From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #220 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, November 16 2001 Volume 02 : Number 220 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:12:38 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Fw: Ricochet from GOA: Smith Amendment To Arm Airline Pilots Adopted In The U.S. Sen - --------- Forwarded message ---------- > Smith Amendment To Arm Airline Pilots Adopted In The U.S. Senate > > Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 > Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 > http://www.gunowners.org > > October 11, 2001 > > > Congratulations! > > Earlier today, the Senate, via a unanimous consent vote, adopted > the Bob Smith (R-NH)/Frank Murkowski (R-AK) amendment to allow > airline pilots to carry firearms. The amendment was also > cosponsored by Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Conrad Burns (R-MT). > > The bill now goes to the House. After that, it will probably go to > a House-Senate conference to work out the details. > > This is an enormous victory for GOA members who lobbied relentlessly > to sway reluctant senators. > > BUT THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER! > > Next week, the House will take up its version of the Aviation > Security Bill. A number of congressmen are considering offering > amendments to arm pilots, but they must first secure the approval of > the House leadership and the House Rules Committee in order to offer > any amendment. > > ACTION: Please contact House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House > Republican Leader Dick Armey, and House Republican Whip Tom DeLay > and demand that they allow the House to vote on the armed pilots > amendment in connection with the Aviation Security Bill. > > Contact Info: > > Rep. Dennis Hastert > E-mail: dhastert@mail.house.gov > Phone: 202-225-2976 > Fax: 202-225-0697 > > Rep. Dick Armey > No Public E-mail > Phone: 202-225-7772 > Fax: 202-226-8100 > > Rep. Tom DeLay > No Public E-mail > Phone: 202-225-5951 > Fax: 202-225-5241 > > > ----- Pre-written message ----- > > Dear Representative __________: > > When the Aviation Security Act comes before the House, I hope you > will use your leadership position to allow amendments to the bill > that would let pilots be armed. > > There are plenty of aviation engineers who agree that bullet holes > will not cause a massive depressurization in a plane. If > depressurization was truly a concern, then why are we even > considering putting air marshals on planes? Their bullets will be > no different from the ones 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 be > sorry. > > Please support language that will allow pilots to be armed, and > thus, will enable them to protect the lives of their crewmembers and > passengers. > > Thank you. > > ________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:20:55 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Fw: A HOAX! ---- Fw: Brazil Parliament Votes to Allow Air Passengers to Carry Firearms A bit dated, but I try to pass along corrections whenever possible. - --------- Forwarded message ---------- Charles , from one of our WAGC Brazil Members........ This story has turned out to be a hoax...... - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sylvia Christina" > Nancy, > > > Unfortunately, this is not true. > We have more rules and now itīs prohibited to carry knives in the airplanes. > Is not so easy to walk equipped with a gun, we have to make some tests and > pay a lot of taxes to get a licence to each handgun. > In JBīs site I donīt find anything about this. > > > Hope to hear from you soon, > Sylvia > > > ________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:30:18 -0600 From: charles hardy Subject: Fw: Re: Hero in the cockpit - Pistol served pilot well in '54 - ---------------- Charles Hardy - --------- Forwarded message ---------- HoustonChronicle.com http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1087467 Oct. 14, 2001, 1:07AM Hero in the cockpit Pistol served pilot well in '54 By EVAN MOORE Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle FORT WORTH -- Until now it was largely forgotten, a brief, tragic incident that lay buried in fading newspaper accounts and the memories of only a few, but the shooting of a hijacker by an airline pilot almost 50 years ago has taken on a new significance today. It occurred shortly before noon on July 6, 1954, when a strapping teen-ager armed with a pistol commandeered an American Airlines DC-6 at the Cleveland Airport, only to be shot and fatally wounded by the captain. The shooting ended the life of Raymond Kuchenmeister, 15. It made a reluctant hero of the late Capt. William "Bill" Bonnell of Fort Worth and left an indelible mark on Bonnell's psyche that he could never successfully erase. Moreover, in light of the recent terrorist attacks and the ensuing debates over whether pilots should be armed, the 1954 incident illustrates a forgotten time when pilots not only routinely carried pistols, but were required to carry them. On that Tuesday, 47 years ago, Bonnell was carrying his, a small, .380-caliber Colt semiautomatic, holstered in his flight bag. Bonnell, a tall, quiet man, was a former Army Air Corps pilot who had served three stints in the service, two of those flying transport planes over China and Burma during World War II. He also was ambidextrous. "Bill could use either hand equally well," Jean Bonnell, his widow, recalled. "He used to play jokes on the shooting instructors in the military. There'd be a line of officers, all in the same stance, shooting at targets. One time, the instructor would walk down the line and Bill would be shooting right-handed. The next time, he'd be shooting with his left. He shot the same score with both hands." Bill Bonnell joined American Airlines in 1936, and that airline, like others, transported U.S. mail. "Back in those days, the pilot or co-pilot had to hand-carry the mail from the plane to the terminal," recalled George Patten, 85, a retired American pilot and a friend of Bonnell's. "Postal regulations required that you be armed. We all had to have guns, and American had us buy little .380s." Bonnell's pistol remained in his flight bag. His widow recalled that he had not removed the weapon in years before the day of the hijacking. On that day, Bonnell had flown from Fort Worth to Cleveland in the morning and was preparing for the return flight. The plane was carrying almost a full load, 58 passengers, and all had been seated. Bonnell stopped and spoke to a young mother with two small children seated at the front. He then entered the cockpit and had already locked himself, his co-pilot and the engineer inside when Kuchenmeister approached the airplane ramp. Police said Kuchenmeister, the oldest of seven children, was a troubled youth who had stolen a pistol and persuaded his 12-year-old brother to run away from home with him. He hatched his plan to hijack a plane earlier in the day, but once at the airport, the 12-year-old declined to accompany him. So, alone, clad in dirty denim pants and a leather jacket, Kuchenmeister left his little brother in the terminal and walked out on the tarmac. There he pushed past an airline agent and was headed up the stairs to the plane when the agent demanded his ticket. "This is my ticket," the burly youth reportedly said, and pointed the pistol at the agent. The agent retreated, and at the entrance to the plane, Kuchenmeister told a stewardess he needed to see the pilot. Thinking he was part of the ground crew, she opened the cockpit, where Kuchenmeister, unnoticed by the passengers, stepped into the cramped quarters, closed the door and turned the gun on Bonnell. "I want to go to Mexico," Kuchenmeister told Bonnell and his crew. "No stops." Bonnell and the co-pilot attempted to explain to Kuchenmeister that the plane did not have enough fuel to reach Mexico, but the youth would not be deterred. Finally, flight engineer Bob Young told Kuchenmeister they would take off but that it was necessary to throw a switch behind Kuchenmeister before the plane could taxi. As the hijacker turned to look for the switch, Bonnell reached into his flight bag with his left hand, removed the pistol, swung around to his right and shot Kuchenmeister. The wounded hijacker then attempted to shoot Bonnell, but his pistol misfired and Bonnell shot him again. "I shot him in the hip," Bonnell later recalled. "He sagged a bit. I let him have it again, a little higher. "I had a maniac on my plane. We had women and children. What the hell could a guy do?" Kuchenmeister was taken to a hospital, and Bonnell, the only qualified American pilot in Cleveland at the time, flew the plane back to Fort Worth. In midflight, he received word from Cleveland that the hijacker was only 15 and that he had died. When Bonnell stepped from the plane, reporters described him as ashen and shaking. "Bill told me later that the first thing he thought about when he was reaching for the gun was that woman and her two children at the front of the plane," Jean Bonnell said. "I said, `Why didnīt you shoot him in the head with the second shot?ī "Bill said, `Because I didnīt want to kill him.ī " Bill Bonnell returned to Cleveland the following day. "He wanted to go out and talk to the boy's family, to pay for the funeral," Jean Bonnell said, "but the police talked him out of it." Bonnell received hundreds of letters from the passengers on that flight and their relatives, commending him for his actions. "But Bill was never proud of what he'd done," Jean Bonnell said. "He'd been in the service, and he'd had to fight, but this was different. He told me it took him a day to convince himself that hijacker was really 15. He told me, `My God, Jean, we have a 13-year-old son.ī "After the first few weeks, he stopped talking about it and would never talk about it again. I don't think he ever completely got over it. "But what if he hadn't had that gun? What if he hadn't shot? What would have happened to all those passengers?" The event was front-page news for two days, then faded away, and for 47 years the Bonnell family refused to discuss it publicly. Jean Bonnell said she agreed to speak about her husband now only because of the recent terrorist attacks and requests by pilots associations to be armed. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Airline Pilots Association and the Allied Pilots Association proposed allowing pilots to carry handguns loaded with lightweight projectiles. The first group modified its proposal to include only stun guns, but the Allied association has not altered its stance. President Bush has opposed the idea, as have the Airports Council International and the Association of Flight Attendants, though a number of legislators from both parties have supported the pilots' groups. The Senate passed an aviation security bill Thursday that would allow pilots to carry handguns. A similar bill is pending in the House. In the meantime, congressional action on the proposal could be unnecessary, according to the Code of Federal Regulations governing aviation. That document, Chapter 11, Part 108, provides that no person can carry a weapon onto a plane unless that person is "authorized to have the weapon by the certificate holder (airline) and has completed a course of training in the use of firearms acceptable to the Administrator (FAA)." That regulation was adopted in 1981 and has not been changed. Federal Aviation Administration officials acknowledged that the regulation is "on the books" and that it provides for armed pilots, but refused to answer more questions about it. Bill Bonnell quit carrying his weapon July 7, 1954. "He never carried it again," Jean Bonnell said. "Bill retired (in 1970). We moved, and we burned all the letters he'd received and any news clippings. We didn't want to remember it, but he could never really put it behind him. "He died in 1991, and I'm afraid his later years were not very happy ones. "A lot of people thought he was a hero, but Bill never considered himself one." ________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:01:17 -0600 From: charles hardy Subject: OFF TOPIC--JUNO SLC access numbers Forgive another off-topic post, please. If you live in SLC area and use Juno, you probably have noticed that the SLC local dial access numbers were taken off line last week. It appears to have been a temporary problem and there are now three access numbers that are local calls for the SLC area. I do not know if these are the same numbers that were in use prior to them being taken down. So, it is possible you will need to select one of the long distance numbers (bear in mind that out-of-State long distance may be a cheaper call than in-State long distance) and then go to the "Connection" menu. From there select "Access number selection and setup." Step through the process until you get to screen with the option to get an updated access number list. Select that option, and you should get the new list, with local numbers to select. You may also get an updated list automatically if you simply connect to send/receive mail. - ---------------- Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ 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, 16 Oct 2001 04:58:50 -0600 From: "Scott Bergeson" Subject: FW: Sunni Maravillosa on WTBQ Wednesday Sunni Maravillosa, co-founder of Project: Safe Skies, will appear on the WTBQ Roundtable Discussion show guest-hosted by Joe Eldred on Albany, NY radio station WTBQ 1110 AM Wednesday, October 17 starting at 11 AM Eastern time. WTBQ's call-in line is 845-651-1110. The show is also webcast at http://www.wtbq.com/ . Project: Safe Skies was founded in response to the horrific events of September 11, and seeks to promote the repeal of the laws prohibiting citizens aboard aircraft being armed to defend themselves. Sunni will present the case being developed by the Project team showing why this is the only way to achieve true safety in the skies. In addition to her key role in Project: Safe Skies, Sunni is a psychology professor, a noted freedom writer, the web mistress for the Liberty Round Table, editor of the online journal Doing Freedom!, and the mother of two. To arrange a media appearance, please contact us: Project: Safe Skies 614 Nashua St. #121 Milford, NH 03055-4917 Phone or Fax 603-487-2537 (24 hour) mailto:hunter@mva.net or mailto:sunni@free-market.net NEVER AGAIN UNARMED.... LET FREEDOM FIGHT! PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org 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: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:18:03 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: FW: CATO Institute on gun laws featuring John Lott I have not yet personnally listened to this. But, FYI... - ----- Forwarded Message ----- This you must listen to, it's a presentation given by the CATO Institute, featured speaker is John Lott. You will need realaudio program. the program lasts 1hr. 41 minutes. It's definitely a must see and listen to. Sorry but you'll have to cut and paste the url address. http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-06-16-00.ram ________________________________________________________________ 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, 16 Oct 2001 17:22:03 -0600 From: "Scott Bergeson" Subject: FW: Emerson is a win for the good guys Film at 11 http://www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:01:55 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: [LPUtah] FW: Emerson is a win for the good guys Actually, it looks like almost a total loss. The court ruled against Emerson on 5th Amd Due process grounds finding that the wording on form 4473 he filled out for a gun a year before the court order was issued was adequate notice that any court order may prevent him from lawfully owning a gun. It also rejected his Commerce Clause claim finding that restricting guns that had ever moved in interstate commerce was within the power of the fed. Emmerson did not brief his previous 10th Amd claims so the court had no choice but reject them as well. Finally, while the court did hold that the second Amd protects an individual right, it held that guns not useful for individual defense or military service WERE subject to restrictions and accpeted the guns covered under the NFA as cited in Miller as being properly restricted. Further, it held that even with an individual right, that right could be restricted by due process and that the current federal law banning guns possession for anyone under any generic protective order was actually due process even though there was no specific finding on the part of the issuing court that gun possession should be restricted. IOW, there is a silver lining, but generally a dark cloud. For years we've battled the "collective right so we can take your guns away" mantra. Now we'll just get to battle the "ok, it's an individual right, but we can still strip it from you in 1001 ways." Charles On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:22:03 -0600 "Scott Bergeson" writes: > Film at 11 > > http://www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html > ________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:08:45 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Waco attorney on Emerson ruling Waco attorney on Emerson ruling - ---------- KeepAndBearArms.com by David Hardy "Emerson clearly holds that the second amendment is an individual right, and rejects the 'collective rights' nonsense. It is the most detailed circuit court opinion I have ever seen, on any issue whatsoever. The court went back and did its own original research, rather than citing to law reviews, which is astonishing ... " (10/16/01) http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2064 - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:52:26 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: unSafe to learn/worship group From the unSafe to learn/worship group's FAQ at http://www.safeutah.org/faq.html is this: "This site would not be possible without the generous support of Internet Connect, Inc. " Anyone with any connections to or influence with Internet Connect may want to let them know of the lies and damage being propagated due to their generous support. Charles ________________________________________________________________ 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, 23 Oct 2001 16:50:16 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Web page photos Dear Sir or Madam; I've recently visited your web page at http://www.safeutah.org/ and was surprised to see a photo of LDS Temple Square. Yet you do not list the LDS Church as being a member of your coalition. The picture of such an easily recognized LDS landmark suggest some type of official endorsement of your position. Has the LDS church endorsed your position and/or specifically allowed the use of a photo of Temple Square to be used in advancing your position? I thought the LDS Church maintained political neutrality on most issues and had not heard they had taken any official position on this issue. Also, does the photo imply that all religious property, including outdoor areas like Temple Square, or a church cemetary or park, would be off limits to legally carried concealed weapons should your petition pass? Thank you. Charles ________________________________________________________________ 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, 23 Oct 2001 16:24:53 -0700 From: Joe Waldron Subject: Re: Web page photos Charles C Hardy wrote: > > Dear Sir or Madam; > > I've recently visited your web page at http://www.safeutah.org/ and was > surprised to see a photo of LDS Temple Square. Yet you do not list the > LDS Church as being a member of your coalition. The picture of such an > easily recognized LDS landmark suggest some type of official endorsement > of your position. > > Has the LDS church endorsed your position and/or specifically allowed the > use of a photo of Temple Square to be used in advancing your position? I > thought the LDS Church maintained political neutrality on most issues and > had not heard they had taken any official position on this issue. If they deny Church affiliation or endorsement (the photo may be considered public domain), then try using the same or a similar photo in a counter ad or flyer or some such. See how quickly the Church comes down on you... if it does. That will give you your answer. Or it may force the Church to deny use to BOTH sides of the issue. Joe W - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:09:37 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Re: Web page photos On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:24:53 -0700 Joe Waldron writes: > > If they deny Church affiliation or endorsement (the photo may be > considered public domain), then try using the same or a similar > photo in a counter ad or flyer or some such. See how quickly the Church > comes down on you... if it does. That will give you your answer. Or it > may force the Church to deny use to BOTH sides of the issue. > > Joe W Maybe not a bad idea. But, as an active member of the LDS Church, I feel honor and duty bound to never do anything that would even hint at church endorsement where there is none. Thus, I could never use such a photo in such a manner. I'd just like to expose one of the underhanded tactics being used by the anti-self-defense crowd. My hope is that enough people will call them on it and/or inquire of the LDS church as to endorsements that such use of temple photos and anything else that might hint of LDS involvement will end. Charles ________________________________________________________________ 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, 23 Oct 2001 17:19:14 -0700 From: Joe Waldron Subject: Re: Web page photos Charles C Hardy wrote: > > Maybe not a bad idea. But, as an active member of the LDS Church, I feel > honor and duty bound to never do anything that would even hint at church > endorsement where there is none. Thus, I could never use such a photo in > such a manner. I'd just like to expose one of the underhanded tactics > being used by the anti-self-defense crowd. > > My hope is that enough people will call them on it and/or inquire of the > LDS church as to endorsements that such use of temple photos and anything > else that might hint of LDS involvement will end. > Charles, I don't know how the Church hierarchy works there, but you may want to prepare a draft flyer opposing the petition, using the photo, and ask the appropriate Church official if that is all right to use. If he says no, ask why the other side is using a photo. That way you haven't stepped on Church toes or offended anyone by inappropriate use... you simply asked for guidance. Or maybe build a "no on petition" flyer that uses a portion of the other side's flyer (with photo portion) for "identification purposes." Something like the upper part of their petition, with a large title below, "HAVE YOU SEEN THIS PETITION" followed by "JUST SAY NO" with explanatory text below. Again, run that past Church leadership to get their reaction. JW - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:29:06 -0600 From: "Scott Bergeson" Subject: Victim disarmament groups fund gun 'study' Looks like we'll have to continue the HP boycott. Victim disarmament groups fund gun 'study' - ---------- NewsMax Groups that oppose Second Amendment rights are financing a government anti-gun "study" that was put in motion by the Clinton administration. The venture is being undertaken by the National Research Council, and has been accused of pre-determining some of its conclusions. (10/23/01) http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/10/22/205136 - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:47:18 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Fw: UEA or? This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ----__JNP_000_5a77.5b27.2b02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This may be of interest to anyone with kids in public schools. - ----- Forwarded Message ----- While going over my 5 year old grandsons kindergarten homework I came across two pledge cards with the following wording: PLEDGE AGAINST VIOLENCE 20001 I pledge to SAVE today and stop America's violence everywhere. I will strive to do my part to help end this crisis that threatens the health of all people of the United States of America. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- SIGNED Did anyone else get these today? I interpret the pledge to mean undermining President Bush! Is the UEA pushing leftist doctrine in our kindergartens? I will know tomorrow, I plan on spending some time with the administration of that elementary school. - ----__JNP_000_5a77.5b27.2b02 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This may be of interest to anyone with kids in public schools.
-= - ----=20 Forwarded Message -----
 
While=20 going over my 5 year old grandsons kindergarten homework I came across two= =20 pledge cards with the following wording:
 
PLEDGE=20 AGAINST VIOLENCE 20001
I=20 pledge to SAVE today and stop America's violence everywhere.<= /DIV>
I will=20 strive to do my part to help end this crisis that threatens
the=20 health of all people of the United States of America.
 
 
------------------------------------------------= - ---------------------------------
SIGNED
 
Did=20 anyone else get these today? I interpret the pledge to mean undermining=20 President Bush! Is the UEA pushing leftist doctrine in our=20 kindergartens?
I will=20 know tomorrow, I plan on spending some time with the administration of that= =20 elementary school.
 
- ----__JNP_000_5a77.5b27.2b02-- ________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:01:10 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Anti-gun literature sent out with CCW notices Anti-gun literature sent out with CCW notices - ---------- The Flint Journal Jeanne Kidle, mother of four and among a flood of women arming themselves for self-protection, was taken aback when she received a notice to pick up her new concealed weapon permit. The State of Michigan had included anti-gun literature and requests for money from a private organization. (10/24/01) http://fl.mlive.com/news/index.ssf?/news/stories/20011024f24a1gunpropaganda.frm A right of the people - ---------- National Review by Dave Kopel "What Emerson does in some federal courts for federal laws -- as the state constitutions of all but a few states already do, in state courts, for state laws -- is make it clear that ordinary, law-abiding people cannot be prohibited from owning ordinary rifles, shotguns, and handguns." (10/26/01) http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel102501.shtml - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:47:21 -0700 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: JPFO releases 'Death By Gun Control' JPFO releases 'Death By Gun Control' - ---------- JPFO "Death By Gun Control" points a finger at the real motives behind victim disarmament: the utter subjugation of the American people to statist authority. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Executive Director Aaron Zelman, in collaboration with attorney Richard W. Stevens, has produced a work to be reckoned with. (11/14/01) http://www.jpfo.org/alert20011113.htm - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:34:17 -0700 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Capital security during games The article below is from today's desnews. While the situation is not perfect as it does not allow for un-licensed open carry by right, it is a huge improvement over what many of the gun-phobes both in and out of the legislature wanted. This article does not address how CCW permited weapons wil be treated during those short periods when Bush, Cheney, etc may be addressing the legislature. Charles Capitol security would cost $710,000 After Sept. 11, lawmakers seek extra troopers By Zack Van Eyck Deseret News staff writer If state lawmakers want the Capitol to be more secure on a regular basis, they're going to have to find the money to fund it. With a current-year shortfall approaching $200 million and economic projections far from rosy, that could be a challenge. Department of Public Safety Commissioner Robert Flowers and Lt. Jim Keith of the state's Dignitary Protection Program told a legislative committee Wednesday it would cost $710,000 the first year and $470,000 in subsequent years to fortify protection at the Capitol. That money would buy eight additional state troopers who would be posted at the Capitol full-time, and two control-room operators. The amount for the first year is higher because of equipment purchases, Keith said. "That brings us to a level where we can have exterior security during the daylight and evening hours," Keith told the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee. The upgraded security proposal is in response to the Sept. 11 attacks on America and the country's war against terrorism. Flowers and Keith said the plan for securing the Capitol during the 2002 legislative session, which begins Jan. 8, is still being developed. But more troopers will be assigned to the building then, and a few other things are known for sure, they said. "During the session, the Capitol is not going to be a gun-free zone," Keith said. Some lawmakers said last month they wanted metal detectors at every door and hoped concealed-weapons permit holders would be required to hand over their guns before entering. While that won't happen, Keith said Capitol security will have the ability to narrow the building down to two entrances — the east and the north — and run everyone except lawmakers and staff (who can enter with pre-approved identification cards) through magnetometers. Concealed-weapons holders would have to show documentation that they are licensed before being allowed to carry their guns into the building, Keith said. The Capitol's east doors have been designated as the main public entrance for the session and during the 2002 Winter Games, Keith said. Flowers and Keith said during the Games there will be 24-hour security coverage at the Capitol, paid for from Olympic funds. Keith said the idea of putting a fence around the Capitol has been discussed but is likely to happen only after the Olympics as part of the permanent, beefed-up Capitol security plan — assuming lawmakers can find a way to finance it. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:17:30 -0700 From: "Scott Bergeson" Subject: Phyllis Schafly weighs in Second Amendments Rights In Reality and In Court October 31, 2001 by: Phyllis Schlafly If the hijackers had used guns for their crimes on 9/11, we would surely now be caught up in a frenzy of demands that this "lesson" calls for tough gun-control legislation. But they didn't use any firearms, just easily purchased box-cutters. The real lesson of 9/11 is that, if any pilot or off-duty policeman had had a gun on board, he could have averted supreme tragedy by doing what all our powerful FBI, CIA, and Armed Services could not do. That's why individuals, not government, are the ultimate protectors of a free society. The American people understand this. The 9/11 events have led to a big increase in gun purchases and the taking of courses at shooting ranges. Against the stunning reality of 9/11, the federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just issued a landmark decision in United States v. Emerson, affirming the constitutional right of individuals to own a gun. The Founding Fathers understood this, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. The Emerson case tackled the meaning of the right "to keep and bear arms" in the Bill of Rights. At issue was whether the Second Amendment defines an individual right, protecting defendant Emerson and all law-abiding citizens, or a collective right available only to government groups such as the National Guard. This disagreement about the meaning of the Second Amendment has been a matter of intense debate for many years. Unfortunately, federal court decisions in several circuits over the last several decades have muddied up the issue. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." For many years, the anti-gun lobby and some lower court decisions have touted the notion that the Second Amendment is limited to firearms carried in actual military situations rather than by civilians in peaceful self-defense. The Emerson decision thoroughly rejects that theory. The Court ruled: "The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." The court concludes: "It appears clear that `the people,' as used in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, refers to individual Americans." This is consistent with the use of the term "the people" in all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. As the Tenth Amendment shows, the Founders clearly understood the difference between "the states" and "the people." The Emerson decision also cites the renowned Black's Law Dictionary definition for "carry arms or weapons" as "being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person." At stake in the gun control debate is whether we control government and defend freedom, or government controls us. Should our defense against hijacking terrorism be limited to government fighter planes shooting down hijacked planes, killing everyone on board, or extended to allowing airplane crews and qualified passengers (such as off-duty law enforcement officials) to take defensive measures without fear of litigation or prosecution? The Emerson decision disposed of arguments that only formal state militias have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. As the Supreme Court explained over 60 years ago in United States v. Miller, the framers of the Constitution used the term "militia" to mean "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." It still does mean that. Current federal law (10 U.S. Code 311) states: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age. . . . The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." The males on board the hijacked airplanes constituted a militia, and some courageously acted, forcing one hijacked plane down in rural Pennsylvania instead of allowing it to continue to the terrorists' target. A disarmed public cannot protect a free society against terrorists' assaults. In Cuba, Castro first required all guns to be surrendered before he could impose his brutal dictatorship. After England banned private gun ownership, violence using guns against persons rose sharply and politics turned sharply left. Strict gun control creates vulnerable targets for the enemies of a free society. The Fifth Circuit's upholding of the constitutional right of individuals to keep and bear arms is a welcome development in our continued defense of freedom. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Read this column online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2001/oct01/01-10-31.shtml ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eagle Forum - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #220 ***********************************