From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #21 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 Wednesday, February 11 1998 Volume 02 : Number 021 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:26:55 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Satcher Nomination -Forwarded Feb 10, 1998 The noon news is reporting that David Satcher has been confirmed as Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. As head of the CDC, Dr. Satcher has been overseer of studies of little scientific merit which were passed off as legitimate in order to convince the public that private possession of firearms should be prohibited. Dr. Satcher prostituted his office to put out government sponsored propaganda for the Clinton administration. Such a willingness to produce pseudo-scientific propaganda does not demonstrate the type of integrity Americans need and expect from physicians and especially not from the highest public health official in the nation. Nineteen Republican Senators voted for Dr. Satcher, including Utah's very own "Friend of Ted" Sen. Hatch. (I confirmed Hatch's vote with his office.) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id JAA05224 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:55:28 -0700 Received: from gw1.thiokol.com by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com via smap (3.2) id xma005196; Mon, 9 Feb 98 09:55:01 -0700 Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:55:30 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:56:25 -0700 From: "Neil W. Sagers" To: Dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us Subject: Please stop the Satcher nomination Senator Orrin Hatch February 9, 1998 Dear Senator Hatch: This letter is to ask that you please vote no on the confirmation of David Satcher, M.D., to be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. As head of the CDC, Dr. Satcher has been overseer of studies of little scientific merit which were passed off as legitimate in order to convince the public that private possession of firearms should be prohibited. In short, Dr. Satcher has prostituted his office to put out government sponsored propaganda for the Clinton administration. Such a willingness to produce pseudo-scientific propaganda does not demonstrate the type of integrity Americans need and expect from physicians and especially not from the highest public health official in the nation. Please do what you can to stop the nomination of Dr. Satcher. Neil Sagers 1205 North Quincy Ave., #2 Ogden, UT 84404 - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:06:37 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [LP RELEASE: Deadbeat Dad Database] Likely of some interest.... - ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Why the "Deadbeat Dad" database should scare you -- even if you're not a deadbeat WASHINGTON, DC -- Bad news about the new "deadbeat dads" law: Your name will soon be entered into a massive government database, even if you're not a deadbeat -- and even if you're not a dad. That's because a new law compels every employer in the USA to help the federal government build a massive new database to enforce child-support payment laws: The New Hires Directory. "The first words you may hear the next time you apply for a job are: Your papers, please," said Libertarian Party Chairman Steve Dasbach. "Politicians who claimed they only want to track deadbeat dads are compiling a database to allow them to track every American worker. "Just like in totalitarian societies, government bureaucrats will soon have the power to deny you a job, and the ability to monitor your income, assets, and debts." The New Hires Directory was mandated by the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and compels employers to report the name, address, Social Security number, and wages of every new worker to the state within 20 days. States then send the data to the federal government, which matches names against its "deadbeat dads database" -- a list of every parent nationwide who owes child support. "Federal bureaucrats will have the ability to track every American from job to job, deny jobs to people who fall behind in child support payments, and even share information with other government agencies," Dasbach said. But those aren't the only reasons why this law should make you nervous - -- even if you're not a deadbeat dad, said Dasbach. In addition: * Such mammoth government databases are reprehensible in a free society. "Americans who have never committed a crime shouldn't have to supply personal data to politicians for any reason whatsoever, and they certainly shouldn't have to receive government clearance to get a job," he said. Noting that the law authorizes child support agencies to share the database with the Social Security Administration, the Justice Department, and even the IRS, Dasbach asked, "Why would politicians who steal each other's FBI files even hesitate to trample the privacy rights of ordinary Americans?" * It's another "just-in-case-you-commit-a-crime" law. "Like the new federally mandated fingerprint law, politicians are demanding to enter your personal data into their computer, just in case you commit a crime," Dasbach said. Every time a New Yorker changes jobs, for example, the State Department of Family Assistance informs the new employer about the worker's child support obligations -- even if the parent has never missed a payment. One bureaucrat bragged that "we don't give them an opportunity to become deadbeats." "This law turns the presumption of innocence on its head and forces every American to prove their innocence to politicians, bureaucrats, and computers -- every time they get a new job," Dasbach said. * The government will inevitably expand the scope of the legislation. "Does anyone really believe that federal bureaucrats will use this database only to track down deadbeat dads?" Dasbach asked. "If history is any guide, this system will soon include information on gun ownership, education records, medical histories, and anything else that prying politicians want to know about you." * Your personal financial data may soon be available to credit bureaus and other non-governmental agencies. Privacy expert Robert Gellman points out that private detectives already pay police and child welfare workers to illegally supply criminal, medical, and credit records, and warns that information in the New Hires Directory will become just as accessible. But the primary reason to oppose this new database, said Dasbach, is because "the government has become so large and intrusive that soon our only protection against it may be the information that it doesn't have. If politicians really cared at all about protecting privacy, they would abolish existing databases -- rather than creating new ones." # # # - ----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. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:38:10 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: USSC and Legislative update The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at the Salt Palace. Elections were held for the new (effective immediately) Board of Trustees. The members of the new Board are (alphabetically): Jerry Dickson (Secretary-Treasurer) Doug Henrichsen Elwood Powell (Chairman) Shirley Spain (Vice Chair) Bob Templeton Sarah Thompson Joe Venus Advisory board members are: Bryan Lindsey John Spangler (and maybe others of whom I'm not aware) 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. All of us are VERY busy right now. Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), cathounds@aol.com Elwood Powell, 426-8274 or 583-2882 (w), 364-0412 (h), 73214,3115@compuserve.com Shirley Spain, 963-0784, agr@aros.net Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w) Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, righter@therighter.com (I prefer e-mail to phone calls when possible). Also, please remember that there is an excellent daily legislative update available by phone, 24 hrs a day, at (801) 299-7230. PLEASE check that number before calling Board members with questions about legislation. If you'd like to receive e-mail alerts, please write to agr@aros.net If you'd like to be on the fax alert list, please fax your info to 801-963-1913. I will do my best to post updates to this list as well. SB 57, introduced by Senate President Lane Beattie was released today, and can be found at: http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1998/bills/sbillint/SB0057.htm My understanding, (although I haven't thoroughly read the bill yet), is that it will gut our concealed carry system. Once I have a chance to read it thoroughly, an update/analysis will follow. This bill has a good chance of being passed unless WE let legislators know that we'll remember their votes come November. More to come..... Sarah Thompson 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. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:11:53 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Religious freedom letters@desnews.com Dear Editor: Your editorial (2/8) urging support for Senate President Lane Beattie's SB 57 is both irresponsible and reprehensible. Beattie's bill would not, as you falsely inform your readers, "allow church leaders, private property owners and public school officials to ban concealed weapon permit holders from bringing firearms into their buildings." It would absolutely _prohibit_ the possession of firearms on these premises, and the churches and private property owners would have no discretion whatsoever. Prohibition is not the same thing as choice. This mistake is quite understandable since you both wrote and published your editorial days before the actual text of the legislation was available. While you are entitled to your opinions, I wish you would have the journalistic integrity to base your opinions on facts and not rumors. Both Utah and the LDS Church have long been known for their religious tolerance and adherence to the principle of separation of Church and State. This is a worthy tradition, which should be held sacred. Beattie's bill would set a heinous precedent for intrusion of the state into church matters. If the state may prohibit firearms from the premises of a house of worship regardless of the wishes of the religion or clergy involved, all religious freedom is endangered. If the state may force a church to ban guns, what is to stop it from banning sacramental wine, or requiring that Muslims wear shoes during prayer? What is to stop it from mandating birth control or equal religious standing for homosexuals? If a house of worship wishes to ban guns, or even require guns, let it do so on its own authority. Religious practices are not the domain of the state. All Utahns who support religious freedom should vigorously oppose SB 57. Sarah Thompson, M.D. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:17:24 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: >The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at >the Salt Palace. Elections were held for the new (effective immediately) >Board of Trustees. > I wish the USSC well. However, given their prior comments supporting the UofUs ban on guns and their close affiliation with the NRA, I had to let my membership lapse. If the new board members can provide some proof that they are at least as concerned about my right to own and carry guns for personal and family defense as they are about my ability to hunt, I may reconsider my position. Re the NRA, I repost an earlier message from Scott. NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles) by ORAL DECKARD The Vigo Examiner I just got off the phone with the NRA (The Powerful gun Lobby.) I was told repeatedly that "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity semi-automatic rifles). Usually I get calls from The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And every time they call I ask them "What does the Second Amendment say?" And every time, without fail, they are taken by surprise, and stammer out bits of it, and fail. When pressed, they say something along the lines of "Well, I can't recite it word for word." And I always reply, "Why not? It's really not very long. And this is your job. You want me to give you money to defend the Second Amendment, and you don't even know what it says?" Sometimes they hang up on me at that point, and sometimes they continue trying to save face. Then there are some that aren't even embarrassed. This one started as a routine phone solicitation. But as usual I decided to have a little fun with the poor fellow. He told me that my NRA membership had lapsed, and that he would just reinstate it. I replied "No, I support the Second Amendment." There was a long pause. Then he began again to sign me up again. So I clarified. "I dropped out of the NRA because I support the Second Amendment and the NRA does not. I prefer the Gun Owners of America (goaslad@aol.com) and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. (Against- Genocide@JPFO.org) He asked "Are you aware that Charlton Heston has taken control of the NRA?" Now it was getting serious. I answered "Yes, and he went on TV and announced that there was no need for anyone to own an AK-47." I thought I was being clear, but obviously not clear enough, as he took that as a good thing. So I asked "What does the Second Amendment say." He replied "The right to keep guns and stuff. I don't know it word for word." So I simply told him what it says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I then asked him what that meant. He said that when the Second Amendment was first drafted it was necessary to hunt for food. But now we could buy instant food. A few months ago I got a call from an NRA solicitor trying to get my wife signed back up. The next day when I reported that he had said no one needed high capacity semi-automatic rifles I was challenged to identify him. Unfortunately I had failed to get his name. But not this time. So I asked for his name, and was told "Richard Kuhlman." He even spelled it for me. I asked "OK, this is the evening shift of February 4th, where are you calling from." He answered "Wichita Kansas." As a double check, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, I asked "Is there any need to protect assault high capacity semi-automatic rifles?" He answered "We would like to keep them for matches and things, but they don't have to have those big magazines, and only if they were used just for that purpose. We want to be reasonable." I then asked if I could speak to his supervisor. His supervisor was Mario. Just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, I introduced myself as a reporter for the Vigo Examiner, explained Richard Kuhlman and myself were just discussing the need to protect high capacity semi-automatic rifles, and asked "What's your take on it?" He asked "You want my opinion, or the NRA's opinion?" I answered "Both." So he explained that all the high capacity semi-automatic rifles were imported from foreign countries, and "we are trying to get rid of them." Again, I went for a repeat, just to make sure. I asked "Are you saying the NRA is to trying to get rid of high capacity semiautomatic rifles ?" He didn't hesitate. He said "Yes, our purpose is to get rid of them." So I thanked him and told him my story would be out tomorrow (Feb. 5th, 1998) So what could I conclude from this? Every time I have an NRA solicitor on the phone I am told that they don't support the Second Amendment, and now, that their PURPOSE is to GET RID OF a whole class of firearms, the class of firearms the Second Amendment was specifically enacted to protect. Even when I was insistent, to the point of being rude, that I objected to their selling out the Second Amendment, they either didn't get it, or were determined that the Second Amendment is to be abandoned. They both seemed to be genuinely embarrassed by the Second Amendment. This time I didn't get it just from the solicitor, but also from his supervisor. And not just his opinion, but as he stated it, the opinion of the NRA. So there it is folks. You can either support the Constitution, or you can support the NRA, but you cannot support the Constitution THROUGH the NRA. Long ago I gave up my NRA phone card. A couple months ago I let my NRA membership lapse. Now, I look in my wallet and find there, still, an NRA VISA. Well, that one is the walking dead. One of the men said Wayne Lapierre said we didn't want to lose members over a gun. It looks like the NRA, which has been accused over the years of refusing to compromise, has just compromised, big time. When you give up a right, in order to be "reasonable", just how reasonable will you ultimately have to become? In 1992-1993 I spent six months in Sweden. The folks there bragged that they could own any kind of gun they wanted, as long as it didn't hold over two shots. They were reasonable. And when you decide you cannot give up any more, on what solid ground will you now brace your feet? Having conceded to the elimination of one class of firearm, there is now no solid position from which the NRA can defend any firearm. That defense must now rest with those who have not compromised the Constitution. After Norville Chamberlain announced "Peace in our time", it then fell to Winston Churchill to defend England. Will appeasement defend a few "sporting" rifles? The NRA is betting the Constitution on it. Now is the time for all good men (and ladies) to get off the fence. Which side will you come down on? Either you are loyal to the Constitution, or you are disloyal. The NRA doesn't seem too proud of our Constitution. - ------------------------------------- Copyright (C) 1998, The Vigo Examiner All are free to republish at will this intact document. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com - -- 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. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:19:13 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [jimdex@inconnect.com: KWUN Wednesday] Likely of interest to some here... - ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- At 10:00 AM, [Jim Dexter, State Chair of the Utah Libertarian Party's] guest will be Arnold J. Gaunt of FEAR who will talk about the horrors of Utah civil asset forfeiture laws. Arnold is also a NRA Director nominee and if elected wants to help force all the weak-kneed compromisers off the NRA board. Tell all your business-owning friends and associates to tune in at 11:00, because we're going to take a break from politics to disucss effective marketing techniques for businesses with Kathy Weaver Mickelsen of AdVise. Kathy is also a Seventh-Day Adventist whose church, thanks to Waco, is all too keenly aware of the gov'ts ability to attack religion. Hey I gotta get a commercial in somewhere. The state chair compensation is all negative financially. ;-) - ----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. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:49:15 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Quotas at UHP? Not directly related, but maybe of some interest... From today's Rolly & Wells in the Tribune. QUOTAS OR NO QUOTAS? Recently, we told you about a letter of reprimand Utah Highway Patrol Trooper John Davis received from his sergeant, Roger Cutler, in the UHP Kane County Division. Part of the reprimand was for failing to get enough DUI arrests, noting: ``As of today you have arrested four DUIs. This, as you know, is sub-standard as by the end of the month you should be at seven.'' Highway Patrol spokesman Verdi White told us Cutler merely had used a poor choice of words to convey his concerns about Davis' performance. White said the patrol does not have DUI quotas. Au contraire. We have heard from several troopers who say, yes, in some areas the patrol does have DUI quotas and they sent us documentation to prove it. The formal evaluation criteria for Salt Lake County lists several objectives, including DUI arrests, which troopers need to be in line for favorable transfers, promotions and merit pay increases. It requires a minimum of 12 DUI arrests per year for a ``fair'' evaluation and 14 per year for a ``good'' evaluation. A 15-year trooper in Moab was suspended in December for falsifying DUI reports. The troopers said there is no excuse for falsifying a report. But he was pressured to meet his quota. Three years ago, House Speaker Mel Brown, R-Midvale, supported a bill to remove quotas. But UHP officials persuaded him to drop the legislation if they agreed to voluntarily remove quotas. White says in Salt Lake County the written standards are not strictly enforced. He conceded the requirements may vary in other counties. - -- 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. "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36 - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:57:47 -0700 From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update Charles Hardy wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: > > >The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at > >the Salt Palace. Elections were held for the new (effective immediately) > >Board of Trustees. > > > > I wish the USSC well. However, given their prior comments supporting > the UofUs ban on guns and their close affiliation with the NRA, I had > to let my membership lapse. If the new board members can provide some > proof that they are at least as concerned about my right to own > and carry guns for personal and family defense as they are about > my ability to hunt, I may reconsider my position. > I believe this might address your concerns regarding how one member of the board views concept of gun bans, the NRA, family/personal defense etc. (all in one letter! Good job Sarah!) July 8, 1997 Ms. Marion Hammer Mr. Wayne LaPierre, Jr. National Rifle Organization 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Dear Ms. Hammer and Mr. LaPierre, I have received several requests from each of you to renew my membership in the National Rifle Association. I am unwilling to do so now, or in the foreseeable future. You see, I’m one of those “extremists” whom you feel you need to purge from the ranks of the organization. I know better than to go where I’m not wanted. I certainly know better than to pay for such treatment. I believe that many, though still a minority, of our law enforcement agents do behave like “jack-booted thugs” and that calling them what they are is appropriate and necessary. I believe that federal law enforcement should be severely curtailed and should always work under the supervision of local law enforcement. I believe the Second Amendment guarantees me the right to own any weapon I choose, specifically including fully automatic “machine guns”. In fact, if the Second Amendment is to have any meaning, then we are obligated to own fully automatic weapons and weapons of mass destruction in order to resist the depredations of a corrupt, unconstitutional government that would sell us and our children into slavery. I believe I do not need anyone’s permission to own or carry the weapon of my choice. I most assuredly do not need anyone’s permission to defend myself, my family, or my property. I will not beg, and I will not subject myself to degradation by a government that presumes I am “guilty” until it determines my innocence. I do not, and will never, concede that the police, the military, the legislature, the ATF, our despicable president, or anyone else is my intellectual or moral superior and has the right to judge me. Only a fully informed jury of my peers may do that, and then only where it has lawful jurisdiction. I believe that all gun control laws are inherently evil. It is not enough to say that Brady will “sunset”. If you’re willing to tolerate evil for one day, will you tolerate it for two? If you are willing to tolerate it for two days, will you tolerate it for a year? And if you tolerate it for a year, why should anyone believe you will not tolerate it forever? Honor and integrity dictate that we demand a repeal now! Domestic abuse is a heinous crime and must be treated as such. But I will never condone the removal of rights as punishment for a misdemeanor. Likewise I will never condone the removal of a person’s right to self-defense in response to a non-violent crime, nor will I condone the denial of basic rights to those persons who, through no fault of their own, suffer from a mental illness, but pose no threat to others. I find your support for the overturning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which denies First Amendment rights as “necessary to get tough on crime”, abhorrent; it is an indication of your true nature and goals. NRA-ILA has done many wonderful things. Your educational programs are excellent, have taught the joys of gun use and ownership to many, and have no doubt prevented many deaths and injuries due to your emphasis on safety training. There is no better firearms safety program for children than Eddie Eagle. Your research and legislative resources have been invaluable to me. However, the time for compromise is past. This is no longer about hunting, or target shooting. It’s not about safety. It’s not about begging for permission to exercise rights that existed long before either government or man. It’s about survival: individual survival and family survival. It’s about survival of the form of government envisioned by the founders of this nation. It’s about the survival of the gun culture in the face of a government that would willingly commit genocide against it. If you think I’m a wild-eyed radical, just look to Clinton’s soul mate, Tony Blair, who has publicly announced that gun bans have nothing whatever to do with public safety; that the issue is the elimination of the gun culture. Far too many others have attempted genocide against my people. I will not close my eyes. I will not lie down. I will not go willingly. I will resist until there is nothing left of me to resist. I will not register my guns, my ammunition, myself, or my family. I will not consent to background checks, especially when performed by a fascist government. I will not ask permission from anyone to do what is right. When you decide to stop selling our birthright, When you decide to stop supporting permits, When you proclaim that each and every one of us is innocent until proven guilty; that we need not subject ourselves to “background checks”, registration or bureaucracy, When you refuse to tolerate evil, When you are willing to call evil by its rightful name, When you are willing to call genocide by its rightful name, When you stop distracting yourselves and others with peripheral issues, When you learn that a compromise with the devil is no compromise at all, Then, and only then, will you have my support. Until that time, may your chains rest lightly. Sincerely, Sarah B. Thompson, M.D. Permission to distribute and/or copy granted provided this letter is reproduced in its entirety, without changes, and full attribution is given. Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:39:54 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Will Thompson posted: >I believe this might address your concerns regarding how one member of >the board views concept of gun bans, the NRA, family/personal defense >etc. (all in one letter! Good job Sarah!) > July 8, I think I've seen this letter before. I've never had any concerns of Sarah's position on the ROCG. (I prefer to use "own and carry guns" rather than "keep and bear arms" since it removes any ambiguity over what I mean.) As soon as you can show me similar letters from the rest (or even a super-majority) of the newly elected board members, my real concerns with the USSC will begin to diminish. A chang in name away from shooting sports and towards the real purpose of the 2nd amd would be a huge step in the right direction as well. GOA and JPFO both name it like it is--guns. Not sports, or duck hunting, or even just rifles, but all guns. - -- 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. "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36 - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:27:46 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update At 11:17 AM 2/11/98 -0700, you wrote: > >On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: > >>The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at >>the Salt Palace. Elections were held for the new (effective immediately) >>Board of Trustees. >> > >I wish the USSC well. However, given their prior comments supporting >the UofUs ban on guns and their close affiliation with the NRA, I had >to let my membership lapse. If the new board members can provide some >proof that they are at least as concerned about my right to own >and carry guns for personal and family defense as they are about >my ability to hunt, I may reconsider my position. Dear Charles, Your concerns are certainly justified. That's exactly WHY I posted contact info. The Board can't possibly represent gun owners' interests if they have no idea of what you want. Tell them - not the mail list! And for the record, USSC is independent, and NOT a branch of the NRA, although they've historically had strong ties. As far as the NRA goes, I'm not a member, and my opposition to their policies of appeasement is generally well known. However, fair is fair. Many, if not most, of the people who bothered to show up at the USSC meeting identified themselves as NRA members. Where were all the people who would like to be totally independent and/or affiliate with other pro-gun groups? On a more practical level, the NRA has contributed money to USSC. The gun owners of this state have, for the most part, contributed nothing financially to local efforts. Three of the Board members (Shirley Spain, Joe Venus, and myself) openly advertised ourselves as "Absolutely No Compromise" candidates. We were elected, so I assume that point of view has a good bit of support. (That doesn't mean the other board members are pro-compromise, only that they didn't mention their positions in their platforms.) Personally, I don't really care whether you or anyone else joins USSC. This isn't about USSC. It goes beyond gun rights. The First Amendment is under direct assault; the state now is claiming that it has an absolute right to dictate to a church what it may or may not allow. The Second Amendment is under direct assault as well, since the state also claims it has a right to restrict firearms from both pubic and private places. And the Fourth Amendment is under attack because the state believes it may dictate what you must do in the sanctity of your own home. THAT's what matters to me. That _should_ matter to every Utahn whether or not they even own a gun. And for that matter, since the last I heard, you are an officer of the Libertarian Party of Utah, just where does that "Party of Principle" stand on these flagrant desecrations of the Constitution and individual liberty? I'm pulling out all the stops to defeat this bill. I will vote against any compromise. I don't honestly expect to succeed, but I'll go down trying. That's all I can do. If Utahns as a people don't care, then they deserve whatever they get. As my friend Brenda says: "All those in favor of gun control, please do nothing." Sarah Thompson (speaking for myself only) "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." ...Goethe Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:29:40 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: >Your concerns are certainly justified. That's exactly WHY I posted contact >info. The Board can't possibly represent gun owners' interests if they >have no idea of what you want. Tell them - not the mail list! >And for the record, USSC is independent, and NOT a branch of the NRA, >although they've historically had strong ties. I will contact them as time permits, though I don't expect them to pay too much credence to a non-member. The previous board didn't pay me any credence when I was a member. As a newly elected board member, feel free to pass along my comments as a past and potential future member. Maybe the fact that I was once a dues paying member, but felt morally required to quit support over NRA-like compromises will help convince the current board to take a no compromise approach. And lest there be any confusion, I did not mean to imply the USSC was a branch of the NRA, only that they had close ties. > >As far as the NRA goes, I'm not a member, and my opposition to their >policies of appeasement is generally well known. However, fair is fair. >Many, if not most, of the people who bothered to show up at the USSC >meeting identified themselves as NRA members. Where were all the people >who would like to be totally independent and/or affiliate with other >pro-gun groups? Not being a member, I was not elligble to attend. Given past history I'm currently unwilling to lend financial support by joining. That could change depending on how the USSC handles this issue. As a current board member you would seem to be in a fine position to distance the USSC from the NRA and their tactics and forming closer alliances with GOA and JPFO. > >On a more practical level, the NRA has contributed money to USSC. The gun >owners of this state have, for the most part, contributed nothing >financially to local efforts. I certainely hope you are not suggesting that the USSC's policy's are for sale to the highest bidder. It seems that if the NRA wants to offer money for items the USSC supports, USSC is free to accept it, but should not allow the NRA to dictate policy. Maybe the fact that the NRA offers money and local gun owners such as myself have not should be viewed of an indication of whose policies were represented by past board members. I'll lend financial support when an organization reflects my views. Not before because I can't afford to offer enough to get any organization to change their views based on my money. Can the NRA? I think you are opposed to CCW permits--prefering Vermont style carry. Do you intend to lobby in that direction, or will the NRA's grand plan for nationwide reciprocity (with its national data base) be USSC policy? > >Three of the Board members (Shirley Spain, Joe Venus, and myself) openly >advertised ourselves as "Absolutely No Compromise" candidates. We were >elected, so I assume that point of view has a good bit of support. (That >doesn't mean the other board members are pro-compromise, only that they >didn't mention their positions in their platforms.) > Three is a good start. As a board member, perhaps you could let us potential members know where the others purport to stand and, most importantly, how board votes stack up to what has been said. >Personally, I don't really care whether you or anyone else joins USSC. >This isn't about USSC. It goes beyond gun rights. The First Amendment is >under direct assault; the state now is claiming that it has an absolute >right to dictate to a church what it may or may not allow. The Second >Amendment is under direct assault as well, since the state also claims it >has a right to restrict firearms from both pubic and private places. And >the Fourth Amendment is under attack because the state believes it may >dictate what you must do in the sanctity of your own home. THAT's what >matters to me. That _should_ matter to every Utahn whether or not they >even own a gun. > I agree the bill, if passed would be a huge blow to current CCW permits. I've already written a letter that will be sent to the members of the Senate committee who end up hearing the bill asking them to oppose the bill. However, honesty and credibility require us to not report the bill to be more than it is. I read the text of the bill this morning. A church or private property owner may, contrary to what you post and sent to the DesNews, grant permission for the carry of concealed weapons on their property if they so choose. I'll forward a copy of the relveant section, if you'd like. However, unless they do grant permission, the CCW permit is void and it is an infraction to CCW--unless specific notice of prohibition has been given in which case it is a misdemeanor. So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private property owners is not correct. >And for that matter, since the last I heard, you are an officer of the >Libertarian Party of Utah, just where does that "Party of Principle" stand >on these flagrant desecrations of the Constitution and individual liberty? I am not empowered to offer official party position on any topic. And since even you have apparantly not had time to fully read and digest this bill yet, you certainely don't expect the State chair and State Executive Committee of the LPUtah to have had time to read it and issue official position. I will make enquiry and relay the answer back to you and the list. I can state the LPUtah firmly supports the right to own and carry guns without asking govt permission. The sticky thing about an issue like this is that to officially oppose a bill affecting CCW is to at least tacitly support the CCW system. As an individual, I am willing to do that at times. This is one of them since gutting the CCW will make itthat much harder to ever move from an "unrestricted" CCW towards a Vermont style carry. How an organization reacts, may be different than how individuals within that organization react, however. - -- 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. - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #21 **********************************