From: owner-utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com (utah-firearms-digest) To: utah-firearms-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: utah-firearms-digest V2 #243 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 Tuesday, July 15 2003 Volume 02 : Number 243 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 09:30:57 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: FW: 'Light Weapons a Serious Threat' Illicit Trade in Small Arms, Light Weapons a Serious Threat - State's Bloomfield terms them "Weapons of Local Destruction" (1430) The "illicit trade in small arms and light weapons" is a serious threat to security and stability in the Western Hemisphere as well as other parts of the world, according to Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Lincoln Bloomfield. Presenting the U.S. report at the United Nations July 7 to the first biennial meeting of states to implement the "Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects", Bloomfield said parts of Africa, South Asia and the Middle East are also among areas whose security and stability are threatened by the ready availability of these weapons in quantity. "This activity persists", Bloomfield said, "because of lax enforcement of laws and regulations, or their absence altogether. It occurs because of poor governance and an environment that tolerates illegal commerce, often involving corruption among government officials." The U.S. official described the arms as "Weapons of Local Destruction." Bloomfield reported that since 2001, U.S.-supported programs in 10 countries have resulted in the accumulation and destruction of 400,000 excess or illegal small arms and light weapons, along with 44 million rounds of ammunition. These weapons were mostly left over from the Cold War, he said, when many communist regimes held large stockpiles of such weapons. "Destruction of these weapons, therefore, represents progress - it takes them out of circulation for good", he said. http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=03070803.plt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:30:14 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Two items of interest--comments wanted on judicial nomiee and info on rule making limitations After the Senate's appalling, near-unanamous confirmation of anti-gun, activist Judge Nehring to the Utah SC, their calls for public comment about any judicial nominee ring a little hollow. OTOH, if nobody has any objections, we can't hardly complain about whomever they confirm. And some info on the new limits on administrative rulemaking. ================== Charles Hardy http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07102003/utah/74001.asp Comment invited about judge nominee The Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee is seeking public comment on Royal I. Hansen, nominee to the 5th District Court. Anyone with information about Hansen's qualifications to serve as a judge can send a statement including their name, telephone number and mailing address to: Jerry D. Howe, Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, 436 State Capitol, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114. Statements must be received by noon Monday. http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07102003/utah/74006.asp Lawmakers wrestle with implications of 'rule' law By Kirsten Stewart The Salt Lake Tribune Retaliating against the University of Utah's campus gun ban, legislators passed a bill last winter limiting state agencies' rule-making powers. Now, legislators are wrestling with the definition of "rule" and implications of the new law -- the possibility that 35 state departments, from the Tax and Labor Commissions to the Board of Education, will bombard the Capitol with all manner of policies, guidelines and procedures in need of approval, tweaking or repealing. State agencies are eager to know "where do we go from here?" Kevin Carter, director of the School and Institutional Trustlands Administration, testified Wednesday at a legislative hearing. "Our board of trustees was empowered under [older] legislation to establish policies that could qualify as rules," he said. Among those are policies for property procurement and the handling of American Indian remains discovered on trust lands. Are these policies now null and void? Carter asked. "What is the role of our board or any number of policy-making boards throughout the state?" Advertisement <ilayer></ilayer><layer> </layer> Rule making has always been the Legislature's domain. But the 2003 Legislature broadened that power under Senate Bill 30, which prohibits agencies from writing anything but internal management policies. Policies aimed at the general public or that have the effect of law are considered rules, and as such, must go through the legislative rule-making process: a 30-day notice period and sometimes a public hearing. "It's the duck principle," explained Administrative Rules Chairman Rep. David Ure, R-Kamas. "If it walks and talks like a rule, it's a rule." Gov. Mike Leavitt signed the law, though his legal staff warned it would tip the balance of power toward the legislative branch. Indeed, signs of future power struggles between legislators and agencies surfaced Wednesday. Committee members chastised the Insurance Commission for adopting rules in concert with a new law on viatical settlements, the purchase of life insurance policies from the terminally ill. "I'm not saying your rules are right or wrong," said Ure. "But the law specifies what rules the commissioner can and can't adopt." Ure also asked staff for a briefing on a recent U.S. Supreme Court affirmative action ruling as it applies to the University of Utah medical school's admissions policies. He said he doesn't plan to meddle with U. admissions, but acknowledged the subject will probably come up in other committees. ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:38:29 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? Firearms are the biggest killer of some young Americans - but existing technology to childproof guns and make them safer is not being used http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993920 - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:41:39 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? When "life saving technology" is reliable and inexpensive enough that police and military personnel successfully make widespread use of weapons so equiped, I may just give it a serious look. But considering the number of military pilots who still choose a .357 revolver over a 9mm or .45 ACP simply because the revolver is more reliable when dirty, I'm not holding my breath. The great thing about modern firearms, and the very thing that drives the liberal elite nuts is the fact that these weapons are by and large, reliable, easy to use, easy to clean and service and otherwise maintain, easy to manufacture, easy to learn to use, and inexpensive. IOW, truly the GREAT equalizers as almost ANYONE can, with very modest training and effort, buy and use one well enough to pose a serious deterrent even to almost any criminal, private or government. Adding a bunch of cracker-jack box features will drive up the cost, the size, and the weight, make cleaning and service more difficult, all while decreasing the realiability. Sooner or later, any moving part will fail. Sooner, rather than later, electrical or electronic parts are likely to fail when you need them. (Anyone want a "Windows" style boot time before you self defense weapon is ready to use?) For now, a few functioning brain cells, education and training for the family members, adhearance to the basic safe handling rules, and storage appropriate for my individual/family situation are all the safety features I need or want on my firearm. ================== Charles Hardy - --- Scott Bergeson wrote: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? Firearms are the biggest killer of some young Americans - but existing technology to childproof guns and make them safer is not being used http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993920 - - ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:44:38 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: Who's Packing? Not surprising given the publication, but still outrageous... ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Eternal vigilance is the price we must pay to keep and bear arms. The anti-gun crowd states lies as truth. Congrats to John Spangler for spotting this egregious falsehood and sending a correction. - ---------- Jake- Your story on guns in the July 10, 2003 City Weekly http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2003/feat_2003-07-10.cfm states: "Nearly 100 of the over 800 [concealed weapon permit] revocations in 2001 were for felony convictions, including six for murder or attempted murder. Twenty-two permit holders were convicted of a crime involving rape or sexual assault, one was convicted of kidnapping and three were convicted of aggravated assault. " According to the official BCI report "FIrearms Statistical Review: 4th Quarter 2001" http://bci.utah.gov/CFP/firearmrev4thq.pdf the actual total number of permits revoked in 2001 was 184, not the 800 you stated. It appears that you are using a cumualtive total of revocations 1994 through 2001, as the specific reasons for revocation listed are the same as listed as for the cumulative period. There is ahuge difference between 800 revocations in one year and in 8 years. You owe the public a correction of this serious factual error. I heard that you are also related to a current or former offical of a gun control advocacy group. If that is correct, it would seem that even by todays badly tarnished standards of Journistic ethics, you owe the readers an admission of that simply as a matter of full disclosure, if not outright conflict of interest. John Spangler (Member of Utah Shooting Sports Council- for full disclosure on my part) ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:41:19 -0600 From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? You did send that in as a letter to the editor of "New Scientist"? best Chad On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 09:41 US/Mountain, Charles Hardy wrote: > > When "life saving technology" is reliable and inexpensive enough that > police and military personnel successfully make widespread use of > weapons so equiped, I may just give it a serious look. But > considering the number of military pilots who still choose a .357 > revolver over a 9mm or .45 ACP simply because the revolver is more > reliable when dirty, I'm not holding my breath. > > The great thing about modern firearms, and the very thing that drives > the liberal elite nuts is the fact that these weapons are by and > large, reliable, easy to use, easy to clean and service and otherwise > maintain, easy to manufacture, easy to learn to use, and inexpensive. > IOW, truly the GREAT equalizers as almost ANYONE can, with very modest > training and effort, buy and use one well enough to pose a serious > deterrent even to almost any criminal, private or government. > > Adding a bunch of cracker-jack box features will drive up the cost, > the size, and the weight, make cleaning and service more difficult, > all while decreasing the realiability. Sooner or later, any moving > part will fail. Sooner, rather than later, electrical or electronic > parts are likely to fail when you need them. (Anyone want a "Windows" > style boot time before you self defense weapon is ready to use?) > > For now, a few functioning brain cells, education and training for the > family members, adhearance to the basic safe handling rules, and > storage appropriate for my individual/family situation are all the > safety features I need or want on my firearm. > > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > --- Scott Bergeson wrote: > > Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? > Firearms are the biggest killer of some young Americans - but > existing technology to childproof guns and make them safer is > not being used > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993920 > > - > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:04:11 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: Re: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? With a few modifications, I just did. Good idea. Thank you. ================== Charles Hardy - --- Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc wrote: You did send that in as a letter to the editor of "New Scientist"? best Chad On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 09:41 US/Mountain, Charles Hardy wrote: > > When "life saving technology" is reliable and inexpensive enough that > police and military personnel successfully make widespread use of > weapons so equiped, I may just give it a serious look. But > considering the number of military pilots who still choose a .357 > revolver over a 9mm or .45 ACP simply because the revolver is more > reliable when dirty, I'm not holding my breath. > > The great thing about modern firearms, and the very thing that drives > the liberal elite nuts is the fact that these weapons are by and > large, reliable, easy to use, easy to clean and service and otherwise > maintain, easy to manufacture, easy to learn to use, and inexpensive. > IOW, truly the GREAT equalizers as almost ANYONE can, with very modest > training and effort, buy and use one well enough to pose a serious > deterrent even to almost any criminal, private or government. > > Adding a bunch of cracker-jack box features will drive up the cost, > the size, and the weight, make cleaning and service more difficult, > all while decreasing the realiability. Sooner or later, any moving > part will fail. Sooner, rather than later, electrical or electronic > parts are likely to fail when you need them. (Anyone want a "Windows" > style boot time before you self defense weapon is ready to use?) > > For now, a few functioning brain cells, education and training for the > family members, adhearance to the basic safe handling rules, and > storage appropriate for my individual/family situation are all the > safety features I need or want on my firearm. > > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > --- Scott Bergeson wrote: > > Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? > Firearms are the biggest killer of some young Americans - but > existing technology to childproof guns and make them safer is > not being used > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993920 > > - > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! > > - > - - ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:04:01 -0600 From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? I just sent this "In "Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? " you miss some very basic points. A gun is a self defense tool and the technologies you describe have not been perfected to the point where they are foolproof. If the military finds such technologies compelling and worthwhile, then I might be willing to accept them. Until the military and police find such technologies to be safe and effective and not a problem in making the gun not usable when needed, then the civilian population should also not consider them. Also a note to your stats on teenage homocide and suicide rates versus guns. They are a bunch of baloney. If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. Drug trade is the number one cause of death for African America teenagers -- if you get rid of the black market, and hence unreasonable demand for drugs, the number of black teenagers who are involved in illegal drugs will go drastically down and the number of black teenagers killing each other will go down. The gun is the tool, not the cause. Lastly, aggregating homocide and suicide together does not yield any valid data. A "Scientific" magazine such as yours should try and stay out of political issues when the only compelling science involved is junk science and politically motivated research and statistics." Chad On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 14:04 US/Mountain, Charles Hardy wrote: > > With a few modifications, I just did. Good idea. Thank you. > > > ================== > Charles Hardy > > > --- Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc wrote: > > You did send that in as a letter to the editor of "New Scientist"? > > best > Chad > > On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 09:41 US/Mountain, Charles Hardy wrote: > >> >> When "life saving technology" is reliable and inexpensive enough that >> police and military personnel successfully make widespread use of >> weapons so equiped, I may just give it a serious look. But >> considering the number of military pilots who still choose a .357 >> revolver over a 9mm or .45 ACP simply because the revolver is more >> reliable when dirty, I'm not holding my breath. >> >> The great thing about modern firearms, and the very thing that drives >> the liberal elite nuts is the fact that these weapons are by and >> large, reliable, easy to use, easy to clean and service and otherwise >> maintain, easy to manufacture, easy to learn to use, and inexpensive. >> IOW, truly the GREAT equalizers as almost ANYONE can, with very modest >> training and effort, buy and use one well enough to pose a serious >> deterrent even to almost any criminal, private or government. >> >> Adding a bunch of cracker-jack box features will drive up the cost, >> the size, and the weight, make cleaning and service more difficult, >> all while decreasing the realiability. Sooner or later, any moving >> part will fail. Sooner, rather than later, electrical or electronic >> parts are likely to fail when you need them. (Anyone want a "Windows" >> style boot time before you self defense weapon is ready to use?) >> >> For now, a few functioning brain cells, education and training for the >> family members, adhearance to the basic safe handling rules, and >> storage appropriate for my individual/family situation are all the >> safety features I need or want on my firearm. >> >> >> ================== >> Charles Hardy >> >> >> --- Scott Bergeson wrote: >> >> Guns special report: why isn't life-saving technology implemented? >> Firearms are the biggest killer of some young Americans - but >> existing technology to childproof guns and make them safer is >> not being used >> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993920 >> >> - >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________ >> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! >> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! >> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! >> >> - >> > > > - > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:52:24 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: CTNOW: Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control July 9, 2003 ctnow.com Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control Wary Of Losing Votes, Most Candidates Try To Keep Their Distance From A Loaded Issue By DAVID LIGHTMAN, Washington Bureau Chief ST. PAUL, Minn. - Gun control used to be an easy, reliable issue for Democrats. Presidential candidates could bring it up and audiences would cheer.... [More] http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc-guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3 - --- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:33:02 -0600 From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: CTNOW: Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control Thanks! I appreciate good links to interesting gun articles... One note to all list members: when you post URLs, please put them inside of <> as in < http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc- guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3> This helps a mail client know not to break it up and it also makes things like people's signatures not get added to the URL so that it doesn't work! Thanks! On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 21:52 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > July 9, 2003 > > ctnow.com > > Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control > > Wary Of Losing Votes, Most Candidates Try To Keep Their > Distance From A Loaded Issue > > By DAVID LIGHTMAN, Washington Bureau Chief > > ST. PAUL, Minn. - Gun control used to be an easy, reliable issue > for Democrats. Presidential candidates could bring it up and > audiences would cheer.... > > [More] > http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc- > guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3 > --- > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:49:51 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Re: CTNOW: Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control On 12 Jul 2003 00:33:02 -0600 Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc wrote: Thanks! I appreciate good links to interesting gun articles... One note to all list members: when you post URLs, please put them inside of <> as in < http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc- guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3> This helps a mail client know not to break it up and it also makes things like people's signatures not get added to the URL so that it doesn't work! Thanks! - ----- Okay. However, it still broke (see above), and my mailer doesn't recognize what you posted as a single URL. Is this any better? Shabbat Shalom, Scott - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 08:37:05 -0600 From: Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc Subject: Re: CTNOW: Democrats Speak Softly On Gun Control Hi Scott In my email client (and in many other I think -- the various ones I use) all respect the <>. Not all do but many do. Your original email didn't break in my email program but there weren't any blank lines so the ---- you added (or you signature added) in my case had gotten added to it as part of the URL. Each mail client is different but the <> are supposed to be a "standard"... best regards Chad On Saturday, Jul 12, 2003, at 07:49 US/Mountain, Scott Bergeson wrote: > On 12 Jul 2003 00:33:02 -0600 Chad Leigh -- Pengar Enterprises Inc > wrote: > > Thanks! I appreciate good links to interesting gun articles... > > One note to all list members: when you post URLs, please put them > inside of <> as in < > http://www.ctnow.com/news/custom/newsat3/hc- > guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3> > > This helps a mail client know not to break it up and it also makes > things like people's signatures not get added to the URL so that it > doesn't work! > > Thanks! > ----- > > Okay. However, it still broke (see above), and my mailer doesn't > recognize what you posted as a single URL. > > Is this any better? > > guns0709.artjul09,0,846459.story?coll=hc-headlines-newsat3> > > Shabbat Shalom, > Scott > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 09:33:20 -0600 From: Scott Bergeson Subject: 'Coalition to Stop Gun Violence' unveils CandidatesOnGuns.org On 13 Jul 2003 03:31:29 -0400 skypod-Melissa wrote: THIS SITE is going to be good to use as another test of how candidates think. Melissa (skypod) http://profiles.yahoo.com/skypod/ In Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. ******************************* Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Unveils CandidatesOnGuns.org for Candidates' Views on Gun Violence Prevention Contact: Desmond Riley of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (202) 408-0061 ext.104; http://www.csgv.org/ 7/10/03 9:00:00 AM The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) today unveiled http://www.CandidatesOnGuns.org/ - the only website designed as a clearinghouse for information on Presidential candidates' positions on the gun violence prevention issue. "This website will serve as a clearinghouse for voters, the media, and advocates who want to know where candidates stand on the critical issue of gun violence prevention", said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. One of the features of the website is CSGV's 2004 Presidential Candidate Survey, which asks questions on key policy issues such as the federal assault weapons ban and firearm industry immunity legislation. Several of the candidates have completed the survey, and CSGV will post candidate answers as they are received. In addition to the questionnaire responses, CandidatesOnGuns.org features: * Polling on the gun safety issue - including views of gun owners and NRA supporters - across the country and in key primary states * Background on key policy issues including the assault weapons ban, ballistic fingerprinting, closing the gun show loophole and federal firearm immunity legislation * Presidential candidates' voting records and public statements on gun violence prevention * "On Target '04 E-Newsletter," a regular election email update focusing on the gun issue in 2004 elections (coming soon) - --- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:32:42 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: FW: NEA teachers union stepping up anti-gun campaign There are many very good and dedicated teachers out there who fully support the RIGHT to keep and bear arms who join the UEA/NEA or maintain membership for reasons other than the non-educational political stands of the unions. Many may not even be aware that their union is taking positions on topics so far afield from the issue of education or collective bargaining. I hope they will withold their political donations from ANY group that works against their RKBA. I also hope they will use their influence inside the union to end these attacks on our gun rights. As for the rest of us, it's clear that the UEA is anti-gun rights. ================== Charles Hardy - ---------- The NEA has been silent on gun issues for quite a while. NOTE BOTTOM ITEMS ON THEIR ALERT THIS WEEK, they are engaged again. Please take the time to follow their links and you will call up a series of NEA statements supporting: - --reauthorization of the [expanded] assualt weapons ban - -- closing the "gun show loophole" - -- mandatory child safety locks on all guns - -- "more about gun safety" including the NEA is parterned with the Americans for Gun Safety. - -- opposition to SB 659 Frivolous Lawsuit protection If you click on their letter writing tool, thye have a selection of paragraphs to use in your comunication to elected officials with just a mouse click. (attached as a word document) We need to make everyone aware of these NEA policies, which is implicity that of the UEA since they have not repudiated it. Educators need to understand what their rights are regarding UEA membership, and especially any pressure to contribute to UEA/NEA political activities. John Spangler National Education Association statements on guns (pre-written for use in messages to congressmen)posted on their website It's time to get real about protecting our kids. Gun violence is a problem in our communities. And, while schools continue to be the safest place for kids, this safety is threatened because guns are too easily accessible to criminals and unsupervised children. It's time to get real about protecting our kids. Gun violence is a problem in our communities. And, while schools continue to be the safest place for kids, this safety is threatened because guns are too easily accessible to criminals and unsupervised children. The issue is SAFETY, not gun control. Our country needs responsible gun safety legislation. I urge you to join President Bush in supporting the Assault Weapons Ban and its renewal. Vote for S. 1034 and continue to keep military-style assault weapons off our streets. These guns are not necessary for hunting or self-defense -- but their light triggers and rapid-fire capability make them the weapons of choice for criminals. I also urge you to support the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation, sponsored by Senators Craig, Schumer, McCain and Kennedy in the Senate and Representatives McCarthy, Dingell and Pence in the House, would make 35 million missing records available to the system. The current system of background checks for gun purchasers is woefully inadequate, failing to prevent tens of thousands of criminals, domestic abusers and other prohibited buyers from obtaining guns. The NICS Improvement Act would make NICS checks faster and more accurate. Congress should focus on bills that fight gun crime. We cannot afford legislation such as S. 659, to protect gun dealers from lawsuits, when corrupt gun stores are not prosecuted, illegal buyers can avoid background checks at gun shows, the assault weapons ban is close to expiration, existing gun laws are not enforced, and Congress has not fixed the background check system to make instants checks truly instant and accurate. As an educator, I urge you to make our schools and communities safer by sponsoring and voting for responsible legislation that respects the rights of lawful gun owners and prevents guns from falling into the wrong hands. - ----- Original Message ----- From: edinsider@nea.org To: nea_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 9:40 AM Subject: Education Insider: July 10, 2003 Education Insider A weekly review of progress on the Quality Public Schools Agenda and other legislation that impacts our students, classrooms, and public education. July 10, 2003 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Head Start - Vote Delayed A firestorm of opposition to the Administration's Head Start proposal, H.R. 2210, has delayed House action. The Head Start coalition's call-in line logged 2,455 calls in opposition within hours of its opening. Thank you for your support. Action Alert: Tell Congress: Cast your vote for children. Vote NO on H.R. 2210. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- AN UPDATE ON KEY ISSUES -- DC Vouchers The House committee votes today. Stay tuned. -- IDEA Reauthorization - Action Delayed It now appears that the full Senate will not take up the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization until after the August recess. (The House passed its bill on April 30.) Action Alert: Tell your Senators: "Please ensure that the Senate reauthorization bill provides for mandatory full funding of IDEA." -- Social Security Offsets (GPO/WEP) Repeal (www.nea.org/lac/socsec/) The cosponsor list continues to grow. H.R. 594 now has 243 - a House majority plus - as cosponsors. S. 349 has 21 cosponsors. On May 1, the Social Security Subcommittee held the first hearing on Social Security offsets repeal and heard directly from individuals who are adversely affected. NEA is pressing to move the legislation. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- THIS WEEK'S ACTION REPORT -- Education Funding - It's about broken promises. Debate continues today on the House education spending bill for Fiscal Year 2004 (Oct. 1, 2003 - Sept. 30, 2004). The bill offers more rhetoric than resources. NEA opposes the House bill in its current form. A House vote may come as early as today. The Senate takes up education spending for the 2004 budget year very shortly. "Never before have educators been asked to do so much with so little," NEA told Senators. Action Alert: Urge your U.S. Senators to move beyond misplaced budget priorities and hollow promises that will not educate our children. -- Keeping Assault Weapons Off Our Streets NEA urges the U.S. Senate to renew the Assault Weapons Ban (S. 1034). Military-style firearms are not needed for hunting or for self-defense - but their light triggers and rapid-fire capability make them weapons of choice for criminals. They pose an especially high risk to our nation's youth. Action Alert: Tell your U.S. Senators that the issue is SAFETY, not gun control. Urge them to support the Assault Weapons Ban (S.1034). - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Government Relations 202-822-7300 http://www.nea.org/lac 1201 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Education Insider is sent to your in-box once a week. We deliver inside information on developments in the federal government that affect children and public education. If you find this information useful, tell a friend. They can sign up for their very own copy at http://www.nea.org/lac and click on "Join our E-mail List". You may cancel your subscription at any time by sending an e-mail tomailto:nea_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line. This list conforms to the Acceptable Use Policy of the National Education Association for electronic mailing lists. To receive a copy of that policy, send email to list-aup@list.nea.org ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:19:31 GMT From: Charles Hardy Subject: OFF-TOPIC: Hatch offers Con Amd to allow naturalized citizens to run f or POTUS This is not a gun issue. But somehow, I suspect gun owners may have an opinion or two... ;) From today's DesNews: Give 'Terminator' a shot at White House? Hatch is pushing amendment to lift Oval Office limit By Lee Davidson Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON — Sen. Orrin Hatch is pushing a constitutional amendment that could allow his pal, fund-raising helper and potential California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger, to also run for U.S. president someday. [Image] Orrin Hatch [Image] Arnold Schwarzenegger Hatch, R-Utah, introduced without fanfare last week an amendment to allow foreign-born people who have been naturalized U.S. citizens for at least 20 years to run for president. Currently, only native-born citizens may run for president. Hatch spokeswoman Margarita Tapia said the legislation was not drafted with Schwarzenegger or anyone else specifically in mind when Hatch came up with the 20-year requirement. "It was a policy judgment not associated with any one individual," she said. Schwarzenegger, the Austrian-born star of the current "Terminator 3" and numerous other hit movies, has been publicly toying with the idea of running for governor of California. Former actor Ronald Reagan did the same before also rising to the White House — something the Constitution would not allow Schwarzenegger (who has appeared at fund-raisers for Hatch) to even think about unless Hatch's amendment passes. In a statement Hatch gave to introduce his legislation, which is titled the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, he said many foreign-born citizens of all parties are loyal Americans who should have a legal opportunity to be considered for president. "These include former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright; current Cabinet members Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez; as well as Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan and bright young star of the Democratic Party," he said. Also, he noted that thousands of foreign-born members of the military now never could be elected to lead the country for which they fought. "No matter how great their sacrifice, leadership or love for this country, they remain ineligible to be a candidate for president. This amendment would remove this unfounded inequity," he said. Hatch, a one-time presidential candidate himself, said the restriction against foreign-born candidates is "an anachronism that is decidedly un-American." He said it received scant debate during the Constitutional Convention but said it was apparently driven "by the concern that a European monarch, such as King George III's second son, the Duke of York, might be imported to the United States" to rule. Hatch noted that no similar requirement bars service by naturalized citizens in Congress, the Supreme Court or the presidential Cabinet. "I believe the time has now come to address the antiquated provision of the Constitution that requires our president to be a natural born citizen. It has long outlived its original purpose," Hatch said. A constitutional amendment must pass both houses of Congress by two-thirds votes and then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures to become law. The amendment was referred for consideration to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Hatch chairs. ================== Charles Hardy ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - - ------------------------------ End of utah-firearms-digest V2 #243 ***********************************