From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #230 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 Thursday, July 11 2002 Volume 02 : Number 230 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 17:14:29 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Re: Anti-self-defense editorial in the DesNew On Tue, 7 May 2002 16:17:40 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >The deputy who is the father of the 4 year old boy who shot at his >neighbors is now charged with both reckless endangerment AND child abuse. >The abuse charge stems from the fact that the boy was injured by the >recoil of the gun!! That seems excessive. While perhaps not politically feasible, I should think censuring and prosecuting the prosecutor responsible for malicious prosecution would be in order. >My question is, if the kid had stolen one of his mother's kitchen knives >and threatened his neighbors, would the mom have been charged with a >crime for not keeping her cutlerly locked up? It may come to that, but if warranted, inadequate supervision, i.e. "neglect", would be more appropriate. >[Answering whether car owners have a duty to do more than just lock the >car and take the keys.] >>Perhaps so in some places. >I disagree. I do not place such burdens on decent law abiding persons. >The criminal who defeats the locks, breaks the glass, etc, etc, etc, is >responsible. PERIOD. I do not believe in double victimizing the owner >who has already had his property stolen. I'd hesitate to issue you comprehensive automotive insurance. IOW, with that attitude, expect higher than usual rates. >If some thug steals my tire iron from a business parking lot >while I've spent 10 hours away from my car, I should have NO >liability for what he does with it. Depends on your contract with the lot owner, but I would expect him to suffer most of the liability, at least to you for loss of the iron and damage to your car during its removal. >>Yes. The firearm is more easily used, and requires less >>specialized training to misuse. >I disagree. A child can hurt himself much easier with a knife than >with a gun, especially if the gun does not have a round in the chamber. Itself, yes. ("Child" is neuter.) However, the question involved harm to others, either negligently such as by a naive child, or intentionally when a thug steals it. >And if specialized training is the criteria, I'm guessing we have >FAR more people in this country who have received formal training >in the use of automobiles (drivers ed) than in the use of firearms. At least in Utah, drivers' ed does not typically teach how to force entry into or hotwire a car. To take the analogy to guns, this would compare to defeating a lock or safe. Scott Bergeson SSL - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 12:01:36 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: World War II -- won the battle, lost the war Freedom News provides: World War II -- won the battle, lost the war - ---------- JPFO by Aaron Zelman "You sacrificed your youth, you saw your buddies die before your eyes, you gave up life and family and love as you fought in Europe or the Pacific -- all to save the world from fascism [but] America is becoming a lot like the countries you fought against..." (05/08/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/42968930.html From 'anti-gunner' to 'firearms instructor' in 4 months - ---------- KeepAndBearArms.Com by Susan Erline White "In December 2001, I was a member of the 'Brady Bunch' and a woman afraid of having my father's guns in my home. By April 19, 2002, I had applied for a concealed carry license, been certified as a pistol instructor, had purchased my own 9mm Beretta..." (05/08/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/51299518.html Liberty Belles - ---------- Liberty Belles "Putting the Second Amendment first." http://www.free-market.net/rd/332699527.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:15:44 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Democrats tone down anti-gun stance Democrats tone down anti-gun stance - ---------- Christian Science Monitor After years of publicly opposing the right to bear arms, Democrats are falling silent on the issue -- or even switching sides. Driving this change is a realization that their anti-gun stance has cost them dearly at the polls. (05/10/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/371055011.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:32:47 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Judges flaunt law Feel free to forward. From today's SLTrib. What is the world coming to when those charged with judging the law flat out refuse to obey the law? I encourage everyone to contact their legislators, the governor, and Attorney General Shurtleff to demand that these rogue judges be reigned in. Flat out refusal to obey a properly passed and signed law really should be grounds for impeachment and removal from the bench, IMO. Contact information for the governor and all State legislators can be found on the GOUtah! web page at: http://www.goutahorg.org/ Click on the "Legislative Contacts" link on the left side of the page. AG Shurtleff may be reached at General Office Numbers: (801) 366-0300, (801) 538-9600 Toll Free within the State of Utah: (800) AG 4 INFO (244-4636) E-Mail: uag@utah.gov Utah State Capitol Office 236 State Capitol Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0810 FAX: (801) 538-1121 http://www.sltrib.com/05212002/utah/738687.htm Board Says 'No' to Guns In Courts Tuesday, May 21, 2002 BY DAWN HOUSE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Setting up a classic separation-of-powers battle, a board representing Utah's 70 district judges has voted to ignore a new state law ordering all courthouses to install gun storage lockers for holders of concealed-weapon permits. The Board of District Judges, representing the trial benches throughout Utah, announced Monday that its 10 elected leaders unanimously declined to install gun lockers, opting instead to continue a longtime policy of prohibiting the public from carrying guns in courthouses. "Citizens come to us to resolve their most serious and sometimes life-altering disputes," said 3rd District Judge Ron Nehring. "We owe them as safe of an environment as we can possibly provide." Fourth District Judge Tony Schofield said the gun prohibition is "not a rural-urban issue. It concerns in the most fundamental way all courts of the state." The resolution endorses an order issued earlier this month by 6th Judicial District Presiding Judge K. L. McIff, who instructed administrators in Sanpete, Sevier, Wayne, Piute, Kane and Garfield counties to disregard the law in favor of Judicial Council rules that ban firearms in Utah courthouses. "Security in and about courthouses is an essential and core function of the judiciary," wrote McIff, who also heads the Board of District Judges. "The judiciary's inherent power includes the right to prohibit weapons in courtrooms and, where the circumstances warrant, the entire courthouse." The orders are in response to the Utah Legislature, which overwhelmingly passed legislation mandating that all Utah courthouses erect gun storage lockers. In March, Gov. Mike Leavitt signed the bill into law. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said Monday the "Legislature has the right to make laws, and the judges are required to obey them. "I call upon the judges to obey the law," he said. "If they don't, I'll seek input from the Legislature and the governor before I take any action, which could include a lawsuit." The district court board, in turn, appealed to the Utah Judicial Council to ratify its resolution and asked all state district and juvenile judges to adopt similar gun-ban orders. The Judicial Council, the panel that makes rules for Utah courts, will consider the gun issue next week. State Rep. John Swallow, R-Sandy, who sponsored the gun locker bill, said judges may not decide unilaterally which laws they will obey. "I would be surprised if any judicial rule would supersede state law that has been codified by the Utah Legislature," said Swallow, who is a 2nd Congressional District candidate. "When there's a question if a law is constitutional, right or fair, I would encourage any judge, any court or any individual in the state to go through the legitimate process and not simply take the law into their own hands." Swallow said "appropriate forums" would be for the judges to go before lawmakers "for help in solving what they may perceive as a problem," asking for a declaratory judgment or filing a lawsuit. Yet when University of Utah President Bernie Machen refused to bend to the Legislature's demand and filed a friendly lawsuit that seeks to uphold a campus gun ban, lawmakers threatened to cut his salary. "For anyone to ignore the law without going through the proper process doesn't seem right to me," said Swallow. "My bill doesn't open up courtrooms for guns. Instead of someone hiding a gun somewhere outside the courthouse, people holding a concealed-weapon permit would simply have a safe place to store their weapons." The rejection by the judges of Swallow's House Bill 82 comes on the heels of the Legislature's move this year to exercise greater influence on judicial disciplinary matters. Leavitt vetoed HB136 that reorganizes the Judicial Conduct Commission, but the Legislature overrode the veto. ________________________________________________________________ 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, 21 May 2002 12:54:45 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: Judges flaunt law On Tue, 21 May 2002 12:32:47 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >What is the world coming to when those charged with >judging the law flat out refuse to obey the law? I encourage everyone to >contact their legislators, the governor, and Attorney General Shurtleff >to demand that these rogue judges be reigned in. Flat out refusal to >obey a properly passed and signed law really should be grounds for >impeachment and removal from the bench, IMO. If not imprisonment for treason. Looks like open rebellion, by those charged with enforcing the law, to me. Send the State Guard to round them up. (Oops, Gov. Leavitt disbanded it.) Whatever, looks like the AG, the Governor, and the Legislature have their hands full. Will they fumble? Scott - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:37:41 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Apologies for muliple posts My apologies for the recent mulitiple copies of the same post from me. Email handler problems it seems. 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: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:10:29 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: Bad "compromise" on gun lockers Oops. Charles, please correct the posting address of this list in your address book. - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [LPUtah] Bad "compromise" on gun lockers Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:04:46 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson To: LPUtah@yahoogroups.com CC: utah-firearms@xmisison.com, Mark L. Shurtleff , Ric Cantrell On Wed, 22 May 2002 13:28:53 -0600 Charles C Hardy wrote: >With the greatest of respect >to our Attorney General I have some serious concerns about his >"compromise" to "fix" HB 82. It seems to me all it does is cave in to >judges desire to ban guns without providing any kind of storage. >I know nobody is anxious to go to court to have a judge determine whether >other judges have broken the law, but I hope our lawmakers reject this >quick "fix". Exactly. Fire all the rebellious judges and render them incapable of ever again holding any office of trust or profit in or under the State of Utah. (Same goes for Machen.) Don't even allow them to practice law or lobby. Scott >http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,400010032,00.html? >Shurtleff calls for a 'fix' in gun law >By Bob Bernick Jr. and Amy Joi Bryson >Deseret News staff writers >"We don't want to go to court," said Shurtleff, who realizes that >it would be judges deciding his case. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:43:43 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Ding-dong the witch is dead I just received a phone call from SLTrib reporter Dan Harrie. According to Mr. Harrie the (misnamed) "Safe-to-Learn/Safe-to-Worship" citizen petition initiative is now officially dead. Sometime in the next couple of days marks the end of the 4 year window during which signatures could be gathered for their petition and they have admitted that they are no where close to having the signatures they need. If they wish to start again, they will have to start fresh with NO signatures from past efforts! They, of course, are claiming that the signature threshold is simply far too high to be achieved by ANYONE running a volunteer initiative. Heaven only knows what, if anything, I said, Mr. Harrie will chose to use in whatever story I presume he is preparing. However, I made the following points: 1-I'm glad, and not terribly surprised, that they have failed in their efforts. 2-This is proof positive they did not have the "overwhelming" public support they claimed they did. If the legislature really were as out of touch on this issue as they claimed, or if they had the huge levels of public support they claimed, they should have been able to gather the singatures needed in just a couple of years, even with volunteers. That they failed to do so after 4 years of efforts, proves there isn't any where close to the levels of support they have claimed. 3-They were deceptive in their efforts. They talked about kids bringing guns to schools when their petition did not address that at all. It only addressed those law-abiding adults who jumped through all the hoops and had obtained a CCW permit. And there simply haven't been any real problems with CCW permitees that would justify a change in our current law. 4-I suggested that as the people of Utah learned more about the real language and intent of the petition, support dropped even lower that it started out. 5-Whether we individually choose to carry a gun or not, we as a society and as individuals are all safer when those law-abiding adults who do choose to carry guns for self defense are able to do so with the fewest restrictions possible. Bad guys are placed in the position of asking themselves, "What are the odds my intended victim is going to have a gun and be able to shoot me?" 6-Churches are free to ban guns now and it requires nothing more than a small sign, similar to a no-smoking sign, to effect that ban. That so few churches have chosen to exercise that peragative is another indication that this really is not an issue of concern to most Utahns. 7-The lack of financial backing from average Utahns (and the subsequent need for an all volunteer signature gathering force) is another indication that support was mostly from a small number of vocal individuals and groups rather than from any widespread majority of voters. 8-The signature threshold is designed to be non-trivial. Whether it is too high, too low, or just right, is another question. But the fact remains that other petitions which were far more controversial than this one claimed to be did manage to get on the ballot. If this petition really had the support that its backers claimed, it should have been a shoe in. The end of this petition speaks for itself. I'm no media or PR expert, so as you're giving thanks that this effort has finally failed, ask that my comments don't end up making the pro-gun community look bad. :) 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: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:32:37 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Anti-gun petition may go pro next year From today's SLTrib. Nice quotes from Janalee Tobias herein. Pro-gun groups probably need to get together and figure out how to best combat this. The flyers that the LPUtah, WAGC, and other groups did last time did a great job previously. Maybe a slight update or even additional flyers are in order. I wonder how many teachers really support their union money being used to limit their gun rights? If I can trust a teacher with my child for 8 hours a day, I can trust that teacher with the means to defend herself and my child from criminal agression. If these guys do go "pro" on a new petition, we can hammer them on that, too. "This isn't grass roots Utahns. This is big money, probably frm out of state, trying to influence local decisions." And, of course, they can get all the sigs they want in Salt Lake County. If they don't get enough in the rural counties, no initiative. :) I think we know where we ought to concentrate our efforts. Charles http://www.sltrib.com/06032002/utah/742427.htm Gun Ban Drive May Be Back Monday, June 3, 2002 BY DAN HARRIE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Supporters of a failed, four-year petition effort to ban legally concealed guns in schools and houses of worship are regrouping and may try again in 2004 to get their cause on the ballot. If there is a next time, they will do it differently, relying on fund-raising and paid petition signature gatherers to get the job done. Leaders of the volunteer "Safe to Learn, Safe to Worship Coalition" met in a four-hour retreat Saturday to lick their wounds after acknowledging they had fallen far short of mustering the 76,180 registered-voter signatures needed by today's deadline to put their initiative before voters in November. "People were feeling kind of sad and frustrated," meeting facilitator Dave Jones said Sunday. "But they were hopeful, too." "We took a little vote and no one wanted to give up." If the coalition, made up of more than a dozen organizations and religions, does launch a 2004 initiative, it will have to do so from scratch. State law nullifies an approved petition after four years, effectively trashing the approximately 40,000 signatures already in hand. Initiative organizers remain convinced that Utah residents overwhelmingly support a ban on all weapons -- including legally concealed guns -- in public schools, colleges, universities and religious edifices. They blame their defeat on the practical difficulty of using only volunteers to collect tens of thousands of signatures statewide (10 percent of voters participating in the last gubernatorial election in 20 of 29 counties). "What we have learned from this whole thing is money talks," said Jones, a former state legislator and Democratic Party leader. "If you're going to get anything on the ballot, you have to pay for it -- you have to buy it." Three of the four statewide initiatives that have made it on Utah's ballot during the past decade used paid signature gatherers. The state Legislature stiffened the requirements in 1998, and since then the only two initiatives to qualify employed professional petition passers. "I hate to say it, but that's the only way to do it," said Frank Pignanelli, an organizer of a petition to restrict and increase taxes on radioactive waste coming into the state. "Initiatives have become a political industry." Paula Plant, chairwoman of the Safe to Learn, Safe to Worship Coalition, said her group's failure has "proven it is impossible" to achieve ballot status with an all-volunteer campaign. "But if you have the money and you operate like a business, you can win." Plant and other initiative supporters insist that their cause is extremely popular. "Nine of 10 people [asked] would sign the petition," she said. Bunk, said Janalee Tobias, leader of Women Against Gun Control. "They had all the king's horses and all the king's men on their side - -- the media and pollsters. They still couldn't get it passed," said Tobias. While she acknowledged that getting an initiative on the ballot is a chore, Tobias said there is a simple reason this one fell short. "It's the common-sense people who don't want to be victims in this state," she said. "I've got to hand it to the people of Utah. They understand that criminals don't obey the law." Tobias, who has actively lobbied against a ban of legally concealed guns in schools and places of worship, says such a restriction would only serve to invite violent criminals to prey on unarmed, vulnerable students and congregation members. "It should be called the 'Unsafe to Learn, Unsafe to Worship' petition," Tobias said. "The schools where they're having the shootings are ones that don't allow law-abiding people to have concealed weapons." Maura Carabello, executive director of the Utah Gun Violence Prevention Center, said the initiative was never about attacking gun rights. "We are not by any means an anti-gun coalition," said Carabello. "We're talking about restricting a handful of places, and the idea that that's inappropriate is bizarre to me." The 17 members of the coalition range from the Utah Education Association teachers' union to the Episcopal Diocese, and from the Utah Medical Association to the League of Women Voters. Some of the groups have been vehemently opposed to abandoning their grass-roots foundation to employ professional signature gatherers. While no final decision has been made, the coalition has authorized a study that in the next few weeks will provide more information about the cost and feasibility of a professional petition-passing effort for 2004. Another option would be a Capitol Hill lobbying campaign to back a bill in the Legislature, possibly including the hiring of professional lobbyists, and creation of a political action committee to support friendly candidates in elections. But that legislative strategy elicits skepticism from some. "The only cynicism in the group is toward the Legislature," said Carabello. "Our legislators have shown themselves to be pretty narrow and bull-headed on any gun issue." ________________________________________________________________ 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, 03 Jun 2002 20:35:46 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Signatures of the Gun Culture http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/5/31/183751 Signatures of the Gun Culture Dr. Michael S. Brown June 1, 2002 - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:36:25 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Gun control drops from national debate Gun control drops from national debate - ---------- Washington Times Just a few years ago, restrictions on self defense and the right to bear arms were hot topics of discussion. But restrictions have proven to be ballot-box losers around the country, and candidates are now steering clear of the issue. (06/10/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/147860169.html 'Gun-free' zone puts Americans at risk - ---------- KeepAndBearArms.com by Russ Howard "That you still haven't armed pilots forces me to suspect that you may deserve some of the 'What did he know, when did he know it?' criticism Democrats are dishing out..." (05/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/810165862.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:50:26 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Why Trust Politicians Who Take Your Guns? On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:40:03 -0600 Janalee Tobias provides from WAGC member Lora: - ---------- http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0601hancock01.html Why trust the politicians who take your guns? By Ernest Hancock June 01, 2002 I am often associated with the gun-rights issue but most in the media and public service know that my main interest is freedom. Between my IRS tax-day protests, lawsuits, campaigns, freedom initiatives, Diamondback rattlesnake barbecues and helping desperate people deal with oppressive governments, there has always been attention to gun rights. Why is this issue such a touchstone for freedom lovers? Even politicians who want to be known as "pro-gun" hate having to discuss the issue with reporters or be too specific, even with supporters. They hate it because it is an MRI into their character. It is a Vulcan mind-meld, as my friend and gun-rights author L. Neil Smith calls the gun issue. It is the ultimate test by which any politician or political philosophy can be evaluated. If a politician isn't comfortable with any individual being able to walk into a hardware store, pay cash for any firearm without producing identification or signing a single scrap of paper (and that individual being able to carry that protection concealed or open), then that politician does not support freedom. Gun-control laws only disarm potential victims, thus creating a safe work environment for criminals - kind of like an OSHA for felons. And criminals won't be deterred from getting a weapon because of a law. Criminals don't follow laws. Any attempt to rid the world of a tool that would give my 130-pound wife a fighting chance against a 230-pound man would be immoral. This test is very revealing about how someone seeking your vote really feels about you. If he doesn't want you to have the means to defend your life, do you want him in a position to control it? If a politician thinks that the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights, is nothing more than a guideline for government, do you want to entrust him with anything? Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man, 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 eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe politicians 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, when they ignore voters and ram through legislation actively opposed by a majority of their constituents? Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue. Just use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to find out how politicians really feel. About you. That, of course, is why they hate it. And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue activist, thinker and voter. But it isn't true, is it? Ernest Hancock is a Phoenix restaurant owner. In a suit filed May 14 with the state Supreme Court, he asked for a ruling that the state can't tell him whether he can carry a gun on public property. The WAGC homepage is at http://www.wagc.com/ . - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:35:13 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: High court won't address Second Amendment now High court won't address Second Amendment now - ---------- Washington Post The Supreme Court said it will not hear two cases that would have tested the Bush administration's recent acknowledgement that the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns. One of them is the much-watched Emerson case. (06/11/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/997765994.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:55:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Subject: Take a Stand for Gun Rights! (fwd) I'm sending this to these groups because I know of the email addresses. if you are an owner of the group and get this bounced back, please forward it to your group members. - -- Karl L. Pearson Senior Consulting Systems Analyst Senior Consulting Database Analyst karlp@ourldsfamily.com http://consulting.ourldsfamily.com My Thoughts on Terrorism In America: http://www.ourldsfamily.com/wtc.shtml - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:38:12 -0400 From: Conservative Action Team Subject: Take a Stand for Gun Rights! AN URGENT MESSAGE FROM CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR [Reader], A fanatic band of obsessed gun control zealots are plotting to obliterate your Second Amendment rights. http://www.campaigncontribution.com/alerts/barr2/ With an overabundance of arrogance and . . . A critical shortage of commonsense . . . They're making an unprovoked attack on your rights as a sportsman, gun collector and heroic defender of your family, home and hearth. I'm causing an uproar in Congress by standing strong for your Second Amendment rights and I'm glad I am. Someone must put a stop to the angry mob of jeering, sneering zealots who are attempting to torch our Constitution. Obeying the call from the Clinton-Kennedy Machine, an alliance of hysterical hypocritical liberals tried to silence my voice in Congress by gerrymandering a district map designed to defeat me. They know they can't shut me up in Congress. So they're determined to manipulate district lines to defeat me. With just months to go until Election Day . . . I'm bracing for a tough re-election battle! Under the banner that all guns are bad and all gun owners are evil, liberals call me an extremist because I've gone so far as to join the board of the NRA and invite my friend Charlton Heston into my district. Using the slogan that "The Constitution is ours to change," they're calling me rigid because I know that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. Yes, I admire the NRA that they hate, and I admire NRA President Charlton Heston whom they detest. And as long as I'm in Congress, I'll never EVER let them cheat you out of your right to keep and bear arms! Because if they succeed . . . It will prove ruinous to our republic. You have a strong stake in this great battle and wisely you're fighting with all your might for our rights. When the whimpering simpering anti-gun crowd joins forces with the ultra-liberal media that hews and spews their anti-gun lies, we must fight back with the truth. When rabid gun control groups follow their familiar pattern of vile, bitter, negative attacks designed to assassinate my character, that tells me my staunch leadership in support of your Second Amendment rights strikes terror in the hearts of the Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ted and Patrick Kennedy Crowd. I must be doing something right! Will you help me defend my honor, protect my seat and win re-election so I can keep fighting for you? Please CLICK BELOW to make your online campaign contribution of $25, $35, $50, $100 or more right away: http://www.campaigncontribution.com/alerts/barr2/ Your strong support will give me the ammunition to fight back with flyers, letters, radio spots, newspaper ads and TV commercials that will help me win. Let's stand up for our God-given American right to keep and bear arms. Let's face this great challenge together and summon the courage and commitment to win! Your Friend, BOB BARR Congressman P.S. I'll always stand up and fight for your right to keep and bear arms! But I need your help to stay in Congress -- please let me hear from you today. CLICK BELOW: http://www.campaigncontribution.com/alerts/barr2/ Paid for by Bob Barr for Congress - ------------------------------------------------------------ You are receiving this message because you requested to be e-mailed regarding issues and offers of interest to conservatives, either when you sent an online petition, faxgram or mailgram, or when you donated to a conservative cause on the Internet or through postal mail. - ------------------------------------------------------------ cncdnw - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:54:09 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: NY Rabbi defiant on armed patrol in Brooklyn NY Rabbi defiant on armed patrol in Brooklyn - ---------- Reuters A Jewish group is planning an armed anti-terror patrol of Jewish areas in Brooklyn, New York, even if it means arms bearers will be arrested, the rabbi who heads the group says. The neighborhood has been singled out as a terrorism target. (06/24/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/240237085.html Congress[man McCain] fears the 'gun show loophole' - ---------- Liberty For Al by Carma Lewis "With all the force of his left-leaning spirit, John McCain is pushing harder for his ... attack against lawful gun ownership and your right to dispose of your personal property as you see fit." (06/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/881102026.html [Hard to read from Windows Netscape] Pro-gun women on full auto - ---------- Armed Females of America by Carma Lewis AFA calls out for people to protest against looming anti-gun legislation. (06/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/335939514.html [Same story, easier to read] - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 09:27:07 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: The female advantage in a force-free society The female advantage in a force-free society - ---------- Free State Project by Steve Cobb "In a society where the use of force is limited to self defense, and individuals have the right to arm themselves to deal with aggressors better endowed by nature, men's comparative advantage in using violent strategies will be nullified." (06/02) http://www.free-market.net/rd/460360573.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 08:25:49 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Study: Guns No Safer When Locked Up On Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:30:53 -0600 Janalee Tobias provided to wagc-ut@yahoogroups.com : ********************** Study: Guns No Safer When Locked Up Saturday, July 06, 2002 By Dan Springer http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57051,00.html SEATTLE - Trigger locks and gun safes don't reduce the number of gun accidents, and they actually put gun owners and their families in greater danger, a new report says. "What happens is it makes them more vulnerable to crime," said John R. Lott, Jr., a University of Chicago Law School professor who has published the study Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicide and Crime. "Criminals become more emboldened to attack people in their home." Lott cited a Merced, Calif. family whose guns were put away because of the state's safe storage law. John Carpenter, who lost two children in an attack in 2000, said a gun would have stopped the man who broke into his home with a pitchfork. "If a gun had been here, today I'd have at least a daughter alive," Carpenter said. For several years, gun control advocates have been quoting a study that reached a very different conclusion. University of Washington doctors claimed that in a dozen states which had safe storage laws, 39 children's lives were saved. But the study has been widely discredited because the researchers never factored in that accidental gun deaths have been falling everywhere for decades. Nevertheless, 18 states have passed safe storage laws. Lobbyists who fight for the legislation call Lott's research nonsense. "He's argued after the tragedy at Jonesboro, Ark., the school shooting, that if the teachers had been armed, they could have prevented the shooting. This is an extremist, someone who believes that everyone in society should be armed at all times," said Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety Foundation. But Lott counters that the number of gun accidents among law-abiding citizens is remarkably low given that about 90 million Americans own firearms. Far more children die each year from drowning and poisons. And when tragedy does strike, Lott said, it usually happens in a home where there is a criminal history. "You're having these law abiding households lock up these guns where the risks of accidental gun deaths is essentially zero," he said. Still, gun locks enjoy wide support. President Bush has said that if Congress passed a bill requiring them, he would sign it. But this latest study provides opponents with a new weapon in their arsenal. To subscribe, send a blank message to: mailto:wagc-ut-subscribe@yahoogroups.com . The WAGC homepage is at http://www.wagc.com . - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:00:58 -0600 From: Charles C Hardy Subject: Fw: Arizona again recognizes Utah This is of interest to Utah CCW holders who visit Arizona or Arizona CCW holders who visit Utah. Please note, under Utah law, ANY and all CCW permits from other US jurisdictions are recognized--no need for a reciprocity agreement. However, with or without an agreement, Utah only recognizes out of State CCW permits for 60 consecutive days. I don't know exactly how that would be enforced--since we don't have passports at the Utah border--other than self-incrimination or 24-7 survellience of a subject. But in any event, be aware of that limitation. The following info is basically taken from the AZ DPS web site at http://www.dps.state.az.us/ccw/recip.htm Charles - ----- Forwarded Message ----- Friends, For your information. Arizona once again recognizes Utah's permit. I should add this was NOT Arizona's decision the first place to deny alter the agreement. It was done at the behest of Utah BCI. [Charles' comment: Looks like our legislators need to remind BCI that their job is to facilitate CCW, not hinder it.] The State of Arizona recognizes permits to carry concealed from the following states: Alaska, Arkansas, Kentucky, Utah, Texas These states have an active CCW reciprocal agreement on file with the State of Arizona. This means your Arizona permit allows you to carry concealed under their respective state statute, and Arizona will reciprocate by recognizing CCW permits issued by these states. Utah Reciprocal Agreement Reinstated ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY POST OFFICE BOX 6638 PHOENIX, AZ 85005-6638 July 2, 2002 Arizona CCW permit holders will now be allowed to carry concealed in the state of Utah for a period of 60 days. If a person with an out-of-state permit remains in Utah for longer than 60 consecutive days, that person is required to obtain a Utah permit. Utah permit holders are allowed to carry concealed in the State of Arizona. ________________________________________________________________ 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 #230 ***********************************