From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: Feinstein & Co. at it again (fwd) -Forwarded Date: 01 Apr 1998 09:28:37 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA27917; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:19:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma027821; Tue Mar 31 23:16:46 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980331212550.007fc850@texoma.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: joesylvester@texoma.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list At 11:02 AM 3/31/98 -0500, pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:12:52 -0600 >From: John Wallace >Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net >To: "'texas-gun-owners@mailing-list.net'" > >Subject: Feinstein & Co. at it again > >Posted to texas-gun-owners by John Wallace >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >Tuesday, March 31, 1998 > > >Feinstein Seeks to Close Loophole in Gun Law >Firearms: Legislators cite Jonesboro, Ark., schoolyard >shootings in effort to ban high-capacity magazines. >By STEVE BERRY, JEFF BRAZIL, Times Staff Writers > > > > > >esponding to concerns arising from the Jonesboro, Ark., >killings, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a group of >Democratic and Republican legislators will file a bill today that would >ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and plug a major >loophole in the federal assault weapons law. > The U.S. Senate bill would prohibit the distribution, importation >or manufacture of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Rep. >Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) will file a companion bill in the House. > Such a law would outlaw the sale of the type of magazine used in >last week's shootings in Arkansas, where four girls and a teacher died >in a schoolyard ambush, Feinstein said Monday. > Feinstein and DeGette said local and state authorities in Arkansas >have confirmed that most of the 24 bullets allegedly fired by two boys >came from a 15-round magazine and a .30-caliber firearm based on the M-1 >carbine. One wonders how many rounds a charged up 11 year old actually aimed. One also wonders how many *hits* he achieved, and how many, if any, of the fatalities came from carbine rounds. > Feinstein said the two suspects--ages 11 and 13--also had two >30-round magazines, but did not use them. > "The tragic shooting in Jonesboro last week is a horrifying example >of why high-capacity ammunition clips were designed for military combat, >not for recognized sport," Feinstein said. > DeGette agreed, adding: "No one thinks this would have prevented >Jonesboro . . . but it will stop people who are angry or emotionally >disturbed from legally buying them." Or anyone else either. And it will stop *no one* from illegally buying/stealing them. > The bills are sure to face strong opposition from the gun lobby. > "Industrywide, we are not going to sit still for such a bill," said >Jack Adkins, a spokesman for the American Shooting Sports Council in >Atlanta. > If passed, proponents say, the legislation would close one of the >biggest loopholes in the 1994 federal assault weapons law. > That landmark legislation, which Feinstein wrote, restricted >possession of assault weapons, specifically those that accept a Doesn't even know what her own bill provided. Possession was not restricted, only manufacture and sale of newly manufactured ugly guns, and >10 round magazines. >detachable ammunition magazine and have at least two military features >such as a pistol grip or bayonet mount. > One key provision banned manufacture and distribution of ammunition >magazines that carry more than 10 rounds and were manufactured after >September 1994. But the legislation did not apply to magazines made >before that date or to foreign-made magazines. > In a series of stories last fall, The Times reported that >manufacturers stockpiled millions of high-capacity magazines just before >the law went into effect. At the same time, importers continued bringing >thousands more into the country--including at least 160,000 between June >1996 and April 1997. > As a result, gun makers have continued making thousands of weapons >that are similar to illegal assault guns and can accept high-capacity >magazines that were made before the 1994. >* * * > The new bill would amend the existing law to ban further >manufacture or importation of the magazines. People could keep what they >already own, but owners would be forbidden to sell them or give them >away. > DeGette said such a law might have prevented the death of a Denver >police officer who was ambushed last year by a group of skinheads using >a Chinese-made SKS assault rifle equipped with an American-made 30-round >magazine. > "He was shot 15 times," she said. Right, he'd be less dead if he'd only been shot 10 times, uh-huh, sure. > Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Assn., denounced >Feinstein's timing. > "This should be a time for mourning and grieving, and not a time to >make political hay out of this tragedy," he said. > Calling the bill unenforceable, LaPierre said: "She might as well >ban sheet metal and springs because that's all a magazine is made of. > "What would make a bigger impact on problems like what happened in >Jonesboro is for Sen. Feinstein to talk to the entertainment industry in >her backyard about stopping the showing of gratuitous violence without >consequences. > "That's what people in stores, gas stations and shopping malls all >over the country are saying about Jonesboro," he said. "No one has said >'Gee, we need another magazine ban.' " So we need to gut the 1st amendment rather than the second? (Voluntary restraint would be nice, though. However my TV has an OFF button, along with the ability to change channels.) > The co-sponsors of the bill include Democratic Sens. Ted Kennedy of >Massachusetts, Robert Toricelli and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, and >Richard Durbin of Illinois. The usual suspects. > In the House, co-sponsors include Democrats Joseph Kennedy of >Massachusetts, Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, Ed Towns of New York, >Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and >Republicans Connie Morella of Maryland and Christopher Shays of >Connecticut. Wonder if Shays is related to Daniel Shays of Shays' Rebellion? If so 'ol Daniel must be spinning in his grave, along with Jefferson. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Yeltsin's "Red October II" (TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-10, Date: 01 Apr 1998 09:49:19 -0700 Received: from bob-dj (slip129-37-235-253.ca.us.ibm.net [129.37.235.253]) by out1.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA19052; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 02:42:43 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980331194022.007cce10@mail.djurdjevic.com> X-Sender: bobdj@mail.djurdjevic.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by out1.ibm.net id CAA19052 FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA The Truth in Media Web page: http://www.beograd.com/truth NOTE: If you do NOT wish to receive the e-mail editions of our reports, please send us your e-mail address and write REMOVE or UNSUBSCRIBE. We'l= l be happy to oblige. Just be sure to specify the EXACT e-mail ID to which this is being sent. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 98/3-10 31-Mar-98 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic: RUSSIAN AFFAIRS Russian "Waco" and "Tiananmen Square" Massacres Combined YELTSIN'S "RED OCTOBER II" An Orwellian Plot: "Defending Democracy" by Killing Pro-Democracy=20 Demonstrators - and with Foreign Assistance? PHOENIX - Remember the bloody images of "Red October II," the massacre at the Russian White House (parliament) in October 1993, carried out by the Boris Yeltsin government and recorded on live TV? The New World Order's Russian quislings killed scores of their own people who wanted real democracy. Yet they did it in the name of democracy, CNN and others in t= he establishment media would have us believe. =20 But you'd have to be brain-dead or stone-drunk to buy that. Just as you'= d have to be brain-dead or stone-drunk to think that the U.S. officials act= ed properly at Waco or at Ruby Ridge. Yet the western leaders, starting with Bill Clinton, declared their immediate support for this Yeltsin government's crime against humanity. = In doing so, Clinton acted more brazenly than did George Bush regarding the Tiananmen Square massacre in June 1989. At least Bush stayed silent for = a while before declaring that the U.S. needs to stay engaged in China. Whi= ch only goes to show us how much more CRIMINAL our government has become in the last decade or so. What brought this on? Well, we've recently received the following excerp= ts from interviews with the "Red October II" eyewitnesses and survivors conducted by Natalia Raduga, a correspondent for the "Russian Cause," a Russian patriots' publication. Her story was translated by Yuri Kirienko. As you read it, we suggest you keep thinking, could this happen in Americ= a? "Our correspondent has accomplished a big job, the 'Russian Cause'" the=20 editors wrote. "She has gathered an eyewitness testimony about the=20 horrible events which took place in Moscow between September 21 and=20 October 4, 1993. Some of her witnesses took an active part in those=20 events, and fearing prosecution, chose to stay anonymous. However,=20 that anonymity does not in the least reduce the testimonial value of wha= t=20 they had said, since their statements were made at a time when both=20 their fears and the events that caused them were still fresh in their memory'."=20 And now, here's Ms. Raduga's story, edited only for English grammar and spelling. But we have to warn you: Some eyewitness stories are quite gor= y, as they describe scenes of shocking violence. Reading them is not recommended for the faint at heart. A solemn memorial service was held for the fallen defenders of the White House 40 days after the tragic events, according to Russian traditions. That event took place on the November 13, 1993, in an open air ceremony i= n Drujinnikovskaya Street. That place is near the Red Presnya stadium, not far from the (Russian) White House (the parliament). About 50,000 people gathered there to pay their respects to the murdered compatriots. [Where were the CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS cameras then? TiM Ed.] This stadium, near Drujinnikovskaya Street, was a home to many terrible memories of mass executions of the Russian patriots in October 1993. Man= y Cossacks, militiamen, officers of the Army - all taken prisoner by the Yeltsin government for acting as defenders of the White House - were line= d up and executed in cold blood along the walls of this stadium. Commemorating this tragic event, thousands of candles were lighted, and many fires were lit along the wall of these martyrs for democracy on Nov. 13, 1993. =20 The wall of this stadium is a silent witness to a heroic act of a 75 year-old woman. Defying the bullets whistling over her head, Varvara Petrovna, saved the lives of eight executed, but still alive Russian boys. She moved them away from the Presnya Stadium's wall of death to her apartment. There she bandaged their wounds, treated them as best as she could, and kept trying to help them find their friends and relatives. Story of Two Young Men Other people at the "Stadium of Death" told me similar stories while warming up their freezing hands over wood fires on a cold November-night. Two young men approached me. One was about 20. The other, perhaps 19...= =20 "We were among those who lived in the tents near the White House to prote= st Yeltsin's closing of the Supreme Soviet. During the night of October 4, = we quartered in a nearby sporting hall. At approximately at 6:30 in the morning, without a warning, snipers opened fire on the people manning the barricades and the dwellers of our 'tent city'.=20 The fire came from the roofs of the nearby (four) buildings. They were th= e roofs of a residential building No. 11, along Drujinnikovskaya street, ne= ar the hotel Mir. And from the high-rises in the Barricade Square and of th= e City Hall buildings, formerly occupied by SEV, the western-sponsored Council on Economic Cooperation between the former socialist countries. G= un fire also came from the direction of the American Embassy.=20 At 6:45 a.m. (Oct. 3), all defenders of the White House were alerted, and gathered in the Freedom Square in front of the building of the Supreme Soviet. At 7:30 a.m. a large caliber machine gun opened fire from the direction of Kalininskiy Prospect. Everybody on the perimeter of defense outside the tent city, who was without weapons and could not escape on time, was placed inside the building. A squall of sniper fire on the grou= nd level forced further evacuation into the underground passages. The evacue= es were moved to the third floor because all windows of the White House were raked with bullets from 'Yeltsinoids.' Those who were armed took up defenses from the sixth floor up."=20 At 7:15 a.m. BTRs (armored personnel carriers) pulled up at the City Hall building and opened fire from a heavy machine gun.=20 At 10:00 a.m., helicopters started firing at the White House, and at 11:3= 0 a.m. tanks began shelling the building. Yeltsinoids announced to the worl= d that firing began at the deadline set in their ultimatum. This is a lie - we were under fire long before that. At the time when the building was shelled, somewhere around 12 o'clock, Cossacks caught two spies wearing Spetznaz uniforms (Special Troops). They coordinated enemy fire by radio and, it must be specifically pointed out, spoke Yiddish between themselve= s. Cossacks executed them. Then a word of warning was passed around on the possibility of saboteurs being inside the building."=20 Story of a Belgrade Writer Your TiM editor needs to interrupt the young men's testimony at this poin= t. Notice that the two spies who coordinated enemy fire by radio spoke YIDDISH to each other? Until now, Americans had no reason to believe tha= t the "Red October II" massacre was anything other than one Russian power group (Yeltsin's) battling for against another faction (the deputies). B= ut the above incident raises a possibility that FOREIGN elements were also involved in the White House battle, evidently on Yeltsin's side. =20 This writer first became aware of such allegations in February 1997, duri= ng the pro-democracy protests in Belgrade, Serbia. Dragos Kalajic, an accomplished writer and editor of the DUGA magazine, gave a speech at the Writers' Club in Belgrade in which he explained why he chose not to join the demonstrators in the Belgrade streets. Here is an excerpt from his talk, which was also published in the DUGA magazine: "One of the important ethical reasons for not participating in the=20 (Belgrade) protests is a sense of duty I feel toward my friends. =20 During the night between October 3 and 4, 1993, the pro-American=20 and Russophobic Kremlin government... used military force against=20 democracy; against the representatives of the political will of the=20 Russian people in the Russian parliament. The West, of course, had shown then how much its leaders and media=20 care about 'democracy,' as they applauded this crime and atrocity. A=20 legion of foreign mercenaries, led by the CIA colonels, and with the hel= p=20 of the snipers from the Israeli division, 'Uerihon,' killed at least=20 1,500 Russian defenders of freedom and state. Among the killed were=20 some of my friends. I do not forget or betray my friends - not when=20 they are alive, and especially not the dead ones."=20 So here we have again a reference from another source to the role foreign mercenaries played in "Red October II." Mr. Kalajic even names the Israe= li division from which some of the snipers were deployed. This could help explain why the two spies who were directing by radio the outside fire at the White House were speaking Yiddish. =20 And now, back to the story of the two young Russians, as retold by Ms. Raduga... "One more episode. When the shooting began, we were still in the sports hall. At approximately 6:45 a.m., a horrible-looking shell of unknown nature burst into the room. The object looked like a fiery red ball the size of a kitchen pot. It bounced around the room noisely, sending spark= s in every direction. Then the ball got into the box stuffed with socks an= d set them on fire. I do not know what happened next because we ran out in= a hurry."=20 Story of a Russian Deputy U.A Birukov, 62 years of age, a deputy from the Tagansk district of the city of Moscow, testified that in early September 1993, a rumor had sprea= d among the deputies that they would be crushed militarily.=20 "The rumor had it that the President (Yeltsin) had already ordered artillery to be deployed in September, and ground forces in October. We were expecting extraordinary events every day and they finally came on September 21.=20 =20 It was the Presidential Order No. 1400. Everyone was outraged and surpris= ed by that ease with which the President reneged on his solemn oath. The oa= th bound him to abide by the Constitution he swore to uphold.=20 =20 Everyone was also stunned by the ease with which he violated the mandates of the lawfully elected deputies and the statutes of the lawmaking body. Functioning of the parliament is outside of his jurisdiction, and in doin= g so, the President crossed the boundary prescribed by law. He broke the law, exceeded his authority, and thus put himself in the position untenab= le with his staying in power much longer.=20 =20 A session of All Peoples Vetche (the Russian version of the House of Representatives) was planned for October 3. Notice of this event was dutifully filed a month and a half in advance. The time and the place of such a session was coordinated with the government authorities. Nevertheless, this event was banned on October 2. =20 On that day, I happened to be among half a million demonstrators who were moving from Kalujskaya Square toward the White House. The demonstration w= as lead by deputy G. Urajtsev. Initially, we planned to hold a meeting near the Kremlin wall. Yet instead of stopping the column on the approaches to the Red Square, Urajtsev led it directly to the Krimskiy bridge.=20 OMON (Special Police Detachment) troops, positioned on the Krimskiy bridg= e, shot some tear gas into the crowd and retreated. They yielded to people = in order to stir up their passions. Coordination between OMON and Urajtsev w= as obvious to an experienced eye. Demonstrators quietly proceeded to march along Sadovoye Circle, passed Smolenskaya Square, Arbat, finally reaching Kalininskiy prospect. That's where they turned toward the White House. I= t was already nearly 4 p.m.. Looking through the windows of the White House= , deputies waved their hands welcoming us. =20 When we finally reached the White House, someone opened fire on the colum= n from the direction of City Hall, killing two policemen. Such an audaciou= s provocation outraged everyone as it was clear that the death of the policemen would be attributed to the defenders of the Supreme Soviet.=20 I climbed on the balcony of the White House where five military men and several deputies had already gathered. They took turns checking out the City Hall and the hotel Mir through binoculars. They were looking for the place from which the fire had come. Soon they located the scum hiding behind a window pane on the upper floor of the hotel Mir. His machine gu= n could be seen clearly through binoculars. =20 "We=92ve got to nail the bastard," I told the guys around me. "How? We d= o not have a single sharp-shooting rifle," someone replied. All our submachine guns were fitted with shortened barrels effective only in the shooting range from 20 to 30 meters. If we had had at least one real Kalashnikov, we could have taken that sleaze bag out right then and there= . =20 =20 That day, I returned home after midnight. A telephone message from my District Council was waiting for me -- a new session was scheduled for tomorrow at 9 a.m. In the morning on the October 4, however, I discovere= d that the building of my District Council had been taken over by OMON. On what legal basis? It turned out that all other offices of the opposition deputies had been also occupied during the night on orders from the government. Then I went to the White House to find out what was going on= . =20 I arrived on the bridge around 11:00 a.m., and observed a large crowd of peaceful citizens had already gathered there. A machine gun set on the ro= of of the building No. 19, along the New Arbat street, was firing at them. I decided not to risk my life needlessl,y and turned back to Chaikovskaya street. Around noon,a sniper began shooting at passersby from the rooftop of the house located across the street from the American Embassy. Obvious= ly that spot was deliberately chosen to give the foreign gentlemen a better view of the gory spectacle. It enabled them to see the bloody face of the opposition close up.=20 Policemen swarmed around the building shooting from their short-barreled machine guns. Yet nobody surrounded the building, and nobody even tried = to capture the sniper. That means that the whole affair was again nothing bu= t a show played out on the real life stage of Moscow streets..." =20 =20 Olga's Story Olga P.: "We spent most of the night of October 4 sitting around a wood fire. By 6 a.m., only three of us still remained there: Yuriy, a 15 year-old boy from the Communist Youth League, and we, two women. The rest of the group melted away. Some had gone inside the building to warm up; some to have a short nap. In the neighboring tents, there were several other Communist Youth League girls from Kaluga.=20 A sudden pop broke the morning stillness. (I took it just for a snap as I did not know yet what a sniper shot sounds like). In front of my eyes, Zinaida, who sat next to me, began disintegrating into a bloody mess. While my consciousness could not yet fully grasp what was happening so close to me, the sight of so much blood caused animal fear in me.=20 =20 The boy, Yuriy, jumped to his feet and ran for cover toward a building. Instinctively, I followed him. The pops began sounding in rapid successio= n from all directions. Suddenly, running ahead of me, Yuriy jerked and fell flat on his face. I ran up to him and noticed a small bullet hole on the back of his coat. The building was only 30 meters away, and I wanted to lift him up and help him to carry on toward it. When I turned him around = I saw a huge gaping bloody wound in his chest. To be exact, there was practically no chest left. Indescribable horror overwhelmed me. I dashed aside, fell, then ran to the White House again. I do not remember how I reached it. The sniper was shooting from the residential building No.: 11 on the Drujinnikovskaya street."=20 =20 An Old Man's Story A 70 year-old witness, who lives close to the White House, across the street from Krasnaya Presnya stadium, testified as to the following: =20 =20 "The night between October 3 and 4, 1993, we could not even think of sleeping. Both I and my wife were looking through the window of our secon= d story apartment. We saw a man trying to run away captured and executed i= n cold blood inside a personnel carrier. All night long, troops in uniforms were chasing and shooting the people who attempted to escape from the Whi= te House.=20 In the morning of October 4, while walking out with my dog, I counted eighteen (18) dead bodies in our yard. In the following 10 days,we observ= ed strange activities taking place inside the stadium. By the morning of October 4, authorities had closed the entrance gates to the stadium. On that and all other days, tanks kept driving in circles, and water tank ca= rs were moving in and out. What that meant I can only guess. Ask those who live on the upper floors." =20 An "Alpha" Soldier's Story Suddenly a soldier approached the fire around which we were sitting, Ms. Raduga, the Russian journalist, said. He introduced himself as being from the special forces group Alpha. For a while he stayed silent, but by the morning, he also joined the general conversation. =20 "I am telling you this because I am flying out today anyway. There was ve= ry extensive destruction within walls of the White House. The tanks shot fougasse shells, which means that their detonators were set to go off inside the building. I counted 300 bodies in the parts of the White House that I could see myself.=20 I figure that another 500 to 600 people were executed against the stadium walls. In my position of a rank-and-file soldier, I estimate that the overall number of people murdered is between 1,500 and 2,000.=20 [Interesting, isn't it, how this jives with the figure which that Belgrad= e writer used? TiM Ed.] The morning of October 4, I saw the deputies and others captured with the= m in White House being arrested and crowded together. It should be noted here, that they (Yeltsin's troops) did not execute just anyone captured i= n the White House, but separated them first into groups. At the stadium wal= l they executed only the officers of the Army, the Cossacks, and the office= rs and rank-and-file policemen who took the side of the people. The same fa= te also befell those who took part in the fighting in Prednestrovye and othe= r hot points.=20 In such a tumult, without a master roll in the executioners' hands, it would not have been possible to separate those people for immediate execution so fast. That means that the list with the names of the White House defenders, and generally of everyone inside the building, had been passed outside long before the storming began. The White House leadership betrayed the people who trusted them even before the actual events took place. That treason doomed the best patriots of Russia to death! =20 =20 Also, various military detachments conducted themselves quite differently. Memorize it and inform whoever you can that an exceptionally savage behavior was displayed by the OMONs of cities of Vladimir, Omsk, and Toms= k. With similar savagery also acted Taman division and some other detachment called PPS No.:2. I do not know how to spell it out but that unit is quartered close to Lefortovo.=20 Sankt Peterburg and Moscow OMONs took a different stance and refused to take part in the executions. I watched three members of the Tomsk OMON execute two 17 year old girls on one of the White House floors. My frien= d and I finished them off on the spot...=20 And in general, there were plenty of those who enjoyed the savagery. If i= t were not for our group Alpha, I doubt that, aside from the deputies, anyo= ne would have been left alive. The bandits feared us." =20 "I continue to gather evidence," is how Ms. Raduga signed off her report. --------------- [TiM Ed]: So could something like this happen in America? You bet. =20 Who was the first world leader to give Yeltsin his full and immediate support for the "Red October II" massacre? (Answer: Bill Clinton). Didn= 't the FBI assault at Waco follow less than six months later? Hasn't our government been trying to disarm Americans, the Second Amendment notwithstanding? Aren't they now using the Jonesboro, AK, juvenile killings as another opportunity to put the guns on trial, rather than our Hollywood-induced violent society? Just as importantly - why has no western media outlet (as far as this writer is aware) ever reported the full story of Moscow's "Red October II= ?" Such as the snipers' killing of two policemen so as to blame the peacefu= l pro-democracy demonstrators, and later justify a turkey shoot of civilian= s and occupants of the Russian White House? Why didn't they tell us in thi= s land of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press, about the presence of foreign mercenaries who took part in the massacre of the Russian people? Or about the summary, and later, mass executions at the Red Presnya stadium? =20 And even if the media were too skittish or subservient to the NWO elite t= o tell us the full truth in the pitch of battle, where were the western correspondents when 50,000 people gathered at this Moscow stadium 40 days later for an all-night wake on Nov. 13, 1993? Where have the famed weste= rn "investigative reporters" been since that time? Did they withhold the full truth about the "Red October II" from us to ke= ep us, the American lambs, dumbed-down and ignorant so when our turn for slaughter comes we'd be just as unprepared as the Russian patriots were? If so, now you know why we felt it was important for America and the worl= d to know what really happened in Moscow in October 1993. And to realize that the same people are still in charge of both the Russian and the American governments. ---- Bob Djurdjevic=20 TRUTH IN MEDIA=20 Phoenix, Arizona=20 e-mail: bobdj@djurdjevic.com=20 Truth in Media Web page: http://www.beograd.com/truth - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: (Fwd) Yet another poll -Forwarded Date: 01 Apr 1998 16:55:52 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id RAA26792; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 17:15:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma026630; Wed Apr 1 17:11:07 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: Eaco@terrasys.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Another one- vote early and vote often ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --- Forwarded mail from defgun-l@scifi.squawk.com Go vote on this one. The question is whether congress should pass an all out ban on the sales of hi-cap magazines, or not. I beleive that this information is forwarded on to our elected officials. http://www.netline-to-congress.com/index.htm ---End of forwarded mail from defgun-l@scifi.squawk.com -- Jon Franklin AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ franklij@agcs.com http://www.agcs.com x4064 S64 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: intellectualcapital poll -Forwarded Date: 01 Apr 1998 17:00:30 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA27890; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:19:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma027795; Tue Mar 31 23:16:32 1998 Message-Id: <199804010223.CAA09818@heproc.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: reimann@radix.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list This one seems to require a cookie. I know this only because I always reject cookies. This poll invites comparison of potential methods of reducing crime. Carl ---Forwarded Msg--- Tuesday, 31 March Roger Oakey : Posted to rkba-co by Roger Oakey ----------------------- http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/98/0326/icpoll.asp ---End Forwarded Msg--- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: letters, articles -Forwarded Date: 02 Apr 1998 10:53:59 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA07884; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 12:28:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma007752; Thu Apr 2 12:26:05 1998 Message-Id: <3523C7E5.6AD5@GunsSaveLives.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: chairman@GunsSaveLives.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list I have noticed a lot of gun guys are writing letters to the editor, opinion pieces and letters to legislators and corporations. When you do this, please work in the phrase "guns save lives." Eventually, we will thoroughly permeate the psyche of Americans with a term that reinforces the truth they already know. Statements that reinforce existing subconscious understanding are very powerful and memorable. If you write a letter about the subject, note something along the lines of: "Firearms help to protect much more often than they are used to harm. Guns save lives." If you are on talk radio or interviewed for any medium, work it into the conversation. If somebody asks why you are for or against a bill, say "Guns save lives." It is a good conversation opener and reiterates a point that will aid our struggle long term. THANKS -Rick -- Don't agonize. Organize. http://GunsSaveLives.com (Opinions here are personal and not those of any organization.) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Fear Mongering on CCW permits]] Date: 02 Apr 1998 15:08:52 -0700 Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA15025; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:43:39 -0700 Return-Path: Received: from mars.aros.net by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA01954584; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:25:28 -0700 Received: from sarahtho (xm1-16.slc.aros.net [207.173.24.161]) by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP id OAA08859 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:35:14 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980402144317.00d80740@aros.net> X-Sender: righter@aros.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) In-Reply-To: <3523F50E.555D@phbtsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:29 PM 4/2/98 -0700, you wrote: > Gun Law Lets Felons Slip Through Cracks > > BY TOM ZOELLNER > THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE > > > It happened only four times in 1997. In each case, the > gun-carrier brandished a weapon during a traffic dispute, said > Peterson. In 1996, one man lost his license for pointing his gun at > somebody during an aggravated assault, and another man's license was > revoked after he attemtped to commit suicide with his concealed > weapon. How do you commit suicide with a "concealed weapon"? Hide it under your hat? These idiots are just amazing! Sarah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Yet Another Poll (fwd) Date: 03 Apr 1998 07:21:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Scott Bergeson wrote: > Go vote on this one. The question is whether congress should pass an all > out ban on the sales of hi-cap magazines, or not. I believe that this > information is forwarded on to our elected officials. > http://www.netline-to-congress.com/index.htm Unfortunately, there's a different question there today. This was yesterday's question. However, the responses to the hi-cap mags question was 98% against the ban and 2% in favor. Would that the other polls use the same sample! "I kissed that girl's inner thighs when she was six days old -- I said, `Look at those little polkas,'" -- Stinking Attorney William Ginsburg of his client, Monica Lewinsky, in the March 2, 1998 issue of Time magazine - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Roll Call (fwd) -Forwarded Date: 03 Apr 1998 08:57:42 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id VAA08364; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 21:22:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma008301; Thu Apr 2 21:20:47 1998 Message-Id: <9804030141.0emh@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list On Apr 2, John Curtis wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] http://www.rollcall.com/ Roll Call magazine is offering an interesting service. Enter your zipcode and they'll tell you who your rep and Senators are (U.S., not state). They will also allow you to compose a letter to be printed, or send email, with some formatting. They have a full set of concise bios of the Congress and some other doo dads. If the urge strikes to write, and your browser is fired up, this looks like its worthwhile. ciao, jcurtis [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: USSC News Date: 03 Apr 1998 13:03:33 -0700 Just a reminder..... The next meeting of the Board of Trustees of USSC will be held on Monday, April 6 in Taylorsville. It's at the Park Library, 4870 South, 2700 West, and will start at 6 PM. Meetings are OPEN to all interested persons. Please try to attend this meeting! Although I don't have the formal agenda, we will probably be discussing the questionnaire which will be sent to all legislators regarding firearms issues. We will also begin planning our strategies and determining positions and goals for both the upcoming Interim sessions of the legislature and for next year's legislative session. If you would like your opinions heard, or have suggestions and/or requests, we'd love to hear them! If you are unable to attend, you may forward comments to the Board members listed below, but there's no substitute for actually being there! I hope to see as many of you as possible! Sarah Thompson The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info made public. Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse their open-door policy. Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), cathounds@aol.com Elwood Powell, 426-8274 or 583-2882 (h), 364-0412 (w), 73214.3115@compuserve.com Shirley Spain, 963-0784, agr@aros.net Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (w), 546-2275 (h) Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, righter@therighter.com (I prefer e-mail to phone calls when possible). Joe Venus, 571-2223 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA-ILA FAX ALERT Date: 04 Apr 1998 07:47:00 -0700 NRA-ILA FAX ALERT 11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: 1-800-392-8683 * Fax: 703-267-3918 * GROOTS@NRA.org Vol. 5, No. 13 4/3/98 BIGGER CLINTON GUN BAN PREMIERS ON MONDAY For the better part of the past five months, the Clinton Administration has been hard at work searching for reasons why countless foreign-made firearms should be permanently banned from importation into the United States. Word is that we'll get our first look at their recommendations on Monday, when their "study" of the suitability of these guns for so-called sporting purposes is scheduled to be released at a White House ceremony. You'll recall that the President ordered this "study" back in November, when, by Executive Order, he suspended all permits for the import of certain semi-automatics. Now, after weeks of stalling, it looks like the President and his anti-Second Amendment cohorts in Congress plan to take full advantage of the Jonesboro tragedy in this latest and most shameless attempt yet to advance their war on America's law-abiding gun owners. We expect the president to permanently prohibit countless foreign-made firearms from American shores, despite the fact that they are all perfectly legal under his own 1994 gun ban. Even more unbelievable, the Administration is expected to cancel the permits already issued to importers to bring shipments of these firearms into the U.S., even on those firearms that are now on American soil but have yet to clear customs. Businessmen who put up their own money, jumped through all the legal hoops, and put up with all the government's red tape to get these perfectly legal guns into the country, will never be able to take possession of them, and will lose their entire investment. This latest stunt is but another of the countless examples of this President's complete disregard for the law and for the rights of American citizens. And it demonstrates once again that no matter what they say, the goal of Bill Clinton and his minions in Congress is a complete and total gun ban. CONGRESS ON BREAK, BUT THREATS STILL PENDING Federal lawmakers have gone home for their Easter district work period, which means that now is an excellent time for you to schedule face to face meetings with your elected officials, and voice your concerns regarding some developing issues. While the citizens of Jonesboro are still mourning the losses to their community, anti-freedom zealots have chosen to exploit this horrible incident to promote their anti-Second Amendment agenda. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.) held a press conference on Tuesday to promote her effort to further restrict certain ammunition feeding devices because of their capacity. It is anticipated that her proposal would call for prohibiting the sale and transfer of "high capacity" magazines that were previously grandfathered by the 1994 Crime Bill. Also, Senators Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and John Chafee (R-R.I.) have called for mandatory "safe storage" laws for your personal firearms. Mandatory "safe storage" might be better named "The Burglar Protection Act of 1998," as it would mean that your personal protection firearms would be useless to you if you ever faced a violent criminal attacker. The only person that would be "safe" would be the criminal. Furthermore, how would such a law be enforced without violating the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches of your home? While safety programs like NRA's Eddie Eagle help to prevent firearm accidents, the Durbin/Chaffee proposal could only be enforced after the fact, when tragedy has already struck. Right now, however, no legislation on these proposals has actually been introduced, as these opponents of freedom and personal protection have focused their efforts on grabbing the media spotlight created by Jonesboro. If you meet with your lawmakers, or call them at their district offices, please remind them that the nation needs time to heal from deep wounds caused by the horrific events in Arkansas. Remind them that we do not need half-baked "solutions," or to blame law-abiding gun owners. Urge them to support the Constitution, and oppose all efforts to impose further restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms. FREE SPEECH UPDATE Good news! The U.S. House of Representatives considered numerous Campaign Finance "reforms" this week, but voted to pass two bills that did not contain anything that would adversely affect NRA's ability to communicate with our members. While there is still the possibility that attacks on the First Amendment will be brought up in the future, especially through the discharge petition mentioned last week (Vol. 5, No. 12), it looks like the pressure NRA members put on lawmakers really paid off. =+=+=+=+ This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA. This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is available at: http://WWW.NRA.Org - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: USSC Meeting CHANGE!!! Date: 05 Apr 1998 18:41:14 -0600 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THE USSC MEETING!! Apolgies for any inconvenience or confusion. The next meeting of the Board of Trustees of USSC will be held on Monday, April 6 in Taylorsville. It's at the Calvin Smith Library, 810 E. 3300 S., and will start at 6 PM. Meetings are OPEN to all interested persons. Please try to attend this meeting! Although I don't have the formal agenda, we will probably be discussing the questionnaire which will be sent to all legislators regarding firearms issues. We will also begin planning our strategies and determining positions and goals for both the upcoming Interim sessions of the legislature and for next year's legislative session. If you would like your opinions heard, or have suggestions and/or requests, we'd love to hear them! If you are unable to attend, you may forward comments to the Board members listed below, but there's no substitute for actually being there! I hope to see as many of you as possible! Sarah Thompson - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan Date: 05 Apr 1998 22:22:00 -0700 On Ed Wolfe's website, Nation In Distress: http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/ 06/08/14 StTN 12:35 FAX Sarah Brady Dear Handgun Control Member, I have marked this letter to you "confidential" because I am requesting that you avoid discussing the contents publicly for the next several weeks. This is because we are about to initiate action that, if successful, will weaken the stranglehold that the gun industry, the NRA, and other gun fanatics have over local and national gun laws. And I am urgently requesting you to make an extraordinary gift to help strengthen our cause. Please let me quickly explain our plans; and then you will understand why both your generosity and secrecy are required. In brief, we believe there is a strong parallel between the gun industry and the tobacco companies! As you know, citizens at the local and state level rose up in anger and demanded clean air in restaurants and offices when Congress failed to take action. Here at Handgun Control Inc., it is our regrettable conclusion that this current Congress is not going to take the initiative on gun safety for America. Legislation is bogged down. The NRA and other gun industry lobbying groups have multi-million dollar war chests set aside for this election year. Consequently, it will be extremely difficult to pass any significant legislation this year. And so, even though we will not let up on our efforts in congress, our focus is going to make a dramatic shift. And we want to keep this shift as quiet as possible while we develop our plan. In a few weeks, I will be announcing to the nation: The Citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking Even the title of this campaign will cause shockwaves to run through the gun industry and the NRA at local and national levels. We will be taking a page from the anti-smoking victories, where local ordinances banned smoking in public facilities and eventually forced state and national legislation to protest Americans' right to a smoke-free environment. And we'll remember the victories in the anti-drunk-driving movement, as well. M.A.D.D. was formed by a small group of mothers whose children had been killed by drunk drivers; they gathered supporters and strength at the grassroots level around the country, and before long these mothers started to be taken seriously everywhere, even on capitol Hill. Now, most states have tougher penalties for drunk drivers and the liquor industry is providing anti-drunk-driving messages in their advertising. In much the same way, we're going to attack the gun industry and the gun pushers at the most basic point; where money is exchanged for guns. The Attack point: Local Gun Shows! Local gun shows make it extremely easy to purchase a gun for private or criminal use. And that's because most of the guns at the shows are sold by private individuals, not by dealers; and, therefore, in most states they are not covered by laws requiring background checks or paperwork! So you can walk into a gun show, strike up a conversation with the guy hawking the M-l carbine, admire its light kick, repetitive fire, and ability to accept large magazine clips. Then you talk to that strange man parading around in his military fatigues, and later you meet him on the street, give him the necessary cash and the firearm is yours. All legal in most states, as long as that fellow is not a licensed gun dealer! Loophole: The Second-Hand Market Right now, federal laws focus primarily on purchases of handguns from licensed dealers. And the Brady Handgun violence and prevention Act has stopped many criminals from buying handguns from licensed dealers. But most states have no laws preventing one individual from selling a weapon to another, as long as the seller is not a licensed gun dealer. "The individual purchasing the gun does not have to show identification, does not have to submit to background checks. And the person selling the gun does not need to keep a written record of the transaction or the buyer's address and social Security number. Also, quite obviously, there is no waiting period. All in all, this is the most outrageous loophole in our federal gun laws. And gun shows are where criminals do their shopping; where the second-hand gun market really thrives. And so, this is why one of our first goals in The Citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking is going to be to close down the gun shows! These gun shows are most often held on public property: civic centers, school gymnasiums, fairgrounds, city and county convention centers. And these giant weapons bazaars have developed considerable notoriety, because of such high-profile cases as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy Mcveigh, who was reported to have bought or sold weapons at gun shows. A recent issue of "Shotgun News", the "bible" of the gun pushers, advertised over 500 gun shows for the last three months of 1997 alone. And this does not include many of the smaller shows and swap meets. I believe that now you can see why our Citizens campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking is going to result in tremendous controversy. And I wish that we could keep it secret; 100% secret; until we are ready to launch the campaign. But, unlike the NRA and the right-wing, gun toting fanatics, we do not have a multi-million dollar war chest. We depend upon grassroots support from friends like you. And so I wanted to take the calculated risk and share this plan with you, and hope that you will step forward and send a significant gift to express your belief that citizens, with or without Congress, can get things done! In a few weeks, if you're interested, I will forward to you a 'Citizens Action Kit," detailing exactly what can be done in your local community. We intend to bring pressure upon mayors, city councils, school boards, churches, and all property owners to ban the use of any facility for gun shows. Already, we are working with Dade county, Florida, mounting an all-out assault on gun shows in that area. I will be reporting to you about that innovative and successful initiative before long. But, as of now, we are not quite ready to go public with the results. But I must quickly bring this letter to a close, after I warn you that this is going to be a long, hard-fought campaign. After all, it took many, many years before the tobacco industry felt the heat of local citizens demanding a smoke-tree environment. So we must be patient, firm, determined and uncompromising. Our enemies will incorrectly and misleadingly scream about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. But in turn, we will quietly remind them that America is involved in a gun war that is claiming 35,000 lives each year including 9,OOO murdered by handguns. And we'll remind them that Americans must responsibly report transactions involving cars, liquor and other products. Why should gun sales be exempt? Every day 14 children, 19 years old and under, are killed by handguns. Much of this mayhem is made possible by the use of public property for gun shows. These statistics are tragic proof that a state of war exists. And, as you know, in my case, the statistic became personal heartbreak when my husband Jim was grievously wounded by a bullet intended for President Reagan. You and I must make America a safer place to live. Let's do it! P.S. I urge you to turn to the enclosed reply slip and write out a check in one of the amounts I've indicated. Or perhaps you can give more. But please do the best you can. I look forward to receiving your support, and I will trust in your silence as we prepare our citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [chardy@es.com: [kielsky@PRIMENET.COM: "Our Freedom"]] Date: 06 Apr 1998 15:30:25 -0600 I sent this out last year about this time of year, but it seems fitting to send it out again... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- "Our Freedom" Copyright (c) 1997, Michael Kielsky. All Rights Reserved. A true story, as handed down to me: --- --- --- --- It was a time of increasing conflict. The British were becoming more oppressive, the searches for guns more frequent, imprisonment and even hangings of those who were caught opposing British rule by force, more regular. One evening, Father was still out and Mother was otherwise occupied, I found something I should not have. Ever the curious and restless 17 year old, I looked in father's private chest, and was quite astonished! Our family had come to this promised land only 13 years earlier. Back in the old country, Father had been a successful practicioner in the law. He was well suited for it, he was a stern and severe man. And oh so intelligent. But, when he sensed that oppression was looming, and bad times were ahead, he decided to take his wife and 4 year old child (that was me) to join his brother who had made some success for himself over here. Father's sacrifice was great. A new language, law quite unfamiliar to him, a pioneer country for a man who's upbringing and education had not quite prepared him for these challenges. Instead of his beloved law, he became a store clerk during the day, while at night he studied the language, and this law new to him, so that someday he could once again put his mind to the law. What I discovered, what so surprised me, is that Father, so severe, so upright, so stern, he had secretly a become a member of one of the forbidden patriot groups! Yes, I had a times fantasized about joining, to do what I could to help our cause, to give us our freedom apart from Britain, to prepare for a war we all feared might come! But I would not dare join in with these outlaws, what if Father had found out! But now, when even this man of the law has secretly taken up arms, now I could not keep still. I asked a friend of mine, one who I believed was a member of this patriot group, to see if I too could join up, and only a few days later, my friend sent me to a school house, not too far from my home. There, I could possibly join. I entered the school, and saw a few people already sitting there, waiting. I knew none of them. I sat and waited. One by one, the others were called into another room, each returning after a while had passed. At last, it was my turn. I entered the room, it was almost completely dark, but for one small candle. As best as I could make out, the other figures in this room had their faces concealed by scarves or hoods. I was asked a series of questions, about my background, my family, my motivations for wanting to join, was I clear about the dangers, would I give up my comrades were I captured by the British? The questions finally ended, and I was told to go back out and wait. That day, I was given my first assignment. In the evenings, I was to go to the house of a very religious family, a family sympathetic to our cause, and a house that just happened to overlook a British installation. There I was to take careful notes of everything that I observed, and provide regular and detailed reports to my contacts. I continued this assignment, on a regular rotation, for over two months. I told Father nothing, and he appeared not to know. When I would be out all night, I would tell him that I was with friends, as they would tell of being with me when they were on an assignment. Another time, after completing this assignment, a number of us went to a remote farm, and received some training in the use of guns, as most of us had no experience. At other training exercises, we were taught how to disassemble, clean, and reassemble, and load guns, especially in darkness. Father knew nothing of my activities, as I really knew nothing of his. War came, and I fought along with the rest, now no longer an outlaw organization, but reformed into a regular army! Father and I, no longer members in secret, once talked of our experiences. Yes, he had suspected all along. Father fought too, and while I saw little battle, Father had one terrible experience. He came through alive and in once piece, but in this battle, his friend shot dead right next to him, and under siege for 3 days until liberated by more troops, left him unable to join combat again. Our War of Independence was won! Soon, most of us returned to our lives, with pride for our new country, with sadness for the price paid. Not many years later, Father died, perhaps worn out too young by the challenges of a new world, a new language, and a war his sense of justice required him to fight. Eventually, I became a teacher. I married, had three children, and to them and their children, I pass on this small story. --- --- --- --- Now for some details: The war was Israel's War of Independence, 1947-49. The story teller was my mother, and related to me (again) this evening, after our Passover meal. She even has some photographs of herself with a variety of firearms. Yes, my mother wore army boots (once only one boot, but that's another story). I thought this was rather appropriate, as Passover is the holiday of freedom and liberty! Happy Passover. Michael ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on (801)588-7200 | these topics, I'm sure I'm not | the one he would have express it. In March of 1916, Pancho Villa deliberately murdered 19 Americans in a cross-border raid. This became the cause for Woodrow Wilson, a president with a notoriously long fuse, to send Gen. Pershing 400 miles into Mexico at the head of an army of 15,000. The next time an American plane is blown from the sky and the president of the United States attends yet another funeral or displays his Churchillian fortitude in begging for the power to tap telephones, think of that different America with a braver and clearer sense of its place in the world" -Mark Helprin, "Mr. Clinton's Foreign Policy", WSJ, Aug 12, 96 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: USSC Meeting CHANGE! (correction) Date: 06 Apr 1998 16:26:22 -0600 Yeesh! Some days I just can't get ANYTHING right. The address below is correct, but it is in Salt Lake City, NOT in Taylorsville. Sorry for all the confusion. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THE USSC MEETING!! Apolgies for any inconvenience or confusion. The next meeting of the Board of Trustees of USSC will be held on Monday, April 6 in Taylorsville. It's at the Calvin Smith Library, 810 E. 3300 S., and will start at 6 PM. Meetings are OPEN to all interested persons. Sarah Thompson To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to: USSC@therighter.com In the SUBJECT of the message put: SUBSCRIBE USSC - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: USSC Meeting CHANGE! (correction) Date: 06 Apr 1998 16:26:22 -0600 Yeesh! Some days I just can't get ANYTHING right. The address below is correct, but it is in Salt Lake City, NOT in Taylorsville. Sorry for all the confusion. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THE USSC MEETING!! Apolgies for any inconvenience or confusion. The next meeting of the Board of Trustees of USSC will be held on Monday, April 6 in Taylorsville. It's at the Calvin Smith Library, 810 E. 3300 S., and will start at 6 PM. Meetings are OPEN to all interested persons. Sarah Thompson To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to: USSC@therighter.com In the SUBJECT of the message put: SUBSCRIBE USSC - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Scott.Bergeson@m.cc.utah.edu: LPU: CNN's Talk Back Live Gun Poll -- DO IT NOW!] Date: 06 Apr 1998 21:45:49 -0600 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- X-Authentication-Warning: mail.qsicorp.com: majordomo set sender to owner-lputah@mail.qsicorp.com using -f X-Sender: shb4391@cor MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-lputah@mail.qsicorp.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lputah@qsicorp.com Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 763 Charles, please forward this to utah-firearms. If I do it it won't go out until after midnight, when the poll will have expired. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hey gang! CNN's talkback live has a poll going on the assualt weapon ban. go to: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/TalkBack/index.html Have fun! -- Carl LPUtah LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "lputah@qsicorp.com" LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender. LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: elwell@inconnect.com LPUtah ----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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NO AMENDMENT// AMEND THIS AND DIE AS A SOCIETY. Date: 06 Apr 1998 21:01:00 -0700 Forward from Patty Neill's Australian friend ... Greetings; I do not know if Americans fully understand how fortunate they are to have a bill of rights and a constitution that protects those rights if only in-part. In Australia we are 'subjects' not citizens and the only 'rights' that we are guaranteed under law are the rights of freedom of religious assembly 'in church', that is in a church building, we have no other rights and recently the system tried to take that right away by saying that some churches were Nazi fronts or supported pervesions not tollerated by the rest of society. Well the Nazi-Christians countered that the Jews support child-sex and that was a perversion and quoted the Talmud to that effect. The issue was dropped. Today we enjoy the protection of the 'UN Bill of human rights', no one is openly tortured, although it does happen at times, no one is hungry (that's more than the USA can say about their people), health care is free for the most part, the most one pays for prescription drugs is $7.50 (around four dollars US) and education is almost free and one of the best in the world. BUT, and I say again 'BUT' we need government permission to own a .177 caliber air-rifle, all semi automatic weapons, pump-action weapons and highpowered military style weapons (including the humble .303 rifle) are banned. It is illegal to carry a knife, electric shock self defense Zappers are unobtainable, and one woman was prosecuted for spraying hairspray into the eyes of a very large black man who was about to rape her and had already knocked her down, we can not do that. I caught a thief on my property, I called the Police and 'I' faced charges for 'deprivation of liberty and assult' with threatening words added just to cap it all off. The criminal dropped the charges against me if I dropped them against him and then the Police drove him home, via MacDonalds where they brought him a meal because he complained he was hungry. UN Bill of Rights, you certainly don't want it, doubt me, read it, then imagine what your political leaders would do with it. KEEP YOUR GUNS, KEEP YOUR FREEDOMS, KEEP YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS. Chris J. Bartle Australian Revolutionary Movement PO Box 2047 Rockingham WA 6168. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: USSC Meeting CHANGE! Date: 06 Apr 1998 11:44:09 -0600 Apparently there was some difficulty sending this out yesterday, and I'm not sure everyone on the list received it. Apologies if this is a duplicate, and apologies again for such late notice of the change. Sarah PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THE USSC MEETING!! Apolgies for any inconvenience or confusion. The next meeting of the Board of Trustees of USSC will be held on Monday, April 6 in Taylorsville. It's at the Calvin Smith Library, 810 E. 3300 S., and will start at 6 PM. Meetings are OPEN to all interested persons. Please try to attend this meeting! Although I don't have the formal agenda, we will probably be discussing the questionnaire which will be sent to all legislators regarding firearms issues. We will also begin planning our strategies and determining positions and goals for both the upcoming Interim sessions of the legislature and for next year's legislative session. If you would like your opinions heard, or have suggestions and/or requests, we'd love to hear them! If you are unable to attend, you may forward comments to the Board members listed below, but there's no substitute for actually being there! I hope to see as many of you as possible! Sarah Thompson To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to: USSC@therighter.com In the SUBJECT of the message put: SUBSCRIBE USSC - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan Date: 07 Apr 1998 12:33:39 -0600 Hi all! Thanks to Scott for posting this. If anyone has an actual verifiable copy of this fax, would you please let me know as I'd like to get a copy. Thanks! Sarah At 10:22 PM 4/5/98 -0700, you wrote: > >On Ed Wolfe's website, Nation In Distress: >http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/ > >06/08/14 StTN 12:35 FAX Sarah Brady > >Dear Handgun Control Member, > >I have marked this letter to you "confidential" because I am requesting >that you avoid discussing the contents publicly for the next several weeks. > >This is because we are about to initiate action that, if successful, >will weaken the stranglehold that the gun industry, the NRA, and other >gun fanatics have over local and national gun laws. > >And I am urgently requesting you to make an extraordinary gift to help >strengthen our cause. > >Please let me quickly explain our plans; and then you will understand >why both your generosity and secrecy are required. > >In brief, we believe there is a strong parallel between the gun industry >and the tobacco companies! As you know, citizens at the local and state >level rose up in anger and demanded clean air in restaurants and offices >when Congress failed to take action. > >Here at Handgun Control Inc., it is our regrettable conclusion that this >current Congress is not going to take the initiative on gun safety for >America. Legislation is bogged down. The NRA and other gun industry lobbying >groups have multi-million dollar war chests set aside for this election year. > >Consequently, it will be extremely difficult to pass any significant >legislation this year. > >And so, even though we will not let up on our efforts in congress, >our focus is going to make a dramatic shift. > >And we want to keep this shift as quiet as possible while we develop our plan. > >In a few weeks, I will be announcing to the nation: > >The Citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking > >Even the title of this campaign will cause shockwaves to run through >the gun industry and the NRA at local and national levels. > >We will be taking a page from the anti-smoking victories, where local >ordinances banned smoking in public facilities and eventually forced >state and national legislation to protest Americans' right to a >smoke-free environment. > >And we'll remember the victories in the anti-drunk-driving movement, as well. > >M.A.D.D. was formed by a small group of mothers whose children had been >killed by drunk drivers; they gathered supporters and strength at the >grassroots level around the country, and before long these mothers >started to be taken seriously everywhere, even on capitol Hill. Now, >most states have tougher penalties for drunk drivers and the liquor >industry is providing anti-drunk-driving messages in their advertising. > >In much the same way, we're going to attack the gun industry and the gun >pushers at the most basic point; where money is exchanged for guns. > >The Attack point: Local Gun Shows! > >Local gun shows make it extremely easy to purchase a gun for private or >criminal use. And that's because most of the guns at the shows are sold >by private individuals, not by dealers; and, therefore, in most states >they are not covered by laws requiring background checks or paperwork! > >So you can walk into a gun show, strike up a conversation with the guy >hawking the M-l carbine, admire its light kick, repetitive fire, and >ability to accept large magazine clips. > >Then you talk to that strange man parading around in his military >fatigues, and later you meet him on the street, give him the necessary >cash and the firearm is yours. > >All legal in most states, as long as that fellow is not a licensed gun dealer! > >Loophole: The Second-Hand Market > >Right now, federal laws focus primarily on purchases of handguns from >licensed dealers. And the Brady Handgun violence and prevention Act has >stopped many criminals from buying handguns from licensed dealers. > >But most states have no laws preventing one individual from selling a >weapon to another, as long as the seller is not a licensed gun dealer. > >"The individual purchasing the gun does not have to show identification, >does not have to submit to background checks. And the person selling >the gun does not need to keep a written record of the transaction or the >buyer's address and social Security number. Also, quite obviously, >there is no waiting period. All in all, this is the most outrageous >loophole in our federal gun laws. > >And gun shows are where criminals do their shopping; where the >second-hand gun market really thrives. > >And so, this is why one of our first goals in The Citizens Campaign Against >Community Gun Trafficking is going to be to close down the gun shows! > >These gun shows are most often held on public property: civic centers, >school gymnasiums, fairgrounds, city and county convention centers. > >And these giant weapons bazaars have developed considerable notoriety, >because of such high-profile cases as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy >Mcveigh, who was reported to have bought or sold weapons at gun shows. > >A recent issue of "Shotgun News", the "bible" of the gun pushers, >advertised over 500 gun shows for the last three months of 1997 alone. >And this does not include many of the smaller shows and swap meets. > >I believe that now you can see why our Citizens campaign Against >Community Gun Trafficking is going to result in tremendous controversy. > >And I wish that we could keep it secret; 100% secret; until we are >ready to launch the campaign. > >But, unlike the NRA and the right-wing, gun toting fanatics, we do not >have a multi-million dollar war chest. We depend upon grassroots support >from friends like you. And so I wanted to take the calculated risk and >share this plan with you, and hope that you will step forward and send >a significant gift to express your belief that citizens, with or without >Congress, can get things done! > >In a few weeks, if you're interested, I will forward to you a 'Citizens >Action Kit," detailing exactly what can be done in your local community. > >We intend to bring pressure upon mayors, city councils, school boards, >churches, and all property owners to ban the use of any facility for gun shows. > >Already, we are working with Dade county, Florida, mounting an all-out >assault on gun shows in that area. I will be reporting to you about >that innovative and successful initiative before long. But, as of >now, we are not quite ready to go public with the results. > >But I must quickly bring this letter to a close, after I warn you that >this is going to be a long, hard-fought campaign. > >After all, it took many, many years before the tobacco industry felt the >heat of local citizens demanding a smoke-tree environment. > >So we must be patient, firm, determined and uncompromising. > >Our enemies will incorrectly and misleadingly scream about freedom of >speech and freedom of assembly. But in turn, we will quietly remind >them that America is involved in a gun war that is claiming 35,000 >lives each year including 9,OOO murdered by handguns. > >And we'll remind them that Americans must responsibly report transactions >involving cars, liquor and other products. Why should gun sales be exempt? > >Every day 14 children, 19 years old and under, are killed by handguns. Much >of this mayhem is made possible by the use of public property for gun shows. > >These statistics are tragic proof that a state of war exists. > >And, as you know, in my case, the statistic became personal heartbreak >when my husband Jim was grievously wounded by a bullet intended for >President Reagan. > >You and I must make America a safer place to live. Let's do it! > >P.S. I urge you to turn to the enclosed reply slip and write out a check >in one of the amounts I've indicated. Or perhaps you can give more. >But please do the best you can. > >I look forward to receiving your support, and I will trust in your silence >as we prepare our citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking. > > > >- > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Another poll Date: 07 Apr 1998 12:49:08 -0600 >A poll on MSNBC > >Asking about support for the Permanent ban on military assault style >firearms. Please VOTE > >http://www.msnbc.com/news/156278.asp (I voted and it wouldn't show me the results.) Sarah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan Date: 07 Apr 1998 18:24:57 -0600 I did a bit of checking into the alleged HCI Fax posted here previously. I wrote to Ed Wolfe who posted it on his site, and he referred me to Mike Pietrantoni who sent me the following note. >Hi Dr Thompson, > I am the one who originally put this up on the net the other day. It was >faxed to me from John Statdmiller of the shortwave show "The Intelligence >Report" with him and Mark Koernke. He personally called HCI and verified its >authenticity. > If you would like you can reach him directly at 616 XXXX voice, or 616 >XXXX fax. (Phone numbers deleted by me - ST) > If I can be of any further assistence please let me know. > All the best. Mike Pietrantoni > I also checked with Craig Fields at GOA. His response follows. GOA has received numerous questions regarding the validity of a supposed communication from Sarah Brady to the members of HCI, wherein it is mentioned that their next target will be gun shows. We don't doubt for a second that HCI would love to target gun shows, but we are of the opinion that the "letter" is in all likelihood a hoax. There are quite a few reasons for us to conclude that, although someone went to a considerable amount of trouble to create something that looks genuine. Let's just say that we are well aware of what HCI sends to its members, and we haven't seen this one. The salutation is different from what HCI uses nearly 100% of the time. There are typos. The grammatical styling is both different and of poorer quality than what HCI produces. The hard copies we have seen lack a small but always included graphical separator. If this is indeed a hoax-- it is remotely possible that it is genuine but that is quite a stretch-- the perpetrator has done a disservice to our cause. The time you have spent fretting over it could have been used to contact a legislator or write a letter to the editor. The time we had to spend checking this out could also have been spent in a more productive manner. And of course, Internet hoaxes do not die out easily. Maybe some good can come out of this. If you aren't part of the GOA E-Mail Alert Network, see below. In liberty, Craig. --Craig Fields Director of Electronic Communications, GOA Looks to me like it's probably a hoax, but judge for yourself. Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com April 19, 1775 - The Battles of Lexington and Concord April 19, 1783 - Congress proclaims victory in the American War of Independence April 19, 1933 - The US abandons the gold standard April 19, 1943 - The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising April 19, 1993 - The Branch Davidian Massacre at Waco April 19, 1995 - The Oklahoma City bombing What are YOU willing to do for freedom? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: A GUN IS ONLY A TOOL Date: 07 Apr 1998 20:06:00 -0700 Heads Up - A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia April 5, 1998 #79 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html A GUN IS ONLY A TOOL I am getting very tired of the socialist-liberal viewpoint in this country, and I am about to publicly tell a number of them (journalists, this time) to come up with some hard evidence to back up what they are saying or shut the hell up! This week, they're starting on the danger of citizen-owned guns again. These mush-mouthed hand-ringing buttinskys keep telling America that guns are bad. Guns are making our country a very dangerous land, they say. Guns kill people, they repeat. It's like the frontier days out there all over again, one babble-breath said. Listening to these fugitives from fact, one would think that the nefarious pistol in the drawer next to me is actually lying in wait for me to open the drawer so it can jump out and shoot me. A few years back I published a well circulated paper detailing the difference in violent crime between the United States and four European countries where guns are closely regulated. No matter that I used "official" FBI statistics, I was immediately chastised for being politically incorrect. Regardless, here's the basic (offending) data from the 1992 FBI Uniform Crime Report. The numbers are related in incidents per 100,000 population: Country ---- Murder ---- Robbery U.S.A. ------ 9.3 ------- 263.0 England ----- 7.4 -------- 62.6 France ------ 4.6 -------- 90.4 Germany ----- 4.2 -------- 47.4 Italy ------- 6.0 -------- 68.6 If these numbers are taken on their face value, the United States is truly more dangerous than these four European countries. However, a great deal of the crime in the United States is committed by street gang punks and other riffraff in the inner-city. The FBI did not correct for that. However, we still can get some idea of the source of the problem by using their figures for the race of the perpetrators. Color Murder Robbery -------------------- White 5.1 126 Black 43.1 1,343 All I've got to say about these numbers is that my Black friends and neighbors in Detroit intuitively knew them to be true. It was the liberal press, and of course the politicians, who didn't want to hear this stuff. The FBI defines justifiable homicide as being "limited to the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, or the killing by a private citizen of a felon during the commission of a felony." The FBI reports that, in 1995, there were a total of 383 justifiable homicides by police officers and another 286 by civilians. Most, of course, were justifiable shootings by the use of a handgun. The FBI identified 7,071 (31.5%) White and 8,285 (36.9%) Black murders in 1995. Another 6,660 (29.7%) were of unknown race. As politically incorrect as this information may be, these are the facts as per the FBI, an organization currently under the control of liberals. These data are posted on their web page for anyone to see. Yet, journalists and politicians never bother to look. The FBI report positively identifies 1,157 murders by juvenile gangs alone -- and that is just the ones they know about. They identify another 1,010 murders as drug related. And so on, and so on. The cold hard fact is that, in the States where people own and use guns the most, there are fewest murders. And it is a natural result, not a statistical anomaly, that as States begin issuing concealed carry weapons permits violent crime immediately decreases significantly. These are easily verifiable facts, available to anyone with a computer. Yet, the political nincompoops in Washington and their clue-less journalist sycophants persist in fabricating and disseminating inaccurate information to the American people. Well folks, it's time we have at them -- politically speaking, of course. I, for one, do not relish carrying around an extra two pounds of tooled steel when I go out. However, even in the beautiful foothills of Appalachia, that can sometimes be a wise thing to do. Therefore, it must always remain my option. Towards that end, we (many of us) would like to thank the Kentucky General Assembly, which recently passed HB-318 to help secure the right of all Americans to protect themselves. That bill will allow any licensed person, from any State which issues concealed carry permits, to carry a concealed weapon in Kentucky. It also orders the Kentucky State Police to secure reciprocity agreements with all States that currently issue CCW's so that Kentucky permit holders may carry in their respective States. Read it and weep liberals. Sometimes, things work as they should. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: April 15 column - wish list] Date: 08 Apr 1998 11:30:35 -0600 Not directly related to Utah gun issues, but a good read that touches on the topic of gun ownership and use. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED APRIL 15, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Wish list Occasional correspondent Bob wrote to ask me: "If you could repeal 10 federal laws, dismantle 10 federal agencies, or reverse 10 supreme court decisions, which laws, agencies or decisions would you choose? I guess that what I'm asking for is the libertarian 'hit list'." I warned Bob from the outset "There are a lot of pitfalls here, and room for (interesting, but perhaps counterproductive) debate." Experience proves that such exercises in fantasy can lead to not-very-useful squabbling about tactics and priorities, among folks who in fact haven't a ghost of a chance of closing (start ital)any(end ital) government ant farms, as things stand today. This only distracts our focus from the real enemy, the Cult of the Omnipotent State. But, that said, I attempted to answer Bob in good faith: # # # For starters, I strongly disagree with the "pragmatic Republican" concept, that you start by "closing" the DOC, the DOE, and the other DOE, since they're the most useless and thus the "easiest to trim." The implication is that these operations would be like Guadalcanal and North Africa, good live-fire warm-ups from which we would soon mobilize the forces of freedom to capture Manila and Rome. In fact, the current nature of our politics is that -- once the federal Department of Education is finally re-absorbed into some other federal bureaucracy (with no net loss of federal employment) and cheerfully declared "closed" -- the boys will all pat each other on the back and retire to the bar, with no incentive to do any more "government-trimming" for at least another election cycle. Sort of like starting the Second World War with the exploratory raids at Dieppe and Makin Island, and then declaring victory and sending everyone home. Instead, in this fantasy, we might do better to start by reversing the 1895 Supreme Court decision in Sparf and Hansen vs. United States, which acknowledged juries had the right and POWER to "judge the law as well as the fact," but ruled judges have no obligation to TELL jurors that ... the pragmatic effect being that judges now frequently LIE OUTRIGHT, telling juries "You will judge only the facts, deciding whether the law has been broken, as I explain it to you. You are not permitted to worry about whether the law is right or wrong, or whether the likely punishment is fair, or anything like that. The law is up to the Legislature, and the Supreme Court. ..." Obviously, this is nonsense, or we would never have had the John Peter Zenger verdict, let along the eventual abandonment of such evil laws as those against witchcraft, harboring runaway slaves, and purchase of alcohol, which no jury would enforce, no matter how thoroughly the prosecution proved "she done it." Instead, the Sparf court SHOULD have ruled that "In every jury trial, the judge shall painstakingly instruct the jurors that it is not merely their right, but also their duty, to apply their judgment and their common sense to the question not just of whether the letter of the law has been violated, but also whether said law is constitutional, and has been appropriately applied in this case, in the interest of justice. "Obviously, if they believe the law violates any of the Great Rights guaranteed by the first 10 Amendments, or was passed in excess of the Legislature's EXPRESS delegated authority, they must set the defendant free without ever COMING to the question of whether he or she committed the act charged, since (under the wise precedent of Marbury vs. Madison), any law which is unconstitutional, is null and void, and is to be treated as though it never was. "Constitutionality of the law in question is the FIRST question this and every jury must answer, for which purpose they shall be provided in their chambers with a copy of the appropriate statute book, and of their state and federal Constitutions, including the Bill of Rights, which (they will be reminded) is the Supreme Law of the Land." While actually freeing up courts and police to provide speedier justice for real, violent felons, this step would also serve the purpose of a quick vaccination, safeguarding the liberties of our fellow citizens during whatever time it takes us to deconstruct the rest of the collectivist police state. # # # After that, eliminating the IRS and its claimed authority, the 16th Amendment, would be paramount, since that would starve the beast. The degree of slavery and invasion of privacy to which we have grown accustomed under that regime is incalculable. Imagine being asked by a federal agent, "What's your address? Show me some ID. What's your Social Security number? How much did you earn last year?" and being able to reply: "None of those things are any of your business. I have no 'number.' I won't tell you whether I use any bank, or if so where. Yes, I happen to have $400,000 in cash in this bag, with no record of where I got it, or what I plan to do with it. And if you try to take a single dollar, I will shoot you dead, and every man here will buy me a beer for my trouble. Any other questions?" It would not generally be pragmatic to say such things today, so beaten down and accustomed are our fellow sufferers (and prospective jurors) to the role of docile, unquestioning beef cattle for our federal masters. With the income-tax amendment repealed, however, it would become obvious to all that this is the only proper response to any government attempt to invade our financial privacy. Next, of course, would have to come the shutting down the DEA and the repeal of all drug laws -- or overturning them for violating the Ninth Amendment, which they all do. (A constitutional amendment was required to authorize alcohol Prohibition, in 1919. When did we ratify the amendments authorizing Prohibition of previously-legal opium, cocaine and marijuana?) Uptight, blue-blazer "nerf libertarians" will whimper that this sounds as though our politics are merely a shield for permissiveness on drug use. In fact, I see no sign that any drug law has ever REDUCED drug use, so that's a red herring. (All such Prohibitions are merely failed bluffs. We bluff that if the minority youths won't stop using their drugs of choice, we'll put them all in prison ... hoping a few examples will convince them. Instead, they keep using marijuana and cocaine, so we're well on the way to putting them all in prison. But the original goal was not to build a huge prison industry, but to bluff them out of using their drugs of choice ... remember? The bluff has FAILED, long ago ... so badly that they're now even using their drugs of choice, IN prison.) # # # I choose the drug laws because they're the ones most commonly used to justify shredding and defecating all over the rest of the Bill of Rights, though they're followed closely by ... All federal firearms laws, starting with the big Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1968, both of which blatantly violate and dishonor the Second Amendment. Repeal or overturn them all, and disallow any future government sinecures or paychecks for any past or present agents of the ATF (while indicting a good many for fraud, coercion, treason, and depriving citizens of their civil rights under color of law). We would then find ourselves with an ARMED population of fully-informed jurors -- free men and women, peaceable and polite, no longer afraid of their own government. If the source of all power is in the people, and government agents are our servants, then it is only the ARMED CITIZEN who can ask the GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL to unload and hand over his or her firearm until our conversation is concluded. Law-abiding citizens will peaceably submit to arrest by unarmed officers, as the Brits have been proving for a century. But only if they believe they will have a fair chance to explain their case to a RANDOMLY-SELECTED and fully-informed jury of their peers, and in a hurry. Of course, we could just as well get rid of virtually any department, program, or allocation dreamed up since 1912. But I think the above would be a good morning's work, in terms of demonstrating how well America could survive -- as it happily and prosperously did from 1781 to 1912 -- with liberties restored, and the entire police state put out to pasture. You don't rediscover the Sleeping Beauty of liberty or the Constitution by delicately pruning away dead twigs from the outside of the thicket. You have to go in with bulldozers, hewing broad access corridors to the castle on Day One, while you're at your strongest. 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 "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." ----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. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- Santayana - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: vote in NBC poll -Forwarded Date: 09 Apr 1998 08:40:17 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA10096; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 03:21:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma010038; Tue Apr 7 03:19:10 1998 Message-Id: <7b96f94d.3529c379@aol.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: EdgarSuter@aol.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: fap@world.std.com Another poll on MSNBC Asking about support for the Permanate ban on military assault style firearms. GO VOTE http://www.msnbc.com/news/156278.asp John Wilson voyager@mo.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: NBC Boycott -Forwarded Date: 09 Apr 1998 08:52:03 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 09 Apr 1998 08:04:09 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA09725; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:01:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma009649; Thu Apr 9 09:57:04 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: handgnr@nwlink.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list >Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT) >X-Sender: holster@tiac.net >Mime-Version: 1.0 >To: raffica@ibm.net, fj1200s@woodland.mv.com, molly@xtdl.com, > jchoate003@aol.com, hgarrin@worldnet.att.net, hunthud@aol.com, > print@xtdl.com, rhodesc@petersenpub.com, duncan4521@aol.com, > handgnr@nwlink.com >From: Mitch Rosen >Subject: NBC Boycott > > From: Robert P. Firriolo >Subject: NBC BOYCOTT - LIRR "INCIDENT" TV MOVIE > Date: 04/07/98 07:59 PM > >NBC TV Movie Set to Attack RKBA and NRA > >Variety is reporting that the upcoming TV movie on the LIRR massacre >entitled "The Incident on Long Island" will contain unrestrained attacks >on the NRA and politicians (by name) who voted to repeal the "assault >weapon" ban. "Incident" is a fluff piece on notoriously anti-gun Rep. >Carolyn McCarthy (D, NY) and is produced by Barbra Streisand. > >Consider the following quote from Amy Archerd's 4/7/98 Variety story: > > [Director Joe] Sargent, now in final post on the > TriStar-NBC project, tells me the script explains > how the NRA errs in its claims of protection for > the Second Amendment. A lobbyist in the movie > states, "Did you know that former Chief Justice > Burger called the NRA's misrepresentation of the > Second Amendment one of the greatest pieces of fraud > on the American public by special interest groups > that he'd ever seen -- the Second Amendment has never > been about the right of an individual to bear arms! > It's about the right to arm a militia. A well- > regulated militia." > >This program is scheduled to be broadcast by NBC on May 3, during >"sweeps week." For those who do not know, that is the period when TV >ratings are most carefully analyzed. Among other things, it allows >broadcasters to set advertising rates based on the popularity of their >shows. It is a safe bet that NBC will rerun the program before the >November election, too, as Rep. McCarthy is running for re-election for >the first time. > >Let me be the first to suggest contacting NBC and informing them that >not only will you and your family not watch the show, but you will >boycott all sponsors who advertise on the program. Tell them we will >not stand for intentional distortions of fact and slander of the NRA, >RKBA, and our political allies. > >If this promise of a boycott picks up steam, it may be hard for NBC to >sell advertising for the program. I doubt we can keep it off the air, >but we can make these anti-freedom Hollywood elite's jobs tougher. We >may even get them to edit out the anti-gun content, but I wouldn't hold >my breath waiting for that to happen. > >We have to try, though. Start contacting NBC now. > >Send your comments to movies@nbc.com. > >Please forward and cross-post. > >__________________ >Robert P. Firriolo > >******************************************************************* >"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 >******************************************************************* > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: I just called BATF re magazine ban (fwd) -Forwarded Date: 09 Apr 1998 17:15:07 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 09 Apr 1998 16:51:41 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id SAA03491; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:48:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma003301; Thu Apr 9 18:47:25 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: pwatson@utdallas.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Dan Day" I was curious about the extent of the full ramifications of Feinstein's "big magazine ban", so I called up the text of the bill at the GPO site. It's short and sweet, and just does two simple things: 1. Outlaws importation of any large magazine, by anyone, period. (A "large magazine" is any magazine over 10 rounds which is not a tubular .22 magazine). 2. Makes it illegal to "transfer" any large magazine (except by the government elite, of course). It would remain legal to continue to own any pre-1994 magazines that you already have in your possession. Note, however, the word "transfer" in #2 above. What, exactly, is legally considered a "transfer"? Not knowing the finer points of that myself, I decided to call the folks who would be in charge of actually enforcing that law. The local Houston BATF office wasn't really sure, so they referred me to the ATF's Assistant Chief Counsel office in Dallas. There, an ATF lawyer answered the phone, and was quite helpful. "Transfer", as you would expect, includes sale, trade, pawn, or giving as a gift, since clearly a transfer of legal ownership is a "transfer". However, I was surprised to learn that the courts have also decreed that borrowing, using, or handling an item that belongs to someone else is also considered a "transfer", even if the owner is standing right there next to you. The ATF attorney mentioned a late-70's 5th Circuit Court case in which someone was nailed for simply handling a machine gun long enough to shoot it at a range while the owner was standing nearby. The attorney also opined that technically you could get busted for an illegal "transfer" for simply handing a magazine to someone for them to look at for ten seconds. Yes, that's right -- if Feinstein's bill passes, you can become a convicted felon under federal law if *anyone* besides you handles your magazine, or however briefly shoots your firearm if it has a large magazine in it (as many modern pistols do). I also asked him what happens to your magazines when you die, since there's no legal way they can be "transferred" from your estate to a new owner. He admitted that this was a good question, and he had no idea as to what the answer would be. Laws concerning NFA weapons (e.g. machine guns) have an explicit "death transfer" clause, but Feinstein's ban does not. It seems to me that technically even picking up your magazine (from your cold dead fingers) to take it away to be destroyed would be considered an illegal transfer. Finally, I was amused that when I asked the ATF attorney if I had his permission to mention his name in this article, he replied "I'd really rather you didn't"... -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: NRA Alert -Forwarded Date: 10 Apr 1998 16:34:12 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:20:37 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id QAA02968; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:18:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma002864; Fri Apr 10 16:17:08 1998 Message-Id: <199804101948.MAA23101@gde.GDEsystems.COM> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: James.McBride@gdesystems.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Haven't seen this on the list yet: Call your senators today (4/9/98). Tell them to support Sen. Craig's amendment (S.Amdt. 1604) to override Komrade Klinton's recent gun ban by executive order. All the guns he just banned are legal under the rules he made in 1994. Senate phone no.: 202-224-3121 also call your representative at 202-224-3121 and tell him to support the companion bill, H.R. 2734. CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND TELL THEM TO DO THIS TODAY!!! L. Mahanay - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: MinuteMan Alert Network Date: 10 Apr 1998 23:23:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- IGNITION POINT Gun Owners of America, Inc. 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 E-Mail: goamail@gunowners.org http://www.gunowners.org *** A Special Message From Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America *** Dear Fellow American: It happened in Nazi Germany about (60) years ago. It is happening in England as of July 1, 1997. It has even happened in New York City, New York. First, gun registration. Then, gun confiscation. In Congress anti-gunners are still on the offensive toward their goal of a complete ban on private firearms ownership. As you may know, Gun Owners of America is the no-compromise gun rights lobby organization supported by hundreds of thousands of pro-gun friends across America. Our position on gun control is: It's not Constitutional. And to make sure politicians get the message, we work with grassroots pro-gunners. Gun Owners of America and our members have no problem saying to the legislators who want to sell-out our rights "Don't tread on me and my gun rights." In Washington, Gun Owners of America fights legislative battles to protect your gun rights. However, sometimes the best defense is a good offense. In fact, in over a half a dozen states -- in 1997 alone -- Gun Owners of America staff and members have been working with state legislatures to repeal laws that force gun owners to get a permission slip in order to carry a gun concealed. We are also on the offensive to push for a "Vermont-style" concealed carry law that simply says every law abiding citizen has the right to carry a gun concealed. There are no government hoops, no fingerprints, no mandatory training, no forms, no licenses, and no fees. This is Gun Owners of America's position: NO GUN CONTROL ALLOWED. Now it's time to take that aggressive offensive approach to reclaiming our gun rights to legislative battles in Washington D.C. and your state capital. Will you join the effort? I AM ASKING YOU TO JOIN OUR FREE LEGISLATIVE ALERT AND ACTION NETWORK -- THE MINUTEMAN ALERT. MinuteMan Alert participants receive timely communication alerts (via e-mail) when there are bills or other actions being made in Washington or your state capital. As a participant, you'll get the facts you need to let the politicians know just where you -- the pro-gun voter -- stand and what the politician must do. Your action will apply pressure to legislators when they need it the most. Together with other gun rights supporters you and I can make the legislator "feel the heat" until they "see the light." As you know, petitioning an elected official is a powerful legislative tool. Elected officials fear angry voters. That is why grass-roots action is so powerful. It reminds elected officials that they are there to serve the people and will be held accountable by the people. But you know that when push comes to shove, politics is a numbers game. Hundreds means more than tens, and thousands mean more than hundreds. That is why I am asking you to subscribe, right now, to Gun Owners of America's MinuteMan Alert. Every person counts. You can make the difference. ITS EASY TO SUBSCRIBE, HERE'S HOW: 1) SEND AN E-MAIL MESSAGE (OR FORWARD THIS MESSAGE) TO GOAMAIL@GUNOWNERS.ORG 2) BE SURE TO INDICATE WHICH STATE YOU LIVE IN AND LIST THAT INFORMATION IN THE SUBJECT LINE OR BODY OF THE MESSAGE. After you send Gun Owners of America a request to subscribe, you should shortly thereafter receive a confirmation e-mail from our office. After that, you will receive alerts as they become necessary. I hope that you will subscribe to Gun Owners of America's MinuteMan Alert Network. As you can tell, there is nothing to lose -- it is a free service. All I ask is that you try to take the requested action in the alerts you receive. Also, please know that your e-mail address will remain confidential. If you would like more information you may call our main phone number [703-321-8585] and request an information pack on Gun Owners of America or you may e-mail your request to: goamail@gunowners.org You may also visit our Internet Web Site at http://www.gunowners.org I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Larry Pratt Executive Director Gun Owners of America, Inc. 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 E-Mail: goamail@gunowners.org - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Sarah's wants your AR-15s, M1As. and M1 Carbines. Date: 13 Apr 1998 08:16:05 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:52:33 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA25938; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:50:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma025877; Sat Apr 11 14:48:45 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980411134353.0080c400@texoma.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: joesylvester@texoma.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list "By banning the importation of assault rifles accepting large capacity magazines holding more than ten rounds, today=92s ruling affects weapons = like the military-style carbine that was used in the Jonesboro shooting and which had a 15-round magazine. The same tests that are being applied to imported assault weapons should also be applied to domestically manufactured weapons. While imports alway= s have been the major source of assault rifles in this country, today=92s action still leaves the door open for domestic manufacturers to circumven= t the federal assault weapon ban. Congress should move to close this loopho= le by adopting standards for domestic weapons that mirror today=92s ruling." Full statement available at: http://www.handguncontrol.org/c-main.htm The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution.=20 ---Doug McKay" =20 Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: ARCHERD: Streisand Takes Aim At Guns Date: 13 Apr 1998 14:34:55 -0600 >Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:03:20 -0700 (PDT) >X-Sender: suntzu75@pop.ncal.verio.com >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 >To: "Sun Tzu's Firearms Advisory" >From: "Sun Tzu's Firearms Newswire" >Subject: More B.S. -- ARCHERD: Streisand Takes Aim At Guns > >Yahoo! News Entertainment Headlines > >Tuesday April 7, 1998 8:39 AM EDT > >ARCHERD: Streisand Takes Aim At Guns > >By Army Archerd, Daily Variety Senior Columnist >Reuters/Variety ^REUTERS@ > >HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - On the heels of this week's announcement by >President Clinton banning the importation of assault weapons, comes >a report that "The Incident on Long Island" will pull no punches. > >The NBC TV movie attacks the NRA and what the show calls the NRA's >"fraudulent" claims of gun protection under the Second Amendment. >Charlton Heston (who has an NRA "leadership position") loudly >proclaims these assertions in his column in Guns & Ammo and in an >NRA ad in the current Popular Mechanics in which he demands, "Why >don't you demand the Second Amendment be taught at your kid's school? >Fight back." > >The NBC telefilm is being switched into the sweeps, May 3. It is a >Barwood production, exec produced by Barbra Streisand and Cis Corman >and Jordan Davis, and directed by Joe Sargent. It is the story of >Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D.-N.Y.) and tells her story "from >housewife to gun-control advocate to congresswoman." Streisand's >Barwood became involved in TV only to be able to produce important >subjects, like this, that would not make it to the bigscreen. > >The "incident" was the murder of six and the injuring of 19 others on >Dec. 7, 1993, on the Long Island Commuter train. One of those killed >was McCarthy's husband, Dennis, while their son Kevin was critically >wounded. Laurie Metcalf plays McCarthy. The script by Maria Nation >calls the NRA by name repeatedly. Sargent, now in final post on the >TriStar-NBC project, tells me the script explains how the NRA errs >in its claims of protection for the Second Amendment. > >A lobbyist in the movie states, "Did you know that former Chief Justice >Burger called the NRA's misrepresentation of the Second Amendment one >of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special >interest groups that he'd ever seen -- the Second Amendment has never >been about the right of an individual to bear arms! It's about the >right to arm a militia. A well-regulated militia." Sargent also says >the show "names names of Congressman who tried to avoid the issue -- >and Congressmen (like Dan Frisa) who received funding from the NRA." And >Bob Dole, who led the fight to repeal the ban on semi-automatic assault >weapons which allowed 19 brands of assault weapons to once again be >legally sold. Sargent says Streisand "went out of her way" to get this >idea pitched to NBC with Corman. Rick Rosenberg and Bob Christiansen >produce. Before the "incident," Congresswoman McCarthy was a Republican, >by the way. > >Two days before Sargent started to direct the film, he reports, "My >cousin got hold of a gun and blew his brains out." > >The director will have two shows airing during sweeps: the other is "The >Wall" about the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in D.C. and the mementos left >there; it airs on Showtime May 24. He is again talking to Showtime to film >a story about pleas for peace in Ireland. > >As for "Incident," he says, "We hope a little of this common sense will >rub off." Many in the biz are hoping it will and are committed to the >end of violence via their Committee to End Violence, headed >by Sy Gomberg, Lloyd Bochner and Allen Manning, who are joined by 197 >creative members of the biz in a pledge to cut down gratuitous, >excessive and unpunished violence. >---- @ > > Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. > A. J. Liebling, The Wayward Press > Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com April 19, 1775 - The Battles of Lexington and Concord April 19, 1783 - Congress proclaims victory in the American War of Independence April 19, 1933 - The US abandons the gold standard April 19, 1943 - The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising April 19, 1993 - The Branch Davidian Massacre at Waco April 19, 1995 - The Oklahoma City bombing What are YOU willing to do for freedom? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Duane Cardal Date: 13 Apr 1998 15:42:07 -0700 Please call Duane Cardall at 801-535-5555 Constitutional Rights are Not Trivial On April 10, 1998 Duane Cardall made an editorial on KSL television and Radio where he criticized gun owners, referred to as the *gun lobby* for their efforts to keep their rights to carry concealed weapons. He called such people who wanted to protect their rights names such as calloused, and obstinate. Mr. Cardall inferred that criminal acts of two adolescent boys at Jonesboro were the fault of law-abiding citizens who own firearms for personal protection and that the founding fathers were wrong to include a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. He said that #unless they compromise a bit on issues without serious constitutional bearing, they're likely to face a public backlash that ultimately could result in what they fear most...a revocation of their constitutional right to bear arms.# I think it would be appropriate to remind Mr. Cardall that #the gun lobby# is so powerful mostly because of the widespread participation of ordinary people who are not involved in politics as a profession or enjoy access to communication such as do journalists. If people who protect their rights are called calloused and obstinate, perhaps he should consider the virtues of a five-day waiting period for a government review before he releases his next editorial opinion. Or perhaps his own threat is applicable here: If the news media #compromise a bit# on their right to bias reporting however they want, they could lose their right to free speech. We should remember that 60 years ago that there was a very charismatic leader who promised the people safe streets if they would register their firearms, wealth if government could regulate industry and to make their country the greatest in the world if they surrender some trivial freedoms. Today we call that form of government fascism. Today we have a very charismatic leader who promises safe streets if we ban a list of firearms that grows longer every year, great economic progress if we will submit to government regulation and to lead our nation into a bright new millennium if we will only surrender some trivial freedoms. Today our leader is Bill Clinton, arguably the most corrupt president in American history and the liberal news media is behind him all the way. Neil Sagers Duane Cardall can be reached for comment at 801-535-5555 or at duane.cardall@ksl.com. The text if Mr. Cardall*s editorial appears below and can be found at http://www.ksl.com/TV/opinion.htm GUNS AND LITTLE GIRLS April 10, 1998 Before many more days dim the memory of the tragedy of Jonesboro, let's talk about guns. The causes of that horrible scene run deep with blame being placed on everything from violence in the media to the breakdown of the family. Whatever the cause, the tool used to carry out the deed was a gun. The arguments of the powerful gun lobby aside, can anyone who saw the graphic images from that rural Arkansas school yard honestly doubt that our nation is paying a terrible price for allowing such easy access to guns? Yes, the Bill of Rights certainly allows Americans to keep and bear arms. But this is 1998, not 1776, and something about four little girls and a teacher, shot down in cold blood in a school yard causes us to wonder if the Founding Fathers would feel the same about the Second Amendment if they were here today. KSL knows the issue is emotional and even as we speak, gun advocates are heading to their keyboards to pound out responses to what we've said. It's a powerful lobby that once again this year successfully shot down efforts in Utah to keep concealed weapons out of places like schools and churches, even though 90-percent of Utahns favor such restrictions. KSL says its time for gun lobbyists to quit being so calloused, so obstinate. Unless they compromise a bit on issues without serious constitutional bearing, they're likely to face a public backlash that ultimately could result in what they fear most...a revocation of their constitutional right to bear arms. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [chardy: [[The Real Lesson of the School Shootings - WSJ])]]] Date: 13 Apr 1998 16:04:28 -0600 I accidently deleted David's messgae about the KSL editorial against guns. Would someone please forward this along to KSL and/or drop me a copy of the message so I can. Thanks. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- From the Friday 27 March 1998 edition of the Wall Street Journal, page A14, lower, right-hand section. Passed along for educational purposes. By JOHN R. LOTT JR. This week's horrific shootings in Arkansas have, predictably, spurred calls for more gun control. But it's worth noting that the shootings occurred in one of the few places in Arkansas where possessing a gun is illegal. Arkansas, Kentucky and Mississippi--the three states that have had deadly shootings in public schools over the past half-year--all allow law-abiding adults to carry concealed handgun for self-protection, except in public schools. Indeed, federal law generally prohibits guns within 1,000 feet of a school. Gun prohibitionists concede that banning guns around schools has not quite worked as intended--but their response has been to call for more regulations of guns. Yet what might appear to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them. Obviously the police cannot be everywhere, so these laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. Consider a fact hardly mentioned during the massive news coverage of the October 1997 shooting spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss.: An assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically immobilized the gunman for a full 41/2 minutes while waiting for the police to arrive. The gunman had already fatally shot two students (after earlier stabbing his mother to death). Who knows how many lives the assistant principal saved by his prompt response? Allowing teachers and other law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns in schools would not only make it easier to stop shootings in progress. It could also help deter shootings from ever occurring. Twenty-five or more years ago in Israel, terrorists would pull out machine guns in malls and fire away at civilians. However, with expanded concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon found the ordinary people around them pulling pistols on them. Suffice it to say, terrorists in Israel no longer engage in such public shootings--they have switched to bombing, a tactic that doesn't allow the intended victims to respond. The one recent shooting of schoolchildren in Israel further illustrates these points. On March 13, 1997, seven seventh- and eighth-grade Israeli girls were shot to death by a Jordanian soldier while they visited Jordan's so-called Island of Peace. The Los Angeles Times reports that the Israelis had "complied with Jordanian requests to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave. Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several parents said." Together with my colleague William Landes, I have studied multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two people were killed or injured in a public place; to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas we excluded shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery. The U.S. averaged 21 such shootings per year, with an average of 1.8 people killed and 2.7 wounded in each one. We examined a whole range of different gun laws as well as other methods of deterrence, such as the death penalty. However, only one policy succeeded in reducing deaths and injuries from these shootings--allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. The effect of "shall-issue" concealed handgun laws--which give adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness--has been dramatic. Thirty-one states now have such laws. When states passed them during the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%. Higher arrest rates and increased use of the death penalty slightly reduced the incidence of these events, but the effects were never statistically significant. With over 19,600 people murdered in 1996, those killed in multiple victim public shootings account for fewer than 0.2% of the total. Yet these are surely the murders that attract national as well as international attention, often for days after the attack. Victims recount their feelings of utter helplessness as a gunman methodically shoots his cowering prey. Unfortunately, much of the public policy debate is driven by lopsided coverage of gun use. Tragic events like those in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but discussions of the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively--including cases in which public shootings are stopped before they happen--are ignored. Dramatic stories of mothers who prevented their children from being kidnapped by carjackers seldom even make the local news. Attempts to outlaw guns from schools, no matter how well meaning, have backfired. Instead of making schools safe for children, we have made them safe for those intent on harming our children. Current school policies fire teachers who even accidentally bring otherwise legal concealed handguns to school. We might consider reversing this policy and begin rewarding teachers who take on the responsibility to help protect children. Mr. Lott, a fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law, is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime," forthcoming in early May from the University of Chicago Press. ----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. A camel is a horse designed by a committee and an elephant is a mouse built to military specifications." -- from page 321 of "Cryptoanalysis for Microcomputers" by Caxton C. Foster (University of Massachusetts), Hayden Book Co. Inc., 1982. ----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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [chardy: [[The Real Lesson of the School Shootings - Date: 13 Apr 1998 16:49:16 -0700 Charles: I e-mailed and faxed your WSJ article to Duane Cardall at KSL. Thanks for keeping that one on file, it hits the nail on the head. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan -Forwarded Date: 13 Apr 1998 16:59:09 -0700 Does anyone know if this is true or is it just another fund raising gimmick from HCI? ======================================================== Hi all! Thanks to Scott for posting this. If anyone has an actual verifiable copy of this fax, would you please let me know as I'd like to get a copy. Thanks! Sarah At 10:22 PM 4/5/98 -0700, you wrote: > >On Ed Wolfe's website, Nation In Distress: >http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/ > >06/08/14 StTN 12:35 FAX Sarah Brady > >Dear Handgun Control Member, > >I have marked this letter to you "confidential" because I am requesting >that you avoid discussing the contents publicly for the next several weeks. > >This is because we are about to initiate action that, if successful, >will weaken the stranglehold that the gun industry, the NRA, and other >gun fanatics have over local and national gun laws. > >And I am urgently requesting you to make an extraordinary gift to help >strengthen our cause. > >Please let me quickly explain our plans; and then you will understand >why both your generosity and secrecy are required. > >In brief, we believe there is a strong parallel between the gun industry >and the tobacco companies! As you know, citizens at the local and state >level rose up in anger and demanded clean air in restaurants and offices >when Congress failed to take action. > >Here at Handgun Control Inc., it is our regrettable conclusion that this >current Congress is not going to take the initiative on gun safety for >America. Legislation is bogged down. The NRA and other gun industry lobbying >groups have multi-million dollar war chests set aside for this election year. > >Consequently, it will be extremely difficult to pass any significant >legislation this year. > >And so, even though we will not let up on our efforts in congress, >our focus is going to make a dramatic shift. > >And we want to keep this shift as quiet as possible while we develop our plan. > >In a few weeks, I will be announcing to the nation: > >The Citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking > >Even the title of this campaign will cause shockwaves to run through >the gun industry and the NRA at local and national levels. > >We will be taking a page from the anti-smoking victories, where local >ordinances banned smoking in public facilities and eventually forced >state and national legislation to protest Americans' right to a >smoke-free environment. > >And we'll remember the victories in the anti-drunk-driving movement, as well. > >M.A.D.D. was formed by a small group of mothers whose children had been >killed by drunk drivers; they gathered supporters and strength at the >grassroots level around the country, and before long these mothers >started to be taken seriously everywhere, even on capitol Hill. Now, >most states have tougher penalties for drunk drivers and the liquor >industry is providing anti-drunk-driving messages in their advertising. > >In much the same way, we're going to attack the gun industry and the gun >pushers at the most basic point; where money is exchanged for guns. > >The Attack point: Local Gun Shows! > >Local gun shows make it extremely easy to purchase a gun for private or >criminal use. And that's because most of the guns at the shows are sold >by private individuals, not by dealers; and, therefore, in most states >they are not covered by laws requiring background checks or paperwork! > >So you can walk into a gun show, strike up a conversation with the guy >hawking the M-l carbine, admire its light kick, repetitive fire, and >ability to accept large magazine clips. > >Then you talk to that strange man parading around in his military >fatigues, and later you meet him on the street, give him the necessary >cash and the firearm is yours. > >All legal in most states, as long as that fellow is not a licensed gun dealer! > >Loophole: The Second-Hand Market > >Right now, federal laws focus primarily on purchases of handguns from >licensed dealers. And the Brady Handgun violence and prevention Act has >stopped many criminals from buying handguns from licensed dealers. > >But most states have no laws preventing one individual from selling a >weapon to another, as long as the seller is not a licensed gun dealer. > >"The individual purchasing the gun does not have to show identification, >does not have to submit to background checks. And the person selling >the gun does not need to keep a written record of the transaction or the >buyer's address and social Security number. Also, quite obviously, >there is no waiting period. All in all, this is the most outrageous >loophole in our federal gun laws. > >And gun shows are where criminals do their shopping; where the >second-hand gun market really thrives. > >And so, this is why one of our first goals in The Citizens Campaign Against >Community Gun Trafficking is going to be to close down the gun shows! > >These gun shows are most often held on public property: civic centers, >school gymnasiums, fairgrounds, city and county convention centers. > >And these giant weapons bazaars have developed considerable notoriety, >because of such high-profile cases as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy >Mcveigh, who was reported to have bought or sold weapons at gun shows. > >A recent issue of "Shotgun News", the "bible" of the gun pushers, >advertised over 500 gun shows for the last three months of 1997 alone. >And this does not include many of the smaller shows and swap meets. > >I believe that now you can see why our Citizens campaign Against >Community Gun Trafficking is going to result in tremendous controversy. > >And I wish that we could keep it secret; 100% secret; until we are >ready to launch the campaign. > >But, unlike the NRA and the right-wing, gun toting fanatics, we do not >have a multi-million dollar war chest. We depend upon grassroots support >from friends like you. And so I wanted to take the calculated risk and >share this plan with you, and hope that you will step forward and send >a significant gift to express your belief that citizens, with or without >Congress, can get things done! > >In a few weeks, if you're interested, I will forward to you a 'Citizens >Action Kit," detailing exactly what can be done in your local community. > >We intend to bring pressure upon mayors, city councils, school boards, >churches, and all property owners to ban the use of any facility for gun shows. > >Already, we are working with Dade county, Florida, mounting an all-out >assault on gun shows in that area. I will be reporting to you about >that innovative and successful initiative before long. But, as of >now, we are not quite ready to go public with the results. > >But I must quickly bring this letter to a close, after I warn you that >this is going to be a long, hard-fought campaign. > >After all, it took many, many years before the tobacco industry felt the >heat of local citizens demanding a smoke-tree environment. > >So we must be patient, firm, determined and uncompromising. > >Our enemies will incorrectly and misleadingly scream about freedom of >speech and freedom of assembly. But in turn, we will quietly remind >them that America is involved in a gun war that is claiming 35,000 >lives each year including 9,OOO murdered by handguns. > >And we'll remind them that Americans must responsibly report transactions >involving cars, liquor and other products. Why should gun sales be exempt? > >Every day 14 children, 19 years old and under, are killed by handguns. Much >of this mayhem is made possible by the use of public property for gun shows. > >These statistics are tragic proof that a state of war exists. > >And, as you know, in my case, the statistic became personal heartbreak >when my husband Jim was grievously wounded by a bullet intended for >President Reagan. > >You and I must make America a safer place to live. Let's do it! > >P.S. I urge you to turn to the enclosed reply slip and write out a check >in one of the amounts I've indicated. Or perhaps you can give more. >But please do the best you can. > >I look forward to receiving your support, and I will trust in your silence >as we prepare our citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Hartley Anderson and Washington Co.Convention -Forwarded Date: 14 Apr 1998 08:51:30 -0700 Received: from Chirob@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 3LHVa11820; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 02:16:09 -0500 (EDT) Message-ID: <8138ef3f.3532ff2a@aol.com> flynnd@juno.com, dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us, steves@aros.net, SAGERNW@THIOKOL.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64 Thought you all might like to see this. Could be very interesting. I can not receive KWUN up here where I live. If any of you listen, please give me a report. Thanks, Lori I received this from Richard Partridge who is a candidate in Box Elder for Peter Knudsen's old seat. I'll be sustitute host for Kay Henry from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM on Tuesday, April 14 on KWUN-1230 AM My guests will be Hartley Anderson and Gerry Arthus, who are planning a press conference that morning to expose and denounce the duplicity of Rob Bishop, state chair of the Republican Party of Utah. They will cite Bishop's serving as a paid lobbyist for 12 companies (check "Lobbyists" on the Lt. Gov's website); refusal at two county conventions to sign a pledge supporting the GOP's state party platform; blatant favortism towards incumbents; denial of delegate lists despite Anderson's withdrawing his Libertarian Party filing despite Bishop's insistence and promises; and threatening to have Anderson arrested if he spoke for more than six minutes at the Washington County convention. According to Gerry, Republican county delegates who have learned about Bishop's capitalizing on his state chair's position to be a highly paid lobbyist for companies, like Envirocare and TCI, whose activities run contrary to the GOP platform, are outraged. (I am considering proposing an "ethics amendment" to our constitution to further assure voters and members that Libertarians are not hypocrites.) It is estimated that Bishop earns $500,000 a year from lobbying as the head of the state GOP. And, as noted previously, I'll be a guest on Jim Kirkwood's show from 10:00 AM to Noon on Wednesday, April 15 on KTKK-630 AM - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Assault gun ban stalls in Assembly (fwd) -Forwarded Date: 14 Apr 1998 08:52:43 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 19:38:42 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id VAA22679; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 21:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma022585; Mon Apr 13 21:35:48 1998 Message-Id: <199804140032.AAA14811@heproc.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: reimann@radix.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list One vote short. Just one. ---Forwarded Msg--- Monday, 13 April Carolyn Hart : Monday April 13 5:34 PM EDT Assault gun ban stalls in Assembly SACRAMENTO, Calif., April 13 (UPI) _ Legislation to strengthen and expand California's prohibition of assault weapons has fallen one vote short (Monday) of going to the governor. The bill failed on an Assembly vote of concurrence in Senate amendments, but the author received permission to try again on another day. It would replace the current list of outlawed, military-style semiautomatic weapons with a much broader, generic description of guns to be prohibited. http://biz.yahoo.com/upi/98/04/13/general_news/usassault_1.html ---End Forwarded Msg--- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: KSL Date: 14 Apr 1998 08:56:48 -0700 Charles: Assuming KSL will allow an opposing view point, do you have anyone in mind to give the rebuttal. Are you interested? Perhaps Janalee? I am still working to get an answer from KSL. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: KSL Date: 14 Apr 1998 10:33:54 -0600 On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, DAVID SAGERS posted: >Charles: > >Assuming KSL will allow an opposing view point, do you have anyone in >mind to give the rebuttal. Are you interested? Perhaps Janalee? > >I am still working to get an answer from KSL. I was hoping for someone better spoken and presented than myself. Janalee might be a good choice although it was you that I had in mind. -- 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. "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Duane Cardall - Anti-Gun Editorial Date: 14 Apr 1998 15:51:09 -0700 Many of us are aware of the less than favorable editorial Duane Cardall gave on KSL TV. (See below) I spoke with Duane Cardall this morning, he was cordial and receptive to my comments. Mr Cardall has received mountains of responses from his anti-gun editorial. The purpose of my call to Mr. Cardall is that KSL used to allow people the chance to appear on TV with a different view point, unfortunately, KSL has discontinued this program. Mr. Cardall is reviewing the responses and will choose from among them and present one or more of these letters sometime in the next couple of weeks. He said that if anyone else wants to respond to his editorial they should get their letters to him quickly, as he wants to narrow down the pile to two or three letters sometime in the next week. ========================================================== GUNS AND LITTLE GIRLS April 10, 1998 Before many more days dim the memory of the tragedy of Jonesboro, let's talk about guns. The causes of that horrible scene run deep with blame being placed on everything from violence in the media to the breakdown of the family. Whatever the cause, the tool used to carry out the deed was a gun. The arguments of the powerful gun lobby aside, can anyone who saw the graphic images from that rural Arkansas school yard honestly doubt that our nation is paying a terrible price for allowing such easy access to guns? Yes, the Bill of Rights certainly allows Americans to keep and bear arms. But this is 1998, not 1776, and something about four little girls and a teacher, shot down in cold blood in a school yard causes us to wonder if the Founding Fathers would feel the same about the Second Amendment if they were here today. KSL knows the issue is emotional and even as we speak, gun advocates are heading to their keyboards to pound out responses to what we've said. It's a powerful lobby that once again this year successfully shot down efforts in Utah to keep concealed weapons out of places like schools and churches, even though 90-percent of Utahns favor such restrictions. KSL says its time for gun lobbyists to quit being so calloused, so obstinate. Unless they compromise a bit on issues without serious constitutional bearing, they're likely to face a public backlash that ultimately could result in what they fear most...a revocation of their constitutional right to bear arms. ======================================================= Please call Duane Cardall at 801-575-5555, Fax 575-5560 Constitutional Rights are Not Trivial On April 10, 1998 Duane Cardall made an editorial on KSL television and Radio where he criticized gun owners, referred to as the *gun lobby* for their efforts to keep their rights to carry concealed weapons. He called such people who wanted to protect their rights names such as calloused, and obstinate. Mr. Cardall inferred that criminal acts of two adolescent boys at Jonesboro were the fault of law-abiding citizens who own firearms for personal protection and that the founding fathers were wrong to include a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. He said that *unless they compromise a bit on issues without serious constitutional bearing, they're likely to face a public backlash that = ultimately could result in what they fear most...a revocation of their constitutional right to bear arms.* I think it would be appropriate to remind Mr. Cardall that *the gun lobby* is so powerful mostly because of the widespread participation of ordinary people who are not involved in politics as a profession or enjoy access to communication such as do journalists. If people who protect their rights are called calloused and obstinate, perhaps he should consider the virtues of a five-day waiting period for a government review before he releases his next editorial opinion. Or perhaps his own threat is applicable here: If the news media *compromise a bit* on their right to bias reporting however they want, they could lose their right to free speech. We should remember that 60 years ago that there was a very charismatic leader who promised the people safe streets if they would register their firearms, wealth if government could regulate industry and to make their country the greatest in the world if they surrender some trivial freedoms. Today we call that form of government fascism. Today we have a very charismatic leader who promises safe streets if we ban a list of firearms that grows longer every year, great economic progress if we will submit to government regulation and to lead our nation into a bright new millennium if we will only surrender some trivial freedoms. Today our leader is Bill Clinton, arguably the most corrupt president in American history and the liberal news media is behind him all the way. Duane Cardall can be reached for comment at 801-535-5555 or at duane.cardall@ksl.com. The text if Mr. Cardall*s editorial appears below and can be found at http://www.ksl.com/TV/opinion.htm ======================================================== ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE---- From the Friday 27 March 1998 edition of the Wall Street Journal, page A14, lower, right-hand section. Passed along for educational purposes. By JOHN R. LOTT JR. This week's horrific shootings in Arkansas have, predictably, spurred calls for more gun control. But it's worth noting that the shootings occurred in one of the few places in Arkansas where possessing a gun is illegal. Arkansas, Kentucky and Mississippi--the three states that have had deadly shootings in public schools over the past half-year--all allow law-abiding adults to carry concealed handgun for self-protection, except in public schools. Indeed, federal law generally prohibits guns within 1,000 feet of a school. Gun prohibitionists concede that banning guns around schools has not quite worked as intended--but their response has been to call for more regulations of guns. Yet what might appear to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them. Obviously the police cannot be everywhere, so these laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. Consider a fact hardly mentioned during the massive news coverage of the October 1997 shooting spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss.: An assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically immobilized the gunman for a full 41/2 minutes while waiting for the police to arrive. The gunman had already fatally shot two students (after earlier stabbing his mother to death). Who knows how many lives the assistant principal saved by his prompt response? Allowing teachers and other law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns in schools would not only make it easier to stop shootings in progress. It could also help deter shootings from ever occurring. Twenty-five or more years ago in Israel, terrorists would pull out machine guns in malls and fire away at civilians. However, with expanded concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon found the ordinary people around them pulling pistols on them. Suffice it to say, terrorists in Israel no longer engage in such public shootings--they have switched to bombing, a tactic that doesn't allow the intended victims to respond. The one recent shooting of schoolchildren in Israel further illustrates these points. On March 13, 1997, seven seventh- and eighth-grade Israeli girls were shot to death by a Jordanian soldier while they visited Jordan's so-called Island of Peace. The Los Angeles Times reports that the Israelis had "complied with Jordanian requests to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave. Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several parents said." Together with my colleague William Landes, I have studied multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two people were killed or injured in a public place; to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas we excluded shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery. The U.S. averaged 21 such shootings per year, with an average of 1.8 people killed and 2.7 wounded in each one. We examined a whole range of different gun laws as well as other methods of deterrence, such as the death penalty. However, only one policy succeeded in reducing deaths and injuries from these shootings--allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. The effect of "shall-issue" concealed handgun laws--which give adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness--has been dramatic. Thirty-one states now have such laws. When states passed them during the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%. Higher arrest rates and increased use of the death penalty slightly reduced the incidence of these events, but the effects were never statistically significant. With over 19,600 people murdered in 1996, those killed in multiple victim public shootings account for fewer than 0.2% of the total. Yet these are surely the murders that attract national as well as international attention, often for days after the attack. Victims recount their feelings of utter helplessness as a gunman methodically shoots his cowering prey. Unfortunately, much of the public policy debate is driven by lopsided coverage of gun use. Tragic events like those in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but discussions of the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively--including cases in which public shootings are stopped before they happen--are ignored. Dramatic stories of mothers who prevented their children from being kidnaped by carjackers seldom even make the local news. Attempts to outlaw guns from schools, no matter how well meaning, have backfired. Instead of making schools safe for children, we have made them safe for those intent on harming our children. Current school policies fire teachers who even accidentally bring otherwise legal concealed handguns to school. We might consider reversing this policy and begin rewarding teachers who take on the responsibility to help protect children. Mr. Lott, a fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law, is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime," forthcoming in early May from the University of Chicago Press. ----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. A camel is a horse designed by a committee and an elephant is a mouse built to military specifications." -- from page 321 of "Cryptoanalysis for Microcomputers" by Caxton C. Foster (University of Massachusetts), Hayden Book Co. Inc., 1982. ----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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: First Response to KSL Editorial Date: 14 Apr 1998 16:17:54 -0600 Here is the first of two responses I plan to write to KSL. If there is a group out there who would like to use this one (it reads better with the "we"s rather than with "I"s) let me know. Otherwise I will send it in under my own name. I don't think it addresses everything it should, but thinking minds (are there any left) may get the main point. Read the original editorial from KSL before reading my rebuttal. Presses And Presidents April 14, 1998 Before many more days dim the memory of the tragedy of our nation's highest elected official's privacy being invaded, let's talk about the press. The causes of these horribly, internationally embarassing scenes run deep with blame being place on everything from lack of professionalism to a drive for increased ratings. Whatever the cause, the tools used to carry out this depraved violation of privacy were high speed presses, digital networks, and television cameras. The arguments of the powerful media aside, can anyone who heard or read of graphic descriptions of our president's most private and intimate affairs honestly doubt that our nation is paying a terrible price for allowing such easy access to and disemnination of information? Yes, the Bill of Rights certainly allows Americans freedom of the Press. But this is 1998, not 1776, and something about the President's most intimate and private matters being sallied before the world like some kind of cheap side show attraction causes us to wonder if the Founding Fathers would feel the same about the First Amendment if they were here today. We know the issue is emotional and even as we speak, media advocates are heading to their keyboards and microphones to pound out responses to what we've said. It's a powerful lobby that continually defeats any effort to reign in their unbridled rumor-mongering, speculation, and otherwising distressing of individuals both private and public, even though 80-percent of Americans think the media goes too far. We say it is time for the media to quit being so calloused, so obstinate. Unless they compromise a bit on issues without serious constitutional bearing, they're likely to face a public backlash that ultimately could result in what they fear most...a revocation of their constitutional right to a free press. -- 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 American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." -- Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: KSL Date: 14 Apr 1998 22:48:29 -0600 At 08:56 AM 4/14/98 -0700, you wrote: >Charles: > >Assuming KSL will allow an opposing view point, do you have anyone in >mind to give the rebuttal. Are you interested? Perhaps Janalee? > >I am still working to get an answer from KSL. > I can only speak for myself, but I suspect that any of the Board members of USSC would be willing to rebut it as well. Sarah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan Date: 14 Apr 1998 23:03:55 -0600 I received this response from Brian Judy, our local NRA-ILA representative, in response to my question regarding the authenticity of the alleged HCI plan. So the NRA says it's authentic and GOA says it's not. Anyone else have any more information? Sarah >Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:15:40 -0400 >From: Brian Judy <110230.536@compuserve.com> >Subject: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan >Sender: Brian Judy <110230.536@compuserve.com> >To: "S. Thompson" >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mars.aros.net id SAA16802 > >I heard from another gun rights activist that this letter has been >confirmed with HCI headquarters as of 4/2. It is no surprise that they >would either go after gun shows or use the issue of gun shows as a >fundraising tool (or both). The gun shows have been under attack and it >will no doubt get worse before it gets better. > >Brian > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: KC Star Gun Ban Editorial Date: 15 Apr 1998 08:28:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Needed" (attached). Mr. Hood, It is a measure of how far common sense and respect for the rule of law have deteriorated in our constitutional republic during the present administration that educated men such as yourself could write such dangerously silly and unconstitutional drivel such as your editorial "Gun Ban Was Needed." In the past, when I had illusions that legal, moral and historical arguments could sway anti-freedom ideologues such as yourself and the President, I would have mustered a formidable array of facts, cited legal opinions and quoted from the Founders' own lips to refute your wrong-headed opinion that law-abiding Americans need to be disarmed. (Oh, I know you do not say it directly, but isn't that what you're endorsing when you urge "the President should consider stricter prohibitions"?) Forget that the Second Amendment is, like the First you cherish, both an individual and collective right. Forget, indeed, that it is the Second Amendment that secures all the others, including the First. Forget that the Founders' didn't write the 2nd Amendment with "sporting purposes" in mind. Forget that the very idea of codifying the right to "keep and bear arms" for the purposes of shooting fuzzy animals would have been laughable to men such as Thomas Jefferson. Forget that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarantee the 18th Century equivalent of "assault rifles" to the citizenry so that they might resist tyrannical administrations. Forget that the Clinton Administration has from the beginning used every means at its disposal to strip law-abiding Americans from exactly these kind of previously legal arms of military utility. Forget that this President has acted like he was King George III himself, not only adopting His Late Majesty's firearms policy, but issuing imperial "Executive Orders" in the middle of the night, when Congress is not in session, contrary to law and Constitution. Forget all that. If the law and the Constitution mean nothing to you and your President, let's explain this in terms you will understand. If you want my legal, semiautomatic rifle then I suggest you come and get it. Yourself. Today. Bring the President if he's suddenly caught a draught of courage. Have the strength of your gun-grabbing convictions and come along with the raiding party you are encouraging through your editorial page to confiscate my weapons. Don't send someone else's son to do the job. Don't cry out for the police or military to disarm me while you sit safely at home and cluck your editorial tongue in approval. You want my rifle? Come and get it. Call your gun-grabbing buddies at the BATF, they'll give you directions to my house. You don't even have to call and tell me you're coming. Of course, I'll bet you won't because you're a smart little editorial writer and you know that you'll likely get killed if you try. And you what? That's exactly what the Founders had in mind. That tyrants, or their pissant editorial apologists such as yourself, would think twice before trying to disarm the law-abiding citizenry, the final arbiter and guarantor of American liberty. Mike Vanderboegh Mo10Cav@aol.com (Mo10Cav) 1st Alabama Cavalry Regiment, Constitutional Militia P.O.Box 926 Pinson, AL 35126 (205) 320-4540 pager ********************************************************** Gun ban was needed By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Gun ban President Clinton has added a new, needed prohibition to the nation's gun control regulations. His recent executive order would bar the importation of military-style rifles that have been modified to evade a previous ban. Law-abiding Americans who want to reduce gun violence should appreciate the president's action. Clinton's move followed a review by the Treasury Department of these types of weapons. The examination was conducted in cooperation with state law enforcement and game agencies, as well as shooting and hunting organizations. It found that many of the rifles did not meet federal law for sporting use. The United States prohibits assault weapons coming into the country. But it permits the importation of some rifles for uses such as target practice and trap shooting. Many foreign manufacturers circumvented the law by altering the look of the weapons to provide a sportlike appearance. The rapid-firing, assault-style weapons are designed for one main purpose. That is to kill. Americans know that. The deadly proof has been found on our streets. Thus public safety will be well-served by Clinton's order. Fewer foreign assault rifles means citizens of this nation are less likely to be slain. Congress cannot be relied on to protect the public against the weapons. Clinton and President Bush before him have attempted to protect the public with bans. If this order is not as effective as it should be, the president should consider stricter prohibitions. All content © 1998 The Kansas City Star - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: President Clinton's executive order on gun imports Date: 15 Apr 1998 15:59:48 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:15:38 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA24010; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 13:13:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma023969; Sat Apr 11 13:09:17 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: handgnr@nwlink.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list >Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 09:33:20 -0500 >To:DUNN@HR.HOUSE.GOV, repwhite@mail.house.gov, >ASKLINDA@HR.HOUSE.GOV,GRNWA05@HR.HOUSE.GOV >From:handgnr@nwlink.com (Dave Workman) >Subject:President Clinton's executive order on gun imports >Cc:GEORGIA6@HR.HOUSE.GOV (Newt Gingrich) > >Hon. Jennifer Dunn, >Hon. Rick White, >Hon. Linda Smith, >Hon. George Nethercutt: > > I am writing to urge you all to join your colleague, Utah Rep. >Chris Cannon, and some 40 others in a planned action to nullify President >Clinton's recent "executive order" banning the import of several >foreign-made firearms. > > The firearms community is not simply alarmed at this move by the >President to capitalize on the Jonesboro, Ark. tragedy. The firearms >community is angry, and they are asking themselves why they should bother >sending back a Republican majority this fall if that majority - which has >enjoyed strong support from firearms owners since the sweeping >Congressional sea change in 1994 - turns a deaf ear and blind eye to its >concerns. > > As a spokesman for over 80,000 members of the National Rifle >Association here in Washington state (make that, 80,000 voters) I am >obliged to tell you that the members I represent are demanding swift, >decisive action when Congress returns April 22. They have had quite enough >vilification from the Clinton Administration, and far too much neglect for >their concerns from the Republican majority, of which you are all members. > > One would think that if the ACLU can fight for the First Amendment >rights of Nazis to parade through the streets of Skokie, Ill., than the >Republican majority that gun owners sent to Congress in 1994, and kept >there in 1996 - in response to Clinton's passage of the Brady Law, and the >semi-auto and high-capacity magazine bans - should be able to find the >courage to speak out and take action on behalf of the Second Amendment. > > There's been considerable discussion lately in the media that >Republicans may lose control of the House this fall. No more certain >guarantee of that would be for this nation's firearms owners to "sit this >one out" as they did in 1992 when they lost all confidence in President >George Bush because of his import ban order. > > I urge you to join your fellow congressional representatives and >do the right thing, rather than the "politically correct" thing. Regain >the spirit you showed in 1995, when the nation watched and waited to see >whether your party really would change the direction of government. > >Sincerely, >Dave Workman >Board member >National Rifle Association >P.O. Box 1638 >North Bend, WA 98045 > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: resolution to nullify an EO Date: 15 Apr 1998 16:06:08 -0700 Concerning repealing the recent executive order to ban some 50 foreign made firearms, I have received several posts that claim that to repeal the so called assault weapons ban, "congress need only pass a resolution to nullify an EO. Congress does NOT need to get a bill in front of WeeWillie and get him to sign it, otherwise, the EO would be unconstitutional, as having the effect of law without originating in the legislative branch." Anyone know if this is true? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10 Date: 15 Apr 1998 16:17:25 -0600 A fine response to KSL's Editorial "Guns and Little Girls", http://www.ksl.com/TV/opinion.htm, written by John Spangler of the Utah Shooting Sports Council Advisory Board. Reposted with Mr. Spangler's permission. Sarah >Response to KSL Editorial of April 10 > > Utah gun owners share KSL-TV's distress at the carnage inflicted upon >innocent children by guns. And automobiles. And drugs. And knives. And >any other objects used in deliberate illegal acts by criminals of any >age. > We must look beyond the emotional images portrayed on the TV screen and >seek a logical, factual and legal basis to prevent such problems. > This audience must look beyond the emotional imagery and understand >that the criminal misuse of guns is entirely unrelated to law abiding >citizens being permitted to carry guns in schools (or any other place). >The data from every state is absolutely clear on this point. Increased >numbers of concealed carry permits do not result in any increase in >shootings Those involved in illegal shootings are not the people >licensed to carry guns, but the criminals who disregard laws from the >Ten Commandments through the over 20,000 gun laws already on the books. > The easy, but absolutely wrong, panacea is to advocate banning guns or >further restrictions on law abiding citizens. Instead, a civilized >society must punish those who break existing laws. Murder, assault with >a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed firearms without a permit, >possession of a handgun by a minor, and theft of a firearm are all >serious crimes, too often plea-bargained down or overlooked. Even >"gateway" crimes of truancy, assault, car theft, and other juvenile >offenses cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. >We should not tolerate "entertainment" that glamorizes rather than >chastises such behavior, especially by children. Nor should KSL >broadcast such material if it is truly committed to fighting against the >breakdown of our society. >We urge KSL to skip the attacks based on emotions, and join Utah gun >owners in addressing the logical and factual roots of violence in >society today. > >John Spangler >Salt Lake City To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to: USSC@therighter.com In the SUBJECT of the message put: SUBSCRIBE USSC - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10 Date: 16 Apr 1998 00:00:13 -0600 On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" posted the follwoing from Mr. Spangler: >>society must punish those who break existing laws. Murder, assault with >>a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed firearms without a permit, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>possession of a handgun by a minor, and theft of a firearm are all ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >>serious crimes, too often plea-bargained down or overlooked. Even ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm afraid Mr Spangler hurts an otherwise excellent article, and does a disservice to gun owners, by including subjective offenses like CCW without a required permit or minor possession of a handgun. In the absense of criminal intent, neither of these acts poses any threat to anyone and should not be illegal. In fact, minor possession of a hand gun was perfectly legal in Utah until just a couple of years ago. I routinely possessed a handgun, without formal permission from my parents, well before my 21st birthday. I purchased my first handgun, a Colt Gold-Cup .45, --used so as to compy with inane federal laws--prior to my 18th birthday. Is Mr. Spangler suggesting the Utah legislature let a "serious crime" go unnoticed and without recourse for almost 150 years and that I'm guilty of said "serious crime?" Laws limiting minor posession of guns virtually guarantee that the rising generation will have even less proper, legal experience with guns than the current generation. Yes, training and supervision is important in the beginning. But there is absolutely no reason a 16, 15, or even 14 year old who has been shooting for several years should not be able to go to a range or even the empty desert and do some plinking without parental escort (A 12 year old male is deemed responsible enough to exercise the priesthood of God in the LDS religion and is considered a man in the Jewish faith if I'm not mistaken.). Furthermore, the Arkansas case did not involve CCW without a permit. Pretty tough to CCW a rifle. One should note that Vermont, which requires no permit to CCW has yet to have such an incident. Also, even if the youth in Arkansas were in possession of any handguns, I was under the impression the fatal shots came from long guns. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot (no pun intended) by heaping praise upon laws that should not exist in the first place or suggesting the enforcement of those laws is a good thing or would have prevented such tragedies. Once again, other than the, IMO, unfortunate inclusion of these two subjective "crimes", it is an excellent piece. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10 Date: 16 Apr 1998 00:52:28 -0600 At 12:00 AM 4/16/98 -0600, you wrote: > >On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" posted the >follwoing from Mr. Spangler: > >>>society must punish those who break existing laws. Murder, assault with >>>a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed firearms without a permit, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>possession of a handgun by a minor, and theft of a firearm are all > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >>>serious crimes, too often plea-bargained down or overlooked. Even > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >I'm afraid Mr Spangler hurts an otherwise excellent article, and does >a disservice to gun owners, by including subjective offenses like CCW >without a required permit or minor possession of a handgun. In the >absense of criminal intent, neither of these acts poses any threat to >anyone and should not be illegal. In fact, minor possession of a hand >gun was perfectly legal in Utah until just a couple of years ago. I >routinely possessed a handgun, without formal permission from my >parents, well before my 21st birthday. I purchased my first handgun, >a Colt Gold-Cup .45, --used so as to compy with inane federal >laws--prior to my 18th birthday. Is Mr. Spangler suggesting the Utah >legislature let a "serious crime" go unnoticed and without recourse >for almost 150 years and that I'm guilty of said "serious crime?" I agree with you completely here. There shouldn't be ANY laws restricting the possession of any firearm by a responsible person, of any age. And there shouldn't BE permits, so it follows that there shouldn't be any problem with carrying/possessing without one. I would trust either of my kids with firearms, and they're 16 and 18. But I do agree with Mr. Spangler that _real_ serious crimes committed by juveniles are often overlooked and/or plea-bargained. >Laws limiting minor posession of guns virtually guarantee that the >rising generation will have even less proper, legal experience with >guns than the current generation. Yes, training and supervision is >important in the beginning. But there is absolutely no reason a 16, >15, or even 14 year old who has been shooting for several years should >not be able to go to a range or even the empty desert and do some >plinking without parental escort (A 12 year old male is deemed >responsible enough to exercise the priesthood of God in the LDS >religion and is considered a man in the Jewish faith if I'm not >mistaken.). Actually it's 13 in Judaism, but that's still well younger than our current laws allow. And it's rather odd that a fourteen year old can get married in Utah, but can't possess a rifle! >Furthermore, the Arkansas case did not involve CCW without a permit. >Pretty tough to CCW a rifle. One should note that Vermont, which >requires no permit to CCW has yet to have such an incident. Also, >even if the youth in Arkansas were in possession of any handguns, I >was under the impression the fatal shots came from long guns. > >Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot (no pun intended) by heaping >praise upon laws that should not exist in the first place or >suggesting the enforcement of those laws is a good thing or would have >prevented such tragedies. > >Once again, other than the, IMO, unfortunate inclusion of these two >subjective "crimes", it is an excellent piece. Which is why I posted it. I don't agree with every single idea, but I thought it was well-written and effective. I'm forwarding a copy of your response to Mr. Spangler, since I don't think he subscribes to utah-firearms. Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com April 19, 1775 - The Battles of Lexington and Concord April 19, 1783 - Congress proclaims victory in the American War of Independence April 19, 1933 - The US abandons the gold standard April 19, 1943 - The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising April 19, 1993 - The Branch Davidian Massacre at Waco April 19, 1995 - The Oklahoma City bombing What are YOU willing to do for freedom? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10 Date: 16 Apr 1998 01:41:12 -0600 On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: >But I do agree with Mr. Spangler that _real_ serious crimes committed by >juveniles are often overlooked and/or plea-bargained. Agreed. > Which is why I posted it. I don't agree with every single idea, but I >thought it was well-written and effective. I'm forwarding a copy of your >response to Mr. Spangler, since I don't think he subscribes to utah-firearms. Thank you. I'd be interested in any response. -- 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 American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." -- Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Violence in Japan Date: 17 Apr 1998 16:11:30 -0600 From today's tribune. Funny how when a child uses a weapon of choice in the U.S. it is the "easy availability of guns" that gets the blame, but when children slash each other with knives in Japan we start talking about "breakdown of societal values," "stress," or whatnot. [Image] [Image] [Image] Friday, April 17, 1998 [Image] [Image] Japanese Students Fight Stress With Classroom Violence KNIGHTRIDDER NEWS SERVICE TOKYO -- No one talked much about the troubles in Japan's junior high schools until late January, when a 13-year-old boy killed his English teacher with a switchblade knife after she asked him why he was late for class. That was a big enough shock in ``crime-free'' Japan. Then another 13-year-old stabbed a 14-year-old classmate to death in a suburban Tokyo classroom after the older boy teased him about his frizzy hairdo. The next day, a 14-year-old boy in Nagoya slashed another student who had taunted him. And a 16-year-old stabbed a 17-year-old classmate in Atsugi, another Tokyo suburb, because the older boy demanded money. Here in orderly and homogeneous Japan, where trains run on time and no one jaywalks, there have been three murders and 54 knife-related incidents in schools since the end of January. Suddenly, mainstream Japan is learning what its teachers, child psychologists and sociologists have quietly suspected for a half-decade: As the nation's social fabric frays, student violence against other students and teachers has doubled in the past five years and juvenile crime has reached record levels. Japan's youth crime rate is almost three times higher than America's. According to Manabu Sato, an education professor at Tokyo University who studies youth and crime, 45 percent of those arrested for crimes in 1996 were younger than 20. In America, the overall crime rate is much higher, but only about 18 percent of all crime is committed by people under 18, according to figures recently compiled by the FBI and the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics. ``Youth crime . . . is much more of a problem in Japan than in the U.S.,'' said Sato. ``And the quality of crime is getting more and more aggressive.'' Juvenile violence and crime are growing problems in Japan, he says, because ``all the social contradictions of society are being put on their shoulders. All students see in their future is pressure and more pressure. So that's why junior high school is the worst.'' By American standards, the violence rocking Japan's middle schools seems as anachronistic as the leather-jacketed gang rumbles in ``West Side Story.'' In a nation where guns are strictly forbidden, switchblade ``butterfly'' knives, not handguns and hunting rifles, are the weapon of choice for young students. Nevertheless, the violent outbursts in Japan's schools have forced the Education Ministry and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party to respond. Education Minister Nobutaka Machimura has urged students to ``stop carrying knives around'' and lectured students that ``hurting people, or robbing people of their lives, is unforgivable.'' Meanwhile, the ruling party has promised to offer changes to the nation's juvenile laws to allow 15-year-old offenders to be tried as adults. Under current Japanese law, a juvenile suspect must be at least 17 to be tried as an adult. [Image] [Friday Navigation Bar] [Image] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 1998, 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. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the ratification of the constitution on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [goamail@gunowners.org: BATF Admissions Re: Instant Check] Date: 18 Apr 1998 00:38:37 -0600 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Reply-To: Gun Owners of America X-Mailer: Gun Owners of America's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 5330 Brady "Instant" Check to Spell Trouble -- Possible three-day wait could cripple gun show sales by Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151, 703-321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org (Friday, April 17, 1998) Brady Instant Registration Check could take three days; register gun owners The BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) issued regulations in February that should concern every gun owner. The regulations involve the implementation of the so-called instant check, which is supposed to go on-line in November of this year. It turns out, however, that the instant check may not be so instant after all. The BATF regulations make it clear that the feds will have "up to three business days" to respond to each background check request. Read that again: "three business days." Following these guidelines, could the feds decide to take the weekends off? If so, that would seriously impact all gun dealer sales at weekend gun shows. Moreover, since weekends are not typically considered business days, the "three business days" can easily impose a five day waiting period for weekend gun sales - or a six day waiting period if there is a holiday on a Friday or Monday. Given the BATF's own verbiage, and given the President's track record regarding his abuse of firearms rights, gun owners should be very concerned about the implications that these regulations carry for gun dealer sales at weekend gun shows. Gun Owners of America has strongly opposed the Instant Registration Check from its inception. Such a check requires a law-abiding citizen to prove his innocence to government officials before exercising a right. Furthermore, GOA has always argued that no matter how many prohibitions are written into the law, the possibility of gun owner registration is always present. BATF wants your Social Security number GOA's concerns were recently validated when the BATF made it clear they want gun dealers to retrieve the Social Security numbers of gun buyers. Providing the feds with the Social Security number of gun owners enhances their ability to compile a national gun registry. (Gun owners should also note that the feds will be conducting background checks on ALL guns - shotguns and rifles included.) It is imperative that your Representative and Senators understand that gun owners do not want their names to be phoned in and entered into a federal bureaucrat's computer. We repeat: honest gun owners should not have to prove their innocence to the government before exercising a constitutional right - any more than a preacher or journalist should have to prove their worthiness before exercising their First Amendment rights. GOA members should have already received the latest GOA newsletter and legislative alert in the mail. While the GOA newsletter (dated April 24, 1998) quotes pertinent passages from the BATF regs, one can also read them in their entirety by going to http://www.gunowners.org/bitb.htm on the GOA website. ACTION: Urge your Representative (1-800-504-0031 or 202-225-3121) to cosponsor Rep. Ron Paul's H.R. 2721 - a bill which would, among other things, repeal the Brady "registration" law in its entirety. GOA has also posted on the Web a sample opposition letter to the BATF. Go to the above mentioned URL and use the sample letter to compose your own - or copy it word for word if you're short on time. But make sure you sound-off to the BATF before May 20 when the comment period ends. (Grassroots heat can have a tremendous effect in getting regulatory agencies to back off their gun control proposals - as we've seen in recent years with the Forest Service, the EPA and the BLM. As for the BATF, go ahead and write them anonymously to protect your privacy.) -- Clip & Fax -- (see http://www.gunowners.org/h105th.htm for fax numbers or call your Rep. and ask) Dear Representative, The proposed new BATF regulations calling for the use of Social Security numbers as part of the information taken during the purchase of a firearm is a clear invasion of my right to privacy and another step toward national gun registration. Even though Congress has passed laws to prevent a national gun registry, this agency continues to ignore public law, the Constitution and the express will of the Congress. Moreover, the proposed BATF regulations will allow federal bureaucrats up to "three business days" to complete the background checks on gun buyers. This "three day" period could easily be used to cripple gun show sales, and could turn the supposed "instant" check into a three to six day waiting period. The best way to prevent this from infringing upon my rights is by passing H.R. 2721, a bill to repeal the Brady registration law. I urge you to become a sponsor of this important pro-gun legislation. *********************************************************** Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward this notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and include your state of residence in either the subject line or the body. ----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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: April 26 column -- Swiss militia] Date: 18 Apr 1998 00:59:10 -0600 An excellent article, containing some incredible historical quotes that I hope you find interesting and useful. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED APRIL 26, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapon to use, he does not yield' Those who would blithely abandon the greatest safeguard of liberty -- the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear military-style arms -- aren't real strong on consistency. Aiming to gradually erode the quality of arms we have "permission" to bear -- back to the level of the muzzle-loading flintlock, if not the slingshot -- they have been disingenuously mewing for 60 years that they have no objection to arms "for which there is a legitimate sporting use." Of course, the Constitution says nothing about hunting or skeet shooting. Rather, it says we must be allowed to keep our arms -- no "infringement" whatsoever, no tax, no registration, no "application for permit" -- because the citizens constitute the militia, the most powerful armed force in any free state. The gun-grabbers sneer that this is an out-of-date notion, that a bunch of farmers with deer rifles could hardly stand up to the 82nd Airborne ... let along a Chinese invasion. But the logical conclusion of that argument is surely that we should encourage law-abiding citizens to keep machine guns and rocket-launchers in the closet ... not ban AK-47s, with or without pistol grips and bayonet lugs. The victim disarmament extremists (those who would disarm law-abiding rape victims, but not their assailants, who ignore all such laws) ridicule this as the sheerest homicidal macho fantasy -- no modern nation has ever thrown out a tyrant by the simple expedient of the common folk rising up with their personal rifles, nor does any civilized nation today allow its citizens to keep machine guns at home. Wrong and wrong. Try placing a long-distance call to the American military governor of Vietnam, or the Soviet military governor of Afghanistan, to ask them how easy it was to suppress a nation of armed peasants. And as to the advisability of "allowing" citizen militias to keep modern military arms with them at home -- yes, Sarah, the kind "designed for no purpose but to kill large numbers of people" -- we turn to Virginia attorney and Second Amendment expert Stephen P. Halbrook, author of the new book "Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II," due this spring from Sarpedon Press. Writing in the January 1998 edition of the excellent magazine "Chronicles," Mr. Halbrook points out that "Since the origins of the Swiss Confederation in 1291, it has been the duty of every male Swiss citizen to be armed and to serve in the militia. Today, that arm is an 'assault rifle,' which is issued to every Swiss male and which must be kept in the home. During Germany's Third Reich (1933-1945), that arm was a bolt-action repeating rifle, which was highly effective in the hands of Switzerland's many sharpshooters. "Americans of the wartime generation were familiar with the fact that brave and armed little Switzerland stood up to Hitler and made him blink. As a map of Europe in 1942 shows, the Nazis had swallowed up most of everything on the continent but this tiny speck that Hitler called 'a pimple on the face of Europe.' The Fuhrer boasted that he would be 'the butcher of the Swiss,' but the Wehrmacht was dissuaded by a fully armed populace in the Alpine terrain. ... # # # "The Swiss federal shooting festival, which remains the largest rifle competition in the world, was held in Luzern in June 1939. Hitler's takeover of Austria and Czechoslovakia was complete, both countries had been surrendered by tiny political elites who guaranteed that there would be no resistance. Swiss President Philipp Etter spoke at the festival, stressing that something far more serious than sport was the purpose of their activity. His comments demonstrated the connection between national defense and the armed citizen: " 'There is probably no other country that, like Switzerland, gives the soldier his weapon to keep in the home. The Swiss always has his rifle at hand. It belongs to the furnishings of his home. ... That corresponds to ancient Swiss tradition. As the citizen with his sword steps into the ring in the cantons which have the Landsgemeinde (government by public meeting), so the Swiss soldier lives in constant companionship with his rifle. He knows what that means. With this rifle, he is liable every hour, if the country calls, to defend his hearth, his home, his family, his birthplace. The weapon is to him a pledge and sign of honor and freedom. The Swiss does not part with his rifle.' Mr. Halbrook continues: "On September 1, 1939, Hitler launched World War II by attacking Poland. Within a day or two, Switzerland had about half a million militiamen mobilized out of a population of just over four million. General Henri Cuisan, commander in chief of the Swiss militia, responded with Operations Order No. 2: " 'At the border and between the border and army position, the border troops and advance guard persistently delay the advance of the enemy. The garrisons at the border and between the border and the works and positions making up the defensive front continue resistance up to the last cartridge, even if they find themselves completely alone.' "This astonishing order was the opposite of the policies of the other European countries, which either surrendered to Hitler without a fight or surrendered after a brief resistance. For example, in April 1940, Denmark's king surrendered the country after a meeting with the Nazis and instructed his forces not to resist. Norway resisted, although 'unlike Switzerland' it had no armed populace and was ill- prepared for combat. "In response to the invasions of small neutral countries, Switzerland issued its 'directions concerning the conduct of the soldiers not under arms in event of attack.' Intended as a warning to Germany, it was pasted on walls all over the country. It prescribed the reaction against surprise attack and against the fifth column as follows: " 'All soldiers and those with them are to attack with ruthlessness parachutists, airborne infantry and saboteurs. Where no officers and noncommissioned officers are present, each soldier acts under exertion of all powers of his own initiative.' "This command for the individual to act on his own initiative was an ancient Swiss tradition which reflected the political and military leadership's staunch confidence in the ordinary man. This command was possible, of course, only in a society where every man had his rifle at home. " 'Under no condition,' the order continued, 'would any surrender be forthcoming, and any pretense of a surrender must be ignored: If by radio, leaflets or other media any information is transmitted doubting the will of the Federal Council or of the Army High Command to resist an attacker. this information must be regarded as the lies of enemy propaganda. Our country will resist aggression with all means in its power and to the death.' ... # # # "France collapsed in June, 1940 after only a few weeks of fighting. Paris was taken without a shot being fired. The Nazis promptly proclaimed the death penalty for possession of firearms in France and other occupied countries. "In contrast, Cuisan recalled the high duty of the soldier to resist: " 'Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience of each fighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his assigned position. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their position until no more ammunition exists. Then cold steel is next. ... The machine gunners, the cannoneers of heavy weapons, the artillerymen, if in the bunker or on the field, do not abandon or destroy their weapons, or allow the enemy to seize them. Then the crews fight further like riflemen. As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapons to use, he does not yield. ..." Even old men and children were issued armbands, identifying them as Ortswehren (local defense) so they could not be shot as partisans under international law, when the time came for them to shoot any invader they saw. Hitler never invaded Switzerland. Would you have? Nor has any dictator -- military or otherwise -- ever attempted to rule the Swiss cantons by "executive order" ... like the one Bill Clinton haughtily signed to outlaw the import of AK-47 variants which his own ATF had found to be in full compliance with current law. "There was no holocaust on Swiss soil," Mr. Halbrook concludes. "Swiss Jews served in the militia side by side with their fellow citizens, and kept rifles in their homes just like everyone else. It is hard to believe that there could have been a holocaust had the Jews of Germany, Poland, and France had the same privilege." Folks ask me: "I'm just one person, what can I do?" Buy an M1-A, or an AR-10, at $1,100. These are better weapons than are currently standard issue in the U.S. Army. If you can't afford those, buy a surplus M-1 Garand at $500, or even a 1917 Enfield, at $250. For the smaller women and teens, a surplus M-1 carbine apiece, at about $350. Six magazines for each rifle and a couple thousand rounds of surplus ammunition (in bulk) may set you back $800. Do it before autumn of 1998, when the Brady Bill allows national gun registration, even for LONG GUNS. But only if you want America to remain a free country, of course. Freedom is always optional. 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 "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." ----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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Fox News reports on unintentional shooting Date: 20 Apr 1998 09:29:27 -0600 Fox News reported Saturday evening (I think it was the 9:00 broadcast but i could be wrong) on an "accidental" shooting here in SL County. While I think many of us prefer the term "unintentional" rather than "accidental", I was, nonetheless, quite impressed with their coverage. First, they did not use the phrase "the gun went off" or anything similar which in my mind always suggests the discharge was completely spontaneous, an act of God, a cognizant act of the gun itself, or otherwise did not involve somebody pulling the trigger. Second, they had a fairly long clip (10 seconds +) of a police officer explaining the shooter had broken all three of the most basic rules of safe gun handling: 1--Always treat a gun as if it is loaded; 2--Never point a gun at anyone; 3--Keep finger off trigger until you want to shoot. Third, I heard no mention or inuendo that the gun or even guns in general were the problem in this case. The overall tone and message, IMO, was that a person was responsible for this "accident" which was avoidable by following safe gun handling procedures. FYI, at the time of the report, there had been no charges brought. I intend to send a note to Fox thanking them for the manner in which they coverred this story and encouraging htem to include these safe handling procedures in future reports of unintentional shootings. I encourage others here to do likewise. If anyone has contact info for the local Fox News, I'd sure appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll try to track something down and pass it along. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: [Fwd: Lott's Book soon to be released] Date: 20 Apr 1998 11:40:58 -0600 Received: from [192.40.29.55] by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA23887; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 17:19:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from simba.safari.net by philipsdvs.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA09414; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 17:18:49 -0600 Received: from rigby.safari.net (rigby.safari.net [206.96.248.7]) by simba.safari.net (8.8.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA02557; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 18:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Sender: dr.suter@rigby.safari.net Errors-To: EdgarSuter@aol.com Reply-To: EdgarSuter@aol.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: Bulk X-Listserver: Macjordomo - A Macintosh Listserver by Michele Fuortes More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws John R. Lott, Jr. University of Chicago Press ISBN: 0226493636 (flap copy:) $23.00 [advance order at a 30 percent discount ($16.10) from Amazon.com or barnesandnoble.com] Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it cause more citizens to harm each other? Wherever people happen to fall along the ideological spectrum, their answers are all too often founded upon mere impressionistic and anecdotal evidence. In this direct challenge to conventional wisdom, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime. In this timely and provocative work he comes to a startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. Lott's sources are broad and inclusive, and his evidence the most extensive yet assembled, taking full account of the FBI's massive yearly crime figures for all 3,054 U.S. counties over eighteen years, the largest national surveys on gun ownership, as well as state police documents on illegal gun use. His unexpected findings reveal that many of the most commonly held assumptions about gun control and its crime-fighting efficacy are simply wrong. Waiting periods, gun buybacks, and background checks yield virtually no benefits in crime reduction. Instead, Lott argues, allowing law-abiding citizens to legal concealed handguns currently represents the most cost-effective methods available for reducing violent crime. In what may be his most controversial conclusion, Lott finds that mass public shootings, such as the infamous examples of the Long Island Railroad by Colin Ferguson or the 1996 Empire State Building shooting, are dramatically reduced once law-abiding citizens in a state are allowed to carry concealed handguns. Lott maintains that criminals generally respond to deterrence: as the risks and potential costs of criminal activity rise, criminals either commit fewer crimes or move on to other areas. The possibility of getting shot by somebody carrying a concealed weapon constitutes a substantial risk, and discourages any sort of physical confrontation. Accordingly, the states now experiencing the largest reductions in crime are also the ones with the fastest-growing rates of gun ownership. Evidence on accidental gun deaths and suicides is also examined. Thorough and enlightening, More Guns, Less Crime is required reading for anyone interested in the sometimes contentious, always critical American debate over gun control. John R. Lott, Jr. teaches criminal deterrence and law and economics at the University of Chicago, where he is the John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989. He has published over 70 articles in academic journals. This is his first book. (back cover) "John Lott documents how far 'politically correct' vested interests are willing to go to denigrate anyone who dares diagree with them. Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue."-Milton Friedman "Armed with reams of statistics, John Lott has documented many surprising linkages between guns and crime. More Guns, Less Crime demonstrates that what is at stake is not just the right to carry arms but rather our performance in controlling a diverse array of criminal behaviors. Perhaps most disturbing is Lott's documentation of the role of the media and academic commentators in distorting research findings that they regard as politically incorrect."-W. Kip Viscusi, Cogan Professor of Law and director of the Program on Empirical Legal Studies, Harvard Law School "John Lott has done the most extensive, thorough, and sophisticated study we have on the effects of loosening gun control laws. Regardless of whether one agrees with his conclusions, his work is mandatory reading for anyone who is open-minded and serious about the gun control issue. Especially fascinating is his account of the often unscrupulous reactions to his research by gun control advocates, academic critics, and the news media."-Gary Kleck, professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University "Until John Lott came along, the standard research paper on firearms and violence consisted of a longitudinal or cross-sectional study on a small and artfully selected data set with few meaningful statistical controls. Lott's work, embracing all of the data that are relevant to his analysis, has created a new standard, which future scholarship in this area, in order to be credible, will have to live up to."-Dan Polsby, Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law, Northwestern University. "John Lott destroys the politically correct argument that arming law abiding citizens will have a harmful effect on their safety. There is no doubt that criminals prefer to prey upon the unprepared. This book will arm those who read it with the important facts they need in order to decide where they stand on the gun control issue."-Dale Gulbrantson, executive director, Illinois Police Association, Inc. "This book will - or should - cause those who almost reflexively support the limitation of guns in the name of reducing crime to rethink their positions."-Steve Shavell, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: http://www.standard.net....exe?local+16newsb9.htm Date: 20 Apr 1998 18:26:18 -0600 >>>> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:02:18 -0700=20 Reply-To: ajgaunt@xmission.com=20 Organization: XMission=20 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I)=20 In addition to supporting imposition of the smart card on us, it appears=20 that Sen. Bennett and Gov. Leavitt also agree on creating areas of=20 opportunity for criminals at schools, churches, and businesses.=20 http://www.standard.net/cgi-win/table.exe?local+16newsb9.htm=20 <Helvetica ffff,0000,0000Home=20 <Helvetica= ffff,0000,0000News=20 <Helvetica= ffff,0000,0000SportsNET= =20 <Helveticaffff,0000,0000Search=20 <= Helveticaffff,0000,0000Cha= ts/Forums=20 <Helveticaffff,0000,0000Planner=20 <Helveti= caffff,0000,0000Quick= Index=20 <Helveticaffff,0000,0000Yellow Pages=20 <Helvetica= ffff,0000,0000Classifieds=20 <= Helveticaffff,0000,0000New= sWorks=20 =20 NEWS BEAT =20 =20 April 16, 1998 =20 =20 =20 Bennett sides with Leavitt on gun issue=20 =20 SALT LAKE CITY -- Sen. Bob Bennett is allying himself with Republican Gov.= Mike Leavitt and going against state GOP Chairman Rob Bishop on the= concealed weapon issue.=20 "I happen to disagree with Rob Bishop," Bennett, R-Utah, told University of= Utah political science students Wednesday.=20 In addition to serving as state GOP chairman, Bishop also is= the chief lobbyist for a pro-firearms lobbying group.=20 Leavitt has said public schools, churches and businesses should= be able to declare their property off limits to people carrying concealed= weapons. That is counter to a 1995 state law that basically says people= with concealed weapons permits can take their firearms just about anywhere.= =20 Bennett said, "The University of Utah ought to have the right= to make its own decision to ban or allow concealed firearms. And so should= churches."=20 Mom pleads guilty in death of fetus=20 ST. GEORGE -- A LaVerkin drug addict has pleaded no contest to= child-abuse homicide in the stillbirth of her child.=20 Dayna Louise Pittman, 38, is the first mother in Utah who will= be punished for the death of her own fetus.=20 Washington County used Utah's child-abuse statutes to charge= Pittman with a second-degree felony homicide count stemming from her= prenatal use of methamphetamine.=20 Pittman's no-contest plea Wednesday will be treated the same as= a guilty plea by the 5th District Court. Judge James Shumate could impose a= one-to-15-year prison term.=20 May 12 magic day for Utah taxpayers=20 SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah residents may have been relieved to be= done with their tax headache, but the average taxpayer in the state will= toil until May 12 to earn the money they pay the government.=20 That's the 11th latest Tax Freedom Day in the country,= according to an annual study by the Tax Foundation. The average American= will have earned the government's share by May 10.=20 New Hampshire's Tax Freedom Day comes the earliest, arriving= April 30, while Connecticut's is the worst, coming May 26.=20 Elite fire-fighting team disbanded=20 BOISE, Idaho -- The Boise Hot Shots, an elite team of forest= firefighters, has been eliminated in the wake of an investigation into past= misconduct by crew members.=20 The crack 20-member coed team that fought fires across the= country and in Canada came under investigation for incidents of= "intimidation and hazing" prior to the 1997 season, U.S. Forest Service= officials said.=20 Wednesday's decision came directly from Washington, D.C.=20 Mary Jo Lavin, Forest Service director of fire management, said= the decision was made "to send a very strong message that conduct in the= areas of intimidation or hazing, or anything that creates a hostile work= environment, won't be tolerated." --=20 Standard-Examiner staff ---------- and wire services =20 =A9 Ogden Publishing Corporation, 1998 ---------- ----------
| Poll question | Back |
Other headlines: Helveticaffff,0000,0000Week= end Entertainment Helveticaffff,0000,0000= Your Vote Counts Election '98 Helvetica0000,0000,ffffTwis= ters rare around Utah Helvetica0000,0000,ffffOn= the edge: Draft day is here for Dyson
<StandardGRAM: Send this story to a friend
<<<<<<<< - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Colt President Date: 20 Apr 1998 22:34:56 -0600 >Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:41:27 -0700 (PDT) >X-Sender: suntzu75@pop.ncal.verio.com >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 >To: "Sun Tzu's Firearms Advisory" >From: Danger77 (by way of Sun Tzu's Firearms Advisory ) >Subject: Colt President > >To List: >>From Danger 77 >Forwarded without comment. >_________________________________ Begin__________________ > >FYI. > >In the last (current?) issue of the American Firearms Industry magazine, Colt >President Ron Stewart suggests that we can regain the moral high ground by >accepting a national handgun permit with mandatory training. > >With friends like this.... > >"Formerly we suffered from crimes; now we suffer from laws." - Publius >Cornelius Tacitus > >Larry >Gun Owners of NJ >http://www.users.nac.net/thelaw/gonj/gonj.htm > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: More on Waco, the story by "Pat" -Forwarded Date: 21 Apr 1998 09:26:38 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:13:34 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id LAA13245; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:11:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma013035; Tue Apr 21 11:09:01 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: pwatson@utdallas.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list 4-21-97 You know the USA is full of people like us. I was at the same house party Saturday as my earlier story. There was a real estate agent named "Pat" my wife and her office said I had to meet. It turned out Pat had listened to Chuck Harders "for the People" and Ron Englemans talk shows here in Dallas. She started back in 1992 and knew all about the governments abuses and their support of gun control and other anti-freedom laws. A month after the death of the Branch Dividians Pat worked a booth at a charity golf tournament down in Waco. Up walked 2 Waco sheriff deputies. She asked them what they thought about the Branch Davidian thing? The big guy said well, we had to stop him. Pat said you mean you guys had to kill 80 people to stop David? They said no that was the Fed guys. Pat said oh, so in America you don't get a trial by jury anymore?. They got mad and left. But, an hour later they came back. Pat said did you guys take an oath or something for office? They said well yes, to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Pat said can you tell me what the 8th amendment is? They said well, no. Pat said can you tell me what the 6th amendment is? They said well, no. Pat said then how the hell can you defend my rights if you don't even know what it says? They walked away with their their faces lowered in shame. An hour later they came back again. They said she was making them think. Pat said did you have to raid the place or were you boys to chicken to arrest David? The big guy said no, David played in a band every Saturday night in town we could have arrested him anytime we wanted to. Pat said did you know that the Feds had no jurisdiction and you guys are the highest legal authority in the county? She said you could have stopped the Feds at anytime. The big guy said do you remember when David kept asking them to send in officer "so and so" to talk with him? That was me, I was one of David's friends. So even an average American Woman real estate agent knows the Constitution and about the terrible abuses by our government. For me this proves there is still hope. Paul Watson, Dallas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Join Together Online Date: 21 Apr 1998 16:32:36 -0600 Garcetti just keeps finding new and inventive ways to "tread on" the constitution... (How does one define "gang activities" anyway? My kid wears baggy a**ed pants, I wave my hands when I talk, and my wife has a blue bandanna....) > http://www1.jointogether.org/gv/wire/news/reader.jtml?Object_ID=25838 > >April 21, >1998 >Calif. Judge Bans Gang Activities > 4/14/98 Following an injunction from a >Los Angeles, Calif., judge, >certain members of the Mara >Salvatrucha gang have been >prohibited from associating in >public together, UPI reported >April 13. > >The injunction was issued as part >of a public-nuisance lawsuit >filed by City Attorney James Hahn >and County District Attorney Gil >Garcetti. In filing the lawsuit, >Hahn and Garcetti said members of >the Salvadoran street gang >regularly commit crimes and sell >drugs. The lawsuit aims to >"restore the constitutional >rights of a community under >siege." > >The preliminary injunction also >prohibits certain gang members >from selling, possessing or using >drugs or alcohol without a >prescription; possessing drug >paraphernalia; being within 10 >feet of an alcoholic container; >blocking free passage in any >public area; being in a public >place between 8 p.m. and sunrise >if they're under 18, or between >10 p.m. and sunrise if over 18, >unless they're going to a >legitimate meeting, job or >emergency; confronting, >intimidating or harassing anyone; >acting as a lookout; or >possessing guns, ammunition, or >illegal weapons. > >Source: Join Together Online > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Bennett / Bishop debacle Date: 21 Apr 1998 18:10:00 -0700 Rob Bishop gave Senator Bennett a lot of power at the Salt Lake County GOP convention with his antics, using Bill Quist and Gary Utt as his foils by invoking new and imaginary SLCoGOP rules different even that the proposed rules sent to delegates, refusing to rent the URA a table, stealing literature from Hartley Anderson, destroying delegates' copies of an approved proposed amendment on Fair Election Practices (which could have eliminated the need for all the multiple ballots had preference voting been used), having several people arrested on bogus charges, and having his henchmen state that the First amendment and free speech and press do not apply to delegates and candidates at the convention, which Sergeant Potter of Aaron Kennard's Sheriff's Department compared to a family reunion. Rob could easily and at any time have called off the dogs, but did not do so. Senator Bennett came off looking like a saint in these incidents. The USSC and NRA would be well advised to immediately distance themselves from Rob Bishop, as his credibility is shot. Gerry Arthus also points out that Rob Bishop has also failed to condemn Mike Leavitt's distortion of the Arkansas schoolyard shooting to call for further limits on RKBA and CCW permits. On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:26:18 -0600 S. Thompson forwarded to utah-firearms@xmission.com the following: (html deleted) In addition to supporting imposition of the smart card on us, it appears that Sen. Bennett and Gov. Leavitt also agree on creating areas of opportunity for criminals at schools, churches, and businesses. http://www.standard.net/cgi-win/table.exe?local+16newsb9.htm NEWS BEAT April 16, 1998 Bennett sides with Leavitt on gun issue SALT LAKE CITY -- Sen. Bob Bennett is allying himself with Republican Gov. Mike Leavitt and going against state GOP Chairman Rob Bishop on the concealed weapon issue. "I happen to disagree with Rob Bishop," Bennett, R-Utah, told University of Utah political science students Wednesday. In addition to serving as state GOP chairman, Bishop also is the chief lobbyist for a pro-firearms lobbying group. Leavitt has said public schools, churches and businesses should be able to declare their property off limits to people carrying concealed weapons. That is counter to a 1995 state law that basically says people with concealed weapons permits can take their firearms just about anywhere. Bennett said, "The University of Utah ought to have the right to make its own decision to ban or allow concealed firearms. And so should churches." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Bennett / Bishop debacle Date: 22 Apr 1998 13:07:30 -0600 At 06:10 PM 4/21/98 -0700, you wrote: > >Rob Bishop gave Senator Bennett a lot of power at the Salt Lake >County GOP convention with his antics, using Bill Quist and >Gary Utt as his foils by invoking new and imaginary SLCoGOP >rules different even that the proposed rules sent to delegates, >refusing to rent the URA a table, stealing literature from >Hartley Anderson, destroying delegates' copies of an approved >proposed amendment on Fair Election Practices (which could >have eliminated the need for all the multiple ballots had >preference voting been used), having several people arrested >on bogus charges, and having his henchmen state that the First >amendment and free speech and press do not apply to delegates >and candidates at the convention, which Sergeant Potter of >Aaron Kennard's Sheriff's Department compared to a family reunion. What evidence do you have that this was Rob Bishop's doing, or even Sen. Bennett's? According to the admittedly unreliable SL Trib, Sen. Bennett denounced the shenanigans, and I've heard no mention of Rob Bishop's name. The only prominent elected state Repubs who have _not_ denounced it are Mike Leavitt and Orrin Hatch. (If you've got more accurate/up to date info, pass it on.) >Rob could easily and at any time have called off the dogs, but did >not do so. Senator Bennett came off looking like a saint in these >incidents. The USSC and NRA would be well advised to immediately >distance themselves from Rob Bishop, as his credibility is shot. >Gerry Arthus also points out that Rob Bishop has also failed to >condemn Mike Leavitt's distortion of the Arkansas schoolyard >shooting to call for further limits on RKBA and CCW permits. I would assume you're right that Rob Bishop could have intervened, but I actually don't know, nor have I discussed this with him. And it doesn't seem to me that it's "USSC and the NRA" who need to "distance themselves" from Rob Bishop. I'm not even aware of a relationship between Rob Bishop and the NRA. It strikes me that it's a problem for the Republican Party to handle - they're the ones who came off looking like tyrants. Nonetheless, I fail to see what business it is of yours. To my knowledge you are not a member of USSC, the NRA, nor the Republican Party. Therefore none of the above have any obligation to heed your admonitions. If you'd like to direct comments to the Board of USSC, you have the contact information. I assume contact info is also readily available for the NRA and the Republican Party. And believe it or not, Rob Bishop has the same freedom of speech that everyone else in this country has. Whether or not he chooses to denounce Mike Leavitt (or Sen. Bennett) is _his_ decision. Whether or not the Board of USSC, or the NRA, or GOA, or JPFO choose to condemn Leavitt and/or Bennett is the decision of each of their respective Boards. It seems clear that you have an extreme dislike for USSC and Rob Bishop. That's fine. But if you really want to do some _good_, why don't you either find a pro-gun organization you can support, or direct your vitriol at the true enemies, like HCI, CeaseFire, or VPC. Or maybe at your elected officials, like Leavitt, Bennett, Cook, Hatch, etc. who so flagrantly disregard your wishes. Sarah Thompson (for myself only) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Bennett / Bishop debacle Date: 22 Apr 1998 13:48:03 -0600 On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: > What evidence do you have that this was Rob Bishop's doing, or even Sen. >Bennett's? According to the admittedly unreliable SL Trib, Sen. Bennett >denounced the shenanigans, and I've heard no mention of Rob Bishop's name. >The only prominent elected state Repubs who have _not_ denounced it are >Mike Leavitt and Orrin Hatch. (If you've got more accurate/up to date >info, pass it on.) I have no direct information on who did what and don't intend to jump into the middle of any kind of argument here. I offer this only as my observations and for further info for all involved. I saw the news clip where Bennett says he offered to pay the table rental to allow lit to be passed out but the offer was refused. I think it was the county GOP that refused. Interestingly, I also read in the Tribune that Bennett's campaign manager, on Bennett's behalf, denounced the county GOP for not letting all the filed candidates, including Arthus, address the convention. However, as Arthus was asking to speak and then being escorted from the stage by deputies, Bennett sat mute. During his speech prior to the Arthus incident, Bennett apologized to Anderson for what happened in Washington county and said he would be pleased to have him speak for the same amount of time as Bennett was given anywhere they spoke. I'm guessing at the time it happened in Washington county, Bennett was again mute. It makes for good politics and photo-ops to play the good guy after the fact. But if he is going to denounce something like this, he really should have done so when it may have made a difference, IMHO. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Moore Wants Hunting Bill Rejected -Forwarded Date: 22 Apr 1998 13:51:00 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:44:08 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA06936; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma006738; Wed Apr 22 15:39:28 1998 Message-Id: <199804221850.LAA24765@unixm2.WellsFargo.COM> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: lews@WellsFargo.COM Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list ----------------- http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=ARTS&STORYID=APIS6KUO7GG 0 APRIL. 22, 01:44 EST Moore Wants Hunting Bill Rejected ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Actress Mary Tyler Moore urged Gov. George Pataki and leaders of the state Legislature to reject a bill that would allow New Yorkers ages 14 and 15 to hunt for deer with firearms. The actress, a member of the anti-hunting group the Fund for Animals, said in a letter Tuesday that ``our children and our wildlife deserve better'' than to have young hunters eligible for big-game firearms licenses. Under the proposal, 14- and 15-year-olds could qualify for big-game licenses if they complete a 10-hour firearms safety program. They would have to be accompanied during their hunting forays by a parent or guardian licensed to hunt in New York. The current age limit to hunt deer and bear with rifles is 16 in New York. Fourteen- and 15-year-olds can already hunt for big game in New York with a bow and arrow. Pataki spokesman Michael McKeon declined comment on the proposal. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Bennett / Bishop debacle Date: 22 Apr 1998 14:48:27 -0600 At 01:48 PM 4/22/98 -0600, you wrote: > >On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: > >> What evidence do you have that this was Rob Bishop's doing, or even Sen. >>Bennett's? According to the admittedly unreliable SL Trib, Sen. Bennett >>denounced the shenanigans, and I've heard no mention of Rob Bishop's name. >>The only prominent elected state Repubs who have _not_ denounced it are >>Mike Leavitt and Orrin Hatch. (If you've got more accurate/up to date >>info, pass it on.) > >I have no direct information on who did what and don't intend to jump >into the middle of any kind of argument here. I offer this only as my >observations and for further info for all involved. > >I saw the news clip where Bennett says he offered to pay the table >rental to allow lit to be passed out but the offer was refused. I >think it was the county GOP that refused. > >Interestingly, I also read in the Tribune that Bennett's campaign >manager, on Bennett's behalf, denounced the county GOP for not letting >all the filed candidates, including Arthus, address the convention. >However, as Arthus was asking to speak and then being escorted from >the stage by deputies, Bennett sat mute. > >During his speech prior to the Arthus incident, Bennett apologized to >Anderson for what happened in Washington county and said he would be >pleased to have him speak for the same amount of time as Bennett was >given anywhere they spoke. I'm guessing at the time it happened in >Washington county, Bennett was again mute. > >It makes for good politics and photo-ops to play the good guy after >the fact. But if he is going to denounce something like this, he >really should have done so when it may have made a difference, IMHO. Thanks for more complete info, Charles. I don't watch TV news, and to be honest, I don't usually pay much attention to the Republican Conventions since I'm not a Republican. But of course situations like this demand the attention of all citizens of all political persuasions. I agree that if your recounting of events is accurate (and I have no reason to disbelieve you), Bennett should have spoken up and/or acted at the time the abuse was occurring. I suspect he carries enough clout in the party to have had a good chance of successfully intervening. If you can shed some light on the Arthus affair, I'd appreciate it. My very sketchy information is that the Utah GOP decided not to allow fusion candidates. I think that decision is wrong and stupid, but it's also their prerogative. So if they did in fact "outlaw" fusion candidates, conveyed that decision to Mr. Arthus, and gave him the opportunity to decide whether to file only as a Republican, then it would appear they did have the right to disqualify him as a candidate and prevent him from speaking. (I suspect I may be missing some vital piece of information here, so please be gentle when you expose my woeful ignorance! ) Of course I have no idea of whether the Utah GOP may legally reject fusion candidates, whether they followed proper procedures in doing so, or whether they dealt with Mr. Arthus in accordance with their own rules. And if they are going to insist that they're a "private" entity, then they certainly shouldn't be using taxpayer-funded facilities. The whole thing stinks worse than a kettle of fish! 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: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Bennett / Bishop debacle Date: 22 Apr 1998 15:10:30 -0600 On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: >If you can shed some light on the Arthus affair, I'd appreciate it. My >very sketchy information is that the Utah GOP decided not to allow fusion >candidates. I think that decision is wrong and stupid, but it's also their >prerogative. So if they did in fact "outlaw" fusion candidates, conveyed >that decision to Mr. Arthus, and gave him the opportunity to decide whether >to file only as a Republican, then it would appear they did have the right >to disqualify him as a candidate and prevent him from speaking. (I suspect >I may be missing some vital piece of information here, so please be gentle >when you expose my woeful ignorance! ) Actually, I think you have it pretty accurate. Gerry contends the bylaw prohibition on fusion candidates violates the GOP's own constitution. But ignoring that, my beef is with Bennett who sat idly by when the county leadership, and the vast majority of delegates, were opposed to Arthus speaking, and then later plays it up as the white knight by denouncing through his people, the exclusion. It is hypocritical for him to play it both ways. If he thought everyone should be allowed to speak, he should have voiced it in convention when his voice may have really mattered. If he agreed with the leadership and the vocal delegates, he shouldn't be two stepping now. I too support the GOP's right to impose whatever requirments they deem suitable in order to carry their banner. Heck, I wish they impose a few more requirments. We have the worst of both worlds currently--moral crusaders who also have no problem taxing and spending. At least true conservatives would leave my wallet alone while they were peeking into my bedroom window. :) I am very opposed to the State telling parties and candidates that even if the candidate and the parties all want a fusion candidate, that they cannot do that. If I want to associate with both the libertarians and the independants and they both want to associate with me, who is the State to limit that right over the trivial cost or "confusion" of adding one line to a ballot? -- 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 American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." -- Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Walter Williams in Today's Deseret News Date: 22 Apr 1998 16:53:38 -0600 [Image] [Opinion] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] Government caused Holocaust [Image] Last updated 04/22/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT By Walter Williams Last Sunday, I watched CNN's "Perspective," titled "Survivors of the Shoah," a Steven Spielberg documentary about the Nazi Holocaust. It was a heart-wrenching story about the slaughter of millions of people simply because they were Jews. How could this tragic inhumanity occur? The Jewish survivors chalked it up to intolerance and bigotry, and urged us to judge people by "what's inside," and not race or religion. But there's a problem with such an explanation. Historically, Germany was the most hospitable country for Jews in all of Europe. This is not to say that Jews were not persecuted in Germany, but life was far superior to Jewish life elsewhere in Europe. On the eve of the collapse of the Weimar Republic, which brought the Nazis to power in 1933, Jews were a major part of the economic, scientific, social and cultural life of the country. While Jews were only 1 percent of the German population, they were 10 percent of the country's doctors and dentists, 17 percent of its lawyers and a large percentage of its scientific community. Jews won 27 percent of Nobel Prizes awarded to Germans. During the 1920s, nearly half of all Jewish marriages in Germany were to Gentiles. German Jews went to great lengths to "become" German, including adopting the language, dress and religion. Even Reform Judaism included features of Christianity, such as worship on Sunday instead of the Sabbath (after the Holocaust, they've gone back to the Sabbath). Many religiously Orthodox Jews considered themselves "German." Jews who immigrated to the United States carried their pro-German feelings, so much so that as late as World War I the U.S. government, at war with Germany, brought prosecutions against Jews for voicing support for the enemy. How did a relatively low level of hate and anti-Semitism become the Holocaust? The road to the Holocaust was paved by the centralization and consolidation of government power. When Hitler came to power, he immediately embarked upon that road. Passage of the Enabling Act (1933) and later the Law Concerning the Reconstruction of the Reich (1934) enabled Hitler to centralize power by dissolving all state diets, and county, city and town councils. Hitler then got control of Germany's labor unions and consolidated them into the new Nazi-dominated Labor Front. There was little distinction between the Labor Front's leadership and the Nazi Party. Hitler gained control over agriculture through the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Through the Reich Food Estate, farm prices were controlled. In 1934, the government established the National Economic Chamber as head of an elaborate hierarchy of industrial and trade associations under the control of the Ministry of Economics. Whatever hate, violence and anti-Semitism experienced by the Weimar Republic Jews, while deeply offensive, could not have developed into the systematic brutality it did during the Third Reich without an all powerful, highly centralized national government. Powerful government tends to draw into it people with bloated egos, people who think they know better than everyone else and have little hesitance in coercing their fellow man. Or as Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek said, "In government, the scum rises to the top." Decent people have little desire, or see themselves fit, to order others around. In a collectivist state, there is nothing that collectivist leaders must not be prepared to do if it furthers their agenda. The Holocaust's true lesson is that there is no greater potential for evil than powerful centralized government. This century alone, not counting war, 170 million people have been murdered by their own government. Neither we in United States nor Jews in Israel have learned the lesson of the Holocaust. Creators Syndicate Inc. [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] -- 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. "There are no victims, only volunteers. You volunteer by appearing uncertain and afraid. You volunteer by being (as grass-eaters invariably are) unprepared to deal with the dangers of life." - Cooper's Corner - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Walter Williams in Today's Deseret News Date: 22 Apr 1998 20:43:40 -0600 At 04:53 PM 4/22/98 -0600, you wrote: > Government caused Holocaust > [Image] > Last updated 04/22/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT > > By Walter Williams > > Last Sunday, I watched CNN's "Perspective," titled "Survivors > of the Shoah," a Steven Spielberg documentary about the Nazi > Holocaust. It was a heart-wrenching story about the slaughter of > millions of people simply because they were Jews. How could this > tragic inhumanity occur? The Jewish survivors chalked it up to > intolerance and bigotry, and urged us to judge people by "what's > inside," and not race or religion. But there's a problem with such > an explanation. Thank you, Charles, for forwarding this interesting and informative article. While I think Mr. Williams underestimates the extent and depth of anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, including Germany, his essential point is correct. Most Germans were "sheeple", perfectly willing to agree to anything the powerful, centralized government said was "good for them". Even the German Jews went along with this nonsense, even after it became clear that the Nazis most certainly did not have _their_ best interests at heart. And, of course, the Jews made the cardinal error of agreeing to disarmament, without which it would have been far more difficult for the Nazis to carry out their genocidal plans. Mr. Williams is right. Neither Jews nor Americans seem to have learned much from history. Simply saying "Never Again", without action and responsibility, is not going to prevent future genocides. Sarah If a man riseth up to kill you, kill him first. Talmud - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "William Munny" Subject: Fw: Duane Cardahl's Editorial April 22 Date: 22 Apr 1998 20:54:58 -0600 I can't write as well as most of you folks, but it's the thought that counts. ---------- > From: William Munny > To: eyewitness@ksl.com > Cc: Douglas R. Watts > Subject: Duane Cardahl's Editorial April 22 > Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:43 PM > > Dear Editorial Board Members, > > I watched Duane Cardahl's editorial this evening and I must say, it left me > very disgusted! He talked about all the recent responses that KSL had > recieved regarding a couple of his recent editorials. Specifically, he > made reference to his highly opinionated "Girls and Guns" piece from a > couple of weeks ago. He cited as examples (which would lead one to believe > that they were "typical" examples) one sensible example which supported his > position. Then he read an example of a completely stupid response that > someone had written which dissagreed with his position. I would be willing > to bet that the example he used was at lease ONE of the poorest he could > find. > > I must say, you would have a difficult time convincing me that his choice > was totally deliberate. And if that kind of deception isn't an attempt to > manipulate the KSL audience, I don't know what is. > > I had hoped that KSL would have gotten beyond that kind of deliberate > misrepresentation of information when good old Don Gale left. > > Guess not... > > You folks make a very good case for repealing the First Amendment. > > Sincerely, > > D. Watts in Tooele > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Wal-Mart stores Date: 22 Apr 1998 22:47:00 -0700 I have no idea where this happened. Does anyone know if this is correct concerning Wal-Mart's alleged nationwide policy? Dave, Would you please consider posting this? This happened to me 4/21/1998 Let [me] state up front that I have a CCW permit. I was in a local Wal-Mart store in my area, I was wearing my weapon on my side in a high riding holster, my coat just about hid everything. A security person (male) approached me and informed me that Wal-Mart had a nationwide policy against anyone bringing firearms into their stores. I did NOT see a sign warning me of this policy when I entered the store. I informed him of this. He replied, "I'm tired of you gun totin' rednecks trying to carry your guns everywhere you go, and we are going to stop it." We had a few more words and I informed him of the Second Amendment, which he laughed at. He ordered me out of the store and informed me that if I ever set foot on the property again he would have me charged with criminal trespassing. I left the store. I urge all Militia and Freedom loving people to boycott all Wal-Mart stores. Buy your products somewhere else. I did NOT wear my weapon into the store to cause trouble. If I had seen the sign I would have left my weapon in my truck. It was the guy's attitude that really got to me. I vow to not ever buy anything else from Wal-Mart, Inc. For God and Freedom Jim - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Wal-Mart stores Date: 22 Apr 1998 23:57:00 -0700 I hope this answers the question posed in my previous post, but maybe John Howard Freeman merely has the good fortune to patronize a Wal-Mart store whose manager has good sense. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Greetings All, I wear my sidearm (Colt 45) in plain view (I don't need a CCW permit) on my hip in Wal-Mart and have never been approached by anyone. I've been doing it for years and will continue to do so, until properly noticed by the manager. Not some five fifty an hour lackey. If their nationwide policy prohibited "any one" (sic) from bringing firearms into their store, how are they able to sell them in the sporting goods section? So much for their nationwide policy. I believe [a] rambunctious security guard was daydreaming. Furthermore, the Second Amendment doesn't apply on someone else's property, only public property. Steadfastly, John Howard Freeman - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Wal-Mart stores Date: 23 Apr 1998 00:55:49 -0600 At 11:57 PM 4/22/98 -0700, you wrote: > >I hope this answers the question posed in my previous post, >but maybe John Howard Freeman merely has the good fortune >to patronize a Wal-Mart store whose manager has good sense. > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:56:21 -0400 >From: John Howard Freeman >To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com >Subject: Re: [Fwd: Wal-mart stores] > >Greetings All, > >I wear my sidearm (Colt 45) in plain view (I don't need a CCW permit) >on my hip in Wal-Mart and have never been approached by anyone. I've >been doing it for years and will continue to do so, until properly >noticed by the manager. Not some five fifty an hour lackey. If their >nationwide policy prohibited "any one" (sic) from bringing firearms >into their store, how are they able to sell them in the sporting goods >section? So much for their nationwide policy. I believe [a] rambunctious >security guard was daydreaming. Furthermore, the Second Amendment >doesn't apply on someone else's property, only public property. > >Steadfastly, > >John Howard Freeman Except that here in Utah, concealed carry is lawful "without restriction" outside of "secure areas". I don't know anything about a national policy. I've never had any problems in a Wal-Mart, but then I believe that concealed means "no one can tell it's there unless they search me or use a metal detector". Sarah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Teen-agers w/guns? Date: 23 Apr 1998 14:28:14 -0600 >Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:46:06 -0600 (MDT) >To: righter@therighter.com >From: agr@aros.net (American Gun Review) >Subject: Teen-agers w/guns? > >>From: JSFarnam >>Subject: Teen-agers w/guns? >> >>Children with guns? >> >> >>Kid with gun saves Mother's life >> >>Elko, Nevada, April 8, 1998 >> >>On Tuesday April 7, 1998, a 15 year old boy tried to stop an intruder from >>beating his mother, and being unable to stop the man, ran into her bedroom, >>retrieved a .22 semiautomatic handgun, loaded several rounds into the clip, >>inserted the clip, and came back and shoot the assailant twice out of three >>shots, killing him. >> >>He is credited with saving the life of his mother, and possibly the 3 year >>old child also present. >> >>The mother suffered a broken cheekbone, a broken nose, several bruises on her >>body, and a cut to her forehead from the attack. >> >>Elko County Sheriff Neil Harris said his office likely will recommend to D.A. >>Gary Woodbury a coroner's inquest to be held into the shooting. >> >>"It seems to me to be a fairly clear-cut case of self-defense and if it turns >>out to be fairly clear, since it's involving a citizen and a child, as opposed >>to a police officer, who would be held more accountable in a shooting, that an >>inquest is not warranted," Woodbury said. >> >> -- Elko Daily Free Press > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. William Burroughs (b. 1914), U.S. author. "The War Universe," taped conversation - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: NJ STATE POLICE RAID GUNSITE LIST MODERATOR -Forwarded Date: 23 Apr 1998 14:59:07 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:27:56 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA19650; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma019447; Thu Apr 23 10:23:22 1998 Message-Id: <01IW7E1PAX0O8X11WJ@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: MIKEY@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Subj: FWD: URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS John Schaefer is the GUNSITE (API) Alumni List moderator. While I have never met John personally, all the folks who have met him and known him for years speak well of him. He is known as the "voice of reason and moderation" in everything he does. I have read his frequent posts ever since my first GUNSITE class and cannot recall anything that would have indicated to the contrary. While it appears that that we do not have the full story on this situation yet, I think that this matter cries out for a closer examination. Regards to all, Mike Baker ************************************************************************** Subj: URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS All: Welcome to Nazi Germany. And so it begins. Folks this is a REAL nightmare come true. At 7:15 this morning (4/22) over a dozen machinegun armed agents of the NJ State Police broke down my front door and invaded my home screaming obsenities. We were rousted from our beds at gun point. I was ordered to the floor and when I couldn't get down on my knees fast enough because of my artificial knee and arthritis I was kicked to the floor, and my back and neck repeatedly stomped. When one trooper yanked on my arm that had been injured several years ago and I yelled in pain I was Maced and then kicked in the head at least twice resulting in a bloody lip and head pain. Of course none of the storm troopers were wearing name tags. We were forced into our living room, made to stand about in handcuffs for about four hours in our pajamas while they trashed the house. They took all of my firearms, MOST of the ammunition (go figure), my cartridge collection of US military ammo, my lead ingots and a couple of buckets of cast bullets, all of my business records, and get this, my Gunsite 260 certificate (they left my 499 certificate), and my NRA Instructors certificate. They panicked at a dummy 60mm mortar round (the kind you can pick up in surplus stores) and a blue dummy 100lb "practice bomb" (empty sheet metal casing) yet left a couple of M79 practice grenade rounds that were on display in my office. My wife and stepson were verbally abused and my stepson was grabbed and roughed up by one young punk agent and threatened when he asked for some clothes. All of the agents were pacing nervously about pointing their weapons all over and were REALLY psyched up. They were really enjoying what they were doing. I overheard several comments about "well we got another gun nut." They joked about the fact that I was in excruciating pain from my shoulder and knee. One storm trooper wanted to know what my "fucking problem was." I was finally taken to the local PD where I was at least treated with a little respect and compassion. I was finally released on $7,500 bail and my wife took me to the hospital were I was x-rayed, catscanned and given some serious pain medication and released. None of the hospital staff could believe what happened to me. When I finally got back to our house I was amazed to find that they had left ammunition in my vault, and a lot of reloading components in my basement. We have retained a big time attorney (NRA member) but have no idea how we are going to afford him and my retirement papers are in. Your prayers for my family and I will be greatly appreciated in this terrible time. John Schaefer -- __________________________________________________ John C. Schaefer frfrog@sprynet.com Excalibur Associates FAX: 732.341.4361 People's Republic of NJ http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/frfrog "He who goes about unarmed in paradise had better be sure that that is where he is." -- James Thurber ___________________________________________________ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Bennett / Bishop debacle Date: 23 Apr 1998 18:17:00 -0700 On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 at 13:07:30 -0600 "S. Thompson" wrote, for herself only: >At 06:10 PM 4/21/98 -0700, you wrote: >>Rob Bishop gave Senator Bennett a lot of power at the Salt Lake >>County GOP convention with his antics, using Bill Quist and >>Gary Utt as his foils by invoking new and imaginary SLCoGOP >>rules different even than the proposed rules sent to delegates, >>refusing to rent the URA a table, stealing literature from >>Hartley Anderson, destroying delegates' copies of an approved >>proposed amendment on Fair Election Practices (which could >>have eliminated the need for all the multiple ballots had >>preference voting been used), having several people arrested >>on bogus charges, and having his henchmen state that the First >>amendment and free speech and press do not apply to delegates >>and candidates at the convention, which Sergeant Potter of >>Aaron Kennard's Sheriff's Department compared to a family reunion. >What evidence do you have that this was Rob Bishop's doing, or even >Sen. Bennett's? According to the admittedly unreliable SL Trib, Sen. >Bennett denounced the shenanigans, and I've heard no mention of Rob >Bishop's name. As State GOP chair I suspect the Salt Lake County GOP officers would listen were he to have objected to their shenanigans. Regardless of his sincerity or insincerity, Sen. Bennett *did* denounce them. This makes him look much better than otherwise, and more likely to prevail in his antigun efforts. >The only prominent elected state Repubs who have _not_ denounced >it are Mike Leavitt and Orrin Hatch. (If you've got more >accurate/up to date info, pass it on.) Note that Mike Leavitt is in league with Sen. Bennett in the antigun campaign. >>Rob could easily and at any time have called off the dogs, but did >>not do so. Senator Bennett came off looking like a saint in these >>incidents. The USSC and NRA would be well advised to immediately >>distance themselves from Rob Bishop, as his credibility is shot. >>Gerry Arthus also points out that Rob Bishop has also failed to >>condemn Mike Leavitt's distortion of the Arkansas schoolyard >>shooting to call for further limits on RKBA and CCW permits. >I would assume you're right that Rob Bishop could have intervened, >but I actually don't know, nor have I discussed this with him. >And it doesn't seem to me that it's "USSC and the NRA" who need to >"distance themselves" from Rob Bishop. It was my understanding that the USSC had retained Rob Bishop as its lobbyist with the Utah Legislature. If he doesn't object to the GOP's tyrannical actions, the perception may rub off on gun rights people as supporting tyranny. The newspapers already attempt to make gun righters appear as special interests who have no concern for the rights of private property owners, school children, or government agencies such as schools and universities, as though governments could *have* rights rather than mere raw power. >I'm not even aware of a relationship between Rob Bishop and the NRA. While perhaps incorrect, there is a perception that the USSC and the NRA are closely allied. >It strikes me that it's a problem for the Republican Party to handle > - they're the ones who came off looking like tyrants. Indeed. However, the USSC has a contract with its Chairman. >Nonetheless, I fail to see what business it is of yours. To my >knowledge you are not a member of USSC, the NRA, nor the Republican >Party. Therefore none of the above have any obligation to heed your >admonitions. Even if I am not currently a member of the USSC, political fallout from this can affect me as much as its members and officers. FYI I am a Republican Party delegate to both the county and state conventions. You may want to request updated delegate lists if yours do not list my name. I submitted and was signatory to the above-mentioned Fair Election Practices amendment that Gary Utt, at Bill Quist's request, trashed. >If you'd like to direct comments to the Board of USSC, you have the >contact information. I assume contact info is also readily available >for the NRA and the Republican Party. I'm sure the Republican Party has already heard far more than they'd like from me. >And believe it or not, Rob Bishop has the same freedom of speech >that everyone else in this country has. This does not extend to denying others freedom of speech, or allowing the parliamentary processes of a political party he chairs to be subverted. Didn't Voltaire say "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."? >It seems clear that you have an extreme dislike for USSC and Rob Bishop. Disappointment at apparently counterproductive efforts in pursuit of goals largely overlapping my own. I send no such comments to officers of HCI, CeaseFire, or VPC. (What is that last one?) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: WELCOME TO NAZI AMERICA Date: 23 Apr 1998 18:18:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Alert all persons and media in the New Jersey area. ------------------------ ALL. . . . I JUST RECEIVED THIS FROM A LONG TIME FRIEND OF ABOUT A QUARTER CENTURY. HE IS AN UPSTANDING CITIZEN, FATHER AND FAMILY MAN. HE WORKS IN COMPUTERS FOR A MAJOR PHONE COMPANY. HE'S A PART TIME GUNSMITH, SHOOTER AND INSTRUCTOR. HE IS ALSO A DEACON IN THE EPISPOCAL CHURCH. THIS IS NOT A JOKE. THIS IS NOT A DRILL. Cas Gadomski Alaska All: Welcome to Nazi Germany. And so it begins. Folks this is a REAL nightmare come true. At 7:15 this morning (4/22) over a dozen machinegun armed agents of the NJ State Police broke down my front door and invaded my home screaming obsenities. We were rousted from our beds at gun point. I was ordered to the floor and when I couldn't get down on my knees fast enough because of my artificial knee and arthritis I was kicked to the floor, and my back and neck repeatedly stomped. When one trooper yanked on my arm that had been injured several years ago and I yelled in pain I was Maced and then kicked in the head at least twice resulting in a bloddy lip and head pain. Of course none of the storm troopers were wearing name tags. We were forced into our living room, made to stand about in handcuffs for about four hours in our pajamas while they trashed the house. They took all of my firearms, MOST of the ammunition (go figure), my cartridge collection of US military ammo, my lead ingots and a couple of buckets of cast bullets, all of my business records, and get this, my Gunsite 260 certificate (they left my 499 certificate), and my NRA Instructors certificate. They panicked at a dummy 60mm mortar round (the kind you can pick up in surplus stores) and a blue dummy 100lb "practice bomb" (empty sheet metal casing) yet left a couple of M79 practice grenade rounds that were on display in my office. My wife and stepson were verbally abused and my stepson was grabbed and roughed up by one young punk agent and threatened when he asked for some clothes. All of the agents were pacing nervously about pointing their weapons all over and were REALLY psyched up. They were really enjoying what they were doing. I overheard several comments about "well we got another gun nut." They joked about the fact that I was in excruciating pain from my shoulder and knee. One storm trooper wanted to know what my "fucking problem was." I was finally taken to the local PD where I was at least treated with a little respect and compassion. I was finally released on $7,500 bail and my wife took me to the hospital were I was x-rayed, catscanned and given some serious pain medication and released. None of the hospital staff could believe what happened to me. When I finally got back to our house I was amazed to find that they had left ammunition in my vault, and a lot of reloading components in my basement. We have retained a big time attorney (NRA member) but have no idea how we are going to afford him and my retirement papers are in. Your prayers for my family and I will be greatly appreciated in this terrible time. John Schaefer - (Cas) ---------------End of Original Message----------------- ================================================================ Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 04/23/98 Time: 08:16:20 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org ================================================================ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jwaldron@halcyon.com Subject: Re: NJ Raid: The Real Target Date: 24 Apr 1998 07:59:50 -0700 (PDT) While the details continue to elude us, keep one thing in mind: John Schaffer was not the ultimate target of the raid. The true target of the raid is you and me. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize, and the purpose of intimidation is to intimidate. A raid of the magnitude visited upon Mr. Schaffer appears to be totally unnecessary. Given the fact that he was released on $7,500. bail, the charges cannot have been too serious. What justifies a "dynamic arrest" in this case? Our masters are sending signals to the whole gun owning community: cross any line, get out of step, fail to do exactly as we say and we will respond with overwhelming force. Resistance is futile. Just do what you're told and we won't do this to you... for now. ALL OF US are the target. Joe Waldron USMC(ret) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: NJ Raid: The Real Target -Forwarded Date: 24 Apr 1998 09:23:35 -0700 Received: from lists.xmission.com ([198.60.22.7]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:00:59 -0600 Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0ySjxC-0006IS-00; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:59:54 -0600 Received: from (mail1.halcyon.com) [206.63.63.40] by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #1) id 0ySjxA-0006IK-00; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:59:52 -0600 Received: from 206.63.32.171 (blv-pm105-ip21.halcyon.com [206.63.32.171]) by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA07314 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 07:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804241459.HAA07314@mail1.halcyon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <8EDB44A.01F5007F7D.uuout@ucs.org> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com While the details continue to elude us, keep one thing in mind: John Schaffer was not the ultimate target of the raid. The true target of the raid is you and me. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize, and the purpose of intimidation is to intimidate. A raid of the magnitude visited upon Mr. Schaffer appears to be totally unnecessary. Given the fact that he was released on $7,500. bail, the charges cannot have been too serious. What justifies a "dynamic arrest" in this case? Our masters are sending signals to the whole gun owning community: cross any line, get out of step, fail to do exactly as we say and we will respond with overwhelming force. Resistance is futile. Just do what you're told and we won't do this to you... for now. ALL OF US are the target. Joe Waldron USMC(ret) - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: details on the incident in New Jersey. (fwd) -Forwarded Date: 24 Apr 1998 09:22:48 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 02:09:01 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id EAA24906; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 04:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma024847; Fri Apr 24 04:06:57 1998 Message-Id: <9804240803.0gw5@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list On Apr 23, Charles Riggs wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] To the recipients of this message on this list- please forward to other lists - My apologies for forwarding the message this morning from John Schaeffer about the raid on his house in New Jersey without providing additional details, but I hadn't yet spoken with John at that time, and am writing this now to fill in the background. John is 53 and a veteran of the U.S. Army, works in computers with one of the largest phone companies in the country, holds an FFL, and is a gunsmith and consultant on firearms and ammunition. His clients have included police departments in the past. He was present at the introduction of the Steyr Scout rifle this year at Whittington center, and is a friend of Col. Cooper's, who is following this affair with great interest. He maintains information about the Scout rifle on his web page with the active assistance of Steyr, who provide the photos to him. He is a verger in the Episcopal church (assists with the liturgy) and lives with his wife and stepson. He is a decent man and well-regarded by the alumni of the American Pistol Institute/Gunsite Training Center, of whom I am one, and is NOT accused of ANYTHING to do with drugs or anything of that sort. He applied to renew his FFL this year and met with several delays which were not explained. The charges against him at this time state that he provided false information on the renewal for his FFL, and other charges related to this alleged misinformation, info which John provided as required by law and in good faith. He is also charged with resisting arrest after being knocked down and kicked in the head by the New Jersey State Police, and while face-down being sprayed directly in the face with capsicum by this same officer. The charges against him were arranged by BATF, but the raid prosecuted by the NJSP for reasons unknown. The raid occurred in Tom's Point, New Jersey in the early hours of 22 April 1998 as a no-knock dynamic entry when they kicked down his door and entered the house, screaming obscenities. They could have come and knocked on the door, and arrested John and served the search warrant peacefully, but they didn't. They came in hyped up and fired up, and revelled in "getting us another gun nut" as they ran amok in his home. They knocked John down when he didn't kneel on command, but John couldn't kneel because he has severe arthritis, has had one knee replacement and is pending another. He can't even kneel in church for the services. Apparently even if you can't bend your knee for God, you'll have to do it for the NJSP! They screamed obscenities and threatened violence throughout the raid, threatened his stepson, and physically abused him by grabbing him by the throat when he asked to be allowed to get dressed- and this while standing in front of his house in his underwear. I hope this is sufficient information for the members of this list about John and this incident, and that you'll now contact the Governor of New Jersey, the NJSP, and anyone else you can think of who may be able to help us bring these thugs to task for their outrageous misconduct. Write to your representatives and ask how it is that every time BATF is around this sort of madness follows. Ask how it is that we no longer deal in a civil fashion with peaceful citizens. Demand an accounting for policemen who treat a member of the Episcopal church like a common crackhead or violent felon. If what I've told you in this message doesn't convince you to stand up for John Schaeffer and take action, then I can't think of what else to say to you, except that no citizen of this nation, no God-loving man born of woman, should ever have to suffer at the hands of men who represent the law in this way. If you agree with me, please raise your voices and speak for John, and for our common freedom. Watch six- Charles Riggs. Charles Riggs- Gunsite 1991- DVC! "Stop Crime- Be Armed- Fight Back!" Ky. Coalition to Carry Concealed (KC3) IDPA (Ky) - NRA - GOA Visit http://www.kc3.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: WORK PLACE Homicide -Forwarded Date: 24 Apr 1998 11:32:50 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:13:04 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA21422; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:09:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma021342; Fri Apr 24 13:08:55 1998 Message-Id: <1318699310-110136611@coe.ufl.edu> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: dloftus@edu15.coe.ufl.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list This is from the CNN web page and can be found at:http://cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/23/health.jobs/index.html. What is important to me is the statement toward the end of the article: " The agency said homicides were the leading cause of work-related deaths in California, the District of Columbia, Michigan and New York between 1980 and 1994. " California, Washington D.C. and NY (most likely the highest percentage form NY City) - all these places with high levels of gun control. Are any of us surprised? The conclusions at the end are kind of a "duh?" response. Don Loftus Gainesville, FL ATLANTA (CNN) -- Job-related deaths in the United States dropped sharply from 1980 to 1994, health officials said Thursday. But homicides have surpassed machine-related injuries to become the second-leading cause of on-the-job deaths after motor vehicle accidents. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said murders accounted for 13.5 percent of the occupational-related deaths between 1980 and 1994. Motor vehicle crashes accounted for 23.1 percent of job-related fatalities in the same period. Homicides surpassed machinery accidents beginning in 1990. Machinery accidents were third with 13.3 percent of the deaths for the 15-year period. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health said on-the-job deaths from motor vehicle accidents, machine-related injuries, falls and electrocutions have gradually declined since 1980, while deaths from homicide have remained relatively constant. "There is good news in that the overall fatality rate is on the decline ... at the same time there are still a remarkable number of job-related deaths that we think are inherently preventable. That's where the focus needs to be," said NIOSH director Dr. Linda Rosenstock. The agency said homicides were the leading cause of work-related deaths in California, the District of Columbia, Michigan and New York between 1980 and 1994. The institute said 88,622 workers died from job-related injuries between 1980 and 1994. There were 5,406 workplace fatalities in 1994, down from the 7,405 deaths in 1980. The institute said 3.3 million workers were treated in hospital emergency rooms for occupational injuries in 1996. The CDC has estimated that the cost of work-related injuries and fatalities is more than $121 billion per year. An institute report in 1996 found that workers were at greater risk of homicide or assault if they were involved in the exchange of money, had routine contact with the public, worked alone or in small numbers, worked late or very early hours, or worked in high crime areas. The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.# - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Repost of garbeled cross post [Mall Murders] -Forwarded Date: 24 Apr 1998 16:05:09 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:03:55 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA20597; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 19:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma020218; Wed Apr 22 18:57:22 1998 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980422111850.006cd428@lava.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: bbaron@lava.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Somehow the original I sent got garbeled. Here's a clean version (I hope). Brian Bubba wrote: > > News Release: S.A.F.E. Merchant Awareness Project > P.O. Box 56321 > Phoenix, AZ 85079-6321 > > Date: 10 April 1998 - For immediate release > > For additional information: > Frank Golubski, project co-ordinator > Phone: (602) 435-1154 > E-Mail: safemap@aol.com > > Dangerous mall policy may have contributed to woman's murder > > PHOENIX, AZ - Had a Phoenix mall allowed its patrons to exercise the > right to bear arms, the fatal stabbing of a Glendale mother Tuesday might > have been prevented, the SAFE Merchant Awareness Project announced today. > > "The thing that really strikes me is how this happened in broad > daylight, in front of numerous bystanders," said Frank Golubski, project co-ordinator. > "Had just one of those witnesses been armed, he might have been able to come > to Lisa Barnes' defense. But Metrocenter's 'no weapons' policy almost > guaranteed that that wouldn't happen." > > After leaving the Metrocenter Mall Tuesday afternoon, Jack and Lisa > Barnes got into an argument in the Sears parking lot. Witnesses said that > Jack Barnes began pounding his wife with his fists, then pulled a knife and > stabbed her repeatedly. > > Barnes fled in his pickup truck while witnesses tried to render aid to > his wife, who died at the scene. Barnes returned to the couple's Glendale > home and there committed suicide. > > "The mall police showed up - as did the Phoenix police - but only after > Mrs. Barnes was dead," Golubski noted. "There are only so many police in our > communities, and they can't possibly be everywhere at the same time. > Consequently, they are rarely present when somebody is being attacked. Ask a > cop. He'll tell you that in most cases, all they can do is gather evidence > AFTER the crime - AFTER you have become a victim - in hopes of bringing the > attacker to justice." > > Golubski says this is why many Arizonans exercise their right to > carry a gun. "The Arizona Constitution says, 'The right of the individual > citizen to bear arms in self defense shall not be impaired.' Arizona law supports > that right with no-permit-required 'open' carry, and with concealed carry by > permit. Many Arizonans take personal responsibility for their safety in this > manner, but what good is the right to bear arms when businesses or malls > post signs prohibiting you from exercising it?" > > This is why Golubski and other members of the Arizona State Rifle and > Pistol Association, Brassroots, Inc. and Second Amendment is For Everyone > (SAFE), launched the SAFE Merchant Awareness Project. SAFE-MAP notifies > Arizona gun owners which businesses are anti-self-defense. They also > encourage Arizona merchants to support their patrons' right to bear arms. > > "Some gun owners have always encouraged family and friends to avoid > businesses which disarm their customers, but such efforts inherently have > limited results," Golubski said. "The Merchant Awareness Project greatly > multiplies the 'pass-it-on' effect by gathering info on anti-gun businesses > from across Arizona and then distributing it statewide." > > Golubski emphasized that the "boycott effect" of the Merchant Awareness > Project, while desirable, is actually a secondary goal. "We want businesses > who post against firearm possession to understand that they are placing > themselves in a position of increased liability. It's a real double whammy." > > "First, their 'no guns' signs make their customers more attractive > targets in the eyes of criminals," he said. "Then, if a violent crime does > occur in a posted establishment and a disarmed patron is injured or > killed, he or his survivors can make the case that he may not have been > harmed had the store not disarmed him." > > "By posting 'no guns' signs, businesses mislead their customers into > thinking their stores are safe, while actually endangering them. Then > when an attack does occur there, they'll cry, 'The safety of our customers > isn't OUR responsibility!'" > > Golubski notes that the murder at Metrocenter is not typical of the > kind of violence one might expect to occur on commercial property. "While the > Barnes murder was a case of domestic violence, the most common violent crimes > one anticipates in stores or parking lots are probably armed robbery, > carjacking, and kidnaping leading to sexual assault. But regardless of the > kind of crime one might encounter, people should be allowed to defend > themselves - or others - if they choose. And 'no guns' policies like > Metrocenter's deprive people of that ability." > > The Merchant Awareness Project hopes that the recent tragedy at > Metrocenter will cause the mall to rethink their policy. "Criminals aren't > stupid," Golubski said. "They can read. And to a criminal, 'no guns' signs > really say, 'Come on in. Our customers are defenseless.'" > > S.A.F.E. Merchant Awareness Project > P.O. Box 56321 > Phoenix, AZ 85079-6321 -- Don't agonize. Organize. http://GunsSaveLives.com (Opinions here are personal and not those of any organization.) -------------------------- GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List This list is governed by an acceptable use policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html or available upon request. To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@listbox.com with the following line in the body: unsubscribe gsl GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Bennett / Bishop debacle Date: 24 Apr 1998 16:26:27 -0600 At 06:17 PM 4/23/98 -0700, you wrote: >As State GOP chair I suspect the Salt Lake County GOP officers >would listen were he to have objected to their shenanigans. >Regardless of his sincerity or insincerity, Sen. Bennett *did* >denounce them. This makes him look much better than otherwise, >and more likely to prevail in his antigun efforts. I already agreed that SL Co. GOP officers would likely have listened to Rob Bishop. However, I don't know whether or not Bishop _knew_ about Quist's plans to have leafletters arrested, or whether he was present at the time the arrests took place. Bennett appears to be a hypocrite of the first order, doing nothing while abuses took place and then denouncing them afterwards. Nonetheless he now "looks" better - at least to those who don't look closely. But I don't quite get your point. Should we now _oppose_ ethical (or even quasi-ethical) behavior on the part of anti-gun candidates merely because of their position on gun control? Doesn't it make more sense to insist that if they support the First Amendment, they must also support the Second? >Note that Mike Leavitt is in league with Sen. Bennett in the >antigun campaign. Of course I know that! And then there's Cook, and Hatch, and most of our other elected officials. The main difference is that only Hatch and Leavitt failed to denounce tyranny. >It was my understanding that the USSC had retained Rob Bishop as >its lobbyist with the Utah Legislature. If he doesn't object to >the GOP's tyrannical actions, the perception may rub off on gun >rights people as supporting tyranny. The newspapers already attempt >to make gun righters appear as special interests who have no concern >for the rights of private property owners, school children, or >government agencies such as schools and universities, as though >governments could *have* rights rather than mere raw power. Yeah, perceptions. There's no law against stupidity. If you're worried about public perceptions, I'd suggest you direct your complaints to the newspapers, TV stations and other media who work so hard to create those perceptions. If you perceive that Rob Bishop is a tyrant, that's _your_ perception. I perceive otherwise. If you'd like to validate your perception, why don't you talk to him? >While perhaps incorrect, there is a perception that the USSC and >the NRA are closely allied. More perceptions. I've stated repeatedly that there is no formal affiliation. It is true that USSC and the NRA cooperate, often more than I personally would like. But if people choose to believe that USSC is "part" of the NRA, or that aliens are running the UN, it's not my problem. If you're waiting for USSC to formally disavow and denounce the NRA, don't hold your breath. >Indeed. However, the USSC has a contract with its Chairman. One more time.... Rob Bishop is Chairman of the Utah GOP. I have no idea of whether he has a contract with them and it's none of my business. Rob Bishop is NOT Chairman of USSC. That position is held by Elwood Powell who serves without pay and whose duties are outlined in the bylaws. >Even if I am not currently a member of the USSC, political fallout >from this can affect me as much as its members and officers. FYI >I am a Republican Party delegate to both the county and state >conventions. You may want to request updated delegate lists if >yours do not list my name. I submitted and was signatory to the >above-mentioned Fair Election Practices amendment that Gary Utt, >at Bill Quist's request, trashed. My apologies. I didn't know you were a delegate, and I don't have a delegate list. I commend your support of the Fair Election Practices amendment. Since you are a delegate to the County Convention, I will take the risk of assuming you were present when these abuses occurred. So maybe you know.... Was Rob Bishop in attendance? If so, what was his reaction to the SL Co. GOP actions? For that matter, what did you do to oppose the abuses? I, for one, would appreciate some objective reporting from someone who was there. (I've already heard from Arnold Gaunt, who was threatened with arrest.) If you feel USSC's actions have the potential to adversely affect you, perhaps you should consider becoming a member so you have a say in those actions. >>And believe it or not, Rob Bishop has the same freedom of speech >>that everyone else in this country has. > >This does not extend to denying others freedom of speech, or >allowing the parliamentary processes of a political party he >chairs to be subverted. Didn't Voltaire say "I disagree with what >you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."? Well, the GOP seems somewhat confused as to whether it's a private entity or a government agency. If it's a government agency, it may not deny freedom of speech. If it's a private entity, it may do so, providing there's nothing prohibiting it in its bylaws. For essentially the same reasons, USSC can place a "gag order" on its Board members. I don't condone such behavior, but I will defend the right of private entities to make their own rules. And my original point was that Mr. Bishop is certainly free to _remain silent_ on an issue, and is under no obligation to comment on it. >>It seems clear that you have an extreme dislike for USSC and Rob Bishop. > >Disappointment at apparently counterproductive efforts in pursuit >of goals largely overlapping my own. I send no such comments to >officers of HCI, CeaseFire, or VPC. (What is that last one?) That's a common enough problem, and one most likely shared by all of us. I get disappointed at the GOP for not pursuing goals that philosophically we both claim to share. I get disappointed at the Libertarian Party for the same reason. I've given up on the NRA for the most part. At one time or another I've been disgusted, disappointed, or disillusioned by the actions of every single organization to which I've ever belonged. No person and no organization is _ever_ going to agree with me all the time. So I support organizations and candidates who come closest to what I support and/or organize my own when necessary. Maybe those of us with common goals need to get together to discuss how we can best accomplish those goals, if we feel existing organizations and candidates are failing us. And VPC is the Violence Policy Center, Josh Sugarmann's lying think tank in Washington. Sarah (again, for myself only) Sarah Thompson, M.D. 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: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Bennett / Bishop debacle Date: 25 Apr 1998 19:26:00 -0700 On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 16:26:27 -0600 S. Thompson wrote: > Should we now _oppose_ ethical (or even quasi-ethical) behavior > on the part of anti-gun candidates merely because of their position > on gun control? We should insist that our pro-gun representatives exhibit ethical, not merely quasi-ethical, behavior. > Doesn't it make more sense to insist that if they support > the First Amendment, they must also support the Second? The hypocrites support neither, except in the breach. > only Hatch and Leavitt failed to denounce tyranny. Take 'em down from their elective offices. > If you're waiting for USSC to formally disavow and denounce the NRA, > don't hold your breath. But don't let either endorse politicians opposed to the Second amendment, or any part of the Bill of Rights. Those are my major differences with the NRA and ACLU. As they say; 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 is counting with the ACLU, while for the NRA it is 2, and then they consider any form of permissive license compatible with "shall not be infringed." > >the USSC has a contract with its Chairman. > One more time.... Rob Bishop is Chairman of the Utah GOP. I have no > idea of whether he has a contract with them and it's none of my business. > Rob Bishop is NOT Chairman of USSC. I meant as lobbyist. > Since you are a delegate to the County Convention, I will take > the risk of assuming you were present when these abuses occurred. Only some. The arrests and trashing were around 7:30 am. I got there at 10 am. I did hear Bill Quist explain and defend his actions to the KUTV cameraman and interviewer. > So maybe you know.... Was Rob Bishop in attendance? Sorry, I don't know. > For that matter, what did you do to oppose the abuses? Asked Bill Quist and Gary Utt to replace our amendment flyers they trashed. They refused, and claimed they were abandoned trash. They also alleged there were rules against such distribution, but no such rule appears on the proposed convention rules provided delegates and candidates. > (I've already heard from Arnold Gaunt, who was threatened with arrest.) Him, too? > Well, the GOP seems somewhat confused as to whether it's a private entity > or a government agency. As the power behind the throne, perhaps they think they're above both, as well as any rules, and that delegates only serve the purpose of providing the appearance of lawful process. > I've given up on the NRA for the most part. At one time or another > I've been disgusted, disappointed, or disillusioned by the actions of > every single organization to which I've ever belonged. No person and > no organization is _ever_ going to agree with me all the time. So I > support organizations and candidates who come closest to what I support > and/or organize my own when necessary. Maybe those of us with common > goals need to get together to discuss how we can best accomplish those > goals, if we feel existing organizations and candidates are failing us. Has JPFO disappointed you? (Other than maintaining a nearly invisible profile) What would it take to organize a Utah affiliate? I suspect a name change for the affiliate might be needed here in Utah, where Gov. Bamberger, a Jew, was Utah's first Gentile Governor. > And VPC is the Violence Policy Center, Josh Sugarmann's lying think > tank in Washington. Thank you. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: The John Schaefer Picture Clarifies Date: 26 Apr 1998 21:46:14 -0600 More on the John Schaefer incident in NJ, to be followed by yet another version. Once again, it appears that the truth is rarely simple to ascertain. Sarah > From: TSBench@aol.com >Subject: Re: NJ Incident > >As you may or may not know, I run a radio station in Boston. I saw the >original story on the NJ raid, thought it may make an interesting topic >on our saturday morning talk show. I asked my News Director to check it >out. He came up with the following, which seem to be missing from the >original description of the incident. > >Shaefer is a convicted felon, taking a fall for endangering a child in >1989 in Monmouth, NJ, court. He walked on two other charges. > >The Feds found out he was a disqualified person in possession of >firearms and reported him to the NJ authorities. Both the state and Feds >were on the scene since he was in violation of both fed and state >statutes. A judge in NJ issued the warrant. > >He was peppered, not maced, when he continued to approach the entry team >after being told to halt. Since he's a convicted felon and self-defense >instructor believed to be in possession of firearms, what exactly did he >expect. In the event, it turns out he had a loaded .45 in his dresser. > >He neglected to mention that what was confiscated included 27 firearms, >CS and Smoke grenades, det cord, plus documents he used to falsify his >FFL renewal form. > >The story about the dummy mortar round was a smokescreen. He is being >charged with being a convicted felon in possession of firearms and >destructive devices, so I guess not all that stuff was 'inert.' >At the time, he only asked the police to change the position of his >handcuffs (from back to front) when he said it hurt his back. They did. >He never requested medical attention while with the police. > >When they start giving you the 'church going, family man, pillor of the >community, loved by all' line instead of real facts, the warning flags >should go up. All we need is bunch of pro-gunners, who continually >mention, factually, that gun owners are the most law-abiding segment of >the population, shooting off letters to the editor supporting this guy >and then get hung out to dry by appearing to be supporting illegal >activity (we may not agree with it, but it is still illegal.) I can well >understand Shaefer's reluctance to relate all the little details, but he >damages all of us by neglecting to mention all the pertinent >information, especially the most important details. > >I'm still counting my blessings that I checked this out before putting >it on the air. I have a pro-gun editorial policy here at the station, >and the damage to our credibility would have been enormous. I would have >had the 'anti' crowd beating me over the head with this for the next ten >years. > >Regards, >TSB > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: And Yet ANOTHER Shoe Drops in NJSP Story Date: 26 Apr 1998 21:47:23 -0600 Another chaper in the John Schaefer story. Sarah >Subject: And Yet ANOTHER Shoe Drops in NJSP Story > > From: #1 - Dave Workman > #2 - Charles Riggs > >>Dear Mr. Shaefer: > >> I was forwarded your e-mail posting on the internet, partly, I >>preseume, because I am a working journalist. Upon receiving it, I >>posted a message to Gov. Whitman's office, asking for an explanation >>by Monday morning. > >> Your tale got my immediate attention, as I have heard horror >>stories coming out of New Jersey for some years about state police >>treatment of law abiding firearms owners. This seemed like S.O.P. > >> However, "Tale" seems to be an operative word, here, in your >>case, sir. Would you care to comment on the posting, below? > >> My thanks to my East Coast colleague, Mr. Bench, for having >>had the time to check this story out beyond what I was able to do >>at the late hour at which it arrived at my terminal. > >>- Dave Workman > > > John can't respond as he's been told by his attorney to withhold >so I'll presume to speak in his defense in the interim. > Mr. Bench should go to work for the BATF, what with the job he's >doing on John on this one. He took their statements at face value, and >never batted an eye when they and the NJSP, hardly stalwarts of gun >rights as you observed, slagged John's reputation. Didn't they do the >same thing to Koresh and Weaver? Were they right then? Haven't they >WRONG quite a lot? > John denies the charges. He's been without blemish in the 30 years >he's had an FFL. And no matter what he may or may not have done, he >didn't deserve to be physically abused and to have his family abused and >threatened. I was raised around cops, and I know how they're SUPPOSED to >do it, and this ain't it. > You want to see who John Schaeffer is? Go to his web page, > > http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/frfrog/project.htm > > ...and check out the people in the photos there. Go to the third one >down, under "Those who dared to dream." That's John just to the right of >Col. Cooper - real "gangsta"-type, huh? I can see why those adrenaline- >charged, body-armored, ranting, charging NJSP SWAT boys with their MP5s >were all shook up over taking on ol' John, can't you? > Mr. Bench should go to work writing copy for the BATF "Book of >Apologia" if this is how he "helps" those of us in the arms-bearing >fraternity. Need I say more or is the picture clear enough for now, >until John is cleared and can speak for himself? > Watch six - Charles Riggs. > > Charles Riggs - Gunsite 1991 - DVC! > "Stop Crime - Be Armed - Fight Back!" > Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed (KC3) > IDPA (Ky) - NRA - GOA > Visit http://www.kc3.com > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: The Local Media's View from NJ Date: 27 Apr 1998 00:03:03 -0600 >From: DeanSpeir@prodigy.com ( DEAN SPEIR) >Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 01:38:59, -0500 >Subject: The Local Media's (NJSP Spoon-fed) View > > [Since the information in this story originated > with ATF and/or NJSP, I like Schaefer's version > of events more and more... Imagine that!... > buying guns by mail! - Dean Speir] > > >>From Asbury Park Press ONLINE edition... http://www.injersey.com > > Raid on house of felon turns up a small arsenal > > Published in the Asbury Park Press 4/25/98 > > > By SHERI TABACHNIK > STAFF WRITER > > TOMS RIVER -- A felon who maintains a Website about the > importance of bearing arms was paid a surprise visit by a team > of law enforcement officers, who confiscated a small arsenal of > weapons from his home, a state police spokesman said. > > John C. Schaefer, 52, whose Internet home page states he lives > "behind the iron curtain in the People's Republic of New > Jersey," was arrested Wednesday and charged with possession of > firearms by a convicted felon, possession of assault firearms, > possession of high-capacity magazines and possession of > destructive devices, state police spokesman Sgt. Al Della Fave > said. > > Police found 27 items, including a handgun and an assault rifle, > in Schaefer's North Bay Avenue home, Della Fave said. > > The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the agency > that prompted the arrest, had begun investigating Schaefer after > he tried to buy a gun, said Steve Haskins, bureau spokesman. > Since 1994, when the Brady Law was enacted, law enforcement > agencies must check whether a would-be gun buyer has a felony > record. > > In 1989, Schaefer was convicted of endangering the welfare od > a child, Della Fave said. > > Della Fave said the bureau discovered he had the weapons, many > of which he had purchased through the mail. It in turn warned > the state police tactical response team that Schaefer was a > self-defense instructor certified with the National Rifle > Association, Della Fave said. > > A team made up of about 10 officers went to Schaefer's house > at 7 a.m. Wednesday. > > "They hit the door and he came out in the hallway," Della Fave > said. > > "They told him to freeze and get down on the floor, but instead > he continued to move toward them," Della Fave said. "They > immediately sprayed him with pepper spray, grabbed him, put him > on the floor and handcuffed him. > > "It was over within seconds," Della Fave said. > > Armed with a search warrant, the state police firearms > investigation unit and arson bomb squad, a member of the > Ocean County prosecutor's office, Dover Township police > officers and members of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and > Firearms searched Schaefer's house. > > They confiscated a loaded .45-caliber handgun, an assault > firearm, 10 large-capacity magazines, a high-explosive > detonation cord, three hand-grenade simulators, three smoke > grenades and a gas riot grenade, Della Fave said. > > State police also charged Schaefer with violating regulatory > provisions of New Jersey law; sworn falsification on an official > document, the statement he signed at Dover Township police > station that he was never convicted of a crime punishable by more > than a year in jail, and resisting arrest, Della Fave said. It > could not be determined yesterday what sentence Schaefer received > on the child endangerment charge. > > Schaefer, who was released from Ocean County Jail, Toms River, > after posting $7,500 bail, was back in his home Thursday sending > messages over the Internet claiming he had been brutalized by > state police and referring to New Jersey as Nazi Germany. Schaefer > could not be reached for comment. > > Staff writer Rick Linsk contributed to this report. > > Source: Asbury Park Press > > Published: April 25, 1998 > > Copyright C1997-1998 IN Jersey. > Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of > Service (updated 2/25/98). Site design by Neptune Interactive Designs. > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Update 4/26/98 -Forwarded Date: 27 Apr 1998 09:59:06 -0700 Received: from legacy.lgcy.com ([209.63.171.101]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:57:45 -0600 Received: from mail.lgcy.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id na661505; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:44:28 -0600 Received: from [209.63.185.152] by mail.lgcy.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba464985 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:44:28 -0600 Comments: Authenticated sender is MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Reply-to: mridgway@lgcy.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Message-Id: <02442869608711@lgcy.com> X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com X-ListMember: dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us [discussion@derail.org] I called the Salt Lake county party headquarters, Friday, and spoke with Kathy Arenst. I was intent on knowing the true origin of the "rule" banning distribution of "unauthorized" literature in the hallways and from rented tables in the convention hall. She answered that it was probably passed by the county central committee. I conveyed my skepticism reminding her such a change in the rules would have had to have occurred between the time the Utah Republican Assembly approached the party about the rental of a table and the time I attended the drawing for table placement held April 8th. It was at that meeting that the individual in charge announced the party had been approached by several groups, among them the Libertarian Party, and had made a decision that it would rent tables to no groups. I challenged her to produce any supporting documentation to show that this rule was anything more than a last minute, back room ploy to shut down the activists that they had reason to believe would be present at the convention (since the same activists had appeared in other county conventions in the previous weeks). She refused to promise me any such information citing rumors that the activist intend to sue the party over this incident. During the course of the conversation, she accused Tom and Ruth of doing what they did with the express intent of being arrested, citing the presence of a video camera as proof. When I challenged the party's authority to have individuals arrested for being in position of printed political materials, she countered with an assertion that I hadn't heard until then: That the area the party had rented included not only the grand ballroom and the adjoining meeting room but also the hallways leading into those two rooms. With regard to Jim Kirkwood's and Ken Olafson's calls for resignations, I am beginning to concur. I would be inclined to give suspected parties the benefit of the doubt but at every turn, evidence of malicious intent and now, of a coverup grows weightier. It seems to me, at this point that the burden of proof is now on all those, such as Sheriff Kennard, to show that they had nothing to do with Saturday's arrests, or that they tried to dissuade the party from this outrageous line of attack. This isn't a jury trial. And their taking the Fifth isn't grounds for finding the "defendants" in this matter "not guilty." This is about a scandal perpetrated in direct contravention of the very principles that the Republican Party proclaims in it's constitution, by-laws and platform. Those who were ultimately responsible for this action should step down if the party is to reclaim its good name. (All right, you guys. No snickering about the 'good name' part.) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [Fwd: Formal Objection to BATF] -Forwarded Date: 27 Apr 1998 10:17:33 -0700 Received: (qmail 16699 invoked by uid 516); 23 Apr 1998 19:11:20 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 16328 invoked from network); 23 Apr 1998 19:10:39 -0000 Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg2.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.12) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 1998 19:10:39 -0000 Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14]) by mg2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10578 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:10:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from hlmtfish (166-93-57-94.rmi.net [166.93.57.94]) by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA27952 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:10:32 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <353F9224.7507@rmi.net> Organization: Global Neighbourhood Watch, (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by "Charles 'Chuck' Inston" ----------------------- Chris W. Stark wrote: > = > ****JPFO e-mail Alert!**** > = > Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. > Aaron Zelman - Executive Director > 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. > Milwaukee, WI 53207 > Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 > http://www.JPFO.org > Against-Genocide@JPFO.org > = > 04/23/98 > -------- > = > On January 6, 1998, JPFO alerted its members and e-mail subscribers > of the letter we sent to the BATF regarding Sporting Suitability of > Modified Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles. You can find this letter on > the JPFO web site at: > = > http://www.jpfo.org/batf.htm > = > On April 6, 1998, the Clinton Adminstration announced a broader ban > on the importation of certain semi-automatic rifles because they did > not meet the requirements for "sporting use." These rifles weren't > for "sporting use," according to the administration, because they > could be fitted with "large" magazines or clips. > = > We pointed out in an alert dated April 7, 1998, and found on the > JPFO web site at: > = > http://www.jpfo.org/nazirot.htm > = > .....that "sporting use" strategy was used before. The Nazi > Weapons Law (18 March 1938) forbade importation of weapons under > substantially the same test. > = > To understand how the "sporting use" definition led to the > Holocaust, how the same language was imported into the U.S. > Gun Control Act of 1968, and how that language is bearing > its vicious fruit now, get and read "Gun Control:" Gateway > to Tyranny, available from JPFO at: > = > http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm > = > We now reply to the ""Comments Provided by Interest Groups" that > BATF has published at: > = > http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/assault_rifles/index.htm > = > We encourage our members to write a follow-up letter to the BATF, > regarding the content of the letter below. > = > Our letter to Mr. John Magaw, Director of the BATF, follows: > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > = > April 17, 1998 > = > Mr. John W. Magaw > Director, BATF > Room 8000 > 650 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. > Washington, D.C. 20226 > = > Re:Formal Objection to Study on the Sporting Suitability of > Modified Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles (April 1998) > = > Dear Director Magaw: > = > The Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semi-Automatic > Assault Rifles ("Study Report"), under "Comments Provided by Interest > Groups", mentions our January 5, 1998 Comment Letter by stating as > follows, in full: > = > (8) Identical comments were received from five members > of JPFO. They are against any form of gun control > or restriction regardless of the type of firearm. > References are made comparing gun control to Nazi > Germany. > = > This brief response characterized but did not communicate our > points. As a result, the decision makers were not fully informed > about the opposition to the proposed rulemaking. > = > We strongly object to our organization's being referred to > by only its four-letter acronym. JPFO stands for Jews for the > Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The name and emphasis of > our organization is unique. To reduce us to a largely unfamiliar > acronym is to effectively dismiss our input. > = > For our organization and many of its members, "Nazi Germany" > and "the Holocaust" are not mere clich=E9s or metaphors. These terms > vividly recall destruction, disappearance, and death to friends and > family members. Frankly, our organization takes offense at any > casual reference to these subjects. > = > To dismiss our input into the decision process, the Study > Report does treat the subject of Nazi Germany quite casually . By > saying only that "References are made comparing gun control to Nazi > Germany," the Report completely ignores the substance of our > comment. Our comment did not compare "gun control" to Nazi Germany. > Our comment was far more specific. > = > Our research shows that the statutory authority for BATF's > regulation of the importation of semi-automatic firearms comes > directly from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. With this letter we > are providing you with a copy of our book, Gateway to Tyranny, > which proves this connection by showing: > = > (1)Senator Thomas Dodd obtained a copy of the Nazi > Weapons Law of 1938 and had it translated into > English just before the U.S. Gun Control Act of > 1968 was drafted (see pp. 130-132); > = > (2)The 1968 Gun Control Act is structured and patterned > after the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 (see pp. 54-63); > = > (3)The "sporting use" criteria for importing firearms, > as developed in the 1968 Gun Control Act, comes > directly from the Nazi Weapons Law and its implementing > regulations (see pp. 60, 61, 88, 89, 90, 91, 102); > and > = > (4)The Nazi Weapons Law (augmenting the pre-existing > "gun control" laws) granted nearly unlimited power to > government agents to deny to Jews (and others) all > access to firearms, and once unarmed, the Jews were > helpless against the well-armed police and soldiers > (see pp. 7-11, 14, 52, 83, 113-121). > = > Our January 5 Comment Letter also pointed out the lack of > constitutional authority for a federal agency to define and regulate > "sports." In fact, the language of the Second Amendment expressly > forbids the federal government to enact regulations which would > "infringe" on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." The > Study Report should have squarely addressed these objections, because > our government and your agency are subject to the Constitution, not > above it. > = > Our organization's leaders and members ask that you review > Gateway to Tyranny, and we would appreciate the favor of your reply > to this letter. We would be particularly interested in any facts > you have that would refute the points made in our book. > = > Very truly yours, > = > Aaron Zelman > = > Enclosure > = > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > = > To become a JPFO member, go to: http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm > There you will see a printable member application, along with info > on membership. If you wish, you can become a member using our on-line > application as well. Membership IS open to ALL Law abiding citizens. > = > **************************************************************** > Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) > Chris W. Stark - Director of Electronic Communications > 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. > Milwaukee, WI 53207 > Ph. (414) 769-0760 > Fax (414) 483-8435 > Against-Genocide@JPFO.org > = > Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org > = > MEMBERSHIP IS OPEN TO ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. > = > "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership." > **************************************************************** > Copyright (c) 1998, JPFO > Republication permitted provided this article & attribution > is left intact in its original state. > **************************************************************** > = > TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: > = > subscribe@JPFO.org > = > ...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". > **************************************************************** -- = Charles 'Chuck' Inston Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Walter Williams in Today's Deseret News Date: 27 Apr 1998 17:50:04 -0600 I re-sent Walter Williams' article to quite a few of my friends. I received the following response from a woman who's been a friend since high school, and whose in-laws are Holocaust survivors: One of the central points that is overlooked is that the German Jews considered themselves Germans first. My husbands grandparents were prime examples. even after the war, Ivan's grandfather still insisted that "German made" was ultimately the best. The German Jews did not see themselves as different or apart as the rest of the German population & that of, with very few exceptions, eastern europe. The long standing & deeply rooted anti- semitism was always there & still exists. German Jews could not believe that the country they believed in & fought for would betray them. A few years ago , my father-in-law went to Poland to see his home & go to the camps. He needed "closure." My Mother-in-law, while she was alive would never go with him, & he went after her death. He went to the town where he was born & where he lived until he was a teen & stood outside the address that was his as a child. There was a different house there, but he stood in front of the street number to absorb his surroundings & remember what had been. a man can out of the house yelling & cursing him, "You Jews are all alike. This is not your home it is mine, get away, you can't have my home ." My father- in-law had not intention of trying to take this man's home. He merely wanted to stand & think but he was so angered by this Jew-hater that he went to a lawyer to talk to him. The Polish lawyer informed him that he could try to recover the property but it would cost him a lot of money & time & there was no guarantee he would get anything. My father-in-law decided not to pursue this action but he was so angered that he came home & told everyone. Are you aware of how few Jews are left in Poland, a handful & many do not even practice any form of Judaism. Yet the Polish govt & political parties still use us a scapegoats for their political agenda. It is nauseating. *************************************** This is Sarah again. In the late 1930's virtually no one in Germany believed he was living in a fascist state. The Germans were pleased with their "good economy", the 1928 and 1938 Gun Control Acts were viewed as largely irrelevant, and even the Jews thought that they were "good Germans" no different from anyone else. We now know they were wrong. So here we are in 1998. Virtually no American believes he is living in a fascist state. We're told our economy is booming (although I can't say I've personally noticed any improvement in my standard of living). The Gun Control Acts of 1934 and 1968 are regarded as mostly irrelevant. The later Brady Act and weapons bans have attracted a bit more attention, but most people still seem to believe they're either irrelevant, or somehow "necessary to stop crime". Most gun owners consider themselves "Good Americans", believe they live in a free country, and that nothing "bad" could possibly happen to them in the United States. Will history prove _us_ wrong as well? Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. 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: Re: Bennett / Bishop debacle Date: 27 Apr 1998 19:17:20 -0600 At 07:26 PM 4/25/98 -0700, you wrote: >We should insist that our pro-gun representatives exhibit ethical, >not merely quasi-ethical, behavior. This _sounds_ good. But if we recalled every representative who exhibited less than perfectly ethical behavior, we'd have to recall all of them. (I can think of only one or two Congresspeople who meet _my_ standards of ethical and even they're not perfect.) Lobbying is like advertising; you can only demand so much objective truth. You may be able to insist that tobacco companies warn people that cigarettes are dangerous, but you can't stop Camel from insisting that its products are better than Marlboro or vice versa. Further, one can only retain a lobbyist to advocate for or against a certain issue. You can't control which other issues he lobbies, nor can you mandate that he resign from his full-time (non-legislative) job. Yes, I agree that lobbyists and representatives should remove themselves from areas of obvious conflict of interest. I would not personally support someone whose behavior I considered unethical. But I think what you're suggesting amounts to restricting the right of freedom of association, and I'm not willing to go that far. >> Doesn't it make more sense to insist that if they support >> the First Amendment, they must also support the Second? > >The hypocrites support neither, except in the breach. Agreed! >> only Hatch and Leavitt failed to denounce tyranny. > >Take 'em down from their elective offices. Well neither of them (nor Bennett) will get my vote. Somehow I doubt it will make a difference. >> If you're waiting for USSC to formally disavow and denounce the NRA, >> don't hold your breath. > >But don't let either endorse politicians opposed to the Second amendment, >or any part of the Bill of Rights. Those are my major differences with >the NRA and ACLU. As they say; 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 is counting >with the ACLU, while for the NRA it is 2, and then they consider any >form of permissive license compatible with "shall not be infringed." I will have a vote (but certainly not _control_) of USSC candidate endorsements. I have no say whatever in what the NRA does. So how exactly should I "not let either" endorse bad candidates? >I meant as lobbyist. I haven't seen Mr. Bishop's contract, nor do I know if one exists. However, it is my opinion (and mine alone) that there is no more conflict of interest because he is Chairman of the Utah GOP than there is a conflict of interest because his non-legislative job is as a teacher and the UEA endorses gun control. If the Utah GOP doesn't want their chair working as a lobbyist, that's _their_ problem. >> For that matter, what did you do to oppose the abuses? > >Asked Bill Quist and Gary Utt to replace our amendment flyers >they trashed. They refused, and claimed they were abandoned trash. >They also alleged there were rules against such distribution, but >no such rule appears on the proposed convention rules provided >delegates and candidates. Have you pursued this either personally, as a group, or via an attorney? Has anyone else? I certainly hope this doesn't just fall thru the cracks. >As the power behind the throne, perhaps they think they're above >both, as well as any rules, and that delegates only serve the purpose >of providing the appearance of lawful process. And isn't this pretty much true of _all_ levels of government? >Has JPFO disappointed you? (Other than maintaining a nearly invisible >profile) What would it take to organize a Utah affiliate? I suspect >a name change for the affiliate might be needed here in Utah, where >Gov. Bamberger, a Jew, was Utah's first Gentile Governor. Any disputes I have with organizations or individuals who are not part of this list are private matters. I don't believe in sniping behind peoples' backs. I have no status in JPFO other than as a charter member. I don't know their position on local or state chapters. I also don't know their position on name changes, although my impression is that they'd oppose it. But since the LDS majority consider themselves to be part of the Children of Israel (at least according to my understanding of LDS doctrine), and thus closely related to Jews, I don't really see why it should be an issue. I do know that JPFO is incorporated under 501(c)4, which makes them an educational organization and expressly prohibits them from lobbying. That might be a consideration if you're contemplating an organization other than USSC that can lobby the legislature. Sarah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Teens and Guns Date: 27 Apr 1998 22:36:25 -0600 >Subject: Teens and Guns > >http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2553892292-501 > >> [INFOBEAT | ][Profile | ][Feedback | ][About | ][Terms | ][Custom] >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> [Image] >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 02:39 PM ET 04/26/98 >> >> Police praise man in Pa. dance hall shooting >> >> >> EDINBORO, Pa. (Reuters) - Police praised a banquet hall >> owner Sunday for apprehending the suspect in a school dance >> shooting that killed a popular teacher and wounded another as >> well as two students. >> Authorities said James Strand, armed with a shotgun and >> worried about the safety of his family, confronted Andrew Wurst, >> 14, in ``a grassy area'' after Friday night's shooting and >> ''coaxed'' him into dropping his gun and giving up peacefully. >> ``Mr. Strand used a great deal, I mean a great deal, of >> judgment on his part at that time to bring the situation to a >> close,'' Mark Zaleski, a state police spokesman, said at a news >> conference. >> Strand owns Nick's Place restaurant where authorities allege >> Wurst, an eigth-grader at Parker Middle School, opened fire with >> a small caliber handgun at a graduation dance, killing John >> Gillette, 46. >> Two students, both 14, were wounded and have since been >> released from the hospital. Another teacher was grazed by a >> bullet and did not require medical attention. >> Police said little else about the case Sunday, citing an >> ongoing investigation. >> ``We're exploring a number of possible motives,'' said >> Zaleski, who would not say what leads authorities were pursuing. >> Wurst remained at the Erie County prison charged as an adult >> with murder, while the town of Edinboro tried to cope with the >> violence, the loss of life and the unwanted attention as another >> rural American community in the spotlight for a deadly >> school-related shooting. >> Flags flew at half-staff in the town 100 miles north of >> Pittsburgh and plans were on track to open Parker Middle School >> for regular classes Monday. >> Gillette, 46, was remembered at a church service Sunday. The >> science teacher, former football coach and father of three >> children, was chaperoning the dance when he was shot. >> Parker school students have been instructed not to speak to >> the media. But reports have said Wurst told students he would >> make the dance ``memorable.'' Others said they did not know what >> that meant, if anything. >> Zaleski would not confirm whether Wurst had made that >> statement, and he said police would not ``get caught up in the >> rumor mill.'' >> The Edinboro tragedy was the fourth deadly school-related >> shooting in the United States in the past six months. Four >> students were killed at a middle school in Jonesboro, Ark., last >> month; three students were killed at a high school in West >> Paducah, Ky., in December, and last October, two students were >> killed at a high school in Pearl, Miss. >> ^REUTERS@ > >Interesting how in two of those cases the criminal student was stopped >by a law-abiding adult with a firearm.... Kinda makes you wonder if >more armed teachers or "gun free school zones" is the best solution! > >Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. William Burroughs (b. 1914), U.S. author. "The War Universe," taped conversation - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: The Salt Lake Tribune -- Nation/World Date: 27 Apr 1998 23:52:46 -0600 Why isn't HCI out campaigning to disarm police? Sarah http://www.sltrib.com/04271998/nation_w/nation_w.htm > Monday, April 27, 1998 > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Suicide by Cop: Two Victims, One Alive, One Dead > BY TODD LEWAN [PHOTO] > THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > Henry Brown, 32, wields two > pistols in a January 1997 > SYOSSET, N.Y. -- standoff with officers in > Only after pumping three Shelby, N.C. ``Do your job!'' > bullets into Moshe a suicidal Brown screamed. > Pergament did Officer ``It's gonna end today!'' An > Anthony Sica learn the officer killed him after one > brutal truth: He had of his guns discharged. (Lee > killed a college student McLeod/The Shelby Star) > who had threatened him > with nothing more than a toy gun. > Sica stood over the bleeding body wondering what had > happened here. > A 19-year-old had raced his brand-new Honda Accord > up and down the Long Island Expressway in a rainstorm > for 40 minutes, sideswiping cars and trucks. He had > pulled over as soon as the police cruiser's lights > flashed and jumped out with a plastic replica of a > .38-caliber revolver in his hand. > Sica had screamed, practically begged, for him to > drop the gun. Why didn't he drop it? Why did he keep > coming closer? Twelve feet. Ten feet. Seven feet. > Until the semiautomatic Sig Saur barked in Sica's > hand. > It was only after an ambulance took the body away > that detectives found the envelope on the front seat of > the Honda. It was addressed ``To the officer who shot > me,'' and inside, on a Hallmark card, was a neatly > written note. > ``Officer, > ``It was a plan. I'm sorry to get you involved. I > just needed to die. Please remember that this was all my > doing. You had no way of knowing. > ``Moe Pergament.'' > The coroner's report certified Pergament's death as > a homicide caused by ``gunshot wounds of torso with > perforations of lung, heart, liver, stomach and > intestine.'' The police report classified it a > justifiable homicide. > But what happened that stormy November night has > another name: Police-assisted suicide. > ``It's another form of euthanasia, like when people > reach out for Dr. Kevorkian,'' said Harvey Schlossberg, > retired director of psychological services for the New > York City police. ``Only here, people are in mental pain > and the doctor is the cop.'' > No one knows how many people manipulate police into > killing them; no national studies have been done. But > two recent regional studies suggest that it is > surprisingly common. > Researchers who examined hundreds of police > shootings in British Columbia and in Los Angeles County > found that in at least 10 percent of the cases, the dead > and wounded had wanted to be killed. > Every time it happens, there are victims on both > sides of the gun. ``It's an officer's worst nightmare,'' > said Clinton Van Zandt, an FBI supervisory special agent > who teaches hostage negotiation at the agency's > Quantico, Va., headquarters. Van Zandt is an expert on > the phenomenon. He also knows it firsthand. > On June 17, 1981, Van Zandt commanded police > officers and FBI during a 3 1/2-hour standoff with > William Griffin, who had taken hostages inside a > Rochester, N.Y., bank. Griffin's only demand: that > police execute him. > Van Zandt refused. So Griffin ordered teller > Margaret Moore, a single mother of a baby boy, to stand > by the front exit. With his shotgun, he blasted her > through the glass doors. Then he walked over and pressed > his face against the full-length window, allowing > sharpshooters to kill him. > In a diary entry dated 13 months earlier, a diary > filled with passages about a failing marriage and a lost > job, Griffin wrote: ``I'm going to make the sheriff take > my life.'' > ``At night,'' Van Zandt said, ``I still picture the > teller being blown out the door of that bank.'' > It's not just a big-city phenomenon: Police-assisted > suicide has stung communities across the United States, > from leafy, suburban towns to rural outbacks. > -- Shortly after 1 p.m. Feb. 6, Joseph Hoffman, 35, > held up a First Union Bank in Burlington, N.C., with a > pellet gun that resembled a semiautomatic pistol. Then > he strolled out the front door and through a mall next > door, carrying a red sack full of cash on his shoulder. > On the way to his car a quarter-mile from the bank, he > walked right past a marked police cruiser. When two > officers ordered him to drop his gun, Hoffman aimed it > at them and was shot 10 times. A note addressed ``Dear > Police'' was found in his apartment. It read: ``Please > make sure my sister in New York gets these books and no > one else.'' An entry in another notebook dated four days > earlier read: ``My only worry is that the caliber of > shot will not put me fully away.'' > -- On Jan. 6, 1997, outside the Shelby, N.C., Police > Station, Sheriff Dan Crawford tried to talk Henry Brown, > a 32-year-old security guard, out of his suicide-by-cop > plan. With a .38-caliber Rossi in one hand and a .357 > Magnum in the other, Brown screamed at the two dozen > officers surrounding him: ``Do your job! It's gonna end > today!'' Suddenly, one of Brown's pistols discharged. > Hearing the gunshot, a marksman put a shotgun slug > through his heart. > Freak tragedies? > ``Afraid not,'' said Van Zandt. ``These aren't > flukes. This is real. And we better start recognizing > that. This is not just going to disappear.'' > Smarter Policing: Suicide by cop may have > implications for police-community relations across the > United States. > It ``raises a lot of questions about policing in > America,'' said Nicholas Pastore of the Criminal Justice > Policy Foundation in New Haven, Conn. ``It cries out for > `smarter' policing. We need cops who listen to > communities instead of telling them what they need; cops > who understand that mental illness is more than just > disruptive behavior; cops who are trained to think, > `Hey, is this a crook or a person crying out for help?' > '' > Experts suspect suicide by cop has gone on for > decades, but no one had studied it until 1996, when > Richard Parent, a Canadian constable, examined cases of > fatal police shootings in British Columbia from 1980 to > 1994. His conclusion: 10 percent of the shootings were > suicides by cop. > The figure seemed hard to believe until a recent > study by H. Range Hutson, research director at Harvard > Medical School, found even higher numbers in California. > Hutson examined more than 425 fatal and nonfatal > officer-involved shootings in Los Angeles County from > 1987 to 1997 and found that nearly 17 percent were > suicides by cop. > These cases were unambiguous: Those who had been > killed or wounded had left suicide notes, had told > friends or relatives about their plans or had pleaded > with police to kill them. Some had attempted suicide > before. > Many police departments prefer not to acknowledge > the phenomenon, said Vivian Lord, a criminal-justice > professor at the University of North Carolina who found > 73 attempted suicides by cop in 30 North Carolina police > departments from 1993 to 1997. > ``It's a sensitive area,'' she said. ``Officers > don't like to be second-guessed by Monday morning > quarterbacks.'' > They don't like to second-guess themselves, either. > ``You cannot second-guess yourself because if you > hesitate and you're wrong, it could cost a life -- your > life, or some innocent person's life,'' said Lt. Kevin > Kaslin, of the Nassau County Police Department in > Mineola, N.Y., which investigated the Pergament killing. > > Post-Shooting Suits: Police also are wary of > wrongful-death lawsuits. On March 2, the U.S. Supreme > Court decided that cities can be sued for inadequate > police training that leads to death or injury -- even > when mentally ill or suicidal people threaten officers > with firearms. The ruling came in a case brought by the > wife of suicidal man who manipulated Muskogee, Okla., > police into killing him in 1994. > Some police say better training and improved police > tactics might indeed help prevent some of these deaths. > Kevin Gilmartin, a former hostage negotiator who now > works as a police psychologist for the Tucson Police > Department, says some departments are too reliant on > high-tech weapons and ``surgical'' shooting techniques. > ``The skills of the negotiator have taken a back seat to > SWAT teams and techno-guns,'' he said. > David Klinger, a former Los Angeles police officer > who advises SWAT teams on training and tactical matters > around the country, says: ``It makes sense for police to > approach a case and ask: `Could it be that suicide by > cop is at work here?' '' With better tactical training, > he said, ``more times than not, the officers won't be in > a vulnerable position so that they have to fire.'' > Guilt and Anger: Of all the questions that surround > these deaths, the most puzzling is why anyone would > choose this way to die. > Perhaps feelings of guilt or shame lead some people > to seek punishment from an authority figure, said > Parent, the Canadian constable. ``The police are perfect > for this. They play the role of surrogate parents in our > society.'' > Or perhaps police-assisted suicide indicates anger > at authority. ``The person may be saying, `I'm so angry > at you that I'll have you kill me, and you'll have to > live with it,'' said Michael Welner, an assistant > professor at the New York University School of Medicine. > > In some cases, a skewed interpretation of the > religious prohibition against suicide might be at work. > ``Suicide for most people is forbidden religiously, but > if you do it confronting the cops, somehow it's OK,'' > said Schlossberg, the police psychiatrist. > Van Zandt thinks it may be simpler than all that. > Perhaps, he said, they are just looking for a foolproof, > dead-certain way to die. ``Police have the guns,'' he > said. ``They have the training to react to potentially > life-threatening situations with accurate and deadly > force, and they are as close as the telephone.'' That's > how Matthew Pyers saw it. > If he ran his car into a concrete wall, he said in a > recent interview, ``I might have lived through it and > been paralyzed. But with a gun at close range, it'd be > more likely to kill me.'' > Failed Plan: Depressed, drunk and suicidal, the > 19-year-old raced his 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass as fast as > it would go in the pre-dawn darkness of March 23, 1997, > from a college party in Hoboken, N.J., to his hometown > of Wallingford, Conn. His desperate hope: That a highway > officer would chase him, catch him, kill him. But no one > noticed. > So Pyres headed for the Wallingford Police > Department. He circled the station, honking the horn, > squealing the tires, and bolted off, squad cars in > pursuit. > Pyres led police on a chase through four towns. When > he noticed they had given up, he doubled back and rammed > his car into the rear of one of the cruisers. Then he > pulled over and jumped out with a champagne bottle in > his hand. > He banged the bottle on the car hood and taunted the > officers: ``You better kill me or I'm going to kill > you!'' He ignored their orders to drop the bottle and > fought off the pepper spray they shot at him. He waved > the bottle and shouted, ``Shoot me! Shoot me!'' > Officer Mark Poisson fired once. Pyres crumpled, a > hollow-point bullet in his abdomen. > The bullet hit no bones or major organs. Today, he's > on a different regimen of medication for depression and > has resumed his college studies in engineering. > ``When I get into a depression,'' Pyres said, ``I > don't think of anyone but myself. But after he shot me, > I thought about the officer, what I could be doing to > him. Seeing his face, that horrible look, I realized how > the officer would probably regret this for the rest of > his life.'' > > > [Monday Navigation Bar] > -------------------------------------------------- > ) Copyright 1998, 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. NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Keep Big Tent Open Date: 28 Apr 1998 00:15:29 -0600 Gee... now we're "oddballs" and a "fringe element" handing out "propaganda". I'm _so_ glad the Trib is around to defend our rights..... Sarah http://www.sltrib.com/1998/apr/04251998/opinion/29960.htm > [Image] > [Image] [Image] Saturday, April 25, 1998 [Image] [Image] > > Keep Big Tent Open > > > It was > understandably frustrating for Utah Republican Party leaders to deal > with two fringe elements at their convention last week. But the party > looked silly using a heavy hand to silence them. > Convention organizers had two people arrested for refusing to > cease passing out propaganda and the other hauled off the stage by > armed deputies for refusing to leave until he had a chance to speak. > Convention organizers could have handled the matter better by > ignoring these folks. > People with nutty things to say are usually disregarded by the > mainstream. Tolerating these oddballs, albeit annoying and > frustrating, is the price everyone pays for the First Amendment. And > the First Amendment is particularly central to a political rally, > whether privately sponsored or convened on a street corner. In fact, > the First Amendment is the foundation of any political gathering. > So these two fringe groups, who are not truly representative of > Republican Party positions, should have been given the opportunity to > participate in the election process. Many party leaders pointed out > that reality after the arrests and removal occurred. > A hurdle for the Utah Republican Party is dealing with its > extreme factions. And, the left-leaning media tend to raise that bar > for the Republican Party. They delight in portraying all Republicans > with the same brush as these fringe folks. It is arguably more > tempting, then, for Republicans to silence its far-out element than > for Democrats to do the same. > But, in fact, extremist elements also have splintered the Utah > Democratic Party into shards of nearly nothing. Conventional > Democrats want nothing to do with new Democrats, and moderates tend > to opt out of the philosophical debate. > Tolerance and patience from the majority, mainstream, middle -- > in short supply last weekend at the Republican state convention -- is > the only successful, long-term way to deal with fringe groups. > > > > [Image] [Saturday Navigation Bar] [Image] > > [Image] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ) Copyright 1998, 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: Libertarian Party of Utah's Response to KSL Editorial, "Guns and Little Girls" Date: 28 Apr 1998 12:17:02 -0600 28 April, 1998 Dear Editor The Libertarian Party of Utah takes strong exception to KSL's editorial of April 10, 1998, "Guns And Little Girls." The freedoms to own and carry weapons guaranteed by the second amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I of the Utah State Constitution are no less important or relevant today than they have ever been. They are no less important or relevant than the guarantees of religious freedom, freedom of the press, the right to free speech, security in one's person and papers, or any other freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. All are essential to the preservation of a free society. Those who hold their right to life, and the possession of tools designed to defend that life, dear, are being no more callused or obstinate in lobbying for the preservation of those rights than Rosa Parks was in refusing to quietly sit in the back of the bus. In fact, lawful gun owners have yet to stage any of the acts of widespread civil disobedience common to the civil rights movement. Neither have they turned to the courts to force their views onto society as many other groups have done. Rather, they have chosen and seem quite content to work lawfully within our legislative process. For this they--the "gun lobby" as you disdainfully call them--deserve praise, not chastisement. Unlawful threats to life and limb do occur in schools, churches, hospitals, universities, and grocery stores as well as on the street. Peaceful, law-abiding adults should not forfeit their right to defend themselves simply because of geography. In fact, had a police officer, armed teacher, or other law-abiding adult in possession of a firearm been present at the school in Jonesboro, there may very well not have been any children's graves for KSL to use for misguided political purposes. Limited resources prevent putting a peace officer on every corner or in every school. And Alabama State law guaranteed no other law-abiding adult would be in possession of a weapon on any Alabama school grounds. Given the tragic results in Alabama, why would Utah even want to consider duplicating the situation by restricting our concealed weapons permit holders? Will the gunphobes never learn that criminals don't obey any laws? The Libertarian Party of Utah supports the right of private property owners, including churches, to limit access to their non-public-accommodation property in whatever manner suites them. We do not believe current law impairs this right in any way with regard to firearms or other weapons and are opposed to any governmental attempts to decide what private property owners may do. While supporting private property owners' right to exclude weapons, we do question the wisdom of creating "Rob Me/Rape Me zones", aka "gun-free zones". We also maintain that ALL government and publicly owned property, save courts, prisons, and airports, must fully honor the rights of law-abiding adults--including the right to possess weapons for self-defense. We do congratulate KSL for being honest enough to admit they are choosing to ignore and address the root causes of the most tragic and heinous crime in Jonesboro in favor of focusing on the tools used to commit the crime. We can't help but wonder if this same (lack of) logic will be used when forming editorial positions on drunk driving. It will be interesting to see if the easy and ready availability of cars will be blamed for DUI accidents. Blaming guns for crime is like blaming flies for garbage. No law that restricts law-abiding citizens will have any effect on those individuals who would exploit a defenseless citizenry. Indeed, a disarmed person is an open invitation for trouble. Criminals are not thwarted by laws. Guns do not cause crime, people do. Punish the wrongdoer. Do not seek to corrupt the power of government to weaken the good people of Utah's right to an armed self-defense. Charles Hardy Treasurer Libertarian Party of Utah 801.523.3817 -- 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. "There are no victims, only volunteers. You volunteer by appearing uncertain and afraid. You volunteer by being (as grass-eaters invariably are) unprepared to deal with the dangers of life." - Cooper's Corner - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Libertarian Party of Utah's Response to KSL Editorial, Date: 28 Apr 1998 14:01:43 -0600 Yay, Charles! My thanks to you and the Utah Libertarian Party. Sarah At 12:17 PM 4/28/98 -0600, you wrote: > >28 April, 1998 > >Dear Editor > >The Libertarian Party of Utah takes strong exception to KSL's >editorial of April 10, 1998, "Guns And Little Girls." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: KSL Editorial Position, The LDS Church, and the NRA Date: 28 Apr 1998 15:02:05 -0600 I'd like to pass along a couple tidbits of info concerning KSL Editorial Position, the LDS Church, and the NRA. There is some perception that KSL Editorial policy is set by, endorsed by, or otherwise reflects the views of the LDS church. This is not an outragous perception when one realizes KSL is owned by Bonneville Communications which is owned by the LDS church. For me it is a daunting thought when KSL takes editorial positions contrary to my own deeply held beliefs. As an active LDS, I am naturally loathe to go contrary to the views of LDS church leadership. I suspect many other LDS are in the same boat. This puts us in the possible position of battling the LDS church on the issue of CCW. Fortunatly, we need not fear this--at least not at this point. I attend church with the CEO of KSL. I asked him this last Sunday who sets editorial policy at KSL. He informed me editorial policy and content is set and approved by the KSL board. It is not set by the LDS church in any way. Further, he said the church occasionally lets the board know they didn't much appreciate some position that has been taken. Specifically he said KSL occasionally takes some lumps from church leadership over some position KSL has taken. I know of no case where such postions have been reversed. So while there may be some level of influence from church leadership, KSL editorial positions are not set by and do not necessarily reflect LDS church positions. Now, I haven't taken time to write this to defend LDS church policy or lack thereof on CCW. I've written because I believe in politics you should pick your battles carefully. Battling the LDS church is a loser in this State, IMO. Avoid it whenever possible. CCW is an area where anyone who wants to can still avoid battling the LDS church because to date the LDS church has issued no official position on CCW laws. They did issue a very general press release that guns in church are "inappropriate". BYU issued a statement saying they were restricting guns on campus. Certainly the anti-gunners--even the very anti-LDS anti-gunners-- will latch onto these and to KSL's recent editorial and try to say the LDS church has endorsed legislative restrictions on CCW. Pro-gunners need to be, IMHO, savvy enough to not play ball by those rules. We don't need to or want to take on the LDS church or appear anti-LDS. We can support the church's right to limit access to their churches and temples. We can support the right of private property like BYU to limit access. But we don't have to ascede something that has not been said. The LDS church has yet to publicly endorse any legislation re CCW. Until they do, there is no need to pcik a fight with them. As for the NRA, it became clear while talking with the KSL CEO that KSL attributes a large number of responses received on their recent editorial to "the NRA" organizing the internet, etc. I can only think of two ways to overcome this perception to any degree. 1. Somehow make it clear you write as an individual and not part of any organized effort. If you are not a member of the NRA, say so in your letter. If you happen to be a school teacher, public employee, etc, SAY so. If you are a housewife, a cub scout leader, sunday school teacher, etc, SAY so. Make it clear that everyday, "normal" people and not just "NRA gun nuts" care about this issue. If you do not have a CCW let them know. Finally, make sure your letters are calm, rational, intelligent sounding. This doesn't mean don't write if you aren't a literary expert. But just don't go off half-cocked about conspiracy theories, black helicopters, or "liberals". I don't know who "fun" is who sent the letter to KSL, but it would have been better for our cause had s/he not written at all. 2. More importantly, they need to hear from a lot of different people. It doesn't do any good for them to get 5 letters apiece from USSC board members, Libertarian party officers, or anyone else they can identify as an "NRA gun nut." They discount those out of hand. If you haven't written yet, do so--as an individual concerned about your rights. If you have, get a friend, a spouse, a lover, a co-worker, a mature child, a parent, or anyone else you can to write a letter. I'm guesing that paper letters will carry more weight than email at this point as KSL expects that the NRA has and will flood the internet. Help someone write their letter if they don't know where to start. If you want to write a long letter, consider breaking it into two parts and getting someone else to sign one of them and send it in. Print them on diffent machines or using different fonts and send in different style envelopes on different days from different POs. Anyway, enough rambling for now. I hope some of this is of use to somebody. -- 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. "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon Baines Johnson, former Senator and President. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Libertarian Party of Utah's Response to KSL Editorial, Date: 28 Apr 1998 15:05:53 -0600 Our pleasure. It was sent to KSL, DesNews,and Tribune. If anyone sees any portion of it in the media, I'd love to hear about it. On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: >Yay, Charles! My thanks to you and the Utah Libertarian Party. > >Sarah > > -- 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. "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon Baines Johnson, former Senator and President. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Weapon Ban at Hospital Date: 29 Apr 1998 09:09:21 -0600 From today's front page Tribune. I do not have a CCW. However, I think those who do need to send a letter to the hospital immediately challenging their adminstrative ruling before it gains the force of law. Certainly, the hospital should have secure areas where guns are not allowed. They have facitlities to check weapons already. But there is no way they should be able to prohibit weapons from cars or anyplace on the grounds where there is not security to protect the disarmed. A letter to Sen Waddoups would also be in order. is his email address. If every piece of government owned property is allowed to circumvent or ignore the CCW law with "adminstrative" rulings, it won't be long before your CCW is invalid in about 90% of the State. Wednesday, April 29, 1998 Hospital To Ban Guns Starting Friday BY JUDY FAHYS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE The state's largest mental institution -- the Utah State Hospital in Provo -- is about to become one of the few places in Utah where a concealed-weapons permit is not recognized. A gun ban is set to take effect Friday. Cameras are not permitted in the hospital. Nor are pocket knives or illegal drugs. And, although administrators have long carried out a policy barring firearms, they never have had the force of law behind them until now. But, even before it becomes effective, some gun-rights advocates contend the prohibition goes far beyond what state law allows. ``I don't think they have got the right to do that,'' said Sen. Mike Waddoups, a Taylorsville Republican and gun-rights advocate. ``If [weapons] are prohibited on the entire campus, they are going too far.'' Recent Tribune Coverage Olympics May Unload On Gun Laws in Utah, (3-15-98) Lawmakers Can't Hide From This Gun Fight, (1-11-98) Utah Legislative Action on Guns 1998 Waddoups sponsored the 1995 law that made concealed-weapons permits valid ``without restriction.'' An ``administrative rule'' implementing the ban is set to go into effect Friday, as long as the hospital doesn't receive any objections. It would apply to state employees and visitors, as well as the hospital's 340 patients. Hospital officials have had the authority to keep weapons from parts of the facility since 1996. Aware of the risks inherent in some state-operated facilities, legislators built a few exceptions into the concealed-weapons law to permit ``secure areas'' in courts, jails and mental hospitals. Airports were added in 1997. Yet, officials at the state hospital never undertook the process necessary to implement the law at their facility. On April 1, they published a new rule that will give the hospital's longstanding practices some legal teeth. Until now, the hospital has relied on its ``no weapons'' policy, which is declared to all on a sign at the facility's entrance. ``Probably all these years we were doing it by policy [rather than law] and, frankly, we always have felt protected under the policy,'' said Janina Chilton, spokeswoman for the state's Division of Mental Health. ``This [new rule] raises the bar.'' Dangerous weapons have been a problem at the hospital from time to time, according to Chilton. She recalled an incident in the early 1980s in which a hospital security officer was shot in the leg by a former patient who was being escorted off the grounds. In the early '90s, an employee was killed with a a knife a patient got from the kitchen. Most commonly, though, the hospital gets into hassles over the policy with law enforcement personnel who are directed to check their weapons in safe boxes outside patient units. And hospital staff sometimes bristle about being told they should not bring their concealed weapons to work. Chilton said some employees have complained about the policy, but she added, ``We don't even want them in the cars.'' The new rule would make it clear no weapons are allowed anywhere on the 325-acre campus. ``Weapons, contraband, illegal substances, firearms, such as, but not limited to, pistols, sawed-off rifles, revolvers, or any device that could be used as a weapon are prohibited on the campus of the Utah State Hospital,'' the new rule says. ``Law enforcement personnel may bring their weapons onto the campus. However, they must secure their weapon in a secure weapon storage area before entering a treatment unit.'' Peter Heinbecker, director of the state hospital's forensics unit, was surprised to learn that such a law was not already in place. ``We can't have people with guns on our unit,'' said the doctor, whose unit oversees many patients who have been referred to the hospital from the criminal justice system. Meanwhile, there is spotty enforcement of the current no-gun policy. A metal detector purchased for the entrance to the forensics ward has not been installed, and visitors sometimes enter the ward without a pat-down search, said Heinbecker. He called the campuswide gun ban ``a fantastic idea'' and pointed out many patients are free to wander the grounds where they might be able to get weapons that could be used against themselves or other people. ``I don't know why anyone needs to bring weapons onto the grounds,'' he said. Waddoups pointed out that a legal opinion issued earlier this year by the Legislature's General Counsel specifically said it is illegal for the University of Utah to ban weapons from its campus and facilities. It also said there was no legal basis for a Department of Human Resource Management rule that prohibited state employees from carrying firearms in state facilities, vehicles or while on state business. Waddoups agreed there is some justification for prohibiting certain people from having firearms -- ``particularly patients'' -- in certain parts of the state hospital. ``It has to be addressed rationally like anyplace else,'' he said. © Copyright 1998, 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. "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." -- Sir William Blackstone - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Email to Legislators Date: 29 Apr 1998 11:15:55 -0600 FYI, I've sent the following to a couple legislators. Please take a moment and send something to your State rep and senator. Feel free to use any ideas below you like, but please reword enough to make it original. (Scott should particularly interested in the part about mass transit and bikes. :) Dear, I'm writing about the front page story in today's Tribune, included below. It seems the Utah State Hospital in Provo is attempting to ignore State law with regard to concealed weapons permits by banning all weapons from ALL hospital property, including inside private cars. Undoubtedly, a mental health facility should be free to implement secure areas where weapons are prohibited. It seems the hospital has long done so providing secure storage facilities for the weapons of peace officers entering the area. But by no stretch of the imagination is the entire campus a secure area. There is not adequate security on the grounds or parking lots to declare these secure areas. Neither are there storage facilities available for guests, employees, or peace officers to secure their weapons in these areas. No government agency should be able to declare ANY area or land a "secure area" and thus prohibit the carry of legally permitted weapons unless there is a compelling need to decare the area secure AND REAL security measures (armed guards, metal detectors, controlled access) are in place AND secure storage facilities are provided for legally carried weapons. Lacking secure storage, any rule or law prohibiting weapons in one area effectively extends all the way to the nearest area where the weapon may be safely stored. For anyone using mass transit, walking, or riding a bike, that area is their home and they are effectively disarmed and defenseless from the time they leave home to the time they return. Forcing people to choose between being able to defend themselves and using mass/alternate transportation is not the way to encourage the use of mass/alternate transportation. The State Hospital's ban of weapons even in cars is beyond belief. If the hospital can show some need to "secure" the entire building, so be it. But it must provide storage at the entrance. And it must not be allowed to prohibit legal items in automobiles. I'm afraid Governor Leavitt's blatant ignoral of State law in the matter of concealed weapons is spreading all too rapidly. School boards prevent teachers from providing for self defense while on school grounds. The UofU currently prevents students and faculty from providing for self defense while on tax-payer funded property. And now the State hospital joins in. I urge you to speak out publicly on this matter and to introduce and push, at the earliest possible moment, legislation to force everyone from our Governor on down to abide by the laws of this State and respect the rights and privleges of her citizens. You must do so before every piece of government controlled property in this State is declared off-limits to legally carried weapons of self defense and our CCW law is rendered moot. We are a nation of laws, not of men, and the laws must be obeyed even by those who own phobias, bigotry, or political agenda make it unpleasant to do so. So you know, I have not yet chosen to obtain a State issued permit to carry a concealed weapon. But I am deeply troubled anytime I see elected officials and government employees flagrantly disregarding the same laws I, as common citizen, am expected to obey. I appreciate your attentention and response to this mattter. Sincerely Charles Hardy ---Begin Tribune Article--- Wednesday, April 29, 1998 Hospital To Ban Guns Starting Friday BY JUDY FAHYS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE The state's largest mental institution -- the Utah State Hospital in Provo -- is about to become one of the few places in Utah where a concealed-weapons permit is not recognized. A gun ban is set to take effect Friday. Cameras are not permitted in the hospital. Nor are pocket knives or illegal drugs. And, although administrators have long carried out a policy barring firearms, they never have had the force of law behind them until now. But, even before it becomes effective, some gun-rights advocates contend the prohibition goes far beyond what state law allows. ``I don't think they have got the right to do that,'' said Sen. Mike Waddoups, a Taylorsville Republican and gun-rights advocate. ``If [weapons] are prohibited on the entire campus, they are going too far.'' Recent Tribune Coverage Olympics May Unload On Gun Laws in Utah, (3-15-98) Lawmakers Can't Hide From This Gun Fight, (1-11-98) Utah Legislative Action on Guns 1998 Waddoups sponsored the 1995 law that made concealed-weapons permits valid ``without restriction.'' An ``administrative rule'' implementing the ban is set to go into effect Friday, as long as the hospital doesn't receive any objections. It would apply to state employees and visitors, as well as the hospital's 340 patients. Hospital officials have had the authority to keep weapons from parts of the facility since 1996. Aware of the risks inherent in some state-operated facilities, legislators built a few exceptions into the concealed-weapons law to permit ``secure areas'' in courts, jails and mental hospitals. Airports were added in 1997. Yet, officials at the state hospital never undertook the process necessary to implement the law at their facility. On April 1, they published a new rule that will give the hospital's longstanding practices some legal teeth. Until now, the hospital has relied on its ``no weapons'' policy, which is declared to all on a sign at the facility's entrance. ``Probably all these years we were doing it by policy [rather than law] and, frankly, we always have felt protected under the policy,'' said Janina Chilton, spokeswoman for the state's Division of Mental Health. ``This [new rule] raises the bar.'' Dangerous weapons have been a problem at the hospital from time to time, according to Chilton. She recalled an incident in the early 1980s in which a hospital security officer was shot in the leg by a former patient who was being escorted off the grounds. In the early '90s, an employee was killed with a a knife a patient got from the kitchen. Most commonly, though, the hospital gets into hassles over the policy with law enforcement personnel who are directed to check their weapons in safe boxes outside patient units. And hospital staff sometimes bristle about being told they should not bring their concealed weapons to work. Chilton said some employees have complained about the policy, but she added, ``We don't even want them in the cars.'' The new rule would make it clear no weapons are allowed anywhere on the 325-acre campus. ``Weapons, contraband, illegal substances, firearms, such as, but not limited to, pistols, sawed-off rifles, revolvers, or any device that could be used as a weapon are prohibited on the campus of the Utah State Hospital,'' the new rule says. ``Law enforcement personnel may bring their weapons onto the campus. However, they must secure their weapon in a secure weapon storage area before entering a treatment unit.'' Peter Heinbecker, director of the state hospital's forensics unit, was surprised to learn that such a law was not already in place. ``We can't have people with guns on our unit,'' said the doctor, whose unit oversees many patients who have been referred to the hospital from the criminal justice system. Meanwhile, there is spotty enforcement of the current no-gun policy. A metal detector purchased for the entrance to the forensics ward has not been installed, and visitors sometimes enter the ward without a pat-down search, said Heinbecker. He called the campuswide gun ban ``a fantastic idea'' and pointed out many patients are free to wander the grounds where they might be able to get weapons that could be used against themselves or other people. ``I don't know why anyone needs to bring weapons onto the grounds,'' he said. Waddoups pointed out that a legal opinion issued earlier this year by the Legislature's General Counsel specifically said it is illegal for the University of Utah to ban weapons from its campus and facilities. It also said there was no legal basis for a Department of Human Resource Management rule that prohibited state employees from carrying firearms in state facilities, vehicles or while on state business. Waddoups agreed there is some justification for prohibiting certain people from having firearms -- ``particularly patients'' -- in certain parts of the state hospital. ``It has to be addressed rationally like anyplace else,'' he said. © Copyright 1998, 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. "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." -- Sir William Blackstone ----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. "To violate the spirit of the law, while pretending to respect the letter of it, is a fraud no less criminal in character than an open violation of the law would be; it is not less contrary to the intention of the legislator, and indicates only a more cunning and deliberate wickedness." The Law Of Nations Or The Principal Of Natural Law, Emer De Vettel, Book II, Chapter XVII, Section 291 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Scott Engen's comments Date: 29 Apr 1998 11:32:01 -0700 Wednesday, April 29, 1998 Mandela No Moral Authority ### The column by Michael Nakoryakov (Tribune, April 12) flatters South Africa's Nelson Mandela as one of the world's foremost ``moral authorities,'' and lauds his 27 years in prison for his ``anti-apartheid convictions.'' Let's look at the unvarnished historic facts. Nelson Mandela was and is a devoted Marxist revolutionary. He didn't spend decades behind bars for speaking out against racial oppression, organizing a legitimate political party or a labor union, or publishing unflattering comments about the barbaric apartheid policies of South Africa. ### Nelson Mandela was convicted in a court of criminal law for helping to build and detonate a bomb that was used to murder a half-dozen police officers, and then remained a fugitive from justice for nearly two years. He is not the Thomas Jefferson of South Africa. He's South Africa's home-grown version of Timothy McVeigh. ### Through circumstance, fraud and the whims of political fate, terrorists, murderers and other scoundrels sometimes emerge as victors in the electoral process. Israel's Menachem Begin helped murder hundreds of British officers at the King David Hotel with a truck bomb in the late 1940s. Egypt's Anwar Sadat was part of a bloody coup attempt in the 1950s. Both of these admitted terrorists ironically later went on to win the Nobel Prize for Peace. Hitler was the lawfully elected chancellor of Germany before embarking on a career of worldwide genocide. Richard Nixon forever disgraced the office of the presidency by attempting to steal a free election from the American people. ### Perhaps The Tribune's Nakoryakov has a weakness for the old Soviet-state practice of rewriting history. His admiration of Mandela may stem from some political kinship. Regardless of the cause, as a convicted terrorist and murderer, Nelson Mandela has no ``moral authority.'' I believe people like Desmond Tutu, Rosa Parks and a little girl from Topeka named Brown have moral authority. Mandela forfeited any possible claim to any form of morality when he lit the fuse of that bloody bomb decades ago. ### SCOTT ENGEN ### Salt Lake City - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Weapon Ban at Utah State Hospital Date: 29 Apr 1998 22:44:41 -0600 Address for comments follows article. The next USSC Board meeting will be Monday May 4, at 6:30 PM at the Crossroads of the West offices, 7 N. Main Street, Kaysville. Meetings are open to all interested persons. > Wednesday, April 29, 1998 =20 >Hospital To Ban Guns Starting Friday =20 > BY JUDY FAHYS > THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE > =20 > =20 > The state's largest mental institution -- the Utah State=20 > Hospital in Provo -- is about to become one of the few places= in=20 > Utah where a concealed-weapons permit is not recognized.=20 > A gun ban is set to take effect Friday.=20 > Cameras are not permitted in the hospital. Nor are pocket knives=20 > or illegal drugs. And, although administrators have long carried out=20 > a policy barring firearms, they never have had the force of law= =20 > behind them until now.=20 > But, even before it becomes effective, some gun-rights advocates=20 > contend the prohibition goes far beyond what state law allows.= =20 > ``I don't think they have got the right to do that,'' said Sen.=20 > Mike Waddoups, a Taylorsville Republican and gun-rights advocate.=20 > ``If [weapons] are prohibited on the entire campus, they are going=20 > too far.'' =20 > =20 > Waddoups sponsored the 1995 law that made concealed-weapons= =20 > permits valid ``without restriction.''=20 > An ``administrative rule'' implementing the ban is set to= go=20 > into effect Friday, as long as the hospital doesn't receive any= =20 > objections. It would apply to state employees and visitors, as well=20 > as the hospital's 340 patients.=20 > Hospital officials have had the authority to keep weapons from=20 > parts of the facility since 1996. Aware of the risks inherent= in=20 > some state-operated facilities, legislators built a few exceptions=20 > into the concealed-weapons law to permit ``secure areas'' in courts,=20 > jails and mental hospitals. Airports were added in 1997.=20 > Yet, officials at the state hospital never undertook the process=20 > necessary to implement the law at their facility. On April 1, they=20 > published a new rule that will give the hospital's longstanding= =20 > practices some legal teeth.=20 > Until now, the hospital has relied on its ``no weapons'' policy,=20 > which is declared to all on a sign at the facility's entrance.= =20 > ``Probably all these years we were doing it by policy [rather=20 > than law] and, frankly, we always have felt protected under the= =20 > policy,'' said Janina Chilton, spokeswoman for the state's Division=20 > of Mental Health. ``This [new rule] raises the bar.''=20 > Dangerous weapons have been a problem at the hospital from time=20 > to time, according to Chilton.=20 > She recalled an incident in the early 1980s in which a hospital=20 > security officer was shot in the leg by a former patient who= was=20 > being escorted off the grounds. In the early '90s, an employee was=20 > killed with a a knife a patient got from the kitchen.=20 > Most commonly, though, the hospital gets into hassles over the=20 > policy with law enforcement personnel who are directed to check= =20 > their weapons in safe boxes outside patient units. And hospital= =20 > staff sometimes bristle about being told they should not bring their=20 > concealed weapons to work.=20 > Chilton said some employees have complained about the policy,=20 > but she added, ``We don't even want them in the cars.''=20 > The new rule would make it clear no weapons are allowed anywhere=20 > on the 325-acre campus.=20 > ``Weapons, contraband, illegal substances, firearms, such as,=20 > but not limited to, pistols, sawed-off rifles, revolvers, or= any=20 > device that could be used as a weapon are prohibited on the campus=20 > of the Utah State Hospital,'' the new rule says. ``Law enforcement=20 > personnel may bring their weapons onto the campus. However,= they=20 > must secure their weapon in a secure weapon storage area before= =20 > entering a treatment unit.''=20 > Peter Heinbecker, director of the state hospital's= forensics=20 > unit, was surprised to learn that such a law was not already in= =20 > place.=20 > ``We can't have people with guns on our unit,'' said the doctor,=20 > whose unit oversees many patients who have been referred to the= =20 > hospital from the criminal justice system.=20 > Meanwhile, there is spotty enforcement of the current= no-gun=20 > policy. A metal detector purchased for the entrance to the forensics=20 > ward has not been installed, and visitors sometimes enter the ward=20 > without a pat-down search, said Heinbecker.=20 > He called the campuswide gun ban ``a fantastic idea'' and= =20 > pointed out many patients are free to wander the grounds where they=20 > might be able to get weapons that could be used against themselves=20 > or other people.=20 > ``I don't know why anyone needs to bring weapons onto the= =20 > grounds,'' he said.=20 > Waddoups pointed out that a legal opinion issued earlier this=20 > year by the Legislature's General Counsel specifically said it is=20 > illegal for the University of Utah to ban weapons from its campus=20 > and facilities.=20 > It also said there was no legal basis for a Department of Human=20 > Resource Management rule that prohibited state employees from= =20 > carrying firearms in state facilities, vehicles or while on state=20 > business.=20 > Waddoups agreed there is some justification for prohibiting= =20 > certain people from having firearms -- ``particularly patients'' --=20 > in certain parts of the state hospital.=20 > ``It has to be addressed rationally like anyplace else,''= he=20 > said.=20 > =20 > =20 > =A9 Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune > =20 > All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake= =20 > Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced=20 > or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.=20 > > =20 > Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here. > > The address for comments is: Danette Faretta-Brady (is that name a coincidence?) Human Services Mental Health, State Hospital 1300 East Center Street PO Box 270 Provo, UT 84606 Phone: 801-344-4291 email: dfaretta@email.state.ut.us Deadline for comments is: 5PM, May 1, 1998 I've seen the administrative ruling, and while I'm not an attorney, it seems clear to me that it violates Utah Code, Sec. 76-8-311.1, particularly subsection (4) which requires provisions for safe storage of weapons in a secure facility, and section (1)(e)(ii) which provides that "a secure area may not include any area normally accessible to the public." And as Sen. Waddoups stated, it clearly violates the "without restriction" clause of the Utah Concealed Carry law. Sarah Thompson The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info made public. Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse their open-door policy. =20 Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), cathounds@aol.com Elwood Powell, 426-8274 or 583-2882 (h), 364-0412 (w), 73214.3115@compuserve.com Shirley Spain, 963-0784, agr@aros.net Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (w), 546-2275 (h) Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, righter@therighter.com (I prefer e-mail to phone calls when possible). Joe Venus, 571-2223 To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to: USSC@therighter.com In the SUBJECT of the message put: SUBSCRIBE USSC - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: FW: Please act - NBC Date: 29 Apr 1998 23:35:59 -0600 Longtime firearms activist and writer David Kopel of the Independence Institute in Colorado requested that I pass this along. I have not personally verified any of the information. Sarah BOYCOTT OF "LIRR INCIDENT" SPONSORS GAINING STEAM Judging by copies of letters to NBC received to date, the initial response is encouraging. But we need to spread the word and get more people to contact NBC and let them know you and your family will boycott any sponsors of "The Incident on Long Island" TV movie, set to air May 3 on NBC. You will recall that this Barbra Streisand production is little more than a promotional piece for anti-gun zealot Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who is up for re-election this year. The TV movie reportedly contains numerous mis-statements about guns and the Second Amendment, as well as vicious attacks on the NRA and politicians who voted to repeal the 1994 Clinton "assault weapon" ban. The movie exploits the tragic Long Island Railroad massacre, the ensuing trial of mass-murderer Colin Ferguson, and McCarthy's campaign for Congress to boost McCarthy and slam the NRA and gun rights. A campaign is under way to fight this. Many people have already contacted NBC and informed them that they will boycott all sponsors who advertise on the program, explaining that we will not stand for intentional distortions of fact and slander of the NRA, RKBA, and our political allies. A list of sponsors will be circulated immediately after the May 3 broadcast. Efforts to ascertain sponors in advance are still being made. Send your comments now to movies@nbc.com. and leave comments at their websites and landmail http://www.nbc.com/ (you can go to your local affiliate stations homepage by searching w/ zipcode from this page) NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO INC. Viewer Relations 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112-0002 Phone Number: (212) 664-4444 (ask for Viewer Relations, leave a recorded (likely) or live message) http://www.nbc4la.com/ (LA's KNBC channel 4; click on feedback) KNBC TV - Comments 3000 W Alameda Ave, Burbank, CA 91523 (818) 840-4444 (comments must be written) Please continue to spread the word, and do your part! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Teen Forum: Ethics, not guns, blamed for shootings (fwd) Date: 30 Apr 1998 15:18:53 -0700 -Forwarded Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:54:13 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA15873; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:50:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma015663; Thu Apr 30 14:48:16 1998 Message-Id: <9804301857.0hm0@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list On Apr 30, Tom Cloyes wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >From the mouths of babes! This is encouraging. Tom >Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:45:40 -0400 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: Teen Forum: Ethics, not guns, blamed for shootings > >Teen Forum: Ethics, not guns, blamed for shootings >Wednesday, April 29, 1998 >By Bill Steigerwald, Post-Gazette Staff Writer > >Guns don't kill children on the school playgrounds of Jonesboro or at >eighth grade dances in Edinboro, young people do. > >Or, in the case of the horror in Jonesboro, the killing is done by >gun-happy boys with no consciences and clueless parents who don't stress >responsibility. > >The above could be a bumper-sticker argument straight from National >Rifle Association headquarters. > >But it is also an accurate summation of what Keith Bocian, Melyssa >Jenkins, Tom Marvit, Aaron Reed, Jennifer Schaupp and James Ziegler >think when it comes to placing blame for America's continuing scourge of >gun-related violence. > >In their discussion of guns and how to control the damage they do at >last week's Teen Forum, the six high school students made it clear that, >as far as they are concerned, the Second Amendment still rules. For >despite what happened in Jonesboro, Ark., and the death toll elsewhere >from America's love affair with firearms, not one of them says they >would want the Constitution changed to outlaw guns. > >Let's get one thing straight. The six are not, through some quirk of >random selection, sons and daughters of wild game hunters or militia >members. Far from it. Mostly city kids, they've hardly had any >experience with shooting anything more lethal than a Super Soaker. > >Guns do not play an important part in their lives. Most of them don't >like guns and wouldn't use one to kill any living thing. The boys - >Keith, Tom, Aaron, James - say they could get their hands on a gun any >time they wanted from someone they know. But they don't see guns openly >displayed in their neighborhoods or schools. > >Only Tom, a sophomore at Taylor Allderdice, has seen a gun in school. > >Well, actually, he didn't see it himself but one of his friends saw it >when it fell out of a student's backpack. The student pointed it at a >substitute teacher, then threw it out the classroom window. He was a >student who was often in trouble, but he got off without punishment, Tom >says, because of "a technicality."" > >Aaron, a Brashear High School freshman from the Hill District, is the >only one who says he's ever come close to shooting a gun in hot anger. > >It happened after he got jumped by four unarmed kids in his >neighborhood. He went and got his 14-year-old friend's "heat," a >.38-caliber pistol. He was going to "do" them with the pistol, Aaron >says. He was going to make them show him respect. "I just wanted to >shoot them. It was my mentality at the time." But Aaron cooled off and >took the gun back to his friend. "I guess it's not in me to kill >someone," he says. > >Now, none of the six would ever think of using a gun to even a score. >"It doesn't even up the scales, it tips the balance," says Keith, a >Perry Hilltop 18-year-old. Anyway, Tom says, there are lots of other >ways to retaliate against your persecutors - from telling on them to >getting a friend in the library to put fines on their library books. > >Keith is the only one who lives in a house that has guns. His father's >pistol and his brother's hunting rifle hold no special appeal to him, >yet he sounds like a natural-born spokesman for the NRA and others who >uphold gun-owners' rights. > >"The problem's not with guns," he says confidently during a discussion >of the Jonesboro massacre. "The problem was with the kids' ethics." > >Tom is less reluctant to blame guns for violence rather than our >culture. He thinks it's the way Americans have been taught. He knows >that in Israel, as in Switzerland, everyone has pistols, rifles or even >machine guns in their house for purposes of national defense. But in >Israel, he says, you never hear about anyone using their guns for crime. > >Tom thinks everyone should take responsibility for his own actions, >including the Jonesboro boys, whom he says knew exactly what they were >doing and "should be prosecuted as adults." But Aaron thinks adults are >to blame. > >If those boys in Arkansas hadn't been introduced to guns so early by >their parents, he argues, the slaughter would never have happened. > >Meanwhile, Aaron's Hill District neighbor James, a junior at >Pittsburgh's High School for the Creative and Performing Arts, is the >only one of the six who expresses a view that gun-control advocates >could find encouraging. > >"I don't see why people have to have guns," he says. "Hunting and >everything, that's pretty fun. But I don't see why there couldn't be >some kind of renting process where you have the gun all day to go out >into the woods or whatever. I just don't see why you absolutely need to >have a gun in your house. For self-protection, that's OK, but..." > >"It's in the Constitution," argues Melyssa, who shows why she may become >a lawyer some day.. > >"Even if you do take away the guns," Keith says, "how do you enforce the >law? How do say, 'Well, cops can have guns, but nobody else can'?"" > >"Yeah," Melyssa says, "because the cops could take their guns home." > >But James thinks gun ownership should be more limited. For example, he >says, "You shouldn't have guns or ammunition in the house if you have >children." > >Melyssa doesn't buy it. > >"It's hard to single people with children out, or people with anything >out, whenever the Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. > >"It doesn't say you have the right to bear arms if you don't have >children or if you don't have a bad temper. And that's the Constitution. > >If we can't violate freedom of speech or freedom of the press, we >shouldn't violate that one either. > >"It's all about being responsible." >-- >****************************************************************** > E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group > P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 > Grove City, OH 43123 > >Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse > 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.) > >http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib eplurib@infinet.com >****************************************************************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: GSL> Instant Checks -Forwarded Date: 30 Apr 1998 15:28:46 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:42:00 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA27624; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma027531; Thu Apr 30 10:38:00 1998 Message-Id: <35488521.1029@GunsSaveLives.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: chairman@GunsSaveLives.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list PERSONAL OPINION I would like to throw out for thought and discussion some ideas about "instant check" records. I will not address here the problem that the checks will not be instant but will enshrine a waiting period, that the system will quickly be turned into a basis for curtailing gun shows and private sales, or a host of other problems with it. This deals with the destruction of records. If you have heard it, bear with me. #1 NO instant check system run by the feds (and most states) can EVER have the records destroyed legally. Absorb this. The Federal Records Act and many court decisions following have repeatedly been upheld as requiring that records be kept. Federal records (including computer transactions) are federal property. They are governed by the Records Act. THEY MUST KEEP THEM. Now, a simple principle of law that everybody understands says that if a later law modifies an earlier one in some way, the later law applies. The federal courts have made an exception to this for the Records Act. The Records Act itself must be explicitly and intentionally addressed and amended in the new law for any new law's procedures to override those of the Records Act. This means the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady Act's requirement that background check records NOT be kept is VOID. The feds conducting the program could be PROSECUTED if they destroy the records. #2 The FBI is taking a very sneaky tack on the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady permision-to-exercise-your-rights checks. They are saying that the gun check program is one thing, and the records of that might have to disappear (this is questionable), but the access of FBI records is a separate thing. ANY TIME the FBI criminal databases or fingerprint databases are checked, the person who is being checked and the reason WILL BE KEPT. #3 The NRA's fight to have states pass instant check systems was based on their propaganda that the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady invasions of privacy would NOT be done by the feds if the state where the purchase was going on had its own check. Now it appears the feds are proposing they will conduct the national check, regardless. There will be multiple layers of checks. In Fairfax County, VA, where the National Rifle Association, Gun owners of America, and ironically, GunsSaveLives, are headquartered, a handgun buyer at the end of this year will get the same check, through the federal database, THREE time to buy a handgun. The locals check for handgun buys. The state checks all firearms purchases from dealers. The feds will now be checking ALSO, they are proposing, and the state law has not been and will not be modified this year to stop the repetitive checks of the same data. Buying a handgun in a store there will create THREE 99-year records in the FBI's files of the single purchase. If you go to the state police for a permit to buy more than one handgun in 30 days, the single act of buying two handguns will create FOUR computer checks and computer records, as the state police will run your background AGAIN for this permit. Just one example of how the vaunted NRA instant check will not have any records kept. #4 At each stage of all this, the local and state governments may or may not be under any compunction or compulsion to keep or detroy records. It doesn't matter. Which prosecutor (in most places) will prosecute cops for NOT destroying government property? Almost everywhere there is a background check, somebody keeps a record. It is the nature of government. #5 The ironic thing about this is many of the pro-gun people around the country who have fought and contributed and worked to prevent national computer registration of gun owners in earlier years have EMBRACED this insidious plan. It is the demarcation line. For years, federal computer records of who has guns has been the big enchilada of the gun movement. The boogie man. It's here. Thanks to the NRA for joing with HCI and the ATF, wittingly or unwittingly. --Rick Vizachero chairman, GunsSaveLives (personal opinions, and not those of any organization) walter lee wrote: > > ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com > Nancy, Jim and others: > > I sent this to Tanya last week. When I say in the letter to her, that > instant checks are not bad in theory, I mean that. If one could get > clearance in one minute with no records of the call kept and no fee, I > don't have are reason to be against it-- if it served a purpose. It the > feds would prosecute any violent felon or fugitive to the max for trying > to buy a gun, then everyone would be safer. However, the feds don't > prosecute, the want fees, there is still a potential six day wait, and > they are setting it up for registration. > > By the way, under the proposed federal rules, the instant checks don't > effect people with state CHLs that include background checks in the > application. My objection is on principle. They already have my name, > but they won't have a list of transactions. > > Walter LeeInstant check (walter lee , Sat 15:38) > To: > tm@nra.org > > Given the rules the rules posted concerning the "instant background > check" it is time for the NRA and ILA to reconsider its endorsement. > > The instant check is not instant. Allow three business days for > results, which translates up to six calendar days. Call on Wednesday > morning. Currently, the day of the call does not count. Maybe it will > under the new ruling. Wednesday, Thursday, Friday (three business days) > , Saturday, Sunday, National Holiday. They call you Tuesday and > comply. There is nothing instant about it. > > There are serious fees imposed; 13 to 16 dollars per transaction is the > estimate. On a two thousand dollar trap gun, its like nothing. On a > used, sixty dollar .22 rifle it comes to a 25% increase. > > They asked for SS#s. Its volunteer, but... > > I have been told that because Federal computers are involved, the data > will be retained "for audit purposes" "by law." I have also been told > that the record will be discarded when the applicant turns 99. > > Some of this comes directly from the BATF website--in terms of time and > money. > > I can agree that an instant background check is not bad in theory but > the devil is in the details and those details are what we have to live > by. Please, Please, Please oppose the rules submitted by the FBI and > ATF before its too late. > > Demand that instant be instant. Congress appropriated money to set up > the system. Don't try to make gun owners pay for it again. > > I have heard three dealers say they are going to quit when their FFLs > expire. We are running out of dealers in my neck of the woods. The > rules of the instant checks are one of the things that are driving them > out. > > Please register an objection to these details. > > Walter Lee > Life Member > > -------------------------- > GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List > > This list is governed by an acceptable use > policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html > or available upon request. > > To unsubscribe send a message to > majordomo@listbox.com > > with the following line in the body: > > unsubscribe gsl > > GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. > THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL > RIGHTS RESERVED. -- Don't agonize. Organize. http://GunsSaveLives.com (Opinions here are personal and not those of any organization.) -