ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.199902

Internet Message Format | 1999-02-25 | 242KB

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: USA Beretta awarded costs
Date: 01 Feb 1999 21:41:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

Score one for justice.

----------

Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
17601 Beretta Drive - Accokeek - Maryland 20607

CALIFORNIA COURT AWARDS PAYMENT OF DEFENSE
COSTS TO BERETTA U.S.A. CORP. IN LAWSUIT FILED
BY HANDGUN CONTROL, INC.; DISMISSES HCI
MOTION TO OVERTURN VERDICT

January 22, 1999 -- Alameda County, California Superior Court
Judge Richard Hodge today ordered plaintiffs in the case Dix v.
Beretta U.S.A. Corp. to pay Beretta U.S.A. for costs incurred by
the company while defending itself in the litigation, which was
filed by the plaintiffs with the assistance of Handgun Control,
Inc. and the San Francisco law firm of Hersh & Hersh. The Dix
case received national publicity when the parents of a teenage
youth shot by a friend sued the firearm manufacturer on the
theory that the pistol used in the accident should have included
"smart gun" technology or an internal locking mechanism to
prevent its misuse.

The award of costs was the third consecutive loss for Handgun
Control, Inc. in the case, coming on the heels of a decision on
January 15, 1999 by the Superior Court to throw out a motion
filed by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (the legal action
arm of Handgun Control, Inc.) to dismiss a November 1998 jury
verdict in favor of Beretta U.S.A. Corp. on the grounds of juror
misconduct.

"Handgun Control, Inc's consistent failure in the Dix case should
stand as notice to other litigants that this organization is out
of touch with the law and with the merits of these cases,"
commented Jeff Reh, General Counsel for Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
"During the Dix case, Beretta presented its concerns about the
safety and feasibility of internal locking devices for handguns
and the jury agreed with our reservations about this technology.
The jury also overwhelmingly determined that the responsibility
for safe storage of any firearm lies with the owner, not with the
original manufacturer of the gun."

"More importantly," Reh added, "all potential litigants in cases
of this type -- including mayors of cities which might be
contemplating filing lawsuits against the firearms industry --
should note our industry will aggressively defend itself and will
seek reimbursement of litigation costs. Any city which thinks
that it can sue the firearms industry without financial risk to
itself is mistaken."

In addition to Reh, Beretta U.S.A. Corp. was defended in the Dix
case by Robert Gebhardt and Craig Livingston of the San Francisco
law firm of Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon and by Lawrence Keane of
the White Plains, New York law firm of Pino & Associates.


-


From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Colby, the FLIR tape, and a new Waco documentary 1/2
Date: 01 Feb 1999 21:41:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Cc: [e-mail]

In response to a message I forwarded from Ian Goddard, in which he cited
an article from _American Freedom_ magazine, Vol. 1, No. 7, October,
1996, consisting of a report by Gordon Novel of an interview with former
CIA Director William Colby, and in which Goddard recalls Novel to have
claimed to have received the FLIR footage that appeared in the Academy
Award nominated documentary _Waco: the Rules of Engagement_ from Colby,
who is also supposed to have said that President Clinton was "behind"
the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, I received an email message
from Michael McNulty, a producer of the Waco documentary, asking me to
call him to get some corrections on that initial report. I called him
January 29, 1999. The following is extracted from my telephone
conversation with McNulty:

In late 1993 the Davidian defense team received a copy of the FLIR
footage from the FBI through discovery, but they were unable to play it
in their machines. McNulty says he got the tape several months later,
about April, 1994, after the Davidians had been convicted and while they
were awaiting sentencing. The defense team had been unable to play the
tape because it was in a super VHS format that was unlabeled. McNulty
says the lack of a label was at least unprofessional, and at worst an
attempt at obfuscation. McNulty provided a lengthy analysis of the tape
in June, 1994, and returned the tape, after making a dub of it with the
permission of the defense team, onto a digital D2 format. The defense
team sent McNulty's analysis to the U.S. prosecutor, although McNulty's
analysis did not identify the flashes as automatic firearms fire.

It was about 18 months after McNulty got the tape that former CIA
Director William Colby contacted Gordon Novel, who said that Colby sent
two men to show Novel a high-quality, probably 1st-generation copy, of
the FLIR footage, who pointed out to Novel what to look for on the tape
and where to find it. However, they did not leave a copy of the tape
with Novel at that time. What they pointed out were the signatures of
automatic gunfire by assaulting troops directed at the only exits of the
buildings, which the Davidians would have had to use to escape the fire.

At that point McNulty had the only copy of the tape, a 3rd-generation
digital D2 copy, other than the one retained by the Davidian defense
lawyer he had obtained it from, and he refused to release it to anyone.
He had already become friends with Gordon Novel, who had begun working
as an investigator for the firm of Ramsey Clark, who had become one of
several law firms representing the Davidians in their civil case.

Novel told McNulty what Colby's men had told him, and McNulty then took
his tape and the information delivered from Colby through Novel and
sought an expert in interpreting FLIR footage who was not associated
with the government in a way that the expert would not have wanted to
work with McNulty. He found one in Dr. Edward Allard, who appears in the
documentary with his analysis.

In the meantime, Novel got himself in trouble and was put in jail in
Ohio, and was interviewed by Don Weideman for a series of articles. It
was during these interviews that Novel revealed he had a copy, probably
a 3rd- or 4th-generation copy, of the FLIR footage.

McNulty's 3rd-generation copy is the FLIR footage that was used in the
documentary. Another dub was made of the 2nd-generation copy the defense
attorney had, and it was that copy which was later passed on to the firm
of Caddell and Chapman, and from them to the firm of former Attorney
General Ramsey Clark. Novel got his 3rd- or 4th-generation copy from Jim
Brannen, one of the civil litigation attorneys.

Impatient with the delay in getting the footage to the public through
the documentary, Novel took his 3rd- or 4th-generation copy of the FLIR
footage to CBS Sixty Minutes, who sought their own expert analyst in the
firm Infraspections, and that analyst confirmed Allard's analysis of the
flashes as automatic weapons fire. Later, CBS Sixty Minutes personnel
went to members of Congress on the committee investigating the incident,
and misrepresented the results of their expert's analysis to those
congressmen, saying the analyst found no sign of gunfire. They did not
provide a copy of the tape or the analysis of their expert to those
congressmen, who obtained the short segments they viewed during the
hearings from Paul Gray and James Quintiari, federal arson investigators
on the government team.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Colby, the FLIR tape, and a new Waco documentary 2/2
Date: 01 Feb 1999 21:41:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
That incident, and others, will be coming out in a new documentary
McNulty is producing called _Waco: A New Revelation_, due out in late
February or early March, 1999. In 1998, attorney David Hardy, also allied
with the civil litigation team, was able to obtain a 1st-generation copy
of the FLIR footage on VHS, although with a 5-minute segment missing from
the beginning, through a FOIA request, from the government, and it is
that improved and additional footage that will be shown in the new
documentary, which is more clear than that shown in the documentary
_Waco: Rules of Engagement_.

McNulty has asked Novel for the complete tapes of his conversations with
Colby, but he has only provided short segments of some other telephone
conversations which only seem to be discussing business deals between
them.

McNulty says the only information he has about what Colby may have told
Novel is what Novel told him, and Novel won't provide the full footage
of the tapes he says he has. McNulty recalls discussing the Oklahoma
City bombing with Novel, but Novel never mentioned to McNulty any
complicity on the part of the White House or president in that incident.

However, McNulty did do a voice analysis of the tape segments Novel
provided, and the voice is definitely that of William Colby. The
information Novel claims Colby provided him about the FLIR footage
checked out. Novel had a relationship with Colby, and Colby had a
motive, namely the turf battle between the CIA and the FBI regarding
overseas operations.

McNulty's assessment of Novel's credibility is that one should never
ignore anything Novel says. On the other hand, what he says should be
taken carefully. Novel has a history as a high-level insider. He is an
expert in technical espionage and counter-espionage, and claims to be
the technician who was responsible for the missing 18 minutes in the
Nixon tape. On the other hand, he likes to tell a story, and may put a
spin on what he knows. His checkered past makes him the perfect person
whom a whistleblower might pick to disclose something to in order to
get the information out while providing plausible deniability.

McNulty says Novel deserves a great deal of credit for working himself
almost to death to help the Davidians, and he is certainly the conduit
through which they got the information from Colby about what to look for
in the FLIR footage. But Novel didn't obtain the tape itself from Colby.

More about Gordon Novel can be found on Lexis-Nexis, and on the WWW, at
such sites as http://www.io.com/~hambone/web/novel.html

The new documentary, _Waco: A New Revelation_, will be revealing new
non-FLIR video evidence that the government forces fired on the
Davidians during the final assault on April 19, 1993. It will also
present evidence identifying the organizations providing the personnel
who attacked the Davidian complex from the rear, which are seen in the
FLIR footage, which were the FBI Hostage Rescue Team and Delta Force.
It provides evidence that explains how the fire started, and how the
investigation following the fire was compromised, including interviews
with some Texas Rangers who were part of that investigation. It includes
interviews with some of the imprisoned Davidians, and follows the chain
of command of the orders for the final assault all the way to the White
House. It explores some of the unintended consequences of Waco, has an
interview with Randy Weaver, the target of the Ruby Ridge assault, and
reveals that Lon Horiuchi, who the Boundary County, Idaho, prosecutor
attempted to prosecute for shooting Randy's wife Vicki, was also present
at Waco in a position from which fire came toward the Davidians.

The new documentary, _Waco: A New Revelation_, will probably be first
released on video, and perhaps will also be released theatrically. The
price for the video has not yet been decided. For more information on
it, write:

C.O.P.S. Productions
1001-A East Harmony Road #353
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525

===============================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 01/30/99  Time: 21:54:44
http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:[e-mail]
===============================================================

* * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * *
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: [e-mail]
In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe justice
END



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Waco: Rules of Engagement
Date: 02 Feb 1999 19:14:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded messages ----------
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail]

Dear Franklin:

Thanks for your note and for your comments. We really appreciate them.

Thanks again for taking the time to write.

Best regards,

Heidi Winkelmann
Audience Relations Coordinator

At 03:14 PM 1/25/99 -0800, Franklin Wayne Poley wrote:
>I was shocked that the most highly rated mostly-science television channel
>in Canada would have shown the Waco film as it did last night. Well done!
>Now I have to wonder what a Jury of Citizens would say about the evidence
>if they saw the film and any other relevant evidence? So far it looks to
>me like they would say Janet Reno and anyone else responsible for that
>ATROCITY should be in jail for a long, long time if not given the death
>penalty and the whole damned Congress should be booted out of office for a
>dereliction of duty in their "investigation".
>FWP.


Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail]

You are welcome. Your reputation as the most highly regarded television
channel in Canada is well deserved. I was pleasantly surprised to put it
mildly that you took on something as controversial as Waco. That is
exceptional for an educational tv channel and to me it is a sign of some
real courage and integrity.
FWP.

*** [e-mail]. Send "Subscribe Future-Cities" to
[e-mail]; http://users.uniserve.com/~culturex ***


Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail]

Thank you again for showing the Waco film on your channel two nights ago.
After viewing it I spoke to a man here in Vancouver who also has an
Addendum to Waco (also by McNulty the producer of the main film).
I was told that this Addendum makes it clear beyond reasonable doubt that
the government agents staged a deliberate homicide against the Davidian
community. Could you please show the Addendum as well?
FWP.


Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
     [e-mail]

Dear Franklin:

Thanks for your note. I spoke with the programming department and they have
no future plans of airing the Addendum. Sorry.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

Best regards,

Heidi


Cc: [e-mail]

Congratulations, FWP,

I take back every bad thing I ever thought about you. Well I remember the
shock and dismay when I saw that movie the first time. There was my own
"conservative" Senator Hatch with mud all over his face! It's a real
eye-opener for anyone who still thinks the "drug war" is about drugs or the
gun control movement is about reducing crime. Perhaps we are living in a
time when our neighbors to the North will teach us how to be the free
country our Constitution says we are.

My referrals are old. Does someone have a fresh address where one can
order a video copy of what you saw?

Ken



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: It's no accident
Date: 02 Feb 1999 19:14:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
and most armed

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/013199_REESE31.html

It's no accident that a country can be most free and most armed
Charley Reese
of The Sentinel Staff

Published in The Orlando Sentinel, Jan 31 1999

Do you believe that people have a right to overthrow the government with
force and violence?

If you say no, then you need to study your American history. The basic
premise of the American Revolution, beautifully spelled out in the
Declaration of Independence, is that people have not only the right but,
under certain circumstances, the duty to overthrow a government.

Let's examine what is the true American philosophy as spelled out in that
document.

In the first paragraph, it is stated that "laws of nature and of nature's
God" entitle people to assume a separate and equal station among the powers
of the Earth. In other words, self-determination.

In the second paragraph the basic premises of the Revolution are laid out:

1. All men are created equal and endowed by God with unalienable rights;
2. governments are instituted to secure these rights;
3. the only just authority of any government is the consent of the governed;
4. when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends
   (protecting rights and governing only by consent), people have a right
   to alter or abolish it.

The third paragraph states that it is prudent not to change governments for
light or frivolous reasons, but when a long train of abuses and usurpations
show a clear design to reduce people to despotism, ". . . it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such a government."

When you understand this, then it becomes crystal clear why the right of
private citizens to keep and bear arms is included in the Bill of Rights.
A just government, securing the people's rights and acting with their
consent, has no need to fear an armed citizenry. James Madison, in
refuting a European friend's pessimistic view of America, boasted, "unlike
your governments, we are not afraid for our citizens to have arms."

I have called the right to keep and bear arms the canary of American
liberty because when government seeks to disarm its citizens, it plainly
intends to take away their freedom. No movement in America should so alarm
Americans as the gun-control movement, because its true aim has nothing to
do with crime but everything to do with disarming honest and decent Americans.
Machiavelli, the first and smartest of the political advisers, once said of
the Swiss that they were "the most armed and most free people in Europe."
That is still true. And it is no accident that liberty and private arms
co-exist in the same country.

A small percentage of people will abuse the right to keep and bear arms,
just as all rights and privileges are abused. So what. A little crime is a
small price to pay for freedom. Many wise men have warned that those who
prefer security to liberty will lose both.

You think that criminals are bad? You don't know what bad is until you're
the victim of a criminal government. You should talk to people who have
lived under criminal governments and survived before you swallow the bilge
being poured down your throat by Handgun Control Inc. and its lapdogs in
the press.

And remember, rights come from God, not from government. The Constitution
does not grant anyone any rights. It merely acknowledges already-existing
rights. The American citizen does not owe the government for his rights.
The government owes him the duty to protect his rights. We are a free
people by the grace of God. We are governed with our consent for the sake
of convenience.

Too many politicians are arrogant to suit me. They should remember that not
all Americans have been Europeanized. The flame of liberty may be turned
low, but it has scorched more than one despot and can flame forth again.
[Posted 01/30/1999 6:54 PM EST]



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Double-Barreled Fight Against Gun Litigation
Date: 02 Feb 1999 19:14:00 -0700


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-02/02/127l-020299-idx.html

Double-Barreled Fight Against Gun Litigation
NRA, Industry Team to Battle City Liability Suits
By Sharon Walsh
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 2, 1999; Page A03

ATLANTA, Feb. 1 -- As 1,400 exhibitors in the firearms industry
gathered at the annual gun trade show here, the industry's leaders,
lobbyists and the National Rifle Association used the occasion to
show their solidarity in the fight against gun litigation.

In the past, gun manufacturers and the NRA, which represents gun
owners, have gone their separate ways. But the message of those
attending the largest gun industry show in the country is that they
will band together to defend themselves against a flurry of lawsuits
being filed by cities around the country.

"For a century, we have thrived independently," NRA President
Charlton Heston told members of the industry, which gave him a
standing ovation. "But now, your fight has become our fight. Your
legal threat has become our constitutional threat. . . . Our enemies
will think they can beat you in court because they can't beat us in
Congress. But they don't have the checkbooks and votes of 8 million
members and 30 million gun owners."

The industry is under attack from mayors who are suing gun
manufacturers and distributors for the costs of crimes caused by
firearms and who hope to mimic the success of state attorneys
general who went after tobacco companies.

As part of the gun industry's effort to defend against the suits,
four of its trade and lobbying groups said today that they will
form a new organization, the National Shooting Sports Council,
that will help them better coordinate the industry's message.

The new group will be made up of board members from the American
Shooting Sports Council, which speaks for the firearms industry;
the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association
that sponsors the annual trade show; the Sporting Arms and
Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, which deals with industry
standards; and the Wildlife Management Institute.

"We've been very fragmented about communicating what our industry
is all about," said Richard M. Pelton, marketing vice president
for the American Shooting Sports Council. He said that the liquor
industry, for example, has been a model of how to be active by
encouraging drunk drivers to take taxis home and with other public
service programs.

"I'm a businessman and I feel strongly about our rights," said
Pelton, who until recently was a vice president of O.F. Mossberg
& Sons, a shotgun manufacturer. "We are not the NRA. I'm a lifetime
member, but the NRA looks out for the user. Our industry employs
people. . . . We are going to fight this to the death."

Pro-gun politicians also used the gathering to strike out at the
lawyers and mayors of the cities that are suing the gun industry.

Bill Pryor, the attorney general of Alabama, called the suits "a
clear and present danger to the rule of law. This dangerous marriage
of trial lawyers and government must be stopped," he said.

The gun industry is already highly regulated, said Rep. Robert L.
Barr Jr. (R-Ga.), who added that the industry employs 70,000 people
and contributes $24 billion to the national economy.

"Today, we see a legal system run amok," said Richard Feldman,
executive director of the ASSC. He said that the recent lawsuits
holding gunmakers responsible for crime costs are the result of
an "unholy alliance of rich tobacco lawyers and weak-kneed mayors."
The suits, he said, "will not remove one single gun from the hands
of any criminal, but will pay for retirement homes for lawyers on
both sides."

While there was talk of legal troubles on the floor of the Georgia
World Congress Center, where the show was held, exhibitors were
interested mostly in selling their guns, sights, camouflage clothing,
knives and safety locks to the 17,000 distributors and store owners
who are attending the show.

Even before the industry arrived in Atlanta, there was unease about
the venue. Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell announced last week that he
is planning to join other cities in filing a lawsuit against the
industry later this year. The NSSC obtained a letter from the mayor
assuring them that he would not use the show as an opportunity to
serve legal papers to any of the exhibitors or attendees of the show.

Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: UT: Two Olympics Bills Threaten Gun Rights
Date: 03 Feb 1999 22:47:41 -0700

House and Senate "Olympics" Bills Trash U.S. Sovereignty

Gun Owners of America Email/Fax Alert
8001 Forbes Pl., Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
[phone]   Fax: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org


Utah 2/3/99


HB 92 and SB 122 would change existing law to cater to foreign and
globalist interests.

It is no secret that the UN and foreign nations such as Japan have
long wanted to do away with the right to keep and bear arms here in
the US.  Japan has even funded UN efforts to affect our domestic gun
policy.

Now, under the umbrella of the Olympic Games for 2002, domestic and
foreign anti-gunners are working with the Utah legislature to change
the law in order to restrict the liberties of honest residents of
Utah and cater to visiting foreigners.

HB 92 and SB 122 both give arbitrary power to Olympic officials over
various property and firearms rights.  Although those aspects are
repealed much later on after the Olympics, as you may know from
previous alerts, the Utah House is using HB 92 to enact much more
permanent restrictions on gun owners.

HB 92 has far-reaching effects on you rights, including the
following:

   * Ban on carrying concealed (even for license holders) in places
of worship.  This will effectively make it much more dangerous for
you to take your family to worship - you will, by law, be unable to
defend yourself against anyone willing to stake out the church
parking lot.

   * Ban on carrying concealed (even for license holders) on the
premises of any school, including any building used as a daycare. You
will have the choice of being a criminal or rendering yourself
defenseless in such places.  There will not be one responsible gun
owner on the premises to protect your children if some tragic
incident should occur.

   * Ban on possession of firearms (even for license holders) in
private residences.  You will need permission each and every time you
enter a private residence with your gun.  The other option would be
leave it in the car - where it might be stolen - or simply not carry
at all, as may be the real goal here.

The points above will NOT BE REPEALED when the Olympic Venue portions
are, and because the bills have no predetermined start date, Utah
citizens could be forced to live under such oppressive and
un-American restrictions for YEARS before the Olympics even start!!

Gun owners across Utah need to work together to stop this rape of the
constitution and our rights.  Please contact both your House Rep and
your Senator right away and demand they protect your rights and stop
catering to foreign interests.

Tell them that trick plays like trying to sneak in all those
permanent gun control aspects of HB 92 only serve to expose
legislators opposed to true and open constitutional government.

Call the following offices for detailed contact info:

House: [phone]    Senate: [phone]

Any ?s -- Call GOA
Guns Save Lives

**************
Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to
date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail Alert
network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the volume of
mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to
[e-mail] and include the state in which you live, in
either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert
and ask to be removed.


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: URGENT ALERT!  SB 122  Olympic Gun Control
Date: 04 Feb 1999 14:48:39 -0700

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND DISTRIBUTE THIS AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE!!

Okay, folks!  The time has come, and we NEED your help!

Sen. Mike Waddoups (R)  has betrayed the gun owners who have supported him
for so long.  He's even gone as far as labeling us "gun nuts" in the press.

Sen. Waddoups is sponsoring SB 122, Controlled Access Areas in Olympic
Venues.  This bill MUST be defeated.

1. Current Utah law provides that a concealed carry permit is valid
"without exception".  This bill would destroy "without exception" by
providing that "a person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm may not
carry a concealed firearm in "certain locations including..."  This will
allow the legislature to add absolutely anyplace to the list of places
where firearms may not be carried.

2. SB 122 grants complete authority to an "Olympic Law Enforcement
Commander".  The Olympic Commander has the authority to decide which areas
(up to and including the entire state) are "off-limits" to firearms.  He
oversees all law enforcement, peace officers, the Utah National Guard, and
"all other security and public safety personnel".  He may "carry out any
other action" deemed "necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare
of the public".  This sounds an awful lot like martial law to me.  I have
so far been unable to find any requirement that the Olympic Commander be an
American citizen, a sworn peace officer, or that he take an oath to uphold
the Constitution of the Unites States or Utah.

3. The bill restricts "dangerous weapons".  And a dangerous weapon is not
just a firearm.  At the discretion of security, it may also include pocket
knives, fingernail clippers, nail files, rat-tail combs, pepper spray,
ball-point pens, sticks, or "any item which is capable of causing death or
serious bodily injury".

4. SB 122 does not require the state or the Olympics to accept any
liability for persons injured or killed as a result of being forceably
disarmed, or as a result of negligence on the part of "official" security.

5. State law requires that secure facilities provide safe storage for the
firearms of permit holders.  SB 122 exempts "Olympic venues" from this
requirement.  Thus anyone planning on attending events will not only be
disarmed at the event, but while traveling to and from events.  This will
turn thousands of Olympic attendees into perfect targets for criminals.

6. There is absolutely no reason for this bill.  It is being enacted
because international (IOC) and federal (Clinton, the BATF, the Secret
Service, etc.) advocates of universal disarmament want to use Utah as an
example to show that they can enforce disarmament anywhere, without regard
for US or State laws, constitutions or sovereignty.  NO holder of a Utah
concealed carry permit has EVER used a firearm to injure another person or
commit a violent crime.

7. If this bill is passed, it will set a dangerous precedent for
international and/or federal agencies to enact gun bans and disarmament at
will, anytime, anywhere, without any accountability or oversight.

All of these provisions are also present in Rep. David Jones's HB 92, which
also requires action, but SB 122 is more likely to actually pass.  The
message has come down from "on high" (probably Gov. Leavitt) that there
WILL be an Olympic Gun Control Bill THIS SESSION.

What you can do:

1. Contact your own Senator and Representative and let them know that SB
122 and HB 92 are entirely unacceptable, cannot be "fixed", and must be
OPPOSED.
Contact info is available at: http://www.le.state.ut.us  Follow the links
to House or Senate, or call your County Clerk.  A list of phone and fax
numbers is at the end of this message.

2. Contact Sen. Waddoups and let him know what you think of this bill, and
of his betrayal of gun owners.  He won't "see the light" until he "feels
the heat"!
    Sen. Michael Waddoups (R)
    2005 W 5620 S
       Salt Lake City UT 84118
       Home 801-967-0225
    Office 801-355-1136
    Fax [phone]

3. Contact Senate President Lane Beattie and ask him why a gun control bill
was referred to the Senate Energy, Natural Resources and Agriculture
Committee, instead of Transportation and Public Safety or Judiciary.
    Sen. Lane Beattie (R)
    1313 North 1100 West
       West Bountiful, Utah 84087
       Home 801-292-7406
    Office 801-298-7000
    Fax [phone]

4. Contact the members of the Senate Energy, Natural Resources and
Agriculture Committee and ask that they OPPOSE this bill.  Please be polite
to these committee members; they're probably not at all happy about having
this bill inappropriately dumped in their laps!  Members are:

    Sen. Beverly Ann Evans, Chair (R)
     HC 65, Box 36
       Altamont, Utah 84001
       O-435-722-4523 Ext 126 H-435-454-3719
       Fax [phone]
    [e-mail]

     Sen. Leonard M. Blackham (R)
    P.O. Box 337
       Moroni, Utah 84646
       H-435-436-8489 O-435-436-8125
    [e-mail]

     Sen. Joseph L Hull (D)
    5250 West 4000 South
       Hooper, Utah 84315
       H-801-731-3705 O-801-732-6012
    [e-mail]

     Sen. Lorin V. Jones (R)
    177 E Center St
       Veyo UT 84782
       H 435-574-2961
       [e-mail]

    Sen. Millie Peterson (D)
    7131 West 3800 South
       West Valley City, Utah 84128
       H-801-250-5944
    [e-mail]

Bulk e-mail to the entire committee:
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail],[e-mail], [e-mail]


5. Contact Gov. Leavitt.  Apparently there's now evidence that he knew
about the Olympic Bribery scandal all along, so he's vulnerable.  He also
wants to run for national office.  If we can exert NATIONAL pressure on
him, he can call off this nonsense - at least until next year.  :-(
    Gov. Mike Leavitt
    210 State Capitol
    Salt Lake City, UT 84114
    801-538-1000
    801-538-1528 - fax
    [e-mail]

5. Write to your local newspapers as well as the statewide papers.  Call
talk radio shows.  Contact national media outlets, both print and TV.  I
don't want to append my entire media contact list (it's long) but if you
want it, let me know. ([e-mail])
    The Salt Lake Tribune  [e-mail]
    The Deseret News  [e-mail]
    The Standard Examiner [e-mail]
More contact info is available at the Nolympics site,
http://www.therighter.com/nolympics.

I don't think Rep. Jones will be particularly responsive to the concerns of
gun owners.  He's always supported gun control.  (And at least he's honest
enough to take a public stance and stick to it.)  If you want to try
anyway, his contact information is:
    Rep. David Jones (D)
    545 South 1100 East Salt Lake City,
       Utah 84102
       Phone: (home) 801-582-8247
    [e-mail]

PLEASE contact these "public servants", and encourage your friends, family,
co-workers and others to do the same.  Please encourage people _outside_ of
Utah to contact Gov. Leavitt, their local news media, and Utah news media,
since all of them are concerned with Utah's _national_ image.

General contact numbers:
House voice: 801-538-1029, 800-662-3367
House fax: Rep. 801-538-1908, Dem. 801-538-9505
Senate voice: 801-538-1035, 877-585-8824
Senate fax: Rep. 801-538-1414, Dem. 801-538-1449


Thanks!
Sarah




leg-alerts is owned and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The opinions in this alert represent those of the list owner only,
unless otherwise attributed or specified.

To subscribe to leg-alerts send a message to:
    [e-mail]
in the body of the message put:
    subscribe leg-alerts

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU CANNOT POST TO THIS LIST!
Send comments, alerts, suggestions, etc. to:
[e-mail]

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: URGENT!  SB 122 in Committee MONDAY!
Date: 04 Feb 1999 15:40:05 -0700

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!

It's now or never!

Sen. Mike Waddoups's Olympic Gun Control (and martial law) bill, SB 122 is
apparently on the fast track.  It will be heard by the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee on:
MONDAY FEB 8
8 AM, Room 414, State Capitol
The bill is the first item on the agenda.

PLEASE ATTEND THIS MEETING!  We need to PACK THE ROOM with outraged gun
owners.  Plan to be there by 7:30 AM if possible.  With luck, you can still
be finished in time to make it to work on time, or only slightly late.
Please remember to dress appropriately and behave in a respectful manner.
And tell everyone you know!

Thanks!

Sarah





leg-alerts is owned and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The opinions in this alert represent those of the list owner only,
unless otherwise attributed or specified.

To subscribe to leg-alerts send a message to:
    [e-mail]
in the body of the message put:
    subscribe leg-alerts

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU CANNOT POST TO THIS LIST!
Send comments, alerts, suggestions, etc. to:
[e-mail]

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALERT: SB 122 - Committe Hearing CANCELLED
Date: 04 Feb 1999 20:22:40 -0700

The Senate Energy, Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee has changed
its agenda for Monday, February 8.  SB 122, Controlled Access Areas in
Olympic Venues is no longer on the agenda.  As of now, it has not been
rescheduled, although this may change at any time.  If you notified anyone
of the committee hearing, please be kind enough to let them know it's been
postponed.

I hope this means that Committee members are starting to feel the heat.
Please keep the pressure on!

Sorry this is so confusing, but I don't make the schedules.  Stay tuned!

Sarah


leg-alerts is owned and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The opinions in this alert represent those of the list owner only,
unless otherwise attributed or specified.

To subscribe to leg-alerts send a message to:
    [e-mail]
in the body of the message put:
    subscribe leg-alerts

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU CANNOT POST TO THIS LIST!
Send comments, alerts, suggestions, etc. to:
[e-mail]

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: URGENT ALERT: HB 92 Major Gun Control
Date: 06 Feb 1999 23:19:54 -0700

There has been quite a bit of confusion regarding Rep. Jones's HB 92 (Gun
Control in Schools, Churches, Private Property & Olympics) and Sen.
Waddoups's SB 122 (Gun Control at Olympics).

HB 92 WILL BE HEARD ON TUESDAY FEB. 9 at 8 AM in Room 223 at the State
Capitol.  I have been unable to verify a previous report that the bill was
killed in Rules, and according to both the Utah Legislative Web page AND
Rob Bishop, lobbyist for USSC, the bill WILL BE HEARD as scheduled.

I have no reason to doubt the integrity of anyone who posted anything to
the contrary.  It appears that the committee hearings for these bills are
being shuffled in order to confuse gun owners and discourage us from
attending the committee hearings.  We can't let this stop us.  Please plan
on attending the hearings if possible, and please keep the pressure on our
elected officials.

PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE HEARING FOR HB 92 TUESDAY MORNING!

If you have not already contacted the members of the House Judiciary
Committee, please take the time to let them know you OPPOSE HB 92.

Committee members are:

"A. Lamont Tyler, Chair" <[e-mail]>
"Glenn L. Way, Vice Chair" <[e-mail]>
"John Swallow" <[e-mail]>
"Katherine Bryson" <[e-mail]>
"Martin Stephens" <[e-mail]>
"Bill Hickman" <[e-mail]>
"Chad Bennion" <[e-mail]>
"Greg Curtis" <[e-mail]>
"Patrice Arent" <[e-mail]>
"Neal Hendrickson" <[e-mail]>
"Gary Cox" <[e-mail]>


SB 122 was at one time scheduled to be heard by the Senate Energy, Natural
Resources and Agriculture Committee on MONDAY, Feb 8 at 8 AM.  This bill
has now been removed from the committee agenda and WILL NOT BE HEARD
MONDAY!  However, the bill is still assigned to that committee, so please
contact committee members and request that they OPPOSE SB 122.

Committee members' e-mail addresses are:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]


General contact numbers:
House voice: 801-538-1029, 800-662-3367
House fax: Rep. 801-538-1908, Dem. 801-538-9505
Senate voice: 801-538-1035, 877-585-8824
Senate fax: Rep. 801-538-1414, Dem. 801-538-1449

I expect more changes in committee schedules will occur, so pleae check
these alerts or the Utah Legislative Web page for up-to-date information.
(http://www.le.state.ut.us)

If you need a legislative analysis of either of these bills, please let me
know.

Sarah





-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: HB 92 article
Date: 07 Feb 1999 03:30:24 -0700

http://www.sltrib.com/1999/feb/02061999/politics/80916.htm


>                       Banning Concealed Weapons At Selected Sites Proposed
>                       Leavitt reiterates his support, while Bishop stands
>                       strong against it
>
>                       BY DAN HARRIE
>                       THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
>
>                           A proposal that would allow schools, churches,
>                       private residences and Olympic venues to ban licensed
>                       concealed firearms may finally get a public hearing in
>                       the Utah House of Representatives.
>                           That prospect emerged Friday when the Rules
>                       Committee released a bill it had held up for several
>                       days, sending it to the House Judiciary panel.
>                           Advocates of tighter gun restrictions hailed the
>                       development, while gun-rights proponents denounced the
>                       House Bill 92, sponsored by Rep. Dave Jones, as
>                       unconstitutional.
>                           House leaders in recent years have used
>                       behind-the-scenes maneuvers to quash debate on
>                       legislation to narrow the broad grant of authority
>                       bestowed on concealed-weapons-permit holders in 1995.
>                       Amendments to state law approved that year said those
>                       permits were valid "without restriction."
>                           But now a public debate over the emotion-charged
>                       issue appears likely, a possibility that Gov. Mike
>                       Leavitt welcomes.
>                           Leavitt reiterated his support for giving
>                       churches, schools and Olympic venues authority to keep
>                       guns out.
>                           "It's a measure I support and one that I am
>                       pleased to see get a hearing," he said. But he
>                       declined to predict its chance of passage.
>                           Utah Shooting Sports Council lobbyist Rob Bishop
>                       had no such reluctance.
>                           "The Jones bill will never become law," said
>                       Bishop.
>                           He suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that the only way
>                       the measure could pass the House was if members "went
>                       on a binge" and voted when they were tipsy.
>                           The bill is extremely flawed, said Bishop, who is
>                       also chairman of the Utah Republican Party.
>                           "For anyone who wants to destroy the Constitution
>                       of the United States it's a marvelous bill," said
>                       Bishop.
>                           The bill was released from the Rules Committee
>                       after Jones, the leader of House Democrats, complained
>                       publicly that majority Republicans were attempting to
>                       smother his legislation behind the scenes.
>                           Jones sent out a news release Thursday chastising
>                       GOP members of the Rules Committee for "denying the
>                       will of the majority of Utahns by not letting this
>                       bill out for a public hearing."
>                           The Democrat pointed to past public opinion polls
>                       showing most Utahns believe guns should be kept out of
>                       schools and churches. "With such strong public opinion
>                       in favor of this legislation, I was surprised to see
>                       that the Republicans were more concerned with their
>                       own partisan agenda."
>                           Jones later faxed out a retraction of the press
>                       release, saying it was sent without his consent.
>                           But in an interview Friday, he said the contents
>                       of the original statement were accurate, but that it
>                       went too far in proclaiming the demise of the overall
>                       spirit of bipartisanship that had marked the first
>                       weeks of the legislative session.
>                           Jones claimed his bill had been held up for
>                       approximately two weeks on straight party-line votes
>                       in the Rules Committee, which has an 8-3 Republican
>                       majority.
>                           "There's no reason to hold it up. It's a common
>                       sense bill, a moderate approach," said Jones. If
>                       released for public debate, he speculated, "it would
>                       have a good shot at passing."
>                           But the Rules Committee unanimously released the
>                       bill Friday, and Chairwoman Susan Koehn said there was
>                       no political funny business going on.
>                           The gun measure had come up only once for a vote
>                       in the committee and was held back because the
>                       Legislature was in the middle of the controversial
>                       credit union initiative, she said.
>                           "We did the English-only issue, where we packed
>                       the Capitol. We did the banks and credit unions where
>                       we packed the Capitol," Koehn said. "Let's just space
>                       out our packing of the Capitol -- that was our
>                       reasoning."
>
>
>
>
>
>      ) Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune
>      All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune
>      and associated news services.
>      No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from
>      The Salt Lake Tribune.
>
>
>
>


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Salt Lake Tribune -- Rifle Lobby Decries Plan For
Date: 07 Feb 1999 03:42:53 -0700

http://www.sltrib.com/02071999/utah/81098.htm


Sunday, February 7, 1999
>
-------
>
>  Rifle Lobby Decries Plan For `Gun-Free' Olympics
>  Utah firearms lobby is seeking a quid pro quo
>
>         BY PAUL FOY
[imageField]
>         THE ASSOCIATED
>         PRESS
>
>             The Utah gun lobby isn't rolling over nicely for a
>         "gun-free" 2002 Winter Olympics.
>             In most states that would bring a big "so what?"
>             But in Utah, where anyone with a clean record can
>         get a permit to carry a concealed weapon just about
>         anywhere -- even to church or public school -- it will
>         take a special law to ban pistol-packing spectators from
>         the games.
>             "The world will expect us, given the nature and
>         history of the Olympic Games, to provide a high level of
>         security," says Gov. Mike Leavitt, who is pushing for a
>         weapon-free Winter Games.
>             Legislation already out of the starting gate at the
>         Utah Capitol would make it a felony to bring a firearm
>         or bomb to the Olympics.
>             But what will it take to get the gun lobby's
>         support? Compensation for any harm done to gun owners
>         who were left unable to defend themselves at an Olympic
>         venue.
>             "People carry concealed weapons for their own
>         safety," says Rob Bishop, a gun lobbyist and chairman of
>         Utah's Republican Party. "If you take away a right,
>         there has to be some responsibility for protecting that
>         individual."
>             The demand was rejected out of hand by Olympics
>         officials.
>             But hold on: Bishop and his client, the Utah Sports
>         Shooting Council, wield considerable clout in the
>         Republican-controlled Legislature, where they could
>         block the gun-free bill during the current session.
>             Utah is unlike Nagano in 1998, where Japan's strict
>         gun laws cramped the training regime of rifle-toting
>         Olympic biathletes. Owning a gun here is as much a right
>         as that of worship. Handgun permits? Who needs them?
>             In Utah, where an estimated 68 percent of adults own
>         firearms, concealed-weapons permits are issued "without
>         restriction." And that Wild West image is as much a
>         concern for some politicians as the safety of the
>         Olympics.
>             "The whole world's watching," House Majority Leader
>         Kevin Garn said. "It's important that we have real tight
>         security, based on what's happened at past Olympics.
>             "We have to make sure those venues are high-security
>         areas," Garn said. "It just doesn't make sense to have
>         weapons inside of them."
>             State Public Safety Commissioner Craig Dearden will
>         oversee the Games' security. Metal detectors will be
>         posted at every fenced Olympic venue. Tickets will be
>         printed with a long list of prohibited items from guns
>         to knives to bottles.
>             "We understood the Sports Shooting Council and NRA
>         had signed off on this," said Shelley Thomas, a vice
>         president for the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.
>             Last summer, the traditionally rigid Utah gun lobby
>         did make the first overture toward surrendering weapons
>         for the 17 days of the 2002 Winter Games. The lobby
>         worked with Sen. Mike Waddoups, a Taylorsville
>         Republican, to shape legislation. But now it's having
>         second thoughts.
>             "We will do it kicking, screaming and yelling -- and
>         everyone will know about it," said Elwood Powell, an
>         Ogden lawyer and chairman of the Sports Shooting
>         Council.
>             Powell said the Waddoups bill needs some work. The
>         "controlled-access" areas that loosely define gun-free
>         Olympic venues could be stretched to cover "the entire
>         state," Powell complains.
>             He wants to see a definition for the "dangerous
>         weapons" that will be banned along with firearms at the
>         Games: "Does every lady have to give up her fingernail
>         file?"
>             Powell also is uncomfortable with gun owners being
>         left totally defenseless. What can they bring? "Maybe
>         somebody wants to carry nunchucks, I don't know. Or they
>         may want to carry tear gas -- whatever the ladies carry
>         in their purse for self defense."
>             Thomas said Mace probably will be banned from the
>         Games. But, said Waddoups, "I don't think you're going
>         to kill anybody with it. It certainly could be
>         disruptive, but I don't want to address it in my
>         legislation."
>             Powell said his group was willing to consider
>         surrendering weapons for the games only because of their
>         short duration and his expectation that few ordinary
>         Utah residents will attend.
>             He called the Olympics "a showcase for rich
>         celebrities" who can afford tickets at prices he said
>         could reach $800. "The rest of us will watch it on TV."
>             But Powell is adamant about getting a liability
>         clause from Olympic organizers, covering defenseless gun
>         owners who do attend.
>             "A person gets injured, they pick up his medical
>         bills, lost wages and future lost wages," he said.
>             "It's just not going to happen," said Waddoups.
>             Thomas was even more emphatic. "It will be
>         impossible for us to agree to that," she said. "I
>         checked with the insurance and legal experts.
>             "It's not something typically covered by any
>         insurance because it's impossible to prove the premise
>         that, `You wouldn't have been harmed if you were
>         carrying a weapon.' "
>
>
>                                    [Previous Story] [Next Story]
>
>
>
-------
> ) Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune
>
> All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune
and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused
without explicit
> permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
>
>                                                   Contact The Salt Lake
Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALERT! Waddoups Will Not Back Down From SB 122!!! It's Now or
Date: 07 Feb 1999 17:07:15 -0700

This was forwarded to me, but I think it should be of interest to most of
you.  I have checked with Mrs. Tobias, and according to her, the
transcripts below are accurate.  Sen. Waddoups has not yet responded to my
requests for information.

Sarah



TO ALL:

See the below e-mail between Janalee Tobias and Michael Waddoups.  WADDOUPS
IS A TRAITOR AND IS SET ON DESTROYING OUR RIGHTS!!!

WE MUST BLITZ HIM NOW!!!  CALL, FAX, E-MAIL, VISIT HIM, DO EVERYTHING LEGAL
YOU CAN TO REACH HIM, AND YOUR LEGISLATORS!!!

YOUR RIGHTS ARE ON THE LINE!  If you need assistance, e-mail me.  I'll help
you get your faxes out.

Maxwell Smart


> From: GunFlower <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: SB 122
> Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 12:55 AM
>
> Senator Waddoups,
>
> What happened?  The sponsorship of this bill re: guns and the olympics by
> you is scary to me.  It shows me that sooner or later even the best of gun
> rights supporters fall victim to those who advocate more gun control.
>
> Have you been threatened or something?  Just curious!  You're the last
> person I would've suspected to do something like this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Janalee Tobias



> From: Michael Waddoups <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: SB 122
> Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 7:53 AM
>
> Two points I would like to make re SB122.
> 1. The main reason for concealed weapon permits is for self protection of
> individual and family.  I am convinced that through proper regulation of
> secure areas at the Olympics and the huge amount of security that will be
> provided, I believe this issue will be covered.
> 2. Because of the public outcry for the ban and the governors support, I
> believe it will pass this year or next and I would rather have control of
the
> bill than let Dave Jones of Senator Beattie run with the issue.  I
believe the
> final version of the bill will be acceptable to all but those who believe
> "this is the nose in tent".
> I think this will also set a precedent that the only exceptions are those
> passed by the legislature and the governor and higher ed officials do not
have
> the right to make these exceptions on their own volition.



> From: GunFlower <[e-mail]>
> To: Michael Waddoups <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: SB 122
> Date: Sunday, February 07, 1999 12:39 AM
>
> Senator Waddoups,
>
> What?  What's this I'm reading?  I can't believe my eyes!  I honestly
don't
> think you wrote this!  I think your intern wrote this!  Please allow me
to
> comment on your (or rather your intern's) comments!
>
> 1.  This argument holds absolutely no credence!  This holds about as much
> credence as saying that there are enough police to protect all the
> citizens!  Police can't be bodyguards.  Neither can olympic security.
> Senator, there are huge amounts of security at the U.S. Capitol, and
still
> a madman got through and killed people!  There were thousands of olympic
> security guards in Munich, Germany, and still there were murders.  There
> were thousands of olympic security guards in Atlanta, and still there
were
> murders.  No one has ANY right to tell someone that there is enough
> security to protect everyone!  Unless you can absolutely guarantee that
the
> olympics will be crime free, then one cannot take away an individual's
> right to protection.  Concealed weapon permits are the self-protection of
> individuals and family.  You are right about that.  And the best way for
> anyone to protect themselves from criminals is to allow them to carry a
> concealed firearm.   THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE ABUSE OF A CCW
HOLDER--NOW
> NUMBERING ABOUT 20,000 HOLDERS IN UTAH.
>
> 2.  Unbelievable!  Absolutely unbelievable!  What you are saying here is
> that "it's better to pass this bill now because someone else is going to
> pass it later."  No!  No!  No!  We stop the bill from passing now and we
> stop it from passing later.  And in regards to public outcry, Senator, do
> you understand that you will have the backing of the gun lobby--the
largest
> political action group in the State of Utah--far outnumbering the
> money-sucking UEA political action group--if you stand up and say "No" to
> these gun laws regarding the olympics.  The outcry comes because people
do
> not understand the myths of gun control because they only believe what
they
> hear in the media.  Hold a news conference with some pro-gun folks
talking
> about why guns are so important for protection.  You've said several
times
> in the media that we don't need to change the laws.  Guns are not allowed
> in secured facilities.  So if the olympic venues are secured, there's no
> reason to change the laws.  And even if they're not secured, the laws
don't
> need to be changed.  Furthermore, the Governor and other groups do not
have
> the power to make exceptions to gun laws, so this is a moot point.  With
> this olympic gun bill, you are undoing the thousands of hours of work by
so
> many people to pass the laws that you helped to make!
>
> Wow!  I'm so surprised!  I thought I'd never see the day you'd fold.  But
I
> don't believe you are the one who sent me the E-mail.
>
> Please withdraw your bill.  It's the right thing to do.
>
> In freedom,
>
> Janalee Tobias
> "Guns Give Women a Fighting Chance"
>
> --------
> > From: Michael Waddoups <[e-mail]>
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: SB 122
> > Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 7:53 AM
> >
> > Two points I would like to make re SB122.
> > 1. The main reason for concealed weapon permits is for self protection
of
> > individual and family.  I am convinced that through proper regulation
of
> > secure areas at the Olympics and the huge amount of security that will
be
> > provided, I believe this issue will be covered.
> > 2. Because of the public outcry for the ban and the governors support,
I
> > believe it will pass this year or next and I would rather have control
of
> the
> > bill than let Dave Jones of Senator Beattie run with the issue.  I
> believe the
> > final version of the bill will be acceptable to all but those who
believe
> > "this is the nose in tent".
> > I think this will also set a precedent that the only exceptions are
those
> > passed by the legislature and the governor and higher ed officials do
not
> have
> > the right to make these exceptions on their own volition.
>



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Re: Jan Graham called
Date: 08 Feb 1999 21:15:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

This is a message I received back from Gary Cox concerning the new hand
gun bill he will propose this session. He is proposing it due to the
Triad Center incident when a mentally ill person killed an innocent
person. Your reactions are invited

Chauna

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

Dear Chauna:

Thanks for your response. I really do appreciate your insight. One of the
things that I have learned while in this position is the need to have
variety, diversity, and difference of opinion make for better policy.

I was pleased to read your thoughts about meeting the needs of those who
can least care for or protect themselves. I agree. Our state has reduced
the resources available to those souls, rather than improved them. In fact,
we have essentially kicked many of these people out on the streets or into
the jails from those programs or facilities that previously helped them.

I am supportive of meeting the needs of the mentally ill or disabled. A
bill is not necessary to do this, but funding is. Our current Republican
leadership, unfortunately in my mind, has chosen other "priorities" such
as maintaining tax exemptions for special interests or major business.
That is one of the reasons for changing my mind about proposing a "gun
bill."

The proposal I am thinking about is more to awaken some of those other
legislators to the reality of the mental health services problem, than
to create another restriction. However, I must also say that, while it
is true that "people kill people," the access to guns has proven to make
this much easier for those who make that choice.

I really don't know how far this proposal will be pursued. I'd love to hear
back from you with some ideas.

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Gary

>>> "chauna" <[e-mail]> 02/02 6:28 AM >>>

Gary,

Jan Graham called me last week to explain why you will be submitting a hand
gun bill to the legislature. I agree that the incident at the Triad Center
was a tragedy, but I disagree with the perception of the cause. The old
argument, which is true, is that the gun did not commit the crime. A
mentally ill person committed the crime. Why was she still out in society
instead of treatment? If she had not had a gun she would have found another
way to hurt someone. A bomb, knife, fire, who knows. She could have bought
the gun on the street or stolen one. Penalizing Law abiding citizens for
the acts of a mentally ill person's actions is not the answer.

The bill you should be proposing is a bill to help mentally ill people.
Either treat them or keep them confined to protect society. This is
something I could see the government providing for persons who cannot help
themselves. Instead of giving mentally and physically capable people
handouts, help those who truly can not help themselves. Your emphasis is
all wrong on this.

I would appreciate a response.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your concern for me and the promise
you made to not introduce any gun legislation this term. I have realized
you are not really that bad of a person. No really I do respect you and
your views. We just see things differently. You have gained my respect with
this though. Thanks.

In Liberty,
Chauna Pierce

P.S. I have a new e-mail address. It is [e-mail]



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Some gun collectors fear proposal will put them out of business
Date: 08 Feb 1999 21:15:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/qgun7.htm

Some gun collectors fear proposal will put them out of business

February 7, 1999

BY ANGIE WAGNER
Associated Press

LAS VEGAS -- Collectors who wandered the aisles at an antique
gun show on Saturday feared President Bill Clinton's proposal
to crack down on gun shows would put them out of business.

"That's a powerful weapon," Jonathan Peck, 86, of Avon, Conn.,
said as potential buyers admired his gun collection. "They're
doing a lot of things to take the fun out of collecting."

Peck and the hundreds of other collectors at the Las Vegas
Antique Arms Show swapped opinions of Clinton's weekly radio
address. Many said it was just another attempt to prevent
people from owning guns.

Clinton requested legislation to require background checks on
all firearms buyers at gun shows, which he said have become
"cash-and-carry convenience stores for weapons used to maim
and kill."

Clinton said the 1994 Brady law's requirement for background
checks -- meant to bar felons from owning guns -- now should
include gun-show sales by unlicensed collectors and private
hobbyists.

"We are law-abiding collectors. This could put collectors out
of business," Robert Lee, president of Hunting World, Inc.,
in Spark said, running his hand over a gun built in the 1500s.

More than 10,000 antique guns were on display at the show,
some selling for $1 million.

"Why should someone like Bill Clinton tell me how to live my
life?" asked Ron Holden, a collector from Williamsburg, Iowa.

Most collectors and those just browsing were offended by
Clinton's idea.

"There's less crime in that room than there is in Disneyland,"
show director Wallace Beinfeld said, pointing inside the exhibit
hall. "He's part of the belief that the Second Amendment is garbage."


All content copyright 1999 Detroit Free Press and may not be
republished without permission.




-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Dexter's statement on SBs 22 & 122
Date: 09 Feb 1999 08:16:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Cc: Bill Barton <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, Jim
    Kirkwood <[e-mail]>, Janalee Tobias <[e-mail]>,
    Mike Ridgway <[e-mail]>, Ken Olafson <[e-mail]>, Betty
    Christensen <[e-mail]>, Cal Andrus <[e-mail]>

Here's what I plan to say . . . if given a chance.

Testimony of Jim Dexter, state chair, Libertarian Party of Utah
on Senate Bills 22 and 122, February 9, 1999

Senate Bills 22 and 122 are bad ideas because they ignore reality,
Let's look at what happens in real life when misguided laws prevent
honest citizens from defending themselves.

Churches -- On June 11, 1995 a suicidal Raul Bonilla tracked down his
estranged wife and three-year old son at a West Valley City ward house,
then pulled a revolver and fired at least one round into the church
ceiling to convince her to leave with him.

Why pick a ward house? Because he knew no one there would be able to
oppose him or defend his wife. Was Mr. Bonilla a CCW permit holder?
Absolutely not.

Schools -- The tragic shooting of children by another child in Perl,
Mississippi was only brought to a halt because an assistant principal
had a gun in his car. As soon as his own safety was threatened, the
teen-age killer gave up. One child died.

But in Springville, Oregon when the emotionally disturbed pre-teen son of
two government school teachers and his friend broke into his grandfather's
house and stole rifles, pistols and cartridges, they knew there were no
guns in the government schoolhouse. One teacher and two children died
because no one could shoot back until the police got there.

Of all the tragic shootings in schools, none has involved a licensed
citizen.

Olympics -- In the Munich Olympics, a group of Arab terrorists seized
the Israeli section of the athletes' village. Before their brief reign
of terror ended more than 20 people died.

It was easy for the terrorists. They knew exactly where all the armed
guards were and they didn't have to worry about anyone else.

As the famous Lott & Mustard study proves, the stricter the gun control,
the easier it is for criminals. The more responsible citizens who carry
guns, the lower the crime rate.

There are well over 20,000 licensed concealed carry permits in Utah.
How come the schools aren't being shot up every day? How come there
aren't holes in the windows of every church in the state? Because
legally-carried weapons and, more importantly, the people who carry
them are not any kind of problem to worry about. You need not fear us.

No church, especially the LDS Church, needs any government authority
to ban weapons from their buildings or meetings. Nor should they ask
government for it because that would give government authority over them.

These two bills are bad ideas and bad law. I urge you not to pass them.
Do not say, "The world is welcome here" . . . unless you also include
Utah's law-abiding, license-holding, armed citizens.



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Victory (for now)
Date: 09 Feb 1999 14:27:58 -0700


HB 92 (Gun Control in Schools, Churches, Private Residences and Olympic
Venues) sponsored by Rep. David Jones, was tabled by the House Judiciary
Committee this morning.  This means it can only be revived by a 2/3
majority of the committee members, which is extremely unlikely.  HB 92 is
dead for all practical purposes.

Special thanks to Reps. John Swallow, Glenn Way, Katherine Bryson and Bill
Hickman for their active opposition to the bill.  (I don't have a final
tally, but I think only Reps. Tyler, Arent, Cox, and Hendrickson voted in
favor of the bill.)  Please take the time to thank our friends on the
committee for their support.  You might also wish to thank Speaker Marty
Stephens, who did not use his power to interfere with the open discussion
of the bill.  (You should have e-mail addresses already, so I'm not
repeating them.)

Governor Leavitt sent an emissary to express his support for the bill.
Perhaps some of us could help educate him as to the meaning and purpose of
separation of powers.  [e-mail]

Special thanks also to the MANY people who took time to attend the meeting.
 The room was packed, with overflow into the corridor!  I know you're all
busy, and your support is very much appreciated!

            *********************

Next up is SB 122, Sen. Mike Waddoups's Olympic Gun Control Bill.  I spoke
with Sen. Waddoups who says he is working on amending or revising the bill
to make it more acceptable to gun owners.  No language is yet available.

My opinion:  Sen. Waddoups originally said he was running this bill as a
defense against HB 92.  Now that HB 92 is effectively dead, there is no
reason for SB 122.  Since it will require MAJOR revisions to meet even
minimum standards of acceptability, it should be withdrawn and completely
rewritten.

Please let Sen. Waddoups know (politely!) that the current SB 122 is
entirely unacceptable and that he should either withdraw it, or releae new
language for review.  Please also contact the members of the Senate Energy,
Natural Resources and Agriculture Commitee AND your own Senator, and
request that they OPPOSE SB 122.

We're just about at the half-way mark for the session, so hang in there!

Thanks!
Sarah


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://www.therighter.com

Stop the Gun Ban!
NO-lympics 2002!
Check out http://www.therighter.com/nolympics
And now you can link directly to the Nolympics page
and join the nolympics mail list!


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: more on gun suits
Date: 09 Feb 1999 17:30:25 -0700

[home page]
[Image]

  Top News           Gun Industry Wins Key Battle in Ga.

  Sports             By RUSS BYNUM Associated Press Writer

  Lotteries          ATLANTA (AP) -- After heavy lobbying by the National
                     Rifle Association, Gov. Roy Barnes on Tuesday signed
  International      a bill blocking Atlanta's liability lawsuit against
                     gun manufacturers.
  National
                     The law, which goes into effect immediately, makes
  Washington         Georgia the first state to prevent a city or county
                     from filing product liability suits against gun
  Business           makers. The law reserves that right for the state.

  Wall Street        Barnes, a Democrat, said the state has the right to
                     force Atlanta to avoid the costs of pursuing its
  Entertainment      lawsuit.

  Health/Science     Atlanta filed its suit against 17 gun makers last
                     week as the city was the host of the nation's largest
  Regional           gun show. As with similar cases in Chicago, New
                     Orleans, Bridgeport, Conn., and Miami, Atlanta
                     accused the industry of negligently designing guns
                     with inadequate safety devices and sought
                     reimbursement for the costs of gun-related violence.

                     The city plans to move forward with its lawsuit and
                     see how the court responds, Mayor Bill Campbell said
                     through a spokesman.

                     ``Now it's in the hands of the courts to take the
                     appropriate action and determine ... which side will
                     prevail,'' spokesman Nick Gold said. ``We don't feel
                     it's constitutional for the state to tell the
                     municipalities who they can and cannot sue.''

                     The bill, which was pending when the lawsuit was
                     filed and received final approval from the state
                     House on Tuesday, was supported by the lobbying
                     muscle of the NRA. The organization, which claims to
                     have 93,000 Georgia members, endorsed Barnes in the
                     1998 election.

                     ``It's the first of what we hope to be many similar
                     legislative efforts around the country in an attempt
                     to stop what we think are basically extremely
                     ill-considered, wrongheaded lawsuits,'' said James
                     Baker, chief lobbyist for the NRA.

                     Baker said the NRA is lobbying for similar measures
                     in Louisiana and six other states, which he declined
                     to name.

                     The bill's opponents said it unconstitutionally keeps
                     cities from turning to the courts after the NRA has
                     successfully blocked gun-safety proposals in the
                     Legislature.

                     ``If we can require that the pharmaceutical companies
                     put a lock cap on a bottle of aspirin for a headache,
                     surely we can ask them to put out some safety
                     mechanisms on firearms,'' said state Sen. David
                     Scott, an Atlanta Democrat.

                     In New York City, jurors told a judge they were
                     deadlocked in a private lawsuit that contends gun
                     makers should be held liable for urban shootings. The
                     trial is considered an important test case for the
                     cities' gun lawsuits.

                     U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein sent the 11 jurors
                     home and asked them to resume deliberations Wednesday
                     morning.

                     AP-NY-02-09-99 1745EST

                     Copyright =A9 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
                     This material may not be published, broadcast,
                     rewritten, or redistributed.

                                       Home | Top of Page

02/09



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Concealed Guns Will Still Go to Church, School
Date: 10 Feb 1999 14:54:29 -0700

Thanks, Scott!

The Coalition of Religious Communities claims to represent "most major
faiths in Utah", so I'd assume someone from the LDS Church is a member.  In
my opinion, their representative epitomizes the very absence of religious
values.  She's arrogant, unwilling to discuss other points of view, knows
EXACTLY what everyone else "should" do, and presumes that she is the final
arbiter of what constitutes "proper" worship.  She even went to far as to
imply that for children to see their parents carrying firearms constituted
some sort of "child abuse".

What hasn't been published (nor will it ever be) is the tone of the
dialogue at the hearing.  The anti-gun people were unanimous that gun
owners are some sort of "vermin" who should not be allowed to participate
in civilized society.  "We don't want _those_ people in places like schools
or churches" sort of nonsense.  It sure sounded like "hate speech" to me.

Personally, I'm sick of it.  I'm tired of being treated like a cockroach
when I'm a law abiding citizen who takes responsibility for myself and my
family.  I DO belong in schools, my synagogue, and even the Olympics.  I'm
certainly more law-abiding than the members of the IOC/SLOC - and they get
bodyguards.

I think it's time we all get off the back of the bus and just say NO to gun
control.

Sarah

At 11:20 AM 2/10/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Notice that, like on Elder Jensen's interview where he called
>for a multi-party system but Dan Harrie changed that to allege
>support for the "two-party system", Dan Harrie continues to lie.
>He knows quite well that homeowners and church officials have
>full authority to ban anything they like from their premises,
>and that this bill would instead ban guns from homes and churches
>unless both the gun and home/meetinghouse owners jump through
>numerous hoops in advance. He also spins the polls by not
>accurately reporting the questions asked and the responses
>given.
>
>Notice also that iodine-grabber LaMont Tyler was the sole
>Republican voting for this bill, and that Dave Jones openly
>admits he is not concerned about crimes of violence in churches
>and schools. Perhaps these five scoundrels (the three Democrats
>on the Committee in addition to Tyler and Jones) actually favor
>them? Kudos to the eight decent members of the House Judiciary
>Committee.
>
>BTW, what is "the Coalition of Religious Communities"?
>Is the LDS Corporation of the President on it?
>
>Scott
>
>http://www.sltrib.com/02101999/politics/politics.htm
>
>Utah Politics
>Concealed Guns Will Still Go to Church, School
>
>BY DAN HARRIE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
>
>Utah lawmakers on Tuesday rejected public opinion polls and defeated a
>bill that would ban concealed weapons from schools and churches and give
>homeowners and Olympic venues clear authority to prohibit firearms.
>
>"We have a responsibility to not do just what is popular at the moment
>but to push principles that are wise and just," said Rep. John Swallow,
>R-Sandy.
>
>Swallow joined with seven other members of the House Judiciary Committee
>to defeat House Bill 92 on a 8-4 vote. All three Democrats on the
>committee and Republican Rep. LaMont Tyler, chairman of the panel, voted
>for the measure.
>
>Polls have consistently shown the majority of Utahns favor prohibiting
>firearms from schools and churches.
>
>Supporting the bill sponsored by Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake
>City, was Republican Gov. Mike Leavitt, the Utah PTA, the Coalition of
>Religious Communities and the state Commission on Criminal and Juvenile
>Justice.
>
>But gun-rights proponents clearly had the numbers at Tuesday's public
>hearing, with more than 100 people jammed into the Capitol room and
>spilling out into the hallway.
>
>"Not one child will be safer because of this bill," insisted Rob Bishop,
>gun lobbyist and chairman of the Utah Republican Party. "You may feel
>warm and fuzzy inside, but it doesn't solve the problem" of violence in
>schools or other places.
>
>Retired Salt Lake City police Lt. Dennis Tueller called it "foolishness"
>to prohibit legally licensed concealed firearms in schools and churches.
>
>"We're giving the predators in society a better target zone for them
>to attack," Tueller said.
>
>But sponsor Jones countered that his measure did not seek to eliminate
>the right to carry concealed weapons, just to impose some modest
>restrictions.
>
>"There are some places that guns just don't need to be," Jones said.
>"I don't believe guns belong in schools."
>
>Jones said the main purpose of his proposal was to prevent accidental
>shootings, not crimes of violence.
>
>Gun-rights advocates repeatedly have challenged those in favor of
>restrictions to point out any examples of injuries or death caused
>by Utah's approximately 22,000 licensed concealed-weapons carriers.
>
>Utah PTA lobbyist Paula Plant recounted several instances where
>concealed weapons had caused safety concerns in schools.
>
>In one case, a substitute teacher took out his concealed weapon and
>showed it to his class, Plant said. Another time, a parent carrying
>a concealed weapon displayed the gun to a teacher during a conference
>and suggested the teacher should act in a certain way.
>
>"Those kinds of situations do not make children feel safe in school,"
>said Plant, and she questioned the training of concealed-permit holders.
>
>Linda Hilton, director of the Coalition of Religious Communities, evoked
>morality in her pleas to keep guns out of churches.
>
>"It is morally the right thing for you to do," Hilton said. "Bringing a
>weapon into a holy and sacred place violates everything that a holy and
>sacred place stands for."
>
>Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun suits
Date: 11 Feb 1999 10:27:13 -0700

http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2558410353-5cf


----------

----------


01:47 AM ET 02/11/99

La. Gov. Wants To Shield Gunmakers

 La. Gov. Wants To Shield Gunmakers
 By ALAN CLENDENNING=
 Associated Press Writer=
           NEW ORLEANS (AP) _ Less than a day after Georgia became the
 first state to shield gun makers from from product liability
 lawsuits by cities and counties, Louisiana's governor said he
 supports such a ban.
           Gov. Mike Foster on Wednesday threw his backing behind a bill
 that would block a New Orleans lawsuit seeking damages from gun
 manufacturers for the costs of gun violence. The bill Georgia Gov.
 Roy Barnes signed Tuesday was meant to block a similar case by
 Atlanta.
           ``Georgia had no problem with it,'' Foster said while speaking
 to a civic club in Baton Rouge. ``And we, in Louisiana, believe in
 2nd Amendment rights.''
           New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial criticized Foster's decision,
 saying the bill ``is a sad sellout to the money and power of the
 gun lobby.''
           The bill's sponsor is Rep. Steve Scalise, who plans to run for
 the seat of outgoing U.S. Rep. Bob Livingston. He said the goal is
 to protect gun store owners from the cost of defending lawsuits.
           ``It's the criminals, not the small businesses, that must accept
 responsibility when they pull the trigger,'' Scalise said.
           Foster's announcement came a day after Morial suspended a
 controversial gun swap deal between New Orleans and Glock Inc.
           Instead of paying $630,300 for 1,700 new pistols, New Orleans
 agreed to give the Smyrna, Ga.-based company old police pistols and
 thousands of confiscated guns.
           Morial suspended the contract, citing reports that some of the
 weapons may have resurfaced in Louisiana, which would violate the
 contract.




-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Is this true or rumor
Date: 11 Feb 1999 10:30:39 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:14:36 -0700
Received: from www55.linkexchange.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA28217; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:59:15 -0700
Received: (qmail 13029 invoked by uid 100); 11 Feb 1999 16:11:05 -0000
Mailing-List: ListBot mailing list contact [e-mail]
Delivered-To: mailing list [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 10924 invoked from network); 11 Feb 1999 16:09:39 -0000
Received: from smtp1.gte.net (207.115.153.30)
  by www61.linkexchange.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 1999 16:09:39 -0000
Received: from gmann.AUBURNDALE ([199.227.246.130])
    by smtp1.gte.net  with SMTP id KAA21053
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:09:08 -0600 (CST)
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <001301be55d9$1abb4fa0$[e-mail]>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Member Council of Tampa Bay - http://home.tampabay.rr.com/membercouncil


Is this true or rumor

BUFFALO NY FEDERAL GRAND JURY SUBPOENA FFL'S IN KENTUCKY FOR
>RECORDS OF ALL SALES....
>
>
>
>[This is happening in the Louisville and Lexington area's, and who knows
>where else too.]
>
>     I have in my sweaty little fist, a fax copy of a subpoena,
>delivered last week to a Louisville FFL gun dealer. It is one of many =
which
>were served
>to dealers in the Louisville area. (Since I will explain soon why YOU =
might
>be in grave danger from this, you might want to contact your favorite
>dealer, to see if HE got one of these, too!)
>    This subpoena is genuine - I've seen a few of them in my life!   The
>subpoena is for a Federal Grand Jury, in Buffalo, NY, convening February
>10, 1999. It is issued by United States Attorney Denise E. O'Donnell, of
>the Western District of New York, with the Assistant U.S. Attorney (and
>writer of the subpoena) listed as Kathleen M. Mehltretter. Issued
>January 6, 1999, it is for an appearance in that court, in Buffalo, to
produce
>the following materials:
>      (1) Every sale, trade, or other transaction to any person or
>      entity since January 1, 1991 which involves any weapon that is
>      capable
>      of firing ammunition 7.62 x 39 mm.; and
>      (2) Every sale made to any of the below listed persons since
>      January 1, 1991:
>      (I will omit the list of names. There appears to be only three
>       individuals,
>      though the list includes what could be aliases for each.)
>      (In handwriting attached is the note: "copies of 4473")
>      What this is, folks, is a request for evidence that someone listed
>         here came into possession of a gun chambered for 7.62 x 39,
possibly
>sold
>       at retail by an FFL in Louisville between January 1, 1991, and
>       now.  Now, herein is my problem with this: In the first request, =
it
>       states
>
>"EVERY sale, trade or other transaction to ANY PERSON OR ENTITY..."!!!
>Do you REALIZE what this requests? It is a COMPLETE listing of sales
>and transactions of SKS, AK-type, Ruger, Thompson-Center, etc., sold to
>ANYONE during this time period!!! NOT just the sought parties, who are
>obviously the subject of a criminal investigation, but also HUNDREDS,
>maybe THOUSANDS of law-abiding citizens who have lawfully acquired or
>traded the same type of LAWFUL firearm, through a duly licensed FFL,
>when they actually thought the United States Treasury and Justice Depts
>really WOULD refrain from establishing lists of those lawful
>transfers!!!
>     It was said to at least one party served with this subpoena, when
>he
>
>asked (FBI) what they intended to do with these list, that they (FBI)
>intended to contact EVERY PERSON ON THAT LIST to see if they still had =
that
>weapon, or if not, to whom and when they disposed of it!!! A FORWARD
>TRACE to seek out what weapons you own, based on the 4473 YOU
>thought could NOT be used for that purpose!
>     Now folks, I AM a "little" paranoid these days, I admit! But, I was
>NOT born yesterday, and, I've had WAY too many undesirable contacts with
the
>many-headed snakes of the Treasury Department to believe there will not
>be VOLUMES of abuse during this! And, I believe fully, that at the
>direction of Janet Reno, on behalf of Bill Clinton, this type of illegal
>forward
>trace and "ROUNDUP OF VIOLATORS" will become as commonplace as the
>winter flu! Look at it this way: You bought an SKS 6 or 7 years ago. You
>played with it, shot up a bunch of that neat cheap ammo, then got bored
>with it's lack of luster and accuracy, and swapped it for a cheap .22
>rifle for the kid. You did it at a gun show, and for the life of you, =
never
>even
>WANTED to know the name of the person with whom you traded. NOW,
>the FBI wants YOUR ass in "Club Fed", because YOU can't prove where
>your Charlie Trie provided "assault rifle" went! Scene 2: The FBI comes
>to your door with a warrant, and wants to see your SKS. No problem for =
you
>-
>
>you've got it right in the gun case here. You nervously provide it for
>the
>impatient mobsters at your door. They know you bought it after September
>13, 1994 - they have the 4473 from your FFL. They examine it well enough
>to know that you have added a fixed 30 round magazine, replaced the
>missing bayonet, and added one of those spiffy folding stocks.
>     YOU, mister, are GOING TO CLUB FED!!! YOU have created a dreaded
>"Assault Rifle", illegally, in violation of Federal LAW! Congratulations
>once-honest citizen - you just won an all-expenses paid trip for one to a
>Federal Pen, for 10 years! And your property has just been seized from
right
>under your wife and kids! It's starting folks.
>     Don't shoot me - I'm only the messenger! THIS IS REAL! Call Ms.
>Mehltretter at [phone] if you don't believe it, and ask about
>File
>No.:
>1998R00907!
>     Better yet, once you find out about this - I suggest CALLING your
>Congressmen (ALL of them from your state!) and your Senators to register
>YOUR COMPLETE disgust at the breadth of this request! Make them
>contact the U.S. Attorney Ms. O'Donnell, to make HER EXPLAIN why they
>need all THIS information about persons NOT being investigated by this
>Grand Jury! Make the U.S. Attorney EXPLAIN "WHY" they need this
>information, and just "WHAT" they intend to do with it!
>     This crap HAS to be stopped NOW! IF we can't catch it now, within
>two years (the remaining time with Sick Willie and his dysfunctional =
pukes
>incharge!) you will wish you lived in Russia during the time of Stalin.
>      Just Plain Old Craig Palmer, acting entirely alone... "If we wish
>tomake
>democracy permanent in this country, let us abide by the fundamental
>princi-ples laid down in the Constitution. Let us see that the State is =
the
>servant of the people, and that the people are not the servants of the
State."


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, write to [e-mail]
Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Concealed Guns Will Still Go to Church, School
Date: 11 Feb 1999 17:01:43 -0700

Just the world council of churches the LDS church does not belong.
Larry

-----Original Message-----
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>


>Thanks, Scott!
>
>The Coalition of Religious Communities claims to represent "most major
>faiths in Utah", so I'd assume someone from the LDS Church is a member.  In
>my opinion, their representative epitomizes the very absence of religious
>values.  She's arrogant, unwilling to discuss other points of view, knows
>EXACTLY what everyone else "should" do, and presumes that she is the final
>arbiter of what constitutes "proper" worship.  She even went to far as to
>imply that for children to see their parents carrying firearms constituted
>some sort of "child abuse".
>
>What hasn't been published (nor will it ever be) is the tone of the
>dialogue at the hearing.  The anti-gun people were unanimous that gun
>owners are some sort of "vermin" who should not be allowed to participate
>in civilized society.  "We don't want _those_ people in places like schools
>or churches" sort of nonsense.  It sure sounded like "hate speech" to me.
>
>Personally, I'm sick of it.  I'm tired of being treated like a cockroach
>when I'm a law abiding citizen who takes responsibility for myself and my
>family.  I DO belong in schools, my synagogue, and even the Olympics.  I'm
>certainly more law-abiding than the members of the IOC/SLOC - and they get
>bodyguards.
>
>I think it's time we all get off the back of the bus and just say NO to gun
>control.
>
>Sarah
>
>At 11:20 AM 2/10/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>Notice that, like on Elder Jensen's interview where he called
>>for a multi-party system but Dan Harrie changed that to allege
>>support for the "two-party system", Dan Harrie continues to lie.
>>He knows quite well that homeowners and church officials have
>>full authority to ban anything they like from their premises,
>>and that this bill would instead ban guns from homes and churches
>>unless both the gun and home/meetinghouse owners jump through
>>numerous hoops in advance. He also spins the polls by not
>>accurately reporting the questions asked and the responses
>>given.
>>
>>Notice also that iodine-grabber LaMont Tyler was the sole
>>Republican voting for this bill, and that Dave Jones openly
>>admits he is not concerned about crimes of violence in churches
>>and schools. Perhaps these five scoundrels (the three Democrats
>>on the Committee in addition to Tyler and Jones) actually favor
>>them? Kudos to the eight decent members of the House Judiciary
>>Committee.
>>
>>BTW, what is "the Coalition of Religious Communities"?
>>Is the LDS Corporation of the President on it?
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>http://www.sltrib.com/02101999/politics/politics.htm
>>
>>Utah Politics
>>Concealed Guns Will Still Go to Church, School
>>
>>BY DAN HARRIE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
>>
>>Utah lawmakers on Tuesday rejected public opinion polls and defeated a
>>bill that would ban concealed weapons from schools and churches and give
>>homeowners and Olympic venues clear authority to prohibit firearms.
>>
>>"We have a responsibility to not do just what is popular at the moment
>>but to push principles that are wise and just," said Rep. John Swallow,
>>R-Sandy.
>>
>>Swallow joined with seven other members of the House Judiciary Committee
>>to defeat House Bill 92 on a 8-4 vote. All three Democrats on the
>>committee and Republican Rep. LaMont Tyler, chairman of the panel, voted
>>for the measure.
>>
>>Polls have consistently shown the majority of Utahns favor prohibiting
>>firearms from schools and churches.
>>
>>Supporting the bill sponsored by Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake
>>City, was Republican Gov. Mike Leavitt, the Utah PTA, the Coalition of
>>Religious Communities and the state Commission on Criminal and Juvenile
>>Justice.
>>
>>But gun-rights proponents clearly had the numbers at Tuesday's public
>>hearing, with more than 100 people jammed into the Capitol room and
>>spilling out into the hallway.
>>
>>"Not one child will be safer because of this bill," insisted Rob Bishop,
>>gun lobbyist and chairman of the Utah Republican Party. "You may feel
>>warm and fuzzy inside, but it doesn't solve the problem" of violence in
>>schools or other places.
>>
>>Retired Salt Lake City police Lt. Dennis Tueller called it "foolishness"
>>to prohibit legally licensed concealed firearms in schools and churches.
>>
>>"We're giving the predators in society a better target zone for them
>>to attack," Tueller said.
>>
>>But sponsor Jones countered that his measure did not seek to eliminate
>>the right to carry concealed weapons, just to impose some modest
>>restrictions.
>>
>>"There are some places that guns just don't need to be," Jones said.
>>"I don't believe guns belong in schools."
>>
>>Jones said the main purpose of his proposal was to prevent accidental
>>shootings, not crimes of violence.
>>
>>Gun-rights advocates repeatedly have challenged those in favor of
>>restrictions to point out any examples of injuries or death caused
>>by Utah's approximately 22,000 licensed concealed-weapons carriers.
>>
>>Utah PTA lobbyist Paula Plant recounted several instances where
>>concealed weapons had caused safety concerns in schools.
>>
>>In one case, a substitute teacher took out his concealed weapon and
>>showed it to his class, Plant said. Another time, a parent carrying
>>a concealed weapon displayed the gun to a teacher during a conference
>>and suggested the teacher should act in a certain way.
>>
>>"Those kinds of situations do not make children feel safe in school,"
>>said Plant, and she questioned the training of concealed-permit holders.
>>
>>Linda Hilton, director of the Coalition of Religious Communities, evoked
>>morality in her pleas to keep guns out of churches.
>>
>>"It is morally the right thing for you to do," Hilton said. "Bringing a
>>weapon into a holy and sacred place violates everything that a holy and
>>sacred place stands for."
>>
>>Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune
>
>
>-
>
>


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Dan Harrie lies again!
Date: 11 Feb 1999 07:15:00 -0700


Notice that, like on Elder Jensen's interview where he called
for a multi-party system but Dan Harrie changed that to allege
support for the "two-party system", Dan Harrie continues to lie.
He knows quite well that homeowners and church officials have
full authority to ban anything they like from their premises,
and that this bill would instead ban guns from homes and churches
unless both the gun and home/meetinghouse owners jump through
numerous hoops in advance. He also spins the polls by not
accurately reporting the questions asked and the responses
given.

Notice also that iodine-grabber LaMont Tyler was the sole
Republican voting for this bill, and that Dave Jones openly
admits he is not concerned about crimes of violence in churches
and schools. Perhaps these five scoundrels (the three Democrats
on the Committee in addition to Tyler and Jones) actually favor
them? Kudos to the eight decent members of the House Judiciary
Committee.

BTW, what is "the Coalition of Religious Communities"?
Is the LDS Corporation of the President on it?

Scott

http://www.sltrib.com/02101999/politics/politics.htm

Utah Politics
Concealed Guns Will Still Go to Church, School

BY DAN HARRIE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

Utah lawmakers on Tuesday rejected public opinion polls and defeated a
bill that would ban concealed weapons from schools and churches and give
homeowners and Olympic venues clear authority to prohibit firearms.

"We have a responsibility to not do just what is popular at the moment
but to push principles that are wise and just," said Rep. John Swallow,
R-Sandy.

Swallow joined with seven other members of the House Judiciary Committee
to defeat House Bill 92 on a 8-4 vote. All three Democrats on the
committee and Republican Rep. LaMont Tyler, chairman of the panel, voted
for the measure.

Polls have consistently shown the majority of Utahns favor prohibiting
firearms from schools and churches.

Supporting the bill sponsored by Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake
City, was Republican Gov. Mike Leavitt, the Utah PTA, the Coalition of
Religious Communities and the state Commission on Criminal and Juvenile
Justice.

But gun-rights proponents clearly had the numbers at Tuesday's public
hearing, with more than 100 people jammed into the Capitol room and
spilling out into the hallway.

"Not one child will be safer because of this bill," insisted Rob Bishop,
gun lobbyist and chairman of the Utah Republican Party. "You may feel
warm and fuzzy inside, but it doesn't solve the problem" of violence in
schools or other places.

Retired Salt Lake City police Lt. Dennis Tueller called it "foolishness"
to prohibit legally licensed concealed firearms in schools and churches.

"We're giving the predators in society a better target zone for them
to attack," Tueller said.

But sponsor Jones countered that his measure did not seek to eliminate
the right to carry concealed weapons, just to impose some modest
restrictions.

"There are some places that guns just don't need to be," Jones said.
"I don't believe guns belong in schools."

Jones said the main purpose of his proposal was to prevent accidental
shootings, not crimes of violence.

Gun-rights advocates repeatedly have challenged those in favor of
restrictions to point out any examples of injuries or death caused
by Utah's approximately 22,000 licensed concealed-weapons carriers.

Utah PTA lobbyist Paula Plant recounted several instances where
concealed weapons had caused safety concerns in schools.

In one case, a substitute teacher took out his concealed weapon and
showed it to his class, Plant said. Another time, a parent carrying
a concealed weapon displayed the gun to a teacher during a conference
and suggested the teacher should act in a certain way.

"Those kinds of situations do not make children feel safe in school,"
said Plant, and she questioned the training of concealed-permit holders.

Linda Hilton, director of the Coalition of Religious Communities, evoked
morality in her pleas to keep guns out of churches.

"It is morally the right thing for you to do," Hilton said. "Bringing a
weapon into a holy and sacred place violates everything that a holy and
sacred place stands for."

Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: ALERT!!! TIME TO KILL SB 122!!!
Date: 11 Feb 1999 07:15:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

Now that HB 92 is dead, it's time to kill its evil twin.

----------
TIME TO KILL SB 122!!!

Ok, folks, Waddoups will not completely destroy the bill and it may come up
as early as THIS Friday.  We hope the rest of the Senate and House will
hear the voice of Utahns.  Let's move on a quick education campaign.
Quietly, convincingly, and firmly engage your Senator and Representative in
dialogue and attempt to bring him to our side.  We now need to:

(1) Blitz the ENTIRE SENATE AND HOUSE with e-mail messages (addresses
below).  Tell them to look out for -- and vote no on -- SB 122.  Keep in
mind that this bill will probably pass the Senate.  The true battle will
likely be in the House;

(2) Make personal phone calls, e-mails, faxes, letters, and visits to YOUR
SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE (numbers below).  Attempt to engage them as
meaningfully and as often as you can;

(3) Press the Senate Energy, Natural Resources and Agriculture committee
members with additional e-mails.  These people tend to fall in the
leftist-elitist category and might best be approached with arguments that
center on their pride.  For instance, the Olympic Commander will not have
much in the way of legislative oversight:

[e-mail] (Beverly Ann Evans)
[e-mail] (Leonard Blackham)
[e-mail] (Joseph Hull)
[e-mail] (Millie Peterson)
[e-mail] (Lorin Jones)


Remember, we don't deserve to be treated like criminals or second class
citizens -- we are law-abiding Utahns.  In Utah's history of concealed
weapons permits, not one concealed weapons permit holder has EVER committed
a violent crime.  NOT ONE.  We don't need an Olympic Commander to lord over
us and our legislature, we don't need gun control, and we don't need SB 122.

DO NOT PROCRASTINATE!  Start now and do something every day until this bill
is dead!


House Address:
Senate phone: [phone]
Senate fax: [phone]
House phone: [phone]
House fax: [phone]


HOUSE
[e-mail] (Gerry Adair)
[e-mail] (Jeff Alexander)
[e-mail] (Sheryl Allen)
[e-mail] (Eli Anderson)
[e-mail] (Patrice Arent)
[e-mail] (Loretta Baca)
[e-mail] (Trisha Beck)
[e-mail] (Ralph Becker)
[e-mail] (Chad Bennion)
[e-mail] (Ron Bigelow)
[e-mail] (Jackie Biskupski)
[e-mail] (Duane Bourdeaux)
[e-mail] (DeMar Bowman)
[e-mail] (Afton Bradshaw)
[e-mail] (Mel Brown)
[e-mail] (Katherine Bryson)
[e-mail] (Perry Buckner)
[e-mail] (Judy Buffmire)
[e-mail] (Don Bush)
[e-mail] (Craig Buttars)
[e-mail] (Mary Carlson)
[e-mail] (Blake Chard)
[e-mail] (David N. Cox)
[e-mail] (Gary Cox)
[e-mail] (Greg Curtis)
[e-mail] (Margaret Dayton)
[e-mail] (Marda Dillree)
[e-mail] (Carl W. Duckworth)
[e-mail] (Ben C. Ferry)
[e-mail] (Fred J. Fife)
[e-mail] (Lloyd Frandsen)
[e-mail] (Kevin Garn)
[e-mail] (David Gladwell)
[e-mail] (Brent Goodfellow)
[e-mail] (James Gowans)
[e-mail] (Neil A. Hansen)
[e-mail] (Wayne Harper)
[e-mail] (Thomas Hatch)
[e-mail] (Neal Hendrickson)
[e-mail] (Bill Hickman)
[e-mail] (Dave Hogue)
[e-mail] (Kory M. Holdaway)
[e-mail] (Bryan Holladay)
[e-mail] (Dennis Iverson)
[e-mail] (Bradley Johnson)
[e-mail] (Keele Johnson)
[e-mail] (David Jones)
[e-mail] (Brad King)
[e-mail] (Susan Koehn)
[e-mail] (Becky Lockhart)
[e-mail] (Karen W. Morgan)
[e-mail] (Joseph Murray)
[e-mail] (Lowell Nelson)
[e-mail] (Loraine Pace)
[e-mail] (Tammy Rowan)
[e-mail] (Carl Saunders)
[e-mail] (Jack Seitz)
[e-mail] (Ray Short)
[e-mail] (Lou Shurtliff)
[e-mail] (Richard Siddoway)
[e-mail] (Gordon Snow)
[e-mail] (Marlon O. Snow)
[e-mail] (Martin Stephens)
[e-mail] (Nora Stephens)
[e-mail] (Michael Styler)
[e-mail] (John Swallow)
[e-mail] (Jordan Tanner)
[e-mail] (Matt Throckmorton)
[e-mail] (Lamont Tyler)
[e-mail] (David Ure)
[e-mail] (Richard Walsh)
[e-mail] (Glenn Way)
[e-mail] (Bill Wright)
[e-mail] (David Zolman)


SENATE
[e-mail] (Edgar Allen)
[e-mail] (Ron Allen)
[e-mail] (Lane Beattie)
[e-mail] (Leonard Blackham)
[e-mail] (Gene Davis)
[e-mail] (Mike Dmitrich)
[e-mail] (Beverly Ann Evans)
[e-mail] (Mont Evans)
[e-mail] (Karen Hale)
[e-mail] (Parley G. Hellewell)
[e-mail] (Lyle Hillyard)
[e-mail] (Scott Howell)
[e-mail] (Joseph Hull)
[e-mail] (Lorin Jones)
[e-mail] (Paula F. Julander)
[e-mail] (Peter C. Knudson)
[e-mail] (Al Mansell)
[e-mail] (Ed Mayne)
[e-mail] (Robert Montgomery)
[e-mail] (Robert Muhlestein)
[e-mail] (Howard Nielson)
[e-mail] (Millie Peterson)
[e-mail] (Steven Poulton)
[e-mail] (Terry Spencer)
[e-mail] (David Steele)
[e-mail] (Howard Stephenson)
[e-mail] (Pete Suazo)
[e-mail] (John Valentine)
[e-mail] (Michael Waddoups)




-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: Concealed Guns Will Still Go to Church, School
Date: 11 Feb 1999 07:15:00 -0700


On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:54:29 -0700 S. Thompson replied:

> The Coalition of Religious Communities claims to represent "most major
> faiths in Utah", so I'd assume someone from the LDS Church is a member.

I'll call them and the Church to ask. If anyone already knows or
beats me to it, please copy to [e-mail]. The
Coalition of Religious Communities is located at 347 S. 400 East,
364-7765. From what I gather, 16 denominations in Utah are
represented, among which are the Christ United Methodist Church
at 2375 E. 3300 South, the Park City Community Church, and Our
Saviour's Lutheran Church at 2500 E. 3900 South.

> I DO belong in ... my synagogue.

What is your synagogue's (the officials', since buildings don't have
attitudes) view towards worshippers being armed, and these bills, and
is it or a parent body a member of the Coalition?

Scott



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Text for GOUtah! Leg alert #4 for 10 Feb 1999 1/2
Date: 12 Feb 1999 06:02:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah

Utah's Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No
Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever.

Today's Maxim of Liberty:

What we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly - 'tis dearness that gives
everything its value.

-Thomas Paine

In order to better serve the Utah firearms owner, we're revising our
GOUtah! legislative alert format. Beginning with this issue, we'll be
giving you a shorter daily update of the changes in status, committee
hearing and floor votes scheduled and action required on time-critical
bills and issues. At the end of every week we'll provide you with a full
review of the past week's events, status of all bills being monitored and
a preview of what to expect in the coming week. We ll also hold our major
policy and support materials for the week-in-review issues. This will
help us cut down on the transmission time for our fax alerts, which is
taking nearly 20 hours each day due to the large volume of subscribers.

We are also working on establishing a website for GOUtah!, which you will
be able to access anytime day on night to get the latest updates and to
get back issues of these alerts and other important information on
firearms freedom in Utah. We'll keep you posted!

If you wish to continue to receive this information under the GOUtah!
banner, you need to do nothing. If you wish to be added to or taken off
the GOUtah! list, please send an e-mail to [e-mail] or send a
fax to [phone] asking to be added to or removed from the GOUtah!
list. If you wish to forward or share this copyrighted information with
others, you are welcome to do so, on the condition that you pass along
the entire document intact and unmodified, and that GOUtah! is clearly
indicated as the original source of the material.

Thank you. Now, let's all get to work! Our rights and freedoms need to
be protected today!

GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #4- 10 Feb.1999

Utah State Legislature

You may reach your Utah State Legislator at the following numbers:

Utah House of Representatives: Phone [phone] or Fax [phone]
Utah State Senate: Phone [phone] or Fax [phone]
Utah State Legislature Website: www.le.state.ut.us

The Utah State Legislature is now in session and considering the
following gun-related bills:

Utah State House of Representatives

HB 92 - Weapons and Explosives Restrictions on Private Property,
Schools Churches and Olympic Venues.- Rep. David Jones (D-Dist. 25)

Recommended Position: Strongest Possible Opposition

Status: Tabled in hearing before the House Judiciary Committee- Next
Committee meeting 8:00AM Thursday 11 February 1999 in Room 223 of the
Utah State Capitol.

Action Required: Contact your Utah State Representative at [phone]
or by E-mail asking them to STRONGLY OPPOSE any further restrictions as
to place, time or circumstances on the ability of Utah's gun owners or
CCW holders to possess firearms for any lawful purposes.

STATUS UPDATE AS OF NOON 9 FEB 1999: Due in great part to your combined
efforts, in the House Judiciary Committee hearing of 9 February 1999, HB
92 was tabled on a vote of 7 to 4. Reported as voting against our position
and in favor of moving the bill out of committee were Reps. Gary Cox, Neal
Hendrickson, Patrice Arent and Lamont Tyler. Making the motion to table
the bill was Rep. Bill Hickman.

This means HB 92 is in 'limbo,' and it will appear on the future Judiciary
Committee agendas. There it will remain like a smoldering bomb until it is
sent back to Rules Committee or lifted from the table by a 2/3rds vote of
the committee and either defeated or passed out of the House Judiciary
Committee. This action means after all the crowds leave, committee members
may act out of the glare of the public and media spotlight. Only one other
bill is on the Judiciary Committee's agenda for their next meeting on
Thursday, 11 February 1999 8:00AM in Room 223 at the Capitol. This one
could blow up again at any time.

IT IS CRITICAL THAT EVERYONE IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE FOLLOWING HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Reps. Glenn Way, Chad Bennion, Katherine
Bryson, Greg Curtis, Bill Hickman, Marty Stephens, John Swallow to THANK
THEM FOR THEIR SUPPORT in tabling this bill and GETTING THEIR FIRM PROMISE
TO VOTE AGAINST ANY ATTEMPT TO LIFT THE BILL FROM THE TABLE OR PASS IT OUT
TO THE HOUSE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. This is the most critical and
dangerous gun bill before the Utah Legislature at this time. YOU MUST ALL
ACT IMMEDIATELY TO PREVENT THIS BILL FROM GOING ANY FURTHER! The opposition
and the media will be out in force stumping for this bill, so you must
counter that effort with an even stronger effort of your own.

Utah House of Representatives: Phone [phone] or Fax [phone]

Email Addresses of House Judiciary Committee Members:

[e-mail] (Bill Hickman) [e-mail] (Chad
Bennion) [e-mail] (Greg Curtis) [e-mail]
(Katherine Bryson) [e-mail] (Martin Stephens)
[e-mail] (John Swallow) [e-mail] (Glenn Way)

This bill would create an open-ended list of prohibited locations and
situations for firearms possession at schools, churches and in any private
residence, including by valid Utah CCW holders. Violation would be a class
'C' misdemeanor. These prohibitions would be permanent. Also allows Director
of Utah DPS to declare any Olympic venue or site a 'controlled access area'
which prohibits all firearm possession by anyone including valid Utah CCW
holders. Violation would be a 3rd degree felony. Bill would become effective
upon the Governor's signature and Olympic provisions won't sunset until end
of year 2002, some 10 months after the Olympics close. Intent is clearly to
destroy current Utah CCW permit program and with it your rights of
self-defense.

Points to make with Legislators include: Utah CCW holders and lawful
firearms owners are not a threat to themselves or the public and have
behaved in an exemplary manner. If we trust school teachers and school
staff with the education of our children, we should be able to trust them
to be safe and responsible if they choose to possess a firearm for lawful
self-defense. If a church wishes to prohibit their members from possession
of a firearm as a condition of membership, they may do so, but such
prohibition is not binding on non-members and is not a matter of civil or
criminal law. Restrictions on self defense and possession of an instrument
thereof do not emerge from or attach to ownership or control of property,
and would create an unworkable nightmare of restricted areas and locations.
No property owner has the right to endanger your safety or restrict your
ability to protect yourself. Utah's CCW holders are not now and will not
be a security risk to the athletes, officials or spectators of the 2002
Olympics. Olympic organizers reportedly will provide some 3500 private
bodyguards to Olympic VIP s, but seek to deny you the same ability to
protect yourself and your family. You re getting stuck with the Winter
Olympic hassle and the tax bill, so don t let your gun rights go down
the tube as well.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: Concealed Guns Will Still Go to Church, School
Date: 12 Feb 1999 06:02:00 -0700


On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:54:29 -0700 S. Thompson replied:

> The Coalition of Religious Communities claims to represent "most major
> faiths in Utah", so I'd assume someone from the LDS Church is a member.

The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints isn't a member of the Coalition of Religious Communities.

Scott



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Text for GOUtah! Leg alert #4 for 10 Feb 1999 2/2
Date: 12 Feb 1999 06:02:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
HB 237 - Department of Public Safety Fee Consolidation - Rep. Blake Chard
(R-Dist. 15)

Recommended Position: Strong Opposition

Status: Passed House Committee and is on House Floor for Floor Vote.
Floor amendments are expected and could reinstate or even increase these
fees. This bill must be defeated.

Action Required: Contact your Utah State Representative at [phone]
or by E-mail asking them to OPPOSE any shift in firearms permit fee
setting authority from the Legislature to any executive branch of
government, including DPS.

This bill gives full authority to the Utah Department of Public Safety to
set numerous fees and create new fees for their services including Brady
background checks and CCW permit applications and renewals. Amendments
offered have reduced proposed initial fee increases from $15.00 back to
$7.50 for Brady, from $50.00 back to $35.00 for a CCW application, and from
$25.00 to $15.00 for CCW renewals. DPS may create new fees including $10.00
for a replacement permit and $7.50 for a late renewal fee.

The basic problem remains that DPS may increase fees at a whim by
administrative rule, and give all authority in this area to an un-elected
bureaucracy. Information from DPS suggests these fees and proposed fee
increases cannot be justified based on their costs, and the potential for
raising such fees to an abusive, punitive of prohibitive level to discourage
retail firearms purchase or lawful carrying of a firearm for self-defense by
Utah citizens is very high. Raising these fees could mean only the rich may
afford to purchase or carry a firearm. All oversight of such fee structures
and use fees must be kept under the authority of the State Legislature and
their normal budgetary and fiscal oversight.

Utah State Senate

SB 122 - Controlled Access Areas in Olympic Venues - Sen. Mike Waddoups
(R-Dist 6)

Recommended Position: Strong Opposition

Status: Senate Energy, Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee. The
bill will be heard on Friday 12 February 1999, at 8:00 AM in Room 414 of
the State Capitol.

Action Required: Action Required: Contact your Utah State Senator TODAY at
[phone] or by E-Mail and ask them to OPPOSE this bill. Also contact
the members of the Senate Energy, Natural Resources and Agriculture
Committee.: Senators Beverly Evans, Leonard Blackham, Lorin Jones, Joseph
Hull, Millie Peterson. and ask them to oppose the bill in committee.

Senate Email addresses for Senate Energy, Natural Resources and Agriculture
Committee. include:

[e-mail] (Beverly Ann Evans) [e-mail] (Leonard
Blackham) [e-mail] (Joseph Hull) [e-mail] (Millie
Peterson) [e-mail] (Lorin Jones)

Language is virtually identical to David Jones' HB 91 with regard to
restricting Olympic venues. (See comments on HB 91) In light of the
ongoing corruption now becoming apparent among IOC, USOC and SLOC
officials and politicians, it is unthinkable that Utah's finest citizens,
after demonstrating a lifetime of responsible moral and ethical behavior
should be stripped of their right and ability to defend themselves.

Several other local 'gun rights' groups, as reported in the mainstream
press, appear to be endorsing or supporting this bill, or offering only
marginal resistance. There are some reports of attempts by some 'gun
rights' groups to rewrite the bill, but all attempts seem to embrace the
concept that CCW holders are some sort of security risk and must be banned
from the Olympic venues. GoUtah! finds this concept unacceptable and will
not be a party to this compromise language or embrace the concept of CCW
holders as a high risk group in any manner. If you personally think you
shouldn't be lawfully carrying a firearm at an Olympic event, that's your
choice, but don t presume to make that decision for someone else.

SB 204 - Items Prohibited in Correctional Facilities - Sen. Mike Waddoups
(R-Dist 6)

Recommended Position: Strong Opposition

Status: Passed by Unanamous vote of the Senate Transportation and Public
Safety Committee on Wednesday, 10 February 1999. The bill now goes before
the entire Senate on a "fast-track" via the Consent Calender.

Action Required: Contact your Utah State Senator TODAY at [phone]
or by E-Mail and ask them to OPPOSE this bill.

This bill would further weaken the existing 'secure facilities' law by
allowing any location or facility serving or contracting with any
Corrections agency to ban CCW of other legal firearms on or near their
grounds, including shared parking areas, sidewalks and other public access
settings. These facilities could include treatment centers for substance
abusers, halfway houses or other residential settings, private correctional
facilities, juvenile offender foster care homes and other similar settings.
Also potentially included are properties set aside for state or local
correctional facilities, including future sites. Imagine breaking the law
for pheasant hunting for entering onto state or county property that is set
aside for a future jail that won't be built for 10 years!

Existing secure facilities laws are currently adequate, and if these
settings need to be secure areas, they must comply with current secure
facilities laws and conditions. This bill must be opposed and defeated.


The GOUtah! Political Scoreboard for 10 Feb. 1999

Won: HB 26 - Withdrawn by Sponsor

Pending Win: HB 92 - Tabled in House Judiciary Committee 9 Feb 1999

Pending Loss: SB 91 - Passed Both House and Senate and Enrolled for Gov's
Signature.

Lost: None as yet.

That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #3 for 9 Feb.
1999. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending
your firearms rights. We will have more information for you throughout the
Utah Legislative Session.

Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless YOU ACT ON IT
TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights, and
the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it. Get involved,
get active and get vocal!

Gavin Wallace Blue '96 R1100RTL


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: gun maker liability jury trial fiasco
Date: 12 Feb 1999 06:02:00 -0700


Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:

>NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal jury found several gun makers
>liable Thursday in seven New York City-area shootings
>because of negligent marketing practices.  Other
>manufacturers were cleared.

NPR reported today before the verdict that there was one
juror holding out for acquittal in what NPR termed an
attempt at jury nullification.  The independent thinker was
reportedly concerned that a decision against gun makers
would set a bad precedent.  According to NPR, other jurors
reported this non-conformance to the judge, and asked that
the troublesome juror be removed.  The judge instructed the
jurors that they may not judge the law, and must find
according to the directions he had given them.

Steve Washam
to the best of his fuzzy memory




-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Concealed Guns Will Still Go to Church, School
Date: 12 Feb 1999 17:59:17 -0700

At 07:15 AM 2/11/99 -0700, you wrote:

>> I DO belong in ... my synagogue.
>
>What is your synagogue's (the officials', since buildings don't have
>attitudes) view towards worshippers being armed, and these bills, and
>is it or a parent body a member of the Coalition?

I honestly don't have hard answers to your questions.  No one's ever
brought up the subject of worshippers being armed.  I did once ask if there
was anything in Jewish religious law that would prohibit a Jew from
carrying firearms, or if such behavior would be considered incorrect, and
was told that no such prohibitions exist.

While I wasn't even aware of the Coalition until a couple of days ago, I'd
be extremely surprised if my synagogue were a member of it.  Synagogues are
much more autonomous than LDS churches, so it's entirely possible that some
Jewish synagogues or organizations are members, although I certainly hope
not! <g>

Sarah

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SB 122 - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Date: 13 Feb 1999 00:08:55 -0700

As most of you know, SB 122 (Olympic Gun Control) was heard by the Energy,
Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee this morning.

Sen. Waddoups presented a substitute bill immediately before the hearing,
so no one got more than about 5 minutes to look at it, and most never even
saw it.  Obviously no one read it carefully.  While this is unfortunate,
apparently final language wasn't completed until last night.

The bill has been almost completely rewritten.  Substantive changes:
1. Adds that "the division" (DPS or BCI) may not deny suspend or revoke a
concealed firearm permit solely for a single conviction for an infraction
violation of 76-10-5."  This sounds like it protects CCW holders from
having their permits revoked for infractions, but I have problems with the
"may not" which I think should read "shall not".  Otherwise it's still at
the discretion of BCI.   (Any legal experts out there?)
2.  Limits the Olympics section of the bill to "between Jan 25, 2002 and
April 1, 2002.
3.  The "Olympic Commander" language remains.
4.  It does not define Olympic venue "secure areas", but does require that
they be marked, and have clearly marked entrances with metal detectors.
5.  Provides that the Commander MAY provide secure weapons storage areas.
This is worthless, unless the language is changed to SHALL provide.
6.  Requires that the state shall assume liability "for any injury where an
individual can establish that: if a person licensed to carry a concealed
fireams had been able to access the concealed firearm, the injury would not
have occurred to the individual or others."  This does NOT include
liability for improper or negligent actions on the part of Olympic security.
7.  Penalty is a class B misdemeanor if it involves a firearm "knowingly or
intentionally" transported.  This would appear to protect someone who
simply forgot he was carrying, although I suspect he could still be
prosecuted.  Woody Powell says this should be changed to "knowingly AND
intentionally".
8.  SURPRISE!  Churches and private residences are back.  The new SB 122
provides that a "person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed
firearm after having received notice that firearms are prohibited, may not
knowingly and intentionally transport a firearms into a house of worship or
a private residence.  Notice can be verbal or by posting a sign.  Violation
is an infraction.

Discussion:
1. If the "may not" language is changed to "shall not", this would benefit
gun owners since current law a CCW permit may be suspended for an infraction.
2.  The limits are acceptable, assuming one believes a gun ban is acceptable.
3.  The Olympic Commander is Craig Dearden, Commissioner of Public Safety.
I believe Commissioner Dearden is an honorable man.  However, this is too
much power to invest in one person, especially since he may be subject to
pressure from the many federal agencies involved.
4.  This needs to be clarified to require clearly visible boundaries, i.e
building walls, fences, etc.  It would also theoretically be possible to
fence off public areas (such as the Gallivan Center) and declare them
"secure facilities".  While I have no reason to believe this WILL be done,
the law needs to be tightened.
5.  "May provide" is nonsense.  It's like saying you "may" pay your taxes
if you so choose.  SLOC says they will not provide safe storage because it
"costs money" and they can't afford it.  Considering what's being spent on
the Olympics, this is a rather lame excuse.  Also, there is no requirement
that the secure storage be in reasonable proximity to the event or the
entrance.
6.  Both SLOC and the State have said that they absolutely will not accept
liability.  (They also claim no one will insure them, although outside
sources tell me this is not true.)  The committee also voiced objections to
the liability language but felt it should be removed on the Senate floor.
Expect this section to be stricken.
7.  I'm not sure if this is a problem or not.  The changes suggested by
Powell seem reasonable.
8.  While I find this language offensive, it does tend to clarify existing
criminal trespass law, which already provides that a church or private
residence owner/lessee may ask anyone to leave their property.  It also
reduces the penalty from a misdemeanor to an infraction.  However, there
are some potential problems with this language.  One concern is that this
does not require churches or private residences to accept liability for the
consequences of banning firearms.  More important, it gives decision-making
authority to "the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession".
These three entities may be in conflict.  Can an owner prevent a lessee
from keeping firearms on his property?  Can a mortgage company prevent a
home-owner from keeping firearms?  It seems to me (and I'm not an attorney)
that such conflicts would inevitably arise and would have to be decided by
the courts.  (Input from attorneys welcome again!)

Sen. Waddoups introduced the bill by saying that he believes the bill is an
undue restriction of Constitutional rights, and that he would personally be
happy if it were killed.  He is sponsoring it because he believes that by
doing so he can protect gun owners from more restrictive bills.  He also
mentioned that he had received threats in connection with this bill.

Based on the new language, USSC chose to support this bill.  USSC feels
that, although offensive, this bill is the best that gun owners are likely
to do, and an Olympic gun ban is inevitable.  They would rather support
this bill than see a more restrictive bill passed by someone else.

Speaking in favor of the bill:
Elwood Powell, Chair, USSC
Leonard Wojcik, USSC
Rob Bishop, USSC
Bill Shaw, SLOC
William Nash, Utahns Against Gun Violence (who opposed the church and
private residence language as being too weak).

Speaking in opposition to to the bill:
Sarah Thompson for Nolympics
Bill Szas (great job!)
Jim Dexter, Chair, Libertarian Party of Utah
Steve Stromness, Grassroots
Janalee Tobias, Women Against Gun Control
Charles Bradford (retired legislator)

Committee members present: Beverly Evans (Chair), Lorin Jones, Joseph Hull,
Millie Peterson.  Senator Evans was an excellent chair, and allowed
everyone who wished to speak a reasonable time to do so.  However, several
attendees noted that it was clear that the committee members had decided
how to vote before they even saw the bill language.  We had the pretense of
participatory democracy, but it was really all a show.

Sen. Lorin Jones distinguished himself with his impassioned defense of our
rights:  "This is one of the most blatant infringements on the
Constitutional rights of American citizens that I have ever seen in my
life."  He went on to say that disarming citizens would not have prevented
the Munich Olympics massacre, and invoked the memories of the Nazi death
camps.  He also objected to the inclusion of churches and private
residences.  Thank you Sen. Jones!

Sen. Peterson moved to pass the bill out favorably, Sen. Hull made a minor
(and unobjectionable) amendment, and voiced concern about the liabiity
provisions.  The bill was passed with a favorable recommendation, by a vote
of 3-1, with Sen. Jones opposed.

SUMMARY:  SB 122 was passed out of committee favorably.  It will now go to
the Senate floor.  I expect that the liability language will be removed
from the bill on the Senate floor.  The secure storage language is
unenforceable.  The church and private residence language is unnecessary,
and at least needs clarification.  In other words, SB 122 is still
unacceptable, and should still be OPPOSED.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1. Contact Senator Lorin Jones and thank him for his support.  He was the
sole vote against this bill and should know he has our support and gratitude.
2. Contact as many members of the Senate as possible and ask them to OPPOSE
SB 122.  Do what you can to educate them about the problems with the bill,
Make sure you contact your OWN senator!
3.  While it is entirely appropriate to tell your elected representatives
that they will win (or lose) your vote based on how they vote, but
otherwise, DO NOT MAKE THREATS.   It does not reflect well on us when bill
sponsors say they have been threatened.
4. Governor Leavitt supports gun control.  Please let him know your
thoughts on this issue.
5.  Remember: This is NOT about personalities.  I believe that the members
of USSC, Rob Bishop, Mike Waddoups and all involved are doing what they
believe is correct, even if I don't necessarily agree with them.  This is
about PRINCIPLE!  The bill should be opposed because it needlessly
restricts the constitutional rights of gun owners who have done nothing to
deserve it.  If you believe that innocent gun owners should not be
penalized because of the actions of criminals and terrorists, you should
OPPOSE SB 122.

You should, of course, consider all viewpoints carefully.  Other points of
view are available at:
GOUtah!  http://www.slpsa.org/goutah!  (This site seems to be down at the
moment.)
USSC  http://www.UtahShootingSports.org
Remember that YOU have the responsibility to be an informed citizen.  No
one can do that for you.

Apologies again for the length (and lateness) of this post.  It's been a
long, dismal day.

Sarah



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun makers, foes hail ruling
Date: 12 Feb 1999 23:05:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/qguns12.htm

Gun makers, foes hail ruling

Jury awards $560,000 to victim, but some manufacturers cleared

February 12, 1999

BY TOM HAYS
Associated Press

NEW YORK -- A federal jury Thursday found several gun makers
responsible for letting guns fall into the hands of criminals
in three New York area shootings. Other manufacturers were
cleared.

The only damages awarded were $560,000 to the sole survivor
of the shootings, who was seriously wounded, and his mother.

Steven Fox, 19, and the relatives of six homicide victims
sued the gun industry in federal court in 1995.

Fox was shot in the head by a bullet accidentally discharged
by a friend, who had bought the gun on the street. The bullet
remains lodged in his head.

The class-action lawsuit sought unspecified damages from
an industry that generates sales of $2 billion to $3
billion a year.

Like some of the lawsuits brought against Big Tobacco,
this one accused the gun industry of negligently marketing
a legal product.

The case also was closely watched by several cities trying
to recover the costs of gun violence.

The jury found that 15 of the 25 gun makers sued -- including
Beretta USA Corp. and Colt's Manufacturing Co. -- distribute
their product negligently.

Smith & Wesson Corp. and Sturm, Ruger and Co. were among
those cleared.

Afterward, both sides claimed victory.

Plaintiff attorney Elisa Barnes said: "It was an incredible
victory."

Industry lawyer James Dorr called the result "a defense
verdict in all respects."

During the monthlong trial, the plaintiffs argued that
handgun makers oversupply gun-friendly markets, mainly in
the South, aware that the excess guns flow into criminal
hands via illegal markets in New York and other states
with stricter laws.

Lawyers for the defendants insisted their responsibility
ends once they sell to licensed distributors.

Legal experts have said that the verdict could set a
precedent for cities trying to recoup the costs of
battling gun violence.

Chicago, New Orleans, Bridgeport, Conn., and Miami-Dade
County (Fla.) are suing the industry.

Detroit is considering such a lawsuit.

Pro-gun groups have responded by lobbying state
legislatures to pass laws prohibiting such suits.


All content copyright 1999 Detroit Free Press
and may not be republished without permission.



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: The gun lobby looks South for direction
Date: 12 Feb 1999 20:37:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/qhugh11.htm

The gun lobby looks South for direction

February 11, 1999

NEWS ITEM: Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, a darling of the National Rifle
Association, signed an NRA-backed bill Tuesday aimed at prohibiting
that state's cities and counties from taking gun makers to court.
The bill is designed to undermine efforts by the City of Atlanta,
led by its mayor, Bill Campbell, who is decidedly not an NRA darling,
to recover costs of gun-related violence. The city plans to challenge
the new law as unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, in the state of Michigan ...

If Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer, who is said to be still mulling his
options, ever gets off the dime and follows Atlanta's lead (and,
incidentally, the lead of leaders in Chicago, New Orleans, Miami-Dade
County and Bridgeport, Conn.) and decides to sue gun makers ...

Or even if he doesn't ...

Well, the gun-nut lobby needn't be nervous. Relief appears to be on
the way.

Pro-gun state Sen. David Jaye, R-Washington Township, of
concealed-weapon fame (Remember? He dropped his piece accidentally
during a 1991 GOP meeting in the Capitol.), says he has already
requested Georgia-style legislation designed to block all lesser
units of Michigan government, including Detroit, from suing gun
makers for gun-related violence.

He says he is optimistic about its prospects for passage.

In a phone interview Wednesday, Jaye said he agrees with Ted Nugent,
Michigan's rocker star, big-game hunter, self-described Motor City
Madman and, of course, NRA board member, who, according to Jaye, has
compared guns to power tools and said it doesn't make any difference
whether it's Black & Decker or Smith & Wesson because "the law should
be concerned with the consequences, not the possession, of such tools."

Jaye even adds this: "What's next? Cities suing McDonald's because
there's too much salt in the hamburgers? Or Dunkin' Donuts because
of too many calories? Where does it end?"

In a way, such arguments are echoes of 1990, when the NRA-backed
Firearms Pre-emption Act, sponsored by state Sen. Chris Dingell,
D-Trenton (son of U.S. Representative John Dingell, D-Dearborn,
a former NRA board member), went through the Michigan Legislature
like a hot knife through butter. The act decreed that local gun
ordinances deemed more restrictive than the relatively benign
state law were -- ta, da -- kaput, thus wiping out ordinances in
some 40 Michigan towns and cities, including Detroit.

So much for local option at the time.

And the presumption is that not much has changed -- at least not
in the state Senate, which approved that 1990 pre-emption bill,
28-5 (with John Engler, then the state Senate's majority leader,
voting aye) and where generally pro-gun Republicans are now a
significant majority.

Of course, the House, which went along with the Senate in 1990,
could be different this time around. There are lots of new members
due to term limits that took effect last year, and nobody's yet
counted noses to see who will or won't genuflect to the NRA and
its Michigan allies.

Yet, with a new House Republican majority in place, with onetime
anti-gun Republican leaders such as Reps. Paul Hillegonds, R-Holland,
and Frank Fitzgerald, R-Grand Ledge, gone and with pro-gun Rep.
Chuck Perricone, R-Kalamazoo, now the speaker, well ...

Nothing, of course, is automatic.

But, if Jaye is any indication, it would seem clear that Michigan's
noisy, relentless gun lobby will be ready for a fight and optimistic
that it will prevail.

After all, as the senator warns, if the grabbers get their hands
on gun makers, can McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts be far behind?

Perish the thought!


All content copyright 1999 Detroit Free Press and may not be republished
without permission.


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: SB 122 - "may"
Date: 14 Feb 1999 08:04:00 -0700


On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:08:55 "S. Thompson" wrote:

> Subject: SB 122 - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

> The bill has been almost completely rewritten.  Substantive changes:
> 1. Adds that "the division" (DPS or BCI) may not deny suspend or revoke a
> concealed firearm permit solely for a single conviction for an infraction
> violation of 76-10-5."  This sounds like it protects CCW holders from
> having their permits revoked for infractions, but I have problems with the
> "may not" which I think should read "shall not".  Otherwise it's still at
> the discretion of BCI.  (Any legal experts out there?)

> 5.  Provides that the Commander MAY provide secure weapons storage areas.
> This is worthless, unless the language is changed to SHALL provide.

> 8.  SURPRISE!  Churches and private residences are back.  The new SB 122
> provides that a "person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed
> firearm after having received notice that firearms are prohibited, may not
> knowingly and intentionally transport a firearms into a house of worship or
> a private residence.  Notice can be verbal or by posting a sign.  Violation
> is an infraction.

> Discussion:
> 5.  "May provide" is nonsense.  It's like saying you "may" pay your taxes
> if you so choose.

I hope a grammatical discussion might be appropriate on a gun list. The
problem with the English modal (defective verb) 'may' is that it subsumes
modals with two or more entirely distinct meanings, and which in other
languages, such as German, are also distinct words. Using German as an
example, since it is the foreign language with which I am most familiar,
these are 'moegen', which indicates both desire and possibility, and
'duerfen' which I believe is etymologically related to the English verb
'dare', and indicates permission. With such disparate meanings it is
semantically unacceptable to use the modal 'may' in statutory language
without specifying the exact meaning intended. Another modal creating
legal problems is 'must', which indicates a requirement. Case law makes
'must' (along with 'shall') legally no more binding than 'may'. Even
worse is its use as a negative: 'must not'. Though commonly understood
by Americans to forbid something, technically it means only that an
action is not required. As we have no exact equivalent of 'duerfen'
(save perhaps in an older sense of 'dare'), bans cannot be stated in
English using modals, but must :) instead be explicitly stated.

> 8.  While I find this language offensive, it does tend to clarify
> existing criminal trespass law, which already provides that a church or
> private residence owner/lessee may ask anyone to leave their property.

It would be a free speech violation to forbid them to ask. The legal
point is that noncompliance with this request constitutes criminally
and civilly punishable trespass. But why single out forbidden
"transport of firearms" from other trespasses?

> Sen. Waddoups introduced the bill by saying that he believes the bill is an
> undue restriction of Constitutional rights, and that he would personally be
> happy if it were killed.  He is sponsoring it because he believes that by
> doing so he can protect gun owners from more restrictive bills.  He also
> mentioned that he had received threats in connection with this bill.

Any indication whether these threats were political or concerned his
personal safety, and their source?

> 4. Governor Leavitt supports gun control.  Please let him know your
> thoughts on this issue.

How does that help? Wouldn't it just get us on his political hit list?

Scott



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Date: 14 Feb 1999 08:04:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

To the Editor Arizona Republic P.O. Box 2244 Phoenix, Arizona 85002 >>

January 7th, 1998

Dear Editor,

I am gratified to read in this morning's paper that someone has finally
called attention to an urgent situation which I have known about for a
long time: annually 334,000 victims of savage dog bites, most frequently
children, average age 15, are taken to the nation's emergency rooms. As
the article states: "That's more ER visits than injuries from skateboards,
baby walkers and in-line skates combined." Total annual cost of ER dog
bites: $102.4 million. Twenty or more people killed annually by dogs,
almost all of them children.

Because these dogs are so readily obtainable on the streets of our
nation, I implore all your readers to immediately deluge their
Congressmen with letters, phone calls, faxes and telegrams to support
the federal "Save the Widdle Childwen Fwom the Vicious Dog-Bite Act of
1998", which would require the following: mandatory muzzles fitted with
muzzle-locks to be kept at all times on all dogs, licensing and
paw-printing of all dogs, fingerprinting and house-monitoring of dog
owners, including mandatory, federally-monitored safe storage of dogs
and an immediate 1,000% tax on all dog food.

This Act is sponsored by Canine Control Incorporated, an organization
dedicated to eliminating canine violence in America by the year 2000.

The Act also provides for the immediate banning of all "assault dogs",
the definition of which term will constantly change according to the
emotions of the board of C.C.I. "Saturday Night Special" dogs, such as
Chihuahuas and other cheap, easily concealed ankle-biters, will also be
banned. In addition, the Act bans all sharp canine teeth, all canine
teeth longer than a federally-mandated length, all spiked collars and
sharp canine toenails.

It also mandates that all dogs be transferred only through federally
licensed dog dealers, and provides for the changing of the BATF to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Assault Dogs, or BATFAD.

I hope that the physicians' organizations who champion total hand- gun
banning will rally behind this urgent cause to save our nation's
children. Anyone who opposes this type of legislation obviously hates
children. We need this Act desperately - after all, if it saves only one
life, it is worth it. Not to mention the $102.4 million dollars in ER
charges!

My husband's face was horribly mauled at the age of four by a Pit Bull;
today he is the poster child for C.C.I. Now, when not being used as a
drooling doorstop or for first base, he is routinely wheeled out at
charity fund-raising events at which he repeatedly mumbles, "Bad dogs!
Ban dogs!"

We urgently need your help to get these vicious dogs off the streets
now! Please help end canine violence in America! Send donations to:

C.C.I., 1111
B.S. Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20004.

Make the checks out to me. Tina Terry

(c) 1998 by Tina Terry. This letter may be reprinted in its entirety, as
long as nothing in it is changed, credit is given the author, and the
following is included. Author's note: The author's husband's face really
was mauled at age 4 by a Pitt Bull, an incident in which he almost lost
an eye. He's not in a wheelchair, true, but he also doesn't blame dogs
in general for his early experience and he loves and owns dogs to this
day. He also has never tried to enlist the author to run around the
country trying to ban all dogs.



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SB 122 - "may"
Date: 14 Feb 1999 14:27:49 -0700

At 08:04 AM 2/14/99 -0700, you wrote:

>I hope a grammatical discussion might be appropriate on a gun list. The
>problem with the English modal (defective verb) 'may' is that it subsumes
>modals with two or more entirely distinct meanings, and which in other
>languages, such as German, are also distinct words. Using German as an
>example, since it is the foreign language with which I am most familiar,
>these are 'moegen', which indicates both desire and possibility, and
>'duerfen' which I believe is etymologically related to the English verb
>'dare', and indicates permission. With such disparate meanings it is
>semantically unacceptable to use the modal 'may' in statutory language
>without specifying the exact meaning intended. Another modal creating
>legal problems is 'must', which indicates a requirement. Case law makes
>'must' (along with 'shall') legally no more binding than 'may'. Even
>worse is its use as a negative: 'must not'. Though commonly understood
>by Americans to forbid something, technically it means only that an
>action is not required. As we have no exact equivalent of 'duerfen'
>(save perhaps in an older sense of 'dare'), bans cannot be stated in
>English using modals, but must :) instead be explicitly stated.
    I don't know anything about German.  But it seems grammar is beyond the
grasp of our legislators.  They can't even figure out "shall not", as in
"shall not be infringed".

>> 8.  While I find this language offensive, it does tend to clarify
>> existing criminal trespass law, which already provides that a church or
>> private residence owner/lessee may ask anyone to leave their property.
>
>It would be a free speech violation to forbid them to ask. The legal
>point is that noncompliance with this request constitutes criminally
>and civilly punishable trespass. But why single out forbidden
>"transport of firearms" from other trespasses?
    Exactly.  Anyone has the right to ask anything they choose already.
Clearly Rep. Jones must think that it's more important to reiterate the
right to ask about guns than it is to reiterate the right of homeowners to
exclude murderers, rapists and child molesters.

>> Sen. Waddoups introduced the bill by saying that he believes the bill is an
>> undue restriction of Constitutional rights, and that he would personally be
>> happy if it were killed.  He is sponsoring it because he believes that by
>> doing so he can protect gun owners from more restrictive bills.  He also
>> mentioned that he had received threats in connection with this bill.
>
>Any indication whether these threats were political or concerned his
>personal safety, and their source?
    I have no idea.  I suspect they were political.  After all, legislators
are "more equal" than the rest of us and there are enhanced penalties for
threatening them.

>
>> 4. Governor Leavitt supports gun control.  Please let him know your
>> thoughts on this issue.
>
>How does that help? Wouldn't it just get us on his political hit list?
    We're already on his political hit list, so it can't possibly hurt.  If he
thinks his national aspirations may be affected, he might change his tune,
given that his most distinguishing characteristic is his total lack of
principles.

Sarah

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Salt Lake Tribune -- Empty Promises
Date: 14 Feb 1999 14:29:32 -0700


http://www.sltrib.com/02141999/public_f/82849.htm


Sunday, February 14, 1999
>
-------
>
>  Empty Promises
>
>             David Jones,
[imageField]
>         like virtually all
>         candidates for public office, promises "crime reduction"
>         if elected mayor of Salt Lake City. But he's currently
>         sponsoring HB 92, which should properly be titled
>         "Victim Disarmament." Perhaps Rep. Jones would be
>         willing to explain how disarming law-abiding citizens
>         who would have already passed an extensive criminal
>         background check will reduce crime. Perhaps he could
>         also explain how turning our schools, churches and
>         private residences into disarmed, defenseless, free-fire
>         zones for criminals would decrease crime.
>             Maybe he could even explain why he wishes to disarm
>         tourists attending the Olympics. Florida found it
>         necessary to allow tourists to carry firearms in order
>         to save its tourism industry after criminals began
>         targeting visitors.
>             All available criminologic evidence shows that
>         encouraging good citizens to carry concealed firearms
>         results in a marked decrease in violent crime and a
>         safer environment for everyone. Is Jones offering empty
>         promises, or will he back them with sound policy
>         decisions?
>             SARAH THOMPSON
>             Sandy
>
>
>                                    [Previous Story] [Next Story]
>
>
>
-------
> ) Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune
>
> All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune
and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused
without explicit
> permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
>
>                                                   Contact The Salt Lake
Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC"
Subject: Re: The Salt Lake Tribune -- Empty Promises
Date: 14 Feb 1999 17:10:19 -0500

Congrats Sarah on a well written letter!

back in 94 I managed to get in the Trib a few times :-)

Here in New Hampshire there are not many (any?) terrible bills that
we are mobilizing over, at least that I am aware of.  But we are not
limited to a 45 day session either.  The GO-NH organization is very
well organized and politically connected.  Though the bad guys try.
And  we get more liberal Mass-holes moving up from Massachusetts
every year too :-(   The head of the NH House Judiciary Committee
carries himself everywhere but in the main House chambers as there is
a house rule that even the cops abide by of no weapons.  The NH
Senate I hear does not have this rule. :-)

I wish the USSC was as organized and connected as GO-NH...

best
Chad


> http://www.sltrib.com/02141999/public_f/82849.htm
>
>
> Sunday, February 14, 1999
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>>
>>  Empty Promises
>>
>>             David Jones,
> [imageField]
>>         like virtually all
>>         candidates for public office, promises "crime reduction"
>>         if elected mayor of Salt Lake City. But he's currently
>>         sponsoring HB 92, which should properly be titled
>>         "Victim Disarmament." Perhaps Rep. Jones would be
>>         willing to explain how disarming law-abiding citizens
>>         who would have already passed an extensive criminal
>>         background check will reduce crime. Perhaps he could
>>         also explain how turning our schools, churches and
>>         private residences into disarmed, defenseless, free-fire
>>         zones for criminals would decrease crime.
>>             Maybe he could even explain why he wishes to disarm
>>         tourists attending the Olympics. Florida found it
>>         necessary to allow tourists to carry firearms in order
>>         to save its tourism industry after criminals began
>>         targeting visitors.
>>             All available criminologic evidence shows that
>>         encouraging good citizens to carry concealed firearms
>>         results in a marked decrease in violent crime and a
>>         safer environment for everyone. Is Jones offering empty
>>         promises, or will he back them with sound policy
>>         decisions?
>>             SARAH THOMPSON
>>             Sandy
>>
>>
>>                                    [Previous Story] [Next Story]
>>
>>
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>> ) Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune
>>
>> All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune
> and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused
> without explicit
>> permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
>>
> --------------------------------------------------
>>                                                   Contact The Salt Lake
> Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.
>
>
> -

Chad Leigh              Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net
[e-mail]         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites.
Low cost virtual servers.                     DB integration.
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.
***************  Macintosh:  It Just Works  ******************

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Betrayed again - HB 237
Date: 14 Feb 1999 15:47:05 -0700

All of you should already be familiar with HB 237, DPS Fee Increases.  This
bill proposed across-the-board fee increases for background checks and
concealed carry permits.  Even DPS was unable to justify these increases.

The House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee amended the bill
to remove most, but not all, of the fee increases. This left a somewhat
improved, but still totally unacceptable bill, since it allowed DPS to
raise fees in the future at its discretion, without any legislative oversight.

Rep. Blake Chard ([e-mail]) had the bill amended on the House
floor to reinstate higher fees.  So we're back to essentially the same ugly
bill that was originally introduced.

Please contact your OWN representative and let him/her know that this bill
is entirely unacceptable and should be STRONGLY OPPOSED.

General contact numbers:
House voice: 801-538-1029, 800-662-3367
House fax: Rep. 801-538-1908, Dem. 801-538-9505

This bill is just as much a threat to gun owners as the gun bans that have
been proposed.  It would allow DPS to institute _de facto_ gun control by
making it too expensive for all but the rich and powerful to purchase or
carry firearms.  A right you can't afford to exercise is no right at all!

A full analysis is available in my previous alerts, and from GOUtah!.

Please help stop HB 237!

Thanks!
Sarah


leg-alerts is owned and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The opinions in this alert represent those of the list owner only,
unless otherwise attributed or specified.

To subscribe to leg-alerts send a message to:
    [e-mail]
in the body of the message put:
    subscribe leg-alerts

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU CANNOT POST TO THIS LIST!
Send comments, alerts, suggestions, etc. to:
[e-mail]

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The Media Is the Message!
Date: 19 Feb 1999 08:12:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Cc: Janalee Tobias <[e-mail]>

See if you can spot the obvious condemnation of gun owners

>>Saturday, February 13, 1999
>>Shootings can change survivors forever
>>They recall events, feelings years later
>>By Amy Joi Bryson
Deseret News staff writer
>>A hospital. A public library. A university. A newsroom.
>>All places considered to be safe.
>>In just seconds, however, a gun-toting person consumed with personal
demons can shatter those perceptions,  defiling the sanctity of a hospital,
mocking the solitude of a library, stripping a university campus of its
innocence and thrusting the newsroom into the news.<<

I'll point it out: "a gun-toting person." Why is this wrong? Because there
are at least 22,401 "gun-toting" persons in Utah. It isn't carrying a weapon
that's bad, it's misusing it.



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: This is it - a clear *proven* pro-RKBA Presidential
Date: 19 Feb 1999 12:50:42 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:53:54 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA07535; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:38:17 -0700
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA09995;
    Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:46:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Ladies and Gentlemen of the RKBA,

Our opportunity to put a Pro-RKBA Candidate in the White House!

We are angered by Leftists attacking our Right to Arms, and particularly
incensed by 'turncoat' Republicans who suddenly turn on us and vote with
the enemy.

Well here it is... the opportunity to put in a PROVEN Pro-RKBA candidate
into the White House!  This is how it is done.  Find the right candidate
and then put *them* into office. =20

Far too often we sit passively and hope that whichever candidate emerges
will support our pleas for assistance.  As a result, we are saddled with
the likes of Dole, Bush, Warner and Kasich, who all too often fail us.

You will recall Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire valiantly fought and won
for us 69 out of a 100 Senate votes to place his amendment into Brady II
that would have forbidden an FBI registration tax, forbidden gunowner
registration, and best of all, afforded standing to sue against any
public official who disobeyed it's prohibitions. =20

Smith did so (if I recall correctly) against NRA and GOP urging.  He did
this on his own and performed magnificently, only to have his Amendment
and our Rights, killed in Gingrich's committee.

I urge your support for Senator Smith.  Deeds -- not empty words -- have
proven him worthy of our support.  Now our task is to get the 70 million
American Gunowners registered and voting for this man!

In Liberty,

Rick V.
[e-mail]

Reuters [OL] Friday, February 19, 1999 12:24AM
WOLFEBORO, N.H. (Reuters) via NewsEdge Corporation -=20

Speaking at the high school where he once taught, conservative New
Hampshire Sen. Bob Smith Thursday announced his candidacy for the 2000
Republican presidential nomination.=20

http://companies.newspage.com/item.cfm/c0219002.500?heads=3Dyes


Letter from GOA=20
http://www.gunowners.org/bilet.htm




The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental* Human Right - RKBA


* Rights, when Fundamental, are subjected to "strict scrutiny" Supreme

Court review, and are almosts always struck down under that standard.


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: eBay Bans Firearm Sales On Its Web Site
Date: 19 Feb 1999 13:55:26 -0700




Auctioneer eBay Bans Firearm Sales On Its Web Site
2.38 p.m. ET (1938 GMT) February 19, 1999

NEW YORK =97 eBay Inc., the Internet site that pioneered online auctions,=
 said
Friday it will no longer allow its members to buy and sell guns and
ammunition through its service.

The top one-to-one auction site on the Web, where individuals sell items to
each other, took the action as the gun industry has become the target of
lawsuits by several cities in civil actions similar to those taken against
the tobacco industry in recent years.

eBay =97 which allows individuals to sell online everything from "The Best=
 of
Sex and Violence'' on video and hand-dipped marijuana incense =97 said the
Internet was the wrong place for selling firearms.

"It was the right thing to do because firearms and ammunition do not have a
place on the site,'' Steve Westly, vice president of marketing and business
development, said.

"Initially, the category was created for antique and collector guns, but
standard issue firearms are being posted and it became clear that it is hard
to draw a line that fits with our brand image.''

eBay, based in San Jose, Calif., said gun and ammunition sales account for
less than 0.25 percent of its total revenue. The company had total sales of
$47.3 million last year.

Beginning March 5, firearms will not be listed in any of its 1,000-plus
categories, including the "Firearms,'' "Antique,'' ''Collectibles'' and
"Sport'' categories. Since items can be listed for up to seven days, eBay
will stop accepting listings on Feb. 26.

The ban on gun sales comes amid a turbulent time for gun manufacturers. They
industry has been sued by major cities across the nation for allegedly
failing to provide adequate safety features or for irresponsible marketing.

This month a federal jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., found 15 gun manufacturers
guilty of negligence in their marketing and distribution practices. Gun
manufacturers are pursuing appeals in the case.

eBay currently has more than 2 million users and lists more than 1.5 million
items ranging from Beanie Babies to "X-Files'' collectibles.

Firearms-related items =97 such as holsters, literature, clothing and scopes=
 =97
may still be sold on eBay, but only listed in the "Collectibles: Western
Americana,'' ''Collectibles: Militaria'' and "Miscellaneous: Sporting Goods:
Hunting'' categories, the company said.

eBay said it had no plans to eliminate or change other categories.

In Nasdaq trading Friday eBay shares were down 94 cents at $236.06 on the
Nasdaq market .


[e-mail]
=A9 1999, News America Digital Publishing, Inc. d/b/a Fox News Online.
All rights reserved. Fox News is a registered trademark of 20th Century Fox
Film Corp.
=A9 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Firearms Lawsuit - Web Site -FYI  [Lawyers, Guns, and
Date: 19 Feb 1999 16:42:56 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:53:08 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id VAA06839; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:37:32 -0700
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA22703;
    Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:47:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <003301be5bbc$ef359cc0$40b356d1@dellxpsd300>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

This is a new web site you may find to be of interest.  Posted to Noban
at the request of John Posthill.

Richard Odom
-----
-----------------------


To RKBA activists and interested parties everywhere:

 This is to announce a new web site dedicated to providing information and
 discussion on this new phenomenon of using the courts to economically
 cripple the gun industry and thereby put a deep chill on the lawful
 production and distribution of firearms.

 The site is aptly named:  http://www.lawyersgunsandmoney.com

 We hope that you bookmark it and visit it often.  If you like the site,
 please cross post/copy this message to other places on the internet where
 like-minded people "hang out" -- particularly your local and state-wide
 RKBA
 email lists.

 Questions can be addressed to the individuals listed at the web site, or
 feel free to ask me off-line at: [e-mail]

 Thank you.

 John Posthill



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALERT! RKBA bills
Date: 22 Feb 1999 23:14:49 -0700

ALERT!  SB 122 and HB 237

Two important votes on your right to keep and bear arms are expected
tomorrow, Feb. 23.  Please make your voice heard!

1. SB 122 (2nd subs) is currently #2 on the list for a Senate vote.  The
bill is circled, which means a vote will not occur until the sponsor, Mike
Waddoups, "uncircles" it.  This could be as early as 9 AM tomorrow, or at
any other time that Sen. Waddoups thinks we're "not watching".  Several
senators have not yet decided how they will vote on this bill, so your
input is very important!  PLEASE keep the pressure on your Senators to
OPPOSE SB 122 in ANY form!

Unfortunately, both the media and quite a few legislators mistakenly
believe that USSC speaks for ALL gun owners on this bill, and that all gun
owners support it.  With all due respect to USSC, this is simply not true.
USSC supports the bill.  The NRA has taken no position.  Gun Owners of
America is strongly opposed to the bill.  (Their alert will follow
separately.)  Locally, GOUtah!, Women Against Gun Control, Nolympics,
Grassroots, and the Libertarian Party of Utah all OPPOSE SB 122.  Most of
the gun owners I've spoken with also oppose this bill.  This doesn't sound
like the "unanimous support" USSC would like you to believe exists.

SB 122 is what I call the "immunization theory" of gun control.  The idea
is that if we accept "a little bit" of gun control now, it will prevent us
from getting "worse gun control" in the future.  The problem with this
theory is that it has already been proven not to work.  The Gun Control Act
of 1936 did not prevent the Gun Control Act of 1968.  Brady I did not
prevent Brady II, and Brady II doesn't look like it's going to prevent even
worse gun control.
Our enemies don't compromise - they'll come back every year with "newer"
and "better" and more restrictive gun control until there's nothing left.

Please contact ALL members of the Senate (by phone if possible!) and let
them know that SB 122 must be KILLED.

2. HB 237 - DPS Fee Consolidation will be heard by the Senate
Transportation and Public Safety Committee Tuesday Feb. 23, at 4 PM, Rm.
403, State Capitol.  If you can be there, please attend.  Otherwise please
contact the members of the committee and ask them to OPPOSE HB 237.  DPS
has NOT presented any figures that justify fee increases.  Worse, this bill
will allow DPS to increase fees in the future without any legislative
oversight.  Members of the committee are: Michael Waddoups (Chair), Lane
Beattie, Mont Evans, Peter Knudson, David Steele, Karen Hale, Paula
Julander and Ed Mayne.

Senate contact info follows:

General contact numbers:
House voice: 801-538-1029, 800-662-3367
House fax: Rep. 801-538-1908, Dem. 801-538-9505
Senate voice: 801-538-1035, 877-585-8824
Senate fax: Rep. 801-538-1414, Dem. 801-538-1449

e-mail:
[e-mail] (Edgar Allen)
[e-mail] (Ron Allen)
[e-mail] (Lane Beattie)
[e-mail] (Leonard Blackham)
[e-mail] (Gene Davis)
[e-mail] (Mike Dmitrich)
[e-mail] (Beverly Ann Evans)
[e-mail] (Mont Evans)
[e-mail] (Karen Hale)
[e-mail] (Parley G. Hellewell)
[e-mail] (Lyle Hillyard)
[e-mail] (Scott Howell)
[e-mail] (Joseph Hull)
[e-mail] (Lorin Jones)
[e-mail] (Paula F. Julander)
[e-mail] (Peter C. Knudson)
[e-mail] (Al Mansell)
[e-mail] (Ed Mayne)
[e-mail] (Robert Montgomery)
[e-mail] (Robert Muhlestein)
[e-mail] (Howard Nielson)
[e-mail] (Millie Peterson)
[e-mail] (Steven Poulton)
[e-mail] (Terry Spencer)
[e-mail] (David Steele)
[e-mail] (Howard Stephenson)
[e-mail] (Pete Suazo)
[e-mail] (John Valentine)
[e-mail] (Michael Waddoups)

STOP GUN CONTROL NOW!






-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NAACP May Sue Gun Makers
Date: 21 Feb 1999 20:46:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

If you think it's getting ridiculous these days, add this to your list.
Mark


NAACP May Sue Gun Makers

c The Associated Press
By PAUL SHEPARD

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Since gun-related crimes hit minority communities
at high rates across the country, the NAACP is considering joining the
growing number of cities filing lawsuits against gun makers, NAACP
president Kweisi Mfume said.

"We represent a significant constituency that is disproportionately
affected by gun violence. The time has come for us to look at the
proliferation of handguns," Mfume said at the association's annual
meeting Saturday.

Mfume said he would present to the NAACP's 64-member Board of Directors
several options, ranging from issuing a resolution that voices concern
about guns to joining suits that filed by cities including Chicago and
New Orleans. The NAACP also could file a separate suit, he said.

"I want to put forth some legal theories we've been presented and ask
the board for its consideration," Mfume said.

Curtailing gun violence was among several issues presented at the 90th
annual meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People.

In speeches to the 200 branch leaders and members from NAACP branches
around the country, Mfume and NAACP Board Chairman Julian Bond outlined
an energetic campaign for the nation's oldest and largest civil rights
group to combat racism, save affirmative action, register voters and
work against police brutality.

"Despite 90 years of fighting for and sometimes dying for justice and
fair play, we know that all is not well in the land in which we live,"
Bond said.

NAACP scrutiny of the gun industry could lend additional momentum to
recent movements against the industry.

In a landmark ruling this month, gun makers were found liable for
shootings in a case closely followed by cities across the nation eager
to make the firearms industry pay for gun-related violence.

A federal jury in New York returned a $4 million verdict based upon a
new strategy by plaintiffs -- that the industry's negligence in marketing
and distribution allowed weapons to flow illegally to states with strict
anti-gun laws.

As with massive tobacco litigation that pressured cigarette companies to
pay for treating sick smokers, the cities want to force gun makers to pay
the costs of treating shooting victims.

Chicago, New Orleans, Bridgeport, Conn., and Miami-Dade County are suing
the industry.

Pro-gun groups have fired back by lobbying state legislatures to pass
laws prohibiting such suits. Georgia approved such a law and derailed
the efforts of Atlanta officials to file suit against the firearms
industry.

Bond, in his report on the overall health of the organization, said the
fiscal picture was rosy but corrected figures he gave earlier in the week
of the increase in foundation and corporate donations over the past year.

Both corporate and foundation giving is up from $3.2 million to $3.4
million and not the 40 to 50 percent which Bond had told reporters earlier.

"I'm not a mathematician," Bond said. "I misinterpreted some figures I had."

NAACP revenues outstripped its expenses by $1,160,469 last year.

AP-NY-02-20-99 1601EST

Copyright 1998 The Associated Press.



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Citizens Self Defense Act of 1999
Date: 21 Feb 1999 20:46:00 -0700


--------- Forwarded message ----------

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:5:./temp/~c106sMQada::

Bill 5 of 10

Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 1999 (Introduced in the House)

HR 347 IH

106th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 347

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in
defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such
right.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 19, 1999

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in
defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such
right.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 1999'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

     (1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing
     to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

          (A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not
          have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in
          general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia
          Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981),
          the court stated: `[C]ourts have without exception concluded
          that when a municipality or other governmental entity
          undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only
          to the public at large and not to individual members of the
          community.'.

          (B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida
          legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000
          calls for help to Dade County authorities.

          (C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in
          1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police
          had not responded within 1 hour.

          (D) Currently, there are about 150,000 police officers on
          duty at any one time.

     (2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as
     evidenced by the following:

          (A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United
          States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or
          more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year,
          firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of
          honest citizens than to take lives.

          (B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000
          are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

          (C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend
          themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun
          or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less
          than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his
          or her attacker.

     (3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their
     families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or
     using a firearm in self-defense. For example:

          (A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at
          by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from
          his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested
          Bennett for violating Oak Park's handgun ban. The police
          never caught the actual criminals.

          (B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina,
          was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke
          into Biggs' residence one night, ransacked the home and then
          assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to
          escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs
          turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs
          was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon
          --a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.

          (C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested,
          jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal
          assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's store
          and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the
          assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell
          for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community
          pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.

     (4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police
     officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-
     abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their
     families, and their homes against violent felons should not be
     subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize
     them.

SEC. 3. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND TO USE FIREARMS IN
DEFENSE OF SELF, FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.

(a) REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHT- A person not prohibited from receiving a
firearm by Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, shall have
the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms--

     (1) in defense of self or family against a reasonably perceived
     threat of imminent and unlawful infliction of serious bodily injury;

     (2) in defense of self or family in the course of the commission
     by another person of a violent felony against the person or a
     member of the person's family; and

     (3) in defense of the person's home in the course of the
     commission of a felony by another person.

(b) FIREARM DEFINED- As used in subsection (a), the term `firearm' means--

     (1) a shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of title 18, United
     States Code);

     (2) a rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of title 18, United
     States Code); or

     (3) a handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public Law 99-408).

(c) ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHT-

     (1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is
     violated in any manner may bring an action in any United States
     district court against the United States, any State, or any person
     for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court
     deems appropriate.

     (2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE- In an action
     brought under paragraph (1), the court, in its discretion, may
     allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee as part
     of the costs.

     (3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under
     paragraph (1) after the 5-year period that begins with the date
     the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered.



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: National Standard for Carrying Concealed Weapons
Date: 21 Feb 1999 20:46:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:2:./temp/~c106sMQada::

Bill 2 of 10

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in
accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed
firearms in the State, and to exempt... (Introduced in the House)

HR 492 IH

106th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 492

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in
accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed
firearms in the State, and to exempt qualified current and former law
enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed
handguns.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 2, 1999

Mr. STEARNS (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr.
BACHUS, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr.
HOSTETTLER, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. RAHALL, and Mr.
BARCIA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary


A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in
accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed
firearms in the State, and to exempt qualified current and former law
enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed
handguns.

     Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
     States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS
BY NONRESIDENTS.

     (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
     by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
by nonresidents

     `(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political
     subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from
     possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is
     carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which
     permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a
     machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a
     concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that
     has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce,
     subject to subsection (b).

     `(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry
     concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the
     State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a
     concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a
     license or permit.

     `(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry
     concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed
     firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a
     courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county,
     or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school
     athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an
     establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for
     consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of
     an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.'.

     (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the
     following:

          `926B. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed
          firearms by nonresidents.'.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED CURRENT AND FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS.

     (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
     by inserting after section 926B, as added by section 1(a) of this Act,
     the following:

`Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and former
law enforcement officers

     `(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any
     political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law
     enforcement officer or a qualified former law enforcement officer and
     who is carrying appropriate written identification of such status may
     carry a concealed handgun.

     `(b) As used in this section:

          `(1) The term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an
          officer, agent, or employee of a public agency who--

               `(A) is a law enforcement officer;

               `(B) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm in the
               course of duty;

               `(C) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the
               agency; and

               `(D) meets such requirements as have been established by the
               agency with respect to firearms.

          `(2) The term `qualified former law enforcement officer' means an
          individual who--

               `(A) retired from service with a public agency as a law
               enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental
               disability;

               `(B) immediately before such retirement, was a qualified law
               enforcement officer;

               `(C) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the
               retirement plan of the agency;

               `(D) meets such requirements as have been established by the
               State in which the individual resides with respect to
               training in the use of firearms; and

               `(E) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a
               firearm.

          `(3) The term `law enforcement officer' means an individual
          authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention,
          detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law,
          and includes corrections, probation, parole, and judicial
          officers.

          `(4) The term `appropriate written identification' means, with
          respect to an individual, a document which--

               `(A) was issued to the individual by the public agency with
               which the individual serves or served as a law enforcement
               officer; and

               `(B) identifies the holder of the document as a current or
               former officer, agent, or employee of the agency.'.

     (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is
     amended by inserting after the item added by section 1(b) of this Act
     the following:

          `926C. Carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and
          former law enforcement officers.'.

     (c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall take
     effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: U.S. report links youth gun use, illegal transfers
Date: 22 Feb 1999 19:46:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

Clinton is trying to tie gun manufacturers to illegal gun sales. It's
just another angle to get everybody from being able to obtain a legal
firearm.
Mark

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/qguns22.htm

U.S. report links youth gun use, illegal transfers

Clinton wants to expand tracing program

February 22, 1999

BY SONYA ROSS
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration wants to bring more
cities into a program that traces guns used by young people in
crimes in light of a report that showed at least half the guns
traced were passed on to them illegally after being bought from
licensed dealers.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms released an analysis
Sunday of its Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative. The
program traced 76,260 guns used in crimes by 18-to-24-year-olds
in 27 cities including Detroit during the past three years.

President Bill Clinton is asking Congress for money to pay for
expanding the initiative.

The bureau found that 51 percent of the traced guns
were purchased from licensed dealers by people acting
as intermediaries for the real owners; only 35 percent
were stolen. The remainder came from private sellers.

Treasury officials said semiautomatic pistols were the most
commonly recovered weapon in each city, making up 52 percent
of all trace requests.

As a result of the traces, 397 people have been referred to
state and federal courts during the past year for prosecution
as gun traffickers, the report said.

Denise Dunleavy, an attorney for seven families who won a
$4-million negligence verdict against gun manufacturers in a
Brooklyn, N.Y., court last week, said: "If the manufacturers
took more rigorous precautions up front, you wouldn't have
the guns being trafficked."

The case, brought by a mother whose son was shot to death, is
being watched by cities eager to sue manufacturers to recover
costs from gun violence. Sunday's report, Dunleavy said,
"proves our evidence was certainly on the right track."

The report said 11.3 percent of the offenders involved were under
17 years old, and 32 percent were between 18 and 24. Thirty-one
percent of the guns were used in drug offenses and 28 percent
in assaults, 18 percent each in homicides and robberies.

The report was the result of Clinton's 1996 directive for the
Departments of Treasury and Justice to establish a program to
identify and reduce illegal firearms supplies.

The 27 cities in the report are Detroit; Atlanta; Baltimore;
Birmingham, Ala.; Boston; Bridgeport, Conn.; Chicago; Cincinnati;
Cleveland; Gary, Ind.; Houston; Inglewood, Calif.; Jersey City,
N.J.; Los Angeles; Memphis, Tenn.; Miami; Milwaukee; Minneapolis;
New York; Philadelphia; Richmond, Va.; Salinas, Calif.; San
Antonio; St. Louis; Seattle; Tucson, Ariz.; and Washington.

All content copyright 1999 Detroit Free Press and may not be
republished without permission.




-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: JUST DO IT! (fwd)
Date: 23 Feb 1999 08:36:10 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:38:19 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA10425; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:22:35 -0700
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA02544;
    Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:31:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline





---------- Forwarded message ----------

Hi --

    I'm taking a moment out of a very busy schedule to ask you to go =
to the
following web site:

        http://www.DefendYourPrivacy.com/

    ... and participate in the commentary going on there.  As you may =
know,
the government wants to turn the country's banks and credit unions into
spies, informing them about every transaction they regard as "too large"
or "unusual".  The excuse, of course, is the illegal and irrational War
on Drugs.  An early version of this proposal would eventually have
outlawed any cash transaction larger than $100.  I'm sure if they get
away with what they want now, we'll be hearing about the $100 deal
again.

    When I offered my comment, I observed that there isn't much bank
privacy now, and that this idea takes things in the wrong direction.  I
proposed that the kind of relationship should exist between you and your
bank that supposedly exists between you and your lawyer, clergyman, or
doctor.  I also proposed the abolition of all the agencies supporting
this nonsense.

    I urge you to go back me up, or propose your own notions. =20

Give 'em hell!

Neil
--=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of _THE PROBABILITY BROACH_,=20
_PALLAS_, _HENRY MARTYN_, _BRETTA MARTYN_, _THE MITZVAH_ (forthcoming,=20
with Aaron Zelman), and 15 other novels.   Order them from  Amazon.com=20
via  <http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html> or from Laissez Faire=20
Books at <http://www.laissezfaire.org> or just call Laissez Faire toll=20
free, 1-800-326-0996.



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SB 122 passes the Senate!
Date: 23 Feb 1999 16:47:34 -0700

SB 122, Olympic Gun Control (plus restrictions on firearms in churches and
private residences) passed the Senate today by a vote of 21-4, with 4
absent/abstentions.  This is actually WORSE than the second reading vote
which was 19-6-4.  Roll call vote (names) is not yet available.

The bill has been amended again:
1. What may be designated an Olympic venue has been restricted to areas
"secured by a perimeter, with controlled access" and/or areas not open to
the public such as the Olympic village.  Designation is still done by the
Olympic Commander and not the legislature.

2. Language has been added that clarifies that an owner may not deny a
tenant the right to keep and bear arms.

3. The bill reiterates that nothing in the bill modifies the Government
Immunity Act.

To give credit where it's due, USSC and Mike Waddoups worked together to
get these amendments worked out.  However the real credit goes to the
people who objected to the original versions of the bill and insisted on
changes.

While SB 122 is somewhat improved, it is still a BAD bill.  SLOC has
refused to accept any liability for anyone killed or injured at the
Olympics.  The state is immune to liability suits.

There still is no provision for safe storage of weapons, so anyone
attending events must travel to and from those events completely disarmed.
Visitors will have to chose between leaving a firarm in a hotel room or
car, and leaving it home.  The criminals are probably out celebrating.

While defining "secure areas" with fences and restricted access is a step
in the right direction, this in no way prevents the Olympic Commander from
fencing off the Gallivan Center, the Fairpark, or a few blocks of downtown
and restricting your right to enter.

Why did this bill pass?  Because our legislators agree with the Olympic
internationalists that "rights" only exist when our rulers "grant" them,
and these same rulers can revoke them at any time with complete immunity.
The Constitutions of the US and Utah are just "old pieces of paper".

Rights are inalienable, and cannot be revoked.  However, people who don't
understand what rights are and why they're important can be persuaded to
GIVE their rights away.  That is what is happening in Utah.  We're giving
our rights away (or allowing them to be stolen) in return for false
promises of "security" and Olympic gold.

If you don't want your rights stolen, it's time to act.  Contact members of
the HOUSE and insist that they OPPOSE SB 122 in any form.  Personal contact
is preferable to e-mail, so try to TALK to as many Representatives as
possible, and then follow-up with e-mail.

General contact numbers:
House voice: 801-538-1029, 800-662-3367
House fax: Rep. 801-538-1908, Dem. 801-538-9505

E-mail:
[e-mail] (Gerry Adair)
[e-mail] (Jeff Alexander)
[e-mail] (Sheryl Allen)
[e-mail] (Eli Anderson)
[e-mail] (Patrice Arent)
[e-mail] (Loretta Baca)
[e-mail] (Trisha Beck)
[e-mail] (Ralph Becker)
[e-mail] (Chad Bennion)
[e-mail] (Ron Bigelow)
[e-mail] (Jackie Biskupski)
[e-mail] (Duane Bourdeaux)
[e-mail] (DeMar Bowman)
[e-mail] (Afton Bradshaw)
[e-mail] (Mel Brown)
[e-mail] (Katherine Bryson)
[e-mail] (Perry Buckner)
[e-mail] (Judy Buffmire)
[e-mail] (Don Bush)
[e-mail] (Craig Buttars)
[e-mail] (Mary Carlson)
[e-mail] (Blake Chard)
[e-mail] (David N. Cox)
[e-mail] (Gary Cox)
[e-mail] (Greg Curtis)
[e-mail] (Margaret Dayton)
[e-mail] (Marda Dillree)
[e-mail] (Carl W. Duckworth)
[e-mail] (Ben C. Ferry)
[e-mail] (Fred J. Fife)
[e-mail] (Lloyd Frandsen)
[e-mail] (Kevin Garn)
[e-mail] (David Gladwell)
[e-mail] (Brent Goodfellow)
[e-mail] (James Gowans)
[e-mail] (Neil A. Hansen)
[e-mail] (Wayne Harper)
[e-mail] (Thomas Hatch)
[e-mail] (Neal Hendrickson)
[e-mail] (Dave Hogue)
[e-mail] (Kory M. Holdaway)
[e-mail] (Bryan Holladay)
[e-mail] (Dennis Iverson)
[e-mail] (Bradley Johnson)
[e-mail] (Keele Johnson)
[e-mail] (David Jones)
[e-mail] (Brad King)
[e-mail] (Susan Koehn)
[e-mail] (Becky Lockhart)
[e-mail] (Karen W. Morgan)
[e-mail] (Joseph Murray)
[e-mail] (Lowell Nelson)
[e-mail] (Loraine Pace)
[e-mail] (Tammy Rowan)
[e-mail] (Carl Saunders)
[e-mail] (Jack Seitz)
[e-mail] (Ray Short)
[e-mail] (Lou Shurtliff)
[e-mail] (Richard Siddoway)
[e-mail] (Gordon Snow)
[e-mail] (Marlon O. Snow)
[e-mail] (Martin Stephens)
[e-mail] (Nora Stephens)
[e-mail] (Michael Styler)
[e-mail] (John Swallow)
[e-mail] (Jordan Tanner)
[e-mail] (Matt Throckmorton)
[e-mail] (Lamont Tyler)
[e-mail] (David Ure)
[e-mail] (Richard Walsh)
[e-mail] (Glenn Way)
[e-mail] (Bill Wright)
[e-mail] (David Zolman)

Thanks!  It's in YOUR hands!

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Salt Lake Tribune -- Bad Law
Date: 23 Feb 1999 19:00:28 -0700

Anyone care to write a response?

http://www.sltrib.com/02221999/public_f/85242.htm

>                                                            Monday,
February 22, 1999
>
>
>  Bad Law
>
>             John Swallow,
[imageField]
>         speaking against
>         restricting handguns in schools and churches: "We have
>         the responsibility to not do just what is popular at the
>         moment but to push principles that are wise and just."
>         How fatuous!
>             Our society does not need weapons carried by
>         licensed citizens. Our streets are not safer today with
>         22,000 licensed handgun permitees than we were before
>         this legislation was passed. How many crimes have been
>         thwarted through the intervention of an armed civilian
>         with a concealed weapons permit? I can't recall a
>         newspaper story or a newscast reporting where this has
>         happened in our state. Concealed-weapon proponents talk
>         about using their legal weapon as a means for
>         protection. Some claim that "packing heat" will deter a
>         person from committing a crime. This is nonsense. A
>         drugged out person wild for money to feed his habit or a
>         punk with a handgun is not going to think twice about
>         the possible consequences of his actions.
>             This is a bad law. It has caused friction and
>         division between reasonable people. Positions have
>         hardened almost to a point where real accommodation and
>         compromise will be exceedingly difficult. I hope that
>         Rep. Swallow will revisit his position and indeed "push
>         principles that are wise and just."
>             RAYMOND HOLLSTEIN
>             Salt Lake City
>
>
>                                    [Previous Story] [Next Story]
>
>
>
> ) Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune
>
> All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune
and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused
> without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
>
>                                          Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or
Utah OnLine by clicking here.


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: GSL> Jailing those who sue gun makers
Date: 24 Feb 1999 08:32:42 -0700

This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.

--=_4314ACD2.BFDEB31F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I wonder if Utah could get a bill like this passed...

--=_4314ACD2.BFDEB31F
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:31:42 -0700
Received: from admin.listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA12488; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:15:55 -0700
Received: by admin.listbox.com (Postfix)
    id 7545C2822A; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:27:33 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: by admin.listbox.com (Postfix, from userid 509)
    id 70F8B28229; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:27:33 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from chai.pobox.com (chai.pobox.com [208.210.124.35])
    by admin.listbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for <[e-mail]>
    id DA3E428224; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:25:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mg1.rockymtn.net (mailserv.rockymtn.net [166.93.205.11])
    by chai.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for <[e-mail]>
    id 747227AAC; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:24:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 166-93-90-37.rmi.net (166-93-90-37.rmi.net [166.93.90.37])
    by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA12109;
    Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:56:38 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Posted to rkba-co by Mike Kemp <[e-mail]>(by way of =
Douglas Davis <[e-mail]>)
-----------------------
http://resistance.to > http://thePentagon.com/FullBookJacket >
http://GunsSaveLives.com

Florida Law Would Jail Mayors Who Sue Gun Makers

By Jane Sutton

MIAMI (Reuters) - Mayors who sue gun makers would face up to five
years in prison under a proposed Florida law that opponents said
Tuesday is the latest salvo in a national battle over liability
for shooting injuries and deaths.

The bill filed Feb. 19 by state Rep. George Albright would make
it a crime for local government officials to sue gun and
ammunition makers to recoup damages in cases arising from ``the
lawful design, marketing or sale of firearms.''

Public officials who file such lawsuits would risk conviction on
a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison
and fines up to $5,000.

Albright, a Republican from Ocala, said product liability
lawsuits should be left to private citizens and his bill would
stop local government officials from exercising powers the
legislature never intended them to have.

``This is about a small group of greedy mayors and a small group
of greedy trial lawyers,'' he told Reuters Tuesday.

The ban would apply to lawsuits already pending, quashing the
product liability suit that Miami's county government filed
against two dozen gun makers and distributors in January.

That suit argued that gun makers failed to equip their wares with
adequate safety features. It seeks to recoup hundreds of millions
of tax dollars spent treating gunfire victims and investigating
gun-related crimes.

Miami-Dade County Mayor Alex Penelas, who filed it, said
Albright's bill would have little real effect since individuals
could still sue gun makers, even if governments could not.

``Look what happened in New York. It was the victims and families
of victims that brought the lawsuit and they were successful,''
Penelas told Reuters.

Earlier this month, a federal jury in Brooklyn, New York found 15
gunmakers liable for seven shootings with illegally obtained
handguns. The jury awarded more than $500,000 in damages to the
lone surviving plaintiff, marking the first time a jury has held
manufacturers responsible for allowing guns to fall into the
hands of criminals.

Chicago, New Orleans, Atlanta, and Bridgeport, Connecticut, have
also sued gun makers over distribution or safety issues, and
other municipalities have said they plan to follow suit.

Lobbyists for the gun industry have countered by pressing state
legislatures to outlaw the lawsuits against gun makers.

Georgia did so earlier this month, including a retroactive clause
that could kill Atlanta's case. Similar anti-lawsuit legislation
has been filed in Alaska, Texas, Kansas, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Vermont and West Virginia, according to the Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence.

``The gun lobby has said 'jump' and unfortunately too many
legislators, when they hear the command, have to see how high
they can jump,'' said the center's Joe Sudbay.

``Why are legislators trying to protect this one industry from a
lawsuit? This is an industry that makes a product specifically
designed to kill,'' said Sudbay, whose group is a plaintiff in
the Miami-Dade County suit.

Marion Hammer, a Florida lobbyist and former president of the
National Rifle Association, said the group pushed for the
Albright bill in order to block a flurry of ``ludicrous''
lawsuits that attempt to establish ``back-door gun control.''

Hammer said officials who want to stem gun violence would be
better served to beef up enforcement of existing laws, such as
the Florida law requiring three-year minimum prison terms for
criminals convicted of using guns to commit crimes.

Penelas, asked if he would be willing to risk jail under the new
law, said: ``I am a law abiding citizen. If that's the law, I
would follow the law.''


--------------------------
GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List is
governed by an acceptable use policy:
http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html

To unsubscribe send a message to
[e-mail]
with the following line in the body:

unsubscribe gsl

GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST.
THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.

Somebody once said that a liberal's worst nightmare was=20
a self-employed American with a 401K pension,  because he=20
didn't want anything from the government except to be left=20
alone.  A self-employed person with a 401K and a concealed=20
carry permit will need the government even less. =20

******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with alerts under the heading ALERTS.
********************



For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
[e-mail]
with the word Help in the body of the message


--=_4314ACD2.BFDEB31F--

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: National police and disarmed citizens
Date: 23 Feb 1999 22:01:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_btl/19970905_xcbtl_national_p.shtml

FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 05 1997

National police and disarmed citizens
Joseph Farah

As the federal government grabs citizens'
firearms and deploys a virtual standing army
of national cops, America's balance of power
is shifting from freedom to tyranny.

This could only happen in a country where
the people, thanks to a heavy dose of
disinformation spread by the government-
media complex and the government schools,
have forgotten their history and
constitutional heritage.

Talk to the average gun-control fanatic
and he or she will tell you the Second
Amendment was only intended to protect the
right to bear arms in the context of the
need for defense of the state and nation.
This argument could only be made by
someone with a complete disconnect from
reality -- someone who chooses willingly
and deliberately to ignore the massive
amount of documentation to the contrary.

What was the original intent of our
founders with regard to firearms? Here's a
sampling of their unambiguous opinions:

   * James Madison: "The right of the
     people to keep and bear Arms, shall
     not be infringed. A well-regulated
     Militia, composed of the people
     trained to arms, is the best and most
     natural defense of a free country."

   * Samuel Adams: "And that the said
     Constitution be never construed to
     authorize Congress to prevent the
     people of the United States, who are
     peaceable citizens, from keeping
     their own arms."

   * Thomas Paine: "Arms discourage and
     keep the invader and plunderer in awe,
     and preserve order in the world as
     well as property ... horrid mischief
     would ensue were the law-abiding
     deprived of the use of them."

   * George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is
     the militia? It is the whole people,
     except for a few public officials."

   * George Washington: "Firearms are
     second only to the Constitution in
     importance; they are the people's
     liberty teeth. A free people ought to
     be armed. When firearms go, all goes.
     We need them every hour."

   * Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall
     ever be debarred the use of arms. ...
     The strongest reason for people to
     retain the right to keep and bear
     arms is, as a last resort, to protect
     themselves against tyranny in government."

   * Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can
     hope for, concerning the people at
     large, is that they be properly armed."

Many of these great men warned with equal
passion against the government arming
itself by creating what they feared would
be a standing army or national police
force. Consider the following:

   * Elbridge Gerry: "What, Sir, is the use
     of a militia? It is to prevent the
     establishment of a standing army, the
     bane of liberty. Whenever Governments
     mean to invade the rights and liberties
     of the people, they always attempt to
     destroy the militia, in order to raise
     an army upon their ruins."

   * Noah Webster: "Before a standing army
     can rule, the people must be disarmed;
     as they are in almost every kingdom of
     Europe. The supreme power in America
     cannot enforce unjust laws by the
     sword; because the whole body of the
     people are armed, and constitute a
     force superior to any bands of regular
     troops than can be, on any pretense,
     raised in the United States."

   * Tench Coxe: "The power of the sword
     is in the hands of Congress? My
     friends and countrymen, it is not so;
     for the powers of the sword are in
     the hands of the yeomanry of America
     from sixteen to sixty. The Militia of
     these free commonwealths, entitled
     and accustomed to their arms, when
     compared with any possible army, must
     be tremendous and irresistible. Who
     are the Militia? Their swords, and
     every other terrible implement of the
     soldier, are the birthright of an
     American. The unlimited power of the
     sword is not in the hands of either
     the Federal or State governments, but
     where I trust in God it will ever
     remain, in the hands of the people."

When you consider the letter of our
Constitution, and then consider its spirit
through the words of the men responsible
for authoring it, there is no question
about the individual's right to bear arms.
But there is grave reason to doubt the
right of the federal government to
authorize wielding them for any reason
other than war.

Thanks to Jim Eason of KSFO Radio in San
Francisco for compiling these and many
other similar quotes.
                  -------

A daily radio broadcast adaptation of
Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard
at http://www.ktkz.com/

Joseph Farah is editor of WorldNetDaily.com and
executive director of the Western Journalism Center,
an independent group of investigative reporters.

1997 Western Journalism Center



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: UT: Fight Moves To House
Date: 24 Feb 1999 13:45:13 -0700

The following alert was written byt Gun Owners of America.  Thanks!

Senate Passes "Improved" Olympic Gun Ban: Fight Moves To House

Gun Owners of America Email/Fax Alert
8001 Forbes Pl Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
[phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org


Utah-- February 24, 1999

Action: Insist Representatives Vote Against SB 122 NO MATTER WHAT


SB 122, the Olympics Gun Ban, passed the Senate yesterday on a vote
of 21-4-4. A pair of floor amendments were added in yet another
attempt to buy the silence of gun owners and give cover to the
politicians.

That is unacceptable. As the bill now goes to the House-- where you
can bet the anti-gunners will try to ram it through as fast as
possible-- it is vital that you immediately contact your
Representative with one simple message:

VOTE AGAINST SB 122 NO MATTER WHAT.

One of the amendments states that landowners cannot deny tenants
their Second Amendment rights. This was necessary because new gun
control in the "substituted" SB 122, similar to the gun control you
beat back in last year's battle over SB 57, lets anyone post signs
to deny your right of self-defense.

The other amendment narrows the definition of Olympic venue
somewhat, meaning that it might be difficult to declare the entirety
of Salt Lake City a no-safety zone. But the "Olympic law enforcement
commander" would still be able to ban lawfully carried weapons at
all spectator-attended events if access is controlled in any way
(such as tickets or crowd-routing temporary fences) and at all
places open to media or athletes but not the public.

Somehow, proposing sweeping gun control and then scaling it back a
bit before final passage is supposed to make gun owners happy.

Bill text:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1999/bills/sbillamd/SB0122S2.htm

--- Pre-written message: clip and send ---

Dear Representative:

I urge you to vote against SB 122 no matter what. There are no
possible amendments that would make this bill acceptable. My safety
and rights are simply too important.

Sincerely,

_______________


Utah House of Representatives Roster

General contact numbers:
House voice: 801-538-1029, 800-662-3367
House fax: Rep. 801-538-1908, Dem. 801-538-9505

District information is available at:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/html/district.htm

Dis Name        Home phone    Office phone  Fax

01 Anderson     435-854-3760
   [e-mail]
02 Ferry        435-744-2997  435-744-2997  435-744-2999
   [e-mail]
03 Buttars      435-258-5015  435-258-2559  435-258-2559
   [e-mail]
04 Pace         435-753-615
   [e-mail]
05 Olsen        435-752-4304  435-752-4304
   [e-mail]
06 Stephens     801-731-5346  801-524-2626  801-594-8229
   [e-mail]
07 Gladwell     801-782-4130  801-737-9160
   [e-mail]
08 Murray       801-393-7062
   [e-mail]
09 Hansen       801-393-1514  801-629-8325  801-392-8011
   [e-mail]    [e-mail]
10 Shurtliff    801-479-0289
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
11 Saunders     801-476-1110  801-476-7070  801-476-7074
   [e-mail]
12 Adair        801-773-2125  801-773-9250  801-773-9927
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
13 Stephens     801-825-3792
   [e-mail]
14 Bush         801-825-3210
   [e-mail]
15 Chard        801-773-7474
   [e-mail] [e-mail]
16 Garn         801-544-3533  801-776-0232
   [e-mail]
17 Dillree      801-451-2773  801-560-4455  801-451-6116
   [e-mail]
18 Koehn        801-296-1761  801-444-5187
   [e-mail]
19 Allen        801-295-8576  801-444-5184
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
20 Siddoway     801-292-4185  801-538-7736  801-294-4135
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
21 Gowans       435-882-2120
   [e-mail]
22 Duckworth    801-250-0728  801-569-6523
   [e-mail]
23 Bourdeaux    801-596-8784  801-596-9081  801-322-4435
   [e-mail]
24 Becker       801-364-1656  801-355-8816  801-355-2090
   [e-mail]
25 Jones        801-582-8247
   [e-mail]
26 Fife         801-521-7383  801-972-3475  801-977-9454
   [e-mail]
27 Baca         801-487-2738  801-969-9904
   [e-mail]
28 Bradshaw     801-581-9646  801-581-9646  801-581-9646
   [e-mail]
29 Goodfellow   801-968-0626  801-957-3313
   [e-mail]
30 Biskupski    801-484-8369  801-296-5014
   [e-mail]
31 Carlson      801-485-8612
   [e-mail]
32 Bigelow      801-968-4188
   [e-mail]
33 Hendrickson  801-969-8920
   [e-mail]
34 Holdaway     801-964-6360  801-268-8553  801-964-6360
   [e-mail]
35 Buffmire     801-266-1862
   [e-mail]
36 Tyler        801-272-1218  801-581-6920  801-585-9291
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
37 Short        801-277-1372  801-278-0259
   [e-mail]
38 Cox          801-967-9760  801-569-5216
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
39 Zolman       801-967-6687
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
40 Walsh        801-561-5169  801-561-5169
   [e-mail]
41 Arent        801-272-1956  801-272-1956  801-272-4450
   [e-mail]
42 Buckner      801-964-8215                801-967-4333
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
43 Harper       801-566-5466  801-569-5121
   [e-mail]
44 Bennion      801-281-1607  801-264-2678  801-288-2144
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
45 Brown        801-255-0556  801-355-6079
   [e-mail]
46 Morgan       801-943-0067                801-943-9614
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
47 Holladay     801-280-6404  801-898-4456  801-282-4677
   [e-mail]
48 Beck         801-572-2325                801-572-9347
   [e-mail]
49 Curtis       801-943-3091  801-569-5141
   [e-mail]
50 Frandsen     801-254-4940  801-253-4409  801-253-4080
   [e-mail]
51 Swallow      801-572-8201  801-553-9805  801-571-6545
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
52 Hogue        801-254-1668  801-253-7586  801-253-7586
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
53 Ure          435-783-4650  435-783-2487
   [e-mail]
54 Snow         435-722-4162  435-722-9111
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
55 Seitz        435-789-0650  435-789-1552  435-789-1551
   [e-mail]
56 Cox          801-768-8759  801-768-7020  801-768-8759
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
57 Nelson       801-756-7558  801-756-2091
   [e-mail]
58 Snow         801-224-6163  801-486-7121  801-486-7125
   [e-mail]
59 Rowan        801-224-6141  801-224-6141  801-224-6141
   [e-mail]
60 Bryson       801-226-2061
   [e-mail]
61 Dayton       801-221-0623                801-375-0369
   [e-mail]
62 Alexander    801-375-1092  801-224-8666  801-224-0446
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
63 Tanner       801-373-6246  801-373-6246  801-373-6246
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
64 Lockhart     801-377-7428
   [e-mail]
65 Throckmorton 801-489-8342
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
66 Way          801-798-2295
   [e-mail]
67 Wright       801-667-3333  801-667-3333
   [e-mail]
68 Styler       435-864-3077  435-864-5660  435-864-5669
   [e-mail]
69 King         435-637-7955  435-637-2120  435-637-2433
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
70 Johnson      435-529-3227  435-529-7443  435-529-7444
   [e-mail]
71 Johnson      435-678-2077  435-678-2201  435-678-2220
   [e-mail]
72 Bowman       435-586-8174
   [e-mail]
73 Hatch        435-676-2214  435-676-8808  435-676-2421
   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
74 Iverson      435-673-2936
   [e-mail]
75 Hickman      435-673-2671  435-674-5200
   [e-mail]

**************
Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to
date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail
Alert network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the
volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to
[e-mail] and include the state in which you live, in
either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert
and ask to be removed.






-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: LAST CHANCE!  HB 237
Date: 24 Feb 1999 14:31:03 -0700

HB 237, DPS fee increases has passed the House and received a favorable
report from the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee.  It now
goes to the full Senate for a final vote.

This is your last chance to stop fee increases and return oversight to the
legislature.

Contact Senators (especially your own) and urge them to OPPOSE HB 237!

General contact numbers:
Senate voice: 801-538-1035, 877-585-8824
Senate fax: Rep. 801-538-1414, Dem. 801-538-1449


leg-alerts is owned and distributed by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The opinions in this alert represent those of the list owner only,
unless otherwise attributed or specified.

To subscribe to leg-alerts send a message to:
    [e-mail]
in the body of the message put:
    subscribe leg-alerts

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT YOU CANNOT POST TO THIS LIST!
Send comments, alerts, suggestions, etc. to:
[e-mail]

-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Warner Bros. & Snipers
Date: 24 Feb 1999 14:38:22 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:25:44 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id OAA13401; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:09:55 -0700
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA10268;
    Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:19:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990224154520.0079fd60@dftsrv>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: first-class
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

>    GySgt Carlos Hathcock died at 0545 hours, 23 Feb1999.=20
>He developed pneumomia while hospitalized for a urinary=20
>infection. Taps and a hand salute to a truly exceptional
>warrior and fighter till the end.




God bless Carlos Hathcock.
One of the most famous snipers to ever live.
He saved many American lives with what he did.
May he rest in peace.




-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Sun. 2-28 Waco-BATF Demo White House
Date: 25 Feb 1999 08:16:00 -0700

Received: from smtp4.listserve.com ([206.55.18.125]) by mta1.mailsrvcs.net
          (InterMail v03.02.04 118 119) with ESMTP
          id <[e-mail]>
          for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:24:19 -0600
Received: from star.listserve.com (Star.ListServe.com [206.55.18.12])
    by smtp4.listserve.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA10188;
    Wed, 24 Feb 1999 20:20:09 -0500
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: Bulk
Host: http://ListServe.com, a service of Whole Systems Design, Inc.
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

It's the 6th anniversary of BATF attack on Davidians that killed
6 Davidians and 4 agents.  For the fifth year in a row members
of the Committee for Waco Justice will be demonstrating--this
year right on Bill Clinton's doorstep--on the White House sidewalk
south of Lafayette Park.

We'll be gathering at 2:00 pm, hanging out for an hour or
so, and then going for late lunch/early dinner nearby.
I've got lots of Waco signs, but bring your own if
you like.  Let's remind Clinton that we have not
forgotten the MAIN reason he SHOULD have been
impeached and removed. And let's chant loud for the
seven Davidian prisoners doing 238 years total!

(PS.  NBC Dateline will air an interview with
Juanita Broaddrick who makes credible allegations
Clinton raped her 20 years ago.  All America
will get a better idea of just what kind of evil
man we have in the White House. Sorry this
message late, my server down since last night.)

[e-mail]
http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/davidian-massacre.html



****Owning a firearm is a RIGHT, not a privilege****
    The NRA ILA EVC closed mailing list is NOT an=20
    official list of the NRA, but is offered as=20
a tool by Jim Kendall (WA-1st District EVC) and Telebyte NW.
   To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an email request to=20
             [e-mail]
    *********** Victory 1998! ***************


-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: "Peace in our Time"
Date: 25 Feb 1999 08:09:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------

We need more satire like this. :-)

----------

A rewrite of a portion of Leonard Wojcik's apologist statements regarding
the USSC's support of SB 122, with a Neville Chamberlain twist:

Yes we think we have a pretty good arrangement with Adolf Hitler and the
German government, all things considered. Some type of armed incursion is
going to happen. The German news media will keep pushing for it and
eventually the German public will demand it (even though it is irrational,
the public doesn't think, they just react to being alarmed).

It then will be used as a vehicle to push through numerous odorous offenses
such as were outlined in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Compare where responsibility
lies in Mein Kampf vs the current agreement. The current agreement requires
Nazi Germany to refrain from attacking certain countries, Mein Kampf
required genocide. The infractions are not even in the same ballpark. I
don't think that the Western Nations who are opposing the current proposal
have the political or military clout to hold off a German assault next
year. We run the very real risk of losing it all, with no gains at all.

As for next year: The British government totally opposes any incursions
by the Nazis. We have drawn the line at that point. We feel that this
year's agreement with Nazi Germany makes it much easier to defend our point
next year and in the following years. This agreement also sets a standard
that any future incursions will have to meet and it will be difficult.

Some may get a thrill out of confrontational politics.... the rancor of
bitterly fought presentations in world committees, the political muscle of
rallies on the steps of the British Parliament, rubbing the anti-fascist
nose in our political muscle. We prefer to work with reasonable people
like Adolf Hitler to try to solve the problems before we have to go
confrontational. The British government feels that with the inevitable
Nazi incursions, it is wise to deal with the problem now while we can get
some favorable concessions.

Read the agreement, understand what is happening, support the efforts of
a lot of people to preserve your rights. Contact your leaders and express
support for the Munich peace agreement as amended by Adolf Hitler and
Neville Chamberlain in 1938.


The portion of Leonard Wojcik's statements used above:

Yes we think we have a pretty good bill, all things considered. Some
type of olympic legislation is going to happen. The news media will keep
pushing for it and eventually the public will demand it (even though it is
irrational, the public doesn't think, they just react to being alarmed).
It then will be used as a vehicle to push through numerous odorous things
such as were in the Jones bill. Compare where responsibility lies in the
Jones bill vs the current bill. The current bill puts responsibility on the
property owner, the Jones bill required prior permission. The penalties are
not even in the same ballpark. I don't think that those who are opposing
the current bill have the political clout to hold off an assualt next year.
We run the very real risk of losing it all, with no gains at all.

As for next year: USSC totally oposes restrictions on concealed carry
in business and schools. We have drawn the line at that point. We feel
that this year's bill makes it much easier to defend our point next year
and in the following years. This bill also sets a standard that any future
temporary restrictions will have to meet and it will be difficult.

Some may get a thrill out of confrontational politics.... the rancor
of bitterly fought presentations in committees, the political muscle
of rallys on the capitol steps, rubbing the anti gunner's nose in our
political muscle. We prefer to work with reasonable people to try to
solve the problems before we have to go confrontational. The USSC board
feels that with the inevitable passage of some sort of bill, it is wise
to deal with the problem now while we can get some favorable language.

Read the bill, understand what is happening, support the efforts of a
lot of people to preserve your rights. Contact your senators and express
support for SB122 second substitute as amended by Senator Waddoups.



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun vs NAACP
Date: 25 Feb 1999 20:51:00 -0700


I'd let them skate if they add a statement of disaffiliation with
the NAACP to their Form 4473. :)

Scott

---------- Forwarded message ----------

You folks heard that the NAACP is thinking about joining in with cities
and suing the gun makers. Here's how the gun manufactures should respond:

We, the Gun Manufacturers of America, have received word of possible
legal actions taken against us by the NAACP for the proliferation of
firearms in their communities. Their claim is that guns have cause
death and destruction their large constituency.

Therefore, in order to make the Black Community "feel more safe", and
to avoid any lawsuit by the NAACP, the Gun Manufacturers of America
have decided to no longer sell firearms to any Black Americans. We also
encourage the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to review all 4473
form for the "race" of the gun owner, and confiscating any firearm
currently owned by any Black American (including law enforcement and
military). After all, we wouldn't want the Black population hurting
themselves with our products.

Let's see if that doesn't tick some people off.
J.J. Johnson
______________________________________________
J.J. Johnson - [e-mail]

P.O. Box 3000 suite 204
Pahrump, Nevada 89041
702.727.6340 Office
888.779.3347 Pager



-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RIP: Carlos Hathcock - Decorated Marine Sniper
Date: 26 Feb 1999 08:20:13 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:08:07 -0700
Received: from bronze.coil.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id AAA15350; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:52:17 -0700
Received: from [198.4.94.178] (cmhd2.coil.com [198.4.94.210]) by bronze.coil.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA06688; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:30:48 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <v0401170eb2fbf30e9df8@[198.4.94.178]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline


On Tuesday 23 February 1999 at 0545 hrs America lost one of its Greatest
Vietnam era Heros.  Legendary United States Marine Sniper, GSgt. Carlos
Norman Hathcock II, passed away after a long bout with multiple sclerosis
and most recently a kidney infection which had caused him to be
hospitalized for a short time.

GSgt. Hathcock was the subject of MARINE SNIPER - 93 Confirmed Kills by
Charles Henderson.  Probably one of the most read Vietnam era books, it
covers some of the more colorful events which made him famous.  He was
awarded the Silver Star, although more than 25+ years after the fact, for
saving the lives of several Marines on 16 September 1969 when the amtrac
they were riding on ran over an anti-tank mine and was destroyed.
Despite his severe personal wounds which included 3rd degree burns over
almost every inch of his body, Hathcock jeopardized his own life and
pulled seven other Marines to safety before trying to save himself.
Despite a nation-wide effort to convince Washington to award the Medal of
Honor; Hatcock received the Silver Star as a reminder to all of the
political nature of Vietnam and what it's like to have a draft-dodger as
'so-called' President.

Despite life-threatening wounds, Hathcock recovered and began instructing
other Marine Snipers at the Scout Sniper School in Quantico, VA.  He also
trained hundreds of civilian law enforcement 'counter-snipers' as well.

Probably the best known sniper in American history GSgt. Carlos N.
Hathcock II will be sorely missed, but not forgotten.

A memorial web site, http://www.marinesniper.org, is in the process of
being set up.  It will contain stories and information about GSgt.
Hathcock as well as the ability to make donations to a memorial fund
which is being set up in his honor.

The following are the arrangements for U S Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant
Carlos Norman Hathcock II:

A viewing will be held at the Woodlawn Memorial Gardens Funeral Home,
6329 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462 on Thursday
25 February 1999 from 6:00 - 8:00 pm.

A service will be held Friday 26 February 1999 at 12:00 noon at the
funeral home with burial following the service.

Memorials may be made to:

     Navy Marine Corps Relief Fund Society
     PO Box 415
     Quantico, VA 22134

Carlos is survived by his wife, Jo, and his son GySgt Carlos N. Hathcock
III.  Cards and letters of condolences may be sent to:

     Mrs. Carlos N. Hathcock II
     600 Raff Road
     Virginia Beach, VA 23462


Jim Ramm
Member, NRA Board of Directors

**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: [e-mail] with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per =
week)
Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH  43229
Archived at http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?list=[e-mail]=

**************************************************************************


-