From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #219 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 Friday, October 12 2001 Volume 02 : Number 219 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:31:29 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Oregon Firearms Federation Do Utah gun groups concur? LP release to follow. - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Oregon Firearms Federation Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:18:53 -0700 From: dale@accentre.com To: "Multiple recipients of Project: Safe Sky Mailing list" Of potential interest is _Oregon Firearms Federation_, which bills itself as "Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Lobby". I sent them a pointer to http://www.projectsafeskies.org/. They're at: mailto:shooters@oregonfirearms.org http://oregonfirearms.org/ Their alerts page includes: - ---------------------------------------------------------------- OREGON FIREARMS FEDERATION CALLS FOR AN END TO PASSENGER DISARMAMENT OFF ALERT 9/17/01 Dear Friends, The events of last Tuesday have forever changed the face of America. Many of us know people who died in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Our prayers are with the victims, their families and the countless heroes who are working around the clock in rescue and recovery efforts. No doubt our country will respond. But let us not allow this act of barbarism to become an excuse for an attack on freedom. To do so would be to hand a victory to the perpetrators of this vicious act of mass murder. Already Congress has started to pass laws that would restrict the privacy of American civilians. As tempting as it may be to accept this, (the illusion of security in exchange for liberty) it simply won't make us any safer. Now more than ever we must stand up for our rights and demand back the rights we have lost. There is now no question that the loss of our right to defend ourselves while traveling led directly to the success of the murderous missions in New York and Washington. O.F.F. has issued a press release, the text of which follows. After that is contact information for our Senators, Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith. Contact information for other Senators can be obtained at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Please contact your Representatives in Congress and remind them that there is security in liberty. In freedom, Kevin Starrett - ------------------------------------------------ For Immediate Release: 9/17/01 OREGON FIREARMS FEDERATION CALLS FOR AN END TO PASSENGER DISARMAMENT. The tragic events of last Tuesday have proven beyond doubt that rendering American travelers defenseless is a deadly strategy. Our prayers are with the victims and their loved ones. On Tuesday September 11, untold thousands of Americans died at the hands of a small group of foreign nationals armed with nothing more sophisticated than common warehouse equipment. Sadly, the response of many in government and the media has been to call for even more attacks on American's liberties. But there can be no denying that the one plane that did not destroy its intended target was the plane that was carrying people willing to fight and die against terrorists. "What a shame that the brave men and women aboard that plane were stripped of their right to protect themselves by the very government that's now demanding they give up more freedom" said Kevin Starrett, executive director of Oregon Firearms Federation. "The members of the anti-self defense lobby have these deaths as the fruit of their labors." The Oregon Firearms Federation calls on Congress to reverse the insane policy of requiring Americans to travel unarmed while simultaneously demanding that Americans give up more liberty, privacy and security. The events of last Tuesday, says O.F.F., were the result of a calamitous failure of our intelligence agencies after years of emasculation by the Clinton administration, not a failure of American civilians. Starrett said "Had one or two people on that plane, be they crew or passengers, been permitted to exercise their God given right to self protection, this horrible event would have ended very differently." O.F.F. believes that calling for the erosion of rights is the exact strategy the suicide pilots would have applauded. Liberty is security. NEVER AGAIN UNARMED.... LET FREEDOM FIGHT! - --- >= PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org >= >= PROJECT: SAFE SKIES MAILING LIST (http://www.vader.com/safesky/) >= >= TO POST TO THE LIST: send mail to safe-sky@vader.com >= TO SUBSCRIBE TO LIST: send mail to safe-sky-request@vader.com >= TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM LIST: send mail to safe-sky-drop@vader.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:34:00 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: LP RELEASE: Bus Hijacking The LP has the right idea! Permitted CCW doesn't cut it. =============================== NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org =============================== Tennessee bus hijacking shows need for for 50-state concealed-carry gun laws WASHINGTON, DC -- In the wake of the Tennessee bus hijacking yesterday that left six people dead, every state should immediately pass Vermont-style concealed-carry gun laws so Americans can defend themselves against terrorists or deranged murderers, the Libertarian Party said today. "Let's put the Second Amendment to work to protect Americans," said the party's national director, Steve Dasbach. "The best defense against hijackers -- or run-of-the-mill copycat madmen -- is to give every American the legal right to own a gun and carry it everywhere." Early Wednesday, a Croatian man used a box cutter to slash the throat of a Greyhound bus driver just outside Manchester, Tennessee. The man then grabbed the steering wheel and attempted to drive the bus into oncoming traffic. The bus tipped over, killing at least six people including the hijacker, and injuring 34 others. Greyhound temporarily suspended bus service following the attack, but the U.S. Justice Department said the hijacking was probably not related to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Police speculated that the hijacker was a mentally unbalanced copycat criminal. Whatever the man's motivation, the attack points out that no form of transportation is safe from potential attack, said Dasbach -- which is why every law-abiding American needs the right to carry a concealed weapon. "After terrorists hijacked four airliners on September 11, the consensus was that greater airport security could stymie such attacks," he said. "That may be true, but a similar solution won't protect Americans who use buses, trains, taxicabs, or other forms of travel. There are simply too many modes of public transportation. "The only way to keep Americans safe is to decentralize protection: Give every law-abiding citizen the right to carry a weapon at all times. "No, that won't stop every attempted hijacking -- and may not even have stopped the tragedy in Tennessee -- but criminals and terrorists will be far less likely to attack if they know they'll be staring down the business end of a dozen American guns." Currently, 31 states have "shall-issue" concealed-carry laws, which require the state government to issue a gun permit to any resident who is not disqualified by a felony conviction, mental illness, or similar objection. Tennessee has a "shall-issue" law, but its permit is reciprocally honored in only 12 other states, and Tennessee honors only nine other states' permits. That's a problem, said Dasbach, because the bus that was hijacked in Tennessee originated in Chicago, Illinois and was heading for Atlanta, Georgia. Only one of those states (Georgia) had a reciprocal permit agreement with Tennessee -- making it impossible for passengers to legally carry a weapon for the duration of the trip. "America needs 50-state reciprocity," he said. "A gun permit valid in one state should be equally valid in all 50 states. That's the only way to protect people on interstate trips." To make that protection as easy as possible to acquire, every state should pass gun permit legislation modeled after Vermont's gun law, said Dasbach. In Vermont, any citizen can carry a firearm without getting a permit, without paying a fee, and without any government-mandated waiting period. Despite the ease with which people can acquire guns -- or perhaps because of it -- Vermont enjoys the 49th lowest crime rate in America, noted Dasbach. "The conventional wisdom is that more guns equal more crime," he said. "But Vermont is stark proof that more guns, and easier access to guns, are the best possible deterrent to crime." However, evidence of the "More Guns/Less Crime" principle extends beyond Vermont, said Dasbach. In October 2000, the FBI released a report showing that gunshot wounds inflicted during crimes decreased by 40% from 1992 and 1997 -- falling from 64,100 to 39,400 nationwide. During the same five years, the number of guns in America increased by 12% - -- surging from 205 million to 230 million, according to the National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers. Also, according to a study by John Lott and David Mustard at the University of Chicago, concealed-carry handgun laws reduced murder rates by 8.5% in those states that passed such laws, compared to states which make gun ownership difficult or impossible. Had such right-to-carry laws been in effect all 50 states, there would be 1,600 fewer murders every year, they reported. Given all this evidence, Job #1 in the war against terrorism should be to give Americans the right to own and carry a firearm, said Dasbach. "In memory of the victims of the Tennessee bus hijacking, every state should immediately pass a Vermont-style gun law, and make it reciprocal with every other state," he said. "Politicians need to make it as easy for every American to buy and carry a gun as it is to buy a bus ticket. By doing so, they'll make it easier for the next would-be terrorist to buy a one-way ticket to an early grave." # # # - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:09:36 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Murray Sabrin - September 11th - ----- Subject: September 11th Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 07:47:13 -0500 From: info@murraysabrin.com The first draft of the essay below was written on September 23th. As I finished it I received a call from my father's attending physician informing me of his death. I dedicate this essay to my father, World War II partisan commander, freedom fighter, and NRA member. The essay is a slightly revised version of the one I submitted to The Record (Hackensack) early last week. Feel free to share it with anyone. National defense begins with self-defense On September 11th four coordinated hijackings within minutes of each other caused the greatest loss of life in American history and the destruction of billions of dollars of property. The terrorist attacks on America soil were committed by a dedicated group of zealots using one of the oldest tools known to man. They commandeered four planes using knives and its “high-tech” cousin, box cutters. The hijackers did not takeover the flights with ceramic or plastic guns bypassing several airport security checkpoints, nor did they have help from co-conspirators who planted guns on the airplanes. The federal government’s response was predictable. Airline passengers are now banned from carrying penknives and other sharp instruments. In effect, the Federal Aviation Adminitration’s new policy will render pilots and their crews and passengers even more defenseless against any future hijackings. The death and destruction that occurred on September 11th never should have happened. Despite spending more than $350 billion on “national defense” and “intelligence”, 19 terrorists armed only with knives escaped detection at three major airports and were able to cause untold death and destruction. This was the greatest national security failure in the history of the world. How could America be so wantonly attacked? What did government officials know about suspected terrorist activity and when did they know it? We need answers from government officials, and we should demand that they respond quickly, putting all the information they had about potential attacks prior to September 11th before us so we can judge their competence. The crews and passengers of the three planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon died needlessly. The hijackers were determined to take the lives of as many Americans as possible, and in three instances they inflicted horrific damage, because they knew the crews and the passengers were disarmed by our own government. In other words, we witnessed the tragic result of gun control right before our eyes on television. Armed individuals - pilots and trained civilians - would have had the means to stop the hijackers in their tracks. Instead, the political elite’s policy of unilateral disarmament of pilots and qualified passengers contributed to the worst attack on the American people. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 21) an American Airlines pilot makes his case for arming pilots: “We need a last line of defense to keep hijackers out of the cockpit. Federal agents from even the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Department of Agriculture, Department of Education and the Smithsonian Institution are allowed to carry guns on commercial airlines. Why not the pilots who are responsible for the aircraft? Many of us already have better firearms training than that provided to those agencies — and we’re willing to get more at our own expense.” The tragedy of 9/11 reveals that a strong national defense must be based on self-defense. As long as the political élites continue to distrust the American people to exercise their natural right to self-defense, unspeakable tragedies will continue to happen to innocent Americans. Despite President Bush’s stirring address to the nation on September 20th, why should we have faith and confidence that the federal government’s $300 billion national defense establishment, which was unable to thwart the September 11th attack against America, will protect us from foreign attacks in the future? Maybe now is the time to reassess our foreign policy that has placed U.S. troops in 100 countries, leaving us vulnerable at home. In other words, we need a real national defense to protect the American people. The cost of being the world’s policeman was the horrific loss of life right here in the U.S.A. The American people are sitting ducks for the zealots who have no regard for our lives and property. Why don’t the political élites allow us to defend ourselves? Because they do not trust the people to take care of themselves. On September 11th we witnessed the result of several decades of welfare-state policies. One of the greatest myths was shattered on September 11th: “We’re from the government and we’re going to protect you.” Now that we are united as a nation as never before, let the people as well as the U.S. military defend the homeland. Let’s bring our troops home and have a real national defense. We certainly do not need another federal bureaucracy. Murray Sabrin is Professor of Finance at Ramapo College. He is currently writing a book on the policies of America’s political elites. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:33:41 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Bellesiles asked to defend controversial anti-gun claims Boston Globe Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of a book on gun ownership in early America, has been asked by his department to write a detailed defense of his research. Historians have found a pattern of false claims and fraudulent research in the anti-gun book. (10/04/01) http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/276/living/University_asks_historian_to_defend_his_research_on_gun_ownership_book+.shtml - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 11:19:48 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Gun Control Supporters Quietly Gathering Signatures Re: http://www.sltrib.com/10062001/saturday/137911.htm DAWN HOUSE, secret writer for THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, alleges you, Gary Sackett mailto:uagv@inconnect.com, board member of Utahns Against Gun Violence, said "No one with a concealed weapons permit could have prevented what took place". I am sure you are well aware your statement is both false and disingenuous. An ordinary citizen with a CCP could not have done so because the airlines and the FAA do not allow such to CCW in airports or onboard commercial airliners, so in that sense your statement is only true by what it conceals. OTOH, someone with a federal carry license could well have stopped the skyjackers had s/he been present physically and mentally, armed and disposed to do so. I expect a retraction and apology in the Salt Lake Tribune. Scott Bergeson mailto:shbergeson@qwest.net NEVER AGAIN UNARMED.... LET FREEDOM FIGHT! >= PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 11:52:49 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Gun Control Supporters Quietly Gathering Signatures - Corrected Corrected: the http://www.uagv.org/netinfo.html Website lists an invalid contact address. Re: http://www.sltrib.com/10062001/saturday/137911.htm DAWN HOUSE, secret writer for THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, alleges you, Gary Sackett mailto:gsackett@joneswaldo.com, board member of Utahns Against Gun Violence, said "No one with a concealed weapons permit could have prevented what took place". I am sure you are well aware your statement is both false and disingenuous. An ordinary citizen with a CCP could not have done so because the airlines and the FAA do not allow such to CCW in airports or onboard commercial airliners, so in that sense your statement is only true by what it conceals. OTOH, someone with a federal carry license could well have stopped the skyjackers had s/he been present physically and mentally, armed and disposed to do so. I expect a retraction and apology in the Salt Lake Tribune. Scott Bergeson mailto:shbergeson@qwest.net NEVER AGAIN UNARMED.... LET FREEDOM FIGHT! >= PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:00:12 -0600 From: "Scott Bergeson" Subject: FW: Great letter to the editor on armed passengers Terrorists target defenseless Hijacking would cease instantly with one simple and secure change - - every pilot and passenger who elects to arm themselves should be allowed to do so. Terrorists would immediately look elsewhere for their victims. Terrorists target the defenseless. One air marshal will not do the job - they will be quickly overcome by multiple hijackers. The strongest cockpit door can, and will be opened. Armed citizens on an airliner who are willing to defend themselves would outnumber the terrorists every time. Hijackings would be reduced to zero - beginning with the first armed flight. In contrast, consider the present government logic: They demand the exclusive right to offer armed resistance to terrorists and other criminals. However, if they fail (as they will), their reaction to their own failure is to kill the disarmed innocents they failed to protect - to shoot down the entire airplane! Now we not only have to worry about foreign terrorists - we have to worry about F-16s "just following orders." And they have the audacity to urge us to overcome "fear" and start filling airplanes again. No thanks. When passengers and pilots are allowed to defend themselves, let me know. What if the government is as successful in the "war on terrorism" as it has been in the "war against poverty" and the "war against drugs"? What we need to increase our security is not less liberty - - it is more liberty. An armed people is a secure people. We have a right to self defense. Even those who don't agree will be made more secure by the rest of us. Sept. 11 (should have) ended the debate on whether security can be obtained by disarming those who would be secure. With a dozen or two shoulder holsters on each of those fateful flights, the twin towers would still be standing high. Tim Ogle Ex-fighter pilot Retired B757 captain http://www.wnd.com/letters.asp NEVER AGAIN UNARMED.... LET FREEDOM FIGHT! >= PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 21:11:08 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: Anti-gun Senator John McCain is up to his Old Tricks Found on another list. For whatever reason, these guys don't yet seem to be linked to http://www.ProjectSafeSkies.org/ . Scott - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Anti-gun Senator John McCain is up to his Old Tricks Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:04:27 EDT From: freemanaz@aol.com To: lpaz--discuss@yahoogroups.com CC: dfc_talk@yahoogroups.com, aolsimlp@yahoogroups.com Anti-gun Senator John McCain is up to his Old Tricks - -- Calls needed to stop McCain's "Dead Pilots" amendment Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 ACTION: Please contact your senators and demand that they oppose the anti-gun amendment that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will offer to the Aviation Security Act as early as Tuesday. Ask them instead to support Bob Smith's "Passenger Safety" amendment that will arm pilots, thus protecting the lives of airline passengers and crewmembers. (Friday, September 5, 2001) -- Anti-gun zealot Senator John McCain is, once again, preparing to offer an amendment to disarm Americans. This particular "Dead Pilots" amendment, proposed for the Aviation Security Act, would prohibit guns for airline pilots and instead arm them with "stun guns." Thus, if a ground crew in a U.S. or foreign airport smuggled a gun aboard an aircraft and planted it under a seat, THE HIJACKER WOULD HAVE A REAL GUN. BUT THE PILOTS WOULD ONLY HAVE A TOY GUN BY COMPARISON. This same result would occur if a terrorist smuggled a firearm through a metal detector, as Charles Hildreth, 63, unwittingly did at Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport on September 25, 2001. THIS WOULD PUT THE PILOTS AND THE PLANE AT GREATER RISK THAN IF THEY HAD NO GUN AT ALL. Let's look at the types of stun guns: * THE STUN GUN THAT WORKS ONLY WHILE THE PILOT'S THROAT IS BEING CUT: First, there is the hand-held stun gun which works only when the pilot makes physical contact with the attacker. On its web site, D&D Security Products, which sells this stun gun, states: "They should not be used to defend yourself against an attacker with a firearm or knife." IN OTHER WORDS, STUN GUNS ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR UNARMED ATTACKERS. THEY WOULD BE USELESS AGAINST ARMED TERRORISTS. * THE STUN GUN THAT WORKS ONLY IF PEOPLE FLY NAKED: Second, there is the type of stun gun (a taser) that "launches remote probes up to 15 feet." This type of stun gun can be thwarted by heavy clothing. And, if the pilot misses on the first shot at a distance of 15 feet, the pilot is dead. Either way, McCain's "stun gun" approach would do very little to enhance pilot or passenger safety against a terrorist. Even worse, the McCain amendment would leave pilots defenseless by supplanting the Smith amendment, which will take real strides towards stopping future skyjackings. So please urge your Senators to oppose the anti-gun McCain amendment, and be sure to reinforce your support for the Smith "Passenger Safety" amendment. CONTACT INFORMATION: Please use the pre-written text below to help direct your comments to the U.S. Senate. You can call your Senators at 202-224-3121. To identify your Senators, as well as to send a message via e-mail, plug in your zipcode under Elected Officials at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm in the GOA Legislative Action Center. - ----- Pre-written message ----- Dear Senator: When the Aviation Security Act comes to the floor for a vote, there will be competing ideas as to what will deter terrorists from hijacking aircraft. I want to make it unmistakably clear that stun guns and tasers are NOT the way to deter hijackers. One seller who advertises these items on the web says that stun guns "should not be used to defend yourself against an attacker with a firearm or knife." Well, no kidding. Stun guns require the attacker to be right on top of you before you can use them. And tasers, which launch a remote probe up to 15 feet, can be thwarted by heavy clothing. Moreover, if the pilot misses on the first shot at a distance of 15 feet, the pilot is dead. Please do not support any such "Dead Pilots" amendment - whether it is sponsored by Senator John McCain or anyone else - as a defense against terrorists. If stun guns and tasers were so effective, then why don't cops around the country trade in their guns for these items? There are plenty of aviation engineers who have made the point that bullet holes will not cause a massive depressurization in a plane. If depressurization were truly a concern, then why are we even considering putting air marshals on planes? Their bullets will be no different from those being used by the pilots. But more to the point, there is no way we can get an air marshal on all 35,000 daily flights. So the only way to deter these terrorists is to make sure that our last line of defense - the pilots - can protect the plane. Reinforcing the cockpit doors is also a good idea, but it's not a panacea. Are we to assume that on a long trip the door will NEVER be opened? That pilots will NEVER take a bathroom break? That there is no one among the flight crew who will ever have the keys or security codes to open the door? Reinforcing the cockpit doors can help. But the only way to stop terrorism on board aircraft is to let these villains know in advance that, if they ever try to invade the cockpit, they'll get a bullet in the skull. Please support the Bob Smith amendment that will allow pilots to be armed, and thus, will enable them to protect the lives of their crewmembers and passengers. Thank you. ************************* ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS Many of your Representatives and Senators are giving you feedback in opposition to arming pilots. Basically, their opposition falls into one of five categories: Bullet holes can lead to a massive depressurization of the plane Pilots should fly planes, not fight terrorists Making cockpits impenetrable is all that is needed Only sky marshals should have guns on planes Innocent bystanders might get shot Gun Owners of America has prepared a fact sheet to answer these objections. Please go to http://www.gunowners.org/fs0104.htm on the GOA web page and feel free to use the provided material to answer your legislators. ************************** ATTENTION PILOTS! ALPA is not using an alerts list to communicate with its members on this issue. So, please pass this GOA alert to as many pilots as you can. Pilots need to call their Senators AS PILOTS and answer all the objections that might be brought up. Petitions Available: If you are a pilot, or have constant contact with pilots, please go to http://www.gunowners.org/pilotspetition.htm to download and circulate a petition designed to convince Congress that arming pilots is a good, common-sense first step towards ensuring airline safety. Feel free to circulate the petition among communications networks frequented by pilots. And if you are not a pilot, there are other petitions you can sign to show your support. Some of these are: Safer Skies. The non-profit Rights Watch International has an open letter to Congress at http://www.rightswatch.org/ regarding armed pilots that will also be placed in major newspapers. The Federal Observer. At http://www.federalobserver.com/petition/index.php?src=fo is a citizen's petition urging the arming of pilots. 3. KABA. KeepAndBearArms.com is urging enforcement of the Second Amendment, with a petition at https://www.keepandbeararms.com/petition/ directed at U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 16:05:30 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Another victory in gun lawsuits I can't find any articles in the papers on this, but here is a press release that is good news. http://www.nssf.org/releases/100901.htm The National Shooting Sports Foundation • 11 Mile Hill Road • Newtown, CT 06470-2359 Tel: (203) 426-1320 • Fax: (203) 426-1087 TO: NATIONAL NEWS MEDIA For Immediate Release October 9, 2001 For additional information contact: Lawrence G. Keane (203) 426-1320 U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Revive Firearms Suit Brady Center Misleads Media on Status of Lawsuits Against Firearms Manufacturers 17 of 18 suits are fully or partially dismissed All appellate decisions favor manufacturers NEWTOWN, Conn., Oct. 9-Commenting on today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision declining to revive a lawsuit by the City of New Orleans against firearms manufacturers, Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence’s Legal Action Project seriously misled the American media and public with his overview of municipal lawsuits against the firearms industry. According to press accounts, Mr. Henigan stated, “You have cases going both ways. It’s pretty much split down the middle.” But, Robert T. Delfay, president and chief executive officer of the National Shooting Sports Foundation took sharp exception to Mr. Henigan’s assessment. “These comments by Mr. Henigan totally misrepresent the true status of the municipal litigation against the firearms industry. There have been 18 suits decided so far and 17 have been fully or partially dismissed in favor of firearms manufacturers. That’s not pretty much split down the middle. “Further, what Mr. Henigan failed to tell reporters was that every appellate decision so far rendered in these cases, including decisions by the supreme courts of Louisiana and Connecticut and now the United States Supreme Court, has ruled in favor of the firearms industry. In addition, the highest courts in New York and California both recently ruled in favor of firearms manufacturers in private lawsuits that sought to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for criminal violence committed with firearms. “By far, the consensus by judges reviewing these cases is that there is no basis in law to hold the manufacturer of a legally sold, non-defective product responsible for the criminal misuse of that product. The attempt by nearly 30 municipalities to do so is totally political and distasteful, as is Mr. Henigan’s misrepresentation of the status of these lawsuits,” Delfay said. “We can understand Mr. Henigan’s extreme disappointment at the resounding rejection of his politically motivated and harassing lawsuits against the firearms industry but that disappointment is no excuse for his misleading statements regarding the status of these lawsuits. Mr. Henigan owes an apology to the nation’s news media as well as to those citizens whose tax dollars have been wasted in the pursuit of this frivolous and ill-conceived litigation,” Delfay concluded. -30- Note to Editors: Below is a factual summary of the municipal firearms litigation against firearms manufacturers prepared by the National Shooting Sports Foundation on October 9, 2001. MUNICIPAL FIREARMS LITIGATION I. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Was Granted In Whole or In Part 1. New Orleans - upheld on appeal by Louisiana Supreme Court and now by U.S. Supreme Court 2. Chicago - on appeal 3. Atlanta - on appeal 4. Bridgeport - dismissal upheld by Connecticut Supreme Court 5. Miami-Dade County - dismissal upheld by appellate court 6. Detroit - on appeal 7. Wayne County - on appeal 8. Cincinnati - dismissal upheld by appellate court 9. City of Los Angles 10. San Francisco 11. Boston 12. Camden County, NJ - on appeal 13. Los Angles County 14. Gary, IN - on appeal 15. Wilmington, DE 16. Philadelphia - on appeal 17. New York State - on appeal II. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Was Denied 1. Cleveland III. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Is Pending 1. St. Louis 2. Newark, NJ 3. Camden City, NJ 4. Washington, DC IV. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Has Not Yet Been Filed 1. New York City Summary prepared by Lawrence G. Keane, vice-president and general counsel, National Shooting Sports Foundation, 11 Mile Hill Road, Newtown, CT 06470 • 203-426-1320 • www.nssf.org ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 23:11:10 -0600 From: "Scott Bergeson" Subject: FW: Are Box Cutters Covered by the Second Amendment? ;-) - -------- Original Message -------- From: "Trinity Farms" Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 2:53 PM Subject: Fwd: Box cutter safety Box Cutter Safety Dear Sirs, In light of recent events, including the bus attack in Tennessee, I would like to ask one simple question; how many people have to die before the American people demand that their congressmen pass meaningful, common sense Box Cutter Safety laws? Background checks, waiting periods, monthly limits on box cutter purchases, and the banning of all box cutters with the capacity to hold more than 5 replacement blades are all simple, logical solutions that we have been suggesting for years. I urge all Americans to write their legislators today and tell them, 'Enough is enough!'. Thank you. ~ Bruce Schneider, "Americans for the Prevention of Box Cutter Violence" GwG Comment - Wow! You are so right! I feel so strongly in this, that I am now the proud owner of "BoxCutterControl.org"! <--- Website Coming Soon! The Million Mom March will want to be a part of this too. Backed by the UN. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:26:09 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Fw: Our fine Senators: no statement on DoD Gun Confiscation Law It looks like we'd better let our Representatives know we don't like this bill... And let our Senators know you are not happy with undercover, back door gun control. This let's the DoD seize ANY weapon, including M1 rifles and 1911 pistols that it ever owned and subsequently sold. - --------- Forwarded message ---------- Folks, In a show of "unity" the Senate, including our two Senators who are alleged "supporters of the 2nd ammendment", have voted on and passed a GUN BAN buried in the 2002 Defense Appropriations Bill. It allows the US Sec of Defense to create a list, modifyable by him at anytime, of guns (which must have been formerly owned by the DoD) and provide that list to the US Attorney General who may then request that you send them in or may confiscate them. How does that NOT sound like a gun ban? Read the ACTUAL TEXT of the Section below and follow the link if you would like to see it for yourself. What kind of shady deal were our Senators involved in such that: a) they raised no concerns b) didnt tell us about it c) didnt even try to get that section deleted. (I called Sen. Hatch's office today and one of his staffers on his Judiciary section - which also handle defense - said: "The Senator has made no comment on this bill." Don't believe the lies either. Many Senators have come out and said that "it is not meant for your Garand, M1 or 1911, it is meant for "significant military equipment". Yes, that IS a LIE, because IT IS **NOT** WHAT THE LAW SAYS. IT SAYS: Significant military equipment is [whatever is] DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY of Defense under the regulations prescribed under subsection (e) as being equipment that it is necessary in the INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY to demilitarize before disposal by the United States. So, one more time, one more gun control law, in the name of "public safety" [sometimes called "compelling state interest", but that sounds worse, text usually reserved for executive orders] with ZERO review, subject to the whim of the Secretary of Defense WHO MAY DELEGATE responsibility to it to an undersecretary or further. "Neat. Stoke of the pen - law of the Land" - Clinton Aide According to the new law, the Secretary may create a list, and place whatever he/she wants on it, private property of US citizens, to be CONFISCATED if not voluntarily given up. The text of the law is there in black and white for you to see. There is no obfuscation or equivocation that your Sens and Reps can provide that can dispute the words in front of your own eyes. Please go to http://www.house.gov and look up the DC number of your Rep to implore that they not vote on the Defense Authorization Bill unless they first strike what was Sec. 1062 in the Senate version. Then go to http://www.senate.gov, look up the DC number of your Senator and express your displeasure at the FARCE of "UNITY" in the vote, when there is a clear GUN BAN that they knew about buried in the bill. Thanks again to our representatives for their honesty. ========================= (taken from thomas.loc.gov query S 1426 text version, section 1062 S.1416 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 Sec. 1062 SEC. 1062. AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILITARIZATION OF "SIGNIFICANT" MILITARY EQUIPMENT FORMERLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. (a) PROHIBITION- It is unlawful for any person to possess significant military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense unless-- (1) the military equipment has been demilitarized in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary of Defense; (2) the person is in possession of the military equipment for the purpose of demilitarizing the equipment pursuant to a Federal Government contract; or (3) the person is specifically authorized by law or regulation to possess the military equipment. (b) REFERRAL TO ATTORNEY GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense shall notify the Attorney General of any potential violation of subsection (a) of which the Secretary becomes aware. ..... (d) DEMILITARIZATION OF EQUIPMENT- (1) The Attorney General shall transfer any military equipment returned to the Federal Government or seized pursuant to subsection (c) to the Department of Defense for demilitarization. (e) ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION STANDARDS- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations regarding the demilitarization of military equipment. .... (3) The regulations shall, at a minimum, define-- (A) the classes of significant military equipment requiring demilitarization before disposal; and (B) what constitutes demilitarization for each class of significant military equipment. (f) DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT- In this section, the term `significant military equipment' means equipment that has a capability described in clause (i) or (ii) of subsection (e)(2) and-- (1) ... or (2) is designated by the Secretary of Defense under the regulations prescribed under subsection (e) as being equipment that it is necessary in the interest of public safety to demilitarize before disposal by the United States. ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #219 ***********************************