From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #139 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, June 8 1999 Volume 02 : Number 139 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 06 Jun 99 21:10:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: May the Force - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: lputah@qsicorp.com Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 15:05:49 -0600 Subject: LPU: FW: May the Force From: "Jim Dexter" Darth Sidius, the eventual evil emperor in the Star Wars saga, says this in "The Phantom Menace." "Fear is the path to the dark side...fear leads to anger...anger leads to hate...hate leads to suffering." Erin Partridge (Dick's son) observes: Despite that this was said by a fictional character, it does have a lot of wisdom and is very applicable to the gun issue to gun owners favour. Littleton created a lot of FEAR of guns and their owners. In fact a lot of people got ANGRY at gun owners. Many actually showed HATE ---such as by protesting the NRA at Denver, saying "they're not welcome." But if gun prohibitionists -- mostly well meaning but misled people -- do get there way --- What will it lead to? - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:54:24 -0600 From: charles hardy Subject: Looking for recording of GOP convention--off topic Apologies for an off topic post, but I'm hoping some here may have the info I need. I am currently trying to track down audio or video recordings made at the State GOP convention this past Saturday. I am especially interested in any recordings of Senator Hatch's remarks. In addition to seeing several individuals with camcorders I also saw several larger cameras and crews like those used by the professional media. I have checked with TV stations KUTV (ch 2), KUWB (ch 30), KTVX (ch 4), and KSL (ch 5). None of them had camera crews at the convention. I have also contacted the State GOP HQ, but they do not have any recordings or further info as of yet (maybe something will come into their hands in the next few days, but no guarantees). I have a call into Hatch's local office to request a transcript, but have not heard back from yet either. If anyone has a recording of Hatch's speech, or if you know of anyone, idividual or organization (ie did you notice which stations had film crews there or did you see any video broadcast on any news reports), who may have made a recording of his comments, please let me know. I very much want to get a copy of his speech and will happily pay any reasonable price for copying, etc. Thank you Charles. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:01:26 -0600 From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: June 7 column -- private mailboxes--a bit on guns in this one ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy - --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com (Vin Suprynowicz) To: vinsends@ezlink.com Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:41:45 -0700 Subject: June 7 column -- private mailboxes Message-ID: Return-path: Received: from mx1.boston.juno.com (mx1.boston.juno.com [207.205.100.50]) by x13.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA5X3MNWANXBST2 (sender ); Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:43:48 -0400 (EST) Received: from ez0.ezlink.com (ezlink.com [199.45.150.1]) by mx1.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA5X3MNWADML79A (sender ); Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:43:48 -0400 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA16982; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:43:00 -0600 Resent-From: vinsends@ezlink.com Resent-Date: xMessageSize=30000000 Resent-Sender: vinsends-request@ezlink.com Resent-Message-ID: <"UHS623.0.X84.rqANt"@ez0.ezlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JUNE 7, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz You dared use a private postal competitor? Why is there suddenly so much talk about an "alternative tax system"? Because our congresscritters just now started to feel compassion for us, their long-suffering milk cows, after 85 years? It couldn't be because "voluntary compliance" with the existing system is plummeting as folks enter the gray market of offshore e-commerce, a trend which can only accelerate as rumors spread that the already sclerotic computer system of the IRS may not survive Y2K? Couldn't that help explain the accelerating frenzy to ear-tag and track every American and his money? It is in this context that we must view the frantic haste with which the Clinton administration now seeks to "close the loopholes" and make sure federal agencies permanently record the serial number of every firearm -- as well as the buyer's home address -- whenever there's a transfer. In this context, it starts to make sense that the process of "voluntarily applying" for a Social Security number (like you could really get a job without one) no longer waits till the wide-eyed youth's first job at age 16, but is now imposed on squalling infants in the hospital delivery room -- whether parents sign the consent form or not. This growing panic that some members of the formerly docile herd may somehow slip out of the observation and grasp of those who enjoy milking us weekly shows up in the recent requirement that federally-regulated banks (any other kind of bank is illegal, of course) report every customer transaction over $5,000 -- justified as a step against drug-dealers, though in fact 99.9 percent of transactions thus reported turn out to involve no "crime." Yet even (start ital)that(end ital) wasn't enough for the FDIC, which beat a hasty retreat from its far more onerous "Know Your Customer" bank snitch regulations earlier this year only after a record 200,000 citizens filed objections via the Internet. But it didn't take long for them to assault our remaining privacy from another front. Though the average postal regulation draws fewer than a dozen total comments, more than 8,000 citizens wrote in during December of 1997 to oppose a new requirement that will seriously affect 1.5 to 2.5 million individuals and small businesses who rent private mailboxes. The Postal Service put its new rule into effect a month ago, anyway. (Perhaps they found the 10 favorable responses more compelling than the 8,000 objections.) As of April 24, according to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, "Any American currently renting or planning to rent a commercial mailbox must provide the commercial agency with personal information, including two forms of identification: one must display a photograph of the renter, and the other include a 'serial number ... traceable to the bearer' ... generally today's de facto national ID -- the Social Security Number. "The Postal Service now requires that the commercial agency send the information to the Post Office, which in turn will maintain the information in a database. ... It should not escape notice that the Postal Service, under the Privacy Act of 1974, is prohibited from doing this itself. How ironic, and outrageous, that the Post Office is mandating a private business do what Congress has explicitly forbidden the Post Office from doing." Rick Merritt of the new organization Postal Watch -- created specifically to oppose these new restrictions -- points out this regulation also requires that the initials PMB -- for "Private Mail Box" -- must by October appear on a separate line on any mail addressed to such an address, "or the Postal Service has said they will return the mail to the sender marked 'undeliverable.' "This is the first time, to my knowledge, that they will have violated their original mandate to deliver mail to all communities in the United States," says Merritt, a computer consultant who has operated his business out of a private mailbox in Dallas for the past nine years. "And this is what is driving the cost; it appears the minimum first level cost will exceed more than $1 billion," in the next six months, as the estimated 1.5 to 2.5 million private boxholders have to spend time and money advising everyone who might send them mail of this new "PMB" address requirement. Affected are "a very large constituency of people who live essentially full-time in their recreational vehicles and depend on a mail-forwarding service to get their mail," Merritt says, as well as "survivors of domestic violence and stalking victims who use these mailboxes to remain anonymous from the perpetrators of those crimes. ... "The justification from the postal service is that people have the right to know where they're sending their mail, that it's deceptive to use 'suite' or just the box number," Merritt reports. The post office also cites the risks of mail fraud and "identity theft," though ironically the new regulation for the first time mandates the creation of a document containing all the information a culprit would need to "steal" a boxholder's identity. On the other hand, nearly every American who rents a private box is taking that business away from his local post office -- and also now finds it easier to receive UPS and Federal Express packages at the same address, spurring more growth for those postal competitors. "The post office likes this database because it will give them a 100-percent, no-error list of people who have opted against using a Postal Service PO Box and related services," comments Rep. Paul. "The long-term cost of this rule is incalculable, but will no doubt force some of these businesses into bankruptcy." What can be done before those 10,000 small, independently owned businesses start closing their doors? Contact your local congresscritter, and urge him or her to support Rep. Paul's House Joint Resolution 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, calling for expedited action to overturn the new regulations. Or, contact Postal Watch, 3419 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Virginia Beach, VA 23452, through the group's web site at http://www.postalwatch.org, or by dialing 877-576-7825. Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is the author of "Send in the Waco Killers." *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ If you have subscribed to vinsends@ezlink.com and you wish to unsubscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your OLD address, including the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 99 14:11:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: HR 1790, Separation of Powers, STOP THIS!!!! - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 10:30:15 -0600 Subject: LPU: FW: HR 1790, Separation of Powers, STOP THIS!!!! From: "Jim Dexter" When you call your critter to tell him to stop the juvie Justice bill and all the 2d Amend violations, tell him to stop HR1790 in its tracks! read the following then WRITE (snail) or CALL - do NOT be satisfied with an EMAIL! This is a serious and grave problem that will truly give the President the right to create laws IF he ever loses his right to issue PDDs and EOs and then gives those the full power of legislative laws. Read this and WRITE or CALL your representative even, the critters local office. FAX a message on this and on Juvie Justice. HCI is really gearing up in support of new 2d Amend violating amendments to the bill and the caving Republicrats have got to get the word!!! Subject: EMERGENCY ALERT II By Jim Rarey - June 3, 1999 Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 11:01:45 -0400 EMERGENCY ALERT II This writer has obtained a copy of the full text of the bill that was the subject of the first alert (H.R. 1790). It's not as bad as was painted in that article. It's worse! Although the subject matter of the bill (off-site consequence analysis information) will not be considered very important by some, the "legal" precedents it tries to establish are a template for control by the executive branch in other areas where similar (unconstitutional) laws are passed. In plain English the bill would do the following. It would criminalize any "knowing" violations of restrictions or prohibitions established as authorized by the bill. Those prohibitions and restrictions would be established through "guidance" issued by the "administrator" of the federal agency or any officer or employee of the agency to whom the administrator wished to delegate the authority. The "guidance" would not be subject to judicial review. The "guidance" would preempt any state or local law in conflict with it. The subject information would be exempted from Freedom of Information Acts (federal, state and local). It equates presidential Executive Orders with statutes passed by Congress in establishing "legal" requirements. It allows the administrator to withhold, or prevent the release of, information if he or she determines that release may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or welfare or the environment. Finally, it allows, but does not require, the Attorney General to report to Congress regarding enhancing site security practices (read guidance) and the need for continued implementation or modification of the Act. The "administrator", or other employee of the agency developing the "guidance", would be required to consult with other "appropriate" federal agencies, but not with state or local officials who would be subject to criminal penalties if they violated the "guidance". This bill, if enacted, would violate at least three provisions of the constitution: 1.Article I, Section. 1, states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives". 2.Article I, Section 8 states "The Congress shall have the power? To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". 3.Again in Article I, Section 8 "The Congress shall have the Power..To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". This is a separation of powers issue. The Congress cannot delegate to the executive branch the power to issue anything that has the force of law no matter what it is called (guidance, regulations, executive orders or whatever) any more than the president can delegate his authority as commander-in-chief of the military to the Congress. Please forward this follow up to all who received the original alert and continue your protests to the Congress over this unconstitutional delegation of power to the Executive. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 99 14:11:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ALERT! The Real S. 254 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: lputah@qsicorp.com Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 10:39:33 -0600 Subject: LPU: FW: ALERT! The REAL S. 254! From: "Jim Dexter" The House of Representatives will soon vote on an omnibus "juvenile crime" bill. A new Issue Paper from the Independence Institute details the civil liberties horrors hidden in Senate Bill 254, the juvenile crime bill recently passed by the Senate. Many or all of these provisions may be placed in the House bill, which is still being drafted. Among the dangerous items in S. 254 which have been ignored by the media are a provision that would allow federal prosecutors to effectuate forfeitures for _state_ misdemeanors and felonies. Below is the Executive Summary of key points from the new Issue Paper. The full 22-page text is available at: http://i2i.org/suptdocs/crime/unfair.htm The paper is titled "Unfair and Unconstitutional: The New Federal Juvenile Crime and Gun Control Proposals." It is written by David B. Kopel and James Winchester. Executive Summary: I. Too Fast, Too Big, No Legitimate Congressional Involvement This Issue Paper addresses some of [the] most obvious problems with the Senate Bill 254, and with any House of Representatives counterpart which copies provisions from S. 254. S. 254 and its House counterpart are massive bills--far too large for any legislator to examine carefully before voting-especially when bills are brought to the floor almost as fast as they are drafted. Such mammoth legislation is an abdication of the responsibilities of representative government; if Representatives do not even know what is in the bill they are voting on, they are not real representatives. S. 254 and its House counterpart violate the Tenth Amendment by imposing federal hegemony on states' authority over juvenile justice. S. 254 and its House counterpart purport to exercise Congressional powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce, that have only tenuous and trivial connections to juvenile justice. Although these bills claim to be a "law and order" bill, they are in fact a lawless usurpation of power. Almost nothing [in] S. 254 criminalizes conduct which is actually harmful to anyone. Instead, S. 254 broadens the scope of various pr[text missing] II. Gun Control Provisions Existing federal gun control law prohibits any use of records created for firearms regulation to be used to create a registry of gun owners. The Lautenberg Amendment to S. 254 in effect destroys this protection against the compilation of lists of people who exercise their constitutional rights. The Lautenberg Amendment applies to much more than gun shows. It ratifies the Clinton Administration's illegal practice of using the National Instant Check System to compile lists of gun buyers--including buyers who buy at gun stores, not at gun shows. The Brady Act was never intended to apply to transfers of firearms by private persons. The Act was intended only for sales by federally licensed dealers. That the Brady Act does not apply to private sales is not a "loophole" created by the NRA; it is the decision of Mrs. Brady and her organization, in the language that they proposed to Congress in 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, and 1988. Lautenberg does much more than require a NICS (National Instant Check System) verification of the gun purchaser's legal eligibility. In addition, there is a requirement that identity and address of the purchaser be permanently registered in writing. Lautenberg imposes an additional registration step unprecedented in Federal firearms control law: the sale must be reported within 10 days to the Department of the Treasury. Firearms sales in firearms stores do not even have this requirement! (In a firearms store, the buyer fills out a registration form, but this form is retained by the dealer, and not sent to the federal government.) The Lautenberg Amendment is not about loopholes, it is about creating a firearms tracking system for private sales; today the gun shows, tomorrow all private sales. The amendment creates hugely onerous burdens to conducting a gun show, including an unlimited tax, registration of private sellers and perhaps attendees as well. This is a bullying attempt to destroy gun shows, which are currently the main method for political communication in the Second Amendment community. Violation of Lautenberg's convoluted system--even by mere attendees at gun shows--is made a felony, in gross disregard of the lack of seriousness of the underlying "crime." S. 254 imposes a mandatory one-year prison sentence on adults who violate the current federal prohibition on giving handguns to minors. Thus, a father who gives a family heirloom in a locked glass case to a son on the son's seventeenth birthday would spend a mandatory year in prison. S. 254 expands the ban on juvenile possession of handguns (which is properly a matter for state, not federal law), by extending the ban to so-called "assault weapons." As defined by federal law, "assault weapons" are ordinary firearms which have certain cosmetically incorrect features, such as bayonet lugs, or a "conspicuous" magazine. Young people should not be forbidden to possess firearms simply because the firearms look ugly to people who know nothing about firearms. The Appendix to this Issue Paper details the nineteen state and federal weapons control laws which were broken by murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. III. Other Civil Liberties Violations The media's obsessive focus on gun control has prevented public discovery-so far-of numerous provisions in S. 254 which effect major intrusions on civil liberties. These include: A provision allowing interception of the content of electronic communications without a warrant. Provisions to encourage suspicionless drug testing of students. A new federal law providing extra punishment for people who wear body armor during a crime-even if the armor has nothing to do with the crime (e.g., a liquor store owner cheats on his taxes, while wearing body armor for protection from robbery). Incredibly, the penalty does not apply to law enforcement officers who criminally violate a person's civil rights! An expansion of the scope and penalties of the federal law regarding "criminal street gangs"-so that the law would apply to activities which have nothing to do with gangs or streets. A major expansion of forfeiture powers, which would allow U.S. Attorneys to bring forfeiture cases for state felonies of all types and for many state misdemeanors. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 99 14:11:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: About the GOP Convention 1/2 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:50:43 -0600 To: lputah@qsicorp.com From: "Jim Dexter" The reporter (who was anonymous in the copy I received) neglects to mention that Gerry Arthus got 22% of the vote for GOP state chair. Those who attended might be able to identify the writer by the actions described herein. - ---------- Introduction: The following covers various aspects of the Utah Republican Party State Convention that I thought were significant or in which I had interest. Before doing so, however, I wish to commend all those who participated in what I felt was a very successful event. For your information, at the bottom of this lengthy message you can find links to news coverage of the Convention. Summary: At Convention the delegates approved resolutions opposing the anti-gun provisions in Sen. Orrin Hatch's S. 254, and Gov. Leavitt's call for a special legislative session to enact gun control. A Constitutional Amendment to institute proportional selection of national delegates narrowly failed to receive a 2/3 vote. - ---------- Convention Guide: The Guide was distributed to virtually every delegate (approximately 1200) attending the Convention. Significant recipients of the Guide included Sen. Orrin Hatch, who was seen entering the Dee Events Center with a copy in hand. Hatch's anti-gun S. 254 was analyzed inside. With its attractive red, white, and blue cover, containing a graphic of the US Constitution superimposed upon a 13 star flag, and containing a copy of the Bill of Rights on the back side, the Guide no doubt invited consideration by the delegates of its contents. And consideration of the contents did seem to have their intended effect and raised concern among Convention officials. At the beginning of the Convention, Chair Nolan Karras informed the delegates that the only "official" material made available by the URP was the delegate package obtained during registration, and that any other similar looking materials were not official. One of the areas addressed in the Guide contents was common abuses of Robert's Rules. Possibly because these abuses were defined and remedies proposed, it was not necessary to refer to them in the course of the Convention. I see some analogies to General Washington's remarks on how to ensure peace. Another impact was on the reporting of the Convention by the Standard-Examiner which noted explicit objections to Hatch's anti-gun S. 254. These objections came directly from the Guide. Lastly, the use of the Guide as various items of Convention business were conducted apparently infuriated some, including one delegate who arose to denounce it as a misrepresentation. Her position did not seem to be supported by many other delegates, however. Convention Business: Rules The Convention Chair was Nolan Karras (not Rob Bishop), which may have been in response to a Convention rule amendment submitted that stated that candidates for Party officer positions were not eligible to be Convention Chair. An extended period for consideration of the other Convention Rules Amendments arose when on the first vote, which by all estimation of those around me and myself had been clearly decided favorably, was counted. After counting and its consumption of 15 minutes or so, the outcome was exactly as it had clearly been in the first place. Following this, however, the Chair's ability to determine which side had won seemed to improve. All the amendments were accepted, except for one to allow extension of debate by a majority vote, and another reducing the quorum requirement to 400. Agenda Following adoption of Rules, an effort was made to amend the agenda to move delegation reports to after the resolutions, giving the politicians an opportunity to respond. This amendment attempt was defeated by an immediate call for the previous question, which was approved. Delegation Reports The reports of Leavitt and Hatch are worthy of mention. Leavitt seems to be trying to redefine his image as someone who has national/international perspective, qualifying him for a Cabinet position with George Bush. In keeping with his objective to curry favor with Bush, he transparently lobbied in his speech against the proposed Constitutional change to allocate national delegates proportionally. When Leavitt got to the Second Amendment, he said he supports it, but ... This is the typical weasel approach that we've seen time and time again. At this point the Convention gave him some feedback, by jeering, shouting, etc. He said he didn't want his kids to be protected by armed teachers, but dozens or hundreds of delegates shouted back "I do, I do". I have never seen this kind of a reception before for any politician before the Convention. It appeared that Leavitt had even more gun control advice for the Convention when he abruptly moved on to another topic. Senator Hatch talked of America's greatness and the need for spiritual and moral renewal. Sadly, it is good advice that he doesn't follow when it comes to the moral imperative of upholding the original intent of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Apparently sensing some vulnerability on his anti-gun S. 254, he went through a lengthy citation of crime statistics, all "proving" the need for more "solutions" by the federal government. He stated that 98% of the bill was solidly Republican, and 2% was not. Having looked through the bill (approximately 700 pages), I found virtually nothing that could qualify as being consistent with Republican principles. The bill, excluding its gun control provisions, increases funding for the federal police, implements further control of state government by use of block grants, and extends federal jurisdiction beyond its already unacceptable limits. One of the more appalling appeals made by Hatch was to read from a letter by James Baker, head of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, recognizing him for his efforts on S. 254. While this letter had the appearance of vindicating Hatch's actions, it actually reflects upon the increasingly anti-gun positions of NRA officers and staff and their support for anti-gun politicians (I am a fully paid $750 NRA life member, by the way). Consider just some of the horrors in S. 254 and ask yourself if you join with Hatch and the NRA staff in supporting them (or doing little or nothing to stop them): 1) Imprisonment for parents who don't generate permission slips when their children safely and lawfully use certain legal firearms; 2) Expansion of property forfeiture powers by the federal government; 3) Ban on the importation of ammunition magazines greater than 10 rounds useful for defensive and sporting purposes; 4) Compulsory purchase of safety locks by handgun buyers, facilitating later legislation that requires their use at all times to prevent handguns from being used for self defense in the home; and 6) Permanent registration by picture ID of all gun show attendees into a book that can be inspected at any time by federal police, to enable the BATF and other agencies to harass, threaten, and intimidate these likely political opponents of the Democrats. Hatch received some applause at the conclusion of his remarks, but it seemed much less enthusiastic than in most Conventions I've attended. And the reaction from some was definitely stone cold. [ Continued In Next Message... ] - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 99 14:11:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: About the GOP Convention 2/2 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] Constitution and Bylaws Amendments All of the Constitutional amendments approved by the State Central Committee were approved by the Convention. The one reducing the nomination threshold to 60% was close, but was accepted. I spoke in favor of this particular change. After this, I withdrew my Bylaws amendment to require disclosure of conflicts of interest by Party officials. This withdrawl received a fair amount of applause. Though I believe this remains an important addition to the Bylaws, the value of doing so at the Convention became virtually non-existent. A substitute motion was prepared by Marreen Casper and was being distributed when I announced the withdrawl. Her substitute would have required Party registration to run, not disclosure of conflicts of interest. Following the bylaws amendment, I presented a Constitutional amendment to institute proportional (rather than "winner take all" being advocated by Mike Leavitt) allocation of National delegates. This was made with reference to the Guide. The amendment was debated intensely, and it received 63% of the vote, which was short of the 66.7% required for passage. However, a move is now underway to reconsider this issue at a special meeting of the State Central Committee. With a significant change in the philosophical make up in the new Committee, the outcome may be different than what it was last month. Resolutions Just prior to consideration of Resolutions, a delegate rose and proposed a rule amendment that no person could speak to more than three questions in the Convention. While not naming me directly, its intent was clear. In a great compliment by the Convention, this motion was overwhelmingly defeated. I then presented the rationale for the resolution opposing Hatch's and Bennett's perfidy on S. 254. Debate was closed and the resolution passed by a large margin. There are at least two signficant points to be made here. First, Orrin Hatch sponsored an enormous free breakfast for everyone attending the Convention (I did not partake). This would appear to have two objectives: 1) Increase the turnout by Orrin Hatch supporters to improve his ability to defeat the resolution, and 2) pacify those that were already going to attend the Convention by showing how generous Orrin is. In effect, the breakfast amounted to a peace offering. The second point is that two years ago when Orrin was soundly denounced in Convention via resolution for his advocacy with Ted Kennedy on socialized medicine for children, the naysayers at that time stated that the resolution would not have passed if only Orrin could have spoken before the resolution and let the delegates know about its defects. This argument cannot be raised regarding the delegates' approval of the resolution opposing the gun control content of S. 254, since Hatch spoke at length before the resolution was considered, and directly to it. The delegates made an informed decision, and fortunately despite Hatch's efforts with the breakfast and focus of his Convention report, the decision by them was to oppose his legislative subversion of the Second Amendment. The next resolution considered was one that requested that Gov. Leavitt not call a special session of the Legislature to enact further restrictions on self defense (ie imposition of more gun control). This resolution was also passed by a large margin. Copies of the two gun control-related resolutions follow. Other resolutions dealing with abortion, light rail, closed primaries, Chris Cannon's involvement in the impeachment trial, and Clinton's possible treason in Kosovo were also passed. - ---------- A Resolution of the Utah Republican Party Regarding Preservation and Defense of the Second Amendment Submitted by: Arnold J. Gaunt Whereas, the Second Amendment guarantees to Americans protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms; and Whereas, despite the Second Amendment, the recent tragedy in Colorado has been shamelessly exploited by infamous Democrats such as William Clinton, Janet Reno, and Charles Schumer to promote further infringement of this right; and Whereas, in response to this exploitation the United States Congress is actively responding to the gun control agenda of these Democrats; and Whereas, this agenda contains unacceptable proposals that include registration in an FBI database of private firearms transactions at gun shows, banning the importation of ammunition magazines useful for personal, family and community defense in times of civil unrest, and long term imprisonment for inconsequential procedural oversights by parents regarding their children's safe and responsible use of firearms; and Whereas, either one or both of Utah's Senators voted for these proposals infringing upon citizens' rights; and Whereas, by their support for these oppressive proposals they have ignored Utah's freedom-loving Republicans and citizens, demonstrated lack of attention to the Utah Republican Party Platform, failed to properly consider the higher law of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and diverted attention from the failure of government to disarm and imprison criminals and hold them accountable for their actions; now, therefore be it Resolved, That the Utah Republican Party requests that Utah's US Senators and Representatives uphold their oath of office by voting against all proposals and legislation that compromise or subvert the Second Amendment, and utilize whatever means are necessary, including the filibuster, to prevent their passage, so as to protect the inherent rights of Utahns and Americans; and be it Further resolved, That the Chairman and Secretary are directed to authenticate and transmit this resolution without delay to Utah's US Senators and Representatives. A Resolution of the Utah Republican Party Regarding a Special Session of the Legislature in 1999 Submitted by: Arnold J. Gaunt and Neil Sagers Whereas, recent tragedies in Utah and Colorado have been exploited to promote the call for a special legislative session to enact additional gun control laws in Utah; and Whereas, accommodating this exploitation, Governor Leavitt has facilitated the call by forming a committee able to offer gun control proposals and recommendations; and Whereas, since Governor Leavitt has consistently opposed viable self-defense in houses of worship and schools, advocacy by the committee for more gun control laws may be expected; and Whereas, despite the predictable failure of each gun control law to curb crime, the failures are used to justify even more gun control laws; and Whereas, the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by gun control laws has already proceeded to a threatening and unacceptable point; now, therefore be it Resolved, That the Utah Republican Party requests Governor Leavitt exercise prudence, responsibility, and restraint by not calling a special session of the Legislature for the purpose of enacting laws that infringe on the right of self-defense; and be it Further resolved, That the Chairman and Secretary are directed to authenticate and transmit this resolution to the Governor without delay. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 99 14:11:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Re: LPU: FW: About the GOP Convention * CARBON COPY: * Original was to LPUtah@qsicorp.com (Libertarian Party of Utah) On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:50:43 -0600 Jim Dexter stated: >The reporter (who was anonymous in the copy I received) neglects to mention >that Gerry Arthus got 22% of the vote for GOP state chair. Kitty Burton tells me that Gerry Arthus received 29% of the vote, and that the reported 22% is a miscount. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:02:37 -0700 From: Joe Waldron Subject: U.S. HOUSE GUN BILL TEXT (H.R. 2037) The text of the proposed House version of the new gun bill can be found at http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2037.pdf Note: It is NOT available at the "Thomas" site (at least not that I could find). While H.R. 2037 is a marked improvement over S. 254, there are still significant problems with it. The bill will allegedly pass directly out of committee tomorrow, and be acted on on the House floor next week. There WILL be amendments from the floor. There is some confusion on the bill number. In a press release, Judiciary Committee chair Henry Hyde referenced H.R. 1501 as the baseline bill. 1501 IS available at Thomas ( http://thomas.loc.gov ), but does NOT address firearms. More after I have digested the bill. Joe Waldron - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #139 ***********************************