if she wants to shoot his gun. Pike, who has never fired a gun before, hands Humphries her camera so he can tape her shooting. It's the ultimate TV news turnabout, a daring one. ``We knew we wanted to be very honest about showing what we do to get the story, to demystify it,'' Pike said. ``We just didn't know how we would do it until that moment with the sheriff. When I handed him the camera a lot of power went with it.'' As the program progresses Dalby and Bangerter talk about their white racist, survivalist and anti-government philosophies. They recruit new members. They order uniforms. They eye the skies for spying FBI helicopters and play with their kids. We see them get ever more paranoid about a perceived impending raid by federal agents. Dalby kicks the VJs out of his house as he packs to move his family to an isolated secret location -- which he later lets the VJs visit. ``First there was distrust that the media would distort their message, then it became `You guys aren't media, you're federal agents poised to take us down,' '' Pike said. ``Then we were the media again. It was a fine line, keeping our distance and sanity yet not burning our relationship. It was a delicate balance.'' The Rocky Mountain Militia wanted only one thing from BNN. All participating BNN crew would have to be white. Over six weeks white VJs Pike, Santy and Hughey shot about 150 hours of video, working with a production assistant and an editor ensconced in a makeshift ``war room'' in La Verkin. The VJs thought militia members would be reluctant to express racism on camera. They were wrong. In a chilling on-camera scene, Bangerter's youngest sister Mary Lynn Seamens, traveling in a limo to appear on ``Geraldo'' with their mother, unflinchingly tells the unsuspecting driver ``We support like local militias and things, and uh -- we're racists.'' ``They really wanted to say it, to hammer their philosophy home,'' Pike said. ``But the most interesting moments came when philosophy time was over. We tried to keep the cameras rolling as much as possible. When David's daughter asks `What's that, Daddy?' and he says `Oh those are Bible study tapes and those are bullets' -- we could never have scripted it. ``Digital technology lets subjects get closer to you. When they forgot we were there we had those intimate moments.'' Actually, this off-the-cuff intimacy, shot verite style with jerky camera moves, looks no different than ``Homicide'' or ``NYPD Blue.'' Except it's real. Today's broadcast is also a smart cross-promotion for the ``I Witness'' series which debuted Aug. 22. As part of the plug, ``48 Hours'' host Dan Rather repeatedly stress how young the BNN VJs are. BNN boasts about 30 staff, most in their 20s or 30s. ``Well, that means we get paid a lot less,'' Pike said, only half-joking. Born in San Diego, Pike graduated from Columbia University in 1995 with a master's in broadcast journalism. ``I guess we probably do bring a different kind of energy to the show being younger.'' [Image] [Wednesday Navigation Bar] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © 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. --------------18E41516343A-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Sheriff Kennard's Editorial Date: 04 Sep 1997 07:29:11 -0700 Thursday, September 04, 1997 Sheriff: Deputies Must Be Equipped With Semiautomatic Rifles ### ### The position of some, including The Tribune (editorial, Aug. 19), that the recent attack on a police officer by gang members might not warrant increased firepower in the hands of police is not only disturbing, it is ludicrous. ### Across the nation, we have seen police officers outgunned by gang members. Many remember the recent incident in Los Angeles when patrol officers had to procure semiautomatic rifles from a local sporting goods store to meet a threat from well-armed bank robbers. We have known for about two years now that gang members possess assault weapons. If citizens distrust their police officers to the point of preferring that gang members have firearms far superior to that of the police, as insinuated in the Tribune editorial, then I fear that our community-wide resolve to handle this significant public threat is greatly crippled. ### As sheriff, I have been tracking the propensity for gang violence against police officers for several years. My effort for the last two years to procure military semiautomatic rifles for my deputies so that they are not severely outgunned is a calculated response to the types of threats our dedicated officers are routinely facing on the streets. It is not a mere ``reaction'' to this most recent violent assault on Detective Idle. ### More than 100 of my deputies have carried semiautomatic rifles on duty for almost two years. Not one negative incident has resulted. To the contrary, the presence of those firearms has often had a calming effect and has neutralized numerous situations where violence would have otherwise resulted. Our brave men and women protecting our community deserve support and they deserve proper equipment capable of meeting the threat they face every day on the street. ### The efficacy of semiautomatic rifles is well-proven. A well-placed round from a rifle in the hands of a fully trained deputy is safer than shotgun rounds. And when equipped with rifles, deputies are better able to hold perimeters when shots have been fired by bandits. This capability is vital for deputies forced to hold bandits at bay until the arrival of tactical units. ### As a police administrator, I would feel derelict in my duties to you and my deputies if I failed to properly equip and train deputies to respond to the threats against them and you. I too believe in prevention programs that divert kids from gangs. My record more than proves that. But I also believe in answering the present threat waged by the well-armed hoodlums already on the streets of the Salt Lake Valley. ### AARON D. KENNARD ### Salt Lake County Sheriff ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Fwd: goose population Date: 04 Sep 1997 09:50:21 -0600 > >------Begin forward message------------------------- > > > >From: rob.brannon@airgunhq.com (Rob Brannon) > >Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:15:00 -0500 > >Subject: goose population > > > >MSGID: 176:200/0 8B593CD9 > > > > > >Heard something really amazing the other day on National Propaganda > >Radio. > > > >It seems that the goose population at their summer feeding grounds > >in Canada has risen to the point that the geese are over-grazing > >the plant life and are about to destroy the local ecology. > > > >A spokesman for Ducks Unlimited basically said, (not an exact quote) > >"Great, this is what we wanted, now it is time to expand seasons > >and bag limits, hunters can take care of the goose over-population." > > > >Then they had a bimbo from the Humane Society of the United States, > >(not to be confused with the Humane Society, a legitimate organization) > >who said that hunting was "just too cruel" a way to control the geese. > > > >Her "solution" was for the government to NAPALM the goose flocks > >on the ground! > > > >Yum-yummy! Anyone for roast goose, with that piquant hint of gasoline? > > > >Rob > > > > > > * OLX 2.1 * We can save the seals if we all club together. > > > > > >--- WM v3.11/92-0211 > > * Origin: PRN/CENTRAL (176:200/0) > > > >-- > > (Rob Brannon) > > AirPower Services BBS - (610) 259-2193 - info@airgunhq.com > > Interested in Firearms, RKBA, Airguns, the Shooting Sports? > >------End forward message--------------------------- > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Fwd: Sheriff Throws Feds Out of County -Forwarded Date: 04 Sep 1997 15:17:37 -0700 Received: from dns1.webbernet.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00966; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:18:15 -0600 Received: from default (pon-mi7-57.ix.netcom.com [205.184.190.185]) by dns1.webbernet.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA15320; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:17:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970904153118.006a0d58@mail.thumb.net> X-Sender: eagleflt@mail.thumb.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" >From: JUDY709366@aol.com >Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:24:52 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Fwd: Sheriff Throws Feds Out of County > > >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: jlbtexas@computek.net (jlbtexas) >Reply-to: jlbtexas@computek.net >To: cabhop@highfiber.com (Bob Huddleston) >Date: 97-08-18 20:20:44 EDT > >< >Some excellent news from Wyoming. I'll keep you all updated on >how this proceeds. > >PAC > > >SHERIFF BOOTS FEDS FROM HIS COUNTY >by Phil Hamby > >Knoxville Journal, August 7-13, 1997 pA1 and A6 > >(http://www.knoxnews.to) Ph (423) 546-5353 FAX 0858 > >Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming, said this week >that as a result of Case #96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court, >District of Wyoming, he how has a written policy that forbids >federal officials from entering his county and exercising >authority over county residents unless he is notified first of >their intentions. > >After explaining their mission, Mattis said he grants them >permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating >within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth >in the U.S. Constitution. > >The sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only. >When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the >Feds, he quickly and confidently replied, "None whatsoever." >He explained by saying, "They know they do not have jurisdiction >in my county unless I grant it to them." > >Mattis clarified his position by saying the federal court had >ruled then state of Wyoming is a sovereign state and the state >constitution plainly states that a county sheriff is the top law >enforcement official in the county. > >Additionally, Sheriff Mattis contends that the U.S. >Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the >geographic territories where the federal government has >jurisdiction. Amendment X, he said, states that "the powers not >delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor >prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States >respectively, or to the people." > >Therefore, Mattis thoroughly believes the Feds have very limited >powers in any state unless the local high-sheriff allows them to >exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides. > >"Put another way," Mattis said, "if the sheriff doesn't want the >Feds in his county, he has the constitutional power and right to >keep them out or ask them to leave." > >Accompanied with other legal interpretations Mattis stands on >the definition of the world "sovereign," which is defined by >Webster's as "paramount, supreme. Having supreme rank or power. >Independent: a sovereign State." > >Mattis said he grew weary of the Feds coming into his county and >running rough-shod over county residents: i.e., illegally >searching, seizing property, confiscating bank accounts, >restricting the free use of private lands and other abuses, >without a valid warrant and without first following due process >of law as guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen. > >As long as Mattis remains sheriff he says he will continue to >see to it that the citizens of his county get their day in >court. > >Mattis went on to say that, to his knowledge, even the IRS has >not attempted to seize any citizen's real property, bank account >or any other private-owned possessions since he ran the Feds out >of his county. > >Sheriff Mattis emphasized that he is not a radical man. He said >he is only dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of >the citizens of his county. > >He added that ordinary citizens are not the only ones bound by >and expected to obey laws. Elected officials and government >employees at all levels of government are also bound by and >should be expected to obey certain laws. > >As long as Sheriff Mattis is the high-sheriff of Big Horn >County, he seems determined to make sure private citizens and >government officials alike act within the law and their >designated powers. > >Sheriff Mattis came across as a soft-spoken, polite man whose >only interest is protecting the citizens he was elected to >serve. That being the case, he might be the sheriff for as long >as he wants to be. > >Sheriff Mattis is hopeful that other sheriffs will assume the >same stance. > >c. 1997 The Knoxville Journal > >-- > >Steve Washam Walla Walla, Washington sew@valint.net >----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Children in Cheyenne [are] taught in their schools, > Believe in the Country, don't break any rules. > But the TV is on and they know something's wrong. > Someone must tell them to keep pushing on. > > Can you hear me Wyoming? > -- YOU are the Country; > -- YOU are the Nation; > -- YOU will survive! > > Can you hear me Wyoming? > -- YOU are the Country; > -- YOU are the Nation; > -- YOU will survive! > > as sung by John Stewart and John Denver > >< >===================================================================== >=== >Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness >B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine > >tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night >email: <website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now >ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best > Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone > Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this > >As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall >not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. >===================================================================== >=== >[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >-------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe, email >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: > subscribe ignition-point > or > unsubscribe ignition-point > http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ > > > > Please visit http://www.prospectorsbanqueclub.com and http://www.eagleflt.com To receive posts from this list send an E-MAIL to me with the word "subscribe" in the subject box. ================================================================== EAGLEFLIGHT ///, 8080,0000,0000 //// \ /, / >. David E. Rydel \ /, _/ /. ***** \_ /_/ /. United States Theatre Command \__/_ << Voice-248-391-0798 /<<<<<< \_\_ Fax-248-391-6785 /,)^>>_._ \ Alt.Fax-248-391-3528 (/ \\ /\\\ E-MAIL: EAGLEFLT@thumb.net // ```` ==============((`============================================= A VOICE OF THE MILITIAS IN NORTH AMERICA AMERICA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Trade Freedom for Security and Have Neither Date: 06 Sep 1997 22:50:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JON E. DOUGHERTY USA FEATURES MEDIA CO. TRADE FREEDOM FOR SECURITY AND HAVE NEITHER SEPTEMBER 1--Thanks to the promises of their socialist parliament, Australians will henceforth be the most safest people in the western world, because they have elected to give up their guns in exchange for "security." Already the cries for parity have come from other western nations, most notably from anti-gunners here in the states, as justification for a policy they have long supported: The incredibly naive concept that without guns, a society suffers from violent crime no more. And here I am, without a sizable parcel of swampland to sell to these people. Australians, used to much more civilized behavior than the pandering US courts can provide for Americans, were justifiably shocked last year when a madman with "military-style" weapons attacked tourists in Port Arthur, killing and wounding many before doing himself in after the spree had ended. Since that abomination, Aussie leftists have been ceaselessly shrieking for state-imposed gun bans, stricter gun licensing requirements and universal gun registration, even though there certainly was no 'epidemic' of gun violence in that country, and even though most Australians didn't ask for, and don't want, these kinds of control. Unlike the states, Australia is mostly rural, and there men really do need guns to help protect themselves from the harsh predatory environment and to help supplant sparse law enforcement representation. But again, with no epidemic of this kind of violence, many westerners have been unable to find the justification for this kind of panic legislation, other than to toss in a few wild theories about global gun control. There has been oft-spirited debate about why private citizens need to be so heavily armed in this post-modern age, when so many governments are "willing" to provide 'security' for them. And on the surface, this concept seems civil and understandable. But the concept is deceptive, because the amount of violence in a society has never had anything to do with the kind of weapons that are available to the populace. The root causes of violence stem from a breakdown in societal norms, a loss of respect for life, immorality, and a crumbling judicial system incapable of exacting like punishment for like crimes. It doesn't matter if there are no guns allowed in the hands of private citizens; if Fred gets ticked off enough at his neighbor Ed, he'll just as easily beat him to death with a rake if he means to kill him. Guns are, for most murderers, a matter of convenience, but restricting their availability will not substantially reduce the violence. To do that, we must radically change our atttudes towards each other, and change the ways in which we seek to resolve our differences. Standing in the way of such sanity are abberancies like gun control. These days the anti-gun issue argument goes something like this: In America, where there are, comparably, relatively few restrictions on gun ownership, there is also epidemic violent crime. On the other hand, in nations where there is strict gun control, there is also much less violence. From this fact--not many deny it as fact--statists glean the conclusion that if only they could limit the number of firearms in private hands, violence would disappear and everyone would live in peace and harmony. It is just this sort of unrealistic demoguogery that has prevented honest debate, critical thinking and problem solving in this--and many other--important social issues. Tell that to the Russians, where the violent crime rate has quadrupled with no legal gun ownership. Tell that to Haitians, Somalians, Bosnians or even the English. No one, from liberal statists to the staunchest law enforcement advocates, can provide this kind of utopian security guarantee. Only God can do that, and when He sends Jesus back to earth then we'll have the peace and harmony envisioned by the utopians that has otherwise remained elusive to mortal Man. Until then, we are forced to accept the realities of human behavior, and one of those realities is that human beings are sometimes mean, violent and forceful, as well as unreasoned. For that reason, it has never made any sense whatsoever to abrogate the responsibility to protect yourself to anyone other than yourself. The ultimate breach of personal responsibility is the person who leaves himself and his family at the mercy of a detached statist regime, to provide that which cannot be guaranteed and to promise that which the state has no right to promise. It is an 'inalienable' right, this right to self-preservation, and no amount of liberal posturing can change this unmalleable constant. And guns accomplish this need. If we were advanced enough to have them, then everyone would want laser pistols to protect themselves; if we still had fourteenth century technology, then folks would have swords and bows to protect themselves. People use the customary means available to defend themselves, so this attack on 'guns' as the root of our violence does nothing except deceivingly shift the blame to inanimate objects while ignoring the underlying social causes of violence. We have a couple of choices. As Americans, we can follow Australia's example, or we can address the root causes of violence in our society. First of all, we can come to terms with the reality that we have had a serious debasement of human behavior, restraint, and dialogue fomenting for many years. Next, we can finally accept the fact that we have lowered our expectations of the courts to a level that cannot achieve justice any longer. And we can stop trying to find a plethora of excuses to justify bad behavior. The reality is, there will always be a fraction of people who just don't fit into civilized society, no matter what weapons you ban or how strictly you impose punishment on criminals. The catch is deciding how best to handle them so that society benefits, instead of formulating policies that allow politicians to pander for votes and expand their power. In the past, 'swift and sure' punishment for vile social behavior worked. Short of that, the ideal that we must trade freedoms for security will gain us neither, and it will only worsen both the violent crime situation and the government's trend towards even more statism, as the nation's social condition decays beyond all control. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's evolutionary history. The Australians are about to learn it. *** Jon Dougherty is the associate producer of The Derry Brownfield Show, a nationally syndicated talk radio program, and editor of the internet newspaper, USA Journal Online. http://www.usajournal.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: andelain Subject: University Date: 08 Sep 1997 11:06:39 -0600 (MDT) Hi, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Customer Support Date: 08 Sep 1997 13:17:33 -0600 I KNOW this is off-topic, but I just can't resist! Sarah >Subject: Customer Support > >Actual dialog of a former Wordperfect Customer Support employee: > >"Ridge Hall computer assistant; may I help you?" >"Yes, well, I'm having trouble with WordPerfect." >"What sort of trouble?" >"Well, I was just typing along, and all of a sudden the words went >away.", >"Went away?" >"They disappeared." >"Hmm. So what does your screen look like now?" >"Nothing." >"Nothing?" >"It's blank; it won't accept anything when I type." >"Are you still in WordPerfect, or did you get out?" >"How do I tell?" >"Can you see the C:\ prompt on the screen?" >"What's a sea-prompt?" >"Never mind. Can you move the cursor around on the screen?" >"There isn't any cursor: I told you, it won't accept anything I type." >"Does your monitor have a power indicator?" >"What's a monitor?" >"It's the thing with the screen on it that looks like a TV. >Does it have a little light that tells you when it's on?" >"I don't know." >"Well, then look on the back of the monitor and find where the power cord >goes into it. Can you see that?" >"Yes, I think so." >"Great! Follow the cord to the plug, and tell me if it's plugged into the >wall." >"Yes, it is." >"When you were behind the monitor, did you notice that there were two >cables plugged into the back of it, not just one?" >"No." >"Well, there are. I need you to look back there again and find the other >cable." >"Okay, here it is." >"Follow it for me, and tell me if it's plugged securely into the back of >your computer." >"I can't reach." >"Uh huh. Well, can you see if it is?" >"No." >"Even if you maybe put your knee on something and lean way over?" >"Oh, it's not because I don't have the right angle-it's because >it'sdark." >"Dark?" >"Yes-the office light is off, and the only light I have is coming in from >the window." >"Well, turn on the office light then." >"I can't." >"No? Why not?" >"Because there's a power outage." >"A power ... A power outage? Aha! Okay, we've got it licked now. Do >you still have the boxes and manuals and packing stuff your computer came > in?" >"Well, yes, I keep them in the closet." >"Good! Go get them, and unplug your system and pack it up just like it >was when you got it. Then take it back to the store you bought it from." >"Really? Is it that bad?" >"Yes, I'm afraid it is." >"Well, all right then, I suppose. What do I tell them?" >"Tell them you're too stupid to own a computer." > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum, > Indiana's Fully Informed Jury Association, Inc. > http://www.drtavel.com/ > ************************* > Not a high-tech law firm brochure. > Dr. Tavel's Self Help Clinic and Sovereign Law Library > promotes "action that raises the cost of state violence > for its perpetrators (and) that lays the basis for > institutional change " -- Noam Chomsky > > "The law should surely be accessible at all times > and to everyone" -- Franz Kafka > > For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D. > ************************** > Updated Daily by > The OtherOne Computer Consulting International, Ltd. > http://www.drtavel.com/TOOCCI.html > mailto:rj@drtavel.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Letter from Senator Ed Kennedy, & Sarah Brady 2/2 Date: 09 Sep 1997 06:11:00 -0700 ************* Beginning of Sarah Brady letter *************** MEMORANDUM TO: Every American Concerned About Gun Violence FROM: Sarah Brady, Chair SUBJECT: The Difference YOU Can Make __________________________________________________________________ All across the nation, candidates who stood up for strong, sensible gun laws were elected or reelected last fall. Which means that this fall, when Congress returns from its summer recess with time to consider new legislation . . . . . . Handgun Control, Inc. faces a rare opportunity. And we must seize it! But we need you behind us. Because HCI, the citizens' force for safer, saner gun control laws, has launched the biggest mobilization and most intense campaign ever to protect public safety. HCI has launched THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN. As part of this Campaign, we will propose the boldest, most comprehensive package of common-sense gun laws ever presented to Congress and the Administration. But we will come up against extreme opposition. With all of their money, the gun lobby is very influential in Washington. For this reason, it is critical that we confront Congress and the gun lobby with the most important winning tool we possess: a strong, united voice. We must tell Congress -- as loudly as we can -- that Americans will not stand for gun violence any longer. To do this, we need your help at once. I am urging you to join Handgun Control, Inc. today -- while the opportunity is so great -- so that your voice can help make THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN a success. What is THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN? It is HCI's innovative, common-sense approach to ending gun violence and saving lives through tougher gun safety and gun trafficking legislation. You see, gun trafficking and the lack of gun industry regulation are the two biggest problems Americans face in the fight for public safety. And while we've already achieved some success -- with the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban -- our current laws need to be strengthened. For example, did you know that the Brady Law -- which applies to handgun purchases at gun stores -- doesn't cover private sales? In other words, in most states, private citizens can sell a gun to anyone, without a background check and without a waiting period. THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN will . . . extend the Brady Law to cover private sales. Did you know that professional gun runners and their straw purchasers can legally buy 10, 20, or even 30 guns at one time? To make matters even worse, records of these handgun purchases must be destroyed within 20 days! THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN will . . . take the demonstrated success of Virginia's One-Handgun-A-Month law and extend it nationwide and end the required destruction of handgun purchase records after 20 days. Did you know more regulations apply to common household appliances than to handguns? Handgun manufacturing regulations could save untold lives, especially those of children who play with a gun they think is empty. THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGH will . . . require magazine- loading handguns to have a magazine safety, which would prevent the gun from firing the bullet left in the chamber when the magazine is unloaded. Did you know that in our society that requires drivers', fishing and even dog licenses, we do not require the purchaser of a deadly weapon to prove knowledge about its safe use? Nor do we require that guns be registered to assist law enforcement in tracking guns used in crimes. THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN will . . . require licensing to assure proper use and safety. It will also require registration of handgun transfers so law enforcement can track down guns used in crimes. As you can see, all four of these common-sense objectives are within reach. With your help we can create a safe America. And we need your help because of the fundamental rule of politics: there is strength in numbers. Whenever I'm talking with an elected official about gun control issues -- no matter if it's about keeping the ban on assault weapons, licensing of handgun purchasers or better regulation of gun dealers -- the bottom-line question I hear is always the same: "How many people are behind you on this issue?" And that's why I'm urging you to add your voice to ours. Your participation will make a difference. With your new member contribution of $15, $20, $35 or more . . . You can help us fight for sensible gun laws. Your financial support will help us sustain a dedicated and effective staff that works to convince politicians in Washington and in state capitols that gun laws are essential to protect the public's safety. You can be a powerful force for gun control. Because of the NRA's political clout, many legislators are wary of voting for gun control -- even when confronted with the shocking facts about gun violence in America. That's why a vital part of our work is keeping you informed about issues in Congress and mobilizing our membership to help fight for stronger gun laws. You can stand up, be counted and make a difference! Just take a moment right now to fill out and return the enclosed Membership Acceptance Reply with your check today. That way, the next time a politician asks me how many people really support THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN, I can include you in that number! Together, we can make America a safer place to live and raise our families. Together, we can stop the killing. Please join us today! Sarah. End of BEST-RKBA Digest 291 *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Letter from Senator Ed Kennedy, & Sarah Brady 1/2 Date: 09 Sep 1997 06:11:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- BEST-RKBA Digest 291 Hi; Supposedly the following two letters have been sent out to a number of registered Democrats across the country. They were sent out by our beloved Senator Ed Kennedy. The first was sent out on his congressional stationary and Sarah Brady's letter is on HCI letter head. As we used to say in the Navy, "This is no-s*#t." Please SPREAD THE WORD. Enjoy. John W. ********* Beginning of Letter from Senator Ed Kennedy *********** Dear Friend; As you know, my family has suffered the personal nightmare of gun violence. We have known the dark days of senseless violence and terror that can shatter the finest hopes and dreams. Sadly, my family's experience is not unique. And that is why I am writing to you today. Hundreds of thousands of families across our nation have had their lives torn apart by gun violence. And each day, another 105 more Americans die from gunshot wounds. When will it stop? What will it take before we are finally ready to take real steps to halt the arms race in our neighborhoods and deal with the epidemic of gun violence that is devastating our society? What will it take? I believe the answer, quite simply is you. Please let me explain. Throughout my years of service in the United States Senate, I have always been a strong champion of gun control. The battle has never been easy, but today it is more difficult than ever before. That's because the National Rifle Association is such a huge obstacle to responsible and lifesaving gun control legislation -- the NRA is one of the biggest, most highly organized, best-financed special interest groups on Capitol Hill. They have vast influence. One organization that I respect a great deal has made a real difference in countering the NRA's warped agenda: Handgun Control, Inc. Handgun Control has repeatedly shown that concerned Americans like you can fight back. You can overcome the NRA's multi-million-dollar lobbying assault. You can put sensible gun laws on the statute books. I know you can because Handgun jControl members made all the difference in our successful seven-year battle to enact the Brady Law. This sensible law, which I am proud to have co-sponsored in the Senate, mandates a national waiting period and background check for handgun buyers. And it's working! According to statistics collected by state and local law enforcement departments, during the Brady Law's first three-plus years, background checks prevented an estimated 250,000 convicted felons and other ineligible people from purchasing guns. Handgun Control members also won a major victory for our safety in 1994 with the enactment of a ban on the importation and manufacture of assault weapons -- the military-style rifles, pistols and magazine clips whose pervasive availability has turned our schoolyards, our streets and our neighborhoods into battlefields. And now, Handgun Control has launched The Safe America Campaign -- the most ambitious gun control and community safety package since the Brady Law. I intend to support it strongly. But we're in a difficult battle. Because the National Rifle Association, the gun industry and pro-gun members of Congress will pull out all the stops to block these lifesaving, common-sense gun control initiatives. Despite the fact that you and the vast majority of Americans support sensible gun control measures, your voices may not be heard loud and clear enough in Washington. But you can make your voice heard. I can't emphasize strongly enough how important it is for Congress to learn where you stand when important gun control issues are debated and critical votes are cast. And that is why I urge you to make sure your voice is heard by becoming a member of Handgun Control, Inc. today. Without the involvement of concerned Americans like you, the NRA may very well triumph. They will undo all the progress we have made -- and they will block passage of new laws that are urgently needed to reduce gun violence in your community and across America. The enclosed memo from my good friend Sarah Brady, the Chair of Handgun, Inc., explains their work in more detail. Sarah also tells you how to join this most effective citizens' movement and help make America a safer place for all of us. I urge you to add your voice to Handgun Control's today. You can make a lifesaving difference in our country's future. So please act now. Sincerely; {signed} Edward M. Kennedy P.S. Through the efforts of Handgun Control, Inc., we can reach the critical mass of public support needed to protect the achievements already in the statute books and enact the new gun control legislation that's so urgently needed. Please, stand with us today! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI)'s new web site Date: 10 Sep 1997 08:16:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI)'s new web site. Also HCI's addresses, phone #'s, and FAX #'s. Backwards HCI finally makes it to the cyber-age. Who knows? Maybe Charles Schumer will even have an e-mail address by the end of the century. Anyway, hold your nose and take a look. If you come away with images of Nazi Germany in the 1930's, you are not alone. http://www.handguncontrol.org/index.htm Washington Office 1225 Eye Street NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005-3991 HCI telephone: 202-898-0792 HCI fax: 202-371-9615 CPHV telephone: 202-289-7319 CPHV fax: 202-408-1851 Communications fax: 202-682-4462 202-842-7610 Handgun Control, Inc. and Center to Prevent Handgun Violence LA office 10951 W. Pico Boulevard, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90064 HCI telephone: 310-446-0056 CPHV telephone: 310-475-6714 HCI/CPHV fax: 310-475-3147 San Francisco office 268 Bush Street, Box 555 San Francisco, CA 94108 HCI/CPHV telephone: 415-433-3535 HCI/CPHV fax: 415-433-3357 San Diego Office 705 12th Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 HCI/CPHV telephone: 619-557-0100 HCI/CPHV fax: 619-233-6682 Chicago Office 11 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2302 Chicago, IL 60603 telephone: 312-920-0504 fax: 312-920-0807 "To Flame or Not to Flame, That is the Question." or is it...."Last One On the HCI Internet Enemies List is a Rotten Egg." ":~) Mick ****************************************************************** Michael Moxley The Patriot: mmoxley@foto.infi.net http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6627/ ***************************Live Free or Die!*************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Column, Sept. 12 (LONGISH)] Date: 10 Sep 1997 10:05:16 -0600 Thought this might be of some interest... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 12, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Good cop, bad cop As Internet encryption advocate Robert Costner of Electronic Frontiers Georgia (http://www.efga.org/) recently asked his e-mail correspondents, "Would you store a key to your house at the local police station, just in case any government agency ... wanted to search your home, without a court ordered search warrant, whether you were home or not? "Would you feel better if the key to your house was kept at a local bank, but available to the government within two hours, seven days a week, 24 hours per day, and the bank was forbidden by law from telling you that the government had your house key? "What would you do if such a bill was in congress right now? ..." It is. The personal "effects" targeted this time are our computer files, telephone calls, and e-mail communications, thanks to the latest revisions to Senate Bill 909, "The Secure Public Networks Act of 1997." Initially the bill in question -- sponsored by Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona -- stipulated the congressional intent was to outlaw the use of sophisticated devices to scramble Internet communications only for the purpose of concealing crimes, that Congress in no way intended to outlaw the transmission of coded messages between otherwise law-abiding Americans. But a new version of the bill's Section 105, appearing Aug. 28 and supported by FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, would in effect require Internet Service Providers to decode users' messages upon court demand -- a function they would be able to perform because, under the new version of the law, those using encryption to make their messages unintelligible to third parties would now be required to store "escrow keys" capable of decoding their messages with a "trusted third party" such as the local bank. The sale, distribution, or importation of encryption programs without such a government-accessible "keyhole" would, of course, be made illegal, as of January 1999. Chief federal internal security officer Freeh contends his revision only reflects "the legitimate needs of law enforcement," of course. Mr. Costner responds: "Indeed, one can offer many arguments as to why a government would be better off without encryption being held by its citizens. Just think what a different world we would live in if early American crypto had not been possible. Remember Paul Revere's secret key implementation of 'One if by land, two if by sea?' " But in a pleasant surprise, Vice President Al Gore on Sept. 9 reaffirmed the Clinton administration's policy against restricting the domestic sale of high-tech computer privacy devices. "The administration's position has not changed on encryption," Gore told the Software Publishers Association. Until Mr. Freeh's initiative a week ago, official U.S. policy had opposed restrictions on the sale of data-scrambling software within the United States, though the administration does regulate exports of encryption devices, actually labeling such export products "munitions" based on their presumed usefulness to foreign armies and terrorist groups. Vice President Gore didn't specifically mention Freeh's proposal on Sept. 9. But White House aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press the vice president's brief comment was intended to respond to Director Freeh and "show that for now the administration is not changing its position on the sale of encryption devices in the United States." Last December a new administration plan took effect, giving U.S. companies more freedom to export high-tech encryption devices, but insisting manufacturers first guarantee that G-men -- upon court order -- would be able to crack the codes and intercept the communications. Will U.S. firms find it a crippling restriction when they try to enter international markets with "privacy" programs to which everyone knows the FBI and CIA already hold the secret keys? Probably. But the larger risk here is the spread of such an attractive tool for government snooping back into the domestic arena. If it were up to Judge Freeh, private letters dropped in the mailbox on the corner would have to be sealed in transparent envelopes, "to make it easier for us to check." Assurances that the administration is not going along with Director Freeh "for now" are welcome, though I can't help but wonder why Director Freeh was permitted to float such a balloon in the first place, except to see whether it might fly unopposed. This is a dangerous dalliance with the mindset of the police state. The federal government shouldn't be opening our mail -- electronic or otherwise. If that means a few "dangerous conspirators" are allowed to move their earnings around without telling the IRS, so be it. Because the only alternative is the "safety" of a nation with a cop listening on every phone. No thanks. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed." ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- 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 rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious." -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Anti-Gun Group Gives Utah a `D' for Safety Date: 10 Sep 1997 10:51:18 -0600 >Subject: Anti-Gun Group Gives Utah a `D' for Safety > >http://www.sltrib.com/091097/utah/3365.htm > >> [Image] >> [Image] [Image] Wednesday, September 10, 1997 [Image] [Image] >> >> Anti-Gun Group Gives Utah a `D' for Safety >> >> BY ROBERT BRYSON >> THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE >> Utah earned a ``D'' from Handgun Control Inc., a Washington, >> D.C., gun-control lobbying group, on how the state protects children >> from gun violence and accidents. >> Grades were based on whether concealed handguns are allowed and >> if training is required for them; if there are laws against juveniles >> possessing or selling handguns; if adults are required to keep >> firearms out of the reach of children; and whether state law can >> override strict city or county ordinances regarding firearms. >> ``Utah has some of the weakest laws in the nation regarding >> concealed weapons, and training and gets an ``F'' there,'' said Jake >> Tapper, spokesman for Handgun Control Inc. >> The organization has 400,000 members and is headed by Sarah >> Brady. Her husband, James Brady, who was President Reagan's press >> secretary, was wounded and disabled by gunfire in an attack on the >> president. >> Tapper also said that other states earned higher grades because >> police are in charge of issuing concealed-weapon permits. >> Utah legislators changed the law in 1995, granting the ability to >> get a permit to nearly any applicant who does not have a felony >> conviction. Some 14,000 Utahns now hold the permits, issued by the >> Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification. In the past, police oversaw >> the permits and applicants had to show why it was necessary. >> Utah does not allow juveniles to own or sell firearms, but lacks >> laws requiring adults to keep firearms out of children's reach. Utah >> also does not allow cities or counties to enact stricter gun laws >> than those of the state. >> ``There were 36 Utah children that were dead from firearms in >> 1994, the latest statistics from the National Center for Health >> Statistics,'' Tapper said. The Utah Department of Health in 1995 >> documented two accidental deaths from guns by youths under 19, and 34 >> suicides. >> ``No state got an A,'' he added, noting California, New Jersey, >> Connecticut and Iowa earned ``B'' grades. Utah's neighboring states, >> Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Colorado earned ``D'' or ``C'' >> rankings from the organization. >> ``We are tough graders when it comes to children's safety >> regarding guns,'' he said. >> Education officials in Utah are concerned over gun safety, says >> Michelle Bues, a staff attorney with the State office of Education. >> ``We have concerns about concealed weapons in schools, and are >> working on a bill to be introduced in the Utah Legislature,'' she >> said. Gun advocates say they can carry firearms to school, but >> educators say they are not allowed without permission of school >> officials. >> ``The goal is to make our schools safer,'' said Bues. >> The ``D'' does not surprise Steve Gunn of Utahns Against Gun >> Violence. >> ``That is where I would have ranked Utah,'' he said. His >> organization is working on the proposed legislation with State Office >> of Education officials. >> Gun-rights advocates question Handgun Control Inc.'s grades and >> findings. >> ``Concealed-weapon permits have nothing to do with children,'' >> said Joe Venus Jr., publisher of American Gun Review, based in >> Murray. >> Janalee Tobias of Women Against Gun Control says Handgun >> Control's efforts are misguided. >> ``They like to give grades and get people concerned. They need to >> separate the issues, and we need to work more on gun safety,'' she >> said. >> >> >> >> [Image] [Wednesday Navigation Bar] [Image] >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> ) 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: "S. Thompson" Subject: HAND-LOADING GOOD-BYE Date: 12 Sep 1997 14:19:45 -0600 >Subject: HAND-LOADING GOOD-BYE > > >> S.O.D.F. NEWS ALERT >> N.Y. Democrat Representative, Louise Slaughter has sponsored a bill that >>requires hobbyists to be fingerprinted, photographed and obtain a license to >>by or keep 5 pounds of gunpowder. >> The "Bombing Prevention Act" calls for a permit and a fee of $100 and would >>be valid for three years. It would mandate background checks similar to the >>'Brady' law. >> >>---Source- The Columbus Dispatch (9/7/97) > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Handgun Restrictions May Get Tougher Date: 12 Sep 1997 14:25:45 -0600 >Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:57:54 -0600 >From: "S. Thompson" >Reply-To: gunmoll@unforgettable.com >Organization: The Righter >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I) >To: "S. Thompson" , Will Thompson >Subject: Handgun Restrictions May Get Tougher > >http://www.sltrib.com/091297/utah/3651.htm > >> [Image] >> [Image] [Image] Friday, September 12, 1997 [Image] [Image] >> >> Handgun Restrictions May Get Tougher >> >> BY VINCE HORIUCHI >> THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE >> Since 1994, more than 2 percent of Utahns who tried to buy a >> handgun were stopped after undergoing a mandatory criminal background >> check, about the same as the national rate. >> Nationally, 2.2 percent, or 173,000 buyers, were rejected of the >> more than 7.7 million who applied to purchase a handgun, according to >> the U.S. Justice Department. >> And restrictions to buy guns are likely to get tougher. Starting >> in November 1998, anyone buying any type of gun from a licensed >> dealer, including long guns such as hunting rifles, must undergo a >> criminal background check. The federal law -- which affects every >> state -- is a provision of the Brady gun-control law. >> In Utah, 115,328 people applied to buy a handgun from a federally >> licensed firearms dealer since the law went into effect in February >> 1994. Of those, 2,323 were rejected, according to the Bureau of >> Criminal Identification (BCI), which performs the background checks. >> Though the state law has successfully blocked the sale of >> handguns to many people who are wanted by the law or who have >> criminal histories, gun-control advocates say the state statute is >> too weak. >> The law states that only licensed gun dealers must check out >> prospective buyers. One-time gun sellers -- such as those who want to >> sell a family gun -- are under no such requirement. >> ``That's a very large loophole in the existing law,'' said Steve >> Gunn of Utahns Against Gun Violence. ``People can buy firearms almost >> of any kind through nondealers and therefore escape the requirement >> for a background check.'' >> But Elwood Powell of the Utah Shooting Sports Council said the >> law is adequate as long it does not require a waiting period. >> ``They have done an extraordinary job in doing computer checks, >> at least with handguns,'' Powell said about the agency conducting >> background checks. >> In Utah since 1994, 1,289 people were stopped from buying a >> handgun because they had a felony record, 772 for being a fugitive >> from justice, 152 for having a record of domestic violence and 110 >> for being the subject of a protective order. >> On average, the state received 2,780 applications to buy a >> handgun each month, while 62 were denied. ``It follows the same >> pattern from month to month,'' said Todd Peterson, supervisor of the >> firearms section of BCI. >> In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a major provision in >> the federal Brady gun-control law that forced states to conduct >> criminal background checks on firearm purchasers. >> The court said it is unconstitutional for the federal government >> to order state governments to fund and operate crime-check systems to >> enforce a federal law. >> But Utah elected to retain its law requiring a background check >> because officials are convinced it weeds out those who should not >> have guns. >> In November 1998, another fight in the gun-control issue is >> likely to erupt, however. A new federal computer crime-check system >> will be operational, and all states will be required to check >> criminal backgrounds of the buyers for all firearms -- including long >> guns. Because the federal computer system can be used, the Supreme >> Court ruling means states would be forced to comply. >> Thus, anyone who buys any kind of firearm from a licensed dealer >> in Utah after November 1998 would be required to undergo a background >> check. >> ``It's becoming more and more intrusive,'' said Powell. ``The >> design is to make it so difficult for someone to purchase firearms >> that they don't even want to try anymore.'' >> But Gunn of Utahns Against Gun Violence insists that it makes >> sense to restrict the sales of all guns, adding, ``We should be >> consistent.'' >> >> >> >> [Image] [Friday Navigation Bar] [Image] >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> ) 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. > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: This could be a SPAM... Date: 12 Sep 1997 14:44:10 -0600 Hi all! Guess what? The Utah Shooting Sports Council is holding a membership drive! Do you want CCW's to be made illegal again? Do you want to be able to carry into private businesses, hospitals, schools, etc? Would you like Vermont-style carry? Should you be exempt from civil liability if you shoot a burglar in your own home? Would you like reciprocity increased? Do you think the University of Utah should be allowed to ban legal concealed carry? These are just a few of the issues that will be confronting us during the 1998 legislative session. Last session Rob Bishop (the ONLY full-time pro-gun lobbyist on the Hill!) did a fantastic job! But the anti-gunners are well-funded, and will never rest until all of us have been disarmed, so the battle is starting anew. Rob can't do his job, and USSC can't do theirs, without -guess what! - MONEY! If you care about your gun rights, PLEASE join! Membership is $20 for an individual, $35 for a family, and $250 for businesses. Donations are welcome if you don't want to "join" an organization. Dues and donations are NOT tax-exempt. The address is: Utah Shooting Sports Council PO Box 1175 Layton, UT 84041-6975 You can also join at the Crossroads of the West Gun show next weekend. PLEASE copy or mention this note when/if you join. I'm doing an informal study of the effectiveness of the internet for gun-rights supporters. PLEASE NOTE: This message is the _sole responsibility of the author_. USSC does NOT know I'm sending it, and my only affilitaion with USSC is as an ordinary dues-paying member. Please feel free to forward this to anyone else you know who may be interested. Thanks for your support! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Gun Rights Forces Outgunned on TV Date: 13 Sep 1997 17:01:17 -0600 This article is best viewed on the Web, but for those of you who don't have access, I'm including the entire article. Sarah >http://www.mrc.org/mrc/mediawatch/1997/mw0797st.html > >> [Image] >> >> From the July 1997 MediaWatch >> Study >> >> Networks Use First Amendment Rights to Promote >> Opponents of Second Amendment Rights >> Gun Rights Forces Outgunned on TV >> >> Network reporters feared a wave of [Image] >> criminals storming gun stores when the >> Supreme Court struck down portions of the Brady >> Bill as unconstitutional. On the June 27 CBS >> Evening News, Jim Stewart left viewers with this >> fearful conclusion: "No matter who does the >> checking, supporters of the Brady law say one >> lesson from this is very clear. If no background >> check is done anyone can walk into a gun store and >> purchase a weapon, including the nearly quarter of >> a million felons who tried to and were turned away >> the four years the Brady law was in effect." >> >> Stewart neglected the National Rifle >> Association's view that the 250,000 number is >> completely exaggerated, especially considering >> that only 20 states are still subject to the Brady >> law, and there are only "three individuals who've >> seen the inside of a prison cell under the Brady >> Act." >> >> To examine if CBS's tone reflected how the >> networks covered the gun control debate, >> MediaWatch analysts reviewed every gun control >> policy story on four evening shows (ABC's World >> News Tonight, CBS Evening News, CNN's The World >> Today, and NBC Nightly News) and three morning >> broadcasts (ABC's Good Morning America, CBS This >> Morning, and NBC's Today) from July 1, 1995 >> through June 30, 1997. In 244 gun policy stories, >> those favoring gun control outnumbered stories >> opposing gun control by 157 to 10, or a ratio of >> almost 16 to 1 (77 were neutral). Talking heads >> were slightly more balanced: gun control advocates >> outumbered gun-rights spokesmen 165 to 110 (40 >> were neutral). >> >> Story Angle. Analysts counted the number of >> pro- and anti- gun control statements by reporters >> in each story. Pieces with a disparity of greater >> than 1.5 to 1 were categorized as either for or >> against gun control. Stories closer than the ratio >> were deemed neutral. Among statements recorded as >> pro-gun control: violent crime occurs because of >> guns, not criminals, and gun control prevents >> crime. Categorized as arguments against gun >> control: gun control would not reduce crime; that >> criminals, not guns are the problem; Americans >> have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms; >> right-to-carry concealed weapons laws caused a >> drop in crime. The finding that the story-angle >> numbers are much more lopsided than the >> talking-head contrast reveals that the reporters' >> own statements have a demonstrable pro-gun control >> spin. >> >> Evening News. Gun rights advocates were >> treated like clay pigeons in a skeet-shooting >> contest. Out of 103 evening news segments, pro-gun >> control stories outnumbered anti-gun control >> stories by 70 to 6, along with 27 neutral reports. >> ABC was the most slanted (29 pro-gun control to >> five anti-, only six neutral), followed by CNN >> (17-1, and only six neutral). NBC reporters >> promoted gun control in 13 (60 percent) of 22 gun >> segments. CBS had the highest percentage of >> balanced stories but still advocated gun control >> in 11 (65 percent) of 17 gun control-related >> segments, to six neutral stories and zero opposing >> segments. >> >> Pro-gun control talking heads were televised >> 99 times on evening shows, to just 67 anti-gun >> control spokesmen and 24 neutral soundbites. Once >> again ABC (35-20, five neutral) led the way in >> pushing for gun control, followed by CBS (24-13, >> six neutral). CNN (16-13, four neutral) NBC >> (24-21, and nine neutral) came closest to balance. >> >> Morning Shows. In 141 morning-show [Image] >> gun policy segments, stories loaded in >> favor of gun control outnumbered stories opposing >> gun control 87 to 4. (Fifty were neutral.) ABC's >> advocacy against gun owners carried over to Good >> Morning America (36 pro-gun control stories, zero >> opposed, 16 neutral). NBC came next (35-3, with 20 >> neutral). CBS set their sights against gun owners >> in 16 stories, but came closest to balance with 14 >> neutral segments (but only one story favoring gun >> rights). >> >> The talking head count on morning shows also >> followed the pro-gun control trend: 66 pro-gun >> control to 43 against and 16 neutral. Again, ABC >> had the largest slant (26-15, and eight neutral), >> followed by NBC (23-12, six neutral). CBS's >> talking heads came out almost even: 17 in favor of >> gun control, 16 opposed and two neutral. >> >> Guests. The morning shows were also far more >> likely to invite gun control spokesmen like Sarah >> Brady than 2nd Amendment defenders like the NRA's >> Tanya Metaksa. Pro-gun control spokesmen were able >> to advocate their side three times more than the >> anti-gun control speakers: 37 to just 12 >> opponents, and four neutral spokesmen. On NBC, >> advocates overwhelmed opponents 19 to 3, with no >> neutral observers, followed by ABC (6-3, one >> neutral) and CBS (12-6, three neutral). >> >> Network guest bookers and reporters fell over >> themselves to feature anti-gun rights >> Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). On the >> November 6, 1996 Today Katie Couric asked: "What >> do you think the lesson is for the National Rifle >> Association? Of course, one of the cornerstones of >> your campaign was to maintain the ban on assault >> weapons in this country." >> >> That same day on Good Morning America, Joan >> Lunden also enthusiastically welcomed the gun >> rights opponent: "McCarthy turned her rage over >> the availability of assault weapons into political >> activism and last night this ultimate outsider, a >> former nurse and homemaker, defeated incumbent >> Daniel Frisa and Carolyn McCarthy joins me now. >> Good morning. Congratulations! What are your >> thoughts as you sit there? I mean, a little fear, >> excitement? Hopes? What are your thoughts?" She >> added: "Sounds like you really educated yourself, >> too. Are you at all daunted by this task that lies >> before you?" >> >> At the end of the interview, Lunden cheered >> on McCarthy's anti- gun crusade: Well, we wish you >> the very, very best of luck and congratulations to >> you." Would Lunden and Couric have wished luck to >> a Congressman desiring to place restrictions on >> the First Amendment? Apparently network reporters >> regard some constitutional rights as more sacred >> than others. >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Other features in the July MediaWatch >> >> [Image] >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> MediaWatch Archives HOME MRC News Division > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Fwd: Please cross-post this Date: 13 Sep 1997 17:05:36 -0600 > *** Cross-post freely *** > > >Last year the Suffolk County, N.Y. legislature passed a law, >County Law 678-96, requiring the police department to issue >pistol licenses only with those restrictions specifically >spelled out in the penal code, meaning none. The SCPD no >longer has the authority to place any arbitary restrictions >upon any license. > >Police commissioner Gallagher has refused to implement this. >The Suffolk Police Department's web page is located at: > >http://www.nais.com/clients/scpd/ > >I suggested to other New York activists that pro-gun messages >be left on their web site's guestbook. No rude, crude, or >disgusting messages were posted. In response to this, their >webmaster Lawrence Scharf (lscharf@nais.com) has been deleting >all messages which make reference to 678-96 and has begun to >post blatantly false information on the county's pistol >licensing procedure. > >I am asking for help from pro-gun activists from the country >to please visit the SCPD's homepage and leave a polite message >requsting commissioner Gallagher implement 678-96 and for the >SCPD to stop censoring their web page. > > >Jacob J. Rieper >Compuserve: 73377.1220@compuserve.com >Internet: V$IDCC@vnet.ibm.com >NY RKBA: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1976/lrn.htm > >"Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum >est." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [byron@code-co.com: Court Rule Proposed Changes] Date: 14 Sep 1997 14:56:45 -0600 Not directly related, but likely of interest to some here... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Utah Code and Court Rules Update from Code-Co's Internet Access to Utah Law http://www.code-co.com/utah ===================================== Topic: Proposed Changes to Various Utah Court Rules. URL: http://www.code-co.com/utah/court/p91297/index.htm At the above address you will find proposed changes to various court rules. The Administrative Office of the Courts has released the proposed changes to request COMMENT. (How to give any comment you have is found on web site.) The following sets of rules are affected by the proposed changes: Rules of Civil Procedure Rules of Criminal Procedure Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules of Juvenile Procedure Code of Judicial Administrations The changes are shown in typical legislative style. Material that is proposed to be added is underlined and italic. Material that is proposed to be stricken out is bracketed and struck through. Hope you find this useful. Byron Harward Webmaster Code-Co Law Publishers Note: You receive this email either because you are a subscriber to our service or because you registered as an interested user and asked for a free password to try our service. If you would prefer not to receive these updates, please reply to this email with "Remove from updates" in the subject field. We will immediately remove you from the update list. ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- 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: "S. Thompson" Subject: S&W as the "Gatekeeper" & "Keeper of the Key" Date: 15 Sep 1997 13:10:12 -0600 >-----------------From S&W Website---------------------- > >August 1997 > >SMITH & WESSON HANDGUNS TO COME WITH MASTER LOCK GUN LOCK > > >Smith & Wesson, the worlds leading manufacturer of handguns for sporting, >law enforcement and military use, announces that beginning September 2, all >Smith & Wesson handguns sold for commercial distribution will be shipped >from the factory with a Master Lock Gun Lock. > >Ken Jorgensen, Smith & Wesson's Public Relations Manager states, "Smith & >Wesson recognizes that with our rights comes responsibility. We believe >that it is common sense for Smith & Wesson to encourage gun owners to >utilize the full range of firearms safety precautions and procedures >available to them. These certainly include basic firearms safety training >and measures that that can help prevent unauthorized access to firearms. >While we recognize that mo single safety device or solution will apply >universally to all gun owners, we believe that the inclusionof the Master >Lock Gun Lock with Smith & Wesson handguns reflect our commiment to the >concept of responsibility." > >This partnership with Master Lock, the world's best known name in locking >devices is a natural for Smith & Wesson. Both American based companies are >leaders in their respective industries and our combined knowledge of >firearms and security devices will be of mutual benefit to our customers. > >Consumers that wish to purchase either duplicate locks keyed the same for >use on other firearms they own or additional keys may do so through the >Smith & Wesson Customer Support Center (800-331-0852, Ext.2904). > >For More Information, Call Our Customer Service: 1-800-826-5481 > Smith & Wesson 2100 Roosevelt Avenue Springfield, MA 01102 (413) 781-8300 Customer Support: qa@Smith-Wesson.Com URL: http://www.smith-wesson.com Well, no. Smith and Wesson can't take responsibility for me or anyone else, unless they choose to stop manufacturing firearms. Only _individuals_ can be responsible for themselves or their children. So, S&W thinks I'm too irresponsible to keep a firearm safe myself, and too stupid to make my own decisions. S&W thinks they have the right to _force_ me to buy a "Master Lock", even if my children are adults! S&W maybe even wants me to get killed trying to remove the lock while someone attacks me. S&W has sold out. They think that if they feed the crocodile, it will eat them last. They're too stupid to realize they'll still get eaten! I'm really fond of my S&W pistol, but you can bet I won't ever buy another one. Let Smith & Wesson know how YOU feel about their new trigger lock program! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Fwd: Heston/NRA Against NRA Bylaws and Militias Date: 17 Sep 1997 10:09:46 -0600 >Tonight on CSPAN-2 I happened to watch a few minutes of NRA Executive Vice President Charlton >Heston's performance before the National Press Club. I only saw a few minutes of the question >and answer session. One question was, essentially, the following: What support or involvement >does the NRA have with "paramilitary" groups?" Mr. Heston's response, and I believe I have the >quote accurate, having written it down as it happened (I may be off a word or two, the essence >of the quote is as follows; transcripts can be obtained by calling 1 (888) 343-1940): "The NRA >has never had any involvement with any militia group, nor does it approve of them." > >Ahem. > >The Bylaws of the NRA state, in pertinent part: > >Article II > >The purposes and objectives of the National Rifle Association of America are: > >1. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to >the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to >acquire, possess, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in >order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights >of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve >effectively in the appropriate MILITIA for the common defense of the Republic and the individual >liberty of its citizens; > >. . . > >3. To train members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, the MILIIA, and people of >good repute in marksmanship and in the safe handling and efficient use of small arms; > >(emphasis added by capitalization). > >This is now the second time in two weeks that I've seen an official spokesman of the NRA say >this. The other was Steve Helsley, who was quoted by the Los Angeles Times as having said >essentially the same thing. > >Thought you'd like to know. > > >Daniel J. Schultz >President and Co-founder >The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society >18034 Ventura Boulevard, No. 329 >Encino, CA 91316 >(818) 734-3066 >http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/law_menu.html > >For a complimentary copy of the LSAS newsletter, The Liberty Pole, >please call us or send an e-mail. Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air. Margaret Thatcher (b. 1925) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Rights vs. Social Utility, By Sarah Thompson, M.D. Date: 17 Sep 1997 10:59:03 -0600 Hi! I can't remember if I sent this out already. If I did, apologies for the "re-run"! Sarah >Subject: Rights vs. Social Utility, By Sarah Thompson, M.D. > >http://webley.zq.com/tle/le970801-06.html > >> >> T ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> H THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE >> E Number 32, August 1, 1997 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> L >> I Rights vs. Social Utility >> B >> E By Sarah Thompson, M.D. >> R righter@therighter.com >> T >> A Special to The Libertarian Enterprise >> R >> I I recently received an e-mail from some gun >> A rights advocates which proposed the following: >> N >> 1. The Constitution is the standard >> E argument for the right to keep and bear >> N arms. >> T 2. "Joe and Jane Sixpack", not to mention >> E "Joseph and Janet Champagne", don't think >> R the Constitution matters. >> P 3. Scholars such as Kleck, Kates, and Lott >> R have demonstrated that firearms ownership >> I has social utility. >> S 4. Therefore, we should abandon the Second >> E Amendment as the basis of our arguments and >> attempt to persuade the public to accept >> gun ownership on emotional terms as having >> I "social utility". >> s >> s My response follows. >> u It is true that "Joe and Jane Sixpack" don't >> e care a bit about the Constitution. It is sad, but >> true, that most of the justices don't either. But >> 32 think about what you're proposing. Do you really want >> to concede, a priori, that the Constitution is >> irrelevant, that all that matters is "social >> utility"? Do you want to change the rules of >> engagement so that pragmatism trumps rights? If you >> do so, I maintain that the battle, and the war, are >> irrevocably lost. >> Rights are unchanging and immutable, because >> they are of nature, or God, if you're so inclined. >> "Social utility" is so inconstant and capricious as >> to be virtually meaningless. 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 lawless and rebellious >> colonists. It was of equally great social utility for >> Hitler to disarm Jews and anyone else who didn't >> support him. The current administration thinks it is >> social utility to label any and all dissenters >> "terrorists", and then to deprive them of all rights, >> harass, disarm, and imprison them. Is that really >> what you want? >> 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 it 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 inflict its will on any other >> individual or group by force. >> 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. But the enemy, and its ministry of propaganda, >> the media, are infinitely better at playing it, and >> have infinitely more resources, than the right to >> keep and bear arms movement ever will. Never, ever >> agree to play by the enemy's rules! >> While it's true, as was stated in the >> letter, that the law rarely establishes norms but >> rather follows cultural norms, this is no argument >> for basing laws on opinion polls and then trying to >> influence the polls. It's bad enough that Congress >> operates that way. >> Perhaps I'm confused, but 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 all need to reevaluate what we're doing and >> why. >> Remember that Prime Minister Tony Blair >> admitted openly that the disarmament of British >> subjects had nothing to do with safety and everything >> to do with eliminating the influence of the "American >> gun culture". He was successful, and the vast >> majority of British "sheeple" happily agreed to be >> disarmed, foolishly believing that they were creating >> a "safer society". >> 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, gunowners 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. >> Legislation is meaningless. The Constitution >> is all the "legislation" we need. What we must do is >> to reclaim our rights regardless of what Congress >> does or does not do. An unconstitutional law is no >> law at all. >> We do need to educate the people, but not to >> accept the social utility of firearms. Those who >> would be citizens of a free state must be educated to >> understand the concepts of individual rights, >> responsibilities and liberties. Any other path is >> tyranny. Any other path is doomed. >> >> Sarah Thompson is a writer, physician, ex-activist >> and self-proclaimed pot-stirrer. She has written on >> topics including the Constitution (particularly the >> Second Amendment), activism, Waco, Jews and firearms, >> and is currently working on her first novel. Sarah is >> also Director of Women's Affairs for Doctors for >> Integrity in Policy Research and has testified and >> lectured on the social utility of firearms. She lives >> in Sandy, UT with her husband and two cats. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: UofU students? Date: 17 Sep 1997 14:32:29 -0600 Hey, Are you, or do you know any University of Utah students who have a CCW and aren't afraid of a little fun? Thanks Will ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: Fwd: Heston/NRA Against NRA Bylaws and Militias Date: 17 Sep 1997 16:44:36 -0700 Received: from mailhost.NRA.org by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA06922; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:39:09 -0600 Received: from wbg-va4-06.ix.netcom.com (wbg-va4-06.ix.netcom.com [205.184.195.134]) by mailhost.NRA.org (8.6.11/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA15854 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:34:49 -0400 Message-ID: <34206B29.55C8@nra.org> Reply-To: groots@NRA.org Organization: NRA Institute for Legislative Action X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DAVID SAGERS wrote: > > FYI > Received: from mail.xmission.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id KAA06721; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:14:37 -0600 > Received: from domo by mail.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.62 #4) > id 0xBMqt-0000Ha-00; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:21:19 -0600 > Received: from mars.aros.net [207.173.16.20] > by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.62 #4) > id 0xBMqh-0000Fx-00; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:21:07 -0600 > Received: from sarahtho (dm1-11.slc.aros.net [207.173.25.12]) > by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP > id KAA14684; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:06:51 -0600 (MDT) > Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970917100946.006d8090@aros.net> > X-Sender: righter@aros.net > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:09:46 -0600 > To: righter@therighter.com > From: "S. Thompson" > Subject: Fwd: Heston/NRA Against NRA Bylaws and Militias > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Sender: owner-utah-firearms@xmission.com > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: utah-firearms@mail.xmission.com > > >Tonight on CSPAN-2 I happened to watch a few minutes of NRA Executive Vice > President Charlton > >Heston's performance before the National Press Club. I only saw a few > minutes of the question > >and answer session. One question was, essentially, the following: What > support or involvement > >does the NRA have with "paramilitary" groups?" Mr. Heston's response, and > I believe I have the > >quote accurate, having written it down as it happened (I may be off a word > or two, the essence > >of the quote is as follows; transcripts can be obtained by calling 1 (888) > 343-1940): "The NRA > >has never had any involvement with any militia group, nor does it approve > of them." > > > >Ahem. > > > >The Bylaws of the NRA state, in pertinent part: > > > >Article II > > > >The purposes and objectives of the National Rifle Association of America are: > > > >1. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, > especially with reference to > >the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by > such Constitution to > >acquire, possess, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the > right to use arms, in > >order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their > legitimate individual rights > >of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well > as to serve > >effectively in the appropriate MILITIA for the common defense of the > Republic and the individual > >liberty of its citizens; > > > >. . . > > > >3. To train members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, the > MILIIA, and people of > >good repute in marksmanship and in the safe handling and efficient use of > small arms; > > > >(emphasis added by capitalization). > > > >This is now the second time in two weeks that I've seen an official > spokesman of the NRA say > >this. The other was Steve Helsley, who was quoted by the Los Angeles > Times as having said > >essentially the same thing. > > > >Thought you'd like to know. > > > > > >Daniel J. Schultz > >President and Co-founder > >The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society > >18034 Ventura Boulevard, No. 329 > >Encino, CA 91316 > >(818) 734-3066 > >http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/law_menu.html > > > >For a complimentary copy of the LSAS newsletter, The Liberty Pole, > >please call us or send an e-mail. > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. > PO Box 1185 > Sandy, UT 84091-1185 > > http://www.therighter.com > > I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air. > Margaret Thatcher (b. 1925) Thank you for forwarding this message regarding Mr. Heston's recent appearance. It looks like, however, this is an issue being misinterpreted. What Mr. Heston was undoubtedly referring to was the NRA Policy Statement on Extremist Organizations and Militia Groups, which has been our view since 1964, and was unanimously reaffirmed by NRA's Board of Directors in 1995. I have included this statement in hopes that it will help to clarify any confusion. Sincerely, Anthony Roulette =============================== Policy Statement of the National Rifle Association on Extremist Organizations and Militia Groups Appointed by NRA President Tom Washington at the February 4-5, 1995, Board of Directors Meeting, the Special Task Force to Review Militia Policy unanimously recommended reaffirmation of NRA's pre- existing policies and position. Following its report and subsequent review by the Legislative Policy Committee on May 18, 1995 at the NRA Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, the Committee voted unanimously to recommend reaffirmation of NRA's pre-existing policies and position. Brought before the membership at the Annual Meeting of Members, with over 1,500 members assembled, the resolution to reaffirm NRA's pre-existing policy on extremist organizations adopted in 1964, and its 1994 statement on militias, was adopted. There were three dissenting votes. The Board of Directors, at their meeting on Tuesday, May 23, 1995, reaffirmed the following policy by unanimous vote: WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association of America gathered at its Annual Meeting on May 22-23, 1995 in Phoenix, Arizona, desires to reaffirm its policy on extremist organizations adopted in 1964, and its 1994 statement on militias, therefore; BE IT REAFFIRMED AND RESOLVED THAT: The NRA vehemently disavows any connection with, or tacit approval of, any club or individual which advocates (1) the overthrow of duly constituted government authority, (2) subversive activities directed at any government, (3) the establishment or maintenance of private armies or group violence. The NRA does not approve or support any group activities that properly belong to the national defense or the police. The NRA does not approve or support any group that by force, violence, or subversion seeks to overthrow the Government and take the law into its own hands, or that endorses or espouses doctrines of operation in an extralegal manner. The NRA stands squarely on the premise that the ownership of firearms must not be denied American citizens of good repute so long as the firearms are used for lawful purposes. The NRA has insisted, does insist, and will continue to insist on the traditional right of American citizens to own and use firearms for lawful purposes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: Although the NRA has not been involved in the formation of any citizen militia units, neither has the NRA discouraged, nor would NRA contemplate discouraging, exercise of any constitutional right. The NRA strongly supports the Constitution of the United States, and the Second Amendment to that document, which guarantee the right of citizens to participate in militias for proper, lawful and constitutional purposes. FURTHER, it is the NRA's view, based on law (Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution; Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 311(a)), court precedents, and legal and historical interpretation, that all able-bodied persons, explicitly those between the ages of 17 and 45, are members of the Federal unorganized militia, except members of the organized state guards (for example, State Defense Forces which exist in about two dozen states), the National Guards of the various states (which also serve as a part of the National Guard of the United States, a military reserve subject to nationalization by the President of the United States), and certain government officials. An "organized citizen militia" must be created under the constitution itself and/or the laws of a state. Title 10, U.S.C., clearly affirms the existence of the citizen militia; it is little changed since the original Militia Act of 1792 (except for the addition in this century of recognition of the third type of militia, the Federally supported National Guard, in addition to the enrolled and unenrolled militia). Further, the individual right to own firearms is guaranteed by the Constitution, but the right to own firearms is not at all dependent upon the militia clause. The militia clause of the Second Amendment merely adds to the reason for the right, which is a common law right rooted in the right of protection of self, family and community. The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to arms; participation in a citizen militia organization does not make that right more valid nor any stronger. - end - NRA-ILA Grassroots Division E-mail: groots@nra.org National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 (800) 392-8683 http://www.nra.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Column, Sept. 16 Date: 17 Sep 1997 10:23:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 16, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'To secure the blessings of liberty' It was 210 years ago -- Sept. 17, 1787 -- that the delegates of the 12 states, gathered in Philadelphia, signed the new Constitution, "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Rhode Island boycotted the proceedings, concerned that a gathering purportedly called to "fine-tune" the existing Articles of Confederation might become a runaway convention, succumbing to the siren song of big- government advocates like Alexander Hamilton of New York, who favored a unified treasury and central state bank, the better to fund the standing military which he saw as necessary for the nation to fulfill its territorial "manifest destiny" and take its place at the council tables of the great nations. The skeptics were largely correct. But the bargain was struck, upon the promise that a Bill of Rights (more accurately, a Bill of Prohibitions on government action) would be added, a promise duly kept on Dec. 15, 1791. The federalists argued themselves hoarse that their "weak" federal government, fenced in by the very act of itemizing each and every one of its "few" powers in Article I, Section 8, could never get away with attempting to disarm free citizens, never institute bug-worship as a state religion, never allow anyone to be imprisoned without trial by a randomly-selected jury ... nothing like that. The Constitution did let slavery stand in the Southern states. The proper remedy to that was the 13th Amendment, but it was to come only after the erosion of many of the very rights the Union was established to protect (the tyrant Lincoln introducing the first unconstitutional income tax, the first mandatory conscription into the army, etc.), all admirably detailed by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel in his recent history of the failed War of Secession, "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men." Still, the notion of a limited federal government, master only in foreign relations and national defense, deferring to the states or the citizens in most other matters, held on valiantly for more than a century, crafting an example of relative liberty and domestic tranquility to which the peoples of the world still look with envy and awe. Until the rise of the "Progressive era" in 1912, of course ... followed by the Farley-Roosevelt "New Deal." Suddenly, the Federal Reserve system gave Washington City the centralized control over banking envisioned, lo those 125 years before, by the Hamiltonians. The popular election of senators permanently weakened oversight by the state legislatures that had previously appointed that house, while a newly-authorized federal income tax finally realized the dreams of the collectivists -- direct transfers of income from the undeserving rich to the wide-mouthed, braying poor, warehoused on the welfare state's new plantations. The founders rightly suspected Congress would continually seek to expand its power, but assumed General Washington's firm veto pen and John Jay's strict reading of Article I Section 8 would suffice to nip such wacky adventures in the bud. Yet now the foxes guard the henhouse. When was the last time our high court -- so considerate of the government's endless new-made list of "compelling interests" in keeping us all well-burped and diapered -- ruled an entire federal department unconstitutional ... ordered its functionaries discharged, its headquarters leveled? There are hopeful signs. In its recent decisions throwing out parts of the "Brady Bill" gun-owner registration scheme along with "Gun-Free School Zones," the Supreme Court for the first time in 60 years seems to acknowledge the Tenth Amendment still exists ... that there may be /some/ limit to endless expansion of power to regulate "interstate commerce." Though there's little evidence the bureaucrats, in their hubris, yet understand they cannot protect every field mouse, shield every self- anointed victim from having his feelings hurt, make every product "safe." Pleasant-sounding goals. But in pursuing these goals, the lunging, unwieldy juggernaut of government inevitably tramples and destroys more than it "protects." And these are not the purposes for which we establish governments, anyway. As every American knows, all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and it is to secure these /rights/ that governments are instituted among men. The chroniclers give her no first name, but report that Mrs. Powel asked President Franklin (duly elected President of the sovereign Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) upon his emergence from the hall, what his convention had given us ... a monarchy, or a Republic? "A republic, madam," Mr. Franklin wisely answered, "if you can keep it." Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Fwd: Heston/NRA Against NRA Bylaws and Militias Date: 18 Sep 1997 01:03:17 -0600 In the interests of fairness and allowing all points of view to be heard, I am forwarding this response to the previous post written by Dan Schultz of the Lawyer's Second Amendment Society. The following was sent to me by Paul H. Blackman, Ph.D., research director for NRA-ILA. Sarah >From: phb@ix.netcom.com >Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:29:26 -0500 (CDT) >To: righter@therighter.com >Subject: Re: Fwd: Heston/NRA Against NRA Bylaws and Militias >X-Mailer: NETCOMplete v3.20, from NETCOM On-Line Communications, Inc. > >I asked around, and the only person I found who was >at the press club did not hear Heston indicate NRA >opposition to or disapproval of them, while blaming >the media for painting the picture of the NRA as tied >to them. >The NRA's general policy is that we oppose crime and >violence, and neither support nor oppose the formation >of militias so long as they are not for violent or >criminal purposes. >If Heston said we never had anything to do with them, >it would be a slight exaggeration. Mrs. Metaksa met >with one or two members of the Michigan militia once, >each expressed their views, and that was that. Since >they are generally not interested in national >political lobbying and electioneering, and it's kind >of a specialty of ours, it seemed unlikely either >would benefit from ties to the other. > >PHB > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: SL Tribune -- Stupid Gun-Grabber Opinion Date: 18 Sep 1997 04:18:00 -0600 > >http://www.sltrib.com/97/sep/091797/opinion/opinion.htm > >> [Opinion] >> >> Wednesday, September 17, 1997 >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Heston's Amendment >> >> >> Charlton Heston must have come down from the >> mountaintop, because there was nothing terribly lofty >> about his ode to the Second Amendment last week in an >> appearance before the National Press Club in Washington. >> >> Embarking on his mission, as first vice president of >> the National Rifle Association, to restore respect for >> the right to keep and bear arms, Heston insisted that it >> is ``America's first freedom, the one that protects all >> the others,'' and he criticized the media for attempting >> to erode it. >> Hey, don't blame the media; check with the federal >> courts, which have never viewed the Second Amendment in >> quite the same way that Heston does. >> The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, >> ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the >> security of a free State, the right of the people to >> keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' Contrary >> to Heston and the NRA, federal courts have not >> interpreted these words to mean an individual guarantee >> to keep and bear arms. >> It seems the courts have not been able to ignore the >> first part of the amendment the way NRA types prefer to >> do. Previous rulings reflect a belief that the founders >> intended the right to bear arms to exist within the >> context of organized state militias, the predecessors of >> the National Guard. Those who disagree with this >> interpretation contend that the founders' meaning of >> ``militia'' included all men, thus conferring a general >> right to bear arms. >> Even if that version were to be accepted, then what >> should be made of that unavoidable qualifier, ``well >> regulated''? If the militia is to include the general >> populace, then it should be ``well regulated'' by laws >> that aim to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous >> individuals in this modern society -- laws like the >> Brady Act. >> It is ironic that, in the same month that Heston was >> making his bombastic bow, the Justice Department issued >> statistics on the effectiveness of the Brady Act through >> its first three years -- from March 1994 through 1996. >> They revealed that the background checks mandated by >> the federal Brady law, or state versions thereof, >> produced 173,000 rejections of potential handgun buyers. >> That included about 70,000 rejections in 1996, of which >> 68 percent were due to a felony conviction or felony >> indictment. It obviously fits the definition of ``well >> regulated'' that such people be denied access to >> firearms. >> Of course, in a nation in which there are 40,000 >> firearm deaths per year, gun-control advocates make the >> case that firearms are not ``well regulated'' enough. >> They could also note that, as stated in the preamble, >> the Constitution was established in order to ``insure >> domestic Tranquility'' and ``promote the general >> Welfare.'' Heston might consider the primacy of those >> principles the next time he is tempted to wax eloquent >> on the Second Amendment. >> >> >> [Wednesday Navigation Bar] >> -------------------------------------------------- >> ) Copyright 1997, The Salt Lake Tribune >> >> All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt >> Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may >> be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from >> The Salt Lake Tribune. >> -------------------------------------------------- >> Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking >> here. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Gun Ban for State Employees Date: 19 Sep 1997 10:56:16 -0600 From today's front page of the Tribune. It seems that the State now considers Guns to be a public health hazard and even the Utah Shooting Sports Council has no problems with the State violating basic rights. I agree that with most employers, you abide their rules or "take a hike." But the State has always been more restricted than private employers. And should be. I was just getting ready to send the USSC a membership check. In light of these comments, I may have to wait and see how they handle things this year before I support them. [Image] [Image] [Image] Friday, September 19, 1997 [Image] [Image] Gun Ban In Place for State Workers BY DAN HARRIE © 1997, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE While the Utah Legislature steadfastly blocks attempts to ban firearms in government buildings, Gov. Mike Leavitt's administration has prohibited state employees from carrying weapons in the workplace. A state worker recently was temporarily suspended without pay for violating the ban, which was quietly imposed by rule last year despite its apparent conflict with state law. The law states that a citizen's concealed-weapon license is valid ``without restriction'' in Utah, except for in airports, courts and corrections facilities. ``I know challenging this [rule], I would have won, but I don't have the resources to do it,'' said the employee, who carries a handgun for protection. ``Unless you fight it in court, there's not much you can do.'' Even top administration officials responsible for the rule concede it may violate Utah's strict anti-gun-control laws. ``We knew when we wrote the rule that there was a conflict with the statute,'' Human Resource Management Director Karen Suzuki-Okabe said Thursday. ``But we felt that the bigger and more compelling issue was to provide a safe work environment.'' Tell that to local government officials, some of whom say Utah's gun laws appear to prohibit them from adopting any rules restricting firearms. Salt Lake City, for instance, has no prohibition against employees packing legally licensed guns. ``No one has considered it because of the state law,'' said assistant city attorney Steve Allred. ``It's somewhat odd the state would feel the need to impose such a rule but would preclude local government from doing so,'' he added. The gun-advocacy group that usually jumps on any perceived infringement of Second Amendment rights is staying out of this fight. ``They can impose as an employer any restrictions they want,'' said Utah Shooting Sports Council President Elwood Powell. ``If you want to work for your employer, you can do what he wants you to do or you can take a hike.'' On the other hand, Powell insists that if an employer prevents a worker from carrying a firearm, the employer becomes legally liable for a worker's injury or death at the hands of an assailant. ``If you're going to deny them a right, you have to provide them a tradeoff. The tradeoff here is you agree to protect them,'' Powell said. Leavitt declined comment on the no-guns rule. Spokeswoman Vicki Varela said the comments of Suzuki-Okabe would stand as the administration response. The rule contained under the ``employee conduct'' section of state regulations states: ``Employees shall not carry firearms in any facility owned or operated by the state, or in any state vehicle, or at any time or any place while on state business.'' Exceptions are granted to sworn peace officers, others whose jobs require firearms, legislative and judicial employees, higher-education staff members and elected officials. Proposed by Leavitt's staff and Cabinet, the rule received lots of private debate within the administration hierarchy before adoption in 1996. The 1995 Legislature had stripped cities and counties of the authority to enact ordinances or rules restricting firearms and eased the process for obtaining a concealed-weapons permit, at the same time making that license valid anywhere in Utah ``without restriction.'' Cabinet officials realized that imposing a rule that appeared to conflict with the law was a politically sticky issue, but went ahead with the new policy, anyway. ``This was not something that was done cavalierly,'' Suzuki-Okabe said. The questions of legality were known from the outset and pointed out by then-Public Safety Commissioner Doug Bodrero and Leavitt's attorney Robin Riggs, she said. ``We knew that when we did it,'' Suzuki-Okabe said. ``The Legislature gets real mad at us when we do this, so I'm going to take some real heat on this one.'' She said the primary concern was providing a safe workplace. ``From a common-sense standpoint it makes sense not to have people bring weapons on the work site,'' she said. ``We don't allow people to smoke in public buildings now basically because it presents a health hazard to other employees,'' said Richard McDonald, Human Resource Management deputy director. ``But it's OK to bring a gun in -- that's not a public health hazard?'' [Image] [Friday Navigation Bar] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © 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. -- 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: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Gun Ban for State Employees Date: 19 Sep 1997 18:33:49 -0600 At 10:56 AM 9/19/97 -0600, you wrote: > >>From today's front page of the Tribune. It seems that the State now >considers Guns to be a public health hazard and even the Utah Shooting >Sports Council has no problems with the State violating basic rights. >I agree that with most employers, you abide their rules or "take a >hike." But the State has always been more restricted than private >employers. And should be. I was just getting ready to send the USSC >a membership check. In light of these comments, I may have to wait >and see how they handle things this year before I support them. > I agree with Charles and want to apologize for my previous post encouraging people to join USSC. Had I known that Mr. Powell was going to make such ill-advised comments, I would not have done so. For the governor to openly flaut state law is unforgiveable. For him to exempt the very University personnel who are disarming students is also unforgiveable. Since USSC is the only "pro-gun"(?) lobbying group in the state, I would suggest that people let them know their opinions on this matter. If they realize they are losing potential supporters such as Mr. Hardy, maybe they'll see the light. Apologies again if I misled anyone. Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 righter@therighter.com The proclamation and repetition of first principles is a constant feature of life in our democracy. Active adherence to these principles, however, has always been considered un-American. We recipients of the boon of liberty have always been ready, when faced with discomfort, to discard any and all first principles of liberty, and, further, to indict those who do not freely join with us in happily arrogating those principles. David Mamet (b. 1947) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Forwarded from "Great" Britain Date: 19 Sep 1997 11:49:00 -0700 roc@xmission.com, fratrum@netside.com Yup, a guy can see why those colonists did what they did 220+ years ago... - Monte Well, the fateful moment has come to tell about my hand-in, at West Mids police HQ. I actually didn't think I would ever be writing this, as I had no intent of handing my guns in. I wanted my day in court. Unfortunately, my FAC expires on 26th September so all that would have happened would be a conviction for failure to renew my FAC, which seemed rather trivial. (Handguns become prohibited on 30th September). It just wouldn't have the same impact on a jury, I think. I nearly killed myself getting my spare safe out of the loft. Thing almost hit me on the head. I weighed down my Toyota and drove it all down there, left hand Galco shoulder holster, a variety of mag pouches, a heap of brass, a state- of-the-1987-art IPSC racegun, a clapped out SIG-Sauer P220, two rusty safes, etc. Basically a heap of rubbish, worth about three grand. To think I am going to get paid for all this junk. They sat me down in the press room and went through it all, took about half an hour, they weren't happy that all my brass was under Option C (valued) because they would have to put it in store. Everything under Option C was put into a big West Mids Police evidence bag and my FAC number was stuck onto it. My guns were put in Bianchi bluebags, as were the mags. I didn't hand in any mags with my SIG-Sauer P220-1, and they wrote that down on the valuation. Likewise they reduced the number of CZ-75 mags by one because they included one as part of the gun. All of the Option A and B (listed values) stuff was thrown into a big burlap bag. The PC doing the paperwork gave me my copy back, which has "customer's copy" printed across it. I opined: "Oh, so I'm a _customer_ am I?" "Yeah, pretty bizarre terminology. Maybe you'll get your guns back if you're lucky." he responded. After it was all done, my firearm licensing officer sat me down at the back of the room to go through my renewal. He called in another PC and pulled out a questionnaire identical to the referee forms I had refused to complete because that law isn't effective yet. We went through what kind of guns I had applied for authority for, why I needed them and so on. The Section 1 shotgun caused some confusion, as they wanted to know where I would shoot it. I mentioned that I was a member of the NRA, member of the UKPSA and they responded they needed to see proof of membership. I had my NRA card on me, and promised to send them photocopies of the rest. They also wanted me to name specifically what kind of shotgun I was going to get, pump or semi, presumably because they didn't want me going out to get a coach gun. In the end I told them I was getting a Benelli M3 Super 90, (the truth) which is selective action anyway. They weren't too happy about the slug. I have only applied for authority for 50 rounds, and told them I would only be using it at certain competitions. The PC who usually deals with me seemed happy to take my UKPSA membership as being good enough reason, but the other PC wanted me to name at least one place I would be using it regularly. I eventually thought up the Shooter's Rights Association range, as I am a life member. "Oh, Jock, didn't we get some memo or something from Dyfed Powys about them?" "Yeah, what's that chappies name? Er..." "Richard Law?" I ventured. "Yeah, better not use the SRA as a good reason, mate." The other PC started making some bizarre statements about how 12g slug would destroy target frames, what kind of backstop they had, while my local PC sat and rolled his eyes. Then the other PC said: "You know, some of our officers went deaf shooting those things." At which point my local firearm officer nearly burst out laughing. We went through various other questions on the form, and I could tell my local PC was getting brassed off with the whole deal: "Oh, here's another bloody stupid question, 'Describe your friends and associates'. Well, better not put Richard Law down." In the end, he basically said: "What this boils down to mate, is are you going to shoot a bunch of people in a school? No? Didn't think so." And he got up and went off in a huff. The other PC was a bit taken aback but after conferring with my local PC they said they would have my renewal through on time and would trust me to send in my UKPSA membership details. I did get the impression that they were probably being a bit more suspicious about me than is usual, basically because of all the hassle I've been giving them everytime they screw up. Anyway, I have to say I am feeling a bit despondent. A line out of the Bible has been running through my mind since all this started: "And the Lord said unto Satan: 'Man does not live by bread alone'." Luke 4:4 (Not bad for an atheist, eh?) And that seems to sum up the problem with what the Government is trying to force everyone in this country to do: be one homogenous mass of mediocre weak-minded people who are easily directed at the whim of the Government. If you don't like soccer, watch TV and drink at the pub as your primary hobbies, you're "strange" and sooner or later you're going to be marginalised and discriminated against. You must only eat bread. Anything else, you're a weirdo and God help you. The concept of Liberty is totally supressed. You can sit and argue what Liberty is all day and night, suffice to say it has an ineffable quality and you're certain of one thing about it: you know when you've lost it. On the way out of the police station, I walked past the Assistant Chief Constable, giving an interview outside because we were using the Press room. I didn't catch all of it, but I caught "Armed Response teams deployed... earlier today." So it seems the gun ban is working wonderfully. Steve. - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh Lord, lead us into Your Glory - bathe us in the holy & pure light of Your Spirit; let Your righteous fire burn away all that is in us that is not of You, so that we might worship the Living God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Amen. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Making Necessary Noise Date: 22 Sep 1997 16:02:24 -0600 Highly recommended! - Sarah >The following article appears in the Fall/Winter 1997 issue of the >Loompanics Unlimited catalog supplement. I offer it here as a think piece. > I'm not sure the solutions it proposes are the best ones; they are >certainly not for everyone. I *am* sure -- as a lot more of us are >realizing -- that we have exhausted the possibilities of working within the >system. It isn't hard to see that we're in the process of moving to a new >stage of freedom fighting. If this essay encourages anyone to think about >where and *how* to draw a personal line in the sand, it will have done its >job. (That's the job it did for me as I wrote it.) Thanks for taking the >time to consider it. --CW > >----- > >MAKING NECESSARY NOISE >By Claire Wolfe > >I'm coming to a conclusion I don't like at all. I've been edging toward it >for several years, hating it all the way. But no matter how much I sniff >around the idea, turn it upside down, examine it from all angles or peek >into its dark interior, I can't say it's wrong. Increasingly, I'm >convinced it may be both right and necessary -- even though it could rip >apart the lives of a lot of good people. > >Before I get to that dangerous conclusion, let me show you one example of >what brought me to it. > >Start with a question: > >How many Americans resist filing federal income tax returns? > >The official estimate from the IRS is five to 10 million. IRS bureaucrats >admit privately the number may be as high as 35 million. Either way, a >great many Americans say, "To hell with the federal government!" on April >15. And good for them. > >Let's take the very lowest figure: five million. Let us further assume >that 80 percent of those non-filers are simply >procrastinators-non-ideological folks who just don't get around to sending >in the forms. > >That still means _one million Americans_ are risking their lives, their >fortunes and their sacred honor each year by consciously saying, "I refuse >to submit." > >The actual numbers are certainly larger -- giving us an awesome force on >the side of individual liberty. > >I often think, "That corrupt, doddering old system, simply _can't_ hold up >under this resistance." But look at the real world. What has that huge, >stubborn force accomplished? > >Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. > >RESISTING IN A WHISPER > >Oh, yes, those who consciously resist the income tax, invasive drug laws, >abstruse "regulations," or other forms of arbitrary authority have >accomplished a lot on a personal level. Every act of independence is >beneficial to the spirit. That's important. Very. But is it enough? > >Five or 35 million Americans resisting tax laws...40, 50,60 or 80 million >Americans resisting drug laws...and countless Americans resisting the very >concept of excessive law...has had _no_ positive impact on the country as a >whole. It hasn't changed _anything_ for the better. > >The tax system hasn't collapsed. The income tax hasn't been repealed-as it >should have. > >In the 1920s and 30s, America's casual scorning of the Volstead Act >(Prohibition) caused that pointless law to be tossed in history's garbage >can. But the modern Prohibition against drugs-of-choice hasn't ended >because millions are resisting it. Indeed, more -- and worse -- drug laws >are being passed every day. > >Across the country, despite our scorn, new regulations are being >promulgated, more police agencies are being created, enlarged and armed, >and more innocents are dying or being terrorized in the name of "law." > >How can this be? How can millions of people be saying NO to bad government >-- and not being heard? > >Well, one reason we're not being heard is that we're whispering. > >RESISTING WITH A SHOUT > >My dangerous conclusion is this: We must not only resist bad laws with all >our strength, but we must resist publicly, loudly and articulately. Some >of us will be able to do this merely by advocating resistance in the >abstract, as a matter of moral and historical right. Some of us will need >to publicize our own, personal, principled resistance. Some of us may need >to go so far as to stand in the public square and visibly disobey whatever >damned law plagues us. All three of these courses could be hazardous to >our health. > >Nevertheless, we must make noise, make news and make a bloody nuisance of >ourselves. We may need to get ourselves arrested, and ultimately may have >to throw ourselves in front of tanks and machine guns, if it comes to that. > >We need to send a message to the world so loud it can't be ignored, even if >some of us must die to do it. > >STANDING ON PRINCIPLE > >We have been quiet for a very good reason: because the government, media >and in many cases our family and neighbors, regard principled resistance as >criminal. We fear both their opinions and the dire consequences of >breaking the law. > >We must now turn that around. We must proclaim that resistance to bad laws >is _right_. We must tell the world that we are not criminals, but fine, >independent people of exactly the kind the country most needs. > >Others are, of course, free to disagree with our viewpoint. But we >ourselves must stop buying into the criminal paradigm, even subconsciously. > We must proudly claim a new paradigm. We must make it clear that >resistance is a matter of principle-and that we will never yield to unjust >laws no matter who threatens us, no matter how dire the threat. > >RESISTING THE IDEA OF PUBLIC RESISTANCE > >Never have I been more in conflict with myself over an issue. I've spent a >whole lifetime seeking privacy. I hate the idea of making public noise. >I've spent a lifetime seeking beauty and peace, and I hate the idea of >being dragged off to some dismal jail, or seeing my friends dragged there. > >I also realize full well that what I'm proposing _is_ dangerous. > >In the past, I've warned readers never to trust anyone who urges them to >commit criminal acts. Those arm-twisters are usually cops or informants. >That goes double for anyone urging you to take the extra risk of "coming >out of the closet" with public resistance. Don't trust them. > >Don't trust me. And certainly _never_ do anything because some writer or >orator says it might be a good idea. > >I'm not asking to be trusted or followed; I'm just asking you to hear and >decide for yourself whether my conclusion is correct. If you have an >effective idea and less dangerous idea for regaining freedom, I implore you >to propose it and put it into action. > >THE SCENARIO: ALTERING HISTORY > >What could happen to us if we make an issue of our resistance? We could be >arrested, prosecuted, jailed, demonized, laughed at, fired from jobs, >shunned, fined, and our homes and possessions could be seized even if no >charges are ever brought against us. Penalties are becoming more >draconian. Federal penalties are increasingly being heaped atop state >punishments. "Coming out" as resisters may inspire compulsive control >freaks to take special pains to "get" and punish us. Some resisters will >be made examples of, in the worst way. > >It's bad. Let's never minimize what we might face. But the growing >ruthlessness of government is all the more reason we must shout our >objections. > >An analogy: > >Hitler began his persecution of the Jews with measures that, in contrast to >the eventual horror, look mild. He first required Jews to wear yellow >stars. They complied. He began confiscating their property. They hid >possessions, sneaked them out of the country, bribed officials or simply >surrendered. He walled them in ghettos. Some went; some fled. He finally >herded them into boxcars to their final destination. > >All along, some resisted, some complied, just as we are doing now. But >almost universally, whatever their actions, they remained quiet. Their >"good German" (and "good" Polish and "good" other) neighbors were also >silent about the outrages taking place in front of them. Some gentiles hid >and helped the Jews. But they didn't speak up. No one made a public, >moral cause of resistance. Of course, people were terrified of Hitler. >And of course, it was unpopular to defend the Jews, who had been even more >successfully demonized than tax resisters, militia members and drug users >have been in modern America. The media and public institutions were firmly >on the side of the Nazis, just as they are on the side of big government >today. All very familiar. > >Had a significant minority resisted Hitler -- vehemently, adamantly, loudly >resisted -- many of them would have been killed. But they might have >roused the conscience of the world. They might have shown Hitler there was >a barrier he could not cross. They might have prevented the far worse >slaughter that their silence allowed. We don't really know what _could_ >have happened, had people had the courage both to resist and speak. We >only know what _did_ happen when they failed to do so. None of these hopes >ever had a chance. People didn't take the risk, and the ultimate fate >befell them. > >Silence is not safety. Silence, in fact, implies consent. > >Which is worse: suffering now in defense of principle, or suffering later >as the citizen of a tyrannical state? > >HOW BAD CAN IT GET? > >I don't know that it will ever get so bad here that freedom-loving people >will be rounded up and sent to concentration camps. It's possible. I do >know the future looks bad, very bad, for freedom. > >What's _certain_ is that, in the words of abolitionist Frederick Douglass, >"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact >amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these >will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. >The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they >oppress." > >Or, in the more modern words of Dilbert, "The more crap you put up with, >the more crap you are going to get." > >Again, silence implies consent. Silence is "putting up with it" even when >we silently disobey. > >WHY MAKE NOISE NOW? > >Many of us have become accustomed to living free in spite of the "law." A >few years ago, even last year, I would have said, "Hell, why paint a target >on your backside by going public with resistance?" But the situation has >changed. > >In the last couple of years, Congress has laid the groundwork for the kind >of totalitarian citizen-tracking systems that have been long-rumored and >long dreaded. As you read this, bureaucrats are building the computer >systems, sending out the forms, writing the regulations and installing the >machinery that will be used to make you a slave, pure and simple. > >A pair of examples: > >* Your drivers license was turned into a de facto national ID card. (Check >it out: Public Law 104-208.) > >* Congress passed and Donna Shalala began sending out the forms for the >"New Hires" database. It's worse than it sounds. (Check it out: Public >Law 104-193, then get your hands on one of the forms.) > >There's more. A lot more. Research for yourself and see how your life >will be curtailed...will be _owned_...if you let these things happen. > >Silent resistance doesn't stop bad law making. It actually encourages it, >as legislatures pass more and more bad laws in an attempt to curb >disobedience. How many more rotten laws are we going to take before we put >a stop to this pernicious escalation of tyranny? > >WHAT, SPECIFICALLY, SHOULD WE DO? > >Specifically you should do only what your own wisdom dictates. Always. >I'll mention only a few places to start and some cautions to keep in mind. > >Frankly, some of this information is milder than what really needs to be >said. But free speech protections extend only so far. > >* Pick one or two laws that you especially oppose. Make sure you fully >understand, and can calmly, lucidly articulate, the principles behind your >opposition. > >* Speak up every chance you get. In every forum you can find. Newspapers. > Public meetings. Neighborhood gatherings. Don't just speak against the >law. Speak on behalf of the right of resistance. > >* Creatively defy bad law. Folks who plant hemp in the courthouse garden >or pay their taxes in pennies may get useful publicity. > >* Utilize the mainstream media where you can. But when biased reporting or >no reporting is all you can expect, let it go. Put your energies elsewhere. > >* Find every available form of alternative media, from the Internet to the >walls of public restrooms, and use it. (For instance, you can paste >stickers in restroom stalls with three or four lines explaining why a law >is wrong and reminding people defiance is an American tradition.) > >* Be flexible. Tactics must change as situations do. > >* If there is enough community support to make it effective, shun employees >of unjust agencies. Render their lives as uncomfortable as possible. And >don't let them or yourself off with the old excuse that they're just the >ordinary people doing their jobs. The engineers who drove the trains to the >concentration camps were "ordinary." So were the guards. We usually have >no access to their masters, but we can reach the masters through the >employees. When masters no longer have minions do to their bidding, how >can they enforce tyranny? > >* Never go against your conscience, no matter what the consequences. > >* Make it clear to everyone that you will not yield to mere force or terror >tactics. > >* Remember: the first and loudest to speak will become targets. This whole >thing is going to work only if 1) a few people can make a big enough >impression to change the conscience of the nation or 2) so many people >rebel that the justice system overloads. > >* Realize that there is a fine line between publicizing principled >resistance and foolishly blabbing private matters. You'll have to find >your own place to draw that line, and even if you draw it perfectly, you're >still in danger. > >* If you are announcing resistance to either tax or drug laws, understand >that you are especially vulnerable. Under seizure laws, your property can >become booty for a pirate agency; and enforcers offer cash bounties to >anyone who will snitch on you. > >* If you have the slightest doubt about the wisdom on this strategy, or >about your own willingness to walk through hell for the cause of freedom, >DON'T DO IT. > >* Finally, remember the man who stood alone before the tank in Tienanmen >Square. His "victory" was equivocal; the tank backed off, but the >protesters were ultimately slaughtered. Yet his image still touches the >conscience of the world. It will, ultimately, make a difference. > >We must never violate principles. We must never initiate violence. And we >should never harm the innocent. But at some point, unless government backs >off, we will have to stop being nice. I don't recommend it. I merely >predict it. > >ONLY IDIOTS HEED CALLS TO ACTION FROM "KEYBOARD REVOLUTIONARIES." > >A couple of months ago, I read an essay in which some self-proclaimed >"patriot," (Call him John Brown.), ranted that it was time to start "taking >out" government officials. Furthermore, he raved, anybody who didn't >immediately rush out and start killing feds was a coward and a hypocrite. > >John Brown himself, of course, wasn't about to go out and start bumping >people off. Nooooo, he was much more comfortable in the role of >"inspirational leader" behind his keyboard. Since no rash of fed-killings >followed his exhortation, most readers must have realized old John himself >was either a total fool, a hypocrite or an agent provocateur. > >I may be a fool. And I may be accused of a lot of other things for writing >this article. But I won't be a hypocrite. Here's where I stand: > >I resist the income tax. Haven't filed in years. Never will, even if the >IRS throws me in jail or in the gutter after taking everything I own. >(They won't get much; I've made myself poor, and therefore a smaller >target. If the IRS bothers me, their motive will be purely political.) > >And when my state passes the enabling legislation to put the Big Brother >drivers license into effect here -- when government and businesses require >my "verified social security number" and biometric "security features" as a >condition for dealing with them -- I'll go elsewhere, thanks. > >Plenty of my acquaintances already refuse to get regular drivers licenses. >Maybe they can teach us all a thing or two about the much more complicated >problem of surviving without the national ID license. In any case, I plan >to become the damnedest, finest outlaw I can be when, "Citizen! Your >papers please!" becomes an American reality. > >Unlike John Brown, I'm not urging you to break the law. You're already >breaking it just by living. If you value personal freedom, you're probably >breaking laws and regulations more often than Bill Clinton breaks wind. > >I _am_ urging you to claim resistance as your right -- and as a necessity >if we are to remain free. > > # # # > >(c) 1997 Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely granted, as long as the >article is reprinted in full and accompanied by this copyright statement. > >For information about books and catalogs from Loompanics Unlimited, write >to them at P.O. Box 1197, Port Townsend 98368 or check out their web site >at http://www.loompanics.com. > > > >----- > >I have some sad news for you -- the Big Boys will have contempt for you >whether you rebel or submit. Better, then, to rebel. I say it's TIME the >rabble were roused. >--Jim Goad, *The Redneck Manifesto* > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: CCW Article in the Tribune Date: 22 Sep 1997 18:54:00 -0600 From Today's Tribune: [Image] [Image] [Image] Monday, September 22, 1997 [Image] [Image] Rush to Obtain Concealed-Gun Permits Peaks THE ASSOCIATED PRESS OGDEN -- The rush to get a concealed weapon permit has peaked, but not before the number of Utahns legally carrying concealed handguns increased tenfold since the state eased the permit process 27 months ago. Police are quick to point out they haven't recorded a corresponding increase in incidents involving people with concealed weapons -- an argument used by opponents of loosening requirements to carry a hidden handgun. ``It hasn't bothered police officers a bit, especially in the West, where just about everyone owns guns anyway,'' said Sgt. Klint Anderson, spokesman for the Weber County Sheriff's Office. ``It's the illegally held gun that gets you.'' Officials at the state Bureau of Criminal Identification said the 18,000 permit holders statewide represent a cross section of the state's population, ranging from teachers to bank presidents to bikers. Men hold more permits than women and senior citizens are more likely to legally carry a concealed weapon than younger citizens. ``It's the people who feel the most threatened by today's society,'' Anderson said. The 18,000 represent just 0.009 percent of Utah's 2 million residents. Before the Legislature no longer required a permit holder to have a valid reason for carrying a concealed weapon, 1,789 people had permits. After May 1995, when the change took effect, the state was deluged with about 1,000 applications a month. That number has been declining for the past six months. The 316 permits issued in July was the lowest month since May 1995. Despite the tenfold increase over the past two years, Anderson said he is surprised the numbers are not higher. ``There are far more than 18,000 people in Utah with strong feelings about the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms,'' he said. Officers and agents doubt many permit holders even carry their guns much of the time. [Image] [Monday Navigation Bar] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © 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. -- 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. "Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it." -- Goethe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: "If government bureaucrats like guns that much..." Date: 23 Sep 1997 13:31:38 -0600 >Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:20:48 -0500 >From: Washington Weekly >Subject: A Federal Police Force is Unconstitutional - Rep. Paul > > > > A FEDERAL POLICE FORCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL >Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, House of Representatives - September 17, 1997 > > >Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, another Member severely >criticized me on the House floor for declaring on C-SPAN that >indeed many Americans justifiably feared their own government. >This fear has come from the police state mentality that prompted >Ruby Ridge, Waco and many other episodes of an errant Federal >Government. > >Under the constitution, there was never meant to be a Federal >police force. Even an FBI limited only to investigations was not >accepted until this century. Yet today, fueled by the Federal >Government's misdirected war on drugs, radical environmentalism, >and the aggressive behavior of the nanny state, we have witnessed >the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators >prowling the States where they have no legal authority. The >sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local >government by the majority of American citizens has permitted the >army of bureaucrats to thrive. > >We have depended on government for so much for so long that we as >people have become less vigilant of our liberties. As long as the >government provides largesse for the majority, the special >interest lobbyists will succeed in continuing the redistribution >of welfare programs that occupies most of Congress's legislative >time. > >Wealth is limited, yet demands are unlimited. A welfare system >inevitably diminishes production and shrinks the economic pie. As >this occurs, anger among the competing special interests grows. >While Congress and the people concentrate on material welfare and >its equal redistribution, the principals of liberty are ignored, >and freedom is undermined. > >More immediate, the enforcement of the interventionist state >requires a growing army of bureaucrats. Since groups demanding >special favors from the Federal Government must abuse the rights >and property of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty, >real resentment is directed at the agents who come to eat out our >substance. The natural consequence is for the intruders to arm >themselves to protect against angry victims of government >intrusion. > >Thanks to a recent article by Joseph Farah, director of the >Western Journalism Center of Sacramento, CA, appearing in the >Houston Chronicle, the surge in the number of armed Federal >bureaucrats has been brought to our attention. Farah points out >that in 1996 alone, at least 2,439 new Federal cops were >authorized to carry firearms. That takes the total up to nearly >60,000. Farah points out that these cops were not only in >agencies like the FBI, but include the EPA, U.S. Fish and >Wildlife, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Even Bruce Babbitt, >according to Farah, wants to arm the Bureau of Land Management. >Farah logically asks, 'When will the NEA have its armed art >cops?' This is a dangerous trend. > >It is ironic that the proliferation of guns in the hands of the >bureaucrats is pushed by the antigun fanatics who hate the second >amendment and would disarm every law-abiding American citizen. >Yes, we need gun control. We need to disarm our bureaucrats, then >abolish the agencies. If government bureaucrats like guns that >much, let them seek work with the NRA. > >Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants. Intimidation >with government guns, the threat of imprisonment, and the fear of >harassment by government agents puts fear into the hearts of >millions of Americans. Four days after Paula Jones refused a >settlement in her celebrated suit, she received notice that she >and her husband would be audited for 1995 taxes. Since 1994 is >the current audit year for the IRS, the administration's denial >that the audit is related to the suit is suspect, to say the >least. > >Even if it is coincidental, do not try to convince the American >people. Most Americans, justifiably cynical and untrusting toward >the Federal Government, know the evidence exists that since the >1970's both Republican and Democratic administrations have not >hesitated to intimidate their political enemies with IRS audits >and regulatory harassment. > >Even though the average IRS agent does not carry a gun, the >threat of incarceration and seizure of property is backed up by >many guns. All government power is ultimately gun power and >serves the interests of those who despise or do not comprehend >the principles of liberty. The gun in the hands of law-abiding >citizens serves to hold in check arrogant and aggressive >government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. >The founders of this country fully understood this fact. > > > > > Published in the Sep. 22, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly > Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) > Reposting permitted with this message intact > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Regarding Insta-Check Date: 23 Sep 1997 14:05:12 -0600 >TJ's got mine, several times over. He definitely needs to hear from >others , not just me and Frank. Come on guys/gals, how much do you value >your 2A? Let TJ hear from YOU. Maybe *together* we can get NRA on the >RIGHT track. > >Nancy (Note: Mr. Johnston can be reached at: TJJOHNSTN@aol.com - Sarah) >=================================================================== >Frank & Dianne wrote: >> >> Mr. Johnston evidently seeks our responses, so let's not let him down. >> >> QUESTION: If the ultimate and noble goal is "preclud(ing) 'bad guys' from >> buying guns", does the NRA support an "Insta-check" system for private party >> transactions, as well as retail purchases? If not, *why not*? >> >> Godspeed and stay free, >> Frank >> --------------------- >> Forwarded message: >> Subj: Re: Regarding Insta-Check >> Date: 97-09-20 04:16:42 EDT >> From: TJJOHNSTN >> To: A3foldcord >> >> In a message dated 97-09-18 16:31:54 EDT, you write: >> >> << The laws which are *currently in place* have done *nothing* to prevent >> illegal behavior so far. What makes you think that penalties for abusing >> Insta-Check will somehow prevent *that* from happening? >> >> >> Frank: good question. We can look at the lack of prosecution from the heinous >> Waco and Ruby Ridge atrocities, and realize that just because it's illegal >> doesn't mean that governmental agencies won't keep records of firearms >> transactions. >> >> To address this, during the discussion at the Legislative Policy Committee >> event, NRA Board Member Bob Corbin brought up this issue and recommended that >> the law allow for CIVIL procedures. This would allow citizens to bring >> punitive civil suits against agencies who violate the record keeping >> prohibition. >> >> The goal is to create a mechanism that will preclude "bad guys" from buying >> guns. In a practical sense, this means that we need a regulatory agency to >> compose a list of bad guys and provide a means to check this list whenever a >> firearm is purchased. Faced with these parameters, the NRA is currently >> researching the various alternatives to achieve the goal and protect our >> freedoms. >> >> Any practical suggestions to present? I'll be addressing this issue again at >> the winter Board meeting. >> >> TJ Johnston >> NRA Board of Directors > > Dear Mr. Johnston: Insta-Check is an evil idea; it amounts to a central firearms registry, which amounts to federal gun confiscation. While the idea of allowing civil suits against agencies that violate registration laws SOUNDS good, in practice it's unworkable. Civil suits cost thousands of dollars; when they're against the government, probably millions. They can take years to decades to win. And anyway, what good is a suit going to do anyone, once they've disarmed us all? We don't need checks. We certainly don't need another regulatory agency. And a list of "bad guys" is totally unworkable. Who defines "bad guy"? Will my name be on the list because I got a speeding ticket 15 years ago? Or because I openly oppose the current administration? Because I spanked a child? Because I bathed my cat without his written consent? Because I oppose the war on drugs? Because I own an "assault weapon"? Because I belong to a minority religion? As long as an oppressive government can define who is "bad", NO ONE BUT THE GOVERNMENT will be allowed to be armed. Practical solutions? Sure. It's called Vermont-style carry, it's prescribed by the Constitution, and it WORKS. Nothing else is acceptable. Sincerely, Sarah Thompson, M.D. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Charlton Heston's Crusade To Save The Second Amendment Date: 23 Sep 1997 15:02:10 -0600 Forwarded at the request of Mr. Fezell - Sarah >From: "Howard J. Fezell, Esq." >Subject: Charlton Heston's Crusade To Save The Second Amendment >Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 18:40:31 -0400 >Dear Dr. Thompson: > >If you are still a member of the NRA and have received your September issue >of the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN you will note that the renowned actor, Charlton >Heston, has graciously agreed to lead a "crusade" to save the Second >Amendment. > >The Heston Campaign is nothing more than an exercise in building a "cult of >personality". The ultimate goal is to make the NRA so dependent upon his >good graces that its Board of Directors will become even more irrelevant >than they already are. If the Board does not go along with what Mr. Heston >(and the P.R. firm that handles him) wants he can then threaten to "resign" >and leave the NRA high and dry. > >As a Director of the NRA I consider it the height of insanity that any >organization would tie its fortunes to the image of a single person. I >have the greatest respect for Mr. Heston as an actor. However, in the real >world, one has got to do more than read lines others have written for you. > >Naturally, Mr. Heston's P.R. pitch asks members to either renew their >memberships or to make a special contribution. > >Before I send any more $$$ to either the NRA or NRA/ILA -- I (as a director >of the NRA) would like to have answers to the following questions: > >#1 Since January, 1996, a group known as Unified Sportsmen Of Florida, Inc. >(USF) has been getting monthly checks averaging $10,000.00. Was NRA/ILA >aware that the NRA President, Marion Hammer, received monetary >compensation from this group? > >#2 Since NRA/ILA has funded Unified Sportsmen Of Florida, has NRA President >Marion Hammer received any monetary compensation from USF? > >#3 In May of 1997 NRA/ILA cut Unified Sportsmen Of Florida two checks: one >for $10,000 and another for $70,000. Why? > >#4 Has Unified Sportsmen Of Florida ever been asked to account for how they >spent the money? > >As soon as I get answers to these questions, I will pass them along. Until >then, hang on to your checkbooks. > >Please forward this e-mail to your other pro-Second Amendment contacts >regardless of whether they may be NRA members. > >Howard Fezell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Time to Fight Back. Date: 22 Sep 1997 20:18:00 -0700 From The Lawyers' Second Amendment Society... Dear fellow pro-Second Amendment activists: Those of you in California know we played out AB 23 (the "assault weapons" expansion) to a draw (for now) and we lost on SB 500 (so-called "Saturday Night Special" ban), and several other unconstitutional, anti-gun and anti- self-defense bills. We are now reduced to begging the governor to save us from our own elected representatives. While it is still of the utmost importance that we continue to write, fax and call the governor and prevail upon him to veto those bills which got through, we must begin to fight back. Now. Here's the proposal. Our people, especially those in the Member's Councils, are already in the "letter-writing mode." We have been tying up the Legisla- ture's and governor's phone lines, and filling up their mail bags, for several months. We need to keep up the barrage, but direct it at a new target. And we just happen to have the perfect target. As you probably know, several weeks ago the major newspapers in California ran a coordinated, anti-gun editorial/news article (what's the difference?) blitz timed to coincide with the Legislature's consideration of AB 23, SB 500 and other anti-gun bills. We cannot fight back directly against the newspapers, but we can take some action which will get their attention. Specifically, a concerted, state-wide (or even national) campaign directed against one of their major advertisers, with the possibility of reducing their ad revenues, may do the trick. The target: Big 5 Sporting Goods. Big 5 does a major business in California, as well as in Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas and Washington. It advertises in all major newspapers in California (and, presumably in the other states as well). Ironically, Big 5 caters to hand gunners, target shooters and hunters, at the same time it is giving its advertising dollars to newspapers which are editorializing that the private ownership of most firearms should be banned. Indeed, many of the firearms, and much of the ammunition, Big 5 sells would be banned or severely restricted if the newspaper editors got their way! The Campaign: A letter-writing and telephone campaign directed to Big 5 to implore it reduce or cease advertising in any newspapers which editorialize against our right to self defense. This is not a boycott. Boycotts are only effective if hundreds of thousands or millions participate. Rather, we are capitalizing on the idea that retailers abhor negative press, are in a fiercely competitive business, and are very sensitive to their customer's whims. The theory is to direct several hundred, and hopefully thousand, well-written letters all to the president of Big 5. Letters should politely make the following points: (1) As a Big 5 customer and gunowner, the writer is very displeased to see Big 5 spending its ad money on The Los Angeles Times [or other anti-gun newspaper] which has repeatedly gone on record as opposing the right of self- defense, and of poor people to purchase firearms to protect their families; (2) Big 5 is thereby opposing the writer's constitutional right to defend himself/herself and his/her family; (3) If Big 5 continues to support anti-self-defense newspapers, the writer will stop patronizing Big 5, and will tell all of his/her friends and family to do the same. (4) Remind Big 5 that as shooting enthusiasts, there are plenty of other retailers out there who would love to do business with gun owners. (5) A [legitimate] return address. Write Big 5 at: Mr. Steve Miller, President United Merchandising Corp. Big 5 Sporting Goods P.O. Box 92088 Los Angeles, CA 90009 Or telephone him at: (310) 536-0611 For this campaign to be effective, we will need every Member's Council, every pro-gun organization and every activist in California and the Western U.S. to participate. Remember: be polite, do not threaten and remind him you spend $$$ on firearms. That's a language Mr. Miller will understand! Final note: this project is a grassroots effort, and it is _not_ sponsored by any Members Council or other organization. Now let's get to work and fire off those letters and calls! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: [Fwd: (Fwd from Paul Blackmun) Re: theory that Aussies are nuts] Date: 24 Sep 1997 13:32:05 -0600 Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA04309; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:22:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from [198.81.228.1] by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA1864226420; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:17:09 -0600 Received: from wanderer.ssiinc.com (wanderer.ssiinc.com [198.81.228.1]) by wanderer.ssiinc.com (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id MAA15906; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <87AA91664B@law1.law.ucla.edu> Errors-To: volokh@law.ucla.edu Reply-To: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Originator: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Sender: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:03:02 -0500 (CDT) INTERNET:Sporting.Shooters.Association@adelaide.on.net The Geelong Advertiser 11/9/97 The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws. Fourteen homicide victims were killed through gun use between January and August this year compared to five people during the same period last year, the Victorian police figures have revealed. But a State Government spokeswoman dismissed any suggestion that the tighter gun laws were not working and said that inferences drawn by linking them to increased gun deaths would be unfounded. Anne Standford, press secretary for Police Minister Bill McGrath, said the tighter gun control laws were not framed with the specific expectation that gun related deaths would decline. "In an ideal world, yes, but we don't live in Utopia," Ms Stanford said. "the whole purpose of the changes to firearm laws...it is not about shooters' rights to have firearms, it is about their rights to the types of firearms, high-powered semi-automatics," she said. "George promised to be good; Eugene Volokh but it is easy for little monkeys UCLA Law School to forget." 405 Hilgard Ave. Complete Adventures of Curious George p.14 L.A., CA 90095 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Union Fights Gun Ban for State Workers Date: 24 Sep 1997 15:55:07 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------37181A097C0E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.sltrib.com/97/sep/092397/utah/5499.htm --------------37181A097C0E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="5499.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="5499.htm" [Image] [Image] [Image] Tuesday, September 23, 1997 [Image] [Image] Union Fights Gun Ban for State Workers BY DAN HARRIE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE A public employees union and a lawmaker who sponsored Utah's wide-open gun laws are protesting a rule prohibiting state workers from packing firearms in the workplace or on the job. The Utah Public Employees Association claims the rule -- used recently to suspend one worker -- is discriminatory and at odds with state law. ``The [UPEA] board, while not endorsing weapon possession in the workplace, instructed UPEA staff to strongly object to the passage of rules which are known to conflict with state statute,'' union spokesman Eric Isom said Monday. The UPEA has 7,200 members, including about 5,200 of the state's 17,000 employees. At its monthly meeting Saturday, the 11-person board directed that a letter of protest be sent to Human Resource Management Director Karen Suzuki-Okabe, and that all rules be scrutinized for conformance with state law. Suzuki-Okabe conceded in an interview last week with The Salt Lake Tribune that members of Gov. Mike Leavitt's Cabinet knew when they first pushed for it in 1995 that the gun-banning employee rule conflicted with statute. ``But we felt that the bigger and more compelling issue was to provide a safe work environment.'' The rule was adopted in 1996 despite a law passed by the 1995 Legislature that makes concealed-weapons permits valid throughout the state ``without restriction'' except in airports, jails, prisons and courts. Isom said the issue has hit a ``hot button'' because it treats state employees differently from other citizens. ``As it stands now, it's not fair to state employees,'' he said. Suzuki-Okabe declined comment Monday, saying she would wait to see the UPEA letter before responding to it. But in an earlier interview, she said top administration officials -- including then Leavitt chief of staff Charlie Johnson -- imposed the firearms-prohibition despite its questionable legality. ``The Legislature gets real mad at us when we do this, so I'm going to take some real heat on this one,'' Suzuki-Okabe said. She is correct. State Sen. Michael Waddoups sponsored Utah's concealed gun laws. He blasted the state rule as ``crazy. . . . It's like painting a target on all of our employees.'' The Taylorsville Republican added, ``I see it as an invitation to somebody coming in and shooting up a state office.'' Waddoups said he had been informed the administration was considering such a rule, but was not aware it had been imposed until now. The senator said he recognizes the legal right of private business to exclude weapons from their premises and the ability of employers to prohibit workers from carrying guns on the job. ``The state executive branch isn't exactly what I consider a private employer. They should be leading out in following state law,'' he said. ``I'd have to say that showed a lack of wisdom on someone's part.'' But another legislator involved in crafting Utah gun laws said he is comfortable with the restriction against armed state employees. ``I don't see where the problem is because the employer has the right to say when their employees can carry a gun and where they can carry it,'' said Sen. Alarik Myrin, R-Altamont. Myrin pointed out that many oil and gas companies in his eastern Utah district have similar policies. ``The companies tell them to leave their guns at home.'' [Image] [Tuesday Navigation Bar] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © 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. --------------37181A097C0E-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: A Federal Police Force is Unconstitutional - Rep. Paul Date: 24 Sep 1997 07:50:00 -0700 A FEDERAL POLICE FORCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, House of Representatives - September 17, 1997 Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, another Member severely criticized me on the House floor for declaring on C-SPAN that indeed many Americans justifiably feared their own government. This fear has come from the police state mentality that prompted Ruby Ridge, Waco and many other episodes of an errant Federal Government. Under the constitution, there was never meant to be a Federal police force. Even an FBI limited only to investigations was not accepted until this century. Yet today, fueled by the Federal Government's misdirected war on drugs, radical environmentalism, and the aggressive behavior of the nanny state, we have witnessed the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators prowling the States where they have no legal authority. The sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local government by the majority of American citizens has permitted the army of bureaucrats to thrive. We have depended on government for so much for so long that we as people have become less vigilant of our liberties. As long as the government provides largesse for the majority, the special interest lobbyists will succeed in continuing the redistribution of welfare programs that occupies most of Congress's legislative time. Wealth is limited, yet demands are unlimited. A welfare system inevitably diminishes production and shrinks the economic pie. As this occurs, anger among the competing special interests grows. While Congress and the people concentrate on material welfare and its equal redistribution, the principals of liberty are ignored, and freedom is undermined. More immediate, the enforcement of the interventionist state requires a growing army of bureaucrats. Since groups demanding special favors from the Federal Government must abuse the rights and property of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty, real resentment is directed at the agents who come to eat out our substance. The natural consequence is for the intruders to arm themselves to protect against angry victims of government intrusion. Thanks to a recent article by Joseph Farah, director of the Western Journalism Center of Sacramento, CA, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, the surge in the number of armed Federal bureaucrats has been brought to our attention. Farah points out that in 1996 alone, at least 2,439 new Federal cops were authorized to carry firearms. That takes the total up to nearly 60,000. Farah points out that these cops were not only in agencies like the FBI, but include the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Even Bruce Babbitt, according to Farah, wants to arm the Bureau of Land Management. Farah logically asks, 'When will the NEA have its armed art cops?' This is a dangerous trend. It is ironic that the proliferation of guns in the hands of the bureaucrats is pushed by the antigun fanatics who hate the second amendment and would disarm every law-abiding American citizen. Yes, we need gun control. We need to disarm our bureaucrats, then abolish the agencies. If government bureaucrats like guns that much, let them seek work with the NRA. Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants. Intimidation with government guns, the threat of imprisonment, and the fear of harassment by government agents puts fear into the hearts of millions of Americans. Four days after Paula Jones refused a settlement in her celebrated suit, she received notice that she and her husband would be audited for 1995 taxes. Since 1994 is the current audit year for the IRS, the administration's denial that the audit is related to the suit is suspect, to say the least. Even if it is coincidental, do not try to convince the American people. Most Americans, justifiably cynical and untrusting toward the Federal Government, know the evidence exists that since the 1970's both Republican and Democratic administrations have not hesitated to intimidate their political enemies with IRS audits and regulatory harassment. Even though the average IRS agent does not carry a gun, the threat of incarceration and seizure of property is backed up by many guns. All government power is ultimately gun power and serves the interests of those who despise or do not comprehend the principles of liberty. The gun in the hands of law-abiding citizens serves to hold in check arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact. Published in the Sep. 22, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Our Assault Press Date: 25 Sep 1997 14:01:22 -0600 Apologies for the formatting...it showed up in my mail this way. What is Fish and Wildlife doing with "a stockpile of weapons, a caravan of trucks and an airplane"? How long till CNN equips its reporters with assault weapons, black helicopters and ninja suits? Sarah >>Lawsuit Claims Press Violated Fourth Amendment Rights >> >> By KEVIN HELLIKER >> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL >> >> JORDAN, Mont. -- Paul Berger had no criminal >> record, no history of violence, had never threatened the >> government. He was 72 years old and sick with >> debilitating emphysema. >> >> Yet when federal agents got a warrant to search his >> ranch four years ago, they assembled a force large >> enough to take on Rambo. At dawn, 21 men converged >> on the Berger ranch. They had a stockpile of weapons, >> a caravan of trucks and an airplane. >> >> Their suspicions: that Mr. Berger had poisoned eagles >> preying on his sheep. >> >> The allegations came from three former employees who >> hadn't worked at the ranch in years. So why the need >> for this extraordinary show of force by the U.S. Fish and >> Wildlife Service? Because, the Bergers and their allies >> assert, it made for good television. >> >> Stealth Tactics >> >> Unbeknown to Mr. Berger, the Fish and Wildlife agents >> who served the warrant that morning were wearing >> wires. But instead of feeding a government recorder, >> they fed a Cable News Network tape. And three of the >> men who spent 10 hours scurrying around his ranch that >> day, dressed in the same street clothes as federal >>agents, >> didn't belong to the government at all: They worked for >> CNN, the news network of Time Warner Inc.'s Turner >> Broadcasting unit. >> >> "This was a case where government agents became >> reporters and reporters became government agents," >> asserts Henry Rossbacher, an attorney for Mr. Berger, >> noting the CNN reporters hid their identities until they >> were ferreted out by a local law-enforcement officer >> who had nothing to do with the raid. >> >> Mr. Berger was eventually charged with poisoning >> eagles -- a charge a jury rejected in 1993, largely >> because two extensive government searches of his >> 75,000-acre ranch turned up no poisoned-eagle >> carcasses. Instead, jurors found him guilty of lacing two >> sheep carcasses with poison, a misdemeanor for which >> he was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and perform 40 >> hours of community-service work. >> >> But the story isn't over. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. >>District >> Court in Billings, Mr. Berger and his wife are charging >> that the federal government and CNN violated the >> couple's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable >> search and seizure. The suit notes that the warrant >>didn't >> even mention CNN, let alone sanction its presence at >> the search. Consequently, the Bergers contend, CNN is >> guilty of trespassing, and the video it gathered >>represents >> an illegal seizure. >> >> Both CNN and federal authorities, in court papers filed >> in response to the Bergers' suit, deny they acted >> improperly or illegally. Among its many defenses, CNN >> is arguing that federal agents, "as possessors in control >> of the property," had authority to allow the network in, >> irrespective of any rights the Bergers claim. At the same >> time, CNN claims a constitutional right for itself: >> "Investigative journalism is an important part of today's >> television market and entitled to all the safeguards of >>the >> First Amendment," the network says. >> >> Troubling Issues >> >> Yet beyond the legalities, the case raises ethical issues >> for the press, particularly at a time when news shows >> profiling law enforcement are proliferating, and >>reporters >> are increasingly eager to ride along on the execution of >> search warrants. While a reporter's presence could >> work to a suspect's benefit -- by keeping investigators >> from becoming abusive or bearing witness to a police >> failure to find incriminating evidence -- critics worry >>that >> it more often than not inspires uncivil police theatrics. >> The allure of access often tempts the media into deals >> that give the authorities substantial power to shape both >> the content and timing of stories. >> >> The Bergers and their supporters, in fact, are convinced >> that the final CNN story on the raid -- which portrayed >> it as a stunning success despite Mr. Berger's acquittal >>-- >> was foreordained by CNN's cozy arrangement with the >> feds. Whether true or not, what is clear is that in the >> Berger case, if investigators had abused or even shot >> Mr. Berger, CNN couldn't have rushed that footage to >> air: It had signed an agreement that effectively gave the >> federal government control over when -- if ever -- the >> network was free to show video from the search. "This >> agreement severely restricted any news releases without >> the consent of the U.S. Attorney," John J. Doggett III, >> the Fish and Wildlife chief of law enforcement, said in a >> letter to Montanans outraged by the search. CNN and >> federal authorities decline to comment beyond their >> response to the Berger suit. >> >> Mixed Opinions >> >> The Berger case is hardly the first time that news-media >> piggybacking on search warrants has caused an uproar >> over police tactics or press behavior, or ended up in >> court. Of the federal-court rulings to date, many have >> been contradictory and the issue seems bound to end up >> before the U.S. Supreme Court. >> >> Consider a 1992 New York case, when Secret Service >> agents searching the home of Babatunde Ayeni, a >> suspected credit-card swindler, approached his wife and >> four-year-old son. The agents snatched a magazine the >> woman was holding and ordered them to look into the >> camera of a crew from CBS's "Street Stories" that had >> been invited along. (CBS never ran the footage.) >> >> Mr. Ayeni sued, and federal courts sided with him, a >> U.S. District Court judge in New York ruling that CBS >> "had no greater right than that of a thief to be in the >> home." When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second >> Circuit upheld the ruling, both CBS and the Secret >> Service settled with the plaintiffs out of court. >> >> In the Berger case, however, the U.S. District Court in >> Billings granted CNN's motion to dismiss the suit on the >> grounds that the warrant gave agents the authority to >> invite CNN along. The Bergers appealed and the case, >> first filed in 1994, now stands before the Ninth Circuit >> Court of Appeals. >> >> But even some media allies worry that the press may be >> on shaky ground when it comes to asserting a >> constitutional right to invade private property. >> >> "To persuade the U.S. Supreme Court that there's a >> First Amendment right to trespass will take some real >> persuasiveness," says Floyd Abrams, a leading >> media-rights attorney. >> >> Valid Issue >> >> No one suggests that the poisoning of eagles isn't a >> serious issue or a good story. In the early 1990s, Fish >> and Wildlife officials began cracking down on the illegal >> practice by ranchers of spiking sheep carcasses with >> poison to kill predators. Although typically meant to >>kill >> coyotes (which annually wipe out nearly 5% of the >> nation's sheep flock), the poison kills whatever feeds on >> the carcasses. Hundreds of eagles a year, including >> endangered bald eagles, die that way. >> >> To bring attention to the problem, Fish and Wildlife >> officials courted publicity. In 1993, after the >>appearance >> of a number of newspaper articles on the subject, CNN >> came calling, saying it wanted to air a documentary on >> poisoned eagles. >> >> Later, explaining in an interview with CNN why he >> wanted the network along on the Berger search, >> Assistant U.S. Attorney Kris McLean said it was >> "motivated by the prosecutor's self-interest in getting >>the >> word out to other people that might be contemplating >> these crimes ... that if you get caught, there are going >>to >> be serious consequences." >> >> The CNN invitation required federal officials to >>sacrifice >> more than Mr. Berger's privacy. The signed agreement >> violates a Department of Justice policy manual on search >> and arrest warrants that says, "No advance information >> will be provided to the news media ... nor shall news >> media representatives be solicited or invited to be >> present." >> >> Before the Berger raid, Fish and Wildlife agents had >> routinely invited county sheriffs to participate in raids >>or >> even in investigations. But Charles Phipps, the local >> sheriff in the Bergers' area, wasn't told of the Berger >> raid. >> >> Now, Mr. Phipps suspects federal agents feared he >> would do exactly what he did: Receiving a call from the >> Bergers, he arrived at their ranch around 10 a.m. and >> was startled to find so large a group milling about. >> Inquiring into everyone's identity, he learned about the >> presence of the three CNN employees. Determining that >> the search warrant didn't include them and that Mr. >> Berger didn't know they were there, he ordered them off >> the ranch. "They packed up and drove off and acted like >> they obeyed," he says. "But later I found out they >>didn't. >> They just joined some investigators out in the field." >> >> Camera Angle >> >> Out there in the fields with CNN was Mr. McLean, >> whose presence ran contrary to an unwritten but widely >> acknowledged Justice Department practice that >> discourages prosecutors from participating in searches. >> "We don't want the person prosecuting the case to >> become a witness -- which going along on a search can >> do," says Nancy Needles, executive assistant U.S. >> attorney in Chicago, explaining why prosecutors in her >> office don't do it. If a prosecutor did go along -- and >> conceivably circumstances could warrant it -- "you >> would certainly want him to identify himself," adds Ms. >> Needles. In this case, Mr. McLean wore a cap >> inscribed with "ATF" -- for the federal bureau of >> Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms -- and, according to the >> Bergers' attorneys, never identified himself. >> >> In the view of these lawyers, Mr. McLean came along >> to give sound bites to CNN. Although the outcome of >> the raid was far from certain, he stood in the Montana >> wilds and gazed into the CNN camera, saying, "It's not >> right that a few select people, like this case, can >>deprive >> the rest of us from seeing a bald eagle swooping down >> and taking a salmon out of a stream." Mr. McLean >> declined to comment for this article. >> >> Undercover Tactics >> >> For its part, CNN appeared eager from the outset to >> keep its presence on the ranch a secret. At a planning >> meeting the night before the raid, CNN reporter Jack >> Hamann discussed how to hide from Mr. Berger the >> identity of the CNN crew, according to court >> documents. >> >> Early in the search, the sight of Mr. Hamann with a >> camera prompted Mr. Berger to ask, "What are you >> doing there?" But Mr. Hamann neither answered the >> question nor identified himself. Mr. Hamann also >> declined to comment. >> >> The opportunity to participate in the raid clearly >> appealed to Mr. Hamann, the host of a CNN show >> called "Earth Matters." In an internal CNN story >> proposal written a week before federal agents sought >> the Berger search warrant, Mr. Hamann wrote, "We >> have exclusive access to what promises to be a major >> coyote/eagle poisoning case." In the document, which is >> now part of the court record, Mr. Hamann proposed to >> follow the federal agents as they found "what is >> supposed to be a huge cache of illegal poisons" and "the >> rancher's graveyard of eagles." >> >> The morning of the raid, the parade of government >> vehicles tooling down dirt roads unaccustomed to much >> traffic was so extraordinary that a neighbor seeing it >> called Mr. Berger to warn him it might be headed his >> way. Mr. Berger climbed in his truck and drove out to >> meet it. The top-ranking Fish and Wildlife agent, Joel >> Scrafford, told Mr. Berger about the warrant and >> promised that while searching the ranch, the agents >> would treat him the way they would want to be treated. >> Mr. Scrafford didn't mention that he was wired by >> CNN, or the presence of the CNN employees. >> >> Mr. Berger cooperated. He confessed on camera to >> having spiked some sheep carcasses for the purpose of >> killing coyotes, which he said take as many as 400 of his >> 5,000 sheep a year. While conceding that some eagles >> might have fed off the poisoned carcasses, he denied the >> presence of an eagle burial ground or that he had ever >> shot an eagle. >> >> During the 10-hour aerial and ground search, >> investigators found no poisoned eagles, no "graveyard of >> eagles" nor any "huge cache" of illegal poisons. What >> they did find, over an area bigger than many small >> towns, were two sheep carcasses laced with a poison. >> Nearby they found the carcasses of a skunk, a hawk >> and a gull that had fed off the poisoned sheep. Two >> dead eagles, found elsewhere on the property, had no >> traces of poison in them. >> >> Instead of bringing charges, federal agents returned a >> month later (without CNN) and conducted a massive >> aerial search of the ranch. It turned up nothing. >> >> Despite that, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Montana >> proceeded to charge Mr. Berger with killing 17 eagles, >> based on the testimony of the former employees, and >> with illegally spiking the sheep carcasses. In the middle >> of a four-day trial in August, prosecutors reduced the >> number of alleged eagles killed to one. But in the end, >> the jury acquitted him of all but the carcass-spiking >> misdemeanor. >> >> Airing the Story >> >> Barring another investigation of Mr. Berger by the feds, >> the completion of the trial meant that CNN was now >> free under its contract with the U.S. Attorney's Office >>to >> air its program. One view, held by many Montanans, >> was that the case had been an expensive and >> embarrassing bust: After all, the feds had spent months >> and thousands of dollars and netted only a misdemeanor >> conviction. Moreover, CNN was aware of at least one >> major government miscue -- the federal warrant >> specifically excluded the Bergers' house from search, yet >> a CNN transcript, based upon its videotaped footage, >> showed that agents withheld this knowledge from Mr. >> Berger and entered his house first thing. >> >> But the government forces seemed confident that they >> would like the CNN show. Before it ran in October >> 1993, the lead Fish and Wildlife investigator in the >>case, >> Rod Hanlon, sent a letter to "all participants in the >>Paul >> Berger eagle-poisoning investigation" announcing the >> dates and times of the CNN program, court documents >> later showed. While lamenting the unsatisfactory >> outcome of the criminal trial, Mr. Hanlon stated in the >> letter that "the Paul Bergers and non-believers of the >> world will have a chance to see and hear the truth >> through the CNN video, not just in Sand Springs, >> Montana, but the whole WORLD." Mr. Hanlon >> declined to comment on the Berger case. >> >> Called "Ring of Death," the 12-minute CNN program >> portrayed the raid of the Berger ranch as a big success. >> It quoted investigators as saying that the evidence >> discovered confirmed their worst suspicions. Its taped >> quotes from Mr. Berger gave the impression he was >> confessing to killing eagles. As for why the jury >>acquitted >> Mr. Berger on the eagle-poisoning counts, Mr. Hamann >> talked on the show about how Western juries and >> judges are sympathetic to ranchers. He never mentioned >> during the program that the investigators failed to find >> any poisoned eagles on the ranch. >> >> CNN could also have embarrassed Mr. McLean, the >> prosecutor, by quoting from his closing argument in the >> criminal trial. To explain to jurors why investigators >>had >> refused to let neighbors comfort the elderly Bergers >> during the 10-hour search, Mr. McLean declared: >> "Neighbors are not allowed in when you are executing a >> federal search warrant. My wife wouldn't be allowed in. >> You don't want anybody else running around." What he >> hadn't mentioned -- and the judge didn't allow jurors to >> know -- was that three CNN employees were his >> guests. >> >Brian Wilson >"Power corrupts; absolute power is kinda neat!" >Talk Show Host/Author >"the little black book on WHITEWATER" > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Fwd: C-NEWS: Time For Some Gun Owner "Reciprocity" -Forwarded Date: 25 Sep 1997 14:25:23 -0600 >Multi-State Rallying Call: > Time For Some Gun Owner "Reciprocity" > > Gun Owners of America E-mail/FAX Alert > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 > 703-321-8585 > > >September 19, 1997 > >Dear GOA Supporter: > >Your fellow gun owners in California could use a helping hand right now. >An anti-gun legislature heavily weighted with "idealistic" freshmen has >dropped a slew of gun bans on the desk of California Governor Pete >Wilson. Included are some of the most sweeping and blatantly >unconstitutional restrictions ever passed by a state legislature. > >** You can make a difference because Pete Wilson is more Politician than >Governor! ** > >You must urge Gov. Wilson to veto these anti-gun bills. This alert is >being sent to subscribers in states which will have an early impact on >the 2000 presidential election -- as well as to our many California >supporters. It is no secret that Pete Wilson has long harbored >presidential ambitions; he will probably seek the Republican nomination >in 2000. > >Whenever a politician aspires to higher office, he starts paying more >attention to "prospective constituents" and "voting blocks". This is an >excellent chance to convince Gov. Wilson that gun owners are vocal and >committed -- moreover, the political situation means that non-residents >can tip the scales and help prevent California from becoming almost as >restrictive as Washington, D.C. > >Of course, California gun owners need to speak up as well -- Governor >Wilson must be convinced to veto the following bills: > > SB 500. This monstrosity would ban every firearm the anti-gun >bureaucrats decree from on high as being "non-sporting" in nature. > > SB 513. Hayden's one-handgun-a-month. Weakened, but still deadly. > > AB 304. This bill would disarm all concealed carry permit holders >when they are merely passengers in a vehicle. > > AB 488. A nasty little aspect of this bill is that it is basically >the same as SB 500, except that it exempts "cowboy-style" handguns -- in >the hopes that Gov. Wilson will sign the lesser of two evils. > > AB 491. Unfairly subjects adult gun owners to prosecution when a >juvenile removes a firearm from one's premises. The previous juvenile age >was set at 14 or under; this bill increases the age to 16. > > AB 991. All new California residents would have to comply with the >state's myriad handgun restrictions within a mere 60 days of setting foot >on California soil. > > AB 1221. Currently, many types of ammunition are available only to >those 18 years of age or older. This bill hikes the disarmament to all >who are under 21, and thus strips the right of self-defense from 18-21 >year olds. > >As you can see, were California to adopt these measures atop what is >already one of the most restrictive firearms codes in the country, >millions of law-abiding residents would be denied their rights as >guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Please take a few moments to come to >the aid of these endangered citizens by contacting Gov. Wilson. A sample >non-resident letter is included after the contact information. If you >live in California, help those who are helping you by helping yourself. > >Governor Pete Wilson >State Capitol Building >Sacramento, CA 95814 >Ph: 916-445-2841 >Fx: 916-445-4633 >E-mail: No direct address, but an official feedback form located at >http://www.ca.gov/t/governor/mail.html is open to all. > >Webnote: The sample letter below is intended for use by residents of AK, >AZ, GA, IA, LA, NH, and SC. Sarah note: The sample letter works just fine if you delete the first sentence of paragraph 2. >------------- > >The Honorable Pete Wilson State Capitol Building > >Dear Governor Wilson: > >I have watched with increasing dismay as the legislature has presented >you with numerous bills of an unconstitutional and anti-gun nature. As a >law-abiding gun owner, I resent the self-styled "moralism" of lawmakers >who think that disarming those who respect the law will somehow protect >us from those who do not. I urge you to uphold your oath to the >Constitution and your responsibility to your constituents by vetoing any >and all bills which infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. > >You should know that I am a resident of __________, an early primary >state. Why, then, do I care about whether you allow the citizens of >California to fall prey to the anti-gunners? In addition to my heartfelt >belief that we are all Americans and deserve the same protections >wherever we go, the answer is that I recognize you are more than the >Governor of California. You are a national figure, and as such must come >to realize that gun owners are a vocal and politically active segment of >our society. It is my considered opinion that no person who would deprive >the People of the means to self-defense while our streets are rampant >with criminal activity should assume the mantle of leadership. > >Please veto any and all bills which infringe upon the Second Amendment >right to keep and bear arms. > > Sincerely, > > ___________________ > > >**************************************************************** >Chris W. Stark >Gun Owners of America - Texas Representative >e-mail: gunowner@onramp.net > >Visit our Web Page at: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gunowner > >Support "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." >Become a member of GOA TODAY! > >**************************************************************** > "No class or group or party in Germany could escape its share >of responsibility for the abandonment of the democratic Republic >and the advent of Adolf Hitler. The cardinal error of the Germans >who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it. >....the 63% of the German people who expressed their opposition >to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against >a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them >unless they united, HOWEVER TEMPORARY, to stamp it out." > > -William L. Shirer, author of "The rise and fall of the Third Reich" > p.259 >.....they who do not learn from History are DOOMED to repeat it!! >------- >To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message >UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact >owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: NRA Board Member Resigns (Russ Howard) Date: 25 Sep 1997 14:32:47 -0600 >August 12, 1997 > > >Mrs. Marion Hammer >President, The National Rifle Association of America > >Dear President Hammer: > >Being nominated and elected to serve on the Board of Directors of >the National Rifle Association was a great honor. Like most >Directors, I've spent much of my life laboring for freedom and >the right to keep and bear arms; rights our Founding Fathers >tried to guarantee by the 2nd Amendment, and which I forever hold >dear. > >Nonetheless, events of the past year have forced me to reassess >my long-standing affiliation with the NRA. Over the years, as >we've continued losing our rights in California and elsewhere, >activists have wondered why NRA is not more effective given the >passionate belief in the right to arms held by NRA members, a >large segment of the American public, and, presumably, the NRA >Board. Like most, I believed this could be accounted for by >relatively benign factors such as institutional paralysis, >bureaucratic incompetence, turf-protection, and the >not-invented-here syndrome. I now know otherwise. Those factors >are not insignificant, though there are many hard-working, >competent people working for NRA. Rather, as I've learned, NRA's >ineffectiveness largely springs from an unholy alliance between >NRA's senior paid staff (including you and other Board Members >with undisclosed conflicts of interest), some of the vendors NRA >does business with, and elements of the Republican Party, all >with the acquiescence of a Board which has long shirked its moral >and fiduciary duties. Many members have suggested that there is >anti-gun or other infiltration at play. While such a cancer >would not be inconsistent with the symptoms, I've seen no direct >evidence of it. > >NRA has been bled by some of its vendors and their self-serving >advice. The lack of competitive bidding makes the US Government >look responsible by comparison. The PR firm used by NRA, Tony >Makris' Ackerman-McQueen/Mercury Group, is an example. They've >been with NRA for some 20 years, and recently had an >$80,000-a-month basic retainer proposal on the table. Few >companies would keep a PR firm that long, let alone one that >would help senior staff wage war on Board Members. One of the >leverage strategies used by "Ak-Mac" is to spend millions of >NRA's dollars turning NRA officers into celebrities, who in turn >protect Ak-Mac. Hence your effort to keep the management audit >away from Ak-Mac even before it started. > >Those who question the Ak-Mac status quo are subjected to the >vilest of personal attacks. For example, when former President >Tom Washington wanted to look at your finances, and Ak-Mac's, he >was smeared. Apparently, Charleton Heston, NRA's new 1st VP, >neither requests nor receives compensation from NRA. But it's >well known that he works with NRA through Tony >Makris/Ak-Mac/Mercury and that much of their pay is for making >him available to NRA. When they're threatened they play the >Heston card. For example, as you know, Mr. Heston threatened to >resign from NRA unless Chief Kayne Robinson was elected 2nd VP in >Dallas. Though Mr. Heston is probably sincerely acting on >misinformation spoon fed to him by Mr. Makris and others, the >threat to Ak-Mac is the real reason Mr. Heston was ushered in, >not fear of "extremists." > >A strange hypocrisy drenched the interviews in the wake of his >coronation. The same Charleton Heston so fond of clenching a gun >and uttering the ominous threat to law enforcement officers, >"from my cold dead hands," touted the virtues of "mainstream" >over so-called "extremist" gun owners, later following up with >sound bites like "AK-47s are entirely inappropriate for civilian >ownership". In Seattle, he was flanked on one side by Director >Sandra Froman, a one-time cover-girl for Machine Gun News who >refers to her machine guns as "my babies." He was also flanked >by Director Manny Fernandez, who pleaded guilty in the face of >illegal machine gun possession charges. I have no problem with >machine guns; they're within the intent of the 2nd Amendment. >But I've never owned one, nor have I endorsed killing police >officers who come to confiscate our guns, should it ever come to >that. The only thing I've advocated is political action. So who >are the "extremists" here? You pushed Mr. Heston for 1st VP and >Mr. Fernandez for the nominating committee, and kept Ms. Froman >in charge of grassroots, hardly because they're "moderates," >rather because they were part of your coup de etat. > >By labeling former 1st VP Neal Knox and the reform camp >"extremists," you and your fellow Machine Gun Moderates rendered >less viable some of the core 2nd Amendment beliefs held by Mr. >Knox and the reform camp - beliefs you supposedly hold. If >indeed you hold them, then you trashed your own beliefs for >personal gain. How many Directors and others with a hand in your >coup de etat have personal, financial, or political conflicts of >interest? How many are directly or indirectly getting paid by >NRA? > >As for the role of neo-conservative and Republican elements in >this unholy alliance, it's easy to understand why they protect >NRA's failed leadership: They want our money, our A-ratings, our >endorsements, and our grassroots support, but they don't want to >make the tough votes required to earn them. So they applaud >Wayne LaPierre's "mainstream" positions like federally mandated >instacheck - the same Wayne LaPierre who himself was widely >denounced as an extremist for referring to federal officers as >"jackbooted thugs"! Writer David Brock, admitted repentant >political hit man for the right, made it clear that protecting >the Republican Party was a prime motive for his American >Spectator piece which smeared the NRA reform camp (note that >letters to the Spectator exposing the smear were never printed - >so much for accuracy and fairness in the neo-con media). That's >why NRA leaders are so opposed to putting an end to ILA's >penchant for giving A ratings to legislators who vote for gun >control. Republican politicos were mobilized out of fear that >straw man Neal Knox and other reform-minded Directors would end >their free ride. Never mind that NRA would be far more effective >once it was no longer married to one party and began seriously >enticing Democrats and disciplining sellout Republicans. Your >word was given in September, 1996 that the motion to stop ILA >from giving A's to legislators who trample on gun rights would >come before the Board for a vote in May. It did not, but you >publicly committed in May to bring it up in September. You've >frequently broken your word before, and I expect you'll break it >this time. I urge Directors to hold you to it and pass the >motion. > >Like others, I got heavily involved in 1989 largely because NRA >had effectively abandoned California. A focused five-year >struggle ended with the political demise of our two >highest-profile gun grabbers, setting an example for other >legislators that dammed up the torrent for three years. But such >examples don't last forever. Legislators forget, especially when >they see NRA leadership attempting to destroy those who set the >example, and NRA never followed up with the no-compromise >dealing, serious organizing, and contingency planning we'd hoped >for. So we're back where we were in 1989, only worse. A slate >of anti-gun-rights bills is moving that makes Roos-Roberti look >tame. As generally happens with California gun control laws, if >any of these bills pass, the enemy will be emboldened and rights >will be threatened across the country. > >And yet, NRA is once again running from California. Mr. Heston's >candidacy was sold to members on the promise that he could open >any political door, yet he apparently hasn't lifted a finger to >save his home state (by contrast, Neal Knox, a Maryland resident, >flew to Sacramento with some activists who had asked for his >help, including former Roberti Recall Chair Bill Dominguez and >Santa Barbara NRA Members Council President Larry Rankin). When >asked what the plan to save California was, Tanya Metaksa, >Executive Director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, >said "we're looking for one." I believe NRA leadership has >decided to sell out on the "assault weapon" issue, and is >preparing to sell out California, as quietly as possible to >preserve the "Winning Team" fiction. A high-profile defense has >the potential downside of a high-profile loss - unacceptable for >an ILA that blows members' money to shower them with glossy >4-page "ILA Victory" brochures touting ILA's "success rates." >Like a district attorney who excessively plea bargains to >maintain a high conviction rate, ILA's statistics are bolstered >by supporting anti-gun candidates, pushing unnecessarily >compromised legislation, and ignoring legislative losses. The >pattern is unsettling: Giving A's to legislators who voted for >the assault weapon ban then pushing a go-nowhere vote to pacify >members; Mr. Heston's attacks on Ak-47s and so-called >"extremists," and his failure to act in his home state; ILA's >pressuring of grassroots into fundraising and NRA Board politics >when they should be focused on action; the non-plan for >California. But perhaps Mr. Heston will make a cameo appearance >after all. Perhaps he's waiting for bills to reach the governor, >then he'll ask for a veto. It's never worked before with this or >any other Republican governor here, despite all the free money, >endorsements, and support we give Republicans. We'll see. > >The unholy alliance of NRA leaders, vendors, and Republican >elements is the reason why NRA is declining in stature. It was >used by you, President Hammer, and by others in leadership, to >protect the status quo, and with it your power, positions and >financial self-dealing from reform. To hide your unwholesome >goals, motives, and tactics, you preemptively accused others of >having them - a page out of the Clinton-Goebbels-Lenin play books >and a transparently hypocritical ploy you've long put to great >use. Your coconspirators accused Neal Knox of attempting a coup >de etat and a corporate takeover. The only corporate takeover I >know of was by Ak-Mac, which can write its own ticket now: They >have you, 1st VP Heston, 2nd VP Robinson, EVP LaPierre, and >others, all in place and in pocket. Mr. Knox and other reformers >were accused of wanting jobs, diverting attention from the fact >that many Directors had personal, financial, and political >incentives to preserve the status quo (e.g., your undisclosed >$10,000 a month; how much is it now?) Mr. Knox was also accused >of using Machiavellian tactics to control the Board. If that >were true, your "Winning Team" wouldn't be in power today. Fact >is, Mr. Knox used his influence to help get the "Winning Team" >and most of its supporters onto the Board and into the positions >they used to betray him. And, as you know too well, Machiavelli >would never have allowed your coup to succeed. Compared to Mr. >Knox's influence, you run the Board like a concentration camp >commandant, trying to break prisoners by taking away their >privileges. For starters, those who opposed the status quo >generally got a powerless committee assignment or none at all. >And Neal Knox has never stooped to the kind of lying smear >campaign which your "Winning Team" so zealously carried out. > >As you know, in just one year you've appointed 3 Finance >Committee Chairs. Rick Carone, one of the two most qualified >chairs in NRA's history, resigned because of the Board's >unwillingness to deal with you. Then you fired Donna Bianchi for >exercising her conscience and running against Wayne LaPierre's >mismanagement. Now we have Mr. Sigler, who with all due respect, >is unqualified for the position compared to his predecessors - >including former Coors Chief Max Goodwin - all of whom sounded >the alarm on NRA's financial position ($50 million in the red, >$300 million spent without proper authorization, D credit rating, >unqualified management, etc., etc., etc.). As to the rest of the >Committee, you replaced most of the experienced members with >generally unqualified people (one publicly admitted she knows >nothing about finance), increasing the Board's liability. >Considering that the Finance Committee has a lot of power, small >wonder why you're now making more appointments based on cronyism >and political allegiance rather than ability. > >Then we have Sue King as Chair of the Ethics Committee: the fox >in charge of the hen house. I have first hand knowledge of her >involvement in the smear campaign. She violated her oath and the >Board's trust by libeling me after I had answered questions about >my FPPC case in the confidence of executive session. If anyone's >unethical it's Sue King. Likewise, Ms. King's control of >publications is shockingly without merit and appears to be for >the sole purpose of consolidating power by controlling future >Board elections through the magazines. That is, unless you're >giving her credit for something the rest of us don't know about. >The vicious (and, of course, anonymous) "COUP DE ETAT NEWS," >perhaps? > >Jeff Cooper is one of the most renowned firearms instructors in >the world. Your bizarre purge of Mr. Cooper from Education and >Training proves that the "Winning Team" put its coup de etat, and >the indulgence of your petty vindictiveness, ahead of the good of >the NRA. Is Mr. Cooper an extremist? Accomplished instructors >TJ Johnston and Leroy Pyle were also purged. By acquiescing to >your whimsical purge of the most qualified committee members, by >general inaction, and through bad faith, Board Members are >putting their personal assets at risk to lawsuits, as >malfeasance, misfeasance and dereliction of duty are reportedly >not covered by NRA's Director insurance, which is nominal in any >case compared to the potential claims. > >Looking back, ignorance was bliss. I wish I didn't know what I >know today. Not that ignorance is an excuse. But with graduate >degrees from UCLA specializing in economics, finance, and >accounting, a decade in the financial industry, and my >participation in an internal study of NRA finances, I could >hardly claim ignorance of the financial atrocities committed by >NRA leaders with members money and the consent of an >irresponsible board. NRA's liabilities are dreadful, and I >cannot stand by while Officers and past Presidents explain away >NRA's moral obligations to its members. Quoting Wayne Stump's >resignation earlier this year - "the Board did nothing." At >least I tried, as did others, to perform my fiduciary duty. But >I can tell you it's no fun being sued for a large amount of >money, even if you think you're in the right. I've enough >liability on my plate to last a lifetime. I'm not taking on any >more, certainly not for an institution corrupted by its own power >and money. > >When a minority of the Board tried to exercise their moral and >fiduciary duty to the members, they were not answered by a >reasoned defense of NRA's leadership. The response by staff >officers, vendors, neo-cons, and certain Board members, was to >create a smokescreen by smearing those Directors who had been >tasked by the Board to conduct a special review of NRA finances >and management. By tolerating, encouraging, and participating in >the smear, you have irrevocably lowered the standards of the >Board. Any Director is now fair game, even those who deemed >themselves non-aligned in the recent conflict. I urge them to >prepare themselves. It's hard to convey a true feeling for what >it's like to see fabricated stories told about yourself in a >national magazine, then see ILA immediately hire - as an apparent >pay-off - those who smeared you (e.g., Paul Pain). That's how >much top staff thinks of the Board. The old saw that NRA eats >its young came only too true in my case. In under a month I went >from a standing ovation by the Board to the realization of how >expendable I was in the "Winning Team's" power game, even after >the bullets I took for them and the cause. > >The struggle for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is >at the core of a fundamental struggle for freedom that began in >ancient times and will surely persist into the distant ages to >come. This struggle is political, though it has not always >been. Like diplomacy, the politics of such a struggle is an >extension of war by other means, though perhaps further removed. >In any conflict, if those on the front lines cannot trust and >rely on the honor of their comrades, the cause is doomed. While >there are many good and honorable people on the Board with >various stands on the current power struggle, there are some who >cannot be trusted and are without honor. The most recent proof >of this is your own slander, telling Board members that I cashed >my management review consulting check and left 1st Union Bank >with hundred dollar bills stuffed in my pockets. In fact, on the >advice of Judge Paul Heath Till, I wired the money to California >so I could avoid the clearing delay (and the risk of a stop >payment - that's right, I don't trust you), and pay my attorney >who faced a hearing just days later. But then you knew that, of >course. Just another in your long string of lies. > >President Hammer, with victory under your belt and ruthless >consolidation of power underway, with control of the magazines >and millions in image-building expenditures to keep members >barraged with fairy tales, and with NRA's powerful lobbying and >PR cannons now turned on many of those who helped build them, I'm >sure you're confident of a place in the constellation of NRA >leaders. History, on the other hand, favors the truth. > >I got into this cause 20 years ago to do my part for my country >because I never had to go to war, unlike my father, Rick Carone, >General Foss, Col. Brown, Jeff Cooper, Wes Grogan, Jerry Allen, >Jim Fotis, Jim Land, Bob Kramer, and many others who risked the >ultimate price for our freedom. I'd like to continue to serve, >but for many reasons I simply cannot. I took my Board position >seriously. Members trusted me and I repaid them by performing my >moral and fiduciary duty. Even in better times an NRA without >major problems would require a major commitment from a diligent >Director. But considering the shape NRA is in, the "Winning >Team's" eagerness to destroy the reputations of Directors who >perform their fiduciary duty and refuse to tow your party line, >the oppression of the FPPC, and other factors, it is >all-consuming. I paid my dues and then some. My conscience is >clear. As of today, the voluntary portion of my tour of >political duty for NRA is over. I hereby resign from the Board >of Directors of the National Rifle Association. > >Sincerely, > > > >C. Russell Howard > >cc: T. Makris, Chairman 1st Vice President C. Heston NRA >Secretary J. Land > The Board of Directors 2nd Vice President K. Robinson >-- >********************************************************************* > The Paul Revere Network >http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html > >>> Subscribe to the PRNet mail list <<< >Email to:LISTSERV@AIRGUNHQ.COM, in body:SUBSCRIBE PRN >********************************************************************* > >------End forward message--------------------------- > > >__________________ >Robert P. Firriolo > >**************************************************************** > Don't Tread on Me! > >"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the >people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped." > > - Alexander Hamilton > The Federalist Papers - Number 29 >***************************************************************** > >------End forward message--------------------------- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Msg fm the Board Date: 25 Sep 1997 14:38:05 -0600 Last note I sent, TJ wanted to "hear from us". Let's hope he still does!!! Sarah >From: Brian Wilson >Subject: Msg fm the Board > >A note from a membeof the Board... >Note sentence 3, 2 graph... >BW > > >>Return-Path: >>From: TJJOHNSTN@aol.com >>Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 04:19:37 -0400 (EDT) >>To: bmw@mindspring.com >>Subject: Re: Instant check >> >>In a message dated 97-09-23 22:37:59 EDT, you write: >> >><< If we agree that the 2nd Amendment says my right to own a weapon "shall >> not be infringed", do we mutually agree on the meaning of "infringed"? >> >> >>Brian: we lost that right about sixty years ago. You must admit that what is >>left today is a highly regulated privilege. The average voter (educated in >>our public schools) has no concept of limited government and absolute rights. >>Until we educate them and get them involved, we will continue to lose more of >>our freedoms. >> >>Just in the same manner of gradualism, we must slowly and incrementally work >>to win back that right. Part of that incrementalism is to carefully show >>everyone that arming citizens reduces crime. To do that, we have to bite our >>tongue and suffer through unConstitutional regulations and beg for >>permission. The Lott study now documents our progress. Now we have to >>continue the process of educating our elected officials, our neighbors, and >>the media. Simply declaring our rights doesn't get it done. >> >>The people living in your neighborhood, who have been brainwashed by what >>they read in the newspaper and what they see on tv, generally don't agree >>with us that American citizens should have an unrestricted freedom to own >>firearms. Until they do, we won't have a "right" in the true sense. Shouting >>about rights and demanding unalienable freedoms will get us nothing but >>ignored. >> >>TJ Johnston >>NRA Board of Directors >> >> >Brian Wilson >"Power corrupts; absolute power is kinda neat!" >Talk Show Host/Author >"the little black book on WHITEWATER" > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA Board Member Resigns (Russ Howard) 1/3 Date: 26 Sep 1997 08:53:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- August 12, 1997 Mrs. Marion Hammer President, The National Rifle Association of America Dear President Hammer: Being nominated and elected to serve on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association was a great honor. Like most Directors, I've spent much of my life laboring for freedom and the right to keep and bear arms; rights our Founding Fathers tried to guarantee by the 2nd Amendment, and which I forever hold dear. Nonetheless, events of the past year have forced me to reassess my long-standing affiliation with the NRA. Over the years, as we've continued losing our rights in California and elsewhere, activists have wondered why NRA is not more effective given the passionate belief in the right to arms held by NRA members, a large segment of the American public, and, presumably, the NRA Board. Like most, I believed this could be accounted for by relatively benign factors such as institutional paralysis, bureaucratic incompetence, turf-protection, and the not-invented-here syndrome. I now know otherwise. Those factors are not insignificant, though there are many hard-working, competent people working for NRA. Rather, as I've learned, NRA's ineffectiveness largely springs from an unholy alliance between NRA's senior paid staff (including you and other Board Members with undisclosed conflicts of interest), some of the vendors NRA does business with, and elements of the Republican Party, all with the acquiescence of a Board which has long shirked its moral and fiduciary duties. Many members have suggested that there is anti- gun or other infiltration at play. While such a cancer would not be inconsistent with the symptoms, I've seen no direct evidence of it. NRA has been bled by some of its vendors and their self-serving advice. The lack of competitive bidding makes the US Government look responsible by comparison. The PR firm used by NRA, Tony Makris' Ackerman-McQueen/ Mercury Group, is an example. They've been with NRA for some 20 years, and recently had an $80,000-a-month basic retainer proposal on the table. Few companies would keep a PR firm that long, let alone one that would help senior staff wage war on Board Members. One of the leverage strategies used by "Ak-Mac" is to spend millions of NRA's dollars turning NRA officers into celebrities, who in turn protect Ak-Mac. Hence your effort to keep the management audit away from Ak-Mac even before it started. Those who question the Ak-Mac status quo are subjected to the vilest of personal attacks. For example, when former President Tom Washington wanted to look at your finances, and Ak-Mac's, he was smeared. Apparently, Charleton Heston, NRA's new 1st VP, neither requests nor receives compensation from NRA. But it's well known that he works with NRA through Tony Makris/Ak-Mac/Mercury and that much of their pay is for making him available to NRA. When they're threatened they play the Heston card. For example, as you know, Mr. Heston threatened to resign from NRA unless Chief Kayne Robinson was elected 2nd VP in Dallas. Though Mr. Heston is probably sincerely acting on misinformation spoon fed to him by Mr. Makris and others, the threat to Ak-Mac is the real reason Mr. Heston was ushered in, not fear of "extremists." A strange hypocrisy drenched the interviews in the wake of his coronation. The same Charleton Heston so fond of clenching a gun and uttering the ominous threat to law enforcement officers, "from my cold dead hands," touted the virtues of "mainstream" over so-called "extremist" gun owners, later following up with sound bites like "AK-47s are entirely inappropriate for civilian ownership". In Seattle, he was flanked on one side by Director Sandra Froman, a one-time cover-girl for Machine Gun News who refers to her machine guns as "my babies." He was also flanked by Director Manny Fernandez, who pleaded guilty in the face of illegal machine gun possession charges. I have no problem with machine guns; they're within the intent of the 2nd Amendment. But I've never owned one, nor have I endorsed killing police officers who come to confiscate our guns, should it ever come to that. The only thing I've advocated is political action. So who are the "extremists" here? You pushed Mr. Heston for 1st VP and Mr. Fernandez for the nominating committee, and kept Ms. Froman in charge of grassroots, hardly because they're "moderates," rather because they were part of your coup de etat. By labeling former 1st VP Neal Knox and the reform camp "extremists," you and your fellow Machine Gun Moderates rendered less viable some of the core 2nd Amendment beliefs held by Mr. Knox and the reform camp - beliefs you supposedly hold. If indeed you hold them, then you trashed your own beliefs for personal gain. How many Directors and others with a hand in your coup de etat have personal, financial, or political conflicts of interest? How many are directly or indirectly getting paid by NRA? As for the role of neo-conservative and Republican elements in this unholy alliance, it's easy to understand why they protect NRA's failed leadership: They want our money, our A-ratings, our endorsements, and our grassroots support, but they don't want to make the tough votes required to earn them. So they applaud Wayne LaPierre's "mainstream" positions like federally mandated instacheck - the same Wayne LaPierre who himself was widely denounced as an extremist for referring to federal officers as "jackbooted thugs"! Writer David Brock, admitted repentant political hit man for the right, made it clear that protecting the Republican Party was a prime motive for his American Spectator piece which smeared the NRA reform camp (note that letters to the Spectator exposing the smear were never printed - so much for accuracy and fairness in the neo-con media). That's why NRA leaders are so opposed to putting an end to ILA's penchant for giving A ratings to legislators who vote for gun control. Republican politicos were mobilized out of fear that straw man Neal Knox and other reform-minded Directors would end their free ride. Never mind that NRA would be far more effective once it was no longer married to one party and began seriously enticing Democrats and disciplining sellout Republicans. Your word was given in September, 1996 that the motion to stop ILA from giving A's to legislators who trample on gun rights would come before the Board for a vote in May. It did not, but you publicly committed in May to bring it up in September. You've frequently broken your word before, and I expect you'll break it this time. I urge Directors to hold you to it and pass the motion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA Board Member Resigns (Russ Howard) 2/3 Date: 26 Sep 1997 08:53:00 -0700 Like others, I got heavily involved in 1989 largely because NRA had effectively abandoned California. A focused five-year struggle ended with the political demise of our two highest-profile gun grabbers, setting an example for other legislators that dammed up the torrent for three years. But such examples don't last forever. Legislators forget, especially when they see NRA leadership attempting to destroy those who set the example, and NRA never followed up with the no- compromise dealing, serious organizing, and contingency planning we'd hoped for. So we're back where we were in 1989, only worse. A slate of anti-gun-rights bills is moving that makes Roos-Roberti look tame. As generally happens with California gun control laws, if any of these bills pass, the enemy will be emboldened and rights will be threatened across the country. And yet, NRA is once again running from California. Mr. Heston's candidacy was sold to members on the promise that he could open any political door, yet he apparently hasn't lifted a finger to save his home state (by contrast, Neal Knox, a Maryland resident, flew to Sacramento with some activists who had asked for his help, including former Roberti Recall Chair Bill Dominguez and Santa Barbara NRA Members Council President Larry Rankin). When asked what the plan to save California was, Tanya Metaksa, Executive Director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said "we're looking for one." I believe NRA leadership has decided to sell out on the "assault weapon" issue, and is preparing to sell out California, as quietly as possible to preserve the "Winning Team" fiction. A high-profile defense has the potential downside of a high-profile loss - unacceptable for an ILA that blows members' money to shower them with glossy 4-page "ILA Victory" brochures touting ILA's "success rates." Like a district attorney who excessively plea bargains to maintain a high conviction rate, ILA's statistics are bolstered by supporting anti-gun candidates, pushing unnecessarily compromised legislation, and ignoring legislative losses. The pattern is unsettling: Giving A's to legislators who voted for the assault weapon ban then pushing a go-nowhere vote to pacify members; Mr. Heston's attacks on AK-47s and so-called "extremists," and his failure to act in his home state; ILA's pressuring of grassroots into fundraising and NRA Board politics when they should be focused on action; the non-plan for California. But perhaps Mr. Heston will make a cameo appearance after all. Perhaps he's waiting for bills to reach the governor, then he'll ask for a veto. It's never worked before with this or any other Republican governor here, despite all the free money, endorsements, and support we give Republicans. We'll see. The unholy alliance of NRA leaders, vendors, and Republican elements is the reason why NRA is declining in stature. It was used by you, President Hammer, and by others in leadership, to protect the status quo, and with it your power, positions and financial self-dealing from reform. To hide your unwholesome goals, motives, and tactics, you preemptively accused others of having them - a page out of the Clinton-Goebbels-Lenin play books and a transparently hypocritical ploy you've long put to great use. Your coconspirators accused Neal Knox of attempting a coup de etat and a corporate takeover. The only corporate takeover I know of was by Ak-Mac, which can write its own ticket now: They have you, 1st VP Heston, 2nd VP Robinson, EVP LaPierre, and others, all in place and in pocket. Mr. Knox and other reformers were accused of wanting jobs, diverting attention from the fact that many Directors had personal, financial, and political incentives to preserve the status quo (e.g., your undisclosed $10,000 a month; how much is it now?) Mr. Knox was also accused of using Machiavellian tactics to control the Board. If that were true, your "Winning Team" wouldn't be in power today. Fact is, Mr. Knox used his influence to help get the "Winning Team" and most of its supporters onto the Board and into the positions they used to betray him. And, as you know too well, Machiavelli would never have allowed your coup to succeed. Compared to Mr. Knox's influence, you run the Board like a concentration camp commandant, trying to break prisoners by taking away their privileges. For starters, those who opposed the status quo generally got a powerless committee assignment or none at all. And Neal Knox has never stooped to the kind of lying smear campaign which your "Winning Team" so zealously carried out. As you know, in just one year you've appointed 3 Finance Committee Chairs. Rick Carone, one of the two most qualified chairs in NRA's history, resigned because of the Board's unwillingness to deal with you. Then you fired Donna Bianchi for exercising her conscience and running against Wayne LaPierre's mismanagement. Now we have Mr. Sigler, who with all due respect, is unqualified for the position compared to his predecessors - including former Coors Chief Max Goodwin - all of whom sounded the alarm on NRA's financial position ($50 million in the red, $300 million spent without proper authorization, D credit rating, unqualified management, etc., etc., etc.). As to the rest of the Committee, you replaced most of the experienced members with generally unqualified people (one publicly admitted she knows nothing about finance), increasing the Board's liability. Considering that the Finance Committee has a lot of power, small wonder why you're now making more appointments based on cronyism and political allegiance rather than ability. Then we have Sue King as Chair of the Ethics Committee: the fox in charge of the hen house. I have first hand knowledge of her involvement in the smear campaign. She violated her oath and the Board's trust by libeling me after I had answered questions about my FPPC case in the confidence of executive session. If anyone's unethical it's Sue King. Likewise, Ms. King's control of publications is shockingly without merit and appears to be for the sole purpose of consolidating power by controlling future Board elections through the magazines. That is, unless you're giving her credit for something the rest of us don't know about. The vicious (and, of course, anonymous) "COUP DE ETAT NEWS," perhaps? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA Board Member Resigns (Russ Howard) 3/3 Date: 26 Sep 1997 08:53:00 -0700 Jeff Cooper is one of the most renowned firearms instructors in the world. Your bizarre purge of Mr. Cooper from Education and Training proves that the "Winning Team" put its coup de etat, and the indulgence of your petty vindictiveness, ahead of the good of the NRA. Is Mr. Cooper an extremist? Accomplished instructors TJ Johnston and Leroy Pyle were also purged. By acquiescing to your whimsical purge of the most qualified committee members, by general inaction, and through bad faith, Board Members are putting their personal assets at risk to lawsuits, as malfeasance, misfeasance and dereliction of duty are reportedly not covered by NRA's Director insurance, which is nominal in any case compared to the potential claims. Looking back, ignorance was bliss. I wish I didn't know what I know today. Not that ignorance is an excuse. But with graduate degrees from UCLA specializing in economics, finance, and accounting, a decade in the financial industry, and my participation in an internal study of NRA finances, I could hardly claim ignorance of the financial atrocities committed by NRA leaders with members' money and the consent of an irresponsible board. NRA's liabilities are dreadful, and I cannot stand by while Officers and past Presidents explain away NRA's moral obligations to its members. Quoting Wayne Stump's resignation earlier this year - "the Board did nothing." At least I tried, as did others, to perform my fiduciary duty. But I can tell you it's no fun being sued for a large amount of money, even if you think you're in the right. I've enough liability on my plate to last a lifetime. I'm not taking on any more, certainly not for an institution corrupted by its own power and money. When a minority of the Board tried to exercise their moral and fiduciary duty to the members, they were not answered by a reasoned defense of NRA's leadership. The response by staff officers, vendors, neo-cons, and certain Board members, was to create a smokescreen by smearing those Directors who had been tasked by the Board to conduct a special review of NRA finances and management. By tolerating, encouraging, and participating in the smear, you have irrevocably lowered the standards of the Board. Any Director is now fair game, even those who deemed themselves non-aligned in the recent conflict. I urge them to prepare themselves. It's hard to convey a true feeling for what it's like to see fabricated stories told about yourself in a national magazine, then see ILA immediately hire - as an apparent pay-off - those who smeared you (e.g., Paul Pain). That's how much top staff thinks of the Board. The old saw that NRA eats its young came only too true in my case. In under a month I went from a standing ovation by the Board to the realization of how expendable I was in the "Winning Team's" power game, even after the bullets I took for them and the cause. The struggle for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is at the core of a fundamental struggle for freedom that began in ancient times and will surely persist into the distant ages to come. This struggle is political, though it has not always been. Like diplomacy, the politics of such a struggle is an extension of war by other means, though perhaps further removed. In any conflict, if those on the front lines cannot trust and rely on the honor of their comrades, the cause is doomed. While there are many good and honorable people on the Board with various stands on the current power struggle, there are some who cannot be trusted and are without honor. The most recent proof of this is your own slander, telling Board members that I cashed my management review consulting check and left 1st Union Bank with hundred dollar bills stuffed in my pockets. In fact, on the advice of Judge Paul Heath Till, I wired the money to California so I could avoid the clearing delay (and the risk of a stop payment - that's right, I don't trust you), and pay my attorney who faced a hearing just days later. But then you knew that, of course. Just another in your long string of lies. President Hammer, with victory under your belt and ruthless consolidation of power underway, with control of the magazines and millions in image-building expenditures to keep members barraged with fairy tales, and with NRA's powerful lobbying and PR cannons now turned on many of those who helped build them, I'm sure you're confident of a place in the constellation of NRA leaders. History, on the other hand, favors the truth. I got into this cause 20 years ago to do my part for my country because I never had to go to war, unlike my father, Rick Carone, General Foss, Col. Brown, Jeff Cooper, Wes Grogan, Jerry Allen, Jim Fotis, Jim Land, Bob Kramer, and many others who risked the ultimate price for our freedom. I'd like to continue to serve, but for many reasons I simply cannot. I took my Board position seriously. Members trusted me and I repaid them by performing my moral and fiduciary duty. Even in better times an NRA without major problems would require a major commitment from a diligent Director. But considering the shape NRA is in, the "Winning Team's" eagerness to destroy the reputations of Directors who perform their fiduciary duty and refuse to tow your party line, the oppression of the FPPC, and other factors, it is all-consuming. I paid my dues and then some. My conscience is clear. As of today, the voluntary portion of my tour of political duty for NRA is over. I hereby resign from the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. Sincerely, C. Russell Howard cc: T. Makris, Chairman 1st Vice President C. Heston 2nd Vice President K. Robinson NRA Secretary J. Land The Board of Directors -- ********************************************************************* The Paul Revere Network http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html >>> Subscribe to the PRNet mail list <<< Email to:LISTSERV@AIRGUNHQ.COM, in body:SUBSCRIBE PRN ********************************************************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Fwd: C-NEWS: VANGUARD: A Sea of Flames -Forwarded Date: 26 Sep 1997 10:32:30 -0600 > A SEA OF FLAMES > 26 September 1997 > > Copyright 1997, Rod D. Martin > > "Vanguard of the Revolution" > > http://members.aol.com/RodDMartin/vanguard.htm > > > >On Tuesday, the enigmatic Kim Jong Il, "Dear Leader" and son of the >three-years dead Stalinist dictator Kim Il Sung, was finally nominated to >the post of General Secretary of the Workers' Party, the North Korean >Communists. This potentially answered the question of who exactly runs >North Korea; it did not give anyone comfort. > >Kim Il Jong has never met a Westerner. He has never been outside North >Korea. He has lived all his life in the personality cult of his father, >the first and to this day only dictator and the man who launched the >Korean War. Western ears have heard him speak precisely one sentence. > >It is fitting, if disconcerting, that he lead North Korea. > >North Korea stands on alert, ready to invade and destroy the South. This >much we know. Among multiple defectors in the past year, two come from >the country's highest ranks: former politburo member Hwang Jang-yop, the >architect of North Korea's autarky and the highest ranking defector ever; >and Chang Sung-gil, North Korea's ambassador to Egypt and the man who ran >his country's highly profitable Middle East arms trade. Both confirm: >the invasion is only a matter of time, possibly as early as this fall. > >North Korea openly threatens to turn Seoul, the capital of its southern >neighbor and our close ally, "into a sea of flame." According to U.S. >intelligence sources and the two defectors, North Korea has stockpiled at >least three nuclear weapons, as well as innumerable chemical and >biological ones, for the campaign to "liberate" the South. The North >trumpets its plan to "annihilate" the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in >South Korea, as well as attack Japan, Okinawa, Guam, and even the United >States. > >Why Korea, and why now? In short, North Korea is not only bankrupt, but >starving as well. It's famine becomes more acute by the day; and like >all famines in Communist countries before it, it touches the well-fed and >supplied North Korean armed forces not at all. North Korea is >increasingly an army in search of a nation, and the nation is has is >dying. The Party faces a simple choice: collapse into chaos, or reach >out and grasp the dangling, sumptuous fruit just across the DMZ. > >But is that fruit within its reach? Yes. Today, what is certainly the >world's most dangerous nation faces 700,000 South Korean and 37,000 U.S. >soldiers with an army of 1.1 million, confined in a truly tiny space. Of >these, no less than 100,000 are commandos, the largest Special Forces in >the world. North Korea's generals believe they can use this force to >conquer the South in a high-intensity 7-20 day campaign, completing the >job before heavy U.S. reinforcements can arrive. > >Two hundred Scud-B and Frog missiles would blanket the ten U.S. and South >Korean airfields with chemical weapons, while the large but antiquated >North Korean air force would throw itself at the same targets in a >suicide run. The 100,000 commandos would strike these airfields and >various other command centers by sea as well as by air from a fleet of >300 AN-2 transports, utterly invisible to radar due to their fabric skin. > Seoul's millions would be forced to flee their city ablaze on the very >first day, and the world's number three military would race down the >peninsula even as it neutralized bases in Japan and Okinawa, either by >intimidation or direct attack. > >The U.S. Army took nearly six months to deploy for Desert Storm. Today >it has radically less to fight with, further away from the scene. > >What is Bill Clinton's response to this potential nuclear war? >Appeasement on a scale not seen since Munich. After pressing South Korea >and Japan into four-power talks that serve only to dignify the brutal >Pyongyang regime, Clinton is actually giving the North two American >nuclear reactors, as well as vast quantities of food and fuel oil. Note >that none of this supply effort has gone to aid the population; it has >stocked the military we face. The price of this outlandish aid? Vague >promises from North Korea's shadowy leadership that they will halt >further nuclear weapons production. Needless to say, the North Korean >reactors continue to run. > >When contrasted with America's crushing embargo of Iraq, this approach is >simply astounding; yet as in Haiti, Bill Clinton likes being tough with >enemies who can't fight back. North Korea, a dire and imminent threat, >is treated in a manner that would make Chamberlain blush, showing the >world precisely what this administration is made of. > >If war is to be averted, Pyongyang must be shown that war will not pay. >Aid must be cut off at once: North Korea must be forced to spend down >its six-month war reserve of food, oil and spare parts. Armor and other >heavy weapons must be prepositioned close enough to the Korean peninsula >to drastically cut the time needed to deploy a full scale army. Above >all, North Korea must be told in no uncertain terms that on day-one of >any conflict, it will face the maximum force available to the United >States in defense of South Korea. Let them determine for themselves just >what that might be. > >Appeasement has never worked. Isolated, starving countries with big >armies have never failed to exploit weakness. And Bill Clinton has never >shown courage. May God help us all. > >Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 26 September 1997 > >--------------------------------------------------------------- > To receive Vanguard of the Revolution via email send a > note to RodColumn@aol.com with the subject heading: > subscribe vanguard your name > To unsubscribe, send a note to the same address with the > subject heading: remove vanguard your name > WWW: http://members.aol.com/roddmartin/vanguard.htm > For Syndication Information please contact: > Email: RodDMartin@aol.com > FAX: (254) 756-7773 > Smail: > Rod D. Martin > Vanguard of the Revolution > P. O. Box 1022 > Arkadelphia, AR 71923-1022 >--------------------------------------------------------------- >------- >To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message >UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact >owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions. > > > >------End forward message--------------------------- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Not on the evening news... Date: 26 Sep 1997 12:38:37 -0600 Well, golly gee! I guess I'm just one of those "elitist extremists" who can't "trust the elected government and the Supreme Court to make decisions". Sarah >>FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist >>(09/25/97; 4:30 p.m. EDT) >>By David Braun, TechWire >> >>MONTREAL -- Extremist positions on electronic encryption are not only >>threatening to normal law enforcement, but they are also elitist and >>nondemocratic, said Alan McDonald, a senior counsel member with the >>Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the International Conference on >>Privacy >>in Montreal on Thursday. >> >>Addressing a workshop on how far society should go in trading off >>privacy for effective law enforcement, McDonald said privacy activists >>had fought any balance in proposed encryption legislation. >> >>"Such absolute positions threaten not only electronic searches but also >>conventional searches for data that has been encrypted," McDonald said. >> >>Absolute positions on privacy were "pernicious on several levels," >>McDonald added. >> >>The absolute positions "handcuffed" law enforcement while also raising >>rights for citizens to levels that were unreasonable and that would have >>been foreign to the nation's founding fathers. Extreme privacy positions >>were ultimately elitist and nondemocratic in that they presumed the >>views of a knowing privacy cognoscenti should pre-empt the views of the >>nation's elected officials and the Supreme Court, McDonald said. >> >>McDonald's statements came a day after a key committee of the U.S. House >>of Representatives rejected an FBI-supported proposal that would have >>compelled the makers of encryption products to include features that >>would enable law enforcement agencies to gain immediate and, if >>necessary, covert access to unscramble any coded data. >> >>Extremists presumed that the citizens could not trust the elected >>government and the Supreme Court to make decisions or to correct >>mistakes if any are made, McDonald said. >> >>"Based on a theory of potential government abuse, important tools >>commonly used are to be restricted or embargoed," McDonald said. >> >>McDonald said efforts in the United States to enhance effective law >>enforcement search and seizure capabilities had proceeded without >>harming legitimate privacy concerns. >> >>In the area of electronic surveillance, McDonald said, privacy >>enhancements had frequently received treatment "superior to that >>required under our Constitution." >> >>With minor exceptions, neither the laws nor the cases decided regarding >>effective law enforcement or privacy had come about with the view that >>either were absolute in their nature, McDonald said. Law enforcement >>measures had been tempered by considerations of personal privacy, and >>privacy laws had been balanced with effective law enforcement. >> >>Notwithstanding the substantial threats posed by national and >>international organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorists, the United >>States had remained true to its Constitutional moorings, and its >>commitment to a system of ordered liberties, McDonald said. >> >>"When people don't know much about electronic surveillance, they are >>fearful of it. But when they know Congress passed laws and the Supreme >>Court reviewed them and that there are numerous constraints and >>procedures, then it makes sense to them. It seems >>rational and balanced," McDonald said. >> >Brian Wilson >"Power corrupts; absolute power is kinda neat!" >Talk Show Host/Author >"the little black book on WHITEWATER" Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com Louis Freeh: The BEST argument for encryption. Get YOUR copy of PGP now - before it becomes illegal! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: R2A! S10 ALERT Date: 27 Sep 1997 15:18:27 -0600 >> ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! >> >> The NRA is distributing pre-printed post cards in its October >> members publications, expressing "concern" over U.S. Senate Bill >> S.10. These post cards are wishy-washy and ambiguous in the way >> they deal with this totally anti-gun bill. >> >> DO NOT RETURN THEM WITHOUT MODIFYING THEM TO MAKE A STRONGER >> STATEMENT! >> >> As delivered, they read: >> ************************************************************* >> Dear Senator: >> >> In the near future, you will be voting on, S.10, the >> Juvenile Justice Reform Act. I agree that we need to get serious >> about how we deal with violent young criminals. At the same >> time, however, I am concerned that some Senators will use S.10 as >> a vehicle by which to pass more of their gun control agenda. >> >> I respectfully ask that you oppose, and ask your colleagues >> to oppose, all efforts that seek to further burden and harass >> law-abiding American gun owners. Gun control in America has a >> long history of failure. It is no solution to out crime problem. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> ************************************************************ >> >> This is incredibly non-committal, to go to the trouble of having >> members waste their postage. Exactly what sort of deal does the >> ILA intend to make with our Senators, that they need to allow so >> much wiggle-room? >> >> A modification of the cards before mailing is recommended. >> Following is one recommended example: >> >> ************************************************************* >> Dear Senator: OPPOSE S.10! IT IS GUN CONTROL AS WRITTEN! >> >> In the near future, you will be voting on, S.10, the >> Juvenile Justice Reform Act. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX >> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. At the same >> time, however, I am concerned that some Senators will use S.10 as >> a vehicle by which to pass more of their gun control agenda. >> PLEASE OPPOSE S.10 OUTRIGHT! >> >> I respectfully ask that you oppose, and ask your colleagues >> to oppose, all efforts that seek to further burden and harass >> law-abiding American gun owners. Gun control in America has a >> long history of failure. It is no solution to out crime problem. >> >> Sincerely, P.S. IGNORE THE NRA/ILA! >> KILL S.10 OUTRIGHT! >> ************************************************************ >> >> You may use your own imagination, to make the cards stronger yet. >> For example, you may wish to cross out "respectfully ask" and >> change it to DEMAND. >> >> Make the changes in bold lettering, for example, with a felt-tip >> pen. Also, bend the cards in the middle so that they will not >> lay flat in a heap of received mail; if they stand out from the >> pile, they are more likely to get read immediately. >> >> PLEASE DON'T IGNORE THIS! We MUST NOT jump on the "get tough on >> juvenile crime bandwagon. In some states, (e.g., Pennsylvania) >> there already is legislation that would OUTLAW people under 18 >> from possessing firearms unless engaged in organized or licensed >> activities -- the great American tradition of kids shooting at >> cans down by the railroad tracks will become a Juvenile Crime, >> and with present trends, it will be a crime that could disbar >> them from owning guns for the rest of their lives! >> >> THOUSANDS of uninformed NRA members are going to witlessly mail >> in these cards. YOU must be heard, giving a hard core opinion! >> >> --Andy >> >> PLEASE CROSS-POST OR RE-POST AS APPROPRIATE! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: The SL Trib Misinformed Opinion Date: 27 Sep 1997 15:42:59 -0600 >http://www.sltrib.com/092697/opinion/opinion.htm > >> >> Friday, September 26, 1997 >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Guv Needs Guts on Guns >> >> >> If Gov. Leavitt feels so strongly about the >> inadequacy of the state's 1995 concealed-carry law that >> he would defy it with a no-guns rule for state >> employees, then he ought to be able to lend his >> estimable political clout to the movement to change the >> law next year. >> As reported in The Tribune last week, the Leavitt >> administration last year enacted a rule barring state >> employees, with a few exceptions, from carrying >> concealed weapons in state facilities or state vehicles. >> The rule seems to contradict the 1995 state law that >> made it easier for Utah gun owners to obtain >> concealed-weapon permits; that law states that such >> permits are valid ``without restriction.'' >> Of course, the governor is right in principle. His >> administration's no-guns-in-the-workplace rule expresses >> the conviction that unknown numbers of the state's >> 17,000 employees reporting to work with a concealed >> weapon is an unsettling prospect that would make most >> employees feel less safe, not more so. >> State Sen. Michael Waddoups, who pushed the >> unfortunate '95 law, naturally disagrees. He described >> the Leavitt rule as ``an invitation to somebody coming >> in and shooting up a state office.'' This is >> conventional pro-gun paranoia, which ignores the >> alternative deterrent -- beefed-up security. >> In Waddoups' doomsday scenario, there is simply no >> assurance that the presence of a couple of >> concealed-weapon permit holders would defuse the >> situation, nor is there any reason to believe that such >> freelance ``deterrence'' would be preferable to >> tightened security measures. In any event, it is logical >> that employers, private or public, should have the >> authority to choose which level of security to enforce >> in their workplace. >> The problem, though, is the 1995 law. It was so >> sloppily conceived that it has already had to be amended >> to clarify that concealed weapons are not allowed in >> correctional facilities or airport secure areas. And >> last year, protests came from various corners that the >> law should be clarified to disallow concealed weapons in >> churches, schools, universities, and private businesses >> that don't want them. >> But the reaction last session by the Legislature to >> this groundswell was irresponsible silence. The governor >> must not allow the legislators to be that negligent >> again in 1998. >> Gov. Leavitt should expend some of that mighty >> political capital of his on ensuring that the law is >> changed next year. With his no-guns rule for state >> employees, he has already made his position clear: He >> believes concealed weapons should not be permitted >> ``without restriction.'' The only question now is >> whether he has the courage to make a public fight of it >> in the Legislature with the pro-gun conservatives of his >> own party. He should not shrink from it. >> >> >> [Friday Navigation Bar] >> -------------------------------------------------- >> ) 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: "S. Thompson" Subject: S.L., Davis Residents Tell State Employees: Leave Your Guns Date: 29 Sep 1997 23:13:12 -0600 I'd suggest writing to the Tribune (letters@sltrib.com) or to Mr. Harrie (dharrie@sltrib.com) and requesting to know the exact wording of the questions and the interview protocol. We all know polls can be intentionally or unintentionally biased. It seems that the Trib has moved beyond mis-reporting the news, misinforming its readers with its editorials and is now actually CREATING anti-gun news. Sarah >Subject: S.L., Davis Residents Tell State Employees: Leave Your Guns Home > >http://www.sltrib.com/092997/utah/6595.htm > >> >> Monday, September 29, 1997 >> >> S.L., Davis Residents Tell State Employees: Leave Your Guns Home >> >> BY DAN HARRIE >> ) 1997, THE SALT LAKE >> TRIBUNE >> A regulation banning state workers from carrying concealed >> weapons on the job may run afoul of Utah law, but it is wildly >> popular. >> Nearly three in four residents of Salt Lake and Davis counties >> oppose non-law-enforcement state employees being allowed to pack >> firearms in the workplace, according to a new poll conducted for The >> Salt Lake Tribune. Only 22 percent favor permitting public employees >> carrying concealed weapons on the job. >> Five percent said they had no opinion. >> The poll conducted last week by Valley Research surveyed more >> than 1,000 adults in Salt Lake and Davis counties. The margin of >> error was plus or minus 3.2 percent. >> Women were somewhat more adamant than men in opposing an armed >> state work force, with 82 percent siding with the ban. Three in every >> five men were opposed. >> The issue of public employees carrying weapons was highlighted by >> the recent suspension of a state worker for violating the >> little-publicized rule. The employee had a valid concealed-weapons >> permit. It was believed to be the first disciplinary action under the >> 1996 rule. >> Officials in the administration of Gov. Mike Leavitt knew the >> regulation might be at odds with state law, which states that >> concealed-weapons permits are valid ``without restriction.'' But >> Human Resource Management Director Karen Suzuki-Okabe said the rule >> was imposed after lengthy consideration by the Cabinet because of an >> overriding concern to provide employees a safe working environment. >> Suzuki-Okabe said she was not surprised by the poll because of >> the public's ``tremendous fear'' of violence. >> The Utah Public Employees Association -- representing about 5,200 >> state workers -- has protested the no-guns rule, arguing that it is >> discriminatory and in conflict with statute. >> >> >> [Image] [Monday Navigation Bar] [Image] >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> ) 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: "S. Thompson" Subject: The Running Utes Date: 29 Sep 1997 23:20:48 -0600 >Subject: The Running Utes > >http://www.sltrib.com/092997/PUBLIC_F/6481.htm > >> >> Monday, September 29, 1997 >> >> The Running Utes >> >> I would like to >> thank the University of Utah for clearly stating its policy that >> students may not possess firearms, other weapons, or chemicals such >> as pepper spray on campus. I appreciate knowing that the regents >> would prefer that female, disabled, older, or weaker students be >> mugged, raped or killed rather than lawfully defend themselves. >> I also appreciate knowing that these public servants feel they >> can ignore both the Utah Constitution and the state pre-emption law >> with impunity, and that not a single ``legal scholar'' at the law >> school has raised any objection. >> Finally, I would like to thank the university for giving a whole >> new meaning to the term ``Running Utes.'' >> SARAH THOMPSON >> Sandy >> >> >> >> [Image] [Monday Navigation Bar] [Image] >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> ) 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: "S. Thompson" Subject: Congressman Merrill Cook on Lautenberg Date: 29 Sep 1997 23:35:16 -0600 I received the following letter from freshman Congressman Merrill Cook today. Rep. Cook started out being mostly anti-gun, so this IS progress for him. However, it appears that he still could use some education, particularly with respect to the Constitution which he took an oath to uphold. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph. Sarah Merrill Cook 2nd District, Utah 1431 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: (202) 225-3011 Fax: (202) 225-5638 125 South State Street, Suite 2311 SLC, Ut. 84138 Phone: (801) 524-4394 Fax: (801) 524-5994 Congress of the United States House of Representatives September 25, 1997 Ms. Sarah Thompson Dear Ms. Thompson: Thank you for contacting my office with your support to overturn the Lautenberg Amendment. I cannot support the Lautenberg Amendment as it was passed because it is retroactive in its application. I believe making new laws retroactive is wrong and directly violates the Constitution. I fully support the right to own a gun, but only if it is used in a responsible and legal manner. It is often unfortunately true that having a gun in a home where domestic violence occurs increases the chances that the gun will be used, often with tragic and preventable consequences. People who believe violence is the answer to family disputes deserve to be deprived of the means of inflicting harm. If a person receives prior notice that any future convictions for misdemeanors related to domestic violence will result in his gun being taken, and he nevertheless continues to commit acts of domestic violence, I believe it is not unreasonable to take his guns away. There is simply no excuse for assaulting one's family members. If a person does so even after having been warned, then he has proven he cannot act responsibly, and the family should be protected from the potential danger created by guns in the home. I would also hope that he would learn to solve his problems not by further violence but by obtaining counseling from his church or a professional counselor. I believe the right to bear arms is an important constitutional right. Like all freedoms and rights, however, it is not unlimited and must be used responsibly. Sincerely, Merrill Cook Member of Congress MC/msm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andelain Subject: KSL 1160 @ 12:30 today Date: 30 Sep 1997 12:10:07 -0600 Hayall, Thought ya might like a laff... I just got off the fone with a reporter from KSL radio where I stuttered and stumbled through my objections to the UofU gun policy. If they're able to get any legible bits, they'll run them at 12:30 today and "throughout the afternoon". Somebody who can put two words or more together might want to call and clarify. Will ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: When the BATF comes a-callin' 3/4 Date: 30 Sep 1997 11:36:00 -0700 authority to conduct an inspection or investigation, but he has no right to do it in tandem with a BATF compliance inspection. You should require other inspectors or investigators to get in line so that you can deal with them at a separate time. If they refuse to leave, call the sheriff and swear out a trespassing complaint. If a BATF special agent, a firearms specialist from BATF's Technology Branch in Washington (part of the criminal enforcement branch), or other criminal law enforcement type is present, this is not an ordinary compliance inspection and you should immediately terminate it,direct the individuals to leave and contact legal counsel. BATF inspectors can inspect at any time during your listed business hours, without prior notice or appointment. If they do not give you advance notice then restrict their inspection activities to your listed hours. If you are subjected to an unannounced inspection, be on guard. You may be under suspicion or you may be dealing with one of the cop wannabes. If the inspector has the courtesy to advise you ahead of time of an intended inspection you are free to, and should, accommodate the time, date and hours of inspection to the inspector's convenience. You should never consent to more than one compliance inspection in any twelve-month period. Require BATF to obtain an inspection warrant and immediately seek legal counsel. Under general principles of law a compliance inspection must be "reasonable" in terms of time, duration, scope, number of inspectors, lack of disruption to your business, etc. If the inspector is reasonable and professional, you should be too. The process does not have to be adversarial or antagonistic. If the inspector is not reasonable or professional, keep in mind that your license does not require you to talk to him, or to provide him access to your copy machine, rest room, etc. If you are dealing with an idiot, remember RULE ONE -- and let him bring his own copy machine. Also remember that he has no right to use your electricity. The inspector is legally entitled to inspect all your required records, your business premises, and your firearms inventory. He is legally entitled to inspect nothing else. You should not permit inspection of non-required records unless there is a satisfactory explanation of why it is desired (such as inspecting a purchase or sale invoice for the correct serial number where the bound book and the Form 4473 show different serial numbers for the same firearm). You should not permit inspection of non-business portions of the premises when your home is the licensed premises. (When your business is conducted from your home, you should carefully delineate that portion dedicated to the firearms business and confine the business strictly to that portion of the premises.) You should accommodate the inspector by making copies of any records desired (within reason). Never permit original records (or firearms or other property) to be removed from the premises without a summons, subpoena or court order, and without seeking legal counsel. The inspector has no power of seizure and may attempt to bluff his way into removing original records or may try to obtain your consent. Do not be bluffed and do not consent. Inspections should be conducted on your premises. (If you store firearms off premises, the inspector is also entitled to inspect such storage facilities.) A compliance inspection of a special occupational taxpayer will begin with the inspector attempting to reconcile his NFA Branch printout of Title II firearms shown as registered to you in BATF's records with the actual Title II firearms in your possession. He will be unable to do so because of the abysmal state of the national registry. Have mercy on him and help BATF untangle its records. Try to refrain from thinking about whose records and recordkeeping should really be under audit here. The inspector will also likely need your technical expertise in identifying anything more esoteric than a rifle, pistol or shotgun. Try to conceal your contempt for a "federal firearms inspector" who probably doesn't know a wipe from a baffle, or a lightning link from a drop-in sear, and who may think a Mauser broomhandle is something used by a German hausfrau. If you are a firearms manufacturer or importer, an inspector may plan to conduct an excise tax audit at the same time as a compliance inspection. The authority for these two types of inspections/audits derive from entirely different legal authorities and they involve entirely separate legal considerations. You should insist that either the audit or the inspection be conducted first and separately. The reasons are expanded on under Paragraph 5, below. Curio and relic (collector) licensees have the legal option of bringing their records and firearms to the nearest designated BATF office for a compliance inspection. Although I am unaware of any compliance inspection of a collector, this is an option to be considered seriously. The simple truth is that you never want a BATF employee in your home if it can be avoided. In summary, the firearms regulatory process does not assume you are a criminal, but rather seeks to ensure that dealers generally are complying with the requirements of the law. If bona fide, the process does not require invocation of your various rights to notice, counsel, warning, non-self-incrimination, etc., which all come into play when you are the target of a criminal investigation. Unfortunately, BATF sometimes attempts to avoid these constitutional "inconveniences" by illegally using the access of civil inspectors to further a criminal investigation without alerting the targeted dealer. You should never cooperate in such a subterfuge. The Excise Tax Audit. If you are simply a dealer in firearms or ammunition, you will have no occasion to undergo an excise tax audit. However, if you manufacture or import firearms or ammunition you are subject to audit by the regulatory enforcement branch of BATF. The manufacturers excise tax on firearms and ammunition is one of the most complex and least understood federal tax statutes. It is said that only three people in the world completely understand it. One is dead, one went mad trying to explain it, and modesty prevents me from naming the third. Suffice to say, however, that BATF, which acquired jurisdiction over the tax from IRS in 1991, is hopelessly inept in administering it. An excise tax audit is governed by the general principles of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and not the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968. You are required to maintain the same records any other taxpayer/return filer is required to maintain: whatever records are necessary to support the figures on your return. There are no records specifically required by law to be maintained such as those required of dealers by the Gun Control Act. And, absent tax fraud or evasion, there are no criminal penalties for failing to maintain such records. Therefore, the only penalty for failing to keep excise tax records, or to produce them, is that BATF could choose to treat all your sales as taxable events. As a practical matter a logbook of operable Title I firearms manufactured by you plus any BATF Forms 2 (Title II firearms manufactured by you), and a file of BATF Forms 6A, operable firearms imported by you, accompanied by your bound book showing the same firearms sold by you and sales invoices ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: When the BATF comes a-callin' 4/4 Date: 30 Sep 1997 11:36:00 -0700 showing the sale price, would be all the records required for a proper excise tax audit (in addition, perhaps to your retained copies of excise tax returns filed). You should decline to produce any other records for an excise tax audit unless you have an alternative pricing issue under the excise tax regulations or tax-exempt sales (to a government entity, the military, or for export). You should also be aware that the definition of firearm under the excise tax statute is different from other statutory definitions of "firearm." Excise taxable firearms are only those complete portable firearms which go bang. The tax does not apply to crew-served weapons, silencers, frames or receivers, conversion kits, parts, most destructive devices, etc., etc. The tax only becomes due on a sale or its commercial equivalent. A transfer of a complete Title II firearm which goes bang is not always a sale and does not always trigger the excise tax. Even when it is a sale, it is not taxable if the Title II transfer tax is being paid (a Form 4 transfer). There is also no excise tax due on the manufacture or importation and sale of blank ammunition. I cover these points because BATF inspectors are generally excise-tax illiterate and much excise tax is asserted and collected which is not legally due and owing. If you are a firearms manufacturer or exporter, you should have competent tax counsel. The Raid. This is an event which means you are in deep, serious. It is the execution of a judicially-issued search and seizure warrant (and occasionally also an arrest warrant) by BATF special agents, frequently accompanied by agents of other federal or local agencies, on premises owned, occupied or inhabited by you. When a raid team shows up at your premises and announces (usually by breaking down your door, sometimes by killing your dogs and throwing flash bang grenades at your women and children) that they have a federal search warrant, you must instantly do several things. You must first of all mentally assimilate the fact that they are law officers rather than a rampaging motorcycle gang (which they often resemble in both appearance and behavior). Having identified them as law rather than outlaw, you must freeze in place in a non-threatening posture and attempt to stabilize the situation until some of their law-enforcement adrenalin (the most dangerous drug on the street) has bled off. If only a search warrant is involved, you must then recover your wits sufficiently to do the following: (A) Try to note and record the identities of as many participants as possible, by name, agency, badge number, and physical description. (B) Ask for a copy of the warrant. (C) Disable -- not unplug, disable -- your telephones and fax machines. (D) Gather your family, children and pets and leave the premises. (E) Call your lawyer. You may be prevented from doing some or all of the above things by legally illiterate agents, but that will simply lay the foundation for your own day in court. A federal search warrant authorizes only the search of a specified premises and only the seizure of specifically described items. Corollary to the execution of a warrant, the law permits the agents to make a forcible entry if that becomes necessary after knocking and announcing their identity and purpose, to control the premises, and to take reasonable precautions for their own safety -- such as a pat down for weapons of those persons present and assigning an agent to watch over and accompany anyone moving about on the premises. The law authorizes the agents to prevent the destruction of evidence or contraband and it protects them against being assaulted or interfered with. It is a serious federal crime to assault a federal officer or to obstruct execution of the warrant. Don't turn a possible later indictment into a sure one. Never assist the raiding party in locating the items described in the warrant. They have the right to search, but not the right to find. Do not open locked compartments, safes or rooms for them or provide them with keys or combinations. Do not talk to the raiding officers other than to request identification and a copy of the warrant. Resist the compulsion to show what a good guy you are; these are not your friends and they are not there to help you. A search warrant does not authorize agents to arrest you or anyone else on the premises (although assaulting the agents or forcibly interfering with the execution of the warrant will justify a warrantless arrest) and it does not authorize them to handcuff you, restrict you to a particular place or prevent you from leaving. You have a perfect right to leave the premises and should do so immediately. If you are physically prevented from leaving, you have just been falsely arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment and will have your recovery later in court as well as taking some of the other retaliatory measures promised above. You must get yourself and your family out of the house for several reasons: (A) to avoid the personal insult, humiliation, provocation and indignities which many agents seem to enjoy; (B) to avoid a potential life-threatening situation; and (C) to avoid creating evidence against yourself (RULE ONE). There is no useful purpose your remaining on the premises can serve; if the agents are going to plant evidence or destroy property, they will do it whether or not you are present. You will need as much information about identities, badge numbers and descriptions as you can manage in the minutes before you leave. These will be useful later when you assert or defend your rights. But they are not a reason to delay leaving the premises promptly. You are legally entitled to a copy of the warrant, but do not remain on the premises if you are refused. You should disable your telephones and fax machines before leaving in order to prevent the agents from illegally seizing evidence (calls and faxes) which might come in while they are on the premises. Such items did not exist when the warrant was signed and cannot possibly be covered by the warrant. Their seizure will probably therefore be illegal; but it is better to prevent such seizures from even happening. If you are physically prevented from disabling your own property, go somewhere else and place incoming calls to all your lines and keep the circuits open. Now, call your lawyer. The author is a retired U.S. Department of Justice lawyer and a retired colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve practicing firearms law in Greensboro, NC. He is a 1959 graduate of the University of Kentucky and a 1962 graduate of the UK College of Law, where he was Note Editor of the Kentucky Law Journal. **************************************************************** * Liberty is NEVER an option ... only a condition to be lost! * * http://www.jbs.org * **************************************************************** * Roger Cravens, SYSOP * * South East Signals Intelligence Group BBS: (770) 942-1089 * * Atlanta, GA * **************************************************************** * Signals Intelligence: "... and the truth will set you free"! * **************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: When the BATF comes a-callin' 2/4 Date: 30 Sep 1997 11:36:00 -0700 the law of the state where the recording is taking place. You should never record a conversation (telephone or otherwise) where no one present knows of the interception. This is a felony violation of the federal wiretapping statute, and you are creating the very evidence needed to prove it. You can, of course, legally tape-record any transaction in any jurisdiction when all parties are aware of the taping. Any such tape should itself reflect that all present are aware of the taping. You should never knowingly consent to your own interview or conversation being tape recorded without making a tape of your own. More important, the taping of your interview is a strong signal to invoke RULE ONE and immediately seek legal counsel. The Third-Party Inquiry. A third-party inquiry is broader than a simple tracing inquiry, but otherwise involves the same principles and recommended reactions. It could be a telephone call, but will ordinarily be a personal visit by one or more special agents who are after more detailed information than just the acquisition and disposition of one or more firearms which have passed into or through your inventory. All other factors remain the same and your responses should be the same as for the in-person tracing inquiry. Needless to say, if the inquiry is not about a third-party transaction but rather is directed solely at you, invoke RULE ONE and seek legal counsel immediately. Remember, refusing to talk to federal criminal investigators and seeking legal counsel are not admissions of guilt or signs of a guilty conscience. They are manifestations that you are an American citizen aware of your legal rights and an individual who will not be bullied, coerced or frightened into giving up those rights. The agents already believe you are guilty; their job is to prove it. Your job is to avoid helping them prove it. The Undercover Solicitation. This may be a contact by BATF which, if you are fortunate, you never learn was made. It is a sad fact that a high percentage of non-violent federal gun crimes committed in the United States (perhaps even a majority) are manufactured by BATF -- crimes that would never have occurred but for the fact of an offer from or solicitation by a BATF informant or undercover agent to an unwitting citizen. Technically, most of these BATF-sponsored offenses do not rise to legal entrapment. But they would never have happened if BATF had not planted the idea and created the opportunity. This is done for the simplest and ugliest of all bureaucratic reasons: agent and agency self-preservation and budget and case statistics. Sometimes you will know you are being shopped -- perhaps by recognizing the agent or perhaps by the sheer stupidity of the approach. You are probably also being recorded,possibly even videotaped. Your response should be precisely the same whether it ultimately turns out that you were speaking to a government microphone or to the village idiot. You should firmly, but not politely, advise the proponent that what he/she is proposing is illegal and that he/she is no longer welcome on your premises or at your table. Then remember RULE ONE. Do not engage in a discussion of the law or alternative solutions to the "customer's" proposal; terminate the conversation. Politeness is not called for when someone is either intentionally or ignorantly soliciting you to commit a federal felony. And your politeness on a federal tape recording in a subsequent criminal prosecution can often be construed as acquiescence in or lack of strong feeling about committing a crime. Some of my bolder clients, who are truly tired of being harassed this way, are fully prepared to make a citizen's arrest in such circumstances and then call the local sheriff to come collect the offender (attempts and solicitations to commit an offense are also crimes under federal and state law). If this appeals to you, make sure first that the law of your state permits a citizen's arrest. Know the amount of legal force you can use to effect such an arrest. Then cuff the son of a bitch and give him a taste of what he's probably trying to do to you. A criminal solicitation by someone you've known for years, and who you know cannot be an agent, is especially dangerous. It probably means that your acquaintance has gotten his own tail in a crack and is now making cases for BATF in an attempt to lighten his own load. Finally, bear in mind that an undercover approach may be made by a female agent or by a mixed couple. The Compliance Inspection. Compliance inspections are conducted by inspectors of the regulatory enforcement branch of BATF. These individuals have no criminal law enforcement authority -- or training (although they have recently been issued badges, perhaps in an effort to bolster morale or create an appearance of authority for low-paid personnel). Theoretically, inspectors are charged with the civil and regulatory aspects of firearms law. They do not have the power of arrest or the authority to serve subpoenas or warrants. Nor may they make seizures of any kind. I say "theoretically" because in some recent instances inspectors have been observed accompanying special agents on raids and even illegally carrying firearms. In short, there are some cop wannabes among the inspector force whose intrinsic suspicion of firearms dealers as criminals must be guarded against. The legally-authorized purpose of compliance inspections (and pre-licensing inspections) is to ensure that the firearms statutes are generally being complied with by the firearms industry. The true job of inspectors is to spot and correct discrepancies in compliance with federal firearms statutes, to establish the qualifications of license applicants, and to enforce and collect the excise tax on the manufacture and importation of firearms. If an inspector discovers evidence of a criminal violation he is supposed to make a referral to the criminal enforcement branch of BATF (the special agents). As a licensee you are required to display your license on your licensed premises, to maintain certain required books and records accurately, and to submit to a compliance inspection of your licensed premises, your inventory and your required records as often as once annually. The only firearms records which you are required by law to maintain, and to submit for inspection, are an acquisition and disposition book (your bound book), original BATF Forms 4473, Firearms Transaction Record for each firearm sold, original BATF Forms 5300.35 Statement of Intent to Obtain a Handgun(s) (the Brady Act form), and your retained copies (copy 4) of BATF Forms 3310.4, Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers for each multiple sale of handguns. Special occupational taxpayers may also be required to produce their Forms 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 for firearms on hand. There may be additional state law records required of a dealer, but BATF has no jurisdiction over these records and arguably no jurisdiction to inspect them. When a BATF inspector shows up for a compliance inspection, require credentials to be displayed by everyone present and note the full name of the inspector(s) in writing. Never permit a special agent or a state or local or non-BATF federal official to participate in a compliance inspection. These individuals have no authority under the inspection laws, and are there for some different (and more ominous) reason. A state official might have independent state-law ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: When the BATF comes a-callin' 1/4 Date: 30 Sep 1997 11:36:00 -0700 WHEN THE BATF COMES A-CALLIN' by James H. Jeffries, III "There is no wholly satisfactory substitute for brains, but silence does pretty well." --Anonymous PROBABLY one of the least favorite events for any Federal Firearms Licensee (hereafter "FFL") is a visit from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereafter "BATF"). This can occur in one of at least six very different ways and your legal rights and recommended responses vary accordingly. For purposes of the following discussion I will assume that you are a law-abiding licensed dealer or collector who tries to comply honestly with the federal firearms laws. If some of the discussion below seems excessively cautious, or even hostile to BATF, it is based on real world experience with an agency which has been found by Congress, by various federal judges and juries, by other federal and local law enforcement agencies, and even by some Presidents to be inept, indifferent to citizens' rights, and capable of the most outrageous abuses of the law. BATF operates under the rationale of requiring you to comply with the law. I operate under the rationale of requiring BATF to comply with the law. I required this of BATF as a federal prosecutor for almost 30 years, and I require it as a private citizen and as a lawyer. You should require it as an FFL. A non-licensee has no legal duty whatsoever to talk to or otherwise cooperate with a BATF agent (or any other governmental official). It is a sad commentary on our times and the state of our federal government (and especially BATF) that the appropriate legal advice from a defense lawyer to a non-licensee confronted by a federal or state law enforcement officer can be capsulized in a single sentence called RULE ONE: Silence is golden; or what part of "no" don't you understand? If you are an FFL, however, additional considerations come into play. The Tracing Center Inquiry. Most active dealers have had a telephone call from BATF's Tracing Center at some time or other inquiring about the disposition of a firearm whose serial number traces to the dealer. This is usually an inquiry concerning a third party and does not implicate the dealer. It should normally occur during your listed business hours, although emergency traces in high-profile matters could occur at any time of the day or night. These inquiries are authorized by law in official criminal investigations and as a licensee you have a statutory duty to cooperate by furnishing the requested information. Be aware, however, that the Tracing Center is a part of BATF's criminal enforcement apparatus whose function (and principal interest) is to put people (including firearms dealers) in jail. You should always obtain the full name and telephone number of the caller and note it in writing. An entry in your bound book alongside the entry for the firearm involved would not be inappropriate. If in doubt about the caller's identity, you should terminate the call and call back before giving any information. Cooperation would include supplying copies of any related documents. Never surrender an original document or legally-possessed firearm (or other property for that matter) except in response to a summons, subpoena, or court order, and then only after obtaining legal advice. When faced with the prospect of providing information to the government, keep in mind that there are only two legal options: silence or complete truthfulness. Lying (even by partial truths or literal but misleading true answers) is never an option. A false statement to a federal officer in his official capacity is a felony akin to perjury, and usually much easier to prosecute and prove than the matter being investigated. If you cannot speak truthfully without incriminating yourself or injuring your legal interests, then remember RULE ONE. If the inquiry is about a Title II firearm, you should attempt to determine if the trace was initiated by local law enforcement. If it was, you should remind the caller that the information requested is privileged tax information and that it is a federal felony for BATF to disclose the information outside the agency. Your interest in this aspect is that you do not wish to aid and abet the commission of a felony -- even one committed by a federal official. Occasionally a tracing inquiry will be made in person by one or more special agents. They are, of course, purely criminal investigators whose only function (and interest) is to put people (including firearms dealers) in jail. Write down the names and badge numbers of all present. If anyone present is not a BATF special agent, inquire why that person is present (and later note the response in writing). If there is more than one agent, inquire why. If anyone refuses to display official identification direct them to immediately leave the premises. If they refuse, call the local sheriff or police and make a trespassing complaint. Do not allow anyone to search your records, premises or inventory for the information or items being sought. You or your employee do the searching, retrieving and copying. The same rules apply with respect to refusing to turn over original documents or items of personal property. If an agent should physically insist on taking custody of an original record or legally-possessed firearm or other item of property, resist verbally and vigorously, but not physically. Advise him calmly that your first call after he leaves will be to your lawyer and his first call will be to the Inspector General of the Treasury Department. Successive calls will then also be made to BATF's Office of Internal Affairs, the agent's SAC (Special Agent in Charge), the United States Attorney, the FBI and the sheriff -- the latter three to report the theft of your property by a federal agent. Then do it. In short, if an agent is stupid enough to violate your Fourth Amendment right to be secure in your papers and effects in front of God and everybody, then he needs to have his whole day ruined. A tracing inquiry is usually directed at a third party recipient of a firearm which has passed through your hands at some point and generally is not targeted at you. However, if you sense that the inquiry is, in fact, targeted at you, you should immediately terminate the inquiry, ask the agents to leave the premises (after which they are legally trespassers), request them to put their inquiry in writing, and seek legal counsel. Remember RULE ONE. Failure to cooperate in a tracing request can put your license at risk, but loss of a license (or the expense of defending it) compares very favorably with a prison sentence (or the cost of defending a criminal indictment). And your license is not realistically at risk if BATF is trying to further a criminal investigation of you through a pretext tracing inquiry. The majority of all inmates talk their way into prison; you have no legal obligation to help put yourself there. This type of confrontation is an IQ test. Don't flunk it; remember RULE ONE. Clients occasionally inquire about tape-recording their telephone or in-person conversations with BATF employees (and others). This is legal under federal law so long as one party to the conversation (you) knows of the interception. However, state laws vary on the issue and you should be certain that such consensual recording is legal under ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: VETO MESSAGE: From Governor Pete Wilson 9/26/97 Date: 30 Sep 1997 12:20:00 -0700 Forwarded message: http://www.capitolalert.com/calert/current/veto_msg/sb500_vm.htm VETO MESSAGE September 26, 1997 From Governor Pete Wilson To the members of the California Senate: I am returning Senate Bill 500 without my signature. SB 500 is a bill that purports to protect gun users against shoddy guns. It is essentially offered as consumer protection. But the vast majority of the proponents of SB 500 who have urged me to sign it have done so because of their passionate hope and belief that it will instead protect potential victims against whom the proscribed guns might otherwise be used. Common sense dictates that the best way to prevent gun crimes is by first removing from society the criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime. That is why yesterday I signed into law Assembly Bill 4, the so-called 10-20-Life bill. It will add to the sentence for a felony conviction 10 years if the felon draws a gun, 20 years if he fires it, and 25 years to life if he shoots a victim. With all respect to the good intentions of its author and proponents of Senate Bill 500, I am convinced that vigorous enforcement of the 10-20-Life law will provide the people of California with far more protection against gun violence and crime than Senate Bill 500. I fully expect that 10-20-Life will have the same kind of deterrent effect on gun crimes as the "Three Strikes Law" has had on serious and violent crime in general. It will persuade violent but rational criminals to avoid the risk of California's long, minimum sentences by departing, our state for more lenient if not greener pastures. Regrettably, the proponents of SB 500 cannot make the same claim. To the contrary, not only does SB 500 fail to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it will deprive law-abiding, legitimate gun users of the needed protection of handguns - the same handguns used by thousands of peace officers as regular service and back-up guns. These weapons would - in a private citizen's hands - be caught in a net cast much too wide by SB 500. Proponents assert that "junk guns" costing as little as $35 are the weapons of choice of gang members and are used with disproportionate frequency to inflict harm upon Californians. They reason that SB 500, by its elimination of "crummy little handguns," will profoundly reduce gun crimes by effectively disarming thousands of low-budget gang members. Sadly, the facts - as reported by major police departments - pointedly contradict these assumptions: the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department reports that of the total guns seized by the Department in one year, only 16 percent were "Saturday Night Specials," or junk guns. The experience of the San Diego Police Department is essentially the same. They report a 14 1/2 percent incidence of inexpensive guns while the California Department of Justice reports a statewide rate in the 10-13 percent range. The fact is that gang members and professional criminals prefer and use higher quality, more expensive guns. Moreover, SB 500 - notwithstanding its having been intensely marketed to the contrary - is not limited to cheap, junk guns. It includes in its prohibition highly reliable, high quality weapons made by the most respected names in gun-making - Colt, Browning, Smith and Wesson, Beretta, Ruger - and used by peace officers as their service or back-up weapons. This fact has provoked opposition to SB 500 from the San Diego Peace Officers Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, and numerous individual officers. The City and County of San Diego have both rejected local ordinances based on the language of SB 500. As it was finally amended, in reaction to increased opposition from police organizations, SB 500 seeks to exempt peace officers from its provisions. That is a wise change, but not one which provides any comfort to a woman living alone, or to any other citizen who realistically must depend upon himself or herself for protection. In short, SB 500 seeks to achieve gun control in the guise of consumer protection of gun users. But rather than protect either gun owners as consumers or the public as potential victims, SB 500 is far more likely to deprive those who must defend themselves against crime of an important means of doing so. AS the Governor of this state, I have seen far too much suffering caused by guns ending lives tragically, abruptly and all too early - be it by drive-by shootings, home invasions or hold-ups in supermarket parking lots. I can personally attest to that kind of bereavement. My mother was left fatherless, my grandmother widowed, by a gun-wielding thug. However, I will not support a measure that fails the basic test of protecting the innocent. Ultimately, the real test applied by the bill is whether or not the weapon is readily concealable. If so, it is adjudged by SB 500 to be "non-sporting" and is therefore prohibited. By this definition and test, all handguns - except, ironically, the largest and deadliest - are included in the ban. The clear if unstated premise of this test is that handguns that are concealable can have no sporting purpose and therefore no valid purpose. This flawed logic ignores reality: it ignores the obvious fact that millions of law-abiding Californians - including a growing number of women - have felt the need to own concealable weapons not for sport but to protect themselves, their families, and their property. As much as I deplore the necessity, I cannot in good conscience deny them that protection if they choose it. Cordially, PETE WILSON <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< <@{{>< ++++++++++++++ ><> ++++++++++++ The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." --Thomas Jefferson "Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gun Control Works In Australia Date: 30 Sep 1997 21:52:00 -0700 Australia Turns in 600,000 Firearms By ROHAN SULLIVAN Associated Press Writer CANBERRA, Australia (AP) -- Shocked by the worst massacre in its modern history, Australia has taken a giant step toward disarming itself -- turning in 600,000 firearms under a police buy-back program. While some gun owners claim the program will have little or no effect on violent crime, anti-gun groups point to the huge piles of weapons that have been collected and destroyed by police as tangible proof that Australians are safer. Since Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people on the island of Tasmania 17 months ago, states joined together to outlaw some types of firearms, including rapid-fire hunting rifles and pump-action shotguns used widely to kill rabbits and kangaroos. The states then offered gun owners cash and immunity from prosecution to turn in their illegal weapons. Since the buy-back deal went into effect, the government has paid almost $225 million in compensation for arms, Attorney General Daryl Williams said Tuesday, one day before the program was to end. In addition to rapid-fire rifles and shotguns, a wide variety of previously illegal weapons were handed in, including Uzi pistols, World War II-era machine guns and M-60s, officials said. One woman turned in a fully operational anti-aircraft gun that was sitting in her backyard. Another person handed in helicopter-mounted cannons. The buy-back program provided a nationwide picture of Australia's private arsenal for the first time. Figures showed 1.2 million licensed Australians held 2.5 million firearms, campaign manager Leonie Kennedy told The Associated Press. Despite claims by the government and anti-gun groups, gun advocates said the overall number of firearms had been reduced by only about 100,000 because they claimed as many as half of those who turned in their guns used the compensation to buy a legal firearm. ``Gun owners are not giving up shooting,'' said Keith Tidswell, national director of the Sporting Shooters' Association. Kennedy warned that owners caught with illegal guns faced fines of up to $37,500. Tighter licensing and storage requirements also instituted since the shootings will mean a significant reduction in the number of deaths caused by firearms - now about 500 a year nationally, said Roland Browne, head of the National Coalition for Gun Control. ``We cannot eliminate gun abuse as a problem. What we can do is minimize it and the best way to do that is to restrict availability,'' he said. Bryant, 29, is serving a life sentence after pleading guilty in November to the killings. Eighteen people were also wounded in the April 28, 1996, shootings. Y-09-30-97 1510EDT