From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #74 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, June 18 1998 Volume 02 : Number 074 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 11:41:12 -0600 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: WW on unjust laws From Today's Deseret News. Some lawmakers don't understand or respect meaning of Constitution Last updated 06/17/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT By Walter Williams What's the standard battle cry and promise of the Republican Party? We've heard it: tax cuts, federalism and limited government. I'd really appreciate it if a Republican representative or senator could tell me under which of those categories Sen. John McCain's so-called tobacco bill falls. If passed, the measure would add about a dollar to the cost of a pack of cigarettes, forcing smokers to pay an estimated $516 billion more in federal taxes over a 25-year period and increasing federal power over our lives. Some Republican congressmen don't even understand or respect the meaning, purpose and spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Then, there are naives who think that the Constitution's "general welfare" clause covers their activities. James Madison, the "father" of the Constitution, warned: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." The "detail of powers" to which Madison refers is the Constitution's Article I, Section 8. There are other Republicans who fully understand the limit of powers granted Congress by the Constitution but are afraid to voice it out of fear they will be misunderstood and labeled as big-tobacco supporters and anti-children. Their fear may be justified. Whether it's primary school, secondary school or college, very little is taught about the Constitution's meaning and spirit. Most Americans think that Congress has constitutional authority to do anything that's "wonderful" and sanctioned by a majority. Little do we realize that our constitutional ignorance has allowed us to fall easy prey to charlatans, quacks and hustlers. Today's Congress and White House have no more moral legitimacy than King George III and the British Parliament had in the 18th century. They should be held in the same contempt our founders held for King George and his Parliament. Oppressive taxation by the British Parliament such as the Stamp Act and the Tea Act and regulatory oppression through the Trade and Navigation acts energized the founders. Leading Americans, including signers of the Declaration of Independence like John Hancock, either engaged in smuggling or supported it to avoid oppressive taxation and regulation. Their open defiance led to Britain's Parliament passing the so-called Coercive Act (1774) and Restraining Act (1775) that led to our founders saying they had enough — hence the Declaration of Independence. We should have the courage of our founders and let Congress know that we have a Constitution. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have shed their blood to defend it against foreign destruction; we should be just as willing to defend it against domestic aggression. We are far short of the point where we need to take up arms, but we have reached the point where we shouldn't sheepishly obey the illegitimate acts of Congress. "So what are you saying, Williams?" you ask. I'm saying that if a Republican Congress legislates oppressive taxes on cigarettes, we should adopt our founders' responses to Britain's oppressive acts. You say, "Williams, smuggling is against the law." I say not every law is deserving of obedience. History shows that considerable human suffering and government oppression could have been avoided simply by citizens asking whether a law is just before they obey it. Before I would have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act, Oriental Exclusion Act, apartheid laws, anti-miscegenation laws and alcohol prohibition, I would have asked: Is the law moral? Creators Syndicate Inc. - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: So much Due Process - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:35:16 -0400 From: "Mark A. Smith" To: SNET , PIML , L & J , David Rydel , Boris Tiraspols Cc: Ray Southwell , Norm Olson Subject: So much Due Process I have a copy of this letter, and it is available for faxing. Remember when Comrade Clinton was elected? He fired EVERY U.S. Attorney in the country, and replaced them with his personally selected yes men, or should I say henchmen? The police-state tactics demanded by this US Attorney are in total disregard of the 4th Amendment. Isn't it too bad that this bill will put the burden of proof on the government where it belongs. What is wrong with that?! Isn't that what the Constitution is about? H.R. 1835 would stop the unconstitutional seizure and forfeiture of money and property. Just think, they would actually need real evidence for a change, to stop what they have been doing now for many years. Call your elected representatives and support H.R. 1835 as soon as possible. Mark Smith __________________________________________________________________ U.S. Department of Justice [U.S. DoJ Seal] (313) 226-9501 United States Attorney Eastern District of Michigan 211 W. Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, Michigan 48226 May 15, 1998 Dear Fellow Law Enforcement Officer: At the beginning of this Congress, Congressman Henry Hyde and John Conyers introduced a bill (H.R. 1835) which would significantly curtail asset forfeiture. In response to strong opposition of federal, state and local law enforcement to this bill, the Department of Justice worked with Congressmen Hyde and Conyers to produce a compromise bill (H.R. 1965), which the House Judiciary Committee approved last summer. This bill would achieve reforms to civil forfeiture that would be accepetable to the Department and enhance forfeiture in certain respects. We now understand that because of vocal opposition to H.R. 1965 from the anti-forfeiture activists whose goal is to diminish our ability to use this law enforcement tool, Chairman Hyde has decided to abandon this compromise bill and advance a version of the original bill. Passage of a bill based upon H.R. 1835 would be very harmful to law enforcement at the federal, state and local levels. For example, H.R. 1835 places the burden of proof on the government to prove forfeiture by "clear and convincing evidence," places the burden to the government to disprove the innocent owner defense, gives seized property back to the defendant pendingtrial (allowing it to be depleted or hidden), and takes money from the asset forfeiture fund intended to benefit law enforcement and uses it to pay for defense counsel. Any reduction in federal asset forfeitures would be reflected in the amount of sharing with state and local law enforcement. The Department of Justice continues to favor the compromise bill and wants to work to ensure that forfeiture is both tough and fair. You should feel free to contact your elected representatives if you oppose the passage of a bill based on H.R. 1835. Sincerely, SAUL A. GREEN United States Attorney - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Action Requested.... 1/2 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:06:21 -0400 From: "John A. Quayle" To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com Subject: Action Requested.... We need letters to Congress on this. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TESTIMONY OF TANYA K. METAKSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON H.R. 3949 THE "NO GUN TAX ACT OF 1998" HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME JUNE 11, 1998 Chairman McCollum, members of the subcommittee, I thank you for inviting me to testify in support of the "No Gun Tax Act of 1998," introduced by the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barr. I represent the nearly three million members of the National Rifle Association. Our members come from all walks of life, and from all levels of American society. I can certainly testify to you from personal experience -- answering my phone and reading my e-mail -- that our members were extraordinarily unhappy when press accounts began to appear about the FBI's plan to charge a "user fee" for background checks conducted under the Brady Act's permanent instant check system. They had good reason to be concerned. The proposed fee is nothing less than a federal gun tax on the exercise of Second Amendment rights by law-abiding Americans. It is unauthorized by any applicable law, and it will have its greatest impact on low-income Americans and on funding for state conservation programs. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the NRA was very closely involved in the drafting of the Brady Act's language concerning the instant check system. During those discussions, the idea of charging a fee for background checks was not only considered, but rejected on the basis that identifying the rare criminal or other prohibited person who attempts a commercial gun purchase is a public good, and paying for it a public responsibility. As a result, the Brady Act contains no language authorizing the charging of a fee, nor have Brady Act supporters ever tried to amend the Act to allow for such a fee. Instead, the FBI points to appropriations language passed before the Brady Act, in 1991, which was intended to allow for fees on employment- or licensing-related background screening through the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC), which is a separate system from the National Instant Check System (NICS). Obviously, the 1991 language the FBI refers to couldn't have been intended to allow for a fee under an Act that wasn't passed until two years later. The next question is, who will bear the burden of this new gun tax? At the individual level, it will fall most heavily on ordinary working Americans of modest means. For many Americans -- including some who must hunt for subsistence rather than for sport, as well as those most vulnerable to crime and most sorely in need of firearms for self-defense - -- a tax of thirteen to thirty dollars will be a prohibitive addition to the cost of a simple, affordable hunting rifle or self-defense handgun. Beyond that, the added cost will likely have an adverse effect on the overall level of gun sales, which will be a major drain on the funds collected through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax. That tax, which gun owners have willingly paid for over sixty years, funds state fish and game agencies and wildlife conservation programs, which could well suffer from the imposition of this new tax. Finally, we have concerns about the tax from administrative and jurisdictional grounds. The FBI has essentially conjured the authority to levy a tax. Since it derives its authority for the tax from the imagination, only the imagination limits the tax we will be charged today and how much more we might be charged tomorrow. Moreover, the FBI has also created the authority to obtain and retain the taxes collected - -- directly -- rather than transfer the funds to the Treasury. The FBI is a highly respected law enforcement team. It is not, however, the U.S. Congress. If the agency perceives a need for a budget increase, it should make its case before Congress, not start collecting new taxes from American gun owners. As an aside, I'd like to mention another concern that many members have brought to my attention. Although I am aware this isn't an FBI matter, it certainly is troublesome. At some of the federal seminars on the instant check system, licensees have been told that a background check will be required for returns of firearms to their owners, both by pawnbrokers and by gunsmiths. The law says that a background check is required for a "transfer" of a firearm. Yet in these cases, there is no change in title or ownership -- that is, no "transfer" -- of the firearm; a pawned firearm is still owned by the individual while it is held as collateral for a loan, and of course a firearm that is brought to a gunsmith or factory for customization or repair is still owned by the individual who wants the work done. It is a legal absurdity to say that a gun owner who sends a defective firearm back to the factory, or brings a gun to his local gunsmith for a minor repair, has performed a "transfer" for purposes of the Gun Control Act and should have to undergo a background check to get back his own property. To charge a fee in this situation just adds insult to injury. We would urge the FBI and the BATF to remedy this situation administratively, and if it is not remedied, we hope the subcommittee will consider an appropriate legislative solution. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Action Requested.... 2/2 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] I would like to turn to the second section of Representative Barr's bill, which would forbid the FBI to retain records of approved checks. As I said earlier, the NRA worked very closely with this subcommittee during the drafting of the Brady Act, and I am sure many of the members of the subcommittee will remember that maintaining the privacy of gun owners was of paramount importance to us then, as it is now. For that reason, the Brady Act clearly states that upon approval of a firearms transaction, the instant check system "shall ... destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the transfer." 18 USC §922(t)(2). The Act doesn't say that the records can be maintained for 18 months. It doesn't say that the FBI can decide to do whatever it wants to do with the records. It says the system "shall destroy" the records. This is consistent with other provisions of federal law, such as the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, which stated in part, that no "rule or regulation ... may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established." Pub.L. 99-308, May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 456. Even more outrageously, the FBI is proposing to violate the Brady Act itself, which specifies that: "No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may - "(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section may be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or "(2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions except with respect to person, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United Stated Code State law, from receiving a firearm." Sec. 103(I), Public Law 103-159, 107 Stat. 1542 (Nov. 30, 1993). We believe that the FBI would be hard pressed to explain how their proposed 18-month record retention squares with these prohibitions, since they clearly are planning to retain portions of required records in a federal facility, and to establish a de facto system of registration of firearm transactions and gun owners themselves. The creation of a gun registration system is possibly the most dangerous step the federal government can take toward destroying Americans' Second Amendment rights. The lessons of history are vivid in the minds of gun owners who value their rights. From gun confiscation schemes launched by the former Soviet Union against Lithuania to turn-guns-in-or-go-to-jail policies in California, gun lists become gun losses, and gun owners know it. In December, 1993, when the gun owner licensing scheme known as 'Brady II' was introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., and Rep. Charles Schumer, the proposal drew immediate fire from law enforcement. Fraternal Order of Police President Dewey Stokes said he opposed "a situation where we have gun registration." Echoing this sentiment was South Carolina FOP President Charles Canterbury who said, that law enforcement officers "are adamantly opposed to registration of guns. Time after time, firearms registration systems have led inexorably toward firearms confiscation, despite all the promises of anti-gun politicians, bureaucrats, and media figures. In New York City, for example, the New York Times editorialized that the city's 1967 rifle registration law was "... not ... to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons." In 1991, following passage of a new city gun ban, some owners of legally registered rifles received letters ordering them to turn in those firearms. Just last year in Washington state, Initiative 676 -- a gun owner licensing and registration scheme -- was soundly rejected by voters 71 to 29 percent. It appears axiomatic that registration is anathema to liberty. Mr. Chairman, the NRA has supported instant check systems for ten years, based on our desire to create an efficient system to effectively screen criminals from buying guns at the retail level while protecting the privacy of honest gun owners. In 1993, we believed that the permanent provisions of the Brady Act had created such a system. But the FBI's plans to use the system to burden gun buyers with an unjustified and unauthorized tax on their right to keep and bear arms, and to create an intrusive and unlawful gun owner registration system, have sorely strained our support. In conclusion, I would urge the subcommittee to heed the words of Chief Justice Marshall, who stated that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." I would add that the power to register firearms is the power to confiscate them. Representative Barr's bill would prevent the FBI from violating the letter and intent of the Brady Act in both of those areas and restore the instant check to the purpose for which it was intended. [Neither the National Rifle Association of America nor any entity it represents has received any federal grant, contract, or subcontract in the current and preceding two fiscal years.] =============================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 06/14/98 Time: 20:24:06 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 1/3 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 18:19:38 -0400 From: keebler@cyberia.com To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com Subject: Fwd: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order Text & Letter from Constitution Society Jon Roland to Congressman Letter from Jon Roland of Constitution Society-- Executive Order a Threat to Federalism by Jon Roland Mon, 8 Jun Dear Congressman: This concerns three matters that require urgent action by Congress. The first is an Executive Order signed by President Clinton in Birmingham, UK, on May 14, 1998, entitled "Federalism", which is attached. It was posted on the White House Web site without a number, but other sources indicate its number is 13083. To the lay reader its provisions seem harmless. It makes ritual recognitions of the principles of federalism and compliance with the Constitution, but then, in Sec. 3(d), asserts elements which are not what they seem. I urge you to initiate rescission of this Executive Order within the 30-day period provided by statute. One of the problems with the language of many statutes, regulations, judicial opinions, and executive orders is the opening they provide for bureaucrats determined to twist such language to expand federal power into areas not authorized by the Constitution or intended by the authors. It is the duty of Congress to be alert to the ways such language can be abused to subvert the Constitution and, in this case, the principles of federalism. Upon careful analysis of the language of this executive order, I have concluded that it will be used by the federal executive branch to assert administrative control over the day-to-day operations of every function of state and local government, by intimidating state and local officials into clearing almost every decision they make with federal bureaucrats and agents. My investigations have revealed the operation of a long-term program by elements of the federal government to infiltrate and control state and local government. This program involves the placement into key positions of persons who take their orders not from their nominal superiors, but from federal agencies. This is being done with state and local law enforcement agencies, state and local prosecutor's offices and courts, legislative staffs, and executive agencies of all kinds. The aim appears to be to gain de facto control of state and local government, and is being used to block action against high-level wrongdoing, especially by federal agencies. Its apparent aim is nothing less than to reduce state and local government to divisions of the federal executive branch. I further urge Congress to launch a general review of all executive orders, and the recission of all those which assert powers not in compliance with constitutional law. The second matter concerns information I have received that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to be in violation of statute concerning the maintenance of data on firearm purchases. The name and full ID of every retail gun buyer in the country will be recorded by the FBI, starting Nov. 30. Social security numbers will be semi-optional until Oct. 1, 2000, when they become mandatory. A tax of up to $16 will apply to every purchase, unless a state's police cooperate with the FBI (in which case the tax is waived); 19 states are cooperating as of this date. The FBI may lower its tax, working in concert with membership groups, if they think it will aid acceptance of registration. The official public comment period has ended. FBI agents (who have effectively eliminated BATF from enforcement) claim they have to do all this for security or audit purposes, pursuant to the instant check provisions of the Brady Act. None of these claims are compatible with statute. Gun owners will be kept online for at least two years, and records will be stored permanently. The 2-year revolving online registry will include between eight and fourteen million people -- all the most current gun owners. Multiple permanent and quasi-permanent backups are planned. Testing starts with Oregon and Nevada in June, if the interface specs are on time. Congress has not repealed the McClure-Volkmer act, which unequivocally prohibits recording this information in a government facility. The FBI is simply ignoring it, claiming it doesn't apply. Saving instant-check data is contrary to the Brady Act, which provides that if the sale goes through the records shall be destroyed. The only data which might be properly stored, pursuant to the instant check provisions of the Brady Act, would be a record of persons whose rights to keep and bear arms have been disabled or restricted, in whole or in part, by order of a court of competent jurisdiction. I urge you to initiate action to terminate all such illegal actions by the FBI or any other agency or private organization acting as a contractor of the federal government. I further urge a third measure, legislation prohibiting the use of social security numbers for any other purpose than the collection of income taxes and the payment of refunds and social security benefits. There is an ongoing effort by the federal government to gain control over the daily lives and right to work of every person, by creating a national identification system based on the social security number. This is a power that is already being abused to suppress critics of governmental abuses. It is a power that the national government must not be allowed to exercise under any pretext. Jon Roland - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 2/3 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary (Birmingham, England) For Immediate Release May 14, 1998 EXECUTIVE ORDER [13083] - - - - - - - - FEDERALISM By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities, embodied in the Constitution, between the Federal Government and the States that was intended by the Framers and application of those principles by the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) "State" or "States" refer to the States of the United States of America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to State governments, including units of local government and other political subdivisions established by the States. (b) "Policies that have federalism implications" refers to Federal regulations, proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States or on the relationship, or the distribution of power and responsibilities, between the Federal Government and the States. (c) "Agency" means any authority of the United States that is an "agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5). Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles: (a) The structure of government established by the Constitution is premised upon a system of checks and balances. (b) The Constitution created a Federal Government of supreme, but limited, powers. The sovereign powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the people or to the States, unless prohibited to the States by the Constitution. (c) Federalism reflects the principle that dividing power between the Federal Government and the States serves to protect individual liberty. Preserving State authority provides an essential balance to the power of the Federal Government, while preserving the supremacy of Federal law provides an essential balance to the power of the States. (d) The people of the States are at liberty, subject only to the limitations in the Constitution itself or in Federal law, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives. (e) Our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. States and local governments are often uniquely situated to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly. (f) Effective public policy is often achieved when there is competition among the several States in the fashioning of different approaches to public policy issues. The search for enlightened public policy is often furthered when individual States and local governments are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues. Uniform, national approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to those problems. (g) Policies of the Federal Government should recognize the responsibility of -- and should encourage opportunities for -- States, local governments, private associations, neighborhoods, families, and individuals to achieve personal, social, environmental, and economic objectives through cooperative effort. Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to adhering to the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2 of this order, agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications: (a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles. Agencies should closely examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the policymaking discretion of States and local governments, and should carefully assess the necessity for such action. (b) Agencies may limit the policymaking discretion of States and local governments only after determining that there is constitutional and legal authority for the action. (c) With respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by States and local governments, the Federal Government should grant States and local governments the maximum administrative discretion possible. Any Federal oversight of such State and local administration should not unnecessarily intrude on State and local discretion. (d) It is important to recognize the distinction between matters of national or multi-state scope (which may justify Federal action) and matters that are merely common to the States (which may not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, may effectively deal with them). Matters of national or multi-state scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety of circumstances, including: (1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate as opposed to being contained within one State's boundaries. (2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State different from the State (or States) where a significant amount of the harm occurs. (3) When there is a need for uniform national standards. (4) When decentralization increases the costs of government thus imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer. (5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties. (6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States. (7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities. (8) When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations. (9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:14:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Executive Order a Threat to Federalism - Executive Order 3/3 Sec. 4. Consultation. (a) Each agency shall have an effective process to permit elected officials and other representatives of State and local governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. (b) To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute, that has federalism implications, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on States and local governments, unless: (1) funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State or local government in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government; or (2) the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation, (A) in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of the agency's prior consultation with representatives of affected States and local governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation; and (B) makes available to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget any written communications submitted to the agency by States or local governments. Sec. 5. Increasing Flexibility for State and Local Waivers. (a) Agencies shall review the processes under which States and local governments apply for waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements and take appropriate steps to streamline those processes. (b) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, consider any application by a State or local government for a waiver of statutory or regulatory requirements in connection with any program administered by that agency with a general view toward increasing opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the State or local level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate. (c) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, render a decision upon a complete application for a waiver within 120 days of receipt of such application by the agency. If the application for a waiver is not granted, the agency shall provide the applicant with timely written notice of the decision and the reasons therefor. (d) This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements that are discretionary and subject to waiver by the agency. Sec. 6. Independent Agencies. Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order. Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person. (b) This order shall supplement but not supersede the requirements contained in Executive Order 12866 ("Regulatory Planning and Review"), Executive Order 12988 ("Civil Justice Reform"), and OMB Circular A-19. (c) Executive Order 12612 of October 26, 1987, and Executive Order 12875 of October 26, 1993, are revoked. (d) The consultation and waiver provisions in sections 4 and 5 of this order shall complement the Executive order entitled, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments," being issued on this day. (e) This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order. WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, May 14, 1998. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 23:55:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gird Up Thy Loins - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 22:50:24 CDT From: "Hal Hayes:Williams" To: Advanced Freedom Solutions List Subject: [afs] PRAC... Gird Up Thy Loins Hearthside, June 17, Gird Up Thy Loins! God said, "Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. (Job 38:3 Webster's) With the usual "hurry up!s" and "would you please!s" we finally left late for our Sunday morning breakfast on the way to church. It is the single time in the week when we do not sit together for meals, and every one of us look forward to it. The kids sit by themselves at the lunch counter. Helen and I sit alone in a booth. We say two graces. There was little time to scan the paper, but a quick glance at the political cartoon in the op/ed section caught my eye. It was big. The captain read, "Phrases you would not know if there were no guns in America." It depicted a man standing in front of the liberty bell, with names and phrases behind and around him: "Grassy knoll." "John David Hinckley." "Sirhan Sirhan." "Ruby Ridge." "Waco." You can guess the cartoonist's perspective. The guns that rang out at Waco rang against the infants and children at that farm by a tyrant gone mad. Many of those children had not yet learned to say "gun," and few of them knew what it meant to "gird up your loins" for battle... but we who survive may learn. Some other phrases that would be suppressed if there were no guns in America: "Freedom." "Liberty." "Independence." "Security." "Survival." "Food." "Concord and Lexington." Guns never made America free, of course. Concord and Lexington; inseparable in the minds of free men, and inseparable from free men's minds: "It was the act more than the action. It meant resistance; it meant war and not peace -- independence, not submission. The minute-men at Lexington had stood in silent protest; they dispersed when once they had asserted their rights even in the face of death. The minute-men at Concord gave back blow for blow; their guns were the first declaration of independence. A skirmish? Yes. But a skirmish that was indeed a battle, more eventful in the history of the world, so Bancroft asserts, than were Agincourt and Blenheim." (Eldridge Brooks, _The Century Book of the American Revolution_, 1897) It is not the guns that made America free. Concord and Lexington themselves went well for freedom, but it was not enough. Some may discover it is never enough. It was that long march home... When the 20 minute conflict in Concord was over, the British soldiers who had come to "just follow orders" and suppress liberty by seizing guns were "attacked in flank by the men of Concord and the neighboring towns and driven under a hot fire to Charlestown." (from a monument at Old North Bridge.) None hotter! By the time they got back to Lexington, those men who made their silent protest were no longer silent. At Fiske's Hill, they sent the tyrant's soldiers running. It seemed to "rain rebels" for the remainder of the day, according to one British soldier, and it opened a 7 year fight. For freedom. "Well, all would not die. There were men good as new -- From Rumford, from Saugus, from towns far away, -- Who filled quick and well, for each soldier that fell, And we drove them and drove them and drove them all day, We knew, every one, it was war that begun, When that morning's march was only half done. (Edward Everett Hale, from "Story of Massachusetts") Guns never made America free. Free men made America free. Thank God, however, that free men have guns. They always will. It is part of being free. "Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak to them all that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them." (Jeremiah 1:17 Webster's) "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. "(Luke 22:36) Gird up your loins. Dave and Helen Delany - --- "Liberty Begins at Hearthside" Copyright: Hearthside Family Publications PO Box 212 Conklin NY 13748 http://www.hancock.net/~freedom * * * * * Free! ><> To Subscribe (or unsubscribe) Send request to hearth@hancock.net and ask about Hearth Tabs: regular doses of historical perspective! Free! Freedom implies slavery's existence, and freedom ain't free! Without wax, HHW><> - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #74 **********************************