From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #131 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 Tuesday, March 23 1999 Volume 02 : Number 131 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Mar 99 21:23:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Hoplophobe Hypocrites - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeff Penrod Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 7:41 PM To: TheForum@execpc.com Subject: Hoplophobe Hypocrits This was in today's Orange County Register: Book triggers wrath of gun opponents March 7, 1999 John R. Lott Jr. doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would inspire death threats. But he's gotten more than his share of them recently, from a seemingly unlikely source. You see, Lott gets death threats from people who hate guns. Lott, 40, is a lanky, soft-spoken, professorial-looking guy which is appropriate, since that's exactly what he is: a professor of law and economics at the University of Chicago. Until a couple of years ago he was simply another anonymous egghead, grinding out arcane research papers for publication in obscure professional journals. Unless you subscribe to International Review of Law and Economics or Journal of Legal Studies, you'd probably never heard of him. But then Lott published the results of his exhaustive statistical research on the relationship between crime rates and private gun ownership, particularly the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Simply put, Lott concluded that an armed citizenry prevents crime and deters criminals a conclusion summed up in the title of his book, "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws." The national news media picked up on Lott's thesis. And suddenly this obscure professor who doesn't even have a gun in his home found himself the prime target in a nasty political gunfight. From the way many gun-control proponents reacted, you would have thought that Lott had called for the mandatory arming of preschoolers. On radio and TV and in the newspapers, they attacked and vilified both Lott and his study, calling him a tool of the gun manufacturers and his study a sloppy piece of research sometimes without even having read it. Lott was generally philosophical about it. As he told me Thursday during a visit to Orange County, "With most academic work, you're lucky to get 10 people to read it. So it was nice to get the attention." But perhaps naively, Lott, who is married and the father of four young boys, never expected the personal hostility he's gotten from some individual gun control advocates. "We started getting death threats at home," said Lott. (Presumably, the death would be effected with a knife or a club.) "People would ask if I had kids, and if they walked home from school. People would cut out articles from newspapers about gun deaths and send them to me, with a note saying, 'I hope this is you next.' ... Tuesday I had a piece in the Wall Street Journal, and I got about 40 calls. Most of them were very nice, but some ... people just go bonkers." Now don't misunderstand. Lott certainly isn't saying that the threats and personal attacks are representative of all gun-control advocates. He believes most of them are well-intentioned people who sincerely abhor violence of all kinds. But gun control is an emotional issue, nationally and here in Orange County. (It may become even more emotional here in the coming weeks, when Sheriff Mike Carona unveils his program to loosen restrictions on granting permits to carry concealed weapons.) So maybe it's a good idea for everybody to remember that even though the news media tend to portray only gun owners as potentially violent fanatics, there actually are some fanatics on both sides of the issue. Just ask Professor Lott. Not all "gun nuts" are people who own guns. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Mar 99 21:23:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Are Americans headed for world government? - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 15:56:44 -0500 From: Mark A. Smith Subject: Are Americans headed for world government? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/19990308_xex_are_american.shtml MONDAY MARCH 08 1999 - ------------------------------------------ [WND Exclusive Commentary] - ------------------------------------------ Are Americans headed for world government? - ------------------------------------------ By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D. © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com A few days ago, eight black helicopters belonging to the elite Delta Force hit buildings in Kingsville, Texas with real explosives and live ammunition in a training exercise that scared local civilians. Similar events have occurred in Miami, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Washington, New Orleans, Los Angeles and other U.S. cities, including a Chicago suburb where they bombed an abandoned seminary. So what's the fuss about a military training exercise? Well, Tomas Sanchez in Texas is concerned, and he's no dummy. Sanchez is emergency management coordinator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and head of the military police unit of the Texas State Guard under the National Guard. He's also had 30 years service in Navy intelligence work with a top secret clearance, and he's one of the few people who've seen Presidential Decision Directive 25. Here's what he said about the Delta Force special operation: "The scenario if I were creating this ops plan [is that] martial law has been declared through presidential powers and war powers act, and some citizens have refused to give up their weapons. They have taken over two of the buildings in Kingsville. The police cannot handle it. So you call these guys in. They show up and they zap everybody, take all the weapons, and let the local Police Department clean it up." Sanchez and other military experts believe PDD 25 is the document being used to authorize such military action with the U.S., and he said, "It's a done deal. I think there's some UN folks involved in this thing too." Before you dismiss this as all part of some conspiracy nonsense, you should know that on February 20, 1997, Ronnie Edelman of the U.S. Department of Justice wrote a letter explaining the Clinton administration's views on the Second Amendment and handguns as follows: "The current state of federal law does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type." Relevant to the UN, when Boutros Boutros-Ghali was secretary-general, he supported the report of the Commission on Global Governance, which said: "We strongly endorse community initiatives to ... encourage the disarming of civilians." We also know that President Clinton has been deferential to the U.N., saying on Oct. 19, 1993, that his administration was engaging in a political process regarding Somalia "to see how we can ... do all the things the United Nations ordered to do." And U.S. Army Specialist Michael New was court-martialed several years later for refusing to wear U.N. insignia on his American military uniform. Are Americans headed for world government? Over a century ago, Cecil Rhodes developed a plan that would bring about a world government. On July 20, 1992, Bill Clinton's Rhodes scholar roommate, Strobe Talbott, wrote an article for Time, in which he declared: "Perhaps national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all," and "the case for world government" is "clinched." President Clinton made Talbott number two at the State Department, and in June 1993, the World Federalist Association gave Talbott its Global Governance Award for his article. On June 22 of that year, President Clinton sent a letter to the WFA noting that Norman Cousins, a past WFA president, had worked for world peace and "world government," and President Clinton concluded his letter by wishing the WFA "future success." All of this in no way means that the president and the U.N. are going to send military forces to your home to break down your door and confiscate your firearms. But the actions and quotations above are troubling and do not auger well for the future of our freedoms, rights, and national sovereignty. - ------- Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., is the author of "Secret Records Revealed," pertaining to President Clinton and others (Hearthstone Publishing, 800-652-1144). - -------------------------------- © 1999 Western Journalism Center - -------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 23:30:24 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: NRA endorses Olympic Gun Ban This is enough to make you sick. Check out http://www.nralive.org for their special endorsement of the Olympic gun ban, and interview with Elwood Powell, Chair of the Utah Shooting Sports Council. (It's the March 11 news story.) While the NRA was _claiming_ it was neutral on the Olympic ban, it actually sent an endorsement of the bill to legislators. Aren't you glad the NRA is "protecting _your_ rights? UGH! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com PROTEST the Gun Ban! NO-lympics 2002! Check out http://www.therighter.com/nolympics And now you can link directly to the Nolympics page and join the nolympics mail list! - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:14:48 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: NRA endorses Olympic Gun Ban Yet another reason I'm glad that both the NRA and their local affiliates quit getting any financial support from me several years ago. BTW, if anyone can reccomend a good CCW instrutor who does not financially support the NRA or USSC, I'd sure appreciate it. Thanks. On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, "S. Thompson" posted: >This is enough to make you sick. > >Check out http://www.nralive.org for their special endorsement of the >Olympic gun ban, and interview with Elwood Powell, Chair of the Utah >Shooting Sports Council. (It's the March 11 news story.) > >While the NRA was _claiming_ it was neutral on the Olympic ban, it actually >sent an endorsement of the bill to legislators. > >Aren't you glad the NRA is "protecting _your_ rights? UGH! > >Sarah > > >Sarah Thompson, M.D. >http://www.therighter.com > >PROTEST the Gun Ban! >NO-lympics 2002! >Check out http://www.therighter.com/nolympics >And now you can link directly to the Nolympics page >and join the nolympics mail list! > >- > > - -- 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. "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouths of labor the bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:14:48 -0700 From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: NRA endorses Olympic Gun Ban Yet another reason I'm glad that both the NRA and their local affiliates quit getting any financial support from me several years ago. BTW, if anyone can reccomend a good CCW instrutor who does not financially support the NRA or USSC, I'd sure appreciate it. Thanks. On Thu, 11 Mar 1999, "S. Thompson" posted: >This is enough to make you sick. > >Check out http://www.nralive.org for their special endorsement of the >Olympic gun ban, and interview with Elwood Powell, Chair of the Utah >Shooting Sports Council. (It's the March 11 news story.) > >While the NRA was _claiming_ it was neutral on the Olympic ban, it actually >sent an endorsement of the bill to legislators. > >Aren't you glad the NRA is "protecting _your_ rights? UGH! > >Sarah > > >Sarah Thompson, M.D. >http://www.therighter.com > >PROTEST the Gun Ban! >NO-lympics 2002! >Check out http://www.therighter.com/nolympics >And now you can link directly to the Nolympics page >and join the nolympics mail list! > >- > > - -- 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. "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouths of labor the bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Mar 99 10:53:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Klinton's policy on the Second Amendment - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:59:08 -0500 From: Mark A. Smith Subject: Klinton's policy on the Second Amendment I have a photocopy of this official letter. Mark Ms. Deleted Address: Deleted Dear Ms. Deleted We received your letter of March 12, 1997, and are pleased to respond to your question about the Second Amendment. In your letter, you relate a statement made by Sarah Kemp Brady to the effect that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does not guarantee the right of individuals to possess firearms. This is, in fact, correct. Althought those who oppose any form of gun control commonly assert the the Second Amendment confers the right to individual ownership of firearms, this view is not sustained by case law interpreting that amendment. The courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment protects only against federal attempts to disarm or abolish organized state militia, and does not confer on an individual the right to own or possess firearms. This has been the consistent position of the Supreme Court and the eight United States Courts of Appeals which have considered the issue. Thank you so much for your interest in this important issue and we hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Ronnie L. Edleman (sig.) Principal Deputy Chief Terrorism and Violent Crime Section - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Mar 99 21:40:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: S. 154 `Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999' - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 07:48:34 -0500 From: Mark A. Smith Call your Senators about this one. 106th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 154 To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the licensing of ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 19, 1999 Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A BILL To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the licensing of ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999'. SEC. 2. RECORDS OF DISPOSITION OF AMMUNITION. (a) AMENDMENT OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE- Section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting after the second sentence the following: `Each licensed importer and manufacturer of ammunition shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, sale, or other disposition of ammunition at the place of business of such importer or manufacturer for such period and in such form as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. Such records shall include the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition.'; and (2) by adding at the end the following: `(8) Each licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition shall annually prepare a summary report of imports, production, shipments, sales, and other dispositions during the preceding year. The report shall be prepared on a form specified by the Secretary, shall include the amounts, calibers, and types of ammunition that were disposed of, and shall be forwarded to the office specified thereon not later than the close of business on the date specified by the Secretary.'. (b) STUDY OF CRIMINAL USE AND REGULATION OF AMMUNITION- The Secretary of the Treasury shall request the National Academy of Sciences to-- (1) prepare, in consultation with the Secretary, a study of the criminal use and regulation of ammunition; and (2) submit to Congress, not later than July 31, 1998, a report with recommendations on the potential for preventing crime by regulating or restricting the availability of ammunition. SEC. 3. INCREASE IN LICENSING FEES FOR MANUFACTURERS OF AMMUNITION. Section 923(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) as subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively; and (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as redesignated, the following: `(A) of .25 caliber, .32 caliber, or 9 mm ammunition, a fee of $10,000 per year;'. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 99 20:47:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 3/3 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] KELLERMANN'S CORPSES In the conclusion of Kellermann's 1986 New England Journal of Medicine paper (his "43 times" study), he stated the following: "We noted 43 suicides, criminal homicide, or accidental gunshot deaths involving a gun kept in the home for every case of homicide for self-protection" -- presumably deaths of friends and family members. According to Dr. Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns (1997), there are between 1,400 and 3,200 "legal civilian defensive homicides" yearly. There is a factor in research called "external validity" that concerns the degree to which the conclusions of a study apply to populations outside the study population -- in this case, to the rest of the United States. So we ran the figures to see how they came out. In order to get the total number of yearly estimated deaths if Kellermann's 43-times factor was extrapolated to the rest of the United States, one needs to multiply the number of "legal civilian defensive homicides" by Kellermann's factor of 43, and then add in that same number of "legal civilian defensive homicides." However, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, firearm-related deaths from all causes, in the home and outside, totaled 35,957 in 1995. Subtracting that figure from Kellermann's prediction produces a discrepancy of anywhere from approximately 10,000 (using the low-end estimate) to 67,000 deaths (using the high-end estimate). GUNS & AMMO/APRIL 1999 *********************************************************************** Beyond the Mainstream Media's Addendum: In a review of Robert Waters' book "The Best Defense: True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm" in the Washington Times Weekly Edition March 8-14 edition: Mr. Waters said "The pro-gun side needs to debate less about the Second Amendment and more about issues that really matter to people, such as self-defense." As much as we wish that simply referring to the Second Amendment would be enough to disarm gun control advocates, we agree with Mr. Waters that highlighting a person's ability to defend [herself] in the manner [she] chooses is the best angle to use against the anti-gunners. Below is a letter to the local newspaper by a female editor here at Beyond the Mainstream Media. Please note the last paragraph. Woman especially should ask gun control advocates: "Why are you limiting my options on how I defend myself?" Letter to the Editor; "...considering that fewer than 1 percent of all guns are involved in a crime and only 12 percent of all violent crimes involve a gun, gun control laws could have only a modest effect on crime - even if they worked exactly as intended, which they don't." "...a comprehensive 1993 study covering all forms of gun violence and encompassing every large city in the nation...gun control laws had no significant negative effect on violence." "...gun control laws are more likely to disarm the general public than criminals." "...Americans use guns of all types to defend themselves 2.5 million times each year, while guns are used in just over 500,000 crimes each year." "...evidence suggests that guns are an effective crime deterrent in the hands of legal owners." "Although government has taken control of the public criminal justice system, courts have ruled that it nevertheless does not have a specific duty to protect individuals. These rulings are probably consistent with the original intent of the founding fathers. Some legal scholars argue that the framers of the U.S. Constitution assumed that law-abiding people would largely be responsible for their own safety." - -- "Gun Control and Crime", Morgan O. Reynolds, Texas A&M University and W. W. Caruth III, National Center for Policy Analysis (1997). I, personally, am not about to surrender my responsibility to protect myself to some government entity. If you, as a citizen of a free country, do not recognize your duty and responsibility to arm yourself against society's predators, please, do not infringe upon my efforts to ensure my own safety. - -- Jill Laughlin ********************************************************************** 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. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ********************************************************************** HERE COMES THE FLOOD is a First Amendment publication of 'Beyond the Mainstream Media Services' and is edited by Scott Laughlin. You are welcome to redistribute this post in its entirety. Beyond the Mainstream's objective is to provide timely information on current issues of the day with an bias to Free Market economic analysis, anti-statism commentary, and legal research all with an awareness of the computer design defect known as Y2K. We scan many 'outside the mainstream' media publications (financial newsletters, alternative magazines, patriot and constitutionalist legal research, libertarian writings, Bible studies, etc.) to bring you commentary on items that might otherwise have gone unreported by the mainstream "journalism" outlets. ********************************************************** Did someone else forward this post to you? To be certain of receiving all issues of our E-Journal, please consider subscribing directly. Currently the service is totally free and carries no obligation. Your e-mail address remains strictly confidential. To receive "HERE COMES THE FLOOD" on a regular basis (up to 2 or 3 times a week) send the following message "Please subscribe [Your Name] to the HERE COMES THE FLOOD list: [Your e-mail address]" to: BeyondMainstreamMedia@home.com. To unsubscribe, all you have to do is ask. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 99 20:47:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 1/3 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 22:21:42 -0800 From: Discreet Man <27proverbs12@home.com> To: Comes The Flood Subject: Here Comes the Flood: Guns & Ammo -- Second-Hand Gunsmoke ******************************************************* >>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE COMES THE FLOOD <<<<<<<<<<<<<< ******************************************************* The E-Journal of 'Beyond the Mainstream Media Services' Edited by Scott Laughlin March 12, 1999 ******************************************************* Guns & Ammo April 1999 Second Amendment Fight for your firearms freedom! By Drs. Paul Gallant and Joanne Elsen SECOND-HAND GUNSMOKE 'Cooking Statistics' to Eliminate Freedom and Eradicate the Firearms Industry. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a report about the alleged dangers of second-hand smoke. That report was prepared with a singular purpose which was the ultimate elimination of tobacco products in America. It formed the basis for countless bureaucratic and legislative rulings about tobacco use throughout the country. By scaring Americans about the false dangers of second-hand smoke, anti-tobacco forces could plunder the tobacco industry through legalized extortion and eventually drive it out of business. But there was one small problem. The EPA report was rigged. The tobacco industry fought back and, on July 17, a United States District Court in North Carolina ruled in favor of the tobacco industry. America's firearm prohibitionists have been trying to pull the same kind of scam about a different kind of second-hand smoke -- second-hand gunsmoke. Instead of the tobacco industry and cigarette smokers, the targets are America's gun manufacturers and law-abiding gun owners. In place of the EPA's junk science on tobacco, they've cited junk science and falsified "research" on firearms and firearm-related violence. And, just like the EPA's second-hand smoke reports, these "scientific" reports are designed to ultimately put America's gunmakers out of business. A perfect example appeared in the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine. In order to inflate his figures and "prove" that the risks of keeping a firearm in the home outweigh the benefits, Dr. Arthur Kellermann counted 15 persons 'killed under legally excusable circumstances" -- i.e. violent criminals -- among his collection of "victims." In another study published just one year earlier, Kellermann lumped together lawful self-defense with outright murder in order to "prove" that when a woman is armed with a gun, the victim was "five times more likely to be [her] spouse, an intimate acquaintance or a member of [her] family than to be a stranger ..." That statistical sleight-of-hand provided him a pretext to "seriously question" the "wisdom of promoting firearms to women for self-protection." Kellermann's research has been funded by American taxpayers through the Centers for Disease Control. Unlike most of us, Kellermann is apparently unable to understand that felons killed by law-enforcement officers in the line of duty are not "victims." Nor is he able, apparently to comprehend the difference between lawful self-defense and murder FIRST-HAND LIES The plaintiffs in the tobacco lawsuit were six tobacco companies. The defendants were the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the agency's administrator, Carol Browner. The lawsuit against the EPA centered around the Radon Research Act of 1986, which required that the EPA "establish ... an advisory group comprised of individuals representing the States, the scientific community, industry and public interest organizations to assist [the EPA] in carrying out the research program ... for indoor air quality." However, presiding Federal Judge William Osteen found that the EPA had failed to establish such an advisory committee. Further, he questioned whether the findings in the EPA's research report would have been different if the proper committee had been formed in the first place. Under such circumstances, Osteen concluded that an atmosphere more conducive to an unbiased set of conclusions would undoubtedly have existed. Claiming that the EPA's report was doctored by the anti-tobacco lobby the plaintiffs challenged the EPA's evaluation of the respiratory health effects of breathing second-hand tobacco smoke ("environmental tobacco smoke" or ETS) and its subsequent classification as a carcinogen. They charged that 'the EPA excluded nearly half of the available studies ..." Even then the EPA needed to "adjust" its scientific methodology in order to demonstrate what amounted to only a weak relative risk." In short, "... the EPA's [second-hand smoke] Risk Assessment was not the result of reasoned decision making," but of a predetermined decision based on a dislike of tobacco use, by a hand-picked, biased, partisan committee. In deciding in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Osteen cited litany of abuses perpetrated by the EPA and found that not only had the EPA exceeded the authority given it by Congress, but it "disseminate[d] findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion ...." [emphasis ours] DOWN THE SAME CROOKED PATH There is no more perfect example illustrating the parallel in tactics used against the tobacco industry and against America's gunmakers than the actions and ideas articulated by Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell. In early 1998, Rendell set out his plans to file suit against gun manufacturers and hold them liable for the criminal misuse of lawfully manufactured firearms. The Washington Times reported that Rendell's suit would target the nation's nearly four-dozen gunmakers, arguing that they have created a "public nuisance" by knowingly flooding cities with more handguns than they could expect to sell to law-abiding citizens. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 99 20:47:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 2/3 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Since then, other cities have filed similarly frivolous lawsuits. Rendell and other like-minded politicians are preparing to soak firearm manufacturers for all they' can get by using blatantly doctored scientific reports to advance firearm prohibition in the process. Paul Heiruke, mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, called Rendell's ideas "interesting and novel." Helmke told The Washington Times that part of the theory of the tobacco suits was that tobacco products are dangerous but the buyer doesn't know it ... everyone knows guns are dangerous." But the case against "dangerous" firearms is based on the same kind of flawed, junk-science 'research" the EPA used in making its case for the alleged dangers of second-hand smoke. For example it's now common knowledge (isn't it?) that a gun kept in the home for self-protection is "43 times" more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder. Never mind that the junk-science 'research" which spawned this factoid has been discredited. Never mind that the one who concocted it was Arthur Kellermann, whose brand of "science" has been so blatantly inferior that Congress has cut off funding to both Kellermann and the CDC for future research on guns and violence. And never mind that the thousands of corpses of our spouses and children, inferred from Kellermann's conclusions, are nowhere to be found. Still, the damage has been done, and the myth persists and is repeated ad nauseum. And people like Rendell and Helmke continue to knowingly use these lies in the formulation of public policy. In attempting to make its case against second-hand smoke, the EPA resorted to the same kind of underhanded perversion of the scientific method. Although the EPA had 58 studies available on which to base its conclusions, it used only 31 of these. In their suit, the plaintiffs charged that inclusion of the omitted studies "would have undermined the EPA's claim of causal association between ETS exposure and lung cancer." In finding for the plaintiffs, the court agreed that the EPA's study selection process was "disturbing" and that the EPA had hand-picked the data it used. In the tobacco case, the court was unable to conclusively determine whether the EPA's omissions were intentional or coincidental. When it comes to firearms and firearm-related violence, however, this tactic of selective omission is used so routinely by politically motivated "researchers" that there can be no doubt of its intentional nature. THE TRUTH BE DAMNED People like Rendell and Helnike deliberately ignore any research that weakens their case and shows the benefits of firearm ownership, like the research of Drs. Gary Kleck and John Lott. Kleck is one of the most prominent researchers on defensive gun use in America. According to Kleck, in a study with colleague Dr. Marc Gertz published in 1995, ordinary law-abiding Americans use guns defensively 2.5 million times or more each year. About 75 percent of those instances involve handguns. Further, use of a firearm is the safest and most effective means of resisting violent criminal attack. The presence of a firearm at the time it's needed the most means that lives are saved, rapes are prevented, injuries are avoided, medical costs are minimized and property is protected. Lott is the author of the most exhaustive study to date on the deterrence of violent crime through the concealed carry of handguns. His is the first systematic analysis of nationwide crime data from all 3,054 counties in the United States, between 1977 and 1994. Unlike the EPA researchers, Lott didn't pick and choose his numbers. Before the results of Lott's research became available, firearm prohibitionists could always point their finger at the dead child killed by a gun and his grieving family -- all ghoulishly exploited by a mainstream media committed to civilian disarmament. Conversely, law-abiding gun owners could only point to the less sensational account of a would be victim saved by the presence of a gun -- one who had lived to tell his or her tale of survival. Showing that "nothing" happened is a tough act! But now we know with certainty that nothing did happen -- that the violent crimes that should have taken place didn't -- because Lott's sophisticated computer-assisted research confirmed that firearms provide a measurable deterrence to violent crime. Recent findings like these, ignored by unscrupulous mayors, lawyers and a corrupt mainstream media, serve to underscore the one major difference between tobacco and firearms. While second-hand tobacco smoke may not be dangerous enough to actually cause cancer and may even be a non-factor in the public health equation, there is overwhelming evidence of the benefit to society from the possession and use of firearms by ordinary citizens. SCIENCE IN THE WITNESS BOX One of the big differences between the tobacco industry and the firearm industry is the virtually limitless money pit available to tobacco. Robert Ricker, director of the Government Affairs Department of the American Shooting Sports Council, a broad coalition of industry-related groups, elaborated on that in a television segment that aired on December 23: "We don't have the big bucks that the tobacco companies did. The tobacco industry bought itself out of a difficult situation. We're going to have to fight." The firearms industry has all the science on its side to back it up in demanding court relief for itself at the hands of the same underhanded tactics. It can prove that falsified research, intended to harm it, has been systematically used by America's firearm prohibitionists to implement restrictive firearm laws and to mold public opinion to their way of thinking. Now, with the decision in North Carolina against the EPA, it has legal precedent on its side. Sound public policy can only be formulated when premised on truth and accuracy. Quietly accepting the continuing pattern of outright lies and deception from junk scientists, aided and abetted by a mainstream media bankrupt of all journalistic integrity -- all of which is calculated to change our actions and attitudes about firearm ownership -- will not serve us well. A viable firearm industry is in the interest of all Americans who wish their children to live in the safest society possible and who care about passing down their birthright of liberty to future generations. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:25:35 -0700 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: 1934 Group to challenge CLEO certification for C3 firearms (fwd) Received: from wvc ([204.246.130.34]) by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:07:32 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13856; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:50:49 -0700 Received: from (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA27030; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:58:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:58:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <9903232222.00zk@xpresso.seaslug.org> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.net Reply-To: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@mainstream.net Precedence: first-class From: noban@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 1934 Group to challenge CLEO certification for C3 firearms (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 On Mar 23, Chuck S wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------= - -] Please Repost where it might do some good. Feel free to copy and leave at = your local gun shop or gun shows. Friends, I am posting this to inform you of a grass roots initiated legal action, = which seeks to overturn the "CLEO Certification" requirement for individual = ownership of machineguns and other "NFA Firearms." I believe this effort will be = successful but donations are needed NOW! For those of us who truly believe that the = Second Amendment "ain=3D92t about duck hunting," this represents a solid = opportunity to actually win a round in the fight to restore our rights.=20 Background This may come as a surprise to some of you, but private ownership by = individuals of machineguns, short-barreled shotguns or rifles, suppressors, destructive= devices, and AOWs (Any Other Weapon =3D96 pen guns, some short shotguns = and the like) is perfectly legal, except where otherwise prohibited by State law = or local ordinance (This leaves you Californians out, btw). Under the = National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA34) such firearms (a.k.a. Title II, Class 3, or = NFA firearms) became regulated via a federal tax (similar to liquor taxes). = For most NFA firearms the tax is $200 and for AOWs the tax is $5. (See Note = 1). In order for an individual to make or obtain an NFA firearm (See Note 2), = the tax payment is sent with two copies of a) ATF Forms 1, 4, or 5, b) recent = photographs and c) fingerprint cards to BATF. All this is very similar to the = paperwork requirements for obtaining a concealed handgun license in those states = that have "shall-issue" CCW laws. =20 But guess what? There=3D92s one additional "gotcha" in this process. On = the back of the ATF forms is a section entitled "LAW ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION" and = this turns out to be the spoiler for most people interested in NFA Firearms. = Currently, ATF will not approve a transfer (i.e. will not accept the tax payment) = unless this section of the form is filled out and signed by the "chief law = enforcement officer" (CLEO) having jurisdictional authority (to issue or serve a = criminal warrant) for the applicant. =20 The CLEO certification states that the person signing has "no information = that the transferee will use the firearm=3D85for other than lawful purposes=3D85= " and that "the receipt and/or possession of the firearm=3D85would not place the = transferee in violation of State or local law." Sounds simple, right? It turns out = that Police Chiefs and Sheriffs, particularly in urban areas, will simply not = sign the certification. They are not legally bound to, nor does it make much = political sense for them to do so (to them anyway). =20 For those of you out there who are on good terms with your sheriff, police = chief, district attorney, or district criminal judge =3D96 then good for you. At = least 'til the next election. For the rest of you, this means you probably aren=3D92t "allowed" to = obtain some of the most interesting and unique firearms available in the world. Too = bad. By the way, unlawful possession of one of these things can get you 10 = years in club fed and $100,000 lighter in the bank account. Not recommended for = the entertainment value. Fortunately, there may be some relief on the horizon. 1934 Group The 1934 Group is a non-profit corporation established to take on legal = issues in the NFA arena. It is entirely donor supported. Donations are NOT = tax-deductible because this IS a lobbying organization. The corporation was organized = after several months of brainstorming and data gathering by an informal group of = individuals, dealers, and manufacturers in the NFA world who realized that none of the = "mainstream" gun rights organizations were fighting their fight. So they decided to do = something about it. =20 Attorneys Jim Jeffries III and Steven Halbrook have agreed to pursue a = case to overturn the CLEO certification requirement - Provided that the 1934 = Group, through its contributors, supplies the financial ammo to see this through. = These two highly respected attorneys need no introduction to those of us active = in the fight to preserve the Second Amendment. To date, hundreds of = individuals or their companies have pledged thousands of dollars to get this started. = Thousands of dollars more will be required to see it through and I urge you to = provide support for this effort through your own financial contributions and by = spreading the word.=20 Donations in personal or company check, money order (Please make a = notation on the "memo" field of your check if you prefer to stay anonymous to the = CL3 community) or cash can be sent to:=20 1934 Group=20 12701 NE 9th PL Suite #D312=20 Bellevue, WA 98005=20 For more information, check out the 1934 Group web site at=20 http://www.teleport.com/~dkw/1934WWW.htm _Small Arms Review_ publisher Dan Shea has written about the 1934 Group = and their efforts in the March issue of that magazine, which by the way is THE = journal to have for those interested in, or involved with, the NFA community. = See=20 http://www.smallarmsreview.com/ Jim Jeffries, in a letter to Dan Shea, has outlined the case by the 1934 = Group. The letter is posted on James Bardwell=3D92s web site at:=20 http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/cleo_lawsuit/jeffr= ies_shea_letter.txt So there, now I=3D92ve said it. Here=3D92s an opportunity to win one = again. For those gun owners who believe this doesn=3D92t affect them, well, all I can do is = paraphrase Franklin - We must hang together in this fight, or surely we=3D92ll hang = separately. Oh, and I don=3D92t duck hunt either. But without folks like us, the duck = hunters will be toast eventually. And for those of you who will protest that this effort is wrong because it = doesn=3D92t go far enough (NFA34 is un-Constitutional and all that=3D85), I hear you = and trust me, you're preachin' to the choir. But the law is what it is, regardless = of eloquent arguments to the contrary. So I choose, for now, to fight this = particular battle within that context. Finally, I have no financial stake in any of this except that if we win, = my boys might get to keep some of their daddy's guns. Thanks for your time. Chuck S=20 Spring, Texas=20 March 23, 1999 Note 1: For an interesting and enlightening take on NFA34, take some time = to read _Unintended Consequences_, by John Ross. Note 2: Unlicensed individuals may not obtain machineguns manufactured = after May 1986, but this is a battle for another time. [------------------------- end of forwarded message -----------------------= - -] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - - ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------= - - An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand =3D Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy = a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus = Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------= - - - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #131 ***********************************