From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #86 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, July 16 1998 Volume 02 : Number 086 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:08:51 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: BATF Juvy/black market firearms stats (fwd) Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 17:06:06 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA16152; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:55:25 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA26538; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:04:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma026381; Tue Jul 14 18:59:54 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: pwatson@utdallas.edu Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: Paul M Watson To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: BATF Juvy/black market firearms stats (fwd) 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 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:28:24 -0600 From: assets@been-there.com Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Subject: BATF Juvy/black market firearms stats Posted to texas-gun-owners by assets@been-there.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anyone interested in statistics the BATF has obtained regarding black market guns used by juveniles in crimes in major cities can find them (mostly in PDF format) at: http://www.atf.treas.gov/core/firearms/ycgii/ycgii.htm - -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.= net with the word help in the message body. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 22:07:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: UN to Disarm Albanians - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:39:41 -0500 From: believer@telepath.com Subject: IP: It Could Happen Here! UN to Help Disarm Albanian Civilians Source: New York Times July 14, 1998 U.N. Agrees to Help Albanian Government Disarm Civilians By BARBARA CROSSETTE UNITED NATIONS -- At the request of the Albanian government, the United Nations has agreed for the first time to help disarm a civilian population that has amassed hundreds of thousands of weapons and a vast supply of ammunition, a senior official said on Monday. Albanians, who are among those supplying or selling arms to ethnic Albanian fighters in Kosovo Province in Serbia, raided weapons depots in the spring of 1997, after the collapse of a nationwide pyramid scheme wiped out many people's savings and led to general unrest. Since then, many more arms from abroad have also been smuggled into the country, to be shipped to Albanians in Kosovo. "Even before the Kosovo situation erupted, an estimate of 650,000 weapons is what we are talking about that had been taken away from government depots," said Jayantha Dhanapala, undersecretary-general for disarmament affairs, who went to Albania last month to evaluate the situation. "An estimate of about 30 percent was given to us of weapons that have leaked to other parts, not merely to Kosovo but to Macedonia and elsewhere," he added. In a report to the secretary-general issued on Monday, Dhanapala, a Sri Lankan, listed pistols, automatic rifles, machines guns and grenade launchers among the weapons in local caches. They also hold 20,000 tons of explosives and more than 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition, including artillery shells. Dhanapala and his team met with government and opposition leaders, including the former president, Sali Berisha, and discussed how to persuade people to relinquish the weapons, which would then be destroyed. The U.N. officials rejected buyback plans, which Dhanapala said would be "highly inflationary" and would in effect reward people who had unauthorized weapons in their possession. Instead, U.N. officials are proposing a "development for guns project," in which communities that turned in weapons would get public works projects that also provided needed jobs. "The weapons are largely in civilian hands," he said. "Many of the people are unemployed, and sought the weapons as a means of some kind of wealth which they could trade for money or goods at some later stage. In the rural areas you had some of them burying them underground or keeping them in trees." "We were told that the amount of guns that fell into criminal hands is about 10 percent," he said. "So most are in civilian hands." Dhanapala said that the United Nations hopes to start a pilot project in Gramshi, a district with a population of about 50,000 that is thought to have 8 percent to 10 percent of all weapons commandeered in 1997. Gramshi also has a 30 percent unemployment rate. In return for turning in weapons, the district has asked for about 120 miles of rural roads, a small processing plant for agricultural products and a training center to teach furniture making. The area is heavily forested. Dhanapala now has to find money to pay for his project. He said on Monday that he hoped for help from the poverty-alleviation programs of the U.N. Development Program, from small-scale credit projects at the World Bank and from country donations. In some areas, there is imminent danger of catastrophe, he said. Some arms depots have been mined and are unapproachable, he said. "They could explode in the summer heat." Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company - ----------------------- 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: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ****************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:04:17 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: RE: GSL> Bibliographic Minigun Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 23:08:51 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA16419; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 22:58:11 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id BAA13188; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 01:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 01:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma013083; Wed Jul 15 01:05:32 1998 Message-Id: <01BDAF89.61554340.wcwalden@javanet.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: wcwalden@javanet.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: "William C. Walden" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: GSL> Bibliographic Minigun 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 A "collective right" is no right at all - period. - -----Original Message----- From: Grubb, Ken [SMTP:KGrubb@carnival.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 22:30 To: 'GSL' Cc: 'Noban' Subject: GSL> Bibliographic Minigun - ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com May I suggest reading a review of Dennis Henigan's futile attempt at writing, "Guns and the Constitution : The Myth of Second Amendment Protection for Firearms in America" at: > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1880831147/gunssavelives/002- > 0802953-6210460 >=20 Dr. Edgar A. Suter, Chairman, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research http://www.dipr.org writes: "Since 1980 there have been 62 articles in the peer reviewed legal literature discussing whether or not the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual or a states right. Of the 11 articles claiming the Second Amendment is a collective states' right, 5 are by employees of Handgun Control Inc or the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and 3 are by students. Of the 51 articles noting that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, 4 are by attorneys employed by the National Rifle Association. Excluding students and employees of lobbying organizations then, 47 support the individual right view and 3 support the collective right view." > Ken Grubb > Miami, FL > ***** If arms are a token of power, then they belong in the hands of > the people. ***** >=20 - -------------------------- GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List This list is governed by an acceptable use policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html or available upon request. To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@listbox.com with the following line in the body: unsubscribe gsl GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:50:55 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: NewHoo Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:43:16 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17121; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:32:36 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id SAA24548; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma024402; Wed Jul 15 18:36:55 1998 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980715221212.008dc150@inet.realresume.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: NewHoo 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 I just finished checking out http://www.newhoo.com. I have no idea whether this will catch on or not, but their willingness to accept volunteer = editors for any category is an opportunity. I agree those of us who have the time should volunteer. For example, the Sports section has roughly three dozen categories... but only one related to firearms, "Hunting". I don't know about you, but I participate in quite a few firearm hobbies: Plinking, pin shooting, and other stationary target sports with both handguns and long guns; sporting clays, skeet, trap, and other shotgun sports; etc. There are numerous = other categories that I haven't even gotten into yet, including DCM, reloading, extreme accuracy, practical pistol, cowboy action... the list is long. = Seems to me that we ought to be able to create 8-12 firearm related categories = in the Sports section alone, all of which will be entirely legitimate sports = in their own rights. Then there's the Politics area. Self-defense, hunting, CCW, interstate CCW... get the idea? Our chosen hobby/profession is extremely broad spectrumed, yet the only thing anyone has bothered to include is "Hunting".= How different would be the impression given to visitors if 20-30% of the Sports and Politics topics were related to firearms. Not "invented" = topics, but serious, honest categories and issues facing the RKBA community. = Perhaps we'd increase our profile just a little, and not be dismissed as oddballs and weirdos who dream of nothing but slaughtering children on playgrounds. Perhaps visitors would become more aware that there are numerous good, entertaining, healthy uses for firearms. And the hyperlinks would allow = them to learn more if their interest was piqued. A few volunteers are needed. All it costs is time. Isn't your hobby/profession, and your rights, worth at least that? RLH - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 18:39:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Learn an exciting new language! 2/2 Individual. As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons See also Person. As an adjective, "individual" means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto. _________________________________________________ So it would appear that an "individual" is: a) a single "person" - meaning any one or more of the ten different definitions listed above that do not mean "human being" b) "very commonly" (whether that means in English or Legalese is not known) but not inherently or primarily, a "private" or "natural person" The reader should note that the words "include(s)" and "including" are used extensively in the Legalese language. This is a powerful and often frustrating term in Legalese. Primarily, it means "to shut in," or to "keep within" (as in the English word "only") and is restrictive, but may have EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE meaning (as in the English word and phrase "and" or "in addition to,") and becomes expansive depending on the context in which it is used. In most cases, this opposite usage will be revealed in cases where it is politically expedient or if there is money or power to be extracted from the unwitting. Since it is apparent from the previous paragraph that words in Legalese may mean exactly the opposite of what they mean in English, or Legalese (usually depending on whether the reader has something of value that he may be relieved of), surely some generalizations may be made regarding wording in Legalese by a careful statistical analysis of usage. For this the author will turn to the Taxxachusetts General Laws. A careful study of the usage of the word "person" where it is specifically defined in Taxxachusetts General Laws revealed the following interesting statistics. 1) The term "person" was specifically defined in twenty-two (22) different places. 2) Of the twenty-two (22) places the word "person" was defined, in only eleven (11) instances was the phrase "natural person" in the list of terms defining the word. In other words, half of the time that the term "person" was defined, the term "person" clearly did not apply to a single human being. 3) In those twenty-two (22) different instances where the term "person" was defined, it was defined a total of fifty-three (53) different ways. 4) The fifty-three different definitions were used a total of one hundred and fourteen (114) times. 5) Of the one hundred and fourteen (114) times those definitions were used, a) the term "natural person" was used eleven (11) times, b) the term "individual" was used one (1) time c) the remaining forty-one (41) different terms used to define "person" clearly did not refer to a single human being. 6) As a percentage of the fifty-three (53) different definitions, "natural person" represents 1.89 percent. 7) As a percentage of total usage, "natural person" represents 11/114 or 9.6 percent. 8) The terms "man/woman" were not used. What conclusions can we draw from this analysis? 1) There is one term that can always reasonably be construed to mean a single human being and that phrase is "natural person." 2) In the cases where the term "person" is specifically defined, only half of the time does the term mean a "natural person." 3) In cases where the term "person" is not specifically defined, as a function of total usage, the statistical likelihood that the term "person" means a single human being is no more than ten (10) percent. 4) In cases where the term "person" is not specifically defined, the statistical likelihood that the language is referring to a single human being is slightly less than two (2) percent. _________________________________________________ Sample exercise. Consider the following examples of Legalese usage where the term "person" is NOT specifically defined and determine whether they apply to you as a single human being, not acting in "commerce," "traffic," "trade," or "transportation,"or a commercial or corporate capacity (terms defined in the Legalese dictionary) a) "Any person who..." b) "The individual required...shall..." c) "Persons subject to this statute may apply for a license to..." d) "Every person required under this chapter to...shall..." e) "Violators are subject to..." Hint: How much money do you have ? _________________________________________________ The author hopes you have enjoyed this brief foray into the exciting world of Legalese although the reader may want to consider their financial situation before engaging in an exhaustive study. Documentation of statistical analysis available on request in MSExcel format. _________________________________________ http://agitator.dynip.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 18:39:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: United Nations - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 03:25:00 EDT From: USCMike1@aol.com To: spiker Subject: United Nations: Big, Urgent PUSH to take guns away from Citizens, worldwide Dear Citizens: As we have been informing you for the past year, the United Nations is in its last stage of confiscating ALL guns from civilians all over the world. The U.N. hs stepped up its push and even has stated that knives and clubs are now on their list too as weapons that MUST be confiscated from civilians (see earlier post). The following post is how the United Nations is pushing very hard to start its world-wide program to take weapons of protection from citizens in ALL countries. Please read this post and project in your mind what stepped up plans the U.N. and Clinton has for U.S. Citizens. Thanks to spiker@amnix.com (spiker) for forwarding this post. USCMike1 HERE IS THE POST: Subj: GUN GRAB....UN Advises Albanian Weapons Program Date: 98-07-14 09:49:30 EDT From: spiker@amnix.com (spiker) To: repub-d@u.washington.edu (New Republican Discussion List) To All, This UN Gun Grab if successful, could be a precursor to what will happen in the USA if our traitorous politicians continue to turn over our hard earned taxes to the communist controlled United Nations. GET THE UN OUT OF THE USA!!!!! GET THE USA OUT OF THE UN!!!! UN Advises Albanian Weapons Program http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19980714/V000868-071498-idx.html By Nicole Winfield Associated Press Writer Tuesday, July 14, 1998; 5:58 a.m. EDT UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- A U.N. team has recommended a program to collect tens of thousands of guns and ammunition rounds that fell into civilian hands during the unrest that rocked Albania last year. Many of the weapons have found their way to Albanian separatists in neighboring Kosovo. The team leader, Undersecretary-General Jayantha Dhanapala, acknowledged there would be resistance to weapons collection in the Albanian border areas through which arms are smuggled. Nevertheless, the team's report said Monday the Albanian government viewed the conflict in Kosovo, where ethnic Albanians are fighting for independence from Serbia, ``as an additional reason to retrieve weapons from the civilian population.'' Dhanapala and a U.N. delegation recently traveled to Albania at the invitation of the Albanian government to evaluate prospects for a collection program. Similar programs have been launched in Angola, Cambodia, Guatemala, Mali and Somalia, among others. Albania represented a unique situation because the guns were largely in the hands of civilians, not combatants, Dhanapala said at a briefing Monday. An estimated 650,000 guns were looted from army and police depots during riots last year after the collapse of widely popular pyramid investment schemes. Also stolen were 1.5 billion bullets and artillery shells, and 20,000 tons of explosives -- detonator capsules, anti-personnel and anti-tank mines. The team recommended that a pilot program be launched in the south-central district of Gramsh, which accounts for an estimated 8-10 percent of the stolen goods. If successful and if funding was available, the project would be expanded. Job training and development-related benefits, such as road building, would be offered as incentives to turning in guns and ammunition. The team recommended against a cash buy-back, which has worked elsewhere, because it would lead to high inflation and would send the wrong message, the report said. The evaluation team, funded by Italy, recommended Albania pass legislation to delineate legal gun ownership and publicize the benefits of turning over weapons. Though an estimated 30 percent of the looted goods have `leaked'' into Kosovo, Macedonia and elsewhere, the collection program will focus on collecting weapons still in Albania, Dhanapala said. In Gramsh, 65 miles south of Tirana, villagers ``notwithstanding the Kosovo situation, stood ready to collect weapons,'' Dhanapala said. ``Clearly closer to the Kosovo border, that possibility may be reduced.'' The evaluation team didn't go to northeastern Albania, which borders Kosovo. The weapons, of Albanian, Chinese, Italian, Russian and Yugoslav origin, included rifles, pistols, revolvers, mortars and grenades, automatic rifles, machine guns and anti-tank grenade-launchers. Copyright 1998 The Associated Press - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 18:39:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Learn an exciting new language! 1/2 Learn an exciting new language! Legalese! Learn to speak a fascinating foreign language. It's called "Legalese" and it's spoken by people who live in a mysterious land. This place seems to be populated by people who weren't born there but actually make an adult decision to live where they must become bilingual and the primary method of making a living involves becoming parasites, con-men, and extortionists. Curiously, the language they speak sounds very much like English but more often than not, a word used in Legalese does not have the same meaning as its English counterpart! In fact, they have developed a giant dictionary that parallels the English dictionary to explain all of the obscure and often arcane translations for a word commonly understood in English. Even accomplished students of this language find that the definitions and usage in this language are constantly shifting like the desert sands. At times, the meanings of its words slip in and out of English, their use in context may or may not determine whether the English or Legalese definition applies, and the proper definition to infer seems to roughly correlate to whether there is money or power at issue, although this is not always the case. In addition to there being similarities with English definitions, there is a bewildering array of levels of commonality or priority of common usage and understanding which also seems to vary depending on whether there is money or power at issue. The Land of Legalese is also the only place on Earth where the word being defined can be defined by the word being defined. Unfortunately, while there are definitions to be found, there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rules regarding usage or construction. The man or woman attempting to speak Legalese in the land where it is used is often required to retain the services of a professional interpreter. This practice carries considerable risk, in that as mentioned earlier, they are by default placing themselves at the mercy of parasites,  con-men, and extortionists. As an example of this challenging and rewarding language, I'd like to examine the word "person." The English dictionary defines the word this way: _________________________________________________ person 1: human, individual - sometimes used in combination esp. by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes 'chairperson' 'spokesperson' 2: a character or part in or as if in a play: guise 3 a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures 4 a: archaic: bodily appearance b: the body of a human being; also: the body and clothing 'unlawful search of the person' 5: the personality of a human being: self 6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties 7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection per son hood \-'hud\ noun in person: in one's bodily presence _________________________________________________ Notice how in the English definition, six out of seven of definitions relate to men and women. Note also the order of priority in the object of the definition. Five definitions later we get to something that isn't a man or a woman. It's not a stretch to presume that in common English usage the definition of "person" means a man or woman to most people. Now let's look at Legalese. Author's notes are in brackets ([ ].) _________________________________________________ Person. In general usage, [It is not clear whether the phrase "in general usage" refers to general usage of Legalese or English] a human being (i.e. natural person), [It is not clear whether the term "natural person" must be used to describe a human being] though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers See e.g. National Labor Relations Act, § 2(1), 29 U.S.C.A. § 152; Uniform Partnership Act. § 2. I Bankruptcy Code. "Person" includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but not governmental unit 11 U.S.C.A § 101. Corporation. A corporation is a "person" within meaning of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process provisions of United States Constitution. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, Ala., 470 G.S. 869, 105 S.Ct. 1676, 1685, 84 L.Ed.2d 751. The term "persons" in statute relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation Alamo Fence Co of Houston v U.S., C.A.Tex., 240 F.2d 179, 181. In corporate law, "person" includes individual and entity. Rev.Model Bus.Corp.Act, § 1.40. _________________________________________________ It would appear that in Legalese, the term "person" means: a) a "natural person" [the word "natural" is not defined in Legalese] b) an "individual," c) labor organizations, d) partnerships, e) associations, f) corporations, g) legal representatives, h) trustees, i) trustees in bankruptcy, j) receivers, k) not necessarily governmental units, or l) an entity. In English, only two of these terms might be construed to mean human beings; i.e., "natural person" and "individual." Since "natural" is not defined in Legalese, the reader must draw his own conclusions. Let's look at the word "individual" as defined in the Legalese dictionary. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 09:24:45 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Welcome once again! Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com ([206.53.160.3]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 06:17:35 -0600 Received: (from mail@localhost) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA05266; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 05:19:51 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com using -f Received: from arl-img-4.compuserve.com (arl-img-4.compuserve.com [149.174.217.134]) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA05263 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 05:19:51 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.12) id IAA25115 for NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:15:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 08:15:17 -0400 From: David Adams Subject: Welcome once again! To: "INTERNET:NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com" Message-ID: <199807160815_MC2-5350-390E@compuserve.com> Reply-To: NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com Sender: NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com Precedence: list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Thought the members of the list would be interested in today's (July 16) Wall Street Journal. The Marketplace Section has several front page articles under the heading "Kids & Guns" The first is one that deals with parents of Johnnie asking the parents of Johnnie's friends if they have guns in the house before Johnnie can cross the threshold. The second deals with copy cat killings, the third with "Kid-proof Gun Locks" and the forth with today's new toy guns - Laser Tag. Check them out. The interesting thing in the gun lock article is the assertion that Gun-Control advocates aren't impressed with the "growing array of locks on the market." I find that statement odd because that is one of Sarah Brady's, Chucky Schumer's and Bill Clinton's current pet projects. David Adams wingedmonkey@compuserve.com http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/ The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20 official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20 a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW. To subscribe of unsubscribe, send an email request to=20 NRA-1st@telebyte.com ******* Victory 1998! *************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:58:15 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: FEAR: Denver, Co. Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:38:36 -0600 Received: from bmd2.baremetal.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA17401; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:27:50 -0600 Received: from localhost (mapinc@localhost) by bmd2.baremetal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA07013; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:36:41 -0700 Received: by bmd2.baremetal.com (bulk_mailer v1.5); Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:36:31 -0700 Received: (from mapinc@localhost) by bmd2.baremetal.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA06957 for fear-list-outgoing@mapinc.org; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:36:31 -0700 Message-ID: <006a01bdb073$437af0a0$3f868cd1@tim> From: "Tim Brooks" To: "fear-list" Subject: FEAR: Denver, Co. Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:36:11 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: fearadmin@mapinc.org Reply-To: "Tim Brooks" Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights http://www.fear.org/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline The following was initially posted to the IDPA list by Michael Bane, who attended the Denver City Council meeting last night.=20 I obtained permission form Michael to forward it along. Last night, the Denver City Council voted to make the "public nuisance abatement" ordinance permanent, despite 100s of gun owners and other critics of the ordinance (including the ACLU) who filled the Chamber Council and nearby rooms to overflowing. To borrow a phrase from the Grateful Dead, "it's even worse than it appears." Briefly, for gunowners, what this means is that if you're caught in Denver for any reason (say, a minor traffic stop, an accident, a roadblock, a seat-belt check, drunk driving enforcement stops, etc.) and there is a gun in your car, your car WILL be confiscated, your weapons WILL be confiscated and you WILL go directly to jail. According to the Denver PD, hunters, target shooters on the way to and = from the range, buyers and sellers of firearms and people "whose lives are directly threatened" will be able to make an "affirmative defense," that is, tell the police that you're legit, and MAYBE they'll let you go.However, Assistant Denver City Attorney Keith Steigelmeyer expressed repeatedly his plan to "push" the affirmative defense arguments "up the line," that is, you still get the affirmative defense--in court. In the meantime, your car and everything in it is confiscated; your weapons are confiscated; you're booked, processed and have to make bail and the city charges you a towing fee of $80 and an $8 a day storage fee. The average "storage time" right now for vehicles WHERE THE DRIVER WAS FOUND "NON-CULPABLE" (newspeak for "totally innocent") is 30 days. Your guns? According to the Denver PD officer directly in charge of administering the program, "IT IS THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF DENVER TO NEVER RETURN WEAPONS THAT HAVE BEEN SEIZED FOR CAUSE." You may get you car back, but you're going to have to go to court to get your guns back--even if you are TOTALLY innocent. And you may not get the car--if your car is leased, or has a loan or lien on it, Denver informs your leasor or lienholder. The small print in your loan or lease allows the car to be repossessed IMMEDIATELY if it is seized by a governmental agency. According to the Denver PD, this is what is actually happening. Again, all this happens BEFORE your guilt or innocence is established. Assistant City Attorney Steigelmeyer insists that hunters and shooters in "complete compliance" with Denver ordinances have nothing to fear. However, Denver ordinances are complex (the city has its own "assault weapon" and lookalike ban, for example), vague and apparently designed to trip up the unwary. The ordinances provide that any weapon in a car either be unloaded and locked in the trunk or somewhere "out of the passenger compartment." If the weapon is in the passenger compartment, it must be TOTALLY UNCONCEALED, unloaded and "incapacitated" (which, apparently, means a trigger lock). If the gun is not totally visible, it is CONCEALED, and you will be treated accordingly. BTW, if the gun is totally visible, it is "probable cause" for you to be stopped by the Denver police. According to the lawyer I spoke with, even a valid, statewide CCW is only considered "affirmative defense." At the discression of the officer on the scene, you may be arrested, your car and your legal gun confiscated, even if you have a valid CCW. Again, according to what was stated at last night's council meeting, your gun will not be returned to you. THE BOTTOM LINE: If you travel with guns in Denver, YOU ARE AT RISK. The vehicle provisions of the "nuisance abatement act" are apparently SPECIFICALLY TARGETED AT LEGAL GUN OWNERS. The ordinance HAS BEEN USED AGAINST LEGAL GUNOWNERS ALREADY, and, now that it's permanent, the Denver PD has already said they will be stepping up enforcement.=20 My personal advice is avoid DENVER. Do not book hunts in Colorado; do not attend matches that require to to fly into DIA or travel through Denver = and SKI IN UTAH. Tim Brooks =20 - -T.& R. Brooks Construction, Chino Valley, Arizona :-p "Growing old is mandatory. Growing wise is optional." www.bslnet.com/accounts/trbconst/www - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:02:30 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Re: second amendment Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 07:02:44 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA17677; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 06:52:03 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA16567; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 09:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 09:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma016341; Thu Jul 16 08:56:43 1998 Message-Id: <35ADEEB1.67DB2739@inetnebr.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: lball@inetnebr.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: larry ball To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: second amendment 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 An Open Letter To The Japanese Ambassador* by L. Neil Smith lneil@ezlink.com Kunihiko Saito Ambassador to the United States Japanese Embassy 2520 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008 Sir: I'm writing to inform you that you and your government are in the process = of mortally offending more than a quarter of the people of this nation, representing about half the households in America. I refer to the 70 million decent and honorable men, women, and children = who choose to exercise their unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry weapons -- and to the dishonorable and despicable effort of your United Nations delegates to pressure member nations into suppressing that right. Americans have fought many international conflicts over the past couple of centuries. In each, they've been convinced -- with whatever degree of justification -- that they were fighting essentially to preserve the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the = Bill of Rights, one article of which directly addresses the right to own and carry weapons. Most Americans are unaware of what you and your government are up to so = far, but I want you to imagine what could happen once they learn how you're trying to deprive them of their rights. I want you to imagine even those Americans who don't presently choose to own personal weapons, angrier at = you than at any time since World War II. As one of my correspondents recently put it, during the Cold War, = Americans represented a sort of "thin khaki line" between your people and Soviet domination, defending rights and values you're now attempting to deprive = us of. Perhaps, he offers, we shouldn't have gone to all that effort. = Imagine what would have happened if we hadn't. Imagine what would happen now if = we just pulled out, sending you a bill for the entire 50-year period. Imagine what could happen if Americans perceive this attempt to abrogate their rights as the moral equivalent to your attack on Pearl Harbor. Imagine thousands of angry letters appearing in newspapers and thousands of calls to radio stations, informing even more readers and listeners of your determination to destroy the Bill of Rights. Imagine a flood of letters and calls to your embassy = and consulates. Imagine hordes of pickets marching back and forth in front of every Japanese diplomatic and corporate estabaishment in America. Another thing you need to imagine is the diplomatic repercussions. Most Americans are fed up with the very idea of diplomatic immunity. Imagine widespread demands to revoke yours, on the grounds that you're tampering with the internal politics of a nation in which you have heretofore been a honored guest? Imagine being open to injunctions, civil suits, demands = for restitution, even criminal prosecution under a future administration more amenable to the concept of Bill of Rights enforcement than the present one happens to be? Imagine the success of efforts presently underway to prevent the United States from handing another penny to the United Nations, and to terminate American membership in that organization altogether? More to the point, in a country that's never been very comfortable about purchasing expensive foreign goods -- and where feelings run so high that Japanese cars used to be smashed and burned in Detroit parking lots -- imagine deferred purchases of Japanese products such as automobiles and trucks, including those manufactured here. Imagine: how many percentage points must Japanese auto sales drop before you decide that your attempt = to disarm Americans is too expensive? Two percent? Five percent? Ten percent? Imagine how many billions of dollars that represents, how many trillions of yen. Now imagine a boycott aimed at a single product-type like cars, trucks, vans, and SUVs, spreading to others: stereos, TVs, cameras, and computers.= How many more billion dollars? How many more trillion yen? There are = many other countries you don't _have_ to imagine -- Germany, China, Taiwan, and Korea come to mind -- eager to fill the gap created by such a boycott. = Even once it ended, you'd have lost customers permanently to your international competitors. Wouldn't you say Japan is in enough economic trouble already? Imagine how many Americans are angry over the billions our government is giving you now. Imagine how they'll feel when they learn what you're "giving" them = in return. Why go looking for more trouble on the infantile whim of the politically feeble-minded among you? Your culture is infamous for demanding that others respect its customs and traditions, however backward and oppressive. In this century alone, your nation butchered unarmed thousands in Manchuria, laid waste to most of = Asia and the Pacific, even let its soldiers eat their prisoners of war. The nation that raped Nanking, Manila, and Singapore, and enslaved then hysterectomized "comfort women" to make them more available to the = Emperor's troops without the inconvenience of menstrual periods, has no right criticizing our ownership of guns. Between 1935 and 1945 Japan killed = almost six million people, dwarfing American criminal violence, rivalling that of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and exceeding that of Pol Pot. Recently, you've been denying these crimes that millions were witness to, but that only makes Japan look more ridiculous and guilty than it already is. Even today, you discriminate viciously against the Ainu, the Burakumin, = and non-Japanese living in Japan, especially Koreans and ethnically mixed individuals. Japan's culture is so intolerable to its own people that = they kill themselves at a rate almost double that of the United States. Your police search people's homes whenever they wish; so many arrestees confess that your interrogation methods must surely be of interest to Amnesty International. Yet you have the nerve to try to take the moral high = ground with us. Perhaps you should reflect carefully on whether the world should emulate your ways, including your gun laws, or ours. The fact is, your attempt to interfere with the more refined and libertaria= n traditions of our culture is, at the least, hypocritical. And since you can hardly be unaware that guns = in private hands save between two and four million American lives every year, = I can only conclude that you're willing to sacrifice those millions to = further this evil, halfwitted, and thoroughly discredited scheme which we have learned to call by its right name, "victim disarmament". Americans are presently burdened, from the city to the national level, = with the most corrupt and brutal government in our history -- a government that agrees with you that = concepts like the Bill of Rights are as disposable as used toilet paper. But if = you understand anything about us, understand that this only means we'll work harder to assure stringent enforcement of the Bill of Rights, not only in our country, but (with the precedent of interference provided by your government) to encourage the birth of a radical individualist movement in Japan. If you think that Levis and MacDonald's have captured the = attention of your youth, wait until they taste the idea of freedom. Imagine: informed by Americans like me that they, too, are the exclusive owners of their own lives and all the products of their lives, your people demanding that you recognize their unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own and carry weapons. Don't you imagine that it's time you gave up your attempt in the United Nations to disarm everyone on the planet? - -- *Excerpted from The Libertarian Enterprise, June 19, 1998: http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe38-19980619.html L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of _The Probability Broach_, _Pallas_, _Henry Martyn_, and other novels, as well as publisher of _The Libertarian Enterprise_, available free by e-mail subscription or at http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html. More of Neil's essays can be found on the "Webley Page", at http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html. Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author = - -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given. - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #86 **********************************