From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #55 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, May 11 1998 Volume 02 : Number 055 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 17:51:59 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: IP: Sarah Brady Statement on Gun Control Debate in N.Y., Conn. (fwd) -Forwarded Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 06 May 1998 17:01:41 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id SAA27069; Wed, 6 May 1998 18:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 18:59:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma026937; Wed May 6 18:57:59 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: pwatson@utdallas.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: pwatson@utdallas.edu To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: IP: Sarah Brady Statement on Gun Control Debate in N.Y., Conn. (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 16:19:25 -0500 From: believer@telepath.com To: believer@telepath.com Subject: IP: Sarah Brady Statement on Gun Control Debate in N.Y., Conn. Source: US Newswire Sarah Brady Statement on Gun Control Debate in N.Y., Conn. U.S. Newswire 5 May 16:25 Sarah Brady Statement on Gun Control Debate in New York, Connecticut To: City and State desks Contact: Naomi Paiss of Handgun Control Inc., 202-289-5784, or 800-465-0334 (pager) WASHINGTON, May 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement by Sarah Brady, chair of Handgun Control Inc.: "I want to applaud the Connecticut Legislature for unanimously passing comprehensive measures aimed at protecting children and keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Connecticut's legislators have resoundingly said "yes" to protecting children and "no" to pressure from the gun lobby. In an extraordinary move, every legislator voted in favor of this impressible package of gun violence prevention proposals. "Once again, Connecticut has led the nation in gun violence prevention legislation. H.B. 5746, which passed unanimously in the House on Friday and unanimously in the Senate on Monday, requires the sale of a child safety locking device with every handgun sale, expanding the current law which only required the locks on sales at retail. Of equal importance are provisions which: -- trace all guns recovered from crimes; -- mandate FBI fingerprint background checks for all gun permit applicants; -- allow private property owners to ban guns on their property; -- allow schools to keep all guns off school grounds -- even concealed license holders; -- establish strict criteria for reporting of involuntary commitments for psychiatric reasons; -- prohibit gun ownership of persons convicted of serious offenses when they were juveniles; and -- prohibit carrying firearms by intoxicated persons. "Any one of the provisions standing alone would be a significant improvement in Connecticut's law. The complete package, and the fact the every legislator supported them, is a major victory for supporters of reasonable gun control legislation. I especially want to thank Senate Majority Leader George Jepsen (D-27) and the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Michael Lawlor (D-99), for sponsoring and shepherding this legislation. Connecticut has a history of bipartisan support for gun control legislation, the vote on H.B. 5746 should set a new standard for our nation. "I also want to commend the New York State Assembly for passing Child Access Prevention Legislation (A 651). The New York State Senate should follow the lead of their neighbors in Connecticut and unanimously pass this responsible legislation. The children of New York deserve their attention. ------ Handgun Control Inc. (HCI), chaired by Sarah Brady, is the nation's largest citizens' gun control lobbying organization. Based in Washington, D.C., HCI works to enact stronger federal, state and local gun control laws, but does not seek to ban handguns. Founded in 1974, HCI has more than 400,000 members nationwide and works with local groups around the country to enact and protect reasonable gun control laws. More information about HCI and its affiliated organization, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, can be found on the HCI website at http://www.handguncontrol.org. -0- /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ 05/05 16:25 Copyright 1998, U.S. Newswire - ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. - ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 17:55:22 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: VPC Says Heston Remarks Inflammatory, Illustrates NRA Agenda (fwd) -Forwarded Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 06 May 1998 17:50:23 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA00732; Wed, 6 May 1998 19:46:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 19:46:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma000606; Wed May 6 19:46:16 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: pwatson@utdallas.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: pwatson@utdallas.edu To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: VPC Says Heston Remarks Inflammatory, Illustrates NRA Agenda (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 16:26:20 -0500 From: believer@telepath.com To: believer@telepath.com Subject: IP: VPC Says Heston Remarks Inflammatory, Illustrates NRA Agenda Source: US Newswire VPC Says Heston Remarks Inflammatory, Illustrates NRA Agenda U.S. Newswire 4 May 14:34 Violence Policy Center Says Heston Remarks Inflammatory, Illustrates NRA 'Far-Right' Agenda To: National Desk Contact: Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, 202-822-8200, ext. 101 WASHINGTON, May 4 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In a Hollywood press conference announced for 10:30 a.m. PDT today, NRA First Vice President Charlton Heston -- billed in the NRA media advisory for the event as a "civil rights activist" -- is expected to attack the NBC television movie "The Long Island Incident." In response, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released the transcript and video of a December 1997 speech Heston delivered before the Free Congress Foundation in which he made inflammatory statements attacking women, gays and lesbians, African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. Heston, as detailed in a full-page ad in The New York Times this morning, is expected to challenge Barbra Streisand, the movie's producer, to a "one-on-one" debate about the Second Amendment. He is also expected to denounce the film, which aired last night and told the story of the 1993 Long Island Railroad shooting and the subsequent campaign for the House of Representatives on a pro-gun control platform by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "Once again the NRA has revealed its extremist stripes. Will the real Charlton Heston please stand up? In Hollywood, he calls himself a 'civil rights activist.' Speaking before ultra-conservatives inside the Beltway, he talks of 'white pride.' Heston's remarks go beyond gun control, to the very heart of diversity in America." Heston's statements have been endorsed by David Duke, who on his website states, "I was astounded to read these courageous remarks by Charlton Heston. I am thankful to hear a man with such high esteem say essentially the same things for which I have reviled by the liberal media. His words should be reproduced and put into the hands of every American." Excerpts from the Heston speech follow. The full transcript and video are available from VPC. ------ Excerpts from NRA First Vice President Charlton Heston's Speech Before the Free Congress Foundation, December 1997 The Constitution was handed down to guide us by a bunch of those wise old dead white guys who invented this country. Now, some flinch when I say that. Why? It's true...they were white guys. So were most of the guys who died in Lincoln's name opposing slavery in the 1860s. So why should I be ashamed of white guys? Why is "Hispanic pride" or "black pride" a good thing, while "white pride" conjures up shaved heads and white hoods? Why was the Million Man March on Washington celebrated in the media as progress, while the Promise Keepers March on Washington was greeted with suspicion and ridicule? I'll tell you why: cultural warfare. Mainstream America is depending on you -- counting on you -- to draw your sword and fight for them. These people (mainstream America) have precious little time or resources to battle misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual coalition, the feminists who preach that it's a divine duty for women to hate men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek preference with the other...We've reached that point in time when our national social policy originates on Oprah. I say it's time to pull the plug. Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning, increasingly bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens...Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or -- even worse -- Evangelical Christian, Midwest or Southern, or -- even worse -- rural, apparently straight, or -- even worse -- admittedly heterosexual, gun-owning or -- even worse -- NRA card-carrying, average working stiff, or -- even worse -- male working stiff, because not only don't you count, you're a downright obstacle to social progress. I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton's cultural shock troops participate in homosexual rights fundraisers but boycott gun-rights fundraisers...and then claim it's time to place homosexual men in tents with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian relationships are somehow better served and more loved. Such demands have nothing to do with equality. They're about the currency of cultural war -- money and votes -- and the Clinton camp will let anyone in the tent if there's a donkey on his hat, or a check in the mail or some yen in the fortune cookie. But you don't see many other Hollywood luminaries speaking out on this one, do you? It's not because there aren't any. It's because they can't afford the heat. They dare not speak up for fear of CNN or the IRS or SAG or the ATF or NBC or even WJC. I remember when European Jews feared to admit their faith. The Nazis forced them to wear six-pointed yellow stars sewn on their chests as identity badges...So, what color star will they pin on our coats? There may not be a Gestapo officer on every street corner yet, but the influence on our culture is just as pervasive. -0- /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ 05/04 14:34 Copyright 1998, U.S. Newswire - ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. - ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 12:53:48 -0600 From: Will Thompson Subject: [Fwd: Private Arsenals and Public Peril] Received: from [192.40.29.55] by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA28767; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:31:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from wanderer.ssi by philipsdvs.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29403; Thu, 7 May 1998 10:31:15 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA22194; Thu, 7 May 1998 09:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 09:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com" via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa005QE; Thu May 7 09:24:55 1998 Message-Id: <181C8655E8E@law1.law.ucla.edu> Errors-To: volokh@law.ucla.edu Reply-To: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Originator: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Sender: firearmsreg@ssiinc.com Precedence: bulk From: Ed Kruzel To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Private Arsenals and Public Peril X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas - ------------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------- From: "Joel A. Butler, MD" To: Subject: Private Arsenals and Public Peril Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 06:14:17 -0500 Excerpt from today's New England Journal of Medicine http://www.nejm.org/public/1998/0338/0019/TOC/1.htm I suggest comments addressed to Dr. Kassirer about the large number of Americans injured and killed by medical mistakes and drug reactions and interactions along with additional controls and registration of mistake making doctors be directed to comments@nejm.org You might also suggest criminalizing the more egregious cases! jab - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Though we may never know precisely why the boys did what they did, we certainly know how. They first tried to break into the 11-year-old boy's parents' cache of firearms, but failing that, took three guns from unsecured places in that house. They then broke a window in the basement of the same boy's grandfather's house and removed many more firearms. Positioning themselves in the woods the length of a football field away from the school door, they opened fire. Telescopic sights helped their aim: 27 rounds hit their targets. Given these facts, how can anyone accept the contorted logic that lawful arms ownership has nothing to do with this tragedy, or that this is not a gun issue? The vast array of powerful firearms available to the boys is remarkable. Would the carnage have been so great if the boys had been unable to gain access to the grandfather's private arsenal? Would so many people be dead if such lethal weapons had not been in either collection? Parenthetically, it goes without saying that even a single semiautomatic weapon left loaded, unlocked, and accessible is a dangerous arsenal in itself. Does anyone need to have a private arsenal of high-powered weapons? They are of no value for hunting, and their use for target practice seems dispensable. They are certainly not needed for protection against crime. Moreover, they are worse than useless. In recent years, large stashes of firearms have figured importantly in other major losses of life. Hundreds of guns were found at Waco, and cash from the sale of stolen weapons was used to build the bomb that devastated the federal building in Oklahoma City. Children and adolescents are by definition immature, and many lack judgment. Life's embarrassments, rejections, and torments may send them into fits of temper, even rage, and may prompt a desire for revenge. Impulsively, some children lash out at others and at themselves. Nonetheless, they are only murderous when they have the means, and a loaded gun is the "perfect tool." We must ratchet down our nation's firepower. It is time to eliminate semiautomatic firearms from private homes. The 1994 federal ban on new assault weapons with high-capacity ammunition clips must be tightened to stop the manufacture and sale of military weapons modified to have a sporting appearance. A ban on these large ammunition clips should also include those produced before 1994. Kits to convert semiautomatic weapons into fully automatic machine guns should be outlawed. A federal code for storing firearms in the home should be developed, and all firearms should be registered with local authorities. It is time to end the firearm industry's status as America's last unregulated industry; a federal agency should be given standard-setting authority over the industry and its products. It is also time to lay to rest the myth that keeping firearms in the home protects people against personal injury. (7) Obvious, serious methodologic errors in the design of surveys that purport to demonstrate a protective effect invalidate such conclusions. (8,9) Mass shootings such as the one in Jonesboro are avoidable, as are local epidemics of gun-related suicide in teenagers. It would take political will to buck the well-funded lobbies of the gun manufacturers and the National Rifle Association. So far, unfortunately, few courageous legislators have stepped up to the plate. Our children are murdering our children. Oliver North, the former Iran-Contra figure, now a radio personality, said recently that it would be unconscionable for gun-control advocates to try to make political hay out of the Jonesboro shooting. (6) Quite the contrary, in my opinion. Perhaps it is still possible to derive some good from this unspeakable tragedy. Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D. - ------------- End Forwarded Message ------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 10:03:44 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: piml] Gun-totin' urban Jewish liberal lady (fwd) -Forwarded Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 02 May 1998 08:33:42 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA14567; Sat, 2 May 1998 10:31:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 10:31:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma014432; Sat May 2 10:28:52 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: gonzalez@mcs.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: David Gonzalez To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: piml] Gun-totin' urban Jewish liberal lady (fwd) X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Folks--- Thought that you should see this one! - ---David - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 04:08:01 -0700 From: Mike Rosenborg To: piml@mars.galstar.com Subject: piml] Gun-totin' urban Jewish liberal lady - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - - From Gun-Shy to Target Shooter: A Journey of Discovery by Riva Freifeld "Are you ready?" the range officer behind me asks. I nod, and take one last peek at the row of targets in the sand. The buzzer goes off. I run forward, draw my Para-Ordnance P-13 from its nylon holster and line up the sights. I pull the trigger. The gun goes bang. The steel falls over. My first IPSC match has begun. What exactly is a 51 year old half-Canadian New York Jewish liberal woman, public television producer, doing out on Long Island on a hot August Sunday with a bunch of mostly younger guys who do this every weekend? A little over a year ago I was someone who had never touched a gun, didn't know anyone who owned guns, and, to the extent that I thought about them at all, thought only the police should have them. One day my sister called to tell me that her son had been shot accidentally in the arm by another kid who was playing with his father's loaded home defense gun. What outraged both of us was the fact that the father could not be criminally prosecuted for negligence. So I decided to make a documentary for PBS about the evils of guns in our society. I started my research by calling my ex-husband, a mystery writer who had always owned a few guns. He suggested I take up target shooting, so I could get to know gun owners, which would make it easier for me to get interviews. I went down to New York's rather seedy Westside Pistol Range, and started the arduous application process which would result, approximately six months later, in a license for target shooting only. In the meantime, I would get some "instruction" from Darren, the range officer. Later that day, Darren showed me how a Browning Buckmark .22 worked and explained the safety rules. We went out to the firing line. I pulled the trigger. Bang. This is kind of fun, I thought, as I went bang a few more times and actually hit the black circle. It became even more fun as I got better at it. The next time, I tried a S&W .38, a Beretta .380, then a Browning Hi-Power. I started to learn that guns themselves are not inherently evil. I then discovered a forum on CompuServe where the politics of guns were discussed. I remember reading a few messages and thinking, these people are saying things that make a lot of sense. Yes, we do have a right to our own self-defense. Banning guns won't deprive criminals of them. Having a gun around isn't going to make people automatically go crazy and shoot each other. And I thought to myself, becoming competent with firearms is probably the ultimate thing a woman can do for self-protection. But I was picking up something else that concerned me. Most gun owners seemed to be stereotypical conservatives. Not fiscal conservatives, not law-and-order conservatives (which I could relate to), but the kind that make us urban liberals most uncomfortable, the family values, anti-abortion, Christian Coalition folks. There seemed to be a lot of talk about "personal freedom", but it wasn't my idea of freedom. It was often a code word for something else. They seemed to be primarily interested in bashing liberals. I had little in common with these people. One day I saw a message from a Phill Jackson, of Democrats for the Second Amendment. He was the first person I actually contacted. What he said made a lot of sense, and clarified for me what I had begun to feel. Gun rights and the right to self-defense are actually part of classical liberalism, the Jeffersonian kind. This was exciting, because I was already extremely disenchanted with the Democratic party. I was sick of the political correctness, sick of their using my tax money to pay for problems they created. I began to realize that I agreed with the conservatives on certain issues, that I could actually talk to ...Republicans! I then met other gun rights activists on the forum. A bright articulate engineer from Washington who played a key role in Speaker Foley's downfall [...] *** [Stand up and take a well-deserved bow, Mr. Hartman! ---DMG] [...] A woman member of an upstate New York militia. The Jewish moderator of a pro-RKBA internet mailing list. A top computer programmer for IBM who used to be anti-gun. What I realized is that all of these people, while claiming to be conservatives, shared many of my liberal beliefs. Some of them defined themselves as libertarians, others said "big government" was what turned them away from the Democratic party. All of them agreed that the gun issue was paramount. It was a barometer of government's respect for its citizens. As my feelings about guns changed, so did the proposal for my film. I rewrote it. But I soon found that many sources of funding were now closed to me. Saying anything positive about guns is unacceptable in the Northeast. I quickly learned why. It was not about guns, it was about being a liberal or a conservative. The media only understands the stereotypes. You can't be associated with anything "those people" believe in. And the gun issue to them is irrevocably associated with conservatives. In the meantime, I have acquired a .22, a 9mm, and a .45. I've taken LFI1, and have started competing. An outdoor range in Staten Island is where I went for bullseye, steel plate, and silhouette matches. Most of my friends disapprove. They don't know what they're missing. Riva Freifeld lives in New York City's liberal Democratic Upper West Side. She is a independent documentary filmmaker and editor. [PGP stuff snipped] - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:04:37 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: Wal-mart -Forwarded Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id RAA22526; Thu, 7 May 1998 17:32:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 17:32:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma022261; Thu May 7 17:30:40 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: BMichael@aol.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: BMichael To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Wal-mart X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Just received... >Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with Wal-Mart >regarding a local fundraiser by the Missourians Against Handgun >Violence (MAHV). > >After reviewing this matter further, we have canceled the event and >it will not be rescheduled. > >We appreciate your interest. > > >Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 14:28:10 -0600 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: News from the GOP convention I'll write more later, but for now, most interesting to most here is probably the fact that Senator Stephensen managed to avoid a primary race. It is a safe bet the UEA will be pumping a lot of support to his oppositon as will the gun-phobes--many of whom seem to control the UEA/NEA. He will be in need of our support. Also of interest, Jeremy Freidembaum (I know I've misspelled his last name) just managed to force a primary against Cannon. - -- 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: Sun, 10 May 1998 08:13:04 -0600 From: "larry larsen" Subject: Fw: Agreement reached in landmark Utah land swap Looks like our good gov, as made a "good" deal for all of us. BS. - -----Original Message----- From: RLene27987 To: api@lists.best.com Date: Saturday, May 09, 1998 7:52 AM Subject: Agreement reached in landmark Utah land swap Ravenvolk; Salt Lake City. In a rare moment of bipartisanship, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt announced an agreement that is being called the largest land swap in the history of the continental United States. Ending a debate over Utah trust lands that had simmered for six decades. Babbitt and Leavitt broke the deadlock, Friday after intense one-on-one negotiations. The federal government will get 376,739 acres of Utah schools lands sprinkled through national forests, parks and monuments and the mineral rights to others. In exchange, Utah schools get $50 million in cash as well as minerals and 145,000 acres outside the parks and areas proposed for wilderness. Congress and President Clinton still must approve the deal, which Leavitt has called "the largest public land exchange in the continental United States." Utah also is dropping two lawsuits against the federal gov., one challenging Clinton's 1996 creation of the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah and another seeking a ruling on the value of 240,000 acres of state land within federal boundaries. Friday's ceremonial signing was a rare moment in conservative Utah as Babbitt, a Democratic cabinet member, was lauded along with the Republican governor by Utah's entire Republican congressional delegation. ( Ohhhhhhhhhh it's a political thing.) If the federal gov., keeps taking land there will be no place to shoot, how about that? Raveness Jerri Lenehan Daniel 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well-favored, and skillful in all wisdom, an cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the kings palace, and whom they might teach learning and the tongue of the chal-de'-ans. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 08:13:49 -0600 From: "larry larsen" Subject: Fw: Agreement reached in landmark Utah land swap Explaination of good land deal - -----Original Message----- From: Fred Muller To: api@lists.best.com Date: Saturday, May 09, 1998 12:53 PM Subject: Re: Agreement reached in landmark Utah land swap Raveness Jerri-- Let's see if I got this right. Utah trades 376,739 acres of presumably prime land (otherwise why would the Feds want it) with mineral rights for $50 million cash and 145,000 acres of Federal land. Hmmmm! Assuming the acre for acre land being exchanged is equal in value, that means that Utah sold some of it's school trust lands for just under $216 per acre which includes the mineral rights. I wonder if they have any more of that $216/acre land available. DOG/DVC Fred - -----Original Message----- From: RLene27987 To: api@lists.best.com Date: Saturday, May 09, 1998 6:56 AM Subject: Agreement reached in landmark Utah land swap >Ravenvolk; >Salt Lake City. In a rare moment of bipartisanship, Interior Secretary Bruce >Babbitt and Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt announced an agreement that is being called >the largest land swap in the history of the continental United States. Ending >a debate over Utah trust lands that had simmered for six decades. Babbitt and >Leavitt broke the deadlock, Friday after intense one-on-one negotiations. > >The federal government will get 376,739 acres of Utah schools lands sprinkled >through national forests, parks and monuments and the mineral rights to >others. >In exchange, Utah schools get $50 million in cash as well as minerals and >145,000 acres outside the parks and areas proposed for wilderness. > >Congress and President Clinton still must approve the deal, which Leavitt has >called "the largest public land exchange in the continental United States." > >Utah also is dropping two lawsuits against the federal gov., one challenging >Clinton's 1996 creation of the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante >National Monument in southern Utah and another seeking a ruling on the value >of 240,000 acres of state land within federal boundaries. > >Friday's ceremonial signing was a rare moment in conservative Utah as Babbitt, >a Democratic cabinet member, was lauded along with the Republican governor by >Utah's entire Republican congressional delegation. ( Ohhhhhhhhhh it's a >political thing.) If the federal gov., keeps taking land there will be no >place to shoot, how about that? > > Raveness Jerri Lenehan > >Daniel 1:4 >Children in whom was no blemish, but well-favored, and skillful in all wisdom, >an cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in >them to stand in the kings palace, and whom they might teach learning and the >tongue of the chal-de'-ans. > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:29:52 -0600 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Salt Lake City Weekly electronic poll on Utah's gun laws. I received the following from former USSC lobbyist Scott Engen. My comments follow his. >The Salt Lake City Weekly, a local "alternative" newspaper with a stridently >anti-gun, anti-hunting and anti-conserative editorial slant is conducting an >electronic e-mail poll on the issue of Utah's concealed firearms laws. > >To quote their invitation to make your opinion known on the subject: > >"The concealed weapons debate is on fire in Utah-tell us where in Salt Lake >City you most feel the burning desire for cold steel in the grip of your >sweaty, shaking palm." > >You may give your opinion on firearms freedom and protecting your right to >protect yourself by carrying a firearm without restriction under the authority >of a Utah concealed firearms permit by visiting the their website. > >The address is www.slweekly.com > >It is suggested that you IMMEDATELY voice your support for maintaining the >current "without restriction" provisions of Utah law. > >Please forward this information IMMEDIATELY to your friends, family members >and fellow firearms owners so they can participate as well. > >Thank you. > The comments below are mine. I checked out the site, but couldn't get any poll to appear. However, if you check out "City Beat", you can read David Madison's stridently anti-gun article "Guns don't kill people, kids do." (During our interview, I told Mr. Madison that I believed that the First and Second Amendments were co-equal. He told me that was nonsense and that he "didn't buy it". So much for unbiased reporting. HE has rights. _I_ don't.) Comments can be sent to comments@slweekly.com Sarah Thompson (for myself) - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:44:26 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [Fwd: Permanent Brady Info] -Forwarded Received: from (lizard) [166.70.8.172] by mail.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yYiVR-0003cX-00; Sun, 10 May 1998 20:39:58 -0600 Message-ID: <355666A9.4A54@xmission.com> Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 19:47:05 -0700 From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" Reply-To: ajgaunt@xmission.com Organization: XMission X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ajgaunt@xmission.com Subject: [Fwd: Permanent Brady Info] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------C216E2C4ACE" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------C216E2C4ACE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI and action. - --------------C216E2C4ACE Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-path: Envelope-to: ajgaunt@xmission.com Delivery-date: Sun, 10 May 1998 17:05:56 -0600 Received: from (imo21.mx.aol.com) [198.81.17.65] by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yYfAJ-0007Xw-00; Sun, 10 May 1998 17:05:55 -0600 Received: from TJJOHNSTN@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id 4SHOa02431 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 18:53:32 -0400 (EDT) From: TJJOHNSTN Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 18:53:32 EDT To: FreedomFriends@net.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Permanent Brady Info Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64 The ATF has published proposed regulations for the PERMANENT Brady Law. You may comment, but comments must be received before May 20. Don't guess. Download the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and participate. http://www.atf.treas.gov/core/firearms/rules/notice857.htm - --------------C216E2C4ACE-- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:53:58 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: A Surprise -Forwarded Received: from fs1.mainstream.net ([206.97.102.4]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 11 May 1998 15:45:27 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id RAA05607; Mon, 11 May 1998 17:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 17:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma005549; Mon May 11 17:40:51 1998 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980511214146.008d35cc@inet.skillnet.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: rlh@recon.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: Richard Hartman To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: A Surprise X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list I did NOT expect to see the conclusion of this article. I was following some relatively "politically correct" links on the Web, started reading this, and couldn't believe my eyes. - ----- A major concern these days is the high crime rate. How much of that is due to the actual crime rate and how much is due to media sources that thrive on being alarmist and stressing the bad is a possible subject for debate, but it's certainly true that crime is a "bad thing" that we should try to reduce as much as possible. The traditional answers all center on police, the legal system, and/or the prison system. I think those three lumped together are often what is meant by "the justice system" (though that term is also used to mean just the courts), so that's how I'll use it here until someone suggests a better term. Speaking as one who has had more opportunities than most (and certainly more than I ever wanted) to observe our justice system in action, I can say that I've often wondered what it's for. It is patently obvious to me that whatever we have all these cops and lawyers for, it certainly is not for the benefit of the average honest citizen. In fact, I have deduced that the primary function of our justice system is to keep honest citizens in line. Go sit in any courtroom for a day and see what cases are typically tried. The most common will be traffic cases. Notice how our manpower is allocated. What do police spend their time on? Are overdue library books and illegal left turns more important than murder and robbery? They are in our justice system, but is that how you would allocate priorities? This is especially obvious around here. I live in a rural area where local police functions are handled by the county sheriff's department. A good big chunk of the deputies never leave the office, but handle internal matters like running the county jail and lining up juries. Of the ones that actually do get out and ride around, I am told that 90% or better of what they do is serve papers on people. After that, they spend time on local speed traps and checking cars for radar detectors (which are illegal around here for some strange reason). This leaves them with no extra manpower for dealing with the crack dealers and other assorted crimes. One resident in this town has had a building of hers demolished by trespassers and vandals and many others fear for their lives if they go out at night -- or even if they stay home! Again, how would you allocate priorities? Okay, I've ranted enough about the problem. How about answers? First of all, there aren't a whole lot of resources to spend on it. We all know the Federal government is downsizing (which many, including me, regard as a good thing). At the local level things are even worse. Here in this town our annual town budget is so small we almost qualify for food stamps. Given the whole historic trend of the justice system, more cops, lawyers, and jails isn't going to be the answer. We need to look more closely at the fundamentals. Consider crime as a career alternative. It is, you know. Granted it's not a viable alternative for me or you. The consequences of being caught would be far too great -- we have too much to lose. But consider, of all the things we're not willing to risk sacrificing, there are lots and lots of people who don't have those things. For someone in that position, consider the advantages: 1.No education requirements. 2.No previous experience needed. 3.No startup capital required in most cases, and minimal capital required in any case. 4.Flexible work hours. 5.Be your own boss. 6.Medical and retirement plans provided free by the government. 7.Low risk. Low risk? Well, yes. The odds of being apprehended at all are very low, and even if you are arrested you'll get free legal assistance, and the odds of actually going to jail are pretty low too. On top of that, how bad is going to jail? The Supreme Court has ruled that it can't be too unpleasant, and most especially it can't be bad for you. Given this state of affairs, it's no wonder that lots of people with nothing else going for them are opting for crime as a career path. How can we change it? About the only advantages cited above that can be altered by an act of political will (meaning your vote) are the benefits package and the low risk. There are sufficient problems with getting rid of Medicare and Social Security that it isn't practical as an anti-crime measure, and it wouldn't work anyway. Muggers would simply be on par with any other self-employed person in having to provide their own benefits. That leaves the low-risk factor as the only thing practical to change. The usual answer is to increase the risk by hiring more cops and lawyers, making jails more unpleasant, and so forth, but I've already discussed why that won't help. Suffice to say that for someone with nothing jail is not a punishment but a reward, since for some term of years food, clothing, and housing will be supplied free. So here's the answer: Greatly liberalize the concealed-carry laws. Make it possible (easy, even) for any honest citizen who wants one to tote a gun in his/her back pocket or purse. Very few will, and very few need to. If only one percent of the people were packing at any given time, then a mugger would have a one out of a hundred chance of getting shot at during any given crime, or an 18% chance of being shot at before mugging twenty people. This changes crime from a career alternative to a gigantic form of Russian Roulette. Oooh, scary! Won't a lot of people get shot? Well, yes, but consider who is going to be shot at. I predict that if, say, New York City went with liberal concealed carry laws, then very shortly there would be a lot of dead muggers, and then it would settle down quickly with a much lower crime rate. People would be more polite, too. But won't ordinary citizens start shooting each other if they're all armed all the time? Well, no. Ordinary citizens still stand to lose too much if convicted of a crime, and it would still be a crime to shoot somebody without a darned good reason like self defense. Remember, that's what our justice system is good at -- keeping honest people in line. But isn't it dangerous to take on an armed mugger by yourself? Yep, sure is. The media has really beaten this one to death over the years. Remember, just because you could carry a gun doesn't mean you have to. And even if you are carrying a gun, that doesn't mean you have to use it. Anyone who wants to would still be perfectly free to be as nonviolent and as nonthreatening as they like. Anyone who feels differently would be able to accept the risks if they so decide. It's called making a personal choice, and it's supposed to be highly regarded in this country. What about innocent bystanders? What about them? What about crime victims, for that matter? Consider that a greatly reduced rate of violent crime would result in far fewer things to be innocently standing by in the first place, which results in lower risk for everyone. Consider also the innocent bystanders on occasions like the nut who opened fire in a restaurant in Texas, or the nut who started shooting on a Long Island commuter train. In both of those cases, the gunman stopped to reload at least once, giving a perfect opening for an armed innocent bystander to stop the killing, except there were no armed innocent bystanders, so lots of other innocent bystanders are now dead. So why concealed carry? Why not open carry? (Visions of Gary Cooper walking down the dusty main street.) A few reasons: 1.The idea is to increase risk in the mugging lifestyle. Carrying a visible gun is like putting The Club on your steering wheel. It might keep your car from being stolen, but it doesn't do much about car theft in general. 2.A gun can be a provocation, but only if it's visible. 3.It causes comment, and can make for awkward social situations. This is undoubtedly the main reason why open carry is unusual in places where it is legal. 4.It can make the owner a target. If a madman is scoping out a restaurant for his little shooting spree, and sees one person carrying openly, guess where the first shot goes? Well anyway, there's my $1.57 (or $0.02 in seasonally adjusted 1965 dollars). - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #55 **********************************