From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #35 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 Thursday, March 19 1998 Volume 02 : Number 035 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 12:31:18 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Lon's Lawyers.....We're made to pay 'em!! -Forwarded Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA09753; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 23:49:15 -0700 Received: (qmail 29044 invoked by uid 516); 15 Mar 1998 06:57:01 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 28839 invoked from network); 15 Mar 1998 06:56:44 -0000 Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg1.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.11) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 1998 06:56:43 -0000 Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14]) by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA27315; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 23:55:51 -0700 (MST) Received: from helmetfish (166-93-69-100.rmi.net [166.93.69.100]) by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA15892; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 23:55:47 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <350B7B6D.4166@rmi.net> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 23:55:42 -0700 From: "C. F. Inston" Organization: Global Neighbourhood Watch (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Blind-copy list Subject: Lon's Lawyers.....We're made to pay 'em!! 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" - ----------------------- 8:46 PM 3/13/1998 Coalition supports FBI sniper Top law officials fear `chill' of Ruby Ridge By KIM MURPHY, Los Angeles Times BOISE, Idaho -- Top law enforcement officials stepped up in defense of FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi, arguing Friday that manslaughter charges he faces in connection with the siege at Ruby Ridge threaten to undermine federal law enforcement efforts across the country. "It is impossible to imagine a more chilling circumstance than the one presented by the instant effort to prosecute," a coalition of former U.S. attorneys general, joining the U.S. Department of Justice and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, argued in papers submitted to the federal court in Idaho where Horiuchi faces trial. The prosecution, the first time an FBI agent has faced state criminal charges stemming from a federal law enforcement operation, "could well include endangering the life of the president of the United States in the moment when sharpshooters responsible for protecting that life hestitate to consider what state they are in when evaluating a threat to the president," the officials said. U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge will rule in the next few weeks on Horiuchi's argument that he is immune from state prosecution because he was carrying out his federal law enforcement duties in 1992 when he fired the shot that killed Vicki Weaver, 42, wife of anti-govern-ment activist Randy Weaver. In a hearing Friday, Horiuchi was surrounded by lawyers retained by the Justice Department, which has said its own investigations concluded that the FBI sniper acted properly acted properly when he shot the woman as she stood holding her infant daughter just inside the door of the Weaver cabin. Horiuchi has said he was aiming at Kevin Harris, a Weaver friend who was believed to have shot at federal marshals in a firefight the previous day that killed Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan. Harris, he said, had pointed his gun at a law enforcement helicopter flying overhead and was running back into the cabin to take a position Horiuchi believed would further threaten law enforcement agents outside. The bullet he fired killed Vicki Weaver, then struck Harris, wounding him. Denise Woodbury, the prosecutor in Boundary County, has charged Horiuchi with involuntary manslaughter, arguing that the sharpshooter was grossly negligent in firing without ascertaining who else might be in the bullet's path. But lawyers for Horiuchi argued Friday that long-running legal precedent grants federal law enforcement officers immunity from state prosecution when they are carrying out a federal operation, as long as they reasonably believe they are acting within the scope of their duties. "There is no question that Vicki Weaver's death was a very tragic and regrettable event which everyone wishes had not occurred, but it is equally clear her death was an accident," said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Donald Remy. Adam Hoffinger, the sharpshooter's counsel, said the FBI agent should not be made to stand trial for the state of Idaho's grievances against the federal government. "The prosecution effectively wants to try the federal government but wants Lon Horiuchi to pay the penalty, and that, your honor, is manifestly and profoundly unfair," Hoffinger said. Idaho prosecutors said the question of whether Horiuchi acted reasonably should be up to a jury to decide. Stephen Yagman, a Los Angeles civil rights lawyer who has been appointed a special deputy prosecutor in the case, said the federal government should not be allowed to rely on an immunity defense. "In their argument, the U.S. government is King John, (and) somehow the FBI is the sheriff of Nottingham ... and because the king is immune and the king is there by divine right, the king can't be sued," Yagman said. "The government of the United States of America ... supplanted the king of England with a democratically elected government." - -- 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: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:48:27 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Anti-gunners and the 'lympics At 04:44 PM 3/4/98 -0700, you wrote: > ><<>> > >OK, so now the 'lympics are going to be used as the excuse to restrict >CCW. Un-friggggin-believable. These people campaigned for the games >becuase Utah was such a great place and we wanted to show it off to >the world. Only now that they have them, they are suddenly embarrased >by our liquar laws, our mormons, our history, and our guns. Hell, >seems what they meant was the landscape is fine but there is >absolutely nothing about our culture worth showing off. I admit we >aint perfect, but some of us like it here a whole lot more than other >places we've been. > >Below is an article from today's DesNews wherein Beattie, Steiner, and >even our "allie" Bishop all agree that CCW will be limited prior to >2002 to accomodate the games and the international community. My >attitude is if they don't like our mormons, history, or guns they can >stay the hell home. > ><<>> Hi Charles, Well, I personally think Utah's liquor laws, drug laws, pornography laws, prostitution laws and medical laws (to name a few) stink. I think our gun laws could be better - i.e. Vermont carry. That being said.... I agree. If the Olympics don't like our culture or our laws, they can take their stinking, UN style, media extravaganza and hold the Olympics in some "enlightened" place. I'm sure there's adequate snow in Murmansk. It would be good for the rest of the enslaved world (and that's EVERY place that has gun control) to see that ordinary citizens can be trusted with guns. Besides, I don't want to PAY for the show! So, since you're far more in tune with the rest of Utah culture than I'll ever be, how do you propose we register our objections - and get others to do the same? Sarah - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:11:46 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Anti-gunners and the 'lympics On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, "S. Thompson" posted: >Hi Charles, > >Well, I personally think Utah's liquor laws, drug laws, pornography laws, >prostitution laws and medical laws (to name a few) stink. I think our gun >laws could be better - i.e. Vermont carry. That being said.... All agreed. > >I agree. If the Olympics don't like our culture or our laws, they can take >their stinking, UN style, media extravaganza and hold the Olympics in some >"enlightened" place. I'm sure there's adequate snow in Murmansk. It would >be good for the rest of the enslaved world (and that's EVERY place that has >gun control) to see that ordinary citizens can be trusted with guns. >Besides, I don't want to PAY for the show! Agreed again. > >So, since you're far more in tune with the rest of Utah culture than I'll >ever be, how do you propose we register our objections - and get others to >do the same? We have to decide what is really important to us and realize where we can find friends and allies. For example, while I think Utah's liquar laws could use some drastic changes, I'm opposed to changing them just to appease the 'lympics or to granting some kind of exemption (party tent permit) to them. I think if we are going to change a law it should be done with deliberation and should be equally applied to everyone. If our laws on alcohol are good enough for the sheeple of Utah, they are good enough for our "guests". I also realize there are many people and groups, some of whom carry significant political pull who are opposed to changing our alcohol laws for the games. The Eagle Forum springs to mind. I think we could gain strides by forming alliances with such groups under the general banner of not changing ANY of our laws for the olympics. They knew our laws when they granted us the bid, they can live with them now. We lobby not just on guns, but that NO laws should be changed to "accomodate" the olympics. Let them see how we really live, what our culture really is. What are we embarrased about? Didn't we campaign to get the games based on what a great place SLC is? If it is great enough to get the games, why do we need to change it now that they are coming? We (you and I and other libertarian types) put asside our desire to change alcohol laws and agree to support the Eagle Forum types if they support us in keeping gun laws from being changed. I think we can also join with the enviro types and others opposed to converting wasteland (ie wilderness) into olympic venues. We oppose any kind of rash, non-studied action (Olympic venues should suffer the same pain any private developer would) if they support us in keeping gun laws from being changed for the games. And then we actively lobby for and support greater legislative oversight of the SLOC. We keep enough arrows headed their way they don't have time to lobby to hard on the gun issue. How's that for starters? The question is, do we all care enough about our gun rights to put asside other differences and work with those we would normally fight? Finally, I think we have to be willing to concede at some point that olympic venues may be able to be declared "secure" sites and prohibit guns, BUT ONLY if they have secure storage facilities for legal 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. "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. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:50:41 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Anti-gunners and the 'lympics At 02:11 PM 3/16/98 -0700, Charles Hardy wrote: >We have to decide what is really important to us and realize where we >can find friends and allies. For example, while I think Utah's liquar >laws could use some drastic changes, I'm opposed to changing them just >to appease the 'lympics or to granting some kind of exemption (party >tent permit) to them. I think if we are going to change a law it >should be done with deliberation and should be equally applied to >everyone. If our laws on alcohol are good enough for the sheeple of >Utah, they are good enough for our "guests". > >I also realize there are many people and groups, some of whom carry >significant political pull who are opposed to changing our alcohol >laws for the games. The Eagle Forum springs to mind. I think we >could gain strides by forming alliances with such groups under the >general banner of not changing ANY of our laws for the olympics. They >knew our laws when they granted us the bid, they can live with them >now. We lobby not just on guns, but that NO laws should be changed to >"accomodate" the olympics. Let them see how we really live, what our >culture really is. What are we embarrased about? Didn't we campaign >to get the games based on what a great place SLC is? If it is great >enough to get the games, why do we need to change it now that they are >coming? > >We (you and I and other libertarian types) put asside our desire to >change alcohol laws and agree to support the Eagle Forum types if they >support us in keeping gun laws from being changed. I think we can >also join with the enviro types and others opposed to converting >wasteland (ie wilderness) into olympic venues. We oppose any kind of >rash, non-studied action (Olympic venues should suffer the same pain >any private developer would) if they support us in keeping gun laws >from being changed for the games. > >And then we actively lobby for and support greater legislative >oversight of the SLOC. We keep enough arrows headed their way they >don't have time to lobby to hard on the gun issue. > >How's that for starters? > >The question is, do we all care enough about our gun rights to put >asside other differences and work with those we would normally fight? > >Finally, I think we have to be willing to concede at some point that >olympic venues may be able to be declared "secure" sites and prohibit >guns, BUT ONLY if they have secure storage facilities for legal guns. - and ONLY IF they accept liability should one of us be killed or injured by a criminal! I agree with you. The most important thing is to make the Olympics (and all other international agencies) respect the sovreignty of the U.S. and the State of Utah. I'm certainly willing to work with anyone who thinks the same way. And besides, while I don't agree with the Eagle Forum on a lot of things, they've been good firearms allies. So, folks - start making your views known! Recruit whomever you think will be willing to help. And let Rob Bishop, Brian Judy, the NRA, GOA, USSC and our so-called "representatives" know what you think - and what you'd like them to DO. The following USSC Board members have volunteered to have their contact info made public. Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse their open-door policy. Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), cathounds@aol.com Elwood Powell, 426-8274 or 583-2882 (h), 364-0412 (w), 73214.3115@compuserve.com Shirley Spain, 963-0784, agr@aros.net Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (w), 546-2275 (h) Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, righter@therighter.com (I prefer e-mail to phone calls when possible). Joe Venus, 571-2223 I assume Rob Bishop can be contacted through the Utah Republican Party, and Brian Judy should be reachable through the NRA. And BTW, Rob Bishop's comments reflected HIS views only. To the best of my knowledge, the Board of USSC has not yet taken an official position. There's a USSC Board meeting this evening at 6:30 PM at Crossroads of the West, 7 N. Main St., Kaysville. Meetings are open to all interested parties. Sarah (for myself) Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:37:01 -0700 From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Anti-gunners and the 'lympics Charles Hardy wrote: > > Finally, I think we have to be willing to concede at some point that > olympic venues may be able to be declared "secure" sites and prohibit > guns, BUT ONLY if they have secure storage facilities for legal guns. > An attempt at putting this into words, before going to the USSC meeting and trying to say it.... Since NFA, maybe before, we have looked to the future and talked about how we may have to concede, or how we may have to accept a "less than perfect" deal, because we can't get a better one. As a result of NFA we have had only _one_ significant improvement in firearms that I'm aware of, that being the Glock. GCA-68, CopKillerBullet ban, Plastic Gun ban, "assault weapon" ban, Brady, CCW "permits", Instant Check, Lautenburg, etc. have each been "give ups" of some sort or another, driven by those who _know_ more about the political realities involved. Enough. There has to be a better way. From here on, I propose that gun owners tell the NRA, the paper punchers, the collectors, the animal killers and the rest of the mild mannered, look nice to the newpapers bunch to set down and shut up, we've let them give away our rights in the name of political expediency for long enough. No, I don't think we have to be willing to concede "Richard". We should go on the offensive. Make them look at their choices. All or nothing. Maybe even gain something. er.... well...? - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 08:05:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior Forward from Janalee Tobias. It is interesting that while the USSC succeeded in increasing the difficulty of getting initiatives that might encroach on hunting, it did nothing to stop greatly eased referenda for medication of water supplies, including all of SL County in one fell swoop. Aren't the people of Utah already too docile? Better store water as well as ammunition. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:27:24 -0700 From: GunFlower To: lputah@qsicorp.com, discussion@derail.org Subject: LPU: Fw: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior - ---------- From: EAGLEFLIGHT----"uNITED STATES Theatre Command (David E. Rydel)" To: 72113.1673 <72113.1673@compuserve.com> Subject: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 9:43 AM To: eagleflt@eagleflt.com From: ranger@azwest.net Subject: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:14:25 -0700 Senate Letter on Testimony of Kenneth Goff on Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior The following are reproductions of letters dealing with the use of fluorides to modify behavior. This is an area that we are continually investigating. Those who wish hard copies, send a SASE and we will be glad to send you a copy of the original. This particular page deals with the knowledge of behavioral modification by the US. Communist Party in the mid 1950's, relative to this issue. Letter 1 is the notarized statement of Kenneth Goff, who testified before the Special Senate Committee on Un-American Activities, October 9, 1939. Letter 2 is a letter from the Congress of the United States, Juliette P. Joray, Clerk, June 11, 1957, acknowledging the testimony of Kenneth Goff on October 9, 1939. Note: This would seem to support frequent statements that [1} the Soviets were using fluorides in the Gulag system in 1940. It is also interesting that statements have been made indicating U.S. shipments of fluorides to the Soviet Union of fluorides during the 1940's and early 1950's. LETTER 1: [We have capitalized the portion relative to fluorides] To Whom It May Concern: I, Oliver Kenneth Goff, was a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communisty League, from May 2, 1936, to October 9, 1939. During this period of time, I operated under the alias of John Keats. My testimony before the Government is incorporated in Volume 9 of the Un-American Activities Report for the year 1939. While a member of the Communist Party, I attended a Communist underground training school outside the city of New Yorkl in the Bues Hall, and 113 East Wells Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The East Wells Street School operated under the name of the Eugene Debs School. Here, under the tutoring of Eugene Dennis, M.Sparks, Morris Childs, Jack Kling and others, we were schooled in the art of revolutionary overthrow of the established Government. We were trained on how to dismantle and assemble mimeograph machines, to use for propaganda purposes during the revilution; how to work on guide wires and fuel lines of airplanes so that they would either burst into flame or crash to the ground because of lack of control; how to work on ties and rails to wreck trains; and also THE ART OF POISONING WATER SUPPLIES. WE DISCUSSED QUITE THOROUGHLY THE FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES AND HOW WE WERE USING IT IN RUSSIA AS A TRANQUILIZER IN THE PRISON CAMPS. THE LEADERS OF OUR SCHOOL FELT THAT IF IT COULD BE INDUCED INTO THE AMERICAN WATER SUPPLY, IT WOULD BRING ABOUT A SPIRIT OF LETHARGY IN THE NATION; WHERE IT WOULD KEEP THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOCILE DURING A STEADY ENCROACHMENT OF COMMUNISM. WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT KEEPING A STORE OF DEADLY FLUORIDE NEAR THE WATER RESERVOIR WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS DURING THE TIME OF THE REVOLUTION, AS IT WOULD GIVE US OPPORTUNITY TO DUMP THIS POISON INTO THE WATER SUPPLY AND EITHER KILL OFF THE POPULATION OR THREATEN THEM WITH LIQUIDATION, SO THAT THEY WOULD SURRENDER TO OBTAIN FRESH WATER. We discussed in these schools, the complete art of revolution: the seizure of the main utilities, such as light, power, gas and water; but it was felt by the leadership, that if a program of FLUORIDATING THE WATER COULD BE CARRIED OUT IN THE NATION, IT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TOWARD THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE REVOLUTION. The above statements are true. [Signature] Oliver Kenneth Goff [Notary Public Stamp and Affirmation, June 22, 1957, Arapahoe Country, Colorado] LETTER 2: CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Committee on Un-American Activities WASHINGTON June 11, 1957 Mr. C.A.Barden 215 Morgan St Oberlin, Ohio Dear Mr. Barden: This will acknowledge receipt of your metters of April 29 and May 29, 1957, concerning a statement by Oliver Kenneth Goff. On Monday, October 9, 1939, Oliver Kenneth Goff testified under oath before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities. In his testimony, Mr. Goff declared that he joined the Young Communist League in May of 1936 under the assumed name of John Keats. He also declared that he was a member of the Communist Party/ He declared thast he planned to resign from the Young Communist League and the Communist Party following his testimony before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities. Mr. Goff testified at length concerning his various activities within the Communist Party. His testimony is contained in Volume 9 of the Un-American Activities Committee Public Hearings. I regret that I am unable to send you a copy inasmuch as the supply is completely exhausted. I regret the delay in replying to your letters which has been due to the press of Committee business and I hope that the information as given you in this letter will be of assistance to you. Sincerely Yours, [Signature] Juliette P. Joray Clerk Please visit http://www.prospectorsbanqueclub.com and http://www.eagleflt.com To receive posts from this list send an E-MAIL to me with the word "subscribe" in the subject box. ================================================================== EAGLEFLIGHT ///, /// \ /, / >. David E. Rydel \ /, _/ /. ***** \_ /_/ /. uNITED STATES Theatre Command \__/_ << Voice-248-391-0798 /<<<<<< \_\_ Fax-248-391-6785 /,)^>>_._ \ Alt.Fax-248-391-3528 (/ \\ /\\\ E-MAIL: EAGLEFLT@eagleflt.com // ```` ==============((`============================================= A VOICE OF THE MILITIA IN NORTH AMERICA - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:11:04 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Kirby on guns [Image] [Image] [Image] Tuesday, March 17, 1998 [Image] [Image] Kirby: O.J. and Saddam Could Hit Games, So Pack That Gun By Robert Kirby Guns are back in Utah news again. Yeah, like they were ever out. If it isn't someone dispatching someone else in a blaze of glory, it's Karl Malone saying he is itching to go out in a blaze of glory himself. Before us now is the issue of guns at the Olympics. Specifically, who besides the FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, NSA, SLCPD, UHP and nine dozen other official and quasi-official law-enforcement organizations should be allowed to carry guns at the 2002 Games? Since this is Utah, the answer is ``anybody who even remotely wants to,'' including your fundamentalist Uncle Earl, who keeps a copy of the Constitution in his pants and a recoilless rifle in the trunk of his car. There is legal precedent for this behavior. If Utahns still haven't banned concealed heat in church, it stands to reason that we won't be able to figure out that we shouldn't carry them at the Olympics, either. After a recent trip to Los Angeles, I can understand why someone would want to bring a gun to the Olympics. Granted, there are lots of reasons you shouldn't. For example: -- Budweiser is also coming to town. And as it is with driving, voting, flying and operating on people's brains with a belt sander, some things just don't mix with alcohol. -- Nobody in his or her right mind wants an ammunition manufacturer handing out free sample packs of bullets. -- Long-winded and stupid debate over a bill proposing 30.06 as the Official Utah State Caliber would force next year's Legislature into overtime. -- It's tough to enforce insultingly high ticket prices on a low-paid populace that is both fed up and armed. -- Someone -- particularly anyone who makes eye contact with the Malone family -- might get shot dead repeatedly, continually and a lot. Conversely, reasons why allowing the public to carry concealed weapons to Olympic venues would be a good idea are . . . well, I really only have one. As I said, I got it in Los Angeles, a place where lucid thought could make the endangered-species list if someone would simply go to the trouble of sticking some feathers on it. Seriously, Tribune cartoonist Pat Bagley and I bumped into O.J. Simpson Saturday night in the lobby of the L.A. Airport Hilton. Trained professionals, all three of us reacted instinctively to the chance encounter. A cartoonist, Bagley instinctively reached for his sketch pad. An ex-cop, my hand went for the gun I no longer carry. A consummate survivor, O.J. immediately ducked into a side room where he was scheduled to speak for several thousand dollars, quite possibly on the subject of human rights. It was this encounter that made me realize the whole nature of the Olympics/gun issue. Namely that O.J. and I could meet up with each other again. The 2002 Winter Games will no doubt attract a lot of predatory characters like O.J. to Utah. A short list of possible (and disturbing) Olympic attendees includes rock drummer Tommy Lee, Ted Kennedy, Bill Gates, Maury Povitch, Barney, Paula Jones, Elvis Presley, Dan Rather, Big Foot, and Saddam Hussein. And what about Al Gore, Boris Yeltsin, Hillary Clinton and the entire cast of Melrose Place? Oh, and let's not forget tobacco lobbyists and whomever happens to be in charge of France at the time. See? If you put the Olympics into the proper perspective, namely just who all is going to be coming here and lurking around our children, automobiles and livestock, there really is only one conclusion: We need those guns. [Image] [Tuesday Navigation Bar] [Image] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune. -------------------------------------------------- Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here. - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." -- Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924). - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:13:42 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Visit your cabin often Looks like if you have a cabin and don't visit frequently, others are perfectly justified in taking your property. Too bad we have sworn peace officers behaving this way, however... [Image] [Local] [Image] [Image] [Movies] [Image] Cedar brothers escape charges of possessing stolen property [Image] Judge cites lack of evidence for trial [Image] Last updated 03/18/1998, 11:04 a.m. MT Associated Press CEDAR CITY — Stolen-property charges against two brothers, one a former police officer, were dismissed following a hearing before 5th District Judge James L. Shumate. Former Cedar City police detective Ken Stapley, and his brother, Todd Stapley, were charged with possession of stolen property last May. Kane County sheriff's officials contended the men had taken property from a cabin in the county. However, the Stapleys said they thought the area was abandoned. According to court records, Todd Stapley came across the cabin while on a Boy Scout outing in 1992, then told his brother about the site. The articles taken were an antique sewing machine, a tent and an air rifle. In handing down his ruling Tuesday, Shumate declared testimony against the Stapleys by Ken's ex-wife, Dianne Jacobs Stapley, was inadmissible because she was Ken Stapley's wife at the time of the incidents. Shumate also said there was the question of whether the Stapleys knew they were taking property that belonged to others. The man who claimed the property as his had visited the site only three times from 1989 to 1994 and told the judge it appeared to be ransacked. "When you match that with the information from Ken Stapley — he said the property was abandoned — I find no adequate evidence to go to trial," Shumate said. "It was meant to be," Ken said following the ruling. "It should have never happened in the first place. Justice was done." Charges against two other Cedar City police officers, Dennis Anderson and Keith Millet, stemming from the incident were dropped in October. Anderson has retired from the police force. Millet remains and is working on the Iron-Garfield County Narcotics Task Force. [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." -- Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924). - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:48:55 -0700 From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > Forward from Janalee Tobias. It is interesting that while the USSC > succeeded in increasing the difficulty of getting initiatives that > might encroach on hunting, it did nothing to stop greatly eased > referenda for medication of water supplies, including all of SL > County in one fell swoop. Aren't the people of Utah already too > docile? Better store water as well as ammunition. While I believe that USSC was wrong to support the initiative bill, I think you give them too much credit. It seems that there were at least a few other interest groups involved. Also, while I can understand, if not agree with the reasons USSC would back a bill relating to the "shooting sports", I really don't see what organizational interest a gun interest group would have in medication of water supplies. That would seem to more properly fall under the purview of the Libertarian Party of Utah, (from whom I heard or saw nothing regarding this.) or some other umbrella civil rights or political organization. Unless that was just meant as a tweak to a set of people involved with USSC....if so, it's a cheap shot and you might also bear in mind that the only board member who is likely to read this on this forum voted against supporting the bill. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:46:55 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior At 08:05 AM 3/18/98 -0700, you wrote: > >Forward from Janalee Tobias. It is interesting that while the USSC >succeeded in increasing the difficulty of getting initiatives that >might encroach on hunting, it did nothing to stop greatly eased >referenda for medication of water supplies, including all of SL >County in one fell swoop. Aren't the people of Utah already too >docile? Better store water as well as ammunition. What did USSC have to do with referenda regarding water fluoridation? I don't even know what the procedure is for such referenda. It's clearly not within the scope of a gun organization. Further, while fluoride can be used to poison water (as can chlorine or virtually anything else), I know of absolutely no evidence that fluoride in the levels usually found in water has any tranquilizing or other neuropsychiatric effects. Anecdotally, I drank fluoridated water most of life, took fluoride supplements as a child, and I haven't noticed any change at all since I moved to Utah and started drinking unfluoridated water. And I doubt anyone would seriously accuse me of being dumbed-down or docile! When you're evaluating information, it's always a good idea to consider the sources. And BTW, does LPUtah have a position on the right of property owners to develop their property as they see fit? Sarah - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 07:41:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:46:55 -0700 S. Thompson wrote: >What did USSC have to do with referenda regarding water fluoridation? I >don't even know what the procedure is for such referenda. It's clearly not >within the scope of a gun organization. Rather little directly. Formerly the procedure had been the same as for initiatives, requiring 15,000 signatures on a petition. My concern is that "united we stand, divided we fall". When the statists succeed in dividing their opposition between gunners, antifluoridationists, etc., they succeed in their totalitarian schemes. I should think if a gun organization wants to make antihunting initiatives more difficult, it ought not simultaneously accede to easing requirements for initiatives and referenda for nongun statist schemes. Uniformity in such requirements leaves all parties in the same position (level playing field). Special privileges breed contempt, envy and overconfidence. >Further, while fluoride can be used to poison water (as can chlorine or >virtually anything else), Though the presence of very high levels of chlorine in water would be much more apparent than fluoride. I doubt many people would remain in the shower long enough to inhale a lethal dose of chlorine, even if the poisoners piped a near saturated solution into the water system, but how many people would refrain from drinking water with a slightly soapy taste? >I know of absolutely no evidence that fluoride in the levels usually >found in water has any tranquilizing or other neuropsychiatric effects. >Anecdotally, I drank fluoridated water most of life, took fluoride >supplements as a child, and I haven't noticed any change at all since >I moved to Utah and started drinking unfluoridated water. And I doubt >anyone would seriously accuse me of being dumbed-down or docile! >When you're evaluating information, it's always a good idea to consider >the sources. I have been a lot less docile, and fwiw have had a LOT less cavities, (1 compared to a dozen or so) since I quit drinking fluoridated water or taking fluoride supplements. If fluoride is effective against caries, it is only topically. Internally it causes mottling and misalignment of haversian canals in bones and teeth by interfering with the piezoelectric alignment process. I would think that any conspiracy capable of implementing fluoridation for such purposes as passivating the population would almost necessarily have to be capable of keeping reports of such effects out of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This would be necessary to reduce the incidence and credibility of opposition. I seem to have heard that such journals can be swayed to block acceptance or publication of articles on grounds of "National Security". And of course any government funding would include controls on publication of results. Don't you recall the official position that nuclear fallout was harmless until contrary evidence became overwhelming? Even then, Dr. Lyons' study was torpedoed. Let me tell you, amazing things can be found in the classified literature with little hint in the open literature. >And BTW, does LPUtah have a position on the right of property owners to >develop their property as they see fit? 'LPUtah'? I don't think so, but this is a matter of episodic hot debate on the LPUtah list. You might want to see what the national platform says about it. I assume that by 'property' you refer to land, buildings and real estate? - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 07:41:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: USSC BBS/listserver On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:48:55 -0700 Will Thompson wrote: >Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior >Unless that was just meant as a tweak to a set of people involved >with USSC....if so, it's a cheap shot and you might also bear in >mind that the only board member who is likely to read this on this >forum voted against supporting the bill. Didn't the USSC once have a BBS? What became of it? If the USSC board, with one exception, isn't willing to read utah-firearms, how about starting their own list? - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #35 **********************************