From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #30 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 Monday, March 2 1998 Volume 02 : Number 030 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:06:10 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Please oppose Steiner Amd to HB242 (LONG) Folks please pass this to all pro-gun people you know. There will be no further committee hearing on HB242, the technical changes to CCW recocation process bill that Steiner intends to amend to prohibit guns in churches, schools, and private property. It will receive a full floor debate only. Please contact your Senator immediately and ask them to oppose Steiner's amendment and to kill the entire bill if necessary to keep the amendment from passing. Contact info at . Messages can also be left at (801) 538-1035 and Faxes sent to (801) 538-1414 addressed to the Senator. In addittion to contacting your own Senator, I have it on good authority there are five Senators in a position to swing this who could use a little extra attention from us. I'm hoping we can generate some calls, faxes, emails, or phone calls. Email is certainly the least painful way for most of us here to contact them, but please also take the time to make a phone call or send a fax as I have no idea if/how often these 5 read email. Please contact Sens. Beattie, Montgomery, Petersen, Howell and Jones and ask them to oppose this amendment and to vote against the entire bill if necessary. Contact info below, followed by a couple of emails I've sent to various legislators on this issue. Feel free to use as much of anything I've written as you feel is usefule, but please modify it enough that it doesn't look like a form letter. And remember, polite but firm. Lane Beattie (R) Sen. Pres. (sponsor of SB57 which he withdrew over legal concerns) 313 North 1100 West (has said he will support the amd.) West Bountiful, Utah 84087 H-292-7406 O-298-7000 no email listed but try Lorin V. Jones (R) 177 E Center St Veyo UT 84782 H 574-2961 Robert F. Montgomery (R) 1825 North Mountain Road North Ogden, Utah 84414 H-782-1694 no email listed but try Craig A. Peterson (R) Majority Leader 1687 North 200 West Orem, Utah 84057 H-226-3236 O-756-8888 Scott N. Howell (D) Minority Leader 9711 South 3725 East Sandy, Utah 84092 H-943-5770 O-328-6643 - -----email I have sent to various legislators follows----- Dear Senator I'm writing to implore you to please oppose Sen. Steiner's amendment to HB242 that would ban guns in churches, private homes, and schools. I expect the language to do so will be virtually identical to the languege used in SB57 and HB69. Both of these bills have been withdrawn due to legal questions and concerns--including concerns about whether a CCW permit holder would now be in violation of the Federal Gun Free School Zone Law simply by driving within two city blocks of any school in the State. Those questions and concerns still remain. HB242 has sailed through the House because it made only technical and clarrification changes to the process of revoking a CCW permit. A major change to Utah's CCW laws should be allowed to sneak through the process in the last week of the legislature. Doing so not only passes a bad bill, but subverts the deliberative process that should take place. I also so feel it violates the spirit of legislative rules requiring bills to be filed by a certain date so that the legislature may give them adequate research and debate and so the public has time to let legislators know their feelings on the bill. Please remember that the language used in SB57 and HB69 did not merely "allow" churches and schools to ban guns if they wanted to. It outright banned guns with the only allowance being that prior permission from someone authorized to control the property was a "defense against prosecution." If there is anything I can do to help defeat this amendment, including contacting members of any committee that may hear the bill or nce sitting" members of the legislature at large, please let me know. Sincerely Charles Hardy Dear Sen. I do not, nor have I ever possesed a State issued permit to carry a concealed weapon. My personal, professional, housing, and other circumstances are such that I do not feel a need for such a permit. However, I'm writing to urge you to please oppose SB57. I believe SB57 unnecessarily infringes on the right to worship and practice religion, places clergy in an undesireable position between their parishoners and the State, tramples on private property rights, and may make federal criminals of some of our most law abiding citizens. Further, while there has been much fuss and hysteria in the media, the facts simply do not point to any problems involving law abiding adults legally carrying concealed weapons for self defense anywhere within the State. In fact, there has been exactly one case involving a CCW permitee reported in the media. And even that permitee's most vocal critics must admit, if they are honest, that his actions in firing into a dirt bank, while possibly, technically illegal, did not pose a threat to anyone's health or safety. SB57 would make the licensed possesion of concealed weapon illegal in houses of worship, private property and schools. Obtaining the prior permission of someone authorized to control access to the house of worship, private property, or the school administrator would only be a "defence against prosecution" under the changes made by SB57 and would not prevent arrest and prosecution from occurring in the first place according to at least one legal opinion I've read. While some of the larger churches in the State have publicly stated they do not feel firearms are appropriate in houses of worship, none have gone so far as to actually prohibit their members from carrying a licensed concealed weapon to church or to impose any penalties of membership such as disfellowship or excommunication for doing so. Instead, these churches have stated general principle and have left it to the best judgement of individual members to determine if their personal circumstances differ enough from the norm to warrant possession of a weapon in church. Why should the State legislature go further in deciding what activities should be prohibited within a house of worship than even churches themselves have gone? More importantly, this bill ignores the very real possibility of smaller, minority churches who may have absolutely no opposition to their members providing for self-defense while in church buildings but would rather not be forced to take a formal position and keep records to allow their members who feel a need to do so. Just a few months ago a robbery was averted and lives potentially saved in Arizona when a church member used a legally carried firearm to scare away an armed intruder seeking the daily offering which was being counted. If a church wishes to prohibit weapons, they are and should be free to do so. But why should the State prohibit weapons inside churches and then force a church to take a stated position in an area they would rather leave to indiviual members? In addition to ignoring the property rights of smaller, minority churches, this bill places clergy in the undesirable position of having to decide whether a congregation member caught with a licensed, concealed weapon in church should face the wrath of the State. In every congregation there is sure to be at least one person vehemently opposed to anyone carrying a gun for any reason regardless of what the law says. This one person could easily demand State action against anyone suspected of carrying a concealed weapon. Why should the State force clergy to decide the issue of concealed weapons by placing them in a position to avert or allow prosecution of a purely technical offense? I have felt no need to carry a gun to church. But I recognize the possibility that there are those who might. Attending church does not reduce the threat posed by violent ex-husbands. Witnesses to crimes should not be forced into deciding between fulfilling their spiritual needs and protecting themselves against those who would rather they keep quiet. And parishoners, clergy, or staff in high crime neighborhoods should not be limited to daylight hours for holding church activities or attending to financial or other business on church property. Remember that in June of 1995, Lucinda Bonilla and her children were abducted at gun point from a church in West Valley City by her estranged husband while an unarmed congregation sat helpless to stop him. The husband, Raul Bonilla, violated numerous laws including, among others, illegal discharge of a weapon, kidnapping, and attempted murder of police officers. Does anyone really think one more law specifically outlawing guns in churches would have deterred him one moment? Such a law only guarantees that women married to abusive, dangerous men will always be unarmed and defenseless while attending church. Criminals in Florida have taken to directing their actions against tourist who they know are less likely to be armed and able to defend themselves than Florida State residents who have been able to obtain concealed weapons permits for a decade. Do we really want to advertise to Utah criminals that those attending any funtion in a church, regardless of circumstance or time of day, are unarmed and easy targets? I can think of few scenarios more inviting to a stalker than knowing his intended victim will be safely disarmed as she leaves evening service or meetings at her chosen house of worship and makes her way through the parking lot to her car. I believe a better approach with regard to private property and houses of worship is to allow owners to prohibit weapons if they choose, but not create a crime nor impose a penalty unless the owner has taken reasonable steps to inform visitors of the prohibition. I believe current law recognizes this right as evidenced by Blockbuster Video's decision a couple of years ago to post their property as off limits to guns. No one challenged their right to do so. However, CCW permitees and others boycotted Blockbuster because of their decision. I believe partly because of the economic consequences of alienating some of their customers, along with the realization that without metal detectors and guards, any gun ban, regardless of the law, becomes nothing more than an honor code which criminals disobey with impunity, Blockbuster rescinded their policy and left the decision of whether or not to carry a concealed weapon in the hands of Utah's responsible adults where it belongs. Finally, any prohibition of guns in or around schools must be very carefully worded in light of the Federal Gun Free Schools Act of 1995. I've attached relevant portions of this law below. In summary, the Act makes it a crime for any person who is not specifically authorized to posses a gun (via a State issued permit that requires a background check) to be in possession of a gun on or within 1000 feet of any school grounds. 1000 feet is almost two city blocks! I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me if Utah's CCW permits are not specifcally valid on school grounds, a permit holder who is otherwise legally in possession of his firearm, might possibly be ruled (by an anti-gun, federal judge in Denver) in violation of this Federal law simply by walking, jogging, or even driving within two city blocks of any school--public, private, pre-school, or parochial (and some rumors suggest the BATF is also looking at interpreting this to include home schools and even day-cares)--anywhere in the State. I encourage you to obtain a map of Salt Lake County that shows all schools. Then shade in those schools and two city blocks in each direction of each school to see how much area could potentially make federal criminals of some of our most law abiding citizens. I do not think SB57 is worded carefully enough to safeguard Utah's CCW permitees from federal prosecution and should be opposed for that reason and the others stated. I remind you once again that there is absolutely no evidence that CCW permitees have posed the slightest risk to anyone's health, safety, or even public good order under current law. A concealed weapon cannot cause concern to others because, by definition, it is concealed. In fact, the best and most recent scholarly research on the subject of concealed weapons by Prof. John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student at the Department of Economics, released on July 26, 1996, shows allowing responsible adults to carry concealed weapons for self defense results in dramatically lower rates of violent crime. I have enclosed the abstract below and encourage you to read the full report at . Lower crime rates benefit not just permit holders. Everyone enjoys a lower rate of violent crime when adults are allowed to carry concealed weapons. Because criminals do not know who is prepared to defend themselves and who the unarmed, "safe" victims are, they are less likely to attack ANYone. Thank you for your service in the Senate. I appreciate your time in considering and responding to this letter so I may better know your position on this issue and look forward to you putting reason and rights above politics and media hype and voting no on SB57. Sincerely Charles Hardy "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American .. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." -- Tench Coxe - 1788. Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns John R. Lott, Jr. School of Law University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60637 David B. Mustard Department of Economics University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60637 July 26, 1996 * The authors would like to thank Gary Becker, Phil Cook, Clayton Cramer, Gertrud Fremling, Ed Glaeser, Hide Ichimura, Don Kates, Gary Kleck, David Kopel, William Landes, David McDowall, Derek Neal, Dan Polsby, and Douglas Weil and the seminar participants at the University of Chicago, American Law and Economics Association Meetings, and the Western Economic Association Meetings for their unusually helpful comments. Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns Abstract Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been avoided yearly. On the other hand, consistent with the notion of criminals responding to incentives, we find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth and where the probabilities of contact between the criminal and the victim are minimal. The largest population counties where the deterrence effect on violent crimes is greatest are where the substitution effect into property crimes is highest. Concealed handguns also have their greatest deterrent effect in the highest crime counties. Higher arrest and conviction rates consistently and dramatically reduce the crime rate. Consistent with other recent work (Lott, 1992b), the results imply that increasing the arrest rate, independent of the probability of eventual conviction, imposes a significant penalty on criminals. The estimated annual gain from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion. GUN FREE SCHOOL ACT OF 1995 TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS - -HEAD- Sec. 921. Definitions (25) The term ''school zone'' means - (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school. Sec. 922. Unlawful acts (q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that - [findings ommitted for brevity] (2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm - (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license; (iii) that is - (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle; (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone; (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or (vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities. (3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm - (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program; (iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or (iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity. (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection. Sec. 924. Penalties (a)(4) Whoever violates section 922(q) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law. Except for the authorization of a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years made in this paragraph, for the purpose of any other law a violation of section 922(q) shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor. - -- 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 government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46). - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:12:27 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: FP- No Driver's License - No Gun! Thought this might be of interest..... >SCAN THIS NEWS >02/27/98 > >[Forwarded Message] >>One more bit of insanity from California. I have a friend who has an HK USP. >>He recently bought a Sig 229 which was sent to a local FFL. When he went to >>pick it up, the paperwork didn't clear because his Driver's License had >>expired. He paid his renewal fee and received a valid temp license. However, >>the CALIF DOJ says he can't get his gun until his new CA ID card arrives in >>60 days. >> >>This may be off-topic, but I think this is outrageous. I understand why a >>state needs to check a person's background (criminal record), but that can >>be done with a Social Security number or his CA Driver's license number, >>which is still on the books (and is currently valid though he hasn't >>received his plastic card yet.) >> >>But what is the larger issue here?! >> >>When you think about this, what does a driver's license have to do with >>firearms ownership? I don't mean to get political, but the Second Amendment >>guarantees the right to bear arms to all citizens, not just those who have a >>current, valid driver's license. Nobody had a driver's license when the Bill >>of Rights was written. >> >>I can't believe that any jurisdiction deny firearms ownership to persons who >>don't possess a driver's license. Imagine if CA said you can't go to the >>church of your choice unless you are licensed to drive! Wouldn't we hear >>some noice about that from our friendly liberals? >> >>Amazing and deeply disturbing. >> >>Paul McMenamin >====================================================================== > "ScanThis NewsLetter" from the "Fight the Fingerprint" Email List! >====================================================================== >Web sites dedicated to fighting the National ID: > >{WA} http://home.earthlink.net/~idzrus/index.html >{AL} http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml >{GA} http://www.atlantainfoguide.com/repeal/ > >Donnie Guthrie - Arrested for NOT showing SSN to the police. >http://www.scott.net/~dg1/1.htm >====================================================================== > Reply to: mcdonald@networkusa.org > Type FP-JOIN in the SUBJECT to join, type FP-REMOVE to be removed. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > "ScanThis NewsLetter" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. > SOVEREIGN CITIZENS AGAINST NUMBERING > Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page: > http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml > http://www.networkusa.org >====================================================================== > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 98 07:58:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: RKBA, CA & Driver License - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:22:04 -0500 To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com From: agitatorx@worldnet.att.net Subject: Re: IP: Fwd: [HK-L] RKBA, CA and Driver's Licenses This is just one more example of what I have been saying for years - please note that this rant isn't directed at the writer or sender of the original post. All authoritarian control mechanisms require identification of the controlees. The ROOT enabler of all of these mechanisms is the "DRIVER'S" license... YOUR PAPERS, PLEEZZZZZ... It is the most pervasive of the control documents and until the state PUBLICLY declares them to be your internal passport, we will continue to see an ever expanding use of the "driver's" license as the DEFACTO internal passport. Remember, NOTHING in a dictatorship happens without identification. While I support the efforts of groups attempting to restrict the use of fingerprints and other biometric identification methods on "driver's" licenses and the NO NATIONAL ID movement, they are 30 or 90 years too late and too many dollars short. They have missed the point. Your "driver's" license became your national ID 30 years ago when the "driver's" licenses were computerized. The call should not be "NO NATIONAL ID" - as if this is something new - BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE ONE! The call should be "ELIMINATE THE NATIONAL ID - NO "DRIVER'S" LICENSE" There would be no issue of biometric identification if there wasn't an existing document to tie it to. WAKE UP, AMERICA!!! An SSN is assigned to almost every "driver's" license - whether or not it appears on the face of it. That is your sheople identification number. When the state or Fedz want to find out where you live, where do they go? The Dept. of Motor Vehicles. When the state or Fedz want to enforce a protection payment or extortion out of you, where do they go? The Dept. of Motor Vehicles. When some litigation happy lawyer wants to sue you and needs to serve process on you, where does he go? The Dept. of Motor Vehicles. When the state or Fedz get around to requiring drug testing of EVERYONE, where are they going to go? The Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Where is your privacy when there is a cattle bell hanging around your neck that can be heard around the world with 16 keystrokes? HUH? For those people out there that think that this is just some radical, paranoid, solution to a non-existent problem, take your heads out of your illusion long enough to examine the facts. http://agitator.dynip.com/agitator/privacy.htm http://agitator.dynip.com At 03:16 PM 2/27/1998 -0500, you wrote: >>Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:34:58 -0800 >>Subject: [HK-L] RKBA, CA and Driver's Licenses >>From: "Paul McMenamin" < >>To: "HK-List" < >>One more bit of insanity from California. I have a friend who has an HK USP. >>He recently bought a Sig 229 which was sent to a local FFL. When he >>went to pick it up, the paperwork didn't clear because his Driver's >>License had expired. He paid his renewal fee and received a valid temp >>license. However, the CALIF DOJ says he can't get his gun until his >>new CA ID card arrives in 60 days. >>This may be off-topic, but I think this is outrageous. I understand why >>a state needs to check a person's background (criminal record), but that >>can be done with a Social Security number or his CA Driver's license >>number, which is still on the books (and is currently valid though he >>hasn't received his plastic card yet.) >>But what is the larger issue here?! >>When you think about this, what does a driver's license have to do with >>firearms ownership? I don't mean to get political, but the Second >>Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to all citizens, not just >>those who have a current, valid driver's license. Nobody had a driver's >>license when the Bill of Rights was written. >>I can't believe that any jurisdiction deny firearms ownership to >>persons who don't possess a driver's license. Imagine if CA said you >>can't go to the church of your choice unless you are licensed to drive! >>Wouldn't we hear some noice about that from our friendly liberals? >>Amazing and deeply disturbing. >>Paul McMenamin >>--------------------------------------------------------------- >>To Unsubscribe : E-Mail "majordomo@odaiko.ss.uci.edu" >>Put "UNSUBSCRIBE hk-l" in the body of the message >>--------------------------------------------------------------- >SENT BY: >Jay Shore >"We the people are the rightful masters of Congress and the >courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow >men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln >Why be politically correct when you can be right? - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 98 07:58:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS 2/2 Simply put, the declaration is calling for global gun licensing and registration. But this would only be the first step. International gun-control advocacy groups that are advising the UN commission want much more. According to the NRA's Mason, the main supporters of the declaration are Japan and Canada. "Japan is supplying the money and Canada is supplying the brains," he said. The leading non-governmental organization pushing the UN initiatives is a leftist arms-control group, the British American security information council, based in Washington and London. With the help of a generous grant from the Ford Foundation, the council is expanding its old military arms-control agenda with a new project on light weapons. They define light weapons as including pistols, revolvers, rifles and machine guns. In a report for the group, deputy director Natalie Goldring outlines its plans for domestic and international control of light weapons. First, Goldring derides the NRA and other gun ownership groups for being paranoid about global firearms initiatives: "Unlike the NRA, which apparently sees the UN efforts as an international conspiracy led by Japan and canada, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA SEES THE UNITED NATIONS AS A FRONT GROUP FOR DOMESTIC GUN CONTROL IN THE UNITED STATES." BUT ONLY A FEW PARAGRAPHS LATER SHE BLITHELY DECLARES: It will be difficult to control the international light weapons trade without monitoring and controlling domestic access to weapons." Goldring goes on to suggest what measures would be needed to "make the connections between domestic gun control and international gun control. Subregional, regional, and global registers, greater oversight of existing national control and enforcement mechanisms, harmonizing national measures in bilateral, regional, and global frameworks; and/or enhancing national policies." CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT THAT ENHANCING NATIONAL POLICIES IS TO GUN CONTROL WHAT REVENUE ENHANCING IS TO TAX INCREASES? Goldring singles out the US for opprobrium, declaring that "the direct relationship between lax US gun laws and illicit trafficking in US weapons suggests that to control light weapons internationally, it would be necessary to control them nationally. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to control the illicit market in light weapons without monitoring and controlling domestic access to weapons," AS THE OLD SAYING GOES, JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE PARANOID, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT OUGHT TO GET YOU. Does it really matter what the UN decides about regulating firearms? It may matter a great deal. Consider the recent UN treaty to ban landmines. The US participated in all the landmine negotiations, trying to make the point that while mines do cause considerable harm to civilians, they are essential to protecting American troops, especially along the DMZ in South Korea. The US asked for an exemption in that case but was simply ignored. In the end, President Clinton uncharacteristically resisted enormous political pressure from arms-control groups and refused to sign the landmine treaty. The UN Commission On Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice plans to submit its declaration of principles for the regulation of firearms to the UN General Assembly later this year, where it will almost certainly be hailed as an advance for civilization. It would then be a short and predictable step for gun control activists to urge turning the declaration into a UN convention on firearms regulations - -- in which the US politicians could be bludgeooned, as they have been on landmines. This is why the NRA's Tom Mason insists, "We have a good reason to make a big deal out of this UN gun control effort." Nonetheless, gunowners and sportshooters are playing catch up. Earlier this year, the NRA and more than 20 gunowner and sport shooter organizations from 12 countries formed the world forum on the future of sports shooting activities to counterbalance the UN bureaucracies. Meantime, the US has sent official representatives from the ATF, the Treasury Department, and Customs to UN negotiating sessions on the Declaration of Principles. Their participation simply lends credibility in a process that threatens to erode the rights of American citizens. IT SHOULD STOP. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 98 07:58:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS 1/2 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bill Kingsbury To: CTRL@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Date: Friday, February 27, 1998 8:46 AM http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a108422.htm Topic: UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS THE WEEKLY STANDARD FEBRUARY 23, 1998 RONALD BAILEY THE UNITED NATIONS WANTS TO DISARM AMERICANS AND OTHER GUN OWNERS AROUND THE WORLD. NO, THIS IS NOT SOME WILD CLAIM COOKED UP BY THE FEVERED IMAGINATIONS OF MILITIA CRAZIES. For the past couple of years, three different UN agencies -- the UN Disarmament Commission, the UN panel of government experts on small arms, and the UN economic and social council's commission on crime prevention and criminal justice -- have been holding meeting to devise policies to control light weapons. Ostensibly, these agencies are hoping to limit the illicit international trade in handguns, rifles, and other small arms. perhaps not surprisingly, though, they have concluded that the way to crack down on the illicit trade is to keep law-abiding people from owning firearms. This, of course, mirrors the arguments of gun-control advocates in the US, who it turns out are working hand-in-glove with the UN bureaucrats on these intiatives. "THE CONSTANT RHETORIC YOU HEAR IN THE UN IS THAT THE AVAILIBILITY OF FIREARMS CAUSES CRIME," say Tom Mason of the NRA. Yet US studies clearly show that states with the highest per capita gun ownership - -- Vermont for one -- generally have the lowest crime rates. Now, it may be good thing to prevent weapons from flowing into countries undergoing civil war -- Rwanda, say, or Bosnia -- but the UN and gun-control advocates have misidentified the problem. Take Afghanistan. That country is an armed camp not because some greedy gun-runners sold weapons to Afghan citizens; it's an armed camp because the governments of the USSR and US supplied armaments to their respective allies in that country. Besides, guns didn't cause the Afgan civil war, the soviet invasion did. And in most of the world's civil conflicts today, the vast majority of the weapons are supplied by governments pursuing what they believe to be their interests. Hunters and sport shooters are simply not part of the equation. As creatures of government, UN functionaries do not accept or respect the principle that gun ownership might be a citizen's right. The 2nd amendment guarantee of an American citizen's right to keep and bear arms is beyond fathoming by UN officials whose governments essentially want to figure out how best to control and disarm their citizens. "WE CONSIDER PERSONAL DEFENSE TO BE A BASIC UNIVERSIAL RIGHT," SAID MASON. "THEY DO NOT." Instead, the UN's gun-controllers argue that citizens should rely solely on their governments for personal protection and blandly advise that "all states should improve the safety and security of their societies, so their citizens would not see the necessity to arm themselves." The most troubling of the three initiatives is the UN "declaration of principles for the regulation of firearms" being devised by the commission on crime prevention and criminal justice. The working draft declares that "no state can be left immune from the effect of the lack or laxity of legislative and administrative controls of other states. The absence of effective firearm regulation in one member state can undermine not only the regulatory efforts but also effective governance of other member states. Decoding the UN-speak, the declaration is claiming that countries which restrict the ownership of firearms are threatened by countries in which citizens have a right to own guns. The implied solution is global gun control -- international standards for the regulation of firearms. Indeed, the draft declaration recommends: "The acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition would always require a license granted by an authority. A system for firearm registration to record information on serial number and other markings of the firearms legally imported and sold to citizens, or reported lost/stolen, should be domestically/internationally harmonized. That is, there is a need for centralizing and computerization of information in a standardized manner to facilitate further criminal investigations and to determine the responsibility of owners." - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 98 07:58:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Antigun PSA from Barnes Reposted by permission - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:51:33 -0700 From: GunFlower To: lputah@qsicorp.com Subject: Re: Antigun PSA from Barnes -Reply Scott, I called Bill Barnes today and left a message. I know him all too well from debating him in light rail. He's actually kinda nice. Just misinformed, as always. FYI, the City Weekly called me today: IHC. I have a letter from the NRA announcing that Sarah Brady is behind those commercials. I told the reporter that. They were very interested. Regards, - ---------- > From: Scott Bergeson > To: Libertarian Party of Utah > Subject: LPU: Antigun PSA from Barnes -Reply > Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 8:50 AM > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > To: utah-firearms@xmission.com > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:25:43 -0700 > From: DAVID SAGERS > I have a copy of Eddie Eagle to give to Barnes. Maybe we'll be surprised > and IHC will run a clip as a PSA. > Who knows Barnes well enough to make an appointment? - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 14:25:34 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: GOA alert 28 Feb 1998 -Forwarded Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id LAA02080; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:54:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:54:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma002017; Sat Feb 28 11:51:55 1998 Message-Id: <199802281620.JAA21527@mail2.rockymtn.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: davisda@rmi.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: Douglas Davis To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: GOA alert 28 Feb 1998 X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list "Seven Clones of Schumer" Bill Nearing Vote --And in the Senate, one more Senator could soon jump off Hatch's Horror Bill! by Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151, (703)321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org (Friday, February 27, 1998) Sarah Brady and Chuck Schumer to gain with Puerto Rico Statehood The Washington Times reported today that unrest is brewing in the Republican Party over Newt Gingrich's pushing of H.R. 856, the Puerto Rico Statehood Act. Nevertheless, there are a surprising number of pro-gun Republicans that either plan to vote for it or are still undecided on how they will vote. The Times article pointed to several problems with the bill, in addition to GOA's gun rights concerns. Taken together, concerned citizens can present at least five reasons to their Rep. for opposing H.R. 856: 1. Firearms are registered and many are banned in Puerto Rico. Assuredly, statehood for Puerto Rico means at least six (or seven) more anti-gun Congressmen from the island -- which makes Puerto Rico statehood six (or seven) times worse than D.C. statehood. 2. At least 50% of the island's population is on food stamps. Under statehood that number would increase, as would the cost to the U.S. taxpayer ($3-4 billion annually in food stamps alone). Moreover, Puerto Rico will pay little "into the system" thanks to low incomes and tax credits. 3. The island's independence movement will still exist, especially among the more extreme elements. Notice how terrorist acts always seem to cause the rest of us to lose more of our rights and freedoms. 4. Nine out of ten high school graduates in Puerto Rico cannot speak English. In regard to this point, pro-gun Rep. Gerald Solomon said that Puerto Rico statehood "could create a Quebec-style problem in the United States." 5. Bill Clinton, the most anti-gun President in U.S. history, has endorsed H.R. 856 and demanded that Congress pass it. This reason alone should suggest that gun owners oppose the bill! ACTION: Urge your Representative to oppose H.R. 856 (Call the Capitol at 800-522-6721 or 202-225-3121; the GOA website contains e-mail, fax numbers, and office numbers). If your Rep. is a Republican, then you especially need to contact him or her since their leadership is trying to "put the squeeze" on them. The vote was originally scheduled for March 4, but there is talk of bringing up the bill earlier - -- perhaps to preclude the increasing opposition from the grassroots. One more Senator sends warning shot to Hatch on S. 10 Horror Bill On Tuesday (2/24/98), Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) sent a warning shot to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Enzi fired off a letter to Hatch, charging that several of the provisions in the bill "would unduly restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners and dealers." After detailing these provisions -- many of which have been covered extensively in previous GOA fax/email alerts -- Sen. Enzi bluntly stated that, I believe that the current version of S. 10 would unduly punish law-abiding citizens in its attempt to crack down on hardened criminals. As such, unless changes are made to S.10 to ensure that it will not be another vehicle for increased federal gun control . . . I will have to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of this legislation. Your Calls Matter: U.S. News & World Report takes notice of heat applied by GOA and its members The current issue of U.S. News & World Report (3/2/98) discloses that Hatch's anti-gun crime bill is running into some stiff opposition. In an article entitled, "Gunning for Hatch," the magazine stated that: [S. 10], which the GOP touts as 1998's big anticrime measure, is running into trouble. Gun Owners of America calls it "Hatch's Horror Bill," saying Utah's Sen. Orrin Hatch would allow "crippling" suits against gun makers under anti-racketeering laws and would penalize parents harshly if children practice shooting without written approval. Conservative Sens. Wayne Allard, Conrad Burns, and Bob Smith have withdrawn support. With a little noise from the grassroots, Senator Enzi could become the fourth one to withdraw! One final note: GOA received a report today that yet * another * Senator will be soon announcing his withdrawal from S.10. GOA has yet been unable to confirm this report through the particular Senator's office, but we will keep you posted. *********************************************************** 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. ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net ******************** - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #30 **********************************