From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #133 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, April 26 1999 Volume 02 : Number 133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:18:32 -0800 From: Joe Waldron Subject: Re: FW: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective Scott Bergeson wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500 > From: jurist@attymail.com > To: Multiple recipients of list PRN > Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective > > Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA, > > This message is intended for Mr. Alan Gottlieb. If this should arrive > at the wrong address, please pardon the error and kindly delete the > message. > > Dear Mr. Gottlieb, > > I understand you are supporting a Bill supporting gun locks on weapons > in an effort to head off more onerous legislation. > This is NOT true. "Preemptive concession" is not the basis for support of the bill. As others in the gun lobby already acknowledge, Washington's EXISTING reckless endangerment law (RCW 9A.36.050) can and has been used to prosecute individuals who allow a minor unauthorized access to a firearm. HB 1424 NARROWS that prosecutorial option. The remainder of the message being answered is inaccurate drivel totally irrelevant to th efacts in this case. This issue is being promoted by GOA in an attempt to attack another member of the gun rights community. By all means visit the GOA web site addressing the issue. The please show the courtesy to visit the CCRKBA web site at http://www.ccrkba.org and read the other side of the story. Joe Waldron Executive Director, CCRKBA - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:21:35 -0800 From: Joe Waldron Subject: Re: FW: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective Scott Bergeson wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500 > From: jurist@attymail.com > To: Multiple recipients of list PRN > Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective > > Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA, > > This message is intended for Mr. Alan Gottlieb. If this should arrive > at the wrong address, please pardon the error and kindly delete the > message. Interesting, too, that the message is supposed to be directed at Mr. Gottlieb and CCRKBA, but it seems to be making it's way through the various gun list on the 'net. That may say more about the real motives of the message than the words indicate. Joe Waldron Exec Dir, CCRKBA - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:26:10 -0700 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: LPU: DesNews editorial I wrote to the Deseret News and asked for a copy of the survey and the final results. They never responded. The Trib has refused to make survey info available and claims "all the information I need" is in the article and/or graphs. =20 Sarah At 09:49 PM 3/24/99 -0700, you wrote: >While I don't support the contention that rights are totally dependent >on the will of the majority, the DN and the Trib keep saying this, but >how accurate and unbiased are the polls on which these statistics are >based? Does anyone have access to the raw data, such as date, polling >firm, exact questions asked, who responded as compared to who was >approached in addition to the actual numbers of total and specific >responses, etc.? > >Scott > >On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 utbagpiper@juno.com provided: > >> Keep schools, churches gun-free=20 >> Deseret News editorial > >> An overwhelming number of Utahns advocate the obvious =97 guns >> should be kept out of schools and churches. We concur. >SNIP >> 90 percent of Utahns believe >> all weapons should be banned from public schools. Eighty-six percent >> think guns =97 including concealed weapons =97 should be kept from >> churches. Three-fourths want firearms prohibited from Olympic venues in >> 2002. While 58 percent feel they should be kept out of private >> businesses open to the public. >SNIP to end > > >- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 06:28:06 -0700 (MST) From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: DesNews editorial Thank you. I will consider this refusal of the papers to answer a tacit admission of their prevaricated use of "statistics". Scott "Statistics don't lie, but liars sure can use statistics." - ---------- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:26:10 -0700 From: S. Thompson I wrote to the Deseret News and asked for a copy of the survey and the final results. They never responded. The Trib has refused to make survey info available and claims "all the information I need" is in the article and/or graphs. =20 Sarah At 09:49 PM 3/24/99 -0700, you wrote: >While I don't support the contention that rights are totally dependent >on the will of the majority, the DN and the Trib keep saying this, but >how accurate and unbiased are the polls on which these statistics are >based? Does anyone have access to the raw data, such as date, polling >firm, exact questions asked, who responded as compared to who was >approached in addition to the actual numbers of total and specific >responses, etc.? >Scott >On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 utbagpiper@juno.com provided: >> Keep schools, churches gun-free=20 >> Deseret News editorial >> An overwhelming number of Utahns advocate the obvious =97 guns >> should be kept out of schools and churches. We concur. >SNIP >> 90 percent of Utahns believe >> all weapons should be banned from public schools. Eighty-six percent >> think guns =97 including concealed weapons =97 should be kept from >> churches. Three-fourths want firearms prohibited from Olympic venues in >> 2002. While 58 percent feel they should be kept out of private >> businesses open to the public. >SNIP to end - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 07:18:10 -0700 (MST) From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Pre-emptive concessions? Let's hear your side of it. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 08:55:53 -0500 From: Jurist To: AkaGUNNUT@aol.com Cc: Scott.Bergeson@m.cc.utah.edu, jwaldron@halcyon.com, utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com, PRN@airgunhq.com Subject: Pre-emptive concessions? Let's hear your side of it. Say it ain't so, Joe, No, Scott did not write this letter, it was I who penned this -- warts and all. I have to admit, the grammar was not the best I have ever composed, but on closer examination of the facts, I have seen nothing -- other than indignant denials -- to prove it wrong. Scott just did me the favor, I suppose, of reposting my article to a wider audience. Now, please keep in mind that I have no intention in joining or forming a new circular RKBA firing squad. We have plenty of enemies already, both foreign and domestic, to keep our bloodpressures up and our keepboards smoking. You may not have noticed, but I did couch my terms in the tentative fashion, as I did not want to start shooting before I understood the whole story. At this point I have visited both the CCRKBA website AND GOA's website to try and get both sides of the story. [http://www.ccrkba.org/] [http://www.gunowners.org/] I found very little on the CCRKBA's website that directly addressed this issue, [as a matter of fact, I DID call the 1-800 number to give the U.S. Attorney in question a ration; but the receptionist hadn't a clue of what the message posted on the site referred to]. GOA's site at http://www.gunowners.org/swadocs.htm, on the other hand, has about six files that document the back-and-forth between Larry Pratt and Alan Gottlieb. In one section, Mr. Gottlieb is quoted as saying: >"A pro-active approach to the child safety issue is more than damage >control. It is about reaching out to legitimately concerned citizens >with the message that gun rights are not incompatible with safety and >responsibility. If we allow our enemies to hijack the issue of child >safety, we put ourselves on the losing side of a battle that could >decide the war." Perhaps you interpret it differently than I do, but in this particular instance, it stinks very strongly of "pre-emptive concession." In case you have been paying attention over the past 20-odd year years, THAT TACTIC HAS NOT WORKED FOR US! It HAS worked to salami-slice away our Second Amendment rights. I, for one, have no intention of cooperating with the Executioners of the Constitution. I want to expose them as the liars they are. I want to get a COMPLETE ROLLBACK of all gunlaws until we have nothing left but the Second Amendment, okay? That's where I am coming from. Concessions aren't part of my vocabulary. In my letter, I suggested we go on the counterattack and demand the repeal of the NAZI LAW that is the Gun Control Act of 1968. http://jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm I hope that isn't part of the 'inaccurate drivil' you were referring to. Now, between SAF, CCRKBA, NRA and GOA, I know of no organization in the USA who has had the gumption to use this excellent club that is available to us and shame the Left into repealing this NAZI LAW. None have come forward and taken action. None have demanded that they wanted the Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution and NOTHING LESS than the Constitution. Instead, we're constantly backpeddling, cringing, and now - -- so it would seem -- all too eager to commit suicide rather than allow someone else to shoot us. I'm sick of it. Now, I HOPE we are all on the same team. Larry has put up facts on his website, to include reposts of your (?) organizations' transmissions to him. The way I see it, he has introduced evidence sufficient to show that Alan is making pre-emptive concessions. I now invite your, level- headed, factual response rebutting what has been proferred. As far as the supporting information included with my initial letter, by calling it "inaccurate drivel" you attack every major argument we have against the introduction of mandatory gunlock legislation. Okay Joe, I yield back my time and the floor over to you. Let's hear the facts, as you see them please. Let's try to keep the bloodshed within the family to a minimum. Best regards, Rick Vaughan, Esq. jurist@attymail.com Joe Waldron wrote: > Scott Bergeson wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500 > > From: jurist@attymail.com > > To: Multiple recipients of list PRN > > Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective > Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA, > Dear Mr. Gottlieb, > I understand you are supporting a Bill supporting gun locks on weapons > in an effort to head off more onerous legislation. > This is NOT true. "Preemptive concession" is not the basis for > support of the bill. As others in the gun lobby already acknowledge, > Washington's EXISTING reckless endangerment law (RCW 9A.36.050) can and > has been used to prosecute individuals who allow a minor unauthorized > access to a firearm. HB 1424 NARROWS that prosecutorial option. > The remainder of the message being answered is inaccurate drivel > totally irrelevant to the facts in this case. This issue is being > promoted by GOA in an attempt to attack another member of the gun > rights community. By all means visit the GOA web site addressing the > issue. The please show the courtesy to visit the CCRKBA web site at > http://www.ccrkba.org and read the other side of the story. > Joe Waldron > Executive Director, CCRKBA - ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 99 22:41:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: It doesn't take much to shoot down this anti-gun propaganda It doesn't take much to shoot down this anti-gun propaganda Charley Reese The Orlando Sentinel March 21, 1999. The ignorance and inability to think of many Americans is appalling. The choice is either to believe that or to accuse them of something even worse -- deliberate lying and propaganda. This is plainly evident in the current propaganda campaign being directed against the private ownership of firearms. Let me quote from an article published in the New York Times. The headline states, "To rejuvenate gun sales, critics say, industry started making more powerful pistols." The story is based on assertions by Tom Diaz, who is described as a "former congressional expert on handgun control." Now, first of all, congressional expert is an oxymoron. Here is an example of Diaz's propaganda: "The increase in pistols that are more deadly began with a shift in design from revolvers, which generally hold six rounds, to faster- firing semiautomatic pistols with larger magazines capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition . . . ." Now, what's wrong with that? First, magazine capacity has nothing to do with the power of a pistol. That is a factor of the cartridge. Second, semiautomatic pistols were invented in 1899 by George Luger, a German. There has not been a "shift in design" from revolvers to semiautomatics. Semiautomatics and revolvers both have been around for virtually all of this century. Finally, revolvers can be fired as rapidly as semiautomatics or close enough to make no difference. Again, rapidity of fire has nothing to do with the power of the gun. Diaz then makes a totally false statement, if the reporter has accurately summarized his argument. Here it is: "The next step was the introduction of higher-caliber ammunition, moving from the older and smaller .22- or .38-caliber pistols to the larger 9-millimeter or .40-caliber handguns." Maybe they just don't know math. They sure know nothing about the history of firearms. Caliber refers to the diameter of the bullet. A .38 caliber, which is expressed in inches, is the same as a 9 millimeter, which is expressed in the metric system. Furthermore, calibers of pistols in the 19th century tended to be larger -- .50 caliber in some cases, .45 caliber or .44 caliber. Apparently, this congressional expert never saw many cowboy movies as a child. Then he tries to blame manufacturers for producing very small, lightweight pistols. That's also nonsense. Small pocket pistols have been in production for more than 140 years. Has he never heard of the Lincoln assassination? Lincoln was killed with one shot from a tiny pocket pistol, popularly referred to as a derringer. Though many manufacturers made them, Henry Deringer invented the first one in 1852. Notice that his name, misspelled, became the generic name for pocket pistols. Diaz' thesis, which is false, is part of trying to rationalize suing gun manufacturers. He purports that they are making more powerful pistols to combat lagging sales. As I've pointed out, that's total nonsense. Americans, for historical reasons, traditionally favor revolvers while Europeans traditionally favor semiautomatics. Until recently, the .38-caliber revolver was the standard police weapon in America -- the 9mm semiautomatic is the standard police and military weapon in Europe. The 9mm cartridge is only marginally faster than the .38 police special and the same diameter. The most widely used 9 millimeter cartridge today is the 9 millimeter Luger introduced in 1902. The .357 Magnum was introduced in 1935. Heifer dust can't trump the facts. [Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed By The Sender - A.K. Pritchard] - ------------------------------ A.K. Pritchard http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/ To subscribe to "The Republican" email list - just ask! "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England." - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Mar 99 22:41:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: "Atlas Shrugged" banned in Sweden? - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:05:57 -0500 From: jurist@attymail.com To: Multiple recipients of list PRN Subject: Okay, let's put a stop to this! (They wouldn't do that, woul Stan Moskal wrote: > Will these special units, when the chips are down, follow orders and > actually carry out actions against American civilians? Granted many > of the Nazi's acted because they were just following orders, but I'd > like to think that in general the American military is different. > Especially an all volunteer force made up of Americans. Will these > professional "super soldiers" actually attack and kill Americans? > I mean they are not FBI or BATF thugs are they? ARE THEY? (Good question Stan) QUESTION 46 - - Would you shoot and kill American Civilians Resisting Disarmament? The Combat Arms Survey: Question 46 http://www.covertops.com/news.htm#scenario About the Combat Arms Survey that contained Question 46, U.S. troops attitudes towards firing on U.S. citizens. >"46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, > transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty > (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned > over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number > of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. The statement that the U.S. Marines were asked to respond to: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) No opinion Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree The Responses Of the 300 U.S. Marines asked this question, 264, or 88% of them responded. The outcome of the survey was as follows: Strongly disagree 127 42.33% Disagree 58 19.33% Agree 56 18.67% Strongly agree 23 07.67% No opinion 36 12.00% Total: 300 100.00% Summary of the responses to question 46. The survey results indicated that 61.66% (42.33 + 19.33) said they would refuse to fire on U.S. citizens, whereas 26.34% (18.67 + 7.67) indicated they would fire. According to Lt. Cdr. Guy Cunningham, the author of the thesis and designer of the survey questions; >"This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent > of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil remarks > on their response or written comments in the margin space." >Is there a problem here? What troubles Lt. Cdr. Cunningham and other opponents of using U.S. military forces for U.N. peacekeeping and non-traditional missions within United States territories is the 26.34% indicating they would fire. > In another scenario, such a significant minority could be separated > from those unwilling to shoot their fellow citizens, and easily > organized into a unit that would obey such orders. > http://www.covertops.com/news.htm#scenario - --------------------------------------------- OKAY AND HERE'S HIS EXCUSE FOR THE PURGE OF THE MILITARY: Left setting Conservatives in the military for a purge and redefining Conservatives as 'Terrorist.' http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/presley.htm Don't be fooled. They LABEL and thus EQUATE Conservative, patriotic and Constitutionalist with "KKK," "Nazi," "Facist" and soon "Terrorist." - ---------------------------------------------- AND HERE'S HIS (CLINTON'S) HAND-PICKED HENCEMEN "I can tell you specifically. In my humble opinion, based on my background, the scenario if I were creating this ops plan... 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 [kill] everybody, take all the weapons, and let the local P.D. clean it up," "Presidential Decision Directive 25 is the authority given to them to operate and to be not covered by posse comitatus. ... "Some military sources, too, are concerned with the way the CAG has evolved, and he is very concerned about the way the group has been granted authority to do just about anything with total immunity from the law, including the Posse Comitatus Act...." "They will follow and do whatever the president tells them to do. In that regard, they are somewhat dangerous." "Everything is training for them. You train like you fight and you fight like you train. There's very little distinction between the two."... [T]hey were under the direct control of the Department of Justice,"... "If they are told to shoot somebody they will shoot them, you know, without question," claims the source." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990225_xex_the_military.shtml - ---------------------------------------------- OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS Remember hearing anything about the U.S. experiments when people were ordered to give electrical shocks, with increasing severity, to other people? Well, even Americans continued to administer shocks up to very high levels. - Milgram's study on Obedience to Orders http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~cultsock/MUHome/cshtml/Obed.html http://www.cyber.vt.edu/mbo/commres/lectures/ethics/milgram/obediance.html http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jcook/milgram.htm - --------------------------------------------------- THEY'RE ALREADY KILLING AMERICANS - - Bonus Marchers - - Kent State ("Four Dead in OH-HI-OH") - - Ruby Ridge - - Waco - - Sallisaw - - Taft - - All the unreported incidents..... Police are receiving military-style training, which is great for the battlefield, but not appropriate for a traffic stop for exceeding the speed limit - and Citizens are getting slaughtered. Govt. says "it's okay" http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo102.htm http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/policeguns.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/dcpolice/deadlyforce/police1page1.htm http://civilliberty.miningco.com/msubmenu5.htm http://www.bakersfield.com/special/taftshooting/ - ----------------------------------------------- Who's behind all these so-called "laws?" Not Americans! (for the most part) Surplus Weapons and the MicroDisarmament Process - - "Increase in U.N. Involvement in the MicroDisarmament Process" Essentially, the excuse to divide humans into two groups: those government-armed humans and suubject-unarmed humans. Like Clint Eastwood said: >"Ya know Tuco, there are two kinds a' people in this world... Those who have guns, and the kind who dig... now DIG!" More - yes you guessed it, U.N. involvement in domestic disarmament http://bicc.uni-bonn.de/weapons/events/micro/laurance.html http://bicc.uni-bonn.de/weapons/brief3/chap5.html And just in case you *still* aren't depressed enough already, I got this tidbit in from Sweden this morning. Sounds like the United States is the last holdout. Once the RKBA/Freedom goes in the United States, who is left to rescue us? Where is there a place simply to flee to? Nowhere. It is up to us. >"Those Swedes not accepting the system are leaving. In a few years they > will have very big problems here, as not only big companies are leaving > Sweden, but also well educated people. Somehow this all reminds me of > Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged". Do you know that book? It is forbidden here > in Sweden!" Please contact your Congresscritter and demand a Rollback. In liberty, Rick V. - ------------------------------------------------------------- The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Apr 99 22:34:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: WHY I HATE THE NRA * Forwarded message - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 13:28:02 -0800 From: Ed Wolfe Subject: WHY I HATE THE NRA From: wolfeyes Ladies & gentlemen: There is a lot of talk about treason these last few months, mostly centering on our president and those gutless cowards we call our representatives and senators. Real treason is an act most foul. It isn't really treason when a no-good, son-of-a-bitch like President Clinton betrays us, because hey!, you knew he was a snake when you elected him, so don't bitch when he bites you! The same can be said about our representatives and senators. But when a body like the NRA betrays you .... that cuts right to the bone. How many Americans have asked; "Why doesn't the NRA pursue a legal challenge based purely upon the Second Amendment?" Why indeed?!! I have patiently watched the NRA gather billions in contributions to fight local and state gun issues here and there and everywhere. They've collected a lot of money these past years, and in fairness, they've spent it on the fights ... they picked. But every time the NRA had the opportunity to bring a federal lawsuit to challenge an errant federal law on purely Second Amendment grounds, their legal staff remained mute. This troubled me greatly, and it caused me to question the integrity of the NRA. Why in the world would they keep missing these opportunities to, once and for all, set this issue to rest? The very fact that I would ask such a question demonstrates my own foolishness. We've all seen it: A group of laborers is treated unfairly, they form a union to force the employers to treat them fairly, they succeed, and then what happens? The Union begins to operate as a separate entity, often acting in it's own best interest in matters where the interest of the union member should be held most sacred. The NRA has devolved into the same animal. Face it, as they have: If a solid United States Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is either denied to, or guaranteed to, the individual citizen, the NRA is out of business. The game is over. No more cushy jobs, no more television appearances, no more income, no more controversy ... NO MORE. That was before a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, by the name of Sam Cummings slammed federal prosecutors -- and the NRA -- back into reality. It seems a man going through a divorce was served a temporary restraining order -- even though he'd never threatened his soon-to-be-ex-wife. What he didn't know was that, buried in Clinton's massive and complicated 1994 Crime Bill, was a prohibition against possession of a firearm by anyone served with a restraining order! When the feds found out he still had possession of firearms, he was indicted. The accused' attorneys presented a defense based upon both Article II and V of the Bill of Rights. Fat chance, right? Not this time! In his decision, Judge Cummings, who sits on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, wrote this: " A historical examination of the right to bear arms ... bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should be, construed as an individual right." And: "The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in the bill of Rights." And: "It is absurd that a boilerplate state court divorce order can collaterally and automatically extinguish a law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights..." The judge's decision goes even farther in support of the individual's right to keep arms, including the individual's right to keep so-called "assault weapons", based upon the case of Miller vs US, 1939, but that is not the point of this article. The point of this article is to illustrate the damnable and treasonous failure to act on the part of the National Rifle Association, an organization I belonged to and contributed to for over twenty years. The NRA didn't bring this case to Judge Sam Cummings, but they should have. The NRA should have brought similar cases to federal judges on Second Amendment arguments all across this nation as they presented themselves over the years, but they didn't. We now have tainted and corrupt federal judges all across this nation, and only now will a case bearing strictly Second Amendment issues be subjected to a federal appeals court, and you can bet that by the time this case reaches their ears, the appeals "court" will be well-prepared to support the corrupt federal government side of this issue. If you ever give another dime to the NRA, you're a damn fool. Carl F. Worden Liaison & Intelligence Officer Southern Oregon Militia - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 16:30:38 -0600 From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Fwd: Fw: Respond to AJC poll >Time to speak out..... >NH >=========== > > >>In a ground-breaking move, Saturday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution >>actually >>mentioned John Lott's Chicago study which shows that areas with >>concealed >>carry laws have less violent crime than those which restrict the >>possesion >>of firearms. >> >>They have asked readers to respond to the question "Should people be >>allowed to carry concealed firearms?" at the website >>http://www.accessatlanta.com/community/talk/ . >> >>Please log on and make your voice heard! >> >>Spread this message to everyone you can! It's about time the voice of >>reason was heard in Atlanta's paper. >> - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 99 20:00:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Guns and the Constitution--Wall Street Journal - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:36:10 -0400 From: "Alexandra H. Mulkern" Subject: Guns and the Constitution--Wall Street Journal April 12, 1999 Rule of Law Guns and the Constitution By Eugene Volokh, who teaches constitutional law at UCLA Law School. A federal judge in Texas has just done something no federal court had done in more than 60 years: On March 30 he held that the Second Amendment protects people's right to keep and bear arms. If this decision is affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the case has a very good chance of going to the Supreme Court, which hasn't yet resolved this issue. And behind the narrow Second Amendment matter lies a deeper question about the utility of a written Constitution. As in many constitutional cases, the defendant--Timothy Emerson, a San Angelo doctor--isn't the best of fellows. During Dr. Emerson's divorce proceedings, his wife claimed he had threatened to kill her lover. The state divorce court apparently made no findings on this, but entered a boilerplate order barring Dr. Emerson from threatening his wife. Though this state order said nothing about firearms, a little-known federal law bars gun possession by people who are under such orders. Dr. Emerson not only failed to dispose of his guns, as the law required, but eventually brandished one in front of his wife and daughter. He was then prosecuted under the federal law, though for gun possession rather than gun misuse. The instinctive reaction here is that Dr. Emerson is the very sort we'd like to disarm, trouble waiting to happen. But when the divorce court issued its order, Dr. Emerson hadn't been found guilty of anything. Had he been convicted of a felony, all agree he would have lost his right to keep and bear arms as well as his right to remain at liberty. Here, though, there was no trial, no conviction, no finding of misconduct or future dangerousness. So when the federal law barred Dr. Emerson from possessing guns, he was a citizen with a clean record, just like you and me. Hence his Second Amendment defense. The hot constitutional question is whether the Second Amendment protects only states' rights to arm their own military forces, or whether it protects an individual right. If the states-rights view is correct, Dr. Emerson could have been disarmed with no constitutional worries--and so could anyone else. But the Second Amendment's text and original meaning pretty clearly show that it protects individuals. The text, which is reprinted nearby, says the right belongs to people, not states. And in the Bill of Rights "the right of the people" refers to individuals, as we see in the First and Fourth Amendments. Moreover, the Second Amendment is based on the British 1688 Bill of Rights and is related to right-to-bear-arms provisions in Framing-era state constitutions. The British right must have been individual; there were no states in England. Same for the state constitutional rights; a right mentioned in a state Bill of Rights, which protects citizens against the state government, can't belong to the state itself. So in the Framing era, the "right to bear arms" meant an individual right. What about the militia? The Second Amendment secures a "right of the people," not of the militia; but in any event, as the Supreme Court held in 1939, the Framers used "militia" to refer to all adult able-bodied males under age 45. Even today, under the 1956 Militia Act, all male citizens between 18 and 45 are part of the militia. (Women are probably also included, given the Supreme Court's sex-equality precedents.) "Well-regulated militia" in late 1700s parlance meant the same thing--"the body of the People capable of bearing Arms," which is how an early proposal for the amendment defined it. And the individual-rights view is the nearly unanimous judgment of all the leading 1700s and 1800s commentators and cases. Based on this evidence, federal Judge Sam Cummings concluded Dr. Emerson's gun possession (though not his gun misuse) was constitutionally protected. If the Second Amendment is to be taken seriously, then Judge Cummings was right, and the other lower court cases holding the contrary were wrong. If, that is, the Second Amendment is to be taken seriously. The notion of a written, binding Constitution tells us it should be, but cases like this lead some to wonder. Why, they ask, should today's decisions be bound by the dead hand of the past? If we have a "living Constitution" onto which courts may graft new rights, why can't they prune away obsolete ones? These are genuinely tough questions, which go far beyond just the Second Amendment, and which have been raised in past controversies by conservatives as well as liberals. Let me give a few responses. First, government entirely by the sometimes hyperactive hand of the present also has flaws. The benefits of liberties, however real, are often less visible than the costs. When we see Dr. Emerson before the court, accused of making violent threats, it's tempting to treat the right to possess guns as a nuisance. But we don't as easily see the hundreds of thousands of people who use guns each year in self-defense, including separating spouses who defend themselves against would-be abusers. Second, modern innovations that restrict traditional liberties are often oversold. Realistically, people willing to violate laws against violent crime will rarely be deterred by laws against gun possession. Conversely, if Dr. Emerson is the poster child for why some shouldn't have guns, he is equally an example of how the law could effectively punish people for misusing guns (by brandishing them in a threatening way) rather than just for having them. Maybe ignoring the Constitution is neither so valuable nor so necessary. Third, while some think gun rights are "obsolete," others disagree. Since 1970, 15 states have enacted new state constitutional rights to bear arms or strengthened old ones; 44 constitutions now have such provisions. In the mid-1980s, nine states let pretty much all law-abiding adults get a license to carry concealed weapons; now the number is 31. A conclusion that the right is obsolete thus doesn't rest on any unambiguous consensus; it can rest only on the judge's personal policy preferences. Do we trust judges that much? And finally, do we trust judges to determine when other provisions--the Establishment Clause, the privilege against self-incrimination, the jury trial, the freedom of speech-- become obsolete, too? - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 99 20:00:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Pres. Hinckley's Remarks Original spelling preserved Excerpted from http://www.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/shxhinck.htm L.D.S. Church President's Remarks at Thomas Funeral Unofficial Transcript "It becomes apparent to all that a way must be found to keep the mentally ill from senseless acts of violence. You cannot have an indiscriminate allowance of firearms without abuses. All of us cannnot be held hostage by a few whose minds are sick and who lack judgement and reason. We cannot live and work in a bunker mentality. The very nature of our lives is based on our freedom to go and come while doing our work." - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Apr 99 17:48:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: FW: Colorado Incident For distribution. Note that the original author, whose identity Jim Dexter has concealed, misuses the term "liberals" as a euphemism for 'totalitarian tyrants'. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: lputah@qsicorp.com Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 22:27:43 -0700 Subject: LPU: FW: Colorado Incident -LONG From: "Jim Dexter" MORE ON COLORADO SHOOTINGS As anyone with an ounce of sense could have predicted, the debate following the Columbine High School shootings now centers on gun control. Those of you who listened yesterday might have caught a short interview with John Lott Jr, author of "More Guns, Less Crime." He brought up two very interesting facts concerning the affect of making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. First --- some additional research Lott has done shows that there is an 81 percent decrease in shootings with multiple victims when people are allowed to carry concealed weapons. Another interesting fact. Two of the school shootings that happened in recent years were stopped by civilians with guns =D2 not by the police. In one of these cases an Assistant Principal of the school had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. He kept that weapon in his car while at school and parked his car off school property so that he would not violate laws concerning guns on school grounds. When the shooting started he ran a quarter-mile to his car to get the gun, ran back to the school and held the shooter for the cops. In another case a passer-by heard the gunshots in the school. He grabbed the gun he kept in his car, ran into the school, and stopped the gunkid before he could shoot anyone else. Study after study after study has shown that crime rates go down, murders go down, aggravated assaults go down ....when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns for protection. In spite of the facts we still have the left screaming for more gun control. The Colorado legislature put off deliberations yesterday on a bill that would make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get gun permits. It makes no sense. A law that just might have prevented the tragedy is delayed --- while people discuss and promote the idea of disarming victims. Remember --- when these liberals start talking about gun control, they're only talking about keeping guns out of the hands of people who obey the law. Ask them what their plan is to get the guns away from the criminals and they'll return a blank stare. Fact .... 96 percent of the guns used in crimes in this country are NOT bought through retail outlets. Waiting periods and other regulations have NO EFFECT on these sales. The lesson here is clear: Gun control laws only succeed in making it more difficult for law-abiding people to protect themselves from criminals --- and it emboldens the criminals with the realization that their victims are probably unarmed. THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO HERE IS ..... ........put the blame where it actually belongs. On the two kids who did the shooting. In case you haven't noticed --- and Lord knows I've done my best to bring it to your attention, liberals, and that includes the mainstream media in this country, just absolutely hates the idea of holding individuals responsible for their actions. Remember, if you believe that people should be free to make their own decisions, and should be held responsible for the consequences of those decisions, then how do you promote the idea of an all-powerful government that manages every aspect of our daily lives? The liberal dream of a paternalistic, womb to tomb government can only be supported by promoting the idea that individuals are not to be held responsible for their actions or their status in life. What we are, what we think, what we do, and what we become is all dependent on outside influences that control our lives - -- not on our own decisions. Since these outside influences are so overpowering the only way they can be managed -- for the benefit of us all, of course -- is through government. So --- for the actions of the two shooters --- who do we blame? The guns! That certainly works for a lot of liberals. But let's also throw in video games, violent movies and the Internet. Since it is impossible for individuals to stand up to these negative forces in their lives --- the government must do it. Face it, folks. These two kids were deranged, evil people. They are to blame for the shootings. They committed a deranged, evil act. Deranged, evil people have been, and will continue to commit acts of unspeakable evil throughout history. And every time one of these deranged, evil persons commits a deranged and evil act there will be some despot out there who will see the event as a perfect excuse to enhance his own power over the people he pretends to "serve." WHEN NUT-CASES BRING GUNS TO SCHOOLS As you know, most schools around the country have a "zero-tolerance" policy on weapons. If you bring a gun to school you get kicked out. Expelled. No questions asked --- you're gone. But --- there's a catch. What if you're certifiably crazy? What if you have some pretty severe personality disorders? What if you're not wound too tight, and you get caught with a gun at school. Are you permanently expelled? Are you kicked out for the rest of the school year? Probably not. You see, these kids are disabled. They're mentally disabled. That means they can claim protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Check it out. If someone -- or someone's parents, want to claim protection under the ADA the government will step in and tell the school district that these kids have to be put back in class. So, what do we have here. Sane kids get expelled for the remainder of the year. Those not-so-sane are back in a few weeks. Now which group do you think might present the biggest threat? - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #133 ***********************************