From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #12 Reply-To: utah-firearms-digest Sender: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk utah-firearms-digest Friday, January 9 1998 Volume 02 : Number 012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 13:45:47 -0700 From: Will Thompson Subject: Ruby Ridge Updates -- Local News Reports (1998) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------3AC149869BF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.ruby-ridge.com/localnews98.htm#KootenaiValleyTimes971218 Just heard on the radio that the judge found "probable cause" to try Lon on charges of manslaughter. Maybe there is some justice left in the world - --------------3AC149869BF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="localnews98.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="localnews98.htm" LOCAL NEWS REPORTS (1998) Refresh these pages often -- They change almost daily. Can't wait for me to update this page? Check out the Spokesman-Review's on-line Ruby Ridge page. Below are brief summaries of articles on Ruby Ridge from several local and regional newspapers. Most newspapers copyright their content (and I really don't want to spend all my time and then some typing in their content), so the summaries and a few brief quotes will have to suffice. For subscription information, just click on the name of the paper. Direct links will be provided for any articles that are on-line; if any of these links break, please drop me a note." - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kootenai Valley Times, December 18, 1997, article entitled "Judge not ready to rule on trial for Horiuchi", subtitled "Weaver family center of attention with Sarah Weaver taking the stand under fire from the defense". Contains a lot of the same material as the two articles below, so I'll focus on the highlights. "Saying that he [Judge Quentin Harden] had no doubt that Horiuchi, a sharpshooter working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had killed Vicki Weaver, he said that Horiuchi had no intent to kill her. 'The issue is, was it (the shooting) done in a careless or reckless manner . . . must a breach of duty be more than ordinary negligence,' Harden instructed attorneys for prosecution and defense to file Memoranda of Authority, citing case law similar to the case in question." ". . . said defense attorney Hoffinger, 'The standards of care must be different for a medic in wartime than for a plastic surgeon working in Beverly Hills [I find that a rather disgusting metaphor -- real medics don't kill U.S. citizens],'he said, 'We're not talking about shooting into a crowd.' "'Yes, your honor, it is like shooting into a crowd,' retorted Woodbury, taking advantage of the prosecution's opportunity to respond. 'There were minor children, a baby, a 16-year-old girl, a mother, father and Kevin Harris, all of whom ran across that porch and into the hour (where Horiuchi shot).' she said. 'They did have rules of engagement, but only two shots were fired. Long Horiuchi's the one who fired those two shots.'" "Hoffinger devoted much of his time questioning Sarah Weaver to try to establish the anti-government sentiment in the Weaver household just prior to the shooting. His rapid-fire attempts to establish a sympathy for Nazis, swastikas and the term ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government) were thwarted by Weaver's angry, terse retorts. When asked to confirm, for instance, that she had marked swastikas on her calendar, she said, 'Is is illegal to use it?' 'Have you used it, yes or no?' he persisted, and she said she had. Asked to confirm that she and her mother both were "crack shots, better even than your father . . . and your sister, Rachel, was taught to shoot young' [Just keep it up Hoffinger -- with questioning and an attitude like that that, you'll fall flat on your face in front of any Idaho jury in any court -- state or federal -- and that's just what most of us would like to see you do.]," Weaver said "Define young." "Hoffinger wanted [Sarah] Weaver to say that she knew her father had armor-piercing ammunition in the house . . ." [Whoopee, ding, Hoffinger, go back to Washington, D.C., where you belong. As a teenager in northern Idaho I used to buy & shoot armor-piercing ammunition all the time. Many millions of round became surplus when our military switched from .30-06 to the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. A store named Tri-State on the outskirts of Moscow, Idaho, used to put it out by the bucket for 10 cents per round; the ones with the black tips were armor-piercing. Better yet, stick around for a while -- at the rate you're going, you'll do a great job for the prosecution.] "Hoffinger asked if she was aware there was at least 14 guns in the house [Keep it up, City Slicker, that's a paltry "arsenal" by Idaho standards, especially for a household with 5 or 6 shooters] and 20,000 rounds found in the house [Have you read our Constitution lately, City Slicker? It has a second amendment that, by some strange coincidence, comes right after the first amendment. It's no more illegal to have 20,000 rounds of ammunition than it is to have 20,000 books or newspapers. That said, I must crank up my reloading presses (another skill I learned as a youth in Idaho) -- gotta catch up with the Weavers!] after the standoff ended. 'Didn't your mother and father make sure there were guns at the doors and windows, and isn't it true that you slept with guns?' [Sarah] Weaver disagreed" "At one point when the prosecution was questioning another of its witnesses, Randy Weaver, Judge Harden clearly was angry and had lost his patience with the objections of the defense counsel. 'Counsel will stop sniping at each other because the court will not tolerate that,' he said. 'The state may put on their case as they see fit.'" Horiuchi is now asserting his 5th amendment right not to testify. His attorneys tried to prevent transcripts of his testimony from the 1993 trial from being introduced as evidence. Prosecutor Yagman objected that their reasoning [that they couldn't cross examine a transcript] was absurd, and Judge Harden apparently agreed with him. "The decision on whether or not to hold Horiuchi over for trial will come some time after December 29, 1997." - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bonners Ferry Herald, December 17, 1997, article entitled "Weaver faces Horiuchi in court", subtitled "No decision on whether FBI sharpshooter will face trial". The magistrate who presided over the preliminary hearing might not release his decision until 1998. Horiuchi appeared in person, dressed in dark blue suit. The magistrate did rule, "I find Lon Horiuchi did unlawfully kill Vicki Weaver", but he wants more information for ruling on whether the can can go to trial. Sarah Weaver (now 21, then 16) testified about the shootings of her father, her mother and their friend Kevin Harris. Defense attorney Hoffinger tried to suggest to her that "the family was preparing for a battle with the federal government". [This line of B.S. has been so thoroughly debunked so many times, they must really be grasping at straws to defend assassin Horiuchi.] Hoffinger also tried to portray her as a Nazi racist [All kids may be misguided at one time or another, or maybe she really is racist -- but is that any excuse to shoot her parents? Get a life, Hoffinger!] During his cross-examination of Randy Weaver, Hoffinger was admonished by the judge "to ask questions and don't testify". The judge is withholding his decision until the attorneys file opinions on the degree of negligence required. The prosecution contends that he was negligent because he fired into the house where children were located; Hoffinger contends that a "reckless disregard to safety" must be proven. The attorneys are to turn in the briefs by Dec. 29. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spokesman-Review, December 17, 1997, on-line article entitled "Weaver takes stand against FBI sniper ", subtitled "Agent returns to Boundary County as accused ". The assassin's attorneys are already trying to demonize the Weavers and their children by pursuing irrelevant lines of questioning, most of which was stopped by the judge. Prosecutor Woodbury is threatening to come back with a first-degree murder charge if the manslaughter charge is dismissed in the preliminary hearing. [Maybe she's coming to her senses? Murder is what it should have been from the beginning!] - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spokesman-Review, December 16, 1997, on-line article entitled "Sniper to appear in court ", subtitled "Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris called as witnesses against agent". - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bonner County Daily Bee, December 16, 1997, article entitled "FBI sharpshooter faces judge today", subtitled "Preliminary hearing to determine of Horiuchi will face felony charge". Today's hearing will determine if there is enough evidence to bring assassin Horiuchi to trial. Assassin "Horiuchi contends the woman's death as an accident . . . . [Prosecutor] Woodbury claims Horiuchi wasn't acting on behalf of the government when he fired into the Weaver cabin, because he had been ordered to protect people designated as hostages inside the cabin." - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Click here for 1997 local news reports. - --------------3AC149869BF-- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:26:18 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Jan. 18 column -- the 'general welfare'] The latest from Vin - ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 18, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz The 'general welfare' A correspondent identifying himself as "Publius" writes: "Dear Vin -- "I recently read your essay on our second national holiday, and believe I have an answer to one of your questions. You urge us to advise legislators to look at Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, and then ask, 'Which one of these 18 sentences gives you the specific, delegated power to spend FEDERAL tax money to pay the medical bills of barefoot Appalachian widows? Which one? Point to it.' "I find the answer in the very first sentence. The Congress has the power 'to promote the general welfare of the United States.' ... "Don't misunderstand me: I think a welfare state is a terrible idea, and that the only goal of government should be to prevent and/or punish aggression. I just think the Constitution gives them the widest mandate any tyrant could possibly want with those words. ..." Publius proposes that one solution would be to amend the Constitution, striking the words "and promote the general welfare." I replied: It's a good question, and another reminder that Joseph Sobran is right when he says that a government under the U.S. Constitution would hardly be perfect, "just a lot better than the one we've got now." One way to argue this case is that -- if that "general welfare" clause meant what the CURRENT court and Congress contend it means -- it surely would have been the LAST sentence of the Constitution. Why go on for several more pages, setting limits on this or that, when you've just given them all carte blanche? In fact, if they meant that Congress may do anything that a simple majority believes might further the "general welfare," why write a Constitution at all -- a Constitution which the Federalists THEMSELVES insisted was intended to LIMIT the new federal government to a very small number of functions, "sharply delineated"? But a closer reading is also possible. Does government charity for barefoot Appalachian widows actually advance the "general" welfare? Not if we suppose "general" to be set up as an antonym to "special," or "specific." I know the collectivist taxmen will argue we "all" benefit by sleeping better in the knowledge that all the little matchgirls have warm beds. But I strongly doubt the Founders were talking about the "welfare" of my conscience, or would have agreed that I should feel happy to see all my wealth looted for someone else's "good cause." At that point, what's to prevent the next "good cause" from being a bigger castle for the emperor, or a snazzier mausoleum for the Pharaoh? Milk price supports hardly advance the "general" welfare -- they specifically advance the interests of a tiny number of dairy farmer/campaign contributors, at the expense of HURTING the "general" welfare of the millions ... including the working poor with too many tiny mouths to feed. As do nearly ALL government interventions, no matter how high-sounding their titles. The furthest extension of this absurdity is the notion that thousands of individual property owners may be impoverished by the virtual seizure (or ban on productive use) of their land, to advance the "general" welfare through the far-fetched benefit folks purportedly receive from knowing that somewhere, in a distant rural environment they will never see, a few horned bugworms of three-toed salamanders have been granted free grazing privileges, never again to be disturbed by the sound of a nasty tractor or chainsaw. Does the "general welfare" now include the welfare of small beasties who will never cast a ballot? This way lies not just tyranny, but madness. But as for the notion of repealing the offending phrase: does anyone really think the self-aggrandizing buffoons currently ensconced in Washington City would make it worth our trouble by paying a single moment's heed to such a change ... any more then they currently tell every man and woman in uniform to go home after two years because the bill authorizing their pay has expired ... "and we'll call you the next time there's a war" ... as is the clear intent of the 12TH sentence of Article I, Section 8? If this phrase were gone, how long would it take them to "reinterpret" another obscure phrase to justify all they've done? Once the power to regulate interstate commerce was used to ban a Kansas wheat farmer from selling his wheat INSIDE HIS OWN STATE at a price lower than the rigged federal price ... on the theory that such sales would "AFFECT interstate commerce" in grain ... once this bunch of windbags felt free to ban handguns within a quarter-mile of a school INSIDE ONE OF THE SEVERAL STATES, justifying this intervention under the interstate commerce clause on the theory that "some components of the gun were most probably made in other states" ... I fear playing word games with this gang became a total waste of time. 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 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 "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams - ----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. "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire a dangerous servant and a terrible master." -- George Washington - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:25:57 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Latest Asset Forfeiture Scheme -Forwarded Received: from xmission.XMISSION.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id pa404601; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:23:42 -0700 Received: from devans.xmission.com (slc75.modem.xmission.com [166.70.1.141]) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.7/8.7.5) with SMTP id HAA03478 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:23:36 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980109073751.0070d39c@xmission.com> X-Sender: devans@xmission.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 07:37:51 -0700 To: discussion@derail.org From: Donna Evans Subject: Latest Asset Forfeiture Scheme Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com X-ListMember: dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us [discussion@derail.org] >Return-path: >Envelope-to: devans@xmission.com >Delivery-date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:49:19 -0700 >Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 21:51:30 -0800 >From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" >Organization: XMission >To: ajgaunt@xmission.com >Subject: Latest Asset Forfeiture Scheme > >Rep. Bill Hickman has concocted the latest asset forfeiture scheme - this one promises to protect >us against drunk drivers rather than drug dealers. Please read article at URL below. It might >be possible to extinguish this bad idea now if enough of us call Rep. Hickman and encourage him >to drop his proposal. I plan to call him tomorrow evening. His home phone is 673-2671, office >628-5100, and fax 628-0580. If you do contact him, I'd be interested in the response you get. >Also, please pass this message along to others who are forfeiture opponents. Thank you. > >http://www.standard.net/cgi-win/table.exe?local+5dui2.htm > > Arnold > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:50:23 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: NRA Bylaws: Preventing GREED from Taking Over -Forwarded Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id IAA29956; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:31:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:31:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma029935; Fri Jan 9 08:30:07 1998 Message-Id: <199801091251.HAA22215@post1.fast.net> Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: behanna@fast.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: "Chris BeHanna" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: NRA Bylaws: Preventing GREED from Taking Over X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD! - ----- Begin Forwarded Message WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? by John H. Trentes Candidate - NRA Board of Directors Why should any of us send even a single dollar bill to the National Rifle Association of America without a solid assurance that it won't wind up in the pocket of a self-dealing officer, director, or vendor instead of being spent in the fight to protect the Second Amendment? If you just smiled knowingly at this question, then it is time we considered a few things about Human Nature and how it affects crucial business at our beloved Association. Money flows through the NRA, and lots of it. The number of individuals and organizations that have a personal stake in receiving part of that money is truly mind-boggling. They range from a shotgun trick shooter receiving a few thousand, up to large public relations and marketing firms that get paid MILLIONS. The stakes are high; no-one who has secured such a handsome paycheck from the Association wants to have it reduced or eliminated. All of these vendors have a vested interest in maintaining a profitable relationship with the NRA, at any cost. Human Nature is at work here, by which I really mean GREED. If greed becomes the moving force behind the daily activities of the NRA, then its mission will be forgotten. Should that day arrive, we will all pay a heavy price, and the medium of exchange will be our freedoms. Safeguards need to be put in place to expose conflicts of interest and self-dealing amongst those in charge, and to subject their political or financial conduct to the glaring light of day and to the critical scrutiny of the membership. Individuals with the solemn responsibility of leadership in this organization cannot be allowed to use their power, notoriety, or authority to shield their dealings with the NRA from public view. If this can be prevented, then and only then can we be satisfied that "every penny" of our money (yours and mine!) is being handled with a "Scotsman's stewardship". In the dark, even a Scotsman is tempted to cheat. The NRA By-laws already contain a financial disclosure provision (Article IV, Section 2) but, regrettably, it doesn't even come close to offering the fiscal protection we need. As it stands now, directors, officers, or employees of the NRA only have to disclose a self-dealing business transaction with the organization if it took place within the last year and if the amount of money changing hands was more than $2000.00. By setting a dollar amount like this, any dishonest officer, staff member, or director can easily avoid having to disclose his or her financial hanky-panky merely by splitting large-dollar transactions into numerous small deals amounting to no more than $2000.00 each. Therein, my friends, lies a GAPING loophole. In the next Board elections, the membership will vote on a by-law amendment that will slam this loophole shut with a resounding bang. The proposed amendment would: * Require Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, and members of the Executive Council to provide a sworn statement prior to the annual meeting that fully discloses all of his or her dealings with the NRA, its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, employees, vendors, or employees of vendors if they benefited in any way, WITH NO DOLLAR LIMIT, for the last THREE years; * Require the Executive Vice President, Treasurer, Executive Director of General Operations, Executive Director of NRA/ILA, and NRA/ILA Fiscal Officer to disclose all of his or her dealings with the Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, or Members and the Executive Council of the NRA, or its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, Employees, vendors, or employees of vendors OR ANYONE WHO HELD SUCH OFFICE IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, if it benefited him or her IN ANY WAY. Again, there is no dollar limit to skirt under; and * Prohibit any Officer of the NRA or Member of the Executive Council from undermining the fit and proper function of the Nominating Committee or the Board of Directors by misusing his or her public notoriety (notoriety that was cultivated with member dollars!) to influence Board of Director elections, an activity which is not within the duties, responsibilities, or authority granted to them by the By-laws. If you are tempted to succumb to the warm, fuzzy feeling that none of this is necessary because the NRA is one big happy family, that worrying about the financial conduct of the staff and directors is paranoid because, after all, blood is thicker than water, I have some distressing news for you: GREED is thicker than blood. And ask yourself this: If any current officer or director of the NRA is opposed to this by-law amendment... Why? What are they hiding from you? THE FOLLOWING CANDIDATES FOR NRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS WANT TO HELP YOU FIND OUT! VOTE FOR THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE BYLAW AMENDMENT AND THESE BOARD CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT IT! 1. Please vote for these Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen Michael J. Beko James A. Church William Dominguez Howard J. Fezell Daniel B. Fiora Arnold J. Gaunt Fred Griisser Wesley H. Grogan, Jr. David M. Gross John Guest Fred Gustafson Don L. Henry William B. Hunt Phillip B. Journey Michael S. Kindberg Jeff Knox John C. Krull Robley T. Moore Larry R. Rankin Albert C. Ross Frank H. Sawberger Thomas L. Seefeldt Kim Stolfer John H. Trentes Glen I. Voorhees, Jr. 2. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. 3. A few advertising dollars go a long way when they tell the truth. Please send your donation to: Second Amendment Action 100 Heathwood Drive Liberty, SC 29657 4. Visit our web sites for further information: http://www.2ndamendment.net http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) - ----- End Forwarded Message PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD! Regards, Chris BeHanna PGP Key Available NJ-RKBA List Maintainer GUNS SAVE LIVES! behanna@fast.net (400,000 per year in the U.S. alone!) Lon Horiuchi, give yourself up! http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:52:19 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Ruby Ridge Shooter To Stand Trial - AP -Forwarded Received: (qmail 18723 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 1998 01:18:11 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 18715 invoked by uid 516); 9 Jan 1998 01:18:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 18691 invoked from network); 9 Jan 1998 01:18:05 -0000 Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg2.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.12) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 9 Jan 1998 01:18:05 -0000 Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14]) by mg2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA27488; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:16:56 -0700 (MST) Received: from helmetfish (166-93-69-107.rmi.net [166.93.69.107]) by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14634; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:16:53 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <34B57A0D.1C44@rmi.net> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 18:14:53 -0700 From: "C. F. Inston" Organization: Global Neighborhood Watch (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Blind-copy list Subject: Ruby Ridge Shooter To Stand Trial - AP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by "C. F. Inston" - ----------------------- 01/07/1998 19:42 EST Ruby Ridge Shooter To Stand Trial BONNERS FERRY, Idaho (AP) -- An FBI sharpshooter must stand trial on a state manslaughter charge in the death of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife in the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge, a judge ruled Wednesday. Magistrate Judge Quentin Harden said there was probable cause to bring Lon Horiuchi to trial for firing the shot that killed Vicki Weaver during the 11-day siege at the mountain cabin. Harden scheduled a Feb. 13 arraignment before state Judge James Michaud. Boundary County Prosecutor Denise Woodbury filed the involuntary manslaughter charge in August. The Justice Department decided in 1994 against prosecuting Horiuchi on federal charges and upheld the decision last year after a long review. U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge is scheduled to hear arguments Monday from Horiuchi's lawyers in Boise that the case should be transferred to federal court. Harden, who could have dismissed the charge, ruled after reviewing briefs submitted last month on whether Horiuchi was negligent, reckless or careless in firing the shot. In Wednesday's ruling, he made no comment on the reason for his decision. Lawyers for Horiuchi have argued that the state had failed to meet its burden of proof that Horiuchi was grossly negligent, or that ``standards of care'' had been violated. If the case moves to federal court, Horiuchi's lawyers could seek to dismiss the case there, said Mike Weland, a Boundary County spokesman. Justice Department and FBI officials wouldn't comment on Wednesday's ruling. Private lawyers hired by the Justice Department to represent Horiuchi also refused to discuss the case. David Nevin, a Boise attorney who represents Kevin Harris, a friend of the Weavers who was involved in the standoff, said he hoped the ruling would help make federal agents more accountable for their actions. ``My feeling all along has been that not only Mr. Horiuchi, but others who gave him orders, should be prosecuted,'' Nevin said. ``My only other reaction is disappointment that the charge against Mr. Horiuchi isn't more serious, and that the people above him are not sharing the criminal responsibility.'' If convicted of involuntary manslaughter, Horiuchi could face 10 years in prison. He has continued to work for the FBI. Horiuchi was among dozens of federal agents who surrounded the cabin. Weaver was being sought on an illegal-weapons charge. His 14-year-old son, Sam, and deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan also were killed in a gunfight at the outset of the siege. Horiuchi testified during a 1993 federal trial for Weaver and Harris that he accidentally shot Mrs. Weaver in the head while aiming at Harris, who was running into the cabin in northern Idaho. Mrs. Weaver was standing at the door holding her infant daughter when she was shot. Harris was wounded by the same bullet that passed through the door of the cabin and killed Mrs. Weaver. When Woodbury charged Horiuchi, she also filed state murder and assault charges against Harris in Degan's slaying and the wounding of another federal agent. Harden dismissed those charges in October because Harris already had been cleared of murder and other charges in the 1993 federal trial. Harden said the state charges violated an Idaho law that bars prosecution of someone who already has faced prosecution in another state, territory or country. A $10 million lawsuit filed by Harris against the federal government is pending. Weaver settled a similar lawsuit last year for $3.1 million. - -- 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 - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:54:47 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Important Gun Statistics -Forwarded Received: from mcfeely.concentric.net (mcfeely.concentric.net [207.155.184.83]) by darius.concentric.net (8.8.8/(97/11/17 5.8)) id KAA08075; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:26:02 -0500 (EST) [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network] Errors-To: Received: from default (ts001d07.chi-il.concentric.net [206.173.185.19]) by mcfeely.concentric.net (8.8.8) id KAA19590; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:18:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980109091444.007a4c10@pop3.concentric.net> X-Sender: jkoenig@pop3.concentric.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 09:23:02 -0600 To: voter@juno.com From: Jack Koenig Subject: Important Gun Statistics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The only way you can defend the Constitution and your right to bear arms is= to have facts which will support your arguments. The following was printed= in Investors Business Daily on 1/8/97 and I believe you should add it to= your arsenal! Take care! Jack Koenig By MORGAN 0. REYNOLDS & H. STERLING BURNEFf Nationally, gun-rights advocates have been on the defensive since the early= '90s. But in the states, where the fight against crime is won or lost, they= re winning the debate. That s because they have the facts on their side. Thirty-one states now let citizens carry concealed weapons =97 up from just= nine states in =9186. Have these "right-to-carry" laws made the public= safer, or have they caused a sharp drop in public safety, as opponents= warned? The standard argument against "concealed carry" laws is that there is no= good reason for the average Joe to carry a gun. But federal courts have= ruled that police aren t obliged to protect individuals from crime. That= means citizens are ultimately responsible for their own defense. But do concealed weapons deter crime? Criminals commit 10 million violent= crimes a year. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck found that= victims use handguns about 1.9 million times in self-defense. Criminals weigh the costs of the crime against the benefits. You don t have= to be a criminal mastermind to know that the possibility of a concealed= weapon tilts the odds in the victim s favor. Research shows that robbery= and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be= injured as those who don t. A recent study by John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago= published in the Journal of Legal Studies bears this out. They found that= concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5% and severe assault by 7% from= 1977 to =9192. Had "right-to-carry" laws been in effect throughout the= country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders and 60,000 fewer= assaults every year. Vermont has long had the least restrictive firearms-carry laws. Citizens= there can carry guns either openly or concealed without any permit. Perhaps= in part because of its liberal gun policies, Vermont has among the lowest= violent crime numbers in the country. In 1980, when murders and robberies in the U.S. had soared to 10 and 251 per= 100,000 people, respectively, Vermont s murder rate was 22% of the national= average and its robbery rate was 15%. In 1996, Vermont s crime rates were among the lowest in the country: 25% of= the national murder rate, 8% of the national robbery rate. Another objection to concealed-carry laws is that they ll boost impulse= killings =97 fostering a "wild West" mentality with more shootings and= deaths as people vent their anger with pistols instead of fists. Yet FBI= data show that killings stemming from arguments are falling as a share of= all homicides. In fact, concealed-weapon permit holders are involved in fewer incidents= than off-duty police officers. Consider also: Dade County, Fla., kept detailed records for six years. Of 21,000 carry= permit holders, there was no reported incident of a permit holder= injuring an innocent person. Virginia issued more than 50,000 permits since it passed a= right-to-carry law in =9195. In that time, not one permit holder= has been convicted of a crime, and violent crime has= dropped. Opponents are left to argue that concealed-carry laws will put guns in= untrained hands and accidents will go up. But there has been no rise in accidental shootings in counties with= right-to-carry laws. Nationwide, there are about 1,400 accidental firearms= deaths annually =97 a figure far lower than the number of deaths blamed on= medical errors or car accidents. And data show that civilians are even more careful with firearms than police= officers are. There are only about 30 mistaken civilian shootings in the= U.S. each year. The police commit more than three times as many mistaken= killings as civilians. In fact, the death rate from firearms has dropped in the last 20 years even= as gun ownership has more than doubled and 22 states have passed= right-to-carry laws. The fatal firearm accident rate has dropped more than 19% in the last= decade, and the number of gun-related accidents among children fell to an= all-time low of 185 in =9194 =97 down 64% since =9175. Keeping honest, law-abiding people unarmed and at the mercy of armed and= violent criminals was never a good idea. In the gun policy debate,= gun-rights advocates can argue honestly that a general concealed-carry law= is sound public policy. Morgan 0. Reynolds is director of the National Center for Policy Analysis= Criminal Justice Center and an economics professor at Texas A&M University.= H. Sterling Burnett is a policy analyst for the National Center for Policy= Analysis. 0000,0000,ffffJack Koenig 8080,8080,8080Impact Voters of America 8080,0000,8080 8080,8080,8080Communications without intelligence is noise. Intelligence without communications is irrelevant! - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:26:20 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: New to speak Maybe of interest to some... [Image] [Image] [Image] Right-wingers landing in Utah County [Image] Eagle Forum meets at UVSC Saturday [Image] [Image] Last updated 01/09/1998, 11:21 a.m. MT By Jeffrey P. Haney Deseret News staff writer PROVO — Daniel New facetiously drawls that his 80-hour work week is dedicated to "fighting the government." "I think I'm going to have to cut back to 12 hours a day," New joked during in an interview with the Deseret News from his Texas home. "What I'm fighting for affects more people than Kelly Flynn and Heather Faulkiner ever will," he said. "Somebody has to fight the fight for the legal precedent." New's overture about waging a federal war may by intended as tongue-in-cheek, but he is grimly serious. He has headed full-steam into a legal battle with the U.S. Department of Defense, intending to prove that an allegiance to the United Nations violates intentions of the Constitution. He has crisscrossed the country, appearing on the air waves and chatting at conservative coalition conventions, stumping for support of his son, Michael, who was court-martialed in 1996 for refusing to wear an insignia of the U.N. on his Army uniform. New will speak Saturday at the Eagle Forum's 7th annual state convention held at Utah Valley State College. Keynote speakers at the 9 a.m. event include such right-wing political figures as New, author John Stormer, Eagle Forum executive director Kris Ardizone and the Sutherland Institute's Gaylord Swim. Stormer's book, "None Dare Call It Treason," sold more than 6 million copies in 1964. Some 34 years ago, the pastor and administrator of a Christian school quit his job as an editor of a leading electrical mag- azine to devote his life to writing and conservative political activism. An update of his book will be published this year. Cost for the conference is $25 at the door. Registration begins at 8:30 a.m. Daniel New's foray into the battle began in 1995, when Michael, serving as a medic in Germany, told his superior officers he would not don a blue beret and shoulder patch emblazoned with U.N. identifying marks. Supporters of the United States as a sovereign nation, including the New family, say the U.N. is part of the conspiracy to form the New World Order, a plan to create a one-world government operated by powerful nations and financial interests. Michael New believes he enlisted in an eight-year term to protect fight encroachment of foreign soils. He didn't enlist in the U.S. Army to become a foreign power's peace-keeping stormtrooper, his father said. Micheal New, now a nursing student, shuns the media spotlight. He doesn't talk to reporters about his case. He was prepared to go to prison for his convictions, but not to be famous, his father said. "He said, 'I'm not a mercenary.' It just went against his grain instinctively," he said. "He took an oath to support the United States, not the U.N., and the U.N. is by law a foreign power." New's attorneys cite Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution in his defense. They claim the order to wear U.N. clothing violates regulations governing Army uniforms and insignia. Members of the armed forces, they say, are prohibited from wearing medals or adornments from other nations on their regulation uniforms. More than $500,000 has been spent in his defense, including legal fees, producing a $20 video proclaiming his innocence and creating a home page on the Internet at www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8817. The appeal will be argued on its merits for the first time in February or March in the Army's Court of Criminal Appeals. New says his son's legal defense is largely paid for by a grassroots effort contributing to the Michael New Defense Fund. The family receives a slice of the donations for living expenses, and New insists they are frugal with the donated money. He says he usually receives no money other than travel costs for his speaking dates. While here in Salt Lake City, he will stay overnight with a family belonging to the Eagle Forum. Most supporters live in smaller cities and towns, where the political climate is largely conservative. More people have sent money and letters from Ogden than New York City, he said. "We have a deep-seated concern for freedom both as individuals and as a nation and for rights we have in the Constitution," he said. Karen Clark, vice president of the state forum, said the group invited New to speak to the expected 200 convention attendees because of an interest in his son's case and his thoughts on the U.N.'s political reach. [Image] [Image] Return to front page [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. "Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." -- Aristotle. Quoted by John Trenchard and Walter Moyle "An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy" [London, 1697] - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #12 **********************************