From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #75 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, June 22 1998 Volume 02 : Number 075 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:22:22 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: UPS & Theft I received this in the mail. It contains pointers concerning the shipment of firearms. I considered the information appropriate to post to the list. Regards, Dennis Baron Forwarded Mail >>As a gun owner and an 11-year UPS driver, I get alot of questions from people regarding the safest way to ship and insure firearms through UPS. Theft of firearms and other items by UPS employees, though rare, unfortunately does occur but there are a lot of surpisingly simple and inexpensive ways to virtually gurantee that you wont be a victim. Please pass this information along to anyone who may benefit from it. There are 2 ways that things get stolen from UPS...pilfering and overlabeling. Pilferers are mostly thieves of opportunity. Handguns, jewelry, cameras and prescription narcotics are their favorite targets because they are easily identifiable and can quickly be shoved into a pocket or inside of a shirt due to the SMALL SIZE of the packages they come in. The red and black "adult signiature required" (ASR) labels that are legally required to be on these package are often a dead giveaway.They are also called "steal me stickers" by thieves. Since most UPS facilities are fenced in and require employees belongings to be searched upon exiting, the size of the item is critical. The BEST way to protect your handgun is to simply put it in a big box. One gunsmith on my route "disguises" his handguns by putting them in used Amway boxes!! This works VERY well. Look at the box you are shipping your handgun in...if you can stick it inside your pants or under your shirt easily, it is vulnerable. As far as the ASR labels go, you are required by law to have them on firearms shipments. What many customers dont know, however, is that they can get a more "discreet" ASR label that is incorporated into the UPS tracking label. These are better because the words "adult signiature required" are very small and unnoticeable. More importantly, this barcode will electronically "prompt" the driver at the other end to get a signiature...if he accidentally tries to "release" the package on the customers porch without getting a signiature he will be unable to do so since the DIAD (that electronic clipboard that you sign) will read the barcode and will force him to get a signiature in order to complete the delivery. You can order these special tracking labels through your Customer Service rep, or you can print them yourself with the UPS shipping software. Another more sophisticated method of theft is "overlabeling". This involves several conspirators who plan ahead and may get jobs at UPS for that very purpose. What they do is to print up a bunch of fake labels, with generic barcodes and phony return addresses, that are all addressed to a storage unit or apartment that they have rented in advance. One or more employees who are sorting and processing these packages will then slap the phony label over the authentic one, and the package will then proceed along its merry way to the "destination" where an unsuspecting driver will deliver it to another accomplice who signs for it using a fake name. This will go on for a week or so until the thieves move on to another address to avoid suspicion. Since the original barcode is covered up, it is impossible to even trace these packages and they simply "vanish". The theives who do this will also target handguns and jewelry, but since they arent trying to sneak it past a guard they have the freedom to target larger packages such as rifles, TV's and computers. How do you avoid this? Its simple...put an address label on ALL 6 sides of the box. A package so labeled will be passed up by a prospective thief, since he must now try to cover up 6 labels instead of only one. This is too risky, since the areas where these packages are sorted are often under electronic surveillance. If you are a gunsmith or store owner who ships UPS, and the package you are shipping is worth over $1000, then inform the driver who picks it up and have him initial the pickup record. These "high value" packages are audited,segregated from other packages, they are not sorted or run over conveyor belts, and they are subject to a chain-of-custody type procedure that will prevent their being stolen. I feel 100% safe in saying that a handgun that is shipped in a larger- than-normal box of good quality, with a discreet ASR barcode and address labels on all 6 sides, will NEVER get stolen or lost. Its an unfortunate that a few of the 16 million pieces a day that we ship are in danger of being stolen, but if you take these simple precautions you wont be a victim. << - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:18:29 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: COLT CAUGHT RED HANDED Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen Richard Miller -Chairman P.O Box 345 Holmdel, NJ 07733 Phone: 908-889-6468 OR 732-946-3908 ***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE*** June 17, 1998 COLT'S CAUGHT RED HANDED DONATING TO CHARLES SCHUMER'S CAMPAIGN FUND At the National Rifle Association annual meeting the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen (CNJS) distributed a flyer which lambasted Colt's Manufacturing for it's "anti gun" lobbying activities. CNJS leaders were approached by outraged Colt's sales personnel who claimed we were not accurate and they were attacked unfairly. CNJS Legislative Committee Chairman, Alan Rice received a telephone call from Colt's lobbyist, Beth Lavach who complained loudly about the flyer. Ms. Lavach asserted that Colt's is not anti gun and supports individual rights. It seems that our target, Colt's President Ron Stewart was correct, based upon his remarks on ABC News Nightline and as published in American Firearms Industry Magazine. We can only surmise that Colt's employees were upset because we published the truth! If our first publication about the truth behind Colt's upset their salesmen, they will be very upset when they learn that CNJS researchers have discovered that the owner of Colt's, investment bank Zilkha and Company and one of it's principals, Donald Zilkha have donated at least $1500.00 to the notorious gun prohibitionist and criminals best friend, Congressman Charles Schumer. CNJS researchers have also learned the Mr. Zilkha has donated at least $10,000.00 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This is the committee which provides funding to candidates like Senators Frank Lautenberg, Daniel Moynihan, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy! This is an outrage! * Mr. Zilkha and Charles Schumer are both hypocrites, Congressman Schumer wants to ban all guns and has introduced legislation to do so; Mr. Zilkha's company owns a firearms manufacturer. His company's civilian products would be outlawed if Mr. Schumer has his way. Anyone who has purchased a Colt's product in the last few years has helped Congressman Charles Schumer! Firearms owners across America should know that Mr. Zilkha resides in New York City, Charles Schumer's home town! We can only assume that his goal is to ruin America by making it as gun free as New York City. In New York City self defense against predatory criminals is impossible. We are reliably informed that Colt's is spending huge sums to develope and market a so called "smart gun". This gun will not fire unless a special bracelt is worn. Self defense will be impossible without the special bracelet! The actions of Colt's officials are detrimental to American style freedoms and liberties! Firearms owners should beware, in our previous flyer we urged a boycott of Colt's, our call for a boycott has taken on a new sense of urgency. Colt should also be called; at their expense, 1-800-962-2658, express your outrage and anger that a firearms company and it's principals would donate to these notorious gun prohibitionists. On Federal Election reports Mr. Zilkha lists his employer as Colt's Manufacturing. * SOURCE: Federal Election Commission Reports as collated by the Center for Responsive Politics. - -------------------------- GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:31:08 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Interesting Advice larry ball writes: >>I do not see my effort as destructive. I see what the NRA is doing as destructive. Something has to change. Can't you see this?<< OK My 15 cents and you can crucify me all you like. This is the last I will post on the NRA situation. The elections are OVER. The membership has spoken. You don#t like it, cry all you want. I'll tell you what I see Larry. I see you becoming a demagogue of the Olsen/Gross/Griz stripe without the militia component I see you seated on your moral high horse, totally oblivious toward the concerns of others and blind to the realities of life and politics outside your own sphere of operation. I agree totally with your "Rights" concept as it applies to rights in general and gun ownership in particular. Unfortunately, the vast majority of American voters, and a goodly number of gun owners have no idea of the concepts you are proposing. To use the gun issue as a vehicle to promote the "inalienable right" concept at this time, is, IMO, suicidal to our cause. You've got the cart before the horse. It is similar to asking people who cannot do simple arithmetic, to accept the concepts of solid geometry. When they don't understand, don't teach them arithmetic, keep pushing the specialized concepts. While you attempting to undo decades of liberal indoctrination, the gun grabbers are laughing at us, and using emotion and practical political methods to fulfill their agenda. Here you are in 1998, attempting to compel your "rights agenda" on a population that has been inculcated with just the opposite, from almost all quarters, for the last 100 years, and you are using the gun issue to do so. And you'll start by demanding that the NRA follow your lead. The NRA is NOT working to convince YOU of anything. They are dealing with a public that cannot differentiate between an auto and a semi-auto rifle, a press that reinforces the public#s misconceptions, and politicians that depend on that public for their votes. The "N" in NRA stands for National; not Nebraska, not Neal, and not New York City. One of Charlton Hestons original intentions was to use the NRA stage as a mechanism to educate children on the true meaning of the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment. Dammit, Larry some history books used in schools today, actually state the 2nd Amendment applies only to state militias. Most newspaper editorial boards promote the same thing. To use your concepts, as a inviolable dogma for political activism against gun controllers, and expect an essentially ignorant public to support that is unrealistic. You will be branded a lunatic and a 'right wing nut' and relegated to the dungeons of ineffectiveness and rabble rousing. It is certainly imperative to understand that what you propose is our ultimate goal. Had Virginia, held out for "Vermont" carry or insisted on no instant check, I would not be carrying a gun today. As it is, to get "shall issue CCW" the silly alcohol/restaurant ban (which does not and never did apply to open carry) was a bone thrown to some anti's to get their vote. I may be carrying with permission, but in New Jersey, I did not even have the opportunity to get that permission. WHILE I am carrying a gun, I will work to get the silly ban repealed. We are about the same age Larry. We've come a long way in the last 30 years. It is my firm belief, that had the NRA not been there, and in most cases, acted the way they did, we would be a disarmed nation today, or at minimum in the same situation the Australians now find themselves in. Let me give a personal analogy. Many things annoy me. I consider spam and junk mail an invasion of my privacy, especially ones that are duplicates. I get aggravated at people who post GOA alerts to this list as if members of Noban don#t get them directly. Your recent long forward from #C-News# concerning ESCHELON and social security was SPAM in my book. I subscribe to ROC. If I want C-news, I#ll get it. I get NOBAN in digest form. It averages about 45K of text. After I delete all the duplication caused by people who do not crop the posts they are responding to, the file size is usually about a third of the original. I am continuously deleting kilobytes of headers footers and entire previously posted material because some folks just hit reply, write their comments and send the whole damn thing back again. I am just as busy as they are. So are the people who DO have the consideration to crop what they send. I've got several choices here: I can send the all the offending stuff back to the originators, and annoy them. That will probably get me put on a kill filter. I can cancel my subscription to Noban in disgust, and deprive myself of even the information that is important. I can put up with it, cussing the inconsiderate, yet realizing that what I get is preferable to nothing. I can hope, and on occasion drop hints that it might be in everyone's best interest to be a bit more considerate and trim what they post to the list. Some may listen some never will, though the situation probably will improve. I can start a e-mail campaign to others to boycott NOBAN until the situation changes to my satisfaction. Others are deprived of the input of the boycotters, and the offenders have free rein to dominate the list. This runs the very real risk of diminishing or negating the effectiveness of the list. Along with this I can stop asking people to sign on to Noban because it does not operate they way I want it to. I read about a dozen gun boards a day. I subscribe to several lists. About half of what I read is pissing and moaning about the NRA. For some folks, that is ALL they post. They complain that the support they get is NOT the support they WANT, or they complain that they do not get support on some personal political crusade or other. I wonder how much better off we would be if those folks spent their time calling Congressmen, writing letters to the editor, and working campaigns. I took Bill Vance's advice and bought Heinleins book on taking back our government. I am doing just what Heinlein said. I joined a party here and am answering phones. We shall see. About a month ago, a fellow who writes for LSAS scheduled a free 2 hour seminar on the Second Amendment. He got a room at a local library in the evening.. He advertised on local radio and cable TV. He posted numerous notices on VA-RKBA, our state "hard core" gun rights discussion list dominated by members of VCDL, the "take no prisoners Second Amendment advocates". Flyers were available at gun shops. Quite a few activists live in the Hampton Roads area. Ed gives a great presentation with slides transparencies, the whole nine yards. Sections on media bias, dealing with politicians, history of the BOR etc. THREE PEOPLE SHOWED UP. Me, my wife and one gun owner from the community. All those "hard core" activists were to damn busy bitching about the NRA to come. They are all experts on the Second Amendment and political activism anyway. They sure as hell know what#s wrong with the NRA It's damn near all I've read on that list since it formed in February. One person posts a message about what a creep Heston or Metaksa is and six others post #I agree# or #right on# The librarian on duty remarked to me that not too many people seem to interested in the 2nd Amendment. I didn't know what to say to her. I'm NOT accusing you of this Larry, I know better. I just agree with Paul Watson and a few others. Your targets are wrong and your priorities are screwed up. You can flame me till doomsday, but I've damn near had it. Regards, Dennis Baron - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:06:00 -0600 From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Interesting Advice DAVID SAGERS wrote: > > larry ball writes: > >>I do not see my effort as destructive. I see what the NRA is doing as > destructive. Something has to change. Can't you see this?<< > > OK My 15 cents and you can crucify me all you like. This is the > last I will post on the NRA situation. The elections are OVER. > The membership has spoken. You don#t like it, cry all you want. > > I'll tell you what I see Larry. I see you becoming a demagogue > of the Olsen/Gross/Griz stripe without the militia component > > I see you seated on your moral high horse, totally oblivious > toward the concerns of others and blind to the realities of life > and politics outside your own sphere of operation. > [snippage of the social utility of rights argument] > Regards, > Dennis Baron As the world's largest gun control legislation writing organization, I belive the NRA needs to be starved and brought to it's knees. The argument that we have to "consider the realities of life" all the while giving things away in order to be well liked is, IMNSHO, bullpucky. The following says it better than I could ever hope to. Rights vs. Social Utility (originally published in The Libertarian Enterprise (http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html)) RIGHTS VS. SOCIAL UTILITY By Sarah Thompson, M.D. I recently received an e-mail from some gun rights advocates which proposed the following: 1. The Constitution is the standard argument for the right to keep and bear arms. 2. "Joe and Jane Sixpack", not to mention "Joseph and Janet Champagne", don't think the Constitution matters. 3. Scholars such as Kleck, Kates, and Lott have demonstrated that firearms ownership has social utility. 4. Therefore, we should abandon the Second Amendment as the basis of our arguments and attempt to persuade the public to accept gun ownership on emotional terms as having "social utility". My response follows: It is true that "Joe and Jane Sixpack" don't care a bit about the Constitution. It is sad, but true, that most of the justices don't either. But think about what you're proposing. Do you really want to concede, a priori, that the Constitution is irrelevant, that all that matters is "social utility"? Do you want to change the rules of engagement so that pragmatism trumps rights? If you do so, I maintain that the battle, and the war, are irrevocably lost. Rights are unchanging and immutable, because they are of nature, or God, if you're so inclined. "Social utility" is so inconstant and capricious as to be virtually meaningless. If, someday, someone comes up with statistics that refute Kleck and Lott, will you then willingly turn in your firearms? And who gets to define "social utility" anyway? It was of tremendous social utility for the British to disarm the lawless and rebellious colonists. It was of equally great social utility for Hitler to disarm Jews and anyone else who didn't support him. The current administration thinks it is social utility to label any and all dissenters "terrorists", and then to deprive them of all rights, harass, disarm, and imprison them. Is thatreally what you want? Make no mistake: the argument is most assuredly not about the relative niceties of self-defense against muggers and rapists. I'm not discounting this aspect; as a woman, and former victim, I know how important it is. But ultimately the argument is about tyranny; not just the tyranny of one stronger person against one weaker person, but the tyranny of any government, state, church or group that wishes to inflict its will on any other individual or group by force. There's nothing wrong with Kates's, Kleck's or Lott's work. It's excellent, but it's totally irrelevant to rights. Its utility is in demonstrating conclusively that those who favor gun control are de facto supporting murder, rape and assault against innocent citizens. However, if you use social utility as your primary argument, you are playing the enemy's game. But the enemy, and its ministry of propaganda, the media, are infinitely better at playing it, and have infinitely more resources, than the right to keep and bear arms movement ever will. Never, ever agree to play by the enemy's rules! While it's true, as was stated in the letter, that the law rarely establishes norms but rather follows cultural norms, this is no argument for basing laws on opinion polls and then trying to influence the polls. It's bad enough that Congress operates that way. Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought the goal of all this was to create and preserve a culture where respect for the Constitution, respect for individual rights and liberties is the norm! If, instead, the goal is for us gunowners to be safe from "bad guys", while we ignore our neighbors being dragged off to prison in the middle of the night, maybe we all need to reevaluate what we're doing and why. Remember that Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted openly that the disarmament of British subjects had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with eliminating the influence of the "American gun culture". He was successful, and the vast majority of British "sheeple" happily agreed to be disarmed, foolishly believing that they were creating a "safer society". Expect no less here. We are living in a fascist state that is just beginning to consolidate its powers. I predict that genocide will be attempted against gun owners here as well. We will be declared "enemies of the state" and "social utility" will be defined as disarming, or exterminating, gunowners and anyone else misguided enough to take the Constitution literally. The reason we are being "allowed" "permits" is to drug us into forgetting about rights, and to lure us into putting our names and firearms and fingerprints into databases. Legislation is meaningless. The Constitution is all the "legislation" we need. What we must do is to reclaim our rights regardless of what Congress does or does not do. An unconstitutional law is no law at all. We do need to educate the people, but not to accept the social utility of firearms. Those who would be citizens of a free state must be educated to understand the concepts of individual rights, responsibilities and liberties. Any other path is tyranny. Any other path is doomed. (c) 1997 Sarah Thompson, M.D. To subscribe to The Righter column send a message to majordomo@aros.net. In the BODY of the message put "subscribe righter-list" (without the "quotes"). Let me know if you have problems. Permission is granted for individual distribution of this column as long as no changes are made, full attribution is given and this message is left intact. Re-publication, whether print or electronic, requires the permission of the author. ©1998 Sarah Thompson, M.D. the_righter@therighter.com http://www.therighter.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:09:55 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Another Poll >>Forwarded message At the New Jersey News: http://www.nj.com/news/ ..they are asking the question... In a recent speech, new NRA president Charlton Heston asked, "I want to know who's with me and who's against me?" What's your answer? O With him. I agree with the NRA's agenda O Against him. I disagree with the NRA's agenda ..why not let 'em know what you think? - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:26:58 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Volunteers Needed for Primaries There are a number of great people running in important primaries Tuesday. If you have the time, they could sure use your help between now and then. If you'd like to help, reply to me or call my voice mail at 276-6123 (local from most of Utah) and we'll steer you toward someone you can feel good about helping. Mike ======== The Mavis Manool Ridgway Memorial - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 98 22:03:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Press Release by Richard Mack - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:12:18 -0600 To: "New Republican Discussion List" From: spiker Subject: Press Release by Richard Mack To all, A real American hero who took the Brady Bill all the way to the United States Supreme Court and defeated it, is now being harrased by his political opponents in the Utah County Sheriff's election. Since when, is it legal and/or correct for your political opponents to harness federal agencies to raid your job site just before an election, in order to generate negative publicity for your campaign? David Parsons Denver,CO Information web sites: Sheriff Richard Mack wins: U. S. SUPREME COURT RULES BRADY BILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL http://www.tv-u.com/mack.html No. 95-1503 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1995 http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/mack.html 6/18/98 Press Release by Richard Mack Before I answer any questions, I have a brief statement to make. Today, 6/18/98, at approximately 10 AM, the FBI and IRS served a search warrant at the offices of AIR where I have where I have been a contractual consultant for a little less than a year I was interviewed by the FBI and I also interviewed them. After being involved in my campaign for Sheriff, and after today's events, the pieces of the political puzzle have started to fall together. These are the facts as I know them to be at this point. 1. That this search warrant was aimed at me and would never have occurred at all if I were not running for Utah County Sheriff. 2. That of all the consultants at AIR, my name was the only one specifically mentioned in the warrant, even though my involvement with the company has been much less than the others. 3. The FBI informed me that this case involved a "sealed" affidavit which means probable cause for this search cannot be independently determined. 4. That my former opponent, Doug Witney, had stated he would do everything in his power to bring me down before the primary election. 5. That Jeff Robinson, a partner of Doug Witney's at the County Attorney's office and co-signer on Witney's campaign checking account, was involved in this investigation and so informed an AIR client. 6. That Sheriff Bateman has publicly stated on more than one occasion that federal agencies are not willing to work with me and that I have alienated federal agents because I have been openly critical of them. 7. That the Utah County Attorney, Kay Bryson, has been openly critical of me, campaigned for Witney and then Bateman, and allowed his investigators to become involved in a blatant conflict of interest as they campaigned against me and supposedly investigated me at the same time. 8. That a few members of the Utah County Republican Party hierarchy have been breaking their own rules by actively campaigning against me. One is the wife of the County Attorney, Kathrine Bryson. Another is Dean Hawker, who told State Representative Glen Way that he knew of a plan that would all but ruin my chances of winning the primary election. 9. That all the agents serving this warrant knew who I was, knew I was running for Sheriff, and had provided the documentation that this search warrant could have been served after the primary election had they chosen to. 10. That recently retired FBI agent Don Rogers served on Doug Witney's election committee. In summary, I do not believe that these events are coincidental and I do not believe that the citizens of Utah County could believe that the timing of this search warrant is coincidental. My promise to the people of Utah County is that if I am elected Sheriff, I will put an end to such political corruption and governmental witch-hunts. Richard Mack - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:07:03 -0700 From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: FBI & IRS raid Richard Mack - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:12:18 -0600 To: "New Republican Discussion List" From: spiker Subject: Press Release by Richard Mack To all, A real American hero who took the Brady Bill all the way to the United States Supreme Court and defeated it, is now being harrased by his political opponents in the Utah County Sheriff's election. Since when, is it legal and/or correct for your political opponents to harness federal agencies to raid your job site just before an election, in order to generate negative publicity for your campaign? David Parsons Denver,CO Information web sites: Sheriff Richard Mack wins: U. S. SUPREME COURT RULES BRADY BILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL http://www.tv-u.com/mack.html No. 95-1503 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1995 http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/mack.html 6/18/98 Press Release by Richard Mack Before I answer any questions, I have a brief statement to make. Today, 6/18/98, at approximately 10 AM, the FBI and IRS served a search warrant at the offices of AIR where I have where I have been a contractual consultant for a little less than a year I was interviewed by the FBI and I also interviewed them. After being involved in my campaign for Sheriff, and after today's events, the pieces of the political puzzle have started to fall together. These are the facts as I know them to be at this point. 1. That this search warrant was aimed at me and would never have occurred at all if I were not running for Utah County Sheriff. 2. That of all the consultants at AIR, my name was the only one specifically mentioned in the warrant, even though my involvement with the company has been much less than the others. 3. The FBI informed me that this case involved a "sealed" affidavit which means probable cause for this search cannot be independently determined. 4. That my former opponent, Doug Witney, had stated he would do everything in his power to bring me down before the primary election. 5. That Jeff Robinson, a partner of Doug Witney's at the County Attorney's office and co-signer on Witney's campaign checking account, was involved in this investigation and so informed an AIR client. 6. That Sheriff Bateman has publicly stated on more than one occasion that federal agencies are not willing to work with me and that I have alienated federal agents because I have been openly critical of them. 7. That the Utah County Attorney, Kay Bryson, has been openly critical of me, campaigned for Witney and then Bateman, and allowed his investigators to become involved in a blatant conflict of interest as they campaigned against me and supposedly investigated me at the same time. 8. That a few members of the Utah County Republican Party hierarchy have been breaking their own rules by actively campaigning against me. One is the wife of the County Attorney, Kathrine Bryson. Another is Dean Hawker, who told State Representative Glen Way that he knew of a plan that would all but ruin my chances of winning the primary election. 9. That all the agents serving this warrant knew who I was, knew I was running for Sheriff, and had provided the documentation that this search warrant could have been served after the primary election had they chosen to. 10. That recently retired FBI agent Don Rogers served on Doug Witney's election committee. In summary, I do not believe that these events are coincidental and I do not believe that the citizens of Utah County could believe that the timing of this search warrant is coincidental. My promise to the people of Utah County is that if I am elected Sheriff, I will put an end to such political corruption and governmental witch-hunts. Richard Mack - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:18:24 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Callahan Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:11:00 -0600 Received: from legacy.lgcy.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26736; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:00:41 -0600 Received: from [204.68.24.182] by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id za686711; Sun, 21 Jun 1998 15:59:07 -0600 Received: (qmail 27823 invoked from network); 21 Jun 1998 21:59:03 -0000 Received: from www01.netaddress.usa.net (204.68.24.21) by 204.68.24.180 with SMTP; 21 Jun 1998 21:59:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 21056 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Jun 1998 21:59:02 -0000 Message-ID: <19980621215902.21055.qmail@www01.netaddress.usa.net> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 21:59:02 From: To: discussion@derail.org Subject: Callahan X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com X-ListMember: dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us [discussion@derail.org] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline When Overson and Horiuchi were giving $10,000 of our money to Planned = Parenthood, wasn't it Mary Callahan who said "No", and continued saying = "No" until she prevailed? A small thing, but she was anything but = inneffective when it counted. ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D1= - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:24:12 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Taken from another list... Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 03:42:01 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA27067; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 03:30:25 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id FAA17603; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 05:38:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 05:38:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma017538; Mon Jun 22 05:37:30 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: dugga@pacifier.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: dugga@pacifier.com (Doug Spittler) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Taken from another list... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline >X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 23:19:10 -0400 >To: Matthew Gaylor >From: Matthew Gaylor >Subject: J. Neil Schulman's Proof that US Gun Defenses Vastly Outnumber > Gun Tragedies > >Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 23:33:15 GMT >From: jneil@loop.com (J. Neil Schulman) >Subject: Proof that Gun Defenses Vastly Outnumber Gun Tragedies > >Do privately owned firearms result in more harm >or more good? The World Wide Web Gun Defense >Clock counts up a private defense using a firearm >every 13 seconds in the United States, using a >calculation derived from the National Self >Defense Survey conducted by criminologists at >Florida State University in 1994. Included on the >site are references for the gun-defense statistics >as well as comparisons to accidents and crimes >involving guns. There is also an extensive quote >from a prominent criminologist who is himself >opposed to private ownership of guns who >nonetheless finds the research on self defense >with a privately held gun irrefutable. An eye >opener for anyone whose only opinion on private >ownership of guns is drawn from current political >debates and news reports! > >Here's the text of the World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock at >http://www.netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html > > > The World Wide Web > GUN DEFENSE CLOCK > > Every 13 seconds > an American gun owner uses a firearm > in defense against a criminal. > > Criminal Attacks Stopped By Guns This Year: > > (Graphic Counter: Approximate count as > of this time today: 01758190) > > WANT TO KNOW MORE? > > > Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during > The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State >University criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone >"almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been >used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once >every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed >someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in >defense.) > >In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either >threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a >gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference. > > In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound >or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called >"newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In >64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, >which means that the media could also find out and report on them if >they chose to. > > In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger >to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate >were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept >for defense will most likely be used against a family member or >someone you love. > > In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing >two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter >of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial >arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent >chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.) > > In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable >handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the >defender's home. > > Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalance and Nature of >Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal >of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, >Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995 > > Marvin Wolfgang, Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in >Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, >considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the >country, wrote in that same issue, "I am as strong a gun-control >advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If >I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all >guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... >What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The >reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clearcut >case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have >theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense >against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for >the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can >it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a >gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to >believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not >have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does >not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart >Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and >Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and >Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the >elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their >conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their >methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in >advance and have done exceedingly well." > > So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in >this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and >even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing. > > By Comparison: > > A fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United >States only about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under, >it's fewer than one a day -- but still enough for the news >media to have a case to tell you about in every day's edition. > Source: National Safety Council > > A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United >States about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities >are not completely innocent victims but themselves have >criminal records. > Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the >Chicago Police Department > > Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely >causes the person seeking death to use another means. While >gun-related suicides were reduced by Canada's handgun ban >of 1976, the overall suicide rate did not go down at all: the >gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by an increase in other types >of suicide -- mostly jumping off bridges. > Source: Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black, The American >Journal of Psychiatry March, 1990 > > Copyright =3DA9 1996 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved. > > > > Webmasters: Add A Link to The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock from >your WWW page by adding this Icon to your page: > >(Icon says: Check the Count on the World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock!) > > Simply copy the following HTML code to your page: > > > > > >**************************************************************************= >Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues >Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA >on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per = week) >Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 >Archived at http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?list=3D3DFA@coil.= com >**************************************************************************= - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #75 **********************************