From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #97 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, August 24 1998 Volume 02 : Number 097 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:14:58 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: HCI Alarm bells going off - National Reciprocity CCW Bill in the Works Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 04:00:17 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA15262; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 03:48:57 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id FAA26537; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 05:52:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 05:52:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma026304; Tue Aug 18 05:49:32 1998 Message-Id: <35D936BD.1303@tidalwave.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: globallaw@tidalwave.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: globallaw@tidalwave.net To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: HCI Alarm bells going off - National Reciprocity CCW Bill in the Works X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline "Have Gun, Will Travel" Hey, I kinda' like the sound of that. Giddyup. Rick V. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:=20 August 14, 1998 CONCEALED DANGER: Evaluating the Potential Impact of the "Have Gun, Will Travel" Amendment. =20 Nearly 3,000,000 people will be able to carry concealed handguns across state lines and into most states if Congress passes the "Have Gun, Will Travel" Amendment to H.R. 218, according to data released today by Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). The amendment, introduced by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL), was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on August 5, 1998; the full House of Representatives is expected to vote on the entire bill when Congress reconvenes in September. The passage of this Amendment is particularly ironic, coming as it does only a few weeks after an Illinois resident -- who had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution in Montana -- allegedly brought his gun halfway across the country, ultimately to murder two Capitol Hill police officers. Despite Congress=C6 demands for more expensive security installations to protect their own lives and safety, the members of the Judiciary Committee found it expedient to make interstate gun carrying even easier for thousands of potential security risks. [You hear that guys and gals? - You CITIZENS are 'security risks!'] In an effort to evaluate the potential impact of the "Have Gun, Will Travel" Amendment, Handgun Control, Inc. collected data about the number of licenses to carry concealed weapons that have been issued in 40 states. (These are the states that allow the carrying of concealed weapons and for which statistical data was reasonably accessible. Because statewide data was not available for Georgia, New Hampshire and Vermont, which all allow the carrying of concealed weapons, it can be assumed that the actual number of license holders nationwide is larger than this report estimates.) HCI researchers found that an estimated total of 2,903,502 licenses to carry concealed handguns have been issued in the 40 states for which data was available. =20 With few exceptions, it is currently illegal for licensees to carry concealed handguns out of the state that issued the license. If this amendment becomes law, however, it would allow all licensees to carry concealed handguns in at least 29 other states across the country. The legislation would mandate unrestricted reciprocity between 28 states that allow anyone who does not fall into a prohibited category (such as a convicted felon) to get a license to carry a concealed handgun1. Reciprocity would also apply to Vermont, where it is not necessary to obtain a license to carry a concealed gun.=20 The "Have Gun, Will Travel" Amendment could also supersede state laws in 14 states that have strict standards and police discretion in issuing concealed-carry licenses to residents2. These states give local law enforcement discretion in issuing licenses and usually require applicants to demonstrate a specific need to carry a concealed handgun.=20 This amendment would allow the Governors of each of these 14 states to sign a waiver to allow out-of-state licensees to carry a concealed gun in the state, even if the standards for granting licenses are weaker in the licensees=C6 home state than in the states with much stricter standards. The "Have Gun, Will Travel" Amendment could potentially impact all states except the seven that prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns.3 http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/august14-98.htm - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 14:09:28 -0600 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Current Federal Legislation? Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name, number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out of State concealed weapons permits? Thanks. - -- 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. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the ratification of the constitution on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 14:30:08 -0700 From: Joe Waldron Subject: Re: Current Federal Legislation? Charles Hardy wrote: > > Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name, > number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out > of State concealed weapons permits? H.R. 218 would allow both active and retired peace officers to carry nationwide. It would also require "right to carry" states to recognize licenses from all other R-T-C states. It passed out of the House Judiciary Committee late last month and is awaiting floor action. H.R. 339 would have mandated recognition of all CCWs by all states and established minumum carry restrictions for those states who do not currently have CCW statutes. It also has the police carry provisions. It is (probably) dead in the House Judiciary Committee. H.R. 2722 is similar to the "civilian" portion of H.R. 339. Dead in committee? S. 816 is a Senate counterpart to H.R. 339. Dead in committee? S. 2175 would "safegiard the privacy" of certain identification records and name checks for ther purchase of a firearm. Dead in committee? There are a couple of bills that would repeal all or part of Brady. I don't have the numbers in front of me. At this point, with less than 30 "work days" left in the 105th Congress, very few bills will come out of committee, much less pass both chambers. Our best bet is to have pro-gun legislation attached as "riders" to fast moving bills such as appropriations bills. A good example of this is the amended version of S. 2260, the Commerce, State, Justive et al Appropriation Act. Before this bill passed the Senate last month, it was amended (the "Smith Amendment") to include language that would prohibit the FBI from charging a feww for Brady instant checks, would require the FBI to "immediately destroy" any identification data on approved instant checks, and would allow a citizen whose rights were violated in this regard to sue in the nearest federal district court. The House passed a similar Commerce-State-Justice appropriation, but without the amended language. We have to ensure that the amendment stays IN the final version of the bill. Joe Waldron - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 14:30:08 -0700 From: Joe Waldron Subject: Re: Current Federal Legislation? Charles Hardy wrote: > > Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name, > number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out > of State concealed weapons permits? H.R. 218 would allow both active and retired peace officers to carry nationwide. It would also require "right to carry" states to recognize licenses from all other R-T-C states. It passed out of the House Judiciary Committee late last month and is awaiting floor action. H.R. 339 would have mandated recognition of all CCWs by all states and established minumum carry restrictions for those states who do not currently have CCW statutes. It also has the police carry provisions. It is (probably) dead in the House Judiciary Committee. H.R. 2722 is similar to the "civilian" portion of H.R. 339. Dead in committee? S. 816 is a Senate counterpart to H.R. 339. Dead in committee? S. 2175 would "safegiard the privacy" of certain identification records and name checks for ther purchase of a firearm. Dead in committee? There are a couple of bills that would repeal all or part of Brady. I don't have the numbers in front of me. At this point, with less than 30 "work days" left in the 105th Congress, very few bills will come out of committee, much less pass both chambers. Our best bet is to have pro-gun legislation attached as "riders" to fast moving bills such as appropriations bills. A good example of this is the amended version of S. 2260, the Commerce, State, Justive et al Appropriation Act. Before this bill passed the Senate last month, it was amended (the "Smith Amendment") to include language that would prohibit the FBI from charging a feww for Brady instant checks, would require the FBI to "immediately destroy" any identification data on approved instant checks, and would allow a citizen whose rights were violated in this regard to sue in the nearest federal district court. The House passed a similar Commerce-State-Justice appropriation, but without the amended language. We have to ensure that the amendment stays IN the final version of the bill. Joe Waldron - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:29:03 -0600 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Current Federal Legislation? Thank you Joe. On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Joe Waldron posted: >Charles Hardy wrote: >> >> Is anyone aware of any current federal legislation, by bill name, >> number, or sponsor, to repeal brady, or to require States to honor out >> of State concealed weapons permits? > >H.R. 218 would allow both active and retired peace officers to carry >nationwide. It would also require "right to carry" states to recognize >licenses from all other R-T-C states. It passed out of the House >Judiciary Committee late last month and is awaiting floor action. > - -- 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. "To avoid domestic tyranny, the people must be armed to stand upon [their] own Defence; which if [they] are enabled to do, [they] shall never be put upon it, but [their] Swords may grow rusty in [their] hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it." -- John Trenchard & Walter Moyle, "An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army is Inconsistent With a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy" [London, 1697] ("An Argument") - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:08:25 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Texas CHL Holders Arrested Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:54:06 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA17050; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:42:46 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA15326; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma015025; Wed Aug 19 10:48:20 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: KGrubb@carnival.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk From: "Grubb, Ken" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Texas CHL Holders Arrested 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 The extremist AGF Violence Policy Center had been bemoaning arrest rates = of Texas CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders. Here's a clip to dispel = the nonsense. http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=3D370798002&CONTEXT=3D903534686.1022885= 917&h itnum=3D17 >Arrest statistics fuel fears over gun laws. >Cases involve 1,600 Texans with permits to carry concealed arms. >by John W. Gonzalez >Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau > >AUSTIN -- More than 1,600 Texans with permits to carry concealed handguns have >been arrested for state crimes since the "right-to-carry" law went into effect >in 1996, the Department of Public Safety said Friday. An issue was made of this previously by the Violence Police Center. Note that these numbers give permit holders an arrest rate of 8/1,000 permit holders. The arrest rate for Texas as a whole is 59.5/1,000 (17,993,000 = pop. 1,071,300 arrests, FBI UCR 1995) ... and 1,600 is for two years, not one. Ken Grubb Miami, FL - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 15:50:43 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Jim Brady Op/Ed Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com ([206.53.160.3]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 07:33:32 -0600 Received: (from mail@localhost) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA10916; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:34:07 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: kendaco.telebyte.com: mail set sender to NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com using -f Received: from hil-img-4.compuserve.com (hil-img-4.compuserve.com [149.174.177.134]) by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id GAA10913 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:34:06 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by hil-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.12) id JAA18177 for NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com; Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:30:56 -0400 From: David Adams Subject: Jim Brady Op/Ed To: "INTERNET:NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com" Message-ID: <199808200931_MC2-56B3-4E37@compuserve.com> Reply-To: NRA-ILA-EVC@kendaco.telebyte.com Sender: NRA-ILA-EVC-owner@kendaco.telebyte.com Precedence: list X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by kendaco.telebyte.com id GAA10916 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline For those of you who do not have ready access to the Washington Post, I thought you would be interested in this article. I would like to know where he got the figure of "5000 children killed every year with guns" = came from. I sure looks like a number pulled out of the air to me. David Adams NRA-ILA-EVC, Virginia 7th NRA Second Amendmement Task Force Member wingedmonkey@compuserve.com http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8358/ ___________________________________________________________________________= _____ Still Hostage to the Gun Lobby Shouldn't schoolchildren be as safe as Congressmen? By Jim Brady Monday, August 10, 1998; Page A17=20 I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of an assassin's bullet. = I know the importance of providing protection for public officials and those around them, and I grieve for the families of the two Capitol Police officers who were slain in the heroic performance of their duty. Should we take additional steps to protect "the People's House" and those who serve in it? Absolutely. And if it takes $120 million to build an underground visitors' center to afford that protection, let's do it. But what about the children of America? If the "People's House" deserves protection, what about the schoolhouses of America? Are we going to construct underground playgrounds to protect our children? I think not. Building fortresses may protect our government from gun violence, but it's not going to save children like Britthney Varner, one of four young girls shot to death on the school lawn by two of her classmates in Jonesboro, Ark. So what is Congress doing to protect America's children from gun violence?The answer is nothing. A few days before the shooting on Capitol Hill, the Senate voted against an amendment that would have required the sale of a child safety lock with every handgun and rejected a "safe storage" proposal that would have imposed criminal sanctions on gun owners who allow children to gain access to a loaded firearm. As if that was not enough, the Senate also passed an amendment by Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire that substantially will weaken the new background check system that is to go into effect this fall when the Brady waiting period expires. Then, a few days after the Capitol shooting, the Senate voted to allow the continued importation of "grandfathered" large-capacity ammunition clips = - -- manufactured before the federal ban on assault weapons took effect -- that are designed to hold 15, 20, 30 or even 50 bullets. God forbid that the school assassins and drive-by shooters of America should run out of ammunition. And now the House is considering a bill that would make it legal and easy for millions of Americans to carry concealed pistols from state to state. None of this comes as a surprise. Earlier this year, Senate Majority = Leader Trent Lott told the National Rifle Association that the answer to gun violence in America is "a well-armed public." But isn't there something terribly wrong here? If the shooting of two Capitol police officers deserves a response, what about the more than 5,000 children killed every year with firearms? Can't we do something? This is not, as kids say, rocket science. Many of the guns that harm our children come from private homes. An estimated one out of four children between the ages of 10 and 17 have access to a loaded, unlocked gun in the home. One report estimates that nearly 1 million children carried a gun to school at some point in the past school year. And more than 5,000 children were expelled from school for carrying a gun. Responsible gun owners, and there are many, are ready to accept responsibility for the safe storage of their firearms, but Congress = doesn't see it that way. It might, it is argued, interfere with "the right to keep and bear arms." If we can't do the decent thing and require gun owners to keep loaded pistols out of the hands of young children, can't we at least give gun owners some assistance in locking up their guns? Yes, $120 million will build a fine visitors' center. But at a wholesale cost of less than $6 each, it also could be used to buy and distribute about 20 million child safety locks to gun-owning households, with instructions about the proper storage of firearms. But that, of course, would offend the gun lobby, = which insists that guns kept for self-defense should be kept loaded and ready at all times. The answer, it seems, comes down to this. The representatives who serve in "the People's House," already protected by one of the best-trained = security forces in the world, deserve an additional measure of security. Good for them. But as for the young children who get on a school bus every day and walk into the classroom carrying an armful of books, they should be satisfied with the occasional metal detector and what some school administrators now call "bullet drills." My sympathies and prayers are with the families of Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson. And with America's children. The writer was White House press secretary under President Ronald Reagan; he was shot during the attempt on Reagan's life in 1981.=20 =A9 Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company ****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege**** 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 or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20 NRA-1st@telebyte.com *********** Victory 1998! *************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Aug 98 18:12:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Jim Brady Op/Ed On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 David Adams asked: >For those of you who do not have ready access to the Washington Post, I >thought you would be interested in this article. I would like to know >where he got the figure of "5000 children killed every year with guns" >came from. I sure looks like a number pulled out of the air to me. Apparently it came from the Children's Defense Fund Website or their sources for American children and teens from birth to age 19 who died from gunfire in 1995. Their number is 5,254. >Still Hostage to the Gun Lobby >Shouldn't schoolchildren be as safe as Congressmen? >By Jim Brady >Monday, August 10, 1998; Page A17 >If the shooting of two Capitol police officers deserves a response, >what about the more than 5,000 children killed every year with firearms? - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 06:24:45 -0700 From: Joseph Waldron Subject: Re: Jim Brady Op/Ed SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 David Adams asked: > > >For those of you who do not have ready access to the Washington Post, I > >thought you would be interested in this article. I would like to know > >where he got the figure of "5000 children killed every year with guns" > >came from. I sure looks like a number pulled out of the air to me. > > Apparently it came from the Children's Defense Fund Website or their > sources for American children and teens from birth to age 19 who died > from gunfire in 1995. Their number is 5,254. > > >Still Hostage to the Gun Lobby > >Shouldn't schoolchildren be as safe as Congressmen? > >By Jim Brady > > >Monday, August 10, 1998; Page A17 > > > > >If the shooting of two Capitol police officers deserves a response, > >what about the more than 5,000 children killed every year with firearms? > Scott is correct. The 5,000+ figure was lifted from a "study" by the Children's Defense Fund published in the Spring of 1996. The "study" used raw numbers from the Center for Health Statistics, the highest possible number available. It included all "children" through age 19. I wrote an op-ed piece in rebuttal to the CDF piece that was published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I don't have it at home with me, but as I recall, the number is cut by about 1/3 when you remove the 18-19 year old young adults. A significant percentage were suicides--and there are several studies available showing the instrument used is NOT a factor in overall suicide rates. Most of the homicides included (muchof the remainder) were of individuals themselves involved in criminal activity. The same age breakdown is true of accidental shootings: take away 18-19 year olds and the figure is cut by nearly half; half again without 16-17 y/o's. The other dynamic to remember in accidental shootings is the horseplay factor. From age 2-10, the number of accidental shooting deaths in the U.S. annually is about 60-80 (7-9 per year for each year of that age group). At 11 we see a jump to 30-35, at 12 to 40 or so, and up into the 50s for 13-15 y/o's--the ages where young teenagers want to apply all the lessons they've learned watching garbage gun handling on TV and the silver screen. They continue to use the 1995 figures, even though more current (and lower) figures are available, because 1995 represents the high point for the decade. That 5,000+ plus figure is also the one divided by 365 when they talk about "15 children per day killed," etc, etc. Hope this helps put things in perspective. Joe W - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Aug 98 07:25:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA Action Alert: "No Gun Tax"!!! - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 19:31:40 -0700 From: Mike Moxley Subject: NRA Action Alert: "No Gun Tax"!!! FYI: NRA-ILA FAX ALERT 11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: 1-800-392-8683 * Fax: 703-267-3918 * GROOTS@NRA.org Vol. 5, No. 33 8/21/98 TELL THEM "NO GUN TAX!" The official comment period is underway for the FBI's proposed $16.00 federal tax on gun purchasers. Gun owners are urged to take action now to stop the FBI from levying this tax. Before September 16, 1998, write a letter stating your opposition to the federal gun tax and recommending that the necessary funds to operate the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) be appropriated by Congress. Send your letter to: Mr. Emmet A. Rathbun, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CJIS Division, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306. For a copy of the proposed gun tax regulations call (304)625-2000 or visit the Government Printing Office web site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html and do a search for NICS. NOW is also the time to call your U.S. Representative and Senators while Congress is recessed and they are home in their local offices. Urge them to co-sponsor Rep. Bob Barr's "No Gun Tax Act of 1998" -- H.R. 3949 -- and to send their own comments against the tax to the FBI at the address above. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" -George Orwell ********************************************************** Michael Moxley The Patriot Resource Center: mmoxley@foto.infi.net http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6627/ **********************Live Free or Die!**********************<>< - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Aug 98 23:45:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Jim Brady Op/Ed - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 10:45:50 -0400 From: David Adams To: scott.bergeson@ucs.org Subject: Jim Brady Op/Ed > Apparently it came from the Children's Defense Fund Website or their > sources for American children and teens from birth to age 19 who died > from gunfire in 1995. Their number is 5,254. Thanks Scott. I sent an email yesterday regarding an article that appeared in "School Board News", August 18, that used the figure of approx. 3000 kids each year die from gunfire. Rush Limbaugh is right, these guys pull numbers out of thin air and the general public are either not interested enough to question them or are simply too lazy. David Adams NRA-ILA-EVC, Va 7th NRA Second Amendment Task Force Member wingedmonkey@compuserve.com http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Aug 98 08:07:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Men Biting Dogs - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: J. Neil Schulman To: LA-AGORA@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Date: Friday, July 10, 1998 4:15 PM Subject: Men Biting Dogs It's the "Man Bites Dog" factor. Remember the old anecdote? A reporter comes to his editor with a story about a dog biting a man. The editor says, "When a dog bites a man, that's not news. When a man bites a dog, _that's_ news." Now, a newspaper reader living in a city where nobody's even allowed to _own_ a dog wouldn't know much about dogs from personal experience. All he'd know about dogs is what he reads in the newspaper and sees on TV. And the _only_ stories he'd read in the newspaper or see on TV are about men biting dogs. He would never know that dogs bite men. His perception of reality is reversed by the editor's filtering out all "dog bites men" stories. If you said to him, "Dogs bite men 2.5 million times each year" he'd respond, "Well, I've never even seen a dog, and all I know about dogs is that men bite them." News editors decide what's news and what's not. When guns are used to kill and hurt innocent people, news editors decide it's news. When guns are used to defend innocent people, editors decide it's _not_ news. When a couple of kids in Jonesboro, Arkansas used guns to shoot up their school and murder their classmates, it was news. When, on September 16, 1993, at 8:30 PM in Palmdale, California, Jeffrey Storm, Jr. got his dad's gun out of his bedroom and chased away a burglar who had just shot his mom and dad, it wasn't news. Jeff's mom and dad, and the rest of Jeff's family, are alive today because Jeffrey Storm, Sr. believed in the Second Amendment, and taught his two sons, Jeff and Matthew, how to use a gun properly. And until either the news editors are convinced to change that policy -- or until we can get around the establishment news filters with the truth - -- we will never win the battle for the Second Amendment. J. Neil Schulman, Webmaster The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock http://pulpless.com/gunclock/ http://www,netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html > On 10 Jul 98 at 9:20, stevechr@ptd.net wrote: > > Larry Pratt said, "Guns save lives." > > Sara Brady responded, "If guns saved lives, this would be the safest > > country on earth." > > What would be a witty riposte to Sara Brady's soundbite? > How about, "It is." We haven't been invaded since 1812 and our > violent crime figures compare favorably with those of most countries. > The only hotspots are prohibition related gang warfare in cities with > strict victim disarmament laws. > I saw figures the other day to the effect that violent crime is > dropping year by year but REPORTING of it is up. The fuss is all > over a mistaken perception generated by the media. > In Liberty, > Rich > Guns save lives - maybe yours. > -------------------- > Rich Loether University of Pittsburgh > EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu Computing & Info Services > Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive > FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238 > Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207 > finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key > Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0 > --------------------------- > The Constitution of the Commonwealth of > Pennsylvania guarantees your right to bear > arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of > Citizens to bear arms in defense of > themselves and the State shall not > be questioned." - -- "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, THE SIGN OF FOUR J. Neil Schulman / Pulpless.Com Voice & Fax: (500) 44-JNEIL Internet: jneil@pulpless.com Personal Web Page: http://pulpless.com/jneil/ Browse sample chapters of new books by bestselling authors, pay online with a credit card, then download books in HTML or Adobe Acrobat format from the web at http://pulpless.com/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:33:22 -0600 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [LPUtah Press Release] FYI, - ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- Libertarian Party of Utah Salt Lake City, Ut For Immediate Release: The Libertarian Party of Utah today commended Utah Representative Jim Hansen (R) for his candid and honest remarks made last Tuesday (11 August, 98) at the Logan Lions Club expressing his personal desire to have a gun in his possession while in Washington D.C. They also praised him for admitting the so-called Brady law is an abject failure and called on him to put legislation where his mouth is and work to protect citizens' right to armed self-defense. "Rep. Hansen seems to be right in touch with the majority of Utah's electorate on this issue," said Libertarian Party state chair Jim Dexter. "Utahns have always rejected waiting periods as unconstitutional infringements of our most basic right to effective, armed defense. We also require the state to issue concealed weapons permits to any competent, law-abiding adult who can show basic proficiency with a firearm." The Libertarian Party called on Rep. Hansen to sponsor legislation to repeal the Brady law and to guarantee that a person legally allowed to carry a gun for self defense in any State could legally do so in the District of Columbia and federal territories. "While we are pleased with Rep. Hansen's comments," said Dexter, "it is, frankly, time for elected politicians to start walking the walk rather than just talking the talk. The federal government must honor all the rights of all citizens, including the right to armed self-defense. While certain buildings may require limited access--and weapons to be secured with security personnel before entering--it is unconscionable for the federal government to provide vast areas including Washington D.C., National Parks, and federal territories which are really safe zones for criminals where they know their intended victims have been disarmed. We implore Congressman Hansen to now introduce and vigorously support legislation to allow citizens to take the common sense measures he, himself, has said he would like to take. If a Congressman, entitled to federal police protection, doesn't feel safe in our nation's capital, how does he think common citizens must feel? " - ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- - -- "To avoid domestic tyranny, the people must be armed to stand upon [their] own Defence; which if [they] are enabled to do, [they] shall never be put upon it, but [their] Swords may grow rusty in [their] hands; for that Nation is surest to live in Peace, that is most capable of making War; and a Man that hath a Sword by his side, shall have least occasion to make use of it." -- John Trenchard & Walter Moyle, "An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army is Inconsistent With a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy" [London, 1697] ("An Argument") - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:01:13 -0600 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Mrs. Clintons 1974 report on impeachment of Nixon Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 07:00:41 -0600 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA20878; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 06:49:15 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id IAA21052; Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma020844; Mon Aug 24 08:57:12 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: Mrs. Clintons 1974 report on impeachment of Nixon 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: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 07:05:07 -0400 From: Mary Lynn Bailey Subject: CAS: Bob Barr: An open letter to Hillary=20 An open letter to Hillary=20 =20 Dear Mrs. Clinton:=20 In February 1974 the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry issued a report produced by a group of lawyers and researchers assigned with developing a scholar memorandum setting forth the "constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment."=20 You were a member of that group of lawyers and researchers, barely, I am sure, able to conceal your dislike for President Nixon. Within the year, Nixon would leave office disgraced , having witnessed articles of impeachment voted against him by the House Judiciary Committee, based in part on your report.=20 Relevant Today I must give you and your colleagues credit. You did not appear to have let personal animus influence your work product, at least not the final, published report. In fact, the report you and your colleagues produced appears objective, fair, well researched and consistent with other materials reflecting and commenting on impeachment. And it is every bit as relevant today as it was 23 years ago.=20 I presume -- but I must ask whether -- you stand by your research and analysis today. You said in 1974 that impeachment, as understood by the framers of our constitution, reflected the long history of the term used at least since late-14th-century England: "one of the tools used by the English" to make government "more responsive and responsible" (page 4 of your report). You also noted then -- clearly in response to those who mistakenly claimed impeachment as a tool to correct "corruption in office" that "alleged damage to the state," was "not necessarily limited to common law or statutory ... Crimes" (page 7)=20 You quoted James Wilson, who at the Pennsylvania ratification convention described the executive (that is, the president) as not being above the law, but rather "in his public character" subject to it "by impeachment" (page 9)=20 You also -- quite correctly -- noted then that the constitutional draftsmen chose the terms describing the circumstances under which a president could be impeached very carefully and deliberately. You noted that "high crimes and misdemeanors" did not denote criminal offenses in the sense that prosecutors employ such terms in modern trials. Rather, in your well-researched memorandum, you correctly noted that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was substituted for George Mason's less precise term in an earlier draft of the Constitution: "Maladministration" (page 12 of your report). Not only that, but your further research led you to quote Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in support of your conclusion that "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant not a criminal offense but an injury to the state or system of government (page 12). I applaud the extent and clarity of your research. You even note that the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding questions of intent, must construe phrases such as "high crimes and misdemeanors" not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them (page 12 once again).=20 Magnificent research!=20 Even Alexander Hamilton finds a place in your research. You quote from his Federalist No. 65 that impeachment relates to "misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of public trust" that is "of a nature ... POLITICAL [emphasis in original]" (page 13 of your report).=20 Finally, in bringing your research forward from the constitutional drafting documents themselves, you find support for your properly broad interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in no less a legal scholar than Justice Joseph Story. I was in awe of your use of Justice Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution" (1833) supporting your proposition that "impeachment ... applies to offenses of a political character ... [that] must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty" (pages 16 and 17 of your report). I could not have said it better.=20 You even note that the specific instances on which impeachment has been employed in our country's history "placed little emphasis on criminal conduct" and were used to remove public officials who had "seriously undermined public confidence" through their "course of conduct" (page 21).=20 Clear Basis=20 Mrs. Clinton, when I first raised the notion last month that the House should take but the first step in determining whether impeachment might lie against President Clinton for a pattern of abuse of office and improper administration of his duties, little did I realize your scholarly work 23 years ago would provide clear historical and legal basis and precedent for my proposition.=20 Amazingly, the words you used in your report are virtually identical to those I use today. For example, you said in 1974, much as I did in my March 11, 1997, letter to Judiciary Chairman Hyde, that "[i]mpeachment is the first step in a remedial process" (page 24 of your report) to correct "serious offenses" that "subvert" our government and "undermine the integrity of office" (page 26).=20 Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for giving Congress a road map for beginning our inquiry.=20 Sincerely,=20 Bob Barr (R., GA.)=20 Member of Congress=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #97 **********************************