From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #148 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, July 26 1999 Volume 02 : Number 148 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 99 11:44:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Clinton and 'martial law' 1/2 Clinton and 'martial law' Posse Comitatus Act no check on White House power, attorneys claim By Sarah Foster May 21, 1999 WorldNetDaily President Clinton doesn't need to sign an executive order to start a full-scale gun grab. He doesn't need to declare martial law if he wants to use the armed forces to deal with public unrest. And if he figures a state government isn't doing all it should to enforce some federal law that nobody likes, he can use federal troops to make certain that the law is complied with -- even if the governor and everyone living in the state are adamantly opposed to it. He can do all these things on his own, without seeking advice or approval from Congress. Not even the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which Congress intended as a shield to protect citizens from the military, places any significant limitations on presidential power. That's what Virginia attorneys William Olson and Alan Woll discovered when they looked into the matter for Gun Owners of America, a Washington- based lobbying organization dedicated to defending the Second Amendment. Last December Olson and Woll published an analysis on "Executive Orders and National Emergencies: Presidential Power Grab Nearly Unchecked," which was featured in WorldNetDaily. This earlier work prompted Larry Pratt, president and executive director of GOA, to commission the attorneys to examine a related issue. "I asked them to look at all the executive orders and see if there was a nexus with guns; some kind of hook that would allow the government to get a hook on our trigger guards, so our guns can be pulled from our hands through some power they had delegated to them- selves by executive order," Pratt recalled in a telephone interview. Though unable to find a direct reference that would permit gun confiscation, "What they discovered was worse," said Pratt. "The president doesn't have to sign an executive order. He already has the power to go after our guns." The 35-page Olson-Woll report entitled "Presidential Powers to Use the U.S. Armed Forces to Control Potential Civilian Disturbances," developed naturally from their earlier research, but it is written as though it were a memo to the president, from a "Counsel's Office," in response to a White House request for a legal opinion about how far the president can go in using the military for law enforcement purposes in the event of a Y2K or other crisis: Would a declaration of martial law be necessary to call out the military? What about the Posse Comitatus Act? "This memorandum is fictional but accurately depicts the broad powers assumed and exercised by presidents to utilize U.S. military forces to regulate civilian activity," the authors state in a disclaimer. "We wrote it that way to draw peoples' attention to the issues," Olson explained by telephone. "We hoped that using this format to present the information would make it more real. A lot of what we talk about sounds like history, but it's quite current, and one could imagine the president asking for advice on this very issue." The answers to the hypothetical questions came as a "complete surprise" to Larry Pratt and to the authors themselves. "We had no idea that his powers were so broad," said Olson. "The fact that there are these vast standby statutory powers is shocking. I'm afraid Congress keeps passing the laws that grant this power and never stands back and asks, 'What have we done?' It's time that they start looking and asking." The statutes referred to are found in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which deals with the Armed Forces. Through them the president is given authority to intervene with military force in a state's domestic disputes, upon request from the state legislature or governor -- or without it. Some examples cited by Olson and Woll: Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 331: Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or its governor ... use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 332: Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory ... he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 333: The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, if it hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State ... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws ... Olson and Woll discovered that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1863 that the president can unilaterally decide whether an insurrection is in effect and determine how much force is necessary to suppress it. He can "brand as belligerents the inhabitants of any area in general insurrection." Equally shocking, in Olson's view, as the fact that the president can use the military against civilians, is the fact that former presidents have done so on "many occasions" -- none of them declaring martial law. For example, in 1914 President Woodrow Wilson deployed federal troops in Colorado to suppress a labor dispute. Olson-Wolls point out that Wilson ordered the U.S. Army to disarm American citizens -- including state and local officials, sheriffs, the police and the National Guard; to arrest American citizens; to monitor the state judicial process and re-arrest (and hold in military custody) persons released by the state courts; and to deny writs of habeas corpus issued by state courts. Earlier, in South Carolina in 1871, without declaring martial law, President Grant sent troops into nine counties of South Carolina to enforce a proclamation commanding the residents to give up their arms and ammunition. Grant suspended the writ of habeas corpus. More than 600 arrests had been made by the end of 1871. Between 1807 and 1925, federal troops were used more than 100 times to quell domestic disturbances -- sometimes the presence of the troops alone was enough to discourage the participants. "Look at the history," Olson exclaimed. "None of what's happening is new. Could you ever imagine that the President of the United States could order the Army to disarm sheriffs, disarm police, and disarm the National Guard? Isn't that beyond what you'd ever dream? "But it has happened. It's the fact that this has happened that should cause people to take this issue seriously." [ Continued In Next Message... ] - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jul 99 11:44:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Clinton and 'martial law' 2/2 [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] But doesn't the Posse Comitatus Act provide restrictions against the use of the military? This is the act that prohibits the Army or Air force from acting as a posse comitatus -- "the population of a county the sheriff may summon to assist him in certain cases." "No one should ever think the Posse Comitatus Act is any check whatsoever on the ability of the federal government to employ military might against civilians," said Olson. "We were surprised at how weak the Posse Comitatus Act is," he continued. "There have been no prosecutions ever, and it doesn't apply to any branch of the armed forces except the Army and the Air Force. It has a huge exception -- that deployment of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus is a crime, 'except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.' "That 'Constitution or Act of Congress' exception is so broad you can drive a truck through," Olson remarked. "The final thing that surprised us was that that the military doesn't need an order from the president to have control over civilians," Olson said. "I had always thought only the president could declare martial law, but apparently not. Apparently any commander can do it, can suspend all civil rights." Larry Pratt considers this last the most egregious of all the Olson-Woll findings. "Military commanders can act on the basis that there is an emergency," said Pratt. "They don't have to wait until martial law is declared. The powers that they have in their hands are tremendous. "People can't expect President Clinton to sit there in front of a camera and say, 'Tonight I have declared martial law,'" Pratt said. "You'll just find out about it when you try and get on the main highway and there's a humvee with a soldier who says, 'Turn back.' And when you ask why, he puts his gun into ready position and says, 'I'm only following orders. Please turn back.' "You can challenge that. You can say they -- the commander or the soldier -- have no constitutional authority for this, and you may be correct. But you will be arguing on the wrong side of a barbed wire fence. They can simply do it. It will not be debated. "It's wonderful," Pratt noted, ironically. "It goes beyond what [White House spokesperson] Paul Begala said about executive orders: You know, 'Stroke of a pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.' Martial law could be initiated by one commander sending an e-mail to a guy at the base to muster his troops. "Stroke of a keyboard, martial law. Kinda cool," Pratt said. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 99 23:01:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: TO THE POINT: Don't Violate the Rights of the Mentally Ill *********************** To the Point *********************** To the Point: A Sutherland Institute Public Policy Perspective July 23, 1999, 99-13 Don't Violate the Rights of the Mentally Ill By Sarah Thompson, M.D. The Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human Services (DHS) has proposed several changes to Utah's mental health laws, changes that have been enthusiastically endorsed by Governor Leavitt. These proposals claim to address the problem of "gun violence," but in actuality they would deprive Utahns of their human rights. The DHS proposal would make it easier to commit individuals even if they pose no threat to themselves or others. The criteria suggested by DHS are so vague that it would be possible to commit virtually anyone based on misdemeanor violations, arguments with neighbors, poor hygiene, or an individual's refusal to take psychiatric medications. In effect, people would be committed based on the content of their thoughts, rather than on the basis of behavior that places themselves or others at physical risk. Once a person is committed, he would also be subjected to involuntary medication. In addition, DHS wants to legalize outpatient commitment. This means that innocent people living peacefully in the community could be sentenced to forced medication. Those who don't cooperate would be incarcerated and injected with medications until they "agree" to cooperate. These medication sentences could be imposed for relatively trivial reasons, as previously noted. Because most psychiatric medications cause long-term changes in brain chemistry, stopping them often causes a worsening of symptoms. Thus persons who are subjected to forced medication are usually facing a lifetime of continued medication, even if the commitment is withdrawn. Outpatient commitment would be implemented through Programs for Assertive Community Treatment (P/ACT), the so-called "hospital without walls," which attempts to create hospital-type treatment for those living in the community. While psychiatric medications can be life saving for people who need them and respond well to them, they do not work for all patients. Side effects, ranging from unpleasant to disabling to lethal, are not uncommon. In addition, many people choose not to take these medications for personal or religious reasons, or prefer to try approaches other than medication. Unfortunately, psychiatrists are often unwilling to consider any treatment other than medication, and may be openly hostile to less intrusive measures such as pastoral counseling, alternative medicine, and lifestyle changes. P/ACT makes no allowance for individual, family, or religious choice; medication is mandated. With this in mind, it is understandable that some of the strongest advocates of P/ACT are organizations funded heavily by pharmaceutical companies. Forcing a peaceful person to take medication that may permanently disable him -- even kill him -- should not be acceptable in a free society. No one should be forced to sacrifice his life for the alleged "good of society." While P/ACT would benefit drug companies, it is unlikely to have a positive effect on violent crime. Although recent tragedies have generated a lot of hysteria, the truth is that mentally ill people living in the community are no more violent than their non-mentally ill neighbors are, as shown in a 1998 study by H.J. Steadman (Steadman, H.J., et al, _Archives of General Psychiatry_, May 1998, p. 393-401). Mental health professionals are not able to predict which people will become violent. Substance abuse, a history of violent behavior, and head injuries are all greater risk factors for violence than are schizophrenia or psychosis. Thus, there is no justification for routinely revoking the rights of the mentally ill, the vast majority of whom are non-violent. Ultimately, P/ACT would be expanded to include the entire state, and would have its own "mental health courts" to handle commitments. In addition, law enforcement officers would be trained to identify those who might be mentally ill and to initiate commitments. These proposed special courts, that presumably would use different procedures than those used in all other legal proceedings, are unnecessary. While it would be helpful for law enforcement officers to know more about compassionately interacting with the mentally ill, there is no reason to encourage them to begin practicing medicine. While there are social costs from people with serious mental illnesses who refuse treatment, there are similar costs from people who refuse to take insulin, blood pressure medication, and so on. Yet DHS has not considered creating P/ACT teams to force people to take non-psychiatric medications, nor to incarcerate people who are "non-compliant" with smoking cessation, diet, or exercise programs. The only difference is that the mentally ill are irrationally feared and stigmatized and often unable to fight for their own rights. Providing convenient, comprehensive, in-home care to seriously mentally ill people who choose to accept it is a humane and often cost-effective alternative to confusing and intimidating health care systems, which would make it easier for people to obtain optimal care. But such programs must remain voluntary, and not be used as an excuse to revoke civil rights. Once a precedent is created for incarcerating and drugging people for minor deviations from "normal" thoughts and behavior, how far are we from creating a system such as that used by the former Soviet Union, where people were incarcerated and drugged for politically incorrect beliefs? The DHS plan is another expensive government mandate that would adversely affect all Utahns. It would require Utah's taxpayers to fund a program designed to invade the privacy of their fellow citizens, force them to take powerful drugs against their will, incarcerate those who do not cooperate, and erode the civil rights of everyone. Such flagrant and abusive violations of civil liberties should not be tolerated. ###### Sarah Thompson is a medical doctor and policy specialist who authored this piece for the Sutherland Institute, a Utah public policy research organization. Permission to reprint this article in whole or in part is granted provided credit is given to the author and to the Sutherland Institute. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jul 99 14:07:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Gun control logic - ----- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:17:37 -0600 From: "Don Kingsley" To: lputah@qsicorp.com Subject: Gun control logic In the Sunday, July 11th edition of the Ogden subStandard Examiner the following ranting letter was printed. "With guns everywhere, the mayhem continues. Last month a 10 year-old in Vernal had half his brains splattered on his living room wall, thanks to a shotgun and another 10-year old kid. This week in Illinois and Indiana, several dozen people, one of them a 15-year-old, were shot at by a wacko who, just a few days earlier, had been an ordinary, decent, law-abiding citizen who happened to own a couple of handguns. Nothing to worry about, right? Several of his victims died, including a young man from Korea. The body count would have been higher, except he apparently wasn't a very good shot. Perhaps he should have taken shooting lessons from the National Rifle Association. Meanwhile, dozens of kids are killed with guns every day in this country, and their deaths don't even make the evening news. The reason they are dying in such numbers is the ready availability of guns, the gruesome efficiency of many of them as killing machines and their ubiquitous nature. Guns are everywhere, especially those that do much of the killing - i.e., handguns and high-powered, rapid-fire assault weapons. Until we start rounding up a lot of guns and really start regulating their distribution, sale and conditions of ownership, nothing is going to change. The whole gun system in America stinks and it is getting worse every day. Hey, hey, NRA, how many kids have you killed today? Hal Elliott, Ogden" AT first I thought there is no way possible to respond to this absurd type of logic but later decided to use a Rush Limbaugh tactic, respond to the absurd with the absurd. The following is my response and was printed in the subStandard Examiner on July 24th. "Strict regulations needed to stop car deaths. The July 11 letter, "With guns everywhere, the mayhem continues," impressed me and I feel the author may be on to something. Perhaps the same logic should be applied to the carnage happening on our highways. With cars everywhere, the carnage continues. Last month a cyclist was seriously injured by a pickup truck driven by an ordinary, law-abiding drunken driver. The cyclist had his life changed forever when it became necessary to amputate his leg. Meanwhile, thousands of men, women and children are being injured, maimed for life or killed every day on our highways. The reason this carnage continues in such numbers is the ready availability of cars, the gruesome efficiency of many of them as killing machines and their ubiquitous nature. Cars are everywhere, especially those that do much of the killing - i.e., SUVs, Cadillacs and Corvettes. Until we start rounding them up and really start regulating their distribution, sale, condition of ownership and discard the Constitution, nothing is going to change. The whole car situation in America stinks and is getting worse every day. Hey, hey, AAA, how many kids have you killed today? Don Kingsley, Syracuse - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jul 99 14:07:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Mayors Face Lawsuit by Second Amendment Foundation - ----- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:22:57 -0400 From: "Mark A. Smith" Subject: [Fwd: Mayors Face Lawsuit by Second Amendment Foundation I hope this is one lawsuit that happens! Mark X-Mailing-List: piml@egroups.com X-Url: http://www.egroups.com/list/piml/ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:19:25 -0700 From: cdhart@laurie.net (Carolyn Hart) To: piml@egroups.com Subject: SNET: [piml] Some Good Gun News! Mayors Face Lawsuit by Second Amendment Foundation [Free Republic] Reply-To: snetnews@world.std.com Source: Second Amendment Foundation Published: 7-19-99 Author: A Navy Vet Posted on 07/19/1999 01:39:21 PDT by A Navy Vet Second Amendment Foundation 12500 NE Tenth Place 7 BELLEVUE, WA (December 9, 1998)-The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), a gun owner advocacy and educational organization, notified the US Conference of Mayors in a faxed letter dated Dec. 8 that it plans to sponsor a "damage action" against the cities of Chicago and New Orleans for conspiracy to violate civil rights, abuse of process and undue burden on interstate commerce. The Foundation's letter to J. Thomas Cochran, executive director of the US Conference of Mayors, said that a steering committee of distinguished law professors, who will serve without compensation, has been assembled as a response to the "frivolous suits" which New Orleans and Chicago filed recently against firearms manufacturers, their trade associations and federally licensed firearms dealers. SAF warned the mayors' conference on the eve of its scheduled Dec. 10 meeting in Chicago that the suit which it expected to file in Louisiana early next year will also name any other cities which follow the New Orleans and Chicago lead. Noting that the mayors had invited lawyers involved in the suits against the firearms industry to address the meeting, Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, encouraged the conference to also invite a rebuttal presentation by a member of the 12-member steering committee, Daniel D. Polsby, Kirkland & Ellis professor of law at Northwestern University. "From coast to coast, noted law professors seem to agree with the many newspaper editorials which have suggested that the lawsuits filed by the cities of New Orleans and Chicago against firearms manufacturers and marketers are ill-conceived, ill-advised and totally without merit," said Gottlieb. "Whatever problems the cities may have with the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms, their suits against the gun manufacturers make as much sense as suing the National Weather Bureau for the cost of storm damages," Gottlieb added. Even newspapers and magazines which advocate strict controls over firearms and their purchasers have with unusual consistency questioned the advisability of the kind of suits that have been filed by the cities against the firearms industry. They see these as an attempt to pervert the concept of product liability as an extension of the arguments used in the state attorneys general suits against the tobacco industry. "The nature and status of guns and tobacco are not analogous," said Joseph P. Tartaro, president of SAF. "Firearms have a significant beneficial use in our society beyond recreation, since independent research shows they are used over 2 million times a year to prevent or terminate predatory criminal assaults." "The New Orleans and Chicago lawsuits are not only frivolous they are dangerous because they are an extension of legal and political buccaneering that will rape Americans of the means to self-defense while looting a legal industry." "The Foundation's primary interest is to safeguard the traditional legal rights of law-abiding and peaceable American gun owners," Gottlieb said. "We are not industry advocates. Gun makers and sellers just happen to be the visible targets of the frivolous actions brought by New Orleans and Chicago. If these were standard product liability suits, we wouldn't have more than a passing interest in what the cities are attempting to do." The law professors on the Foundation's steering committee for the lawsuit against the cities besides Prof. Polsby are: Steven Calabresi, professor of law, Northwestern University, Chicago; Robert A. Carter, professor of law and Judge Alexander P. Waugh Sr. scholar, Rutgers University-Newark; Robert J. Cottrol, professor of constitutional law and legal history, George Washington University, Washington, DC; Michael I. Krauss, professor of law, George Mason University, Arlington, VA; Gary S. Lawson, professor of law, Northwestern University, Chicago; Calvin R. Massey, Hastings College of Law, San Francisco; John McGinnis, Cardozo Law School, New York City; Glenn Harlan Reynolds, professor of law, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN; Charles E. Rice, professor of law; Notre Dame University, South Bend, IN; Larry Soderquist, professor of law and director of the Corporate and Securities Law Institute, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN;, and George Strickler, professor, Tulane University Law School, New Orleans, LA. The Second Amendment Foundation is a tax-exempt education, legal action and publishing group founded in 1974 and now has over 600,000 individual citizen supporters nationwide. It previously has funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3792e4391247.htm For subscription info, go to: http://www.egroups.com/list/piml - -> Send "subscribe snetnews" to majordomo@world.std.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jul 99 22:16:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Same stuff, different time http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/071199_reese11_21.htm Same stuff, different time -- past replayed in the here and now Published in The Orlando Sentinel on July 11, 1999. The more you know about the past, the more you realize that there has been a great deal less change than some folks think. Take the year 1925. Guess what: People were proposing to ban handguns to reduce crime. The proposal came from the magazine "The Nation". This magazine is still published. It came during alcohol prohibition. Our current ban-the-devil-firearm proposals are occurring during drug prohibition. Trying to ban alcohol produced the following effects: a product dirt cheap to make became expensive on the black market; huge crime organizations grew wealthy; bribery and corruption became rampant; there grew a general contempt for the law. Perhaps that seems familiar. At any rate, in 1925, H.L. Mencken, one of America's greatest and most libertarian journalists, was writing columns for the "Baltimore Evening Sun". The proposal to ban handguns produced this from Mencken: "The new law that it [the magazine] advocated, indeed, is one of the most absurd specimens of jackass legislation ever heard of, even in this paradise of legislative donkeyism. Its single and sole effect would be to exaggerate enormously all of the evils it proposes to put down. It would not take pistols out of the hands of rogues and fools; it would simply take them out of the hands of honest men." Mencken even pointed out that prohibition agents could not stop liquor coming in by the shipload of bulky cases, and they certainly would not be able to stop something as small as a pistol. "Thus the camel gets in," Mencken said, "and yet the proponents of the new anti-pistol law tell us that they will catch the gnat. Go tell it to the Marines." In our own times, a government unable to keep out drugs by the tons and illegal aliens by the hundreds of thousands will certainly play heck trying to stop firearms should Congress ever be silly enough to ban guns. And Congress may be seized by such an attack of silliness. Outbreaks of legislative silliness seem to be occurring with greater frequency. If Mencken thought his era was a time of legislative donkeyism, he should look down from heaven and see what nonsense consumes our public servants. Mencken stated in his column that he owned two pistols and that his brother had six and that they would certainly sell them on the black market rather than let the government seize them. Indeed while Englishmen and Aussies meekly surrendered most of their guns recently, I doubt seriously that America's 80 million gun owners would do so. I personally would not want the job of going around to confiscate folks' firearms. I grew up in a part of the country where folks would shoot you for a whole lot less than that. But the point is that human nature never changes. There are always people who think you can legislate paradise on Earth. There are always people unwilling to allow others to be free, if what those others want to do with their freedom (drink or snort) doesn't meet the do-gooders' high standards for OPB -- other people's behavior. Man is a fallen, sinful critter, but there is no salvation to be found in a law book or the courthouse. Nor will any paradise ever be created by legislation. Attempts at perfecting society through coercion have produced human-rights disasters on an unprecedented scale. Freedom means living with warts and risks, so to speak. But free people just deal with the warts and risks on an individual basis. They know that you cannot legislate warts and risks out of existence. But people won't change, and maybe that's an argument for knowing nothing about the past. At least then you wouldn't realize how repetitious it all is. [Posted 07/10/1999 11:51 AM EST] Charley Reese Commentary Send Charley Reese e-mail Meet Charley Reese Charley ReeseCommentary Recent columns 7/18:Result of Kosovo conflict: Situation is even worse than before 7/15Whole idea of a free lunch has no place on 21st century menu 7/13:You can catch bad guys without spying on the rest of America 7/11:Same stuff, different time -- past replayed in the here and now 7/8:Politicians should do more than talk about saving children 7/6:Worry about the more humble among us, not the rich elitists 7/4:Precious independence is nibbled around edges all the time 7/1:Revolution brewing: Disregard laws that violate conscience - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jul 99 22:16:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Foreign troops here to practice rounding up "dissenters"! - ----- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 18:53:49 -0400 From: "Mark A. Smith" Subject: Foreign troops here to practice rounding up "dissenters" ! Foreign Troops and National Guard Preparing for Y2K Grayling, Michigan was the location for a unique training exercise called the Partner Challenge 1999, which took place during the weekend of June 18th and ended Tuesday, June 22. Three states and three European countries were in the middle of peacekeeping games as they trained at Camp Grayling. It couldn't be better, said Col. Joe McDowell of the Michigan National Guard - quoted in the Traverse City Record Eagle, June 19th. To bring people in (from) three states and three different countries and have everything jell perfectly is just amazing. According to the Record Eagle, Soldiers also will take in a land navigation course and will practice taking over and securing an area where they face dissenters and people begging for food and money. After some training, these guys will be very good at their American tactics and they will learn a lot here, Lt. Ervins Gailas, platoon leader of Latvian National Guard said. Franklin Frith - y2kcoming.com, attended the Michigan State Police - Emergency Management Division Y2K Regional Symposium on June 23, 1999 in Grayling, Michigan. Col. Dennis Hull, Emergency Management Coordinator for the Michigan National Guard stated that the armories throughout the State of Michigan have been trained to respond without higher level command. The response that Col. Hull refers to was referred to by Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre in his memo to the various military departments in February 1999. It is also referred to in the Department of Defense Directive .1 - Military Support to Civil Authorities. The documents have been referred to by Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for response to Y2K consequences. Col. Hull also stated that the national guard is prepared to activate state military emergency operations center and joint military operations. We have developed a special national guard response plan for Y2K. Conducting exercises with foreign troops to handle dissenters begging for food and money may be due to the fact that Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre stated that the armed forces and reserves would fulfill their first responsibility of meeting war-fighting abilities before providing military support to civil authorities. Col. Hull stated that the National guard is federally funded, trained by the federal government and all of the equipment is owned by the federal government...The president can federalize the guard and use them however he wants. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has said that the Federal Response Plan operations will be functional through the Y2K conversion period. The Department of Defense Memo dated, February 22, 1999 defines the transition period to be from September 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000. In the event of a major disaster requiring a national response on behalf of FEMA, the U.S. Army would be the executive agent. According to Col. Hull, there is a plan with the department of Army for a Y2K event on a national level. The Army has a plan to use the National Guard. The national guard would be federalized for the Army to use them. In response to problems in Michigan, Col. Hull stated that an Executive order already has been typed up for the State to declare either an emergency or disaster for a fast response. Public act 390 - Michigan Emergency Management Act explains the powers of the governor and the consequences of disobeying his orders. Describing the Guard's view of the Y2K problem, Col. Hull stated We do not know the level of this man-made emergency. Franklin Frith has contacted various individuals with the National Guard and will provide more information in the near future. For more information, contact Franklin D. Frith at (810) 796-2037 or Email him at franklin@y2kcoming.com. Franklin addresses communities at no costs and works on donations only. He has addressed hundreds of local governments, communities and churches regarding the real consequences of Y2K with documented facts. No opinions, rumors or commentary. You can visit his web-site for more information and his speaking schedule. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jul 99 22:16:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: The Times' new policy on gun ads Coming soon to a noosepaper near you? http://www.qctimes.com/opinion/990717_story2.html [Opinion] The Times' new policy on gun ads By Times editorial staff, QUAD-CITY TIMES -- July 18, 1999 "We don't need more gun laws. What we need is better enforcement of existing gun laws." For years, that has been the mantra of the National Rifle Association and its supporters. And while some might take issue with the first part of that statement, as this newspaper has on several occasions, there does seem to be widespread recognition that police and prosecutors could do a better job of enforcing the laws now on the books. Unfortunately, some of these laws were written in such a way as to make enforcement very difficult. Take, for example, the federal law that requires background checks on the prospective buyers of handguns. As you might expect, this law applies to all licensed gun dealers. The trouble is, the law still allows for the sale of guns by unlicensed individuals -- and those sales are not subject to background checks and waiting periods. Typically, these unregulated sales take place at gun shows or through the classified ads of newspapers. And, naturally, it's the newspaper ads that are of particular concern to the Quad-City Times. Through its editorials, the Times has consistently favored legislation to close the loopholes on the unregulated sale of guns. Now, however, the Times is advancing that same argument in a different way -- by applying this editorial philosophy to its own business practices and refusing any gun-for-sale ads that do not come from licensed dealers. Predictably, this new policy has already sparked complaints. Some people have asked why a newspaper would refuse ads that facilitate the legal exchange of goods that citizens have a right to own. The answer is simple. When Congress passed the Brady Bill in 1993 and it approved the National Instant Criminal Background Check that went into effect last year, it did so with the clear intention of preventing guns from falling into the hands of felons and other unqualified buyers. But because of the loophole for unlicensed dealers -- defined as people who sell guns only "occasionally" -- the intent of these laws is being thwarted. Unqualified buyers, knowing they can no longer purchase a gun through a licensed dealer, need only visit a gun show or scour the classified ads of their local newspaper to find their weapon of choice. The rules of good corporate citizenship dictate that a business should always consider the public welfare when making decisions that have an impact on the general populace. And on this issue, there's no question: The publication of ads from unlicensed dealers undermines the intent of federal legislation by providing an unregulated marketplace for the sale of weapons to felons and other unqualified buyers. Generally speaking, advertisements are both a source of revenue for a newspaper and a conduit of information for its readers. And while the business interests of the Times clearly are not served by turning away revenue and restricting the flow of information from potential advertisers, the Times has an overriding interest in making this community a safer place in which to work, live and raise a family. That's why the Times will now only accept gun-for-sale ads from dealers who are licensed and subject to the provisions of federal law. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jul 99 22:16:00 -0700 From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: FW: Part 1, COLUMBINE & Other Gov't Massacres - ----- Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 11:21 AM From: John DiNardo Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.freedom,talk.politics.guns Subject: Part 1, COLUMBINE & Other Gov't Massacres Part 1, COLUMBINE & More Gov't Engineered Massacres Folks, there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence in the United States and in Europe indicating that the Columbine Massacre was engineered by black operations specialists within the national intelligence apparatus. It has become apparent that the New World Order has adopted the same tactics and techniques that were used by the Nazi Party to seize power in Weimar Germany of the 1930s. This earlier historical strategy of state terror was termed "the Politics of Tension" by the surviving heirs of Hitler's and Mussolini's intelligence corps in Europe following the surrender of Germany at the end of the Second World War. The story of how and why American intelligence rescued and promoted, instead of destroying, Hitler's Gehlen-led spy network, is one that has been largely ignored by the complicitous mass media for the past half-century. Little wonder that the mass media chooses to withhold this profoundly crucial story from the people, considering that the CIA has maintained supervision and direction of mainstream newspapers, magazines and television networks for decades. These episodic reports are done with a sense of urgency, rather than with prime regard for meticulous organization. So, when you see story lines branching out in diverse directions, and with organization neither by paragraph nor by thought, please understand the urgent need to give you the essence of this tangled and sordid web of evil, because that evil is sweeping over your life and mine. And time becomes more precious as it runs out. How soon and how close to your daughter and my son will come the next Columbine massacre? You can see that I'm going to need your help on this, since this story is much too big for one man to cover alone. So please stay close; research the names, titles, events, places and dates that I'll be throwing out, and then compose your own reports for broadcast to the Internet and whatever other communications media to which we can gain access. Our children are under assault by zombified shooters in their school corridors, and this assault is only the beginning stage of a nationwide assault on Americans' freedom to live, to earn a decent living, and to enjoy a lifetime of contentment. So, work with me, folks. I need your help in order to search out this vital evidence and present it to the media-deluged people, media-deluded people, while they still have the time and openness of mind to recognize that termites have deeply infested the structural members of our beloved home, America, and that our house is about to collapse upon all our heads. ... Intelligence researcher Dave Emory has earned the credit for much of this vital information. The first thing you should do is go to www.spitfirelist.com, peruse the myriad of descriptions of archived radio broadcast tapes that Dave Emory has done over the years as a broadcaster on KFJC-FM radio, out of Foothills College in Los Altos Hills, California. Order some of Dave's extremely valuable and esoteric broadcast tapes, and then do your own research from there. ... The story begins with ODESSA. ODESSA is an acronym for veterans of the Nazi military apparatus. ... When it became apparent that Germany was going to lose the war, many of Hitler's highest officers made a deal with the OSS, the United States Office of Strategic Services, our spy agency, soon to become the Central Intelligence Agency. Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, in particular, was(is) a man whom the OSS felt it needed as desperately as Gehlen needed to save his neck from the Nuremburg executioner, for Gehlen alone had developed an intelligence network capable of dealing with the emerging Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the mortal enemy of the American capitalist system. OSS chief Wild Bill Donovan and future Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles ushered nazi Gehlen and his intelligence staff into the warm, protective wings of America's ultra-secret "Puzzle Palace" (the title of a worthwhile book on the CIA which you might ask your librarian to search out and lend to you). ... In moving more directly toward the Columbine Massacre through this vast field of intelligence information encompassing acres of data and decades of time, let us examine the Stockton Schoolyard Massacre, an event having a body of related facts which cast deep suspicion upon black operations specialists within the national intelligence apparatus. ... In 1989, Patrick Edward Purdy opened fire with an automatic rifle on Asian-American schoolchildren in the schoolyard of the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California. Note the congruence of racial targeting in this case to the racial targeting against the student gunned down by Harris and Klebold at Columbine High School. Note, also, the further congruence of this racial targeting to that aimed against African-Americans in the Fourth of July 1999 drive-by shootings committed by Benjamin Smith, who so conveniently later killed himself; likewise, Harris and Klebold also conveniently killed themselves, leaving no way in this world to reach into their heads and find the MK-ULTRA mind control mechanisms that were likely planted there in a documentable pattern of premeditated state terror -- scientifically-conceived terror with a purpose, that is. Yet again likewise, Patrick Edward Purdy killed himself at the end of his bloody spree. This clear pattern of the crazed shooter who wastes himself at the end of his bloody spree is a pattern that occurs over and over again. A favorite recipe from the CIA's cookbook of how-to-create-a-mind-control-assassin-with-no-aftermess-to-clean-up. Now, here are a number of facts about Purdy gleaned from inconspicuous newspaper articles printed in Stockton-area newspapers. The following information comes from Dave Emory's archive radio broadcast tape M55, titled "The Stockton Schoolyard Shootings". By ordering this and other tapes from Dave Emory's spitfirelist, you will obtain a great deal of information cherished by anyone who would cherish freedom enough to fight for it. Stay Tuned for PART 2 of this series on The Columbine Massacre and Other Government-Engineered Acts of Terror. Please disseminate these reports and your own subsequent reports as widely as you can, because, folks, AMERICA IS UNDER SIEGE, to quote the title of a New World Order videotape expos'e by Linda Thompson. These should be motivating you to help develop and publicize the whole appalling story of how and why the long-conspiring New World Order persists in inflicting terror upon our nation's innocent people. As you would surmise, state terror is designed to inflame the citizenry to cry out for tough government controls, whence the state terrorists will promptly slam-dunk us all into their totalitarian New World Order slave plantation. These ruling elite every day dream and drool about their envisioned world slave plantation. Don't wait until you have to risk your life to stop it, folks. - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #148 ***********************************