From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #110 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 Wednesday, November 18 1998 Volume 02 : Number 110 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 98 07:52:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Milwaukie Editorial - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 10:36:26 EST From: FreeUtah@aol.com To: lputah@qsicorp.com Web editor's note: Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly chose to protect the right to bear arms with a constitutional amendment - now newspaper editors have their skirts in a tangle. (11/6/98) ************************** Gun right mustn't be treated as absolute From the Journal Sentinel November 06, 1998 As expected, Wisconsin voters have agreed to insert into the state constitution the right to keep and bear arms. Does that amendment give each and every resident the freedom to sport an arsenal without any regulation whatsoever? Heaven forbid. Even though the measure enjoyed lopsided approval at the polls the other day, surely most voters did not intend for the right to be absolute. Guns are prompting too much havoc on the streets and in homes for the weapons to escape all controls, most people doubtless recognize. So in getting the amendment passed, the gun lobby scored a major victory. But Wisconsin must fight what appears to be the ultimate aim of at least some members of the gun movement: the eradication of virtually all controls on buying, owning and handling firearms. That possibility is why we opposed the amendment. Still, its wide appeal was understandable. The measure seemed only to affirm a right that already exists. Now that the amendment is reality, the trick is to keep it from aggravating the wild proliferation of firearms in the streets -- a proliferation that has led to much death and destruction. The gun lobby has already targeted one regulation it wants to roll back: the state's prohibition on carrying a concealed weapon. Lifting that ban is precisely opposite what the state should do. It should work on removing weapons from the streets, not on permitting more of them. Besides guarding against the rollback of existing gun regulations, the Legislature and the citizenry mustn't allow the amendment to block new and reasonable controls -- such as requirements that guns meet certain safety standards. The adoption of one safety feature, a trigger lock, would slow the frequency of news stories about tragedy befalling kids playing with guns. Though most citizens support the right to bear arms, most also support reasonable gun controls, opinion polls suggest. The trouble is, lawmakers hardly hear from them. Rather, legislators hear from the opponents of gun regulations. Residents who support the bar against concealed weapons, the imposition of safety standards and other controls should communicate those facts to their elected representatives. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Nov 98 07:52:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: 1st Amendment Loophole - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 22:16:14 -0800 From: Ed Wolfe To: pi@u.cc.utah.edu WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton directed his government Saturday to find a way to close a legal loophole that allows speakers/journalists to express their ideas at public places with no questions asked. In his weekly radio address, Clinton said a ``dangerous trend'' is emerging at seminars and radio talk shows because the First Amendment permits people to express their ideas without background checks. ``Some of these talk shows have become a haven for criminals and hate-speech mongers looking to sway people on a no-questions-asked basis,'' Clinton said. He directed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno to report back to him in 60 days with a plan to close the loophole in the Bill of Rights and to prohibit any free speech without a background check. ``I believe this should be the law of the land: No background check, no free speech, no exceptions,'' Clinton said. In a fact sheet, the White House said that every week about 35 million people regularly listen to an estimated 50 conservative radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. On Nov. 30, 1999 the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System is set to take effect to allow quicker checks and approve speech license sales within minutes. In addition, on Nov. 30, 1999 the law will be strengthened in two ways: purchases of all speech licenses, not just political, will be subject to Reno background checks as will Kinko's printing services, which are four times as likely to involve prohibited printed opinions. Overall, the White House said, it is estimated that the number of background checks conducted nationally will increase from 0 million to between 10 and 12 million. Unregulated speech is ``an open invitation to criminals and right wing crazies,'' said Janet Reno, who chairs SpeechControl Inc. The Clinton law was named after the President, who was wounded in verbal attacks first launched by radio personality Rush Limbaugh in 1992. California and Maryland regulate ``hate speech'', said Reno. Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment Tuesday giving counties the power to require a waiting period and a background check for speeches at political rallies and other public places. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ts/story.html?s=v/nm/19981107/ts/guns_2.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Nov 98 07:52:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Pig in Chief Speaks on Guns - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 02:21:18 -0500 From: "Mark A. Smith" To: SNET , PRJ , L & J Subject: [Fwd: The Pig in Chief Speaks on Guns] Next it will be private sales of all guns, even personal sales from your home. MikePiet@aol.com wrote: Here we go again folks. Mike P Clinton Urges Gun Show Crackdown c The Associated Press By ROBERT BURNS WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton today ordered the Treasury and Justice departments to recommend ways to stop gun shows from exploiting a loophole in the Brady gun control law. He said gun shows have become ``illegal arms bazaars'' for criminals and gun runners. ``We didn't fight as hard as we did to pass the Brady law only to let a handful of unscrupulous gun dealers disrespect the law, undermine our progress and put our families at risk,'' Clinton said in his weekly radio address. The president's message was echoed by Sarah Brady, wife of former White House press secretary James Brady, who was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on former President Reagan. The law, named in Brady's honor, established a five-day waiting period for hand gun purchases so that background checks could be performed on buyers. ``In state after state, criminals can now walk into a weekend gun show and buy a gun with no questions asked from an unlicensed dealer that is selling from his or her `private collection,''' Mrs. Brady, chairwoman of the advocacy group Handgun Control Inc., said in a written statement. ``That's an open invitation to criminals. ``The past five years have demonstrated the importance of observing waiting periods and doing background checks at gun stores,'' she added, ``but we now need to extend the Brady law to include all gun sales occurring at gun shows and flea markets.'' The government estimates that 5 million people a year attend gun shows, typically held in convention centers, school gymnasiums or fairgrounds. The Brady law requirement for waiting periods and background checks does not apply to gun show sales. Clinton noted that gun shows are popular in his home state of Arkansas, which he visited Friday after taping his radio address at the White House. ``I have visited and enjoyed them over the years,'' he said. ``They're often the first place parents teach their children how to handle firearms safely.'' ``But at too many guns shows, a different, dangerous trend is emerging,'' the president said. ``Some of these gun shows have become illegal arms bazaars for criminals and gun traffickers to buy and sell guns on a cash-and-carry, no- questions-asked basis.'' Clinton noted that Florida voters passed a measure Tuesday to enable communities to require background checks for the public sale of all guns. ``I believe this should be the law of the land: no background check, no gun, no exceptions.'' Mrs. Brady said several Florida counties are expected to pass local ordinances regulating gun show sales. Mayor Alex Penelas of Miami-Dade County already has unveiled a draft ordinance, Mrs. Brady said. The president directed Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Attorney General Janet Reno to present to him within two months a plan to close the Brady law loophole and prohibit any gun sale without a background check. Clinton said gun control efforts also will be strengthened on Nov. 30 when the Justice Department implements the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This system will give law enforcement officials access to a wider array of records than is now available. Also as of Nov. 30, the background checks will apply not only to handguns but also to rifles and shotguns and firearms transfers at pawn shops. With that system in place, the number of background checks for gun purchases will increase from an estimated 4 million a year to 12 million, Clinton said. AP-NY-11-07-98 1006EST Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press. ============================================= To unsubscribe, write to pi-request@involved.com with "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:17:41 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [NRA and GOA] Anyone have any idea why NRA or Christian Coalition would oppose ballot access reform? - ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- The November issue of Ballot Access News had some interesting comments about what groups supported ballot access reform in Florida and which opposed it. This is related to Revision 11, which changed the Florida state constitution to require that ballot access for all parties be the same. Previously, Florida had the most difficult ballot access laws in the country. Groups supporting Revision 11 include League of Women Voters and Gun Owners of America. Groups opposing it include National Organization for Women, the Christian Coalition, and the National Rifle Association. Makes me glad to support the GOA over the NRA! - ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- - -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." -- General George S. Patton - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 06:54:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: NRA and GOA - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 13:08:41 -0700 From: Jim Elwell To: lputah@qsicorp.com The November issue of Ballot Access News had some interesting comments about what groups supported ballot access reform in Florida and which opposed it. This is related to Revision 11, which changed the Florida state constitution to require that ballot access for all parties be the same. Previously, Florida had the most difficult ballot access laws in the country. Groups supporting Revision 11 include League of Women Voters and Gun Owners of America. Groups opposing it include National Organization for Women, the Christian Coalition, and the National Rifle Association. Makes me glad to support the GOA over the NRA! Jim Elwell - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 98 06:54:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: The Siege - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:15:44 EST From: SuthnDixie@aol.com To: Scott.Bergeson@m.cc.utah.edu Subject: Re: FW: LP RELEASE: "The Siege" I live in Central Florida. Today, our local TV news proudly showed the armored personnel carrier the police just got. All nicely done up in black paint. On the same program they reported some policemen had jumped a man in his yard, and when he raised a barbecue fork one of the cops shot him dead on the spot. It was sort of like ho-hum on the news. No big deal. If a cop had been shot they would have been still talking about it every half hour. Get us used to the cops drilling citizens. The guy didn't have a gun. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 98 07:56:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Hizzoner Sues Pistol-Makers - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:10:12 -0600 (CST) From: David Gonzalez To: Liberty-and-Justice@mailbox.by.net "Richie sure ain't da stand-up guy his ol' man was!" - ---Overheard in the 10th Ward, comparing Mayor Richard M. Daley to his late father, Richard J. Daley (known as "the *real* Mayor Daley") Emboldened by federal lawsuits against tobacco producers and a recent New Orleans suit against gun manufacturers, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley announced a lawsuit--filed on behalf of the City of Chicago--against manufacturers of handguns which calls the pistols "a public nuisance" and seeks $200 million in damages to compensate the city for expenses incurred in dealing with handgun violence. It remains unclear if Hizzoner intends to order his police officers to cease the practice of carrying their own sidearms and/or wearing body armor---the better to avoid provoking confrontations with armed thugs (based upon the theory that--since "more missiles mean more risk of a confrontation--the United States should unilaterally disarm, abandon research into a missile-defense system, and cut military spending). No mention was made of a lawsuit aimed at breweries, distilleries, and the big three auto makers to recover the costs of enforcing DUI statutes and dealing with the carnage created by alcohol-related traffic accidents. David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte Wheeling, Illinois Replies/Abuse: gonzalez@mcs.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 98 07:56:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: LP RELEASE: Gun Lawsuit - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 18:56:20 -0700 From: jimdex@inconnect.com To: lputah@qsicorp.com Politicians attack tobacco and guns: What product will they go after next? WASHINGTON, DC -- A lawsuit filed by New Orleans Mayor Marc H. Morial against gun companies to recover the cost of firearms violence has Libertarians asking: "Who's next?" "Which law-abiding industry will be the next target of greedy politicians?" asked Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director. "Will they force Budweiser and Heineken to pay for the crimes of drunken, violent criminals? Will they extort money from McDonald's and Burger King to pay for heart bypass surgery, and compel Chrysler and Honda to pay the medical bills of car-crash victims?" Dasbach's questions came in response to the lawsuit, now moving through the court system, which seeks to hold 15 major gun companies financially liable for the medical and police costs related to gun violence. Morial is also actively encouraging other politicians across the country to follow his lead, and so far the mayors of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Miami are weighing similar suits. Vowing that "guns must now become the next tobacco," Morial has made it clear that the attack on gun companies will be modeled on the anti-tobacco lawsuits filed by 41 state attorneys general. "If you thought politicians would be satisfied after extorting more than $40 billion from tobacco companies, think again," Dasbach said. "That only whet their appetite. Now the only question is, which industry will be next?" Some possible targets: * Barbecue grills: "It's absolutely clear that charcoal broiling is carcinogenic," says Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, who predicts that the manufacturers of barbecue grills may soon be a litigation target. * Wine and beer: "Every year, tens of thousands of Americans are killed in auto accidents, half of which are alcohol-related," Dasbach said. "If politicians can blame Smith & Wesson for murder in the streets, why can't they blame Busch & Budweiser for carnage on the highways?" * Fatty foods: Yale University researcher Kelly Brownell warns that the country is plagued by an "out-of-control epidemic of obesity" that is causing diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Her solutions including slapping a "fat tax" on certain foods and funneling the money into nutrition and public exercise programs, and restricting junk-food advertisements. * Milk: Last year a Seattle man who describes himself as a "milk-a-holic" sued Washington state dairy farmers for contributing to his clogged arteries and a stroke. "Many Americans never dreamed that the War on Tobacco could lead to a war on alcohol, fatty foods, barbecue grills, or even milk," Dasbach said. "But once the government has the power to sue companies in the name of public health, it's only a matter of time until the product that you like becomes their next target. "Yes, violent crime is a serious problem -- but what's really frightening is politicians using their political power to bankrupt businesses that make products they don't like, and in the process, destroying your freedom to use them." The attack strategy against gun companies also demonstrates another important fact, Dasbach said. "Filing this lawsuit was a glaring admission by Mayor Morial that he has failed to perform the most basic function of government: Protecting people from violent crime. "But instead of protecting public safety, he's committing a crime of his own: Extorting money from honest companies in order to pay for the crimes of street thugs." # # # - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 98 21:47:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Beware the Lipidleggers! - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 06:35:51 PST From: "Mark A. Smith" To: snetnews@world.std.com, liberty-and-justice@mailbox.by.net, eagleflt@bignet.net Subject: FW: junk food The bullies' next target: junk food By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist, 11/12/98 You didn't object when they forced motorcyclists to wear helmets. It's for their own good, you figured. And it was no skin off your nose, since you don't ride motorcycles anyway. You didn't protest when they passed mandatory seat-belt laws. You couldn't see what the big deal was - after all, you've always buckled up. You didn't say anything when they pushed tobacco ads off the air, or when they drove up the price of cigarettes with sin taxes, or when they tried to classify nicotine as a drug. [It is, and CNS-active and addictive to boot. Obviously this oppressive effort harks back at least to Prohibition and the Harrison Narcotics Act. What legitimate power have "they" to restrict access to drugs? - Scott] Smoking, you believed, is nasty and unhealthy; why shouldn't the government discourage it? You kept quiet when they made air bags compulsory. When they passed laws to keep adults from owning guns. When they tried to censor the Internet. Yes, all of these eroded Americans' freedom to make decisions for themselves. And yes, they further empowered the government to regulate the way we live our lives. But none of them discommoded you personally, so you didn't see any reason to speak out. Do you think the lifestyle police will stop goosestepping when they get to something you do care about? Meet Kelly Brownell. He directs the Center for Eating and Weight disorders at Yale, and he doesn't like your diet. "The contribution of diet to poor health in America is staggering," he says. "It's an epidemic." Brownell doesn't stop there. He isn't satisfied with trying to persuade you to eat less junk food. He wants Big Brother to make you eat less junk food. In a dispatch from New Haven last week, the Associated Press reports: "Brownell believes the government should subsidize the sale of healthy food, increase the cost of nonnutritional foods through taxes, and regulate food advertising to discourage unhealthy practices." In the name of "public health," the antitobacco bullies have gotten away with restricting speech, crushing freedom of choice, penalizing the consumers of a lawful product, and demonizing the sellers of that product. Brownell thinks the food bullies should be able to do no less. "To me," he has said, "there is no difference between Ronald McDonald and Joe Camel." Pause to recall the hysterical outrage that R.J. Reynolds's cartoon figure evoked - a Washington Post columnist called Joe Camel ads "as dangerous as putting rat poison in a candy wrapper" - and you get a sense of just how far Brownell would like to go. Societies do not usually lose their freedom at a blow. They give it up bit by bit, letting themselves be tied down with an infinity of little knots. As rules and regulations increase, their range of action is gradually compressed. Their options slowly lessen. Without noticing the change, they become wards of the state. They still imagine themselves free, but in a thousand and one ways, their choices are limited and guided by the authorities. And always, there are what seem to be sensible reasons for letting their autonomy be peeled away - "safety," "health," "social justice," "equal opportunity." It is easy to grow accustomed to docility. That is why eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not because liberty is easy to shatter, but because it can be softened and dismantled with the acquiescence of the very men and women from whom it is being stolen. Many Americans no longer understand this, which is why the government now dictates everything from the words that may appear on wine labels to the volume of water toilets may flush. But Brownell and his ilk understand it very well. To those who snicker at his goal of hitting snack-food makers with heavy taxes and forbidding the use of Ronald McDonald in advertising, Brownell has a reply: "If 20 years ago somebody had said, `I predict that states will recover health care costs from the tobacco industry for deaths; I predict that an icon of smoking advertising, Joe Camel, would be banned from billboards,' people would have said, `Oh, that's horrible government intrusion.' What is now taken for granted, 20 years ago would have been thought of as impossible." Exactly. Watch as it unfolds. Already other voices have taken up Brownell's call. The Center for Science in the Public Interest - the food fanatics who periodically issue reports denouncing movie popcorn and Chinese food - declares that "diet and lack of exercise kill as many people as tobacco" and agrees that a tax on Big Macs and Double Stuf Oreos "makes eminent sense." Hanna Rosin writes in The New Republic that a tax on fatty foods "can actually be a less intrusive policy than regulating tobacco" and asks, "Is it really such a crazy idea?" US News & World Report hails the "Twinkie tax" as one of "16 Silver Bullets: Smart Ideas to Fix the World." Soon you'll hear about all the children whose lives will be cut short because they got hooked on junk fook at an early age. You'll see references to the 300,000 people "killed" each year by fatty diets. In time there will be lawsuits and congressional hearings and moving testimony by the "victims" of chocolate [Tristearin, the major component of cocoa butter, has been found to be a relatively healthy fat. OTOH chocolate gives many people migraine headaches. - Scott] and butterfat. Politicians, sensing another interest group to [which to] pander, will demand strict controls over candy ads. Ben and Jerry will be transformed from kindly Vermont hippies to foul peddlers of heart disease. Preposterous, you say! Laughable! Absurd! Philip Morris used to think so, too. Jeff Jacoby is a Globe columnist. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 98 22:21:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: War on domestic violence is one-sided - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:51:47 PST From: "Mark A. Smith" To: liberty-and-justice@mailbox.by.net, snetnews@world.std.com, eagleflt@bignet.net Yell, at your wife. Go to jail. If that isn't one sided, I dont know what is. (Like it never happens the other way around one a month). And to show you how these people think, kicking your dog has actually been mentioned as possible domestic abuse! And remember the Lautenburg Ammendment? The Gestapo comes and takes your guns away when you are ACCUSED (not convicted), of domestic abuse. The supposedly educated police chiefs, lawyers and judges actually enforce this ex-post-facto (unconstitutional) law. What hope do we the people have left? The bullet box, I guess. Mark War on domestic violence is one-sided By Jerry A. Boggs In Mars and Venus Starting Over, John Gray writes, "Ironically, one of the biggest misunderstandings about men and women is this: Women assume men have a fear of intimacy, and it's quite the opposite. It's the women who fear intimacy." I have news for Gray. His myth buster is soon to become a myth itself. Men's fear of intimacy -- hence men's fear of commitment to relationships -- may eclipse women's fear a hundred fold once the collective male grasps where domestic abuse policies are headed. Take the case of Susan Finkelstein, a 31-year-old free-lance editor in a small Michigan town, and her live-in boyfriend "Jim". The two were arguing as they drove home from a party. Susan recalls that both were under a lot of stress. The argument intensified, and Jim decided it best to pull over. He tried to get out of the car and walk. Susan tried to stop him. "I lost my temper, he lost his temper," Susan says, "and we got into a mutual scuffle. I may have scratched him; he may have pushed me. It got physical, but there certainly wasn't any beating." Back on the road after they'd cooled down, they were stopped by a police car. Their scuffling had been seen by someone who had taken their license plate number and called the police. Although Susan assured the officer that Jim hadn't harmed her and she didn't fear him, the officer hauled him away. Department policy required an arrest in a domestic dispute, the officer said. Susan was upset that no one would listen when she said she was OK. Her efforts to convince the court that nothing had happened were to no avail. She was told abused women may lie out of fear. "What happened to Jim and Susan," says Detroit News op-ed columnist Cathy Young, "is ... just another story from the trenches of what might be called the War on Domestic Violence. Born partly in response to an earlier tendency to treat wife-beating as nothing more than a marital sport, this campaign treats all relationship conflict as a crime. The zero-tolerance mentality of current domestic violence policy means that no offense is too trivial, not only for arrest but for prosecution." That's bad news for men because the courts, influenced by the radical feminist politics of the battered women's advocacy movement, see only male perpetrators and female victims. So does the federal government; it funds booklets that say battering is the extreme expression of the belief in male dominance over women." Ignored is the fact that domestic abuse is an equal-opportunity recruiter. In 1995, the Journal of Family Violence reported a study of young American military couples, possibly the most patriarchal of all, in which 47 percent of the husbands and wives had harmed each other to the exact same degree. Last year on ABC's 20/20, violence researcher Suzanne Steinmetz, asked if men were abused by their spouses as often or as much as women, replied, "When you're looking at hitting, slapping, pushing, shoving, they're fairly equal." Still, the war on domestic violence is decidedly a war on male partners. Consider the results of feminist lobbying to prevent women from ever being arrested in domestic disputes. When a Detroit man was stabbed in the chest by his wife, the police refused not only to arrest her but to remove her from the home. After Susan Finkelstein told the arresting officer she was as much the aggressor in their scuffle as Jim, she was told the policy required arresting the larger of the two parties. Consider, too, a frightening trend regarding spousal homicide. In many states, women who kill their husband are released if they claimed physical abuse as their reason. In California, says crime writer Patricia Pearson in When She Was Bad -- Violent Women & the Myth of Innocence, husband killers are allowed to apply for release due to emotional abuse. This opens the door to risk-free husband killing. Women will be able to operate the system even more to their advantage if feminists get a law modeled on an Australian statute. In Australia, domestic violence is defined to include a man's raising his voice to his wife -- "the domestic decibel rule." But a woman raising her voice to her husband, says Australian psychologist Frank Brennan, is viewed as an understandable defense to male dominance. "These double standards," says author Warren Farrell, "have made men in Australia very fearful of getting married. Men are increasingly feeling that their only form of relationship power is not getting into a relationship." Men may soon know domestic abuse policies better than the sports page. The only men then willing to commit to marriage might truly be men from Mars. Jerry A. Boggs is the Michigan representative of the National Coalition of Free Men. Write letters to The Detroit News, Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, Mich. 48226, or fax us at (313) 222-6417, or send an e-mail to letters@detnews.com Copyright 1998, The Detroit News - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 98 22:21:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ARMED AND DANGEROUS - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 21:59:04 -0500 From: Leroy Crenshaw To: tyranny@egroups.com FRIDAY NOVEMBER 13, 1998 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.html ARMED AND DANGEROUS Police shooting victim files lawsuit Children finally turned over to grandmother in Sallisaw By David M. Bresnahan Copyright 1998 WorldNetDaily.com The victim of a police shooting in Sallisaw, Oklahoma, has filed a federal lawsuit to recover damages, and officials still refuse to provide information to the public. Press reports and talk-radio hosts across the nation have referred to the actions of Sallisaw Police on Oct. 23 as "Gestapo tactics." Police stormed into a trailer home and shot Patricia Eymer while she was holding her 4-year-old daughter. An infant was only a few feet away, and a 13-year-old daughter passed out in fear and shock. Eymer was shot in the right shoulder, and is recovering. It is still unknown whether doctors will be able to perform a shoulder replacement, or if she will lose her arm, according to Eymer. "We filed a 1983 civil rights suit in federal court," said Daniel George, Sallisaw attorney for Eymer. "The officer and city have not yet been served, nor do they know of it. It's fairly obvious that a .45 caliber slug in the shoulder will tend to violate your civil rights." Despite the criticisms being raised, the Sallisaw mayor, the Sallisaw Police Department, the Sequoyah County sheriff's office, the district attorney, and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation have all refused to provide information to WorldNetDaily. Repeated and frequent attempts to get information have been met with silence. Mrs. Eymer has not been charged, however her husband, Steven Eymer, and some guests in her home were arrested on drug charges. The evidence listed in court records does not identify any "controlled dangerous substance" or marijuana to support the charges made. Detective Larry Blount led a team of Sallisaw officers on a drug raid at the Eymer home. He was assisted by officers Dawn Jerman, David Bethany, Freeman (first name unknown), and John Owens. Travis Holman is mentioned in the evidence report, but the police claim he is not an officer and they will not say who he is. George has identified Owens as the shooter in his suit. Police refuse to explain what evidence they had to justify the need for the search, nor will they explain why it was necessary to conduct a no knock search in a pre-dawn raid. Neighbors say they believe another neighbor falsely told police that the Eymers were making methamphetamine and selling drugs. The warrant states that Detective Blount showed "probable cause" that there was evidence at the Eymer home that would result in a charge of "unlawful possession and/or distribution of controlled dangerous substances." Specifically, the warrant authorized a search for methamphetamine, and the items associated with its manufacture and sale. No such items were listed in court records of evidence found by police. The fact that they live in a very modest single-wide mobile home with no telephone is evidence of their income level, according to George. Both cars owned by the Eymers do not operate and are in need of repair. The family's income is extremely low. The attorney pointed out that there was no evidence the Eymers were making money selling drugs. The evidence list provided by the court does not list any drugs found in the home, although it does list some marijuana pipes. Mr. Eymer said their behavior and the evidence obtained did not warrant the dramatic entrance of the police into the home. He also said there was no provocation to justify police firing at his wife. Everyone in the home cooperated with police and offered no resistance, he said. The Eymers' three children were taken by child protective services. Grandparents arrived the day of the shooting and were not permitted to take custody of the children, or even see them. They said they were concerned about the needs of the children after witnessing a traumatic event, and they could not find out if the children were getting emotional help. Three days after the shooting, Mrs. Martha Smyrl, who is Mrs. Eymer's mother, finally saw the children for a few minutes at a court hearing. "The 5-year-old, when I seen her in court, she came running to me and said, "Grandma I want to come home with you." She said, "Grandma, Mama's been shot." I told her, I said, "Honey, Mama's okay. She's doing fine. I had to keep her calm," explained Mrs. Smyrl. "They won't tell us nothing about the kids," said Mrs. Smyrl--more than a week after the shooting. "They wouldn't tell me where they were at. I couldn't see them. I'm their grandmother. I practically helped raise these kids. This is what I don't understand." Mr. Smyrl said he was told that Oklahoma would not give custody to relatives who live out of state. The Smyrls live in Texas. After Mrs. Smyrl began looking for a place to rent, she was told the only place acceptable for her to have the children would be in Sallisaw. Mr. Eymer says the traumatic experience the children went through, and the lack of contact with family members is a form of child abuse. The children were finally turned over to Mrs. Smyrl earlier this week. She said a great deal of grief for the family and the children could have been avoided [had] she [been] given custody earlier. There are still many unanswered questions about this case, and police continue their silence. Mrs. Eymer said she and her family are being followed by police wherever they go. The apparent intimidation has made her more determined to proceed with her federal lawsuit. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:18:44 -0700 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: Information from a friend of a friend of a EMT Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:23:05 -0700 From: "Roxann Garduno" To: acall@ci.west-valley.ut.us,acarey@ci.west-valley.ut.us, acasanova@ci.west-valley.ut.us, achamberlain@ci.west-valley.ut.us, achristensen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, acowan@ci.west-valley.ut.us, adavis@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ajensen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ajue@ci.west-valley.ut.us, aluther@ci.west-valley.ut.us, amadrigal@ci.west-valley.ut.us, amonson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ashavers@ci.west-valley.ut.us, asorensen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, astauffer@ci.west-valley.ut.us, atye@ci.west-valley.ut.us, awright@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bbracken@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bbuchanan@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bchristianson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bday@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bfitzgerald@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bfroelich@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bhall@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bharward@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bholtry@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bhudson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bidle@ci.west-valley.ut.us, blucero@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bmccarthy@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bmeyers@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bmorgan@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bmyler@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bnielsen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bparslow@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bpetersen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bplotnick@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bsalmon@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bshields@ci.west-valley.ut.us, bthomas@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cacocks@ci.west-valley.ut.us, calberico@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cblack@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cchase@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cchilton@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cchristensen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ccurtis@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cdinger@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cdumas@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cevans@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cflannery@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cgeorgi@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cgibson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cgleed@ci.west-valley.ut.us, challaday@ci.west-valley.ut.us, chope@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cillsley@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cjeppson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cjohnson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cmullins@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cnielsen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cobrian@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cpetersen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, creardon@ci.west-valley.ut.us, cziegenhorn@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dahansen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dbenson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dbowers@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dbrophy@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dclark@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dcrane@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ddain@ci.west-valley.ut.us, ddumas@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dgetz@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dgroo@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dhamilton@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dhansen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dhutchings@ci.west-valley.ut.us, djohnson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dking@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dlarsen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dmontgomery@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dmoriarty@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dmoss@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dnordfelt@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dolson@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dpalmateer@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dpaulsen@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dprisbrey@ci.west-valley.ut.us, drex@ci.west-valley.ut.us, drichards@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dshopay@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dsievers@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dtaylor@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dvarney@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dwilliams@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dwoodruff@ci.west-valley.ut.us, dwright@ci.west-valley.ut.us, edomian@ci.west-valley.ut.us, elawrence@ci.west-valley.ut.us Subject: Information from a friend of a friend of a EMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Be aware!!! Drug users are now taking their needles and putting them into the coin = return slots in public telephones. People putting their fingers in to the = slots to recover coins or just to check if anyone left some change are = getting stuck by these needles and infected with hepatitis, HIV and other = diseases. Keep this in mind when using a public telephone. =20 - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #110 ***********************************