From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #178 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 Sunday, February 13 2000 Volume 02 : Number 178 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 15:04:35 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: ALERT! HB 383, SB 72, & Mental Health Mental illness shenanigans and firearms! Alert below! HB 383- revocation of concealed firearm permits - by Melvin Brown Let your reps know that this bill is still not acceptable in its present form. This bill once again opens the door to abuse in the form of "I state that he is prone to violence because he got angry and threatened to harm someone once and the police was called and so therefore we cannot trust him..." Anyway you get the picture. Unless someone is convicted by a jury of his peers of having done something unlawful HE IS INNOCENT!!! and so his rights may not be taken away from him. HB 72 S2 - Public safety amendments - by Terry Spencer (who else could it be?) With this bill again if you have ever been given a label by the mental health system kiss your rights goodbye. Let's not forget that in Texas the legislature had to go back and allow numerous records to young people to be expunged. There had been so much abuse committed by the mental health field there that many young people who wanted to join the army could not. Their record showed their "mental illness" yet hearings had been conducted that showed that the majority of those committed against their will and labeled were just fine (their parents had carried good insurance). So my point simply is this: a psychiatric label is too easily given and many innocent people will have their rights taken away from them and this bill will perpetrate this abuse. What you can do: Write, e.mail and or call your legislators and tell them not to be a party to this shameful travesty under the guise of protecting the citizens. Also call the sponsors of these bills and give them a piece of your mind . . . politely, of course. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 16:58:18 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: URGENT - HB 95 HEARING Thursday Feb 10, 4:00 PM URGENT ACTION ALERT - Februry 9, 2000 - HB 95 HEARING Thursday Feb 10, 4:00 PM Daily update on status of every gun bill is available at http://www.UtahShootingSports.org HB 95 Hearing is scheduled for Thursday 10 Feb 4:00 PM in room 225 of the Capitol. Please plan to attend this important hearing on Rep. Dave Jones' Gun show background check scheme. This is simply a step forward on the anti-gun agenda of eventually requiring registration of all guns and gun owners and further intrusion into private matters. It is especially important to be POLITE when communicating with lawmakers. Rude or threatening calls or letters are never appropriate, and only hurt our cause. Good behavior is expected at hearings, so dress appropriately, and remember that unlike Jazz games applause and booing are not tolerated. Everyone needs to make a special effort to keep track of the legislators who support our positions. Let them know that you appreciate their votes, and support them at election time. If the proponents were serious about disarming violent criminals they would be enforcing existing laws, not complaining that they don't work and proposing more laws are needed. Legislators have heard about local polls supporting gun restrictions based on tainted questions. They might be interested in a national poll by the highly respected Zogby group which showed 61.6% support for better enforcement and only 34.7% feeling more gun laws are needed. Full text is available at http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000207/zo/guns_1.html Please plan to attend this hearing if possible. And please contact committee members and politely but firmly insist that they OPPOSE HB 95. Check our prior Alerts in your E-mail, or on the USSC Website alert archives for more arguments against this bill. (R) Bud Bowman, Chairman dbowman@le.state.ut.us 435-586-8174 (R) Jack A. Seitz, Vice Chairman jseitz@le.state.ut.us 435-789-0650 (R) Loraine Pace lpace@le.state.ut.us 435-753-6154 (R) Blake D. Chard, bchard@le.state.ut.us 801-773-7474 (R) Carl Saunders, csaunder@le.state.ut.us 801-476-1110 (R) Nora Stephens, nstephen@le.state.ut.us 801-825-3792 (R) Susan Koehn, skoehn@le.state.ut.us 801-296-1761 (R) David L. Hogue, dhogue@le.state.ut.us 801-254-1668 (D) Perry L. Buckner, pbuckner@le.state.ut.us 801-964-8215 (D) Duane Bourdeaux, dbourdea@le.state.ut.us 801-596-8784 (D) Trisha Beck, tbeck@le.state.ut.us 801-572-2325. You can send a FAX to any house member at 801-538-1908 FUTURE BATTLES: We have heard reports that a bunch of gun bills may be scheduled for hearings at the same time by different committees next week, perhaps Thursday. We will keep you informed. It may or may not be necessary to have massive turnout at some or all of those. Today marks the halfway point of this session. So far we have escaped any serious infringements, and have two positive bills moving forward: (HB 199- frivolous lawsuit protection for manufacturers and sellers of guns and ammunition; and HB 91 up to $150 income tax credit for purchase of residential security containers- including gun safes.) Some previously shaky legislators look like they might support us now. A lot of mischief can occur in the remaining days, so be prepared to take action on short notice. We will keep you informed of what is going on. Watch for information on local meetings with your legislators, and sessions explaining how you can be a delegate to party conventions and help select good candidates. If this alert was forwarded to you by someone other than USSC you can sign up for alerts by sending an E-mail to addalerts@UtahShootingSports.org Please forward this e-mail to anyone you think may be interested. For anyone who does not have Internet access, the latest Utah legislative updates are available by telephone. The number is 801-299-7230. Visit our web-site at: http://www.UtahShootingSports.org for the latest news and membership applications. To be removed from the USSC E-Mail Action Alert list, send an e-mail to: dropalerts@UtahShootingSports.org Thanks for your time. Provided by the Utah Shooting Sports Council, Box 1975, Layton, UT 84041-6975 - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 09:58:11 -0700 From: "David Sagers" Subject: Fwd: COA in danger of shutdown Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 03:03:53 -0700 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA09438; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 05:02:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200002101002.FAA09438@fs1.mainstream.net> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:04:05 -0700 From: dugga@pacifier.com (Doug Spittler) To: Multiple-Recipients-noban@mainstream.net Subject: COA in danger of shutdown Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: noban@mainstream.net X-Divvy-no: 1 >Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 11:33:06 -0800 >From: Brian Puckett >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Brian Puckett >Subject: COA in danger of shutdown > >Citizens Of America—a unique organization performing an essential >function in the war to retain our firearms rights—is in danger of having >to shut down operations. > >Q: Why should you care if COA is forced to cease operations? > >A: Because the work Citizens Of America (COA) has accomplished is in >jeopardy of vanishing. And COA—or its duplicate—is CRUCIAL to the >gun-rights war. > >Q: Why is COA crucial? > >A: Because other gun rights organizations communicate almost exclusively >with their membership. COA is running a national pro-gun, pro-gun rights >public media campaign. > >Because COA says what needs to be said, and doesn’t fear media >attacks—COA is prepared to use such attacks to benefit gun owners. > >Because COA reaches out to ALL Americans—regardless of age, race, >religion, or sex. And until ALL Americans grasp what is happening and >change their minds about firearms, we’re going to continue to lose our >rights, piece by piece. > >Q: What are COA’s tactics? > >A: COA’s primary tactic is to use the mass communications media to >convince ALL Americans—by touching their HEARTS and MINDS—that > >-- more guns in the hands of citizens means less crime >-- anti-gunners are anti-self-defense >-- anti-gunners are usually brazen hypocrites >-- anti-gunners are harming you personally and America in general. > >Q: What has COA accomplished? > >A: In just over FOUR months, COA has produced and disseminated across >the country—FREE OF CHARGE—13 pro-gun rights radio ads. Are the ads >good? Good enough that people are: > >-- paying out of their own pockets to run our ads in their locale >-- placing the ads—or links to COA—on their own pro-2A websites >-- sending out COA updates and notices on their own email lists >-- volunteering (via our new program) to be the collection points for >pooling funds to run ads in their own cities >-- volunteering not just money but time, skill, and services to help >us >-- notifying us that when our first print ads to appear they will pay to >run them in newspapers and other publications. >-- calling radio talk show and requesting that they interview us, >which has resulted in COA officers giving 11 talk show interviews in the >last three months (since Oct.) with more scheduled. Some interviews were >on nationally syndicated shows (Steve Wolf’s Crime Talk, Tom Gresham’s >Gun Talk, Jeff Rense’s Sightings, and Ron Engelmans Engelman Overnight) > >What else? >Radio station managers are running COA ads free of charge as public >service announcements. And COA has been the subject of a positive >WorldNet Daily article by columnist Jon Dougherty. > >Q: So why is COA having funding problems? >A: First, because COA started operations without extensive financial >backing-- just a small grant of a few hundred dollars to build a >website. And Second, because COA is still too new to have established a >large donor base to support it. From the beginning, COA founders counted >on public support to achieve its goals and to grow. > >In just four months COA’s dedicated staff, its ultra-low overhead, and >its careful spending ofdonations, along with grass-roots help from >individuals all across America, have already enabled it to have a >national reach and impact. > >But we’ve hit a financial wall, and we need your help to break through. >In fact we’re unable to maintain even a status quo regarding day-to-day >operations. Without immediate help we’ll be forced to cease all planned >projects—and perhaps shut down completely. > >But with your support we can instantly proceed with our plans to reach >ALL Americans with our pro-gun, pro-gun rights messages. > >PLEASE CONSIDER THIS: > >This email posting reaches several thousand people. If every recipient >contributed just $20, COA’s ultra lean operational budget for the coming >year would be met. > >More than $20 if you can afford it would be appreciated, of course. > >You can contribute by credit card or e-gold on our website, >http://www.citizensofamerica.org >Or by check to Citizens Of America, 2118 Wilshire Blvd. #447, Santa >Monica, CA 90403. > >To those who have contributed—THANK YOU! > > >-- >Brian Puckett >President, Citizens Of America > >COA runs a national pro-firearm >media campaign --and YOU can help! > >Visit http://www.citizensofamerica.org > >You may have received a version of this message from the 2ANewsTeam. If >so, COA apologizes for the duplication. > - - To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@mainstream.net, and as the body of the message (plain text, no HTML), send the following: unsubscribe noban email-address where email-address is the address under which you are subscribed. Report problems to owner-noban@mainstream.net - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:05:49 -0700 From: charles hardy Subject: FW: Rep. John Swallow FWIW John Swallow may be contacted at: Home: 801-572-8201 Office: 801-553-9805 Fax: 801-571-6545 Email: jswallow@le.state.ut.us Email: law@silversage.com ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control - --------- Forwarded message ---------- A plea for needed assistance from ex-Sen. Bill Barton - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- We need some help with two bills sponsored by Rep. John Swallow: HB 289, Unfair Government Competition and HB 401, Tuition Tax Credits. These bills have been sitting with no action and no text attached. John has indicated over this time that he is about to start them going, but they haven't moved. Both are important bills and need to start progressing or time will run out. If you agree with this, please contact John and urge him to get them going. He undoubtedly is very busy, but he needs to know these bills are important to Utah liberty and that we are depending him. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:06:51 -0700 From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: Why Guns? by L. Neil Smith I thought you might find the following essay interesting. It is a couple of years old, but I just ran across it again. While you probably can't quote the whole thing to your favorite legislator, it might help you formulate responses when s/he says, after voting to further restrict your ability to defend yourself, "I would hope you would look at my overall voting record rather than basing your opinions/furture votes/etc on this one single vote." WHY GUNS? - -- by L. Neil Smith -- From the "Webley Page" < http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/ > Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote. People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy – is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center. Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it? If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend - -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything? If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil – like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for him self, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail? Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of. He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about? And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along. Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have? On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries? Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it. And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter. But it isn't true, is it? L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of Bretta Martyn, The Probability Broach, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, The Lando Calrissian Adventures, and Pallas. He is also an NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus. ================================================================== Charles C. Hardy Utah Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:38:17 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Model Leg. Letter A couple quibbles should you adapt this to your own use: 1) I believe the Utah Constitution can only be amended by referendum rather than by initiative. 2) Since the polistatists have redefined "use" in case law to also include "keep", "bear", "carry", and "possess", this must be specifically refuted. Scott - ----- Subject: LPU: FW: Model Leg. Letter Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:20:19 -0700 From: "Jim Dexter" To: LPUtah Forum Another excellent example of a rational, reasons pro-gun rights letter to a legislator. - ---------- Dear NAME: Too often lawmakers seem to think they have to "do something, even if it's wrong." The cold hard facts are: 1. Lawmakers are not magicians. Prohibitive or restrictive laws only deter those who are not criminally inclined, and have little, if any, effect on those who are. 2. Vermont has no concealed carry law and enjoys a very low crime rate while the crime rate in other states seems to increase with the increase of restrictive firearms laws. England and Australia have experienced a catastrophic increase in crime since they banned firearms ownership, and for a very clear reason: disarming honest people makes them easy prey for criminals. 3. The right to self-protection is the most basic right of any creature, even one who has suffered mental illness. (The people who shot up the Triad Center and FHL were known to be violent.) 4. The Utah State Constitution is very clear on the subject: Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. 5. One of the statutory duties of the sheriff (17-22-1) is to make all arrests and to "(f) command the aid of as many inhabitants of his county as he considers necessary in the execution of these duties." Also, 76-8-307 makes it a crime to fail or refuse to aid a peace officer. How can this be if the people are disarmed? Those, such as Rep. Dave Jones, who claim that the majority of the people want more restrictive gun laws, seem to forget that the People of Utah, by initiative petition in November 1984, passed that amendment (Prop.5) and it became law in January 1985. The second clause concerning the "use" of arms is subordinate to the "keep and bear" clause. The Legislature may prohibit brandishing, threatening, or shooting road signs or property, etc., but is prohibited from infringing the right of anyone to "keep and bear" (possess and carry) arms. Therefore, all statutes, ordinances and laws restricting that right became null and void on 1 January 1985. It troubles me that so many public officials seem unable to comprehend that. I realize this is your first term in the legislature, and you may not be ready to take a heroic action like proposing repeal of a whole flock of laws. However, you can and should oppose any new laws that are clearly unconstitutional such as HB 383 and SB 72. I pledge to do what I can to support you with material and testimony before the committee. Please contact me so I can help you. Respectfully, - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:31:55 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Hatch's Disappointment - ----- Subject: Hatch's Disappointment Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:25:24 -0700 From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY! Orrin Hatch laments the Clinton/Reno indifference to enforcement of federal gun "laws". The bottom line for Hatch is the following: "It is a federal crime to transfer or possess a semi-automatic assault weapon. The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997." http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/state126.html (see the last sentence) So there you have it. Orrin Hatch in his own, verifiable words. He believes it is "terrible" that private citizens who exercise their constitutionally-protected right to own defensive firearms are not being prosecuted and imprisoned. Let's all recognize and remember Orrin's treachery by becoming state delegates on March 27, and attending the State Convention on May 6. Remember: You must be a registered Republican to be eligible. Arnold - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:47:45 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: LEG-ALERTS 2-11 - Committee alert, Another Hatch meeting Monday hearings! More threats to gun rights Another meeting with Hatch WHAT YOU MUST DO! MONDAY HEARINGS! Both of the following bills will be heard by the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee at 8 AM Monday, Room 403. Support for gun rights in this committee is not strong, so you need to be actively involved! 1. HB 199 Limit on Gun Manufacturer's Liability - Throckmorton (R) This is our one GOOD BILL for this session. It prohibits frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. 2. SB 200 Mental Health Commitment Amendments - Montgomery (R) This is advertised as a mental health bill, but it's really "stealth gun control"! SB 200 would make it MUCH easier to commit people for "mental health treatment". It would allow commitment (and forced drugging) for anyone who "poses a substantial danger to himself or others" as a result of a "mental illness". It does not require that the danger be immediate or that it be a physical danger. (The current standard is IMMEDIATE threat of PHYSICAL INJURY.) Anyone involuntarily committed loses his gun rights (for LIFE under Federal Brady or for the duration of the commitment under proposed Utah law). BCI can permanently revoke a CCW permit for anyone who has ever been committed. And remember that many psychiatrists consider those of us who own guns, or don't trust the government, to be "mentally ill". Commitment laws are a real Catch-22. If you deny that you're mentally ill and/or refuse to take drugs, that's considered presumptive evidence of an "inability to engage in rational decision-making" - which is grounds for commitment. There is NO JURY TRIAL for commitment hearings, the standard is "clear and convincing evidence" (not "beyond a reasonable doubt"), and hearsay evidence and suppositions are admissible evidence. And there are no objective tests for mental illness, so there is no hard evidence - only opinions. UTGuns believes this bill is unconstitutional and abusive, and may lead to Soviet-style incarceration and drugging of people with "politically incorrect" ideas. It may also be used as a roundabout way to revoke the gun rights of people who have not committed crimes. Even the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel believes this bill raises constitutional concerns! ANOTHER BAD BILL HB 372 - Residency Requirement for Concealed Carry Permit, G. Cox (D) This bill would require that a person be a legal resident of Utah in order to apply for a concealed carry permit. It does not address what would happen to current permittees who are non-residents or to residents who move out of state. It appears that Rep. Cox wants to kill Utah's tourist industry - and maybe even its tourists! Why should visitors to our ski slopes, national parks, and the Olympics be denied the right to self-defense? What happens to people who live in Utah part, but not all, of the year, and don't qualify for "legal residence"? We know the answer to those questions from Florida's experience. Florida's tourists and "snowbirds" were singled out for attack by vicious criminals until the state expanded its permit law to include non-residents. It's hard to imagine why anyone would support a bill designed to disarm innocent people and injure one of Utah's major industries. ANOTHER MEETING WITH SEN. HATCH From Charles Hardy: Yesterday, I received an invitation to a second Hatch town meeting. This one is scheduled for Monday, Feb. 14. I forgot to bring the invite with me this morning, but if I remember correctly, it is at the Sandy City Town Hall and is scheduled for 4:30 pm. Just in case anyone can't make the one downtown or wants to attend both. Charles (There's also a meeting Wednesday evening at 7 PM at the Hilton Hotel. Please try to attend one or both!) WHAT YOU MUST DO! 1. If you do nothing else this weekend, CALL the members of the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee! Insist that they SUPPORT HB 199 (gun lawsuits) and OPPOSE SB 200 (civil commitment). Members are: Sen. Michael Waddoups, Chair 801-967-0225 mwaddoup@le.state.ut.us President Lane Beattie 801-292-7406 lbeattie@le.state.ut.us Sen. R. Mont Evans 801-254-2655 mevans@le.state.ut.us Sen. Karen Hale 801-485-6642 khale@le.state.ut.us Sen. Paula F. Julander 801-363-0868 prjuland@msn.com Sen. Peter C. Knudson 435-723-2035 pknudson@le.state.ut.us Sen. Eddie "Ed" P. Mayne 801-968-7756 emayne@le.state.ut.us Sen. David H. Steele 801-825-3033 dsteele@le.state.ut.us The most important person to contact is Sen. Waddoups, the committee chair, who claims to be supportive of gun rights, despite last year's shameful sponsorship of the Olympic Gun Ban. 2. Call Rep. Gary Cox 801-967-9760, gcox@le.state.ut.us and garyc@wjordan.com and ask him to kill HB 372. 3. Plan to attend at least one of the meetings with Sen. Hatch so we can let him know that Utahns are disgusted with his sponsorship and support of gun control bills! Does he REALLY want to be Dave Jones's role model? Have a GREAT weekend! Sarah Leg-alerts is written and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D. All information contained in these alerts is the responsibility of the author, unless otherwise attributed. Leg-alerts can also be found at UTGuns, http://www.UTguns.freeservers.com . Please check out the new site! This is a one-way list. Please do NOT try to post to the list. It won't work, and repeat violations will result in your removal from the list. Comments may be sent to me at righter@therighter.com. Thanks! Permission is granted for distribution of these alerts so long as no changes are made and this message is left intact. To subscribe/unsubscribe from leg-alerts, send a message to: majordomo@aros.net In the body put: subscribe (or unsubscribe) leg-alerts - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:45:50 -0700 From: "larry larsen" Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment We know there is no law against semi-automatic assault weapon being sold. The word is automatic, a missprint. in anycase we need a different senator, and we need to get rid of Mike "gun control" Leavett. You republicans press on. Larry - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Bergeson To: Utah Firearms Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:31 PM Subject: FW: Hatch's Disappointment > ----- > Subject: Hatch's Disappointment > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:25:24 -0700 > From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" > > PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY! > > Orrin Hatch laments the Clinton/Reno indifference to enforcement > of federal gun "laws". The bottom line for Hatch is the following: > > "It is a federal crime to transfer or possess a semi-automatic > assault weapon. The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only > four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997." > > http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/state126.html (see the last sentence) > > So there you have it. Orrin Hatch in his own, verifiable words. > He believes it is "terrible" that private citizens who exercise > their constitutionally-protected right to own defensive firearms > are not being prosecuted and imprisoned. > > Let's all recognize and remember Orrin's treachery by becoming > state delegates on March 27, and attending the State Convention > on May 6. Remember: You must be a registered Republican to be > eligible. > > Arnold > > - > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:17:29 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment Larry, how do you intend to get a new, and preferably better, Senator and Governor? Via the Democratic Party? I'm not so sure it was a misprint. It could instead have been an assertion of Sen. Hatch's desires for national firearms law. We'll have to ask him if he thinks we should only be allowed single shots. Perhaps we should only have flintlock muzzle loaders at most. Scott - ----- Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:45:50 -0700 From: "larry larsen" To: We know there is no law against semi-automatic assault weapon being sold. The word is automatic, a missprint. in anycase we need a different senator, and we need to get rid of Mike "gun control" Leavett. You republicans press on. Larry - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Bergeson To: Utah Firearms Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:31 PM Subject: FW: Hatch's Disappointment > ----- > Subject: Hatch's Disappointment > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:25:24 -0700 > From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" > PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY! > Orrin Hatch laments the Clinton/Reno indifference to enforcement > of federal gun "laws". The bottom line for Hatch is the following: > "It is a federal crime to transfer or possess a semi-automatic > assault weapon. The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only > four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997." > http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/state126.html (see the last sentence) > So there you have it. Orrin Hatch in his own, verifiable words. > He believes it is "terrible" that private citizens who exercise > their constitutionally-protected right to own defensive firearms > are not being prosecuted and imprisoned. > Let's all recognize and remember Orrin's treachery by becoming > state delegates on March 27, and attending the State Convention > on May 6. Remember: You must be a registered Republican to be > eligible. > Arnold - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:46:04 -0700 From: "larry larsen" Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment Scott, I would hope that the good Senator who, if you ask him, says "we wouldn't even have a 2nd amendment" if it weren't for him, would know the difference between a semi and full automatic rifle, and thereby, know that there is no law, at least in Utah, against owning such a device as a semi-automatic "assault" weapon. So that clears that up, it must be an aids fault. As to your second inquires as to how to replace and or get a fine Gov, and Senator, I think you are on the right track, get the freedom loving Republicans out and make them delegates, of course you will have to get the school teachers to bum over. Larry - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Bergeson To: Utah Firearms Cc: Arnold J. Gaunt Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 2:17 PM Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment > Larry, how do you intend to get a new, and preferably better, > Senator and Governor? Via the Democratic Party? I'm not so sure > it was a misprint. It could instead have been an assertion of > Sen. Hatch's desires for national firearms law. We'll have to > ask him if he thinks we should only be allowed single shots. > Perhaps we should only have flintlock muzzle loaders at most. > > Scott > > ----- > Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment > Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:45:50 -0700 > From: "larry larsen" > To: > > We know there is no law against semi-automatic assault weapon being sold. > The word is automatic, a missprint. in anycase we need a different > senator, and we need to get rid of Mike "gun control" Leavett. You > republicans press on. > Larry > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Scott Bergeson > To: Utah Firearms > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:31 PM > Subject: FW: Hatch's Disappointment > > > ----- > > Subject: Hatch's Disappointment > > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:25:24 -0700 > > From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" > > > PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY! > > > Orrin Hatch laments the Clinton/Reno indifference to enforcement > > of federal gun "laws". The bottom line for Hatch is the following: > > > "It is a federal crime to transfer or possess a semi-automatic > > assault weapon. The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only > > four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997." > > > http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/state126.html (see the last sentence) > > > So there you have it. Orrin Hatch in his own, verifiable words. > > He believes it is "terrible" that private citizens who exercise > > their constitutionally-protected right to own defensive firearms > > are not being prosecuted and imprisoned. > > > Let's all recognize and remember Orrin's treachery by becoming > > state delegates on March 27, and attending the State Convention > > on May 6. Remember: You must be a registered Republican to be > > eligible. > > > Arnold > > - > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 00:35:42 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Re: Hatch's Disappointment - ----- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Hatch's Disappointment] Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 00:08:44 -0700 From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" To: Scott Bergeson Scott, Hatch knows exactly what he is saying, and it is not a misprint. Under the 1994 "Crime" Bill, it is illegal to transfer or possess any "semiautomatic assault rifle" (e.g. AR-15, Uzi, etc.) manufactured after the date of enactment of the bill. If you possess a semiauto AR-15 manufactured in 1996, complete with flash suppressor and bayonet lug, off you go to federal prison. No criminal intent or action is required. Hatch believes that the keeping and bearing of arms is a crime, and should be prosecuted. Arnold Scott Bergeson wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment > Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 14:46:04 -0700 > From: "larry larsen" > Reply-To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com > To: > References: <38A5CDE9.97A978E5@uswest.net> > Scott, > I would hope that the good Senator who, if you ask him, says "we wouldn't > even have a 2nd amendment" if it weren't for him, would know the difference > between a semi and full automatic rifle, and thereby, know that there is > no law, at least in Utah, against owning such a device as a semi-automatic > "assault" weapon. So that clears that up, it must be an aids fault. As to > your second inquires as to how to replace and or get a fine Gov, and > Senator, I think you are on the right track, get the freedom loving > Republicans out and make them delegates, of course you will have to get > the school teachers to bum over. > Larry > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Scott Bergeson > To: Utah Firearms > Cc: Arnold J. Gaunt > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 2:17 PM > Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment > > Larry, how do you intend to get a new, and preferably better, > > Senator and Governor? Via the Democratic Party? I'm not so sure > > it was a misprint. It could instead have been an assertion of > > Sen. Hatch's desires for national firearms law. We'll have to > > ask him if he thinks we should only be allowed single shots. > > Perhaps we should only have flintlock muzzle loaders at most. > > Scott > > ----- > > Subject: Re: Hatch's Disappointment > > Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:45:50 -0700 > > From: "larry larsen" > > To: > > We know there is no law against semi-automatic assault weapon being sold. > > The word is automatic, a missprint. in anycase we need a different > > senator, and we need to get rid of Mike "gun control" Leavett. You > > republicans press on. > > Larry > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Scott Bergeson > > To: Utah Firearms > > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:31 PM > > Subject: FW: Hatch's Disappointment > > > ----- > > > Subject: Hatch's Disappointment > > > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:25:24 -0700 > > > From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" > > > PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY! > > > Orrin Hatch laments the Clinton/Reno indifference to enforcement > > > of federal gun "laws". The bottom line for Hatch is the following: > > > "It is a federal crime to transfer or possess a semi-automatic > > > assault weapon. The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only > > > four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997." > > > http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/state126.html (see the last sentence) > > > So there you have it. Orrin Hatch in his own, verifiable words. > > > He believes it is "terrible" that private citizens who exercise > > > their constitutionally-protected right to own defensive firearms > > > are not being prosecuted and imprisoned. > > > Let's all recognize and remember Orrin's treachery by becoming > > > state delegates on March 27, and attending the State Convention > > > on May 6. Remember: You must be a registered Republican to be > > > eligible. > > > Arnold - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #178 ***********************************