ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.199903

Internet Message Format | 1999-03-26 | 160KB

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: "The Best Defense"
Date: 04 Mar 1999 18:43:00 -0700


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

THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 2, 1999

Stories of Saved Lives aim to Erase Gun-Owning Stigma
By Robert Stacy McCain
James Wayne Horne had a record of nearly 30 arrests, with three state
prison terms behind him, when he broke into Sammie Foust's Cape Coral,
Fla., home in 1996.

Horne was on crack cocaine. He wanted money. He had a knife. He cut and
beat the 49-year-old woman so badly that she required hospitalization.

Horne didn't go to the hospital. He went to the morgue, because Mrs.
Foust found her pistol and shot him dead.

The story of how a .25-caliber pistol saved Mrs. Foust's life is just
one of more than a dozen dramatic accounts of armed self-defense by
ordinary citizens in Robert A. Waters' new book, "The Best Defense:
True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm."

The stories were chosen "for dramatic effect," Mr. Waters said, even
though he explains that most instances of armed self-defense end
peacefully as soon as a criminal sees that his intended victim has a
gun. [Brandishing, IMO, unless the criminal is apprehended. Otherwise
this merely advises the escaping criminal to conduct the next crime
more stealthily and prey upon the unarmed. Very uncharitable. - Scott]

"There are a lot of stories where someone would come up to try to carjack
a car, and the driver would pull a gun and the guy would run away," Mr.
Waters said. Having a gun "may have saved [the driver's] life, but there's
not much drama in that." [And killed the next guy.]

Mr. Waters, 55, said he chose the 14 accounts in "The Best Defense" from
among "several thousand cases" he had collected over the years. The Ocala,
Fla., resident said his interest in such stories began "about 10 years ago"
when he saw a story in the local newspaper about a man who shot an intruder.
"At that point, I started collecting clippings" about citizens defending
themselves with firearms, he said.

Among the violent encounters recounted in Mr. Waters' new book:

* With a .45-caliber pistol, Doug Stanton of Ashland, Ohio, ended the 1995
killing spree of Jerry Hessler, who had murdered four persons and wounded
two others in a psychotic revenge plan.

* Judy Davis of Orange County, Fla., was stalked by an obsessive man she
had once briefly dated. When he continued stalking her despite restraining
orders and two criminal convictions -- he was twice released on probation
-- Miss Davis bought a .38 revolver that saved her life when the stalker
broke into her home and attacked her.

* On Dec. 2, 1994, the long criminal career of "Dixie Mafia" boss William
"Pappy" Head ended when he and an accomplice made the mistake of trying to
rob a jewelry store in Richmond whose owner, Gary B. Baker, made sure he
and his employees were always armed.

A retired counselor to the disabled, Mr. Waters is himself a gun owner --
but "not a collector or a real major gun enthusiast," he said. He hopes the
stories in "The Best Defense" will help counter media stereotypes of gun
owners. [What, that they won't take out their own trash, but dump it on
other people who may not be armed at the time?]

"Gun owners are portrayed as being militia types. ... A lot of people try
to portray gun owners as vigilantes, cowboys and wackos," Mr. Waters said,
explaining that the people he interviewed for the book "were nothing like
that. They were normal, everyday citizens who were going about their
everyday lives when they were brutally attacked. And because they had a
gun, they were able to survive the attack."

Mr. Waters noted that his home state of Florida is one of several states
that license citizens to carry concealed weapons.

"Since the law was passed in 1987, more than 300,000 permits have been
issued, and the murder rate has fallen 21 percent," he said. "Many
criminals will tell you that they do anything to avoid an armed citizen.
One reason, for instance, they don't rob 'mom and pop' stores, as opposed
to chain stores, is because in the 'mom and pop' stores, many times the
owners will keep a gun. Many [retail] chains have policies prohibiting
clerks from keeping guns."

Mr. Waters cited the research of University of Chicago professor John R.
Lott Jr., whose recent book "More Guns, Less Crime" demonstrated that
private gun ownership deters violent crime.

But such research is sometimes ignored, Mr. Waters said, and many media
accounts continue to promote legislation against gun ownership.

"I think it's based on emotion," Mr. Waters said of the current "mania"
for gun-control laws. "I think Dr. Lott and Dr. Gary Kleck at Florida
State University have proven that gun control makes minimal difference
in the murder rate. However, emotionally, it's a lot easier to blame a
firearm [for crime], rather than blaming the criminal."

Statistics and research are inadequate when gun-control advocates appeal
to such common emotions, Mr. Waters said.

"One of the reasons I wrote this book was to bring some emotional
presence to the pro-gun side of the debate," he said. "Any time a child
or a teen-ager is murdered with a gun, it's all over the national media.
And yet, there are hundreds of thousands of cases of people using guns
for self-defense and to defend others. But these stories are generally
local stories. They're not usually carried by the national media."

Mr. Waters added, "The pro-gun side needs to debate less about the
Second Amendment and more about issues that really matter to people,
such as self-defense."

Though he defends the Second Amendment guarantee of citizens' rights to
"keep and bear arms," Mr. Waters said, "I'm not totally opposed to all
forms of gun control." He supports the recently implemented instant
background check because "criminals should be stopped from getting
firearms as much as we can." [Yet they should be loosed on society!?]
However, he has concerns about efforts for federal gun registration laws
"because I think they will eventually lead to confiscation."

The recent efforts by several cities to sue gun manufacturers for the
actions of criminals is "absurd," Mr. Waters said. "It's almost like
suing a pencil manufacturer because a kid makes an F in class."

While gun ownership is unpopular in some places, Mr. Waters said
reaction to his book in Florida has been very positive. He was even
invited to address a gathering of retired teachers.

"Ocala is a very conservative town," he said.

One thing Mr. Waters learned in interviewing citizens who had used
their firearms in self-defense is that they had usually done everything
they could to avoid killing someone. [Letting a violent criminal go
allows him to kill others.]

"Most Americans have a healthy respect for human life," he said.

Not criminals, though. "I think a lot of them are sociopathic. In other
cases, their minds are so clouded with drugs, such as crack cocaine,
they go out to rob and steal to get these drugs, and it doesn't matter
who gets in their way."

Copyright 1999 News World Communications, Inc.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Lawmakers Urge New Gun Regulation Powers
Date: 04 Mar 1999 18:43:00 -0700


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

Dammit.
They just won't stop will they ?!

U.S. Lawmakers Urge New Gun Regulation Powers
1.52 p.m. ET (1853 GMT) March 2, 1999

WASHINGTON -- A group of U.S. lawmakers offered legislation Tuesday that
would allow the government to regulate the manufacture, sale and
distribution of guns like it does other consumer products.

The bill, backed by New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli and Rhode Island
Rep. Patrick Kennedy, both Democrats, would make firearms subject to
government regulations in the same way as everyday products such as toys,
toasters and washing machines.

"It is outrageous that our government is powerless to regulate this
industry and is unable to warn consumers of the risks which guns may
pose,'' Kennedy told a news conference.

Under the bill, called the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act,
the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms would
regulate the manufacture and sale of guns, develop safety standards and
evaluate product safety.

It would have the power to restrict guns that posed an unreasonable risk
of death or injury, and set a penalty of $500 for civil violations of the
act.

A host of proposals for restrictions on guns have died in Congress amid
fierce Republican opposition since the 1994 passage of the Brady law
requiring federal background checks for anyone purchasing a weapon from
a licensed gun dealer.

The bill was named after former White House spokesman James Brady, who
was shot and wounded during the 1981 assassination attempt on President
Ronald Reagan.

Kennedy said the new legislation would be a first step toward regulation
of the industry. Supporters said it could serve as a model for negotiated
settlements of lawsuits filed against the gun industry by mayors and
individuals.

A federal jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., earlier this month found gunmakers
liable for shootings with illegally obtained handguns because of negligent
marketing and distribution practices.

Several U.S. cities have filed lawsuits seeking to hold the gun industry
accountable for firearms violence.


[e-mail]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: "The Best Defense"
Date: 05 Mar 1999 11:55:53 -0700


On Thu, 04 Mar 99 18:43:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) posted:

>THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 2, 1999
>
>Stories of Saved Lives aim to Erase Gun-Owning Stigma
>-------------------------------------
>By Robert Stacy McCain
>-------------------------------------

[...]
>
>The stories were chosen "for dramatic effect," Mr. Waters said, even
>though he explains that most instances of armed self-defense end
>peacefully as soon as a criminal sees that his intended victim has a
>gun. [Brandishing, IMO, unless the criminal is apprehended. Otherwise
>this merely advises the escaping criminal to conduct the next crime
>more stealthily and prey upon the unarmed. Very uncharitable. - Scott]
>
>"There are a lot of stories where someone would come up to try to carjack
>a car, and the driver would pull a gun and the guy would run away," Mr.
>Waters said. Having a gun "may have saved [the driver's] life, but there's
>not much drama in that." [And killed the next guy.]
[...]

You have an interesting, and troubling concept of "charity" Scott.
Being trained to use a gun in self defense and being trained in the
safe, legal apprehension of criminals are two VERY seperate issues.
The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense is
that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or
physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared to
other forms of self defense or combat.  Ask a cop how many hours of
training he needed to become profficient at using his gun vs how many
hours of training (and how much physical ability) he needed in order
to learn how to apprehend a criminal without simply killing the crook
or subjecting himself to grave harm.  Do you suggest that only those
able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense?

A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing
would-be carjacker and apprehend him.  The law, and I believe most
people's morals, prohibit the use of deadly force unless there is
reasonable belief your life, or the life of another innocent person is
IMMEDIATELY threatened.  Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief,
rapist, etc, in the back is legally (civilally and criminally)
dangerous, and morally questionable.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be
displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy
yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him.  Some
90% of the times a gun is "used" to prevent a crime, it is never fired
and in the vast majority of those cases, the criminal flees.  Your
thinking would elminate the vast majority of the times a person
protects themselves witha gun.

Apply this same faulty logic to other situations.  I have an alarm
system on my car and house.  I drive an old, ugly car without a
stereo.  I have stickers and lights on both indicating to potential
criminals that alarms are present.  I have a large dog at home.  I am
also fanatical about locking my doors (home and car) and taking my
keys with me.  Does this not encourage thieves to avoid my car and
home in favor of the newer car with a stereo and without an alarm,
with the keys in the ignition, or the home without an alarm, with the
doors unlocked or garage door open, and without a dog?  By adding
alarms (and a dog) and locking doors I've made no attempt to even
identify a criminal, much less apprehend or kill him.  Gads, just
driving with your doors locked and windows up is one first step to
avoiding car jackings as someone with windows rolled down and doors
unlocked is a much easier tarket.

Do you not lock your bike when leaving it in public?  Did you ever
consider that by properly locking your bike you are encouraging
thieves to victimize someone who hasn't locked their bike?  Do you
feel any responsibility because you have not taken additional measures
to apprehend the person who would have otherwise stolen you bike?

Does this make me "uncharitable"?  Of course not.  It means I've taken
responsibility for myself.  Others would be wise to do likewise.  But
their lack of preparation does not shift a burden onto my shoulders to
take extraordinary (and potentially illegal) measures to apprehend or
kill a criminal.  That remains true whether we are talking about
locking doors and adding alarms to discourage criminals or whether we
are talking about "brandishing" a weapon to end a crime before it
begins.

And thank you for posting the article.

--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
 subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
 have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
 downfall by doing so." -- Adolf Hitler

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: The Firing Line Possible USA Today Ad
Date: 05 Mar 1999 14:39:00 -0700


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

The folks at http://www.firingline.com have an idea. They
want to place an ad similar to the following in USA Today:

To Whom it May Concern,

No More. Not one more type of firearm, variant of a firearm,
or individual firearm. Not one class of ammunition, caliber nor
type of bullet. Not a single accessory, tool nor book related
to firearms. No more limits on the types of guns, the number
of guns, nor the amount of ammunition that I can own. Nor any
restrictions on the frequency with which I can add more of the
aforementioned to my collection. If you want them, come take
them, all at once... otherwise, Leave us the Hell Alone.

The actual discussion is at

http://www.thefiringline.com/NonCGI/Forum10/HTML/000279.html

I think this is an excellent idea. Mosey over and read the discussion.

!!!

- Monte

   ------------------------------------------------------
        "Black Holes are where God divided by zero"
   ------------------------------------------------------


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: "The Best Defense"
Date: 05 Mar 1999 16:14:00 -0700


On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:55:53 -0700 Charles Hardy wrote:

> You have an interesting, and troubling concept of "charity" Scott.
> Being trained to use a gun in self defense and being trained in the
> safe, legal apprehension of criminals are two VERY seperate issues.

Nolo contendere

> The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense
> is that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or
> physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared
> to other forms of self defense or combat.

Also agreed, so make sure your training is adequate and appropriate.

> Do you suggest that only those
> able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense?

Not at all. However, they should only draw it if they are prepared
to use it. If telling the criminal to depart is insufficient, then
only allow the gun to speak for you if you intend that literally.
Otherwise, why bother with a gun or CCW permit? Quite realistic
appearing imitation, or for that matter, disabled, guns are available.
And FYI, Governor Jesse Ventura is in the habit of making Citizen's
arrests of speeders.

> A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing
> would-be carjacker and apprehend him.

Then don't brandish. If the carjacker makes a move to harm you
despite your first telling him to depart (unqualified with "or
I'll shoot"), shoot to kill without first telegraphing your move,
unlesss your command immediately upon drawing was "Freeze!" or
don't carry a gun at all and handle the situation without one.

> The law, and I believe most people's morals, prohibit the use of
> deadly force unless there is reasonable belief your life, or the
> life of another innocent person is IMMEDIATELY threatened.

Likely true. However, loosing a proven carjacker on unarmed victims
is reckless endangerment, IOW, "aiding and abetting", IMO.

> Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief, rapist, etc, in the
> back is legally (civilally and criminally) dangerous, and morally
> questionable.

If the law prohibits Citizens from shooting a felon fleeing from
the act, and resisting a Citizen's arrest, then the law is an ass.
Don't let the situation go there.

> The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be
> displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy
> yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him.

Display !== brandish

My opinions are unchanged whether the gun is carried concealed or
openly. However, pointing or even waving it at someone is brandishing.
Don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him immediately
or if he fails to obey your command made after drawing, which may be
implicit, but does not include departure. Saying "no" is sufficient to
make a point legally. A fleeing criminal means you allowed him to escape
arrest. OTOH, if he left because he saw you were carrying openly, then
you never commanded him to leave or submit to arrest, and you probably
never noticed any threat or his departure.

> Some 90% of the times a gun is "used" to prevent a crime, it is never
> fired and in the vast majority of those cases, the criminal flees.
> Your thinking would elminate the vast majority of the times a person
> protects themselves witha gun.

Then the battle was lost though the attacked survived. I have no
objection to your carrying openly so the attack is never made, but
beware of pickholsters.

> Apply this same faulty logic

Sez you.

> to other situations.  I have an alarm system on my car and house.
> I drive an old, ugly car without a stereo.  I have stickers and lights
> on both indicating to potential criminals that alarms are present.

If you must carry concealed, perhaps you should wear your permit
on your hat or lapel, and put a warning sign on your car door. Then,
if you must still draw your concealed gun, the need to shoot will
be unequivocal. Comparing a gun to an alarm system, this would be
like an "alarm" that when activated causes a shotgun or antipersonnel
mine to pop up and threaten to discharge if the intruder doesn't
immediately vacate the premises.

> I have a large dog at home.  I am
> also fanatical about locking my doors (home and car) and taking my
> keys with me.  Does this not encourage thieves to avoid my car and
> home in favor of the newer car with a stereo and without an alarm,
> with the keys in the ignition, or the home without an alarm, with the
> doors unlocked or garage door open, and without a dog?

Certainly, but none of this save perhaps the dog approaches
brandishing, unless your "alarm" appears life-threatening to
intruders. Skip the gun and carry a personal alarm. Perhaps you
could take the dog with you, and leave an intrusion-activated
recording of a barking and clawing dog at home.

> By adding alarms (and a dog) and locking doors I've made no attempt
> to even identify a criminal, much less apprehend or kill him.  Gads,
> just driving with your doors locked and windows up is one first step
> to avoiding car jackings as someone with windows rolled down and
> doors unlocked is a much easier tarket.

Correct. Restrict yourself to passive defenses if active defense
bothers you. I suppose I can be assured you won't install one of
those flamethrowing carjacking deterrent systems on your car? :)

> Do you not lock your bike when leaving it in public?

Car too, sometimes with a dog in it.

> Did you ever consider that by properly locking your bike you are
> encouraging thieves to victimize someone who hasn't locked their
> bike?

No. I increase the general difficulty of bicycle theft. They must
at least walk to more bikes, or spend time defeating my lock. My
lock does not threaten to shoot them if they persist.

> Do you feel any responsibility because you have not taken additional
> measures to apprehend the person who would have otherwise stolen you
> bike?

Funny you should ask. I have some guilt feelings that I did not
obtain identification information such as descriptions and car tag
number of some thugs who, in retrospect, were attempting to steal
my next door neighbor's jeep and who then proceeded to steal my
parents' van 4 1/2 miles away.

> Does this make me "uncharitable"?  Of course not.  It means I've taken
> responsibility for myself.  Others would be wise to do likewise.  But
> their lack of preparation does not shift a burden onto my shoulders to
> take extraordinary (and potentially illegal) measures to apprehend or
> kill a criminal.  That remains true whether we are talking about
> locking doors and adding alarms to discourage criminals or whether we
> are talking about "brandishing" a weapon to end a crime before it begins.

Brandishing without ability or intent to follow through and apprehend
or dispatch the criminal indicates irresponsible lack of preparation.
Don't do it. If you must scare the criminal, brandish your CCW permit.
If the crime has not begun, your brandishing a weapon is a crime, just
as brandishing a guillotine in your doorway would.

> And thank you for posting the article.

You're welcome.

   If you think "militia" applies to the National Guard, then you must
   think "Freedom of Speech" applies to the Government Printing office.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: "The Best Defense"
Date: 05 Mar 1999 17:30:24 -0700


On Fri, 05 Mar 99 16:14:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) posted:

>> The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense
>> is that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or
>> physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared
>> to other forms of self defense or combat.
>
>Also agreed, so make sure your training is adequate and appropriate.

Adequate and appropriate to prevent or stop an attack is far different
than adequate and appropriate to effect an arrest of someone who
immediatly flees when he sees your gun.

>
>> Do you suggest that only those
>> able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense?
>
>Not at all. However, they should only draw it if they are prepared
>to use it. If telling the criminal to depart is insufficient, then
>only allow the gun to speak for you if you intend that literally.
>Otherwise, why bother with a gun or CCW permit? Quite realistic
>appearing imitation, or for that matter, disabled, guns are available.

Being prepared to use it--if a criminal continues to advance or
otherwise presents an immediate threat to your well being--is
different than playing quick-draw and shooting immediately.  Neither
do I believe there is any proper requirment to not draw until one must
shoot immediately.  See below for brandishing.


>And FYI, Governor Jesse Ventura is in the habit of making Citizen's
>arrests of speeders.

And his military training and physical ability put him in the top 1%
of all living humans.  The rest of us need effective defense WITHOUT
you adding burdens of having to apprehend someone when that may be
beyond our ability.

>
>> A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing
>> would-be carjacker and apprehend him.
>
>Then don't brandish. If the carjacker makes a move to harm you
>despite your first telling him to depart (unqualified with "or
>I'll shoot"), shoot to kill without first telegraphing your move,
>unlesss your command immediately upon drawing was "Freeze!" or
>don't carry a gun at all and handle the situation without one.

I believe most of us believe in the concept of "escalation of force."
I do not intend to move from perceived threat immediatly to shooting.
If brandishing is enough to end a threat, I would rather not take
someone's life--even if they decide to flee the scene.  And if it
isn't, the act of "brandishing", puts my gun in a much better position
to shoot than if it were still sitting in a holster.  In fact, the act
of getting in position to shoot is, in itself, brandishing.

>
>> The law, and I believe most people's morals, prohibit the use of
>> deadly force unless there is reasonable belief your life, or the
>> life of another innocent person is IMMEDIATELY threatened.
>
>Likely true. However, loosing a proven carjacker on unarmed victims
>is reckless endangerment, IOW, "aiding and abetting", IMO.

Your opinion is worthless in a court of law unless you've recently
been elected a judge or seated on a jury.  And your proven track
record of seeing things in far different ways from almost everyone
else means you do not even qualify as that legal myth of "a reasonable
man."  And how can a person "loose" someone they have never contained?
We are not talking about opening cell and letting someone go, we are
talking about split second decisions with major legal repurcussions.
Those decisions are tough enough when it is JUST about ending an
immediate threat.  I contend they are beyond what we should expect of
non-police when it comes to forceably detaining someone who intends to
flee.

The MOMENT someone turns their back on you and starts to
leave--REGARDLESS of any "commands" you have given them--your legal
and moral right to shoot them are, at best, in serious doubt in
virtually every case a citizen is likely to face.

>
>> Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief, rapist, etc, in the
>> back is legally (civilally and criminally) dangerous, and morally
>> questionable.
>
>If the law prohibits Citizens from shooting a felon fleeing from
>the act, and resisting a Citizen's arrest, then the law is an ass.
>Don't let the situation go there.

You better not have to ask "if" when it comes to the law before you
start employing deadly force if you want to retain your freedom
afterwards.  And, while "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried
by 6," unless my life is in jeopardy, I am not going to do anything to
potentially end up in court.  Change the law and we can all start
playing John Wayne, until then, my first obligation is to prevent
immediate harm.  Once the immediate danger is passed, my obligation,
and right, to shoot someone, is in grave question.

>
>> The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be
>> displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy
>> yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him.
>
>Display !== brandish

Display with intent to frighten DOES == brandish.  And whether I
pointed it at him or merely pull back a coat or shirt to expose the
gun, if my intend is to scare him--as in "scare him away" I have
brandished a weapon.  Actually pointing a loaded gun at someone may
well move from brandishing up to assult.  (NOT assault and battery,
but merely assault.)  ALL of which is justified if you reasonably
believe you are about to come to harm.


>
>My opinions are unchanged whether the gun is carried concealed or
>openly. However, pointing or even waving it at someone is brandishing.

See above.

>Don't point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him immediately
>or if he fails to obey your command made after drawing, which may be
>implicit, but does not include departure.

Sez you.  Don't draw a gun unless you are prepared to shoot.  Don't
point it at anyone you are not willing to kill.  But I defy you to
make your "immediatly or if he fails to obey [even implicit] commands"
argument fly for 1 second in front a judge or jury.

Drawing a weapon and aiming it at a criminal makes a strong statement.
It also makes it possible to get your first shot off VERY quickly IF
it is still needed at that point.  It may be.  It may not be.  I'll
leave that to a QUALIFIED weapons instructor to advise on and for each
individual to decide for themselves.

>Saying "no" is sufficient to
>make a point legally. A fleeing criminal means you allowed him to escape
>arrest.

There is no law or moral requirement to make an arrest.  I have no
objection if someone thinks that is the right thing to do.  And if
they are lucky enough to get me sitting on their jury, they'll
probably end up with at least a hung jury, if not an acquittal, if
they shoot the perp EVEN if they are not fully justified under current
law.  But the odds of getting me on your jury are pretty slim so don't
make anylife decisions based on that.  :)

The basis of your objection is that by not effecting an arrest, you
have doomed someone else to certain harm.  First of all, you have no
evidence this is true.  Lott's study indicates crimes against person's
decrease in areas where people CCW but that property crimes increase.

It is entirely rational that the carjacker, upon looking down the
barrel of a gun, decides that carjacking is now too dangerous for him
and either gives up crime altogether, or at least drops back to
stealing parked, unattended cars.

Second of all, if the potential next victim had taken responsibility
for himself and been armed, he would not be an unarmed victim.  Many
of these people who do not carry, are the same ones who vote and lobby
to restrict my ability to RKBA.  They can fend for themselves.

I refuse to get into any more long exchanges with you.  I've made my
point.  The last word on this topic is yours if you want it.

--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It
 is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds,
 death, and destruction in the minimum amount of time." -- General George
 S. Patton

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "The Best Defense"
Date: 05 Mar 1999 23:50:40 -0700

At 11:55 AM 3/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>On Thu, 04 Mar 99 18:43:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
>posted:
>
>>THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 2, 1999
>>
>>Stories of Saved Lives aim to Erase Gun-Owning Stigma
>>-------------------------------------
>>By Robert Stacy McCain
>>-------------------------------------
>
>[...]
>>
>>The stories were chosen "for dramatic effect," Mr. Waters said, even
>>though he explains that most instances of armed self-defense end
>>peacefully as soon as a criminal sees that his intended victim has a
>>gun. [Brandishing, IMO, unless the criminal is apprehended. Otherwise
>>this merely advises the escaping criminal to conduct the next crime
>>more stealthily and prey upon the unarmed. Very uncharitable. - Scott]
>>
>>"There are a lot of stories where someone would come up to try to carjack
>>a car, and the driver would pull a gun and the guy would run away," Mr.
>>Waters said. Having a gun "may have saved [the driver's] life, but there's
>>not much drama in that." [And killed the next guy.]
>[...]
>
>You have an interesting, and troubling concept of "charity" Scott.
>Being trained to use a gun in self defense and being trained in the
>safe, legal apprehension of criminals are two VERY seperate issues.
>The one thing that makes handguns such good means of self-defense is
>that fact they require a relatively small amount of training (or
>physical ability) to be used safely and effectively when compared to
>other forms of self defense or combat.  Ask a cop how many hours of
>training he needed to become profficient at using his gun vs how many
>hours of training (and how much physical ability) he needed in order
>to learn how to apprehend a criminal without simply killing the crook
>or subjecting himself to grave harm.  Do you suggest that only those
>able and trained to apprehend a criminal carry a gun for self defense?
>
>A person sitting in a car is in no position to run down a fleeing
>would-be carjacker and apprehend him.  The law, and I believe most
>people's morals, prohibit the use of deadly force unless there is
>reasonable belief your life, or the life of another innocent person is
>IMMEDIATELY threatened.  Shooting a fleeing would-be carjacker, thief,
>rapist, etc, in the back is legally (civilally and criminally)
>dangerous, and morally questionable.
>
>The logical conclusion of your argument is that a gun should NEVER be
>displayed unless you are either going to apprehend the bad guy
>yourself OR shoot him dead if you are unable to apprehend him.  Some
>90% of the times a gun is "used" to prevent a crime, it is never fired
>and in the vast majority of those cases, the criminal flees.  Your
>thinking would elminate the vast majority of the times a person
>protects themselves witha gun.

<snip>

Thanks Charles and Scott.

This is actually an interesting and difficult question.  No less an
authority than Col. Jeff Cooper advises that you should never draw your gun
unless you intend to fire it immediately.  OTOH, I agree with Charles that
shooting a fleeing carjacker would be morally and legally suspect.

The real problem is that brandishing, even justifiable brandishing, is
illegal, and the law needs to be fixed.  Having to choose between shooting
and not drawing one's gun at all is altogether untenable.  Fortunately,
Rep. Wright's brandishing bill never saw the light of day, as it would have
made things worse than they already are.

I don't think it's too soon to start working on legislation that will
protect people who brandish, or who shoot, for legitimate self-defense or
defense of others.  As the law stands now, the criminal has the right to
sue YOU for injuries or for "emotional distress".

Sarah



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Cops with Guns!
Date: 06 Mar 1999 07:47:00 -0700


Like I said, never point a gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot him.

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

And they want to take away our hunting rifles & shotguns!

3/6/99 -- 1:15 AM

Prosecutor says trooper forgot gun was loaded in fatal shooting

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - A state trooper was shot and killed during
a self-defense exercise by a fellow officer who forgot his gun
was loaded, a prosecutor said.

Mark Wagner, 37, was shot once in the chest Thursday at the
patrol's station in North Platte.

According to Lincoln County Attorney Kent Turnbull, officers had
completed one defensive training segment when a trooper loaded
his weapon.

After a break, officers began another training session that also
involved pointing unloaded weapons, but the trooper forgot his
weapon was loaded, Turnbull said Friday.

No charges will be filed against the trooper, whose name was not
disclosed, because the shooting was an accident, Turnbull said.

``It's just a terrible tragedy, not only for Mark Wagner and his
family but for the other trooper involved as well,'' Turnbull said.

State Patrol Maj. Bryan Tuma said Thursday that Wagner, a 12-year
veteran, was taking part in annual training when shot with either
a Glock .40-caliber or .45-caliber semiautomatic.

No civilians or officers from other departments were in the room
when the shooting happened, Tuma said.

Tuma said troopers are not required to wear bulletproof vests
during the training. He did not think Wagner was wearing one.

North Platte is about 220 miles west of Lincoln.

Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.tampabayonline.net/news/news1024.htm



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: "The Best Defense"
Date: 06 Mar 1999 01:04:00 -0700


On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Charles Hardy wrote:

> Adequate and appropriate to prevent or stop an attack is far
> different than adequate and appropriate to effect an arrest
> of someone who immediatly flees when he sees your gun.

You stop an attack by disabling the attacker. Scaring him off
merely postpones/shifts the attack. So don't conceal your gun.

> Being prepared to use it--if a criminal continues to advance or
> otherwise presents an immediate threat to your well being--is
> different than playing quick-draw and shooting immediately.
> Neither do I believe there is any proper requirment to not draw
> until one must shoot immediately.  See below for brandishing.

If apprehension is not an option, yet you desire to venture out
armed with a concealed weapon, perhaps you need one that can be
aimed and shot while remaining concealed.

> >And FYI, Governor Jesse Ventura is in the habit of making Citizen's
> >arrests of speeders.

> And his military training and physical ability put him in the top 1%
> of all living humans.  The rest of us need effective defense WITHOUT
> you adding burdens of having to apprehend someone when that may be
> beyond our ability.

And note that his arrests are for infractions that do not put
others in immediate jeopardy. Those attempting to kill, maim
(rather more directly than the nebulous threat minor speeding
poses) or rape others need to be stopped, not merely diverted.

> I do not intend to move from perceived threat immediatly to shooting.

You shouldn't, so long as that is merely a potential threat.
An actual attempt to commit a life-threatening crime calls
for immediate termination of the attacker, in my view. That
the courts may not uphold such a position is a serious moral
indictment on them.

> If brandishing is enough to end a threat, I would rather not take
> someone's life--even if they decide to flee the scene.

If by threat you mean actual attempt, I consider this a moral
abdication on your part.

> And if it isn't, the act of "brandishing", puts my gun in a much
> better position to shoot than if it were still sitting in a holster.

Get an aimable concealed holster? In the case of carjacking,
one of those flamethrower devices is a functional equivalent.

> In fact, the act of getting in position to shoot is, in itself,
> brandishing.

Only if telegraphed to the one you're in a position to shoot.
Or does Utah have some contrary legal definition?

> Your opinion is worthless in a court of law unless you've recently
> been elected a judge or seated on a jury.

Doesn't happen. Ray Uno was the last. If you argue that the
prudent action is strategic retreat, since the legal system
won't support moral actions, that is moral only in a very
local sense of living to fight another day.

> And your proven track record of seeing things in far different ways
> from almost everyone else means you do not even qualify as that legal
> myth of "a reasonable man."

Nor anyone who believes in the NIOFP. Candidates supporting same
rarely get the proportion of votes that would be required to hang
a jury.

> And how can a person "loose" someone they have never contained?

In the crime scene? Analogous to a chemical "reaction cage".
If you're afraid of the courts punishing a reasonable defense,
get a realistic-looking toy gun and scare criminals off.
Perhaps a starter pistol so they think you're just a lousy shot.

> we are talking about split second decisions with major legal
> repurcussions.

Thus the need for the training I recommended. If you don't have
the training, don't go armed, as you may not have the reflexes
to take a prudent action. Or better yet, get trained.

> Those decisions are tough enough when it is JUST about ending an
> immediate threat.  I contend they are beyond what we should expect of
> non-police when it comes to forceably detaining someone who intends
> to flee.

Perhaps so. So don't "brandish" until you are immediately threatened,
and shoot immediately before he flees. If you can shoot from
concealment, the brandishing doesn't begin until your attacker
perceives the discharge.

> The MOMENT someone turns their back on you and starts to
> leave--REGARDLESS of any "commands" you have given them--your legal
> and moral right to shoot them are, at best, in serious doubt in
> virtually every case a citizen is likely to face.

May be the case in our questionable legal system. Don't wait that long.

> unless my life is in jeopardy, I am not going to do anything to
> potentially end up in court.

Good reason not to brandish, which is a crime in its own right.

> >Display !== brandish

> Display with intent to frighten DOES == brandish.  And whether I
> pointed it at him or merely pull back a coat or shirt to expose the
> gun, if my intend is to scare him--as in "scare him away" I have
> brandished a weapon.

So why bother to carry concealed, if ending concealment is your plan?

> Actually pointing a loaded gun at someone may well move from
> brandishing up to assult.

Threatening constitutes assault, brandishing merely intensifies it,
and escalates it to an actual attack if you point the gun at someone.

> Don't draw a gun unless you are prepared to shoot.  Don't point it
> at anyone you are not willing to kill.  But I defy you to make your
> "immediatly or if he fails to obey [even implicit] commands" argument
> fly for 1 second in front a judge or jury.

So don't openly point it at anyone unless and until you intend to shoot
him. This "advice" does not apply to anyone prepared to apprehend.

> There is no law or moral requirement to make an arrest.

I suppose we'll have to differ on this, but I have heard
of a "law" making "misprision of felony" a crime.

> It is entirely rational that the carjacker, upon looking down the
> barrel of a gun, decides that carjacking is now too dangerous for
> him and either gives up crime altogether, or at least drops back
> to stealing parked, unattended cars.

Or moves to a venue with strict victim disarmament.

> I refuse to get into any more long exchanges with you.  I've made
> my point.  The last word on this topic is yours if you want it.

This strikes me as a rather coy response, since you chose to respond
to my editorial asides. Perhaps you should instead write a response
to 13-year-old Christy House' letter "Limit Gun Ownership" in today's
Tribune, conveniently placed right next to their editorial "Still
Crazy About Guns", in which she uses the argument that "I never hear
stories about how someone's life was saved because that person had a
trusty gun right then and there" in support of making guns harder to get.
---
"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind."-Ghandi

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is a lot more polite."
-Clint Johnson <[e-mail]>

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights
of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
 - Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Charles Scumbag strikes again
Date: 07 Mar 1999 09:57:00 -0700


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

Senate bill designed to spur more city suits over guns

By Vicky Stamas

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - Three Senate Democrats introduced
legislation Thursday designed to give cities, counties and states more
financial incentives to sue gun manufacturers.

The bill offered by Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Dick Durbin
of Illinois, and Charles Schumer of New York, would let localities
challenge gunmakers in court for federal as well as local costs
associated with treating crime victims.

Examples of federal costs that cities could recover would be
disability, unemployment, Medicaid and other aid to shooting victims.

"If enough cities successfully sue the industry it could be brought to
its proverbial knees," Lautenberg said. He said the bill would fortify
cities that already have filed gun suits and encourage more cities to
do the same.

The bill comes on the heels of another Democrat-backed bill sponsored by
New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli and Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy.

That bill would allow the U.S. government to regulate the manufacture,
sale and distribution of guns like it does toys, toasters and other every
day consumer products.

A host of proposals to restrict guns have died in Congress amid fierce
Republican opposition since the 1994 passage of the Brady law requiring
federal background checks for anyone purchasing a weapon from a licensed
gun dealer.

Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, blasted the Lautenberg/Durbin/
Schumer bill and two mayors who backed it at Thursday's press briefing --
Atlanta's Bill Campbell and Miami-Dade Mayor Alex Penelas.

Both mayors have filed suit against the gun industry.

"Doubtlessly, this promise of more easy money is the reason why several
big-city mayors are lining up to support this bill," charged Barr, whose
state recently passed a law that prevents any of its local governments
from suing the gun industry.

Lautenberg struck out at Barr and the National Rifle Association (NRA)
for trying to preempt cities' efforts to seek compensation for costs
related to gun violence.

"It is wrong for the NRA or any of their agents to try and preempt these
suits," Lautenberg said. "I will use any and all possible means to kill
federal legislation blocking the suits in the United States Senate."

"The gun lobby right now is trembling in its boots," Schumer added.

"The problem for the gun lobby is that there are 50 states and 440 large
cities with big crime problems and even the NRA cannot get their hooks
into every state legislature to bar their right to seek damages," Schumer
said.

Under the Lautenberg/Durbin/Schumer bill, localities recovering federal
dollars could keep two-thirds of the federal portion, with one-third of
that share going toward law enforcement, one-third toward education and
one-third toward discretionary spending.

The other third of the federal portion would be returned to the U.S. for
crime prevention, injury prevention research and similar programs, under
the bill, dubbed "The Gun Industry Accountability Act."



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Goodbye Gun Shows?
Date: 09 Mar 1999 21:23:00 -0700


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

http://www.sofmag.com/1999sof/0499/cg.html

COMMAND GUIDANCE

SOLDIER OF FORTUNE, April, 1999
PAGE UPDATED: 3/2/99

Good Bye Gun Shows?

by Robert K. Brown


Gun shows are the latest bugbear of the
anti-gunners. Chicago Con-gressman Rod
Blagojevich (D-IL) is pushing HR 109 to
impose massive new federal controls on gun
shows. Anyone intending to put on a gun
show would be required to submit an
application, including all sorts of
personal information, and a fee, to the
ATF for a federal license.

Within 30 days after the show, the
licensee must then submit to the ATF
copies all records and documents involved
in firearms transfers at the show,
including the names, addresses and ages of
all purchasers, including the make, model
and serial number of all weapons
transferred. In short, the whole panoply
of background-checking, record-making and
reporting is extended to (1) the gun-show
operator, and (2) collectors and other
private citizens not now so oppressed. It
is claimed that a significant percent of
guns used in crimes change hands at gun
shows. This is merely the excuse for yet
another axis of attack on private
ownership of firearms. A study by the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the
research arm of the U.S. Department of
Justice, released in December 1997, shows
that only 2% of criminal guns come from
gun shows. Most of the exhibitors at gun
shows are already Federal Firearms License
(FFL) holders subject to the existing
background-check and recording
requirements, and it is a felony for
anyone knowingly to sell a firearm to a
felon or other disqualified person, so
apparently even this minute percent
represents sales to a "straw man" with a
clean record who then transfers the gun to
the criminal. "Straw man" transactions are
also already illegal. In short, laws
already in effect, if enforced, are quite
adequate to deal with this non-problem.

Clearly, then, the real objective here is
to extend the whole apparatus of
background checking, record-keeping and
reporting to gun collectors and ordinary,
law-abiding private citizens outside the
rather vague statutory definition of a
"dealer." There is no such thing as a
"private dealer;" this is a myth invented
by the gun-grabbers.

If a person falls within the statutory
definition of a "dealer," he or she must
get an FFL or go to jail. Attacking gun
shows is a first step toward abolishing
all privacy regarding firearms, on the way
to universal gun registration, to be
followed, no doubt, by confiscation.

Or, I should say, attempted confiscation,
followed by armed resistance, bloodshed
and tragedy. The gun grabbers try to paint
the picture of gun shows as being a sort
of "Tupperware party" at which anything
goes. This is simply not true. Attendees,
buyers, sellers and dealers are still
subject to federal laws forbidding sale of
guns known to be stolen, sale of guns to
known felons, and so on, as well as
whatever state and local laws apply.

In short, HR 109 is another hypocritical
"feel-good" bill that will accomplish none
of the objects it seeks to promote, but
will certainly drive yet another nail in
the coffin of our Second Amendment and
other rights. You do nothing for the
prevention of crime by taking the means of
self-defense away from the intended
victim. Phone your congressmen now:
202-224-3121. Write them too: U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510; U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515.
Do it today.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Hoplophobe Hypocrites
Date: 09 Mar 1999 21:23:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 7:41 PM

This was in today's Orange County Register:

Book triggers wrath of gun opponents

March 7, 1999

John R. Lott Jr. doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would inspire
death threats. But he's gotten more than his share of them recently,
from a seemingly unlikely source.

You see, Lott gets death threats from people who hate guns.

Lott, 40, is a lanky, soft-spoken, professorial-looking guy which is
appropriate, since that's exactly what he is: a professor of law and
economics at the University of Chicago. Until a couple of years ago
he was simply another anonymous egghead, grinding out arcane research
papers for publication in obscure professional journals. Unless you
subscribe to International Review of Law and Economics or Journal of
Legal Studies, you'd probably never heard of him.

But then Lott published the results of his exhaustive statistical research
on the relationship between crime rates and private gun ownership,
particularly the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens.

Simply put, Lott concluded that an armed citizenry prevents crime
and deters criminals a conclusion summed up in the title of his book,
"More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws."

The national news media picked up on Lott's thesis. And suddenly this
obscure professor who doesn't even have a gun in his home found himself
the prime target in a nasty political gunfight.

From the way many gun-control proponents reacted, you would have thought
that Lott had called for the mandatory arming of preschoolers. On radio
and TV and in the newspapers, they attacked and vilified both Lott and
his study, calling him a tool of the gun manufacturers and his study a
sloppy piece of research sometimes without even having read it.

Lott was generally philosophical about it. As he told me Thursday during a
visit to Orange County, "With most academic work, you're lucky to get 10
people to read it. So it was nice to get the attention."

But perhaps naively, Lott, who is married and the father of four young
boys, never expected the personal hostility he's gotten from some
individual gun control advocates. "We started getting death threats at
home," said Lott. (Presumably, the death would be effected with a knife
or a club.) "People would ask if I had kids, and if they walked home
from school. People would cut out articles from newspapers about gun
deaths and send them to me, with a note saying, 'I hope this is you
next.' ... Tuesday I had a piece in the Wall Street Journal, and I
got about 40 calls. Most of them were very nice, but some ... people
just go bonkers."

Now don't misunderstand. Lott certainly isn't saying that the threats
and personal attacks are representative of all gun-control advocates.
He believes most of them are well-intentioned people who sincerely abhor
violence of all kinds.

But gun control is an emotional issue, nationally and here in Orange
County. (It may become even more emotional here in the coming weeks,
when Sheriff Mike Carona unveils his program to loosen restrictions
on granting permits to carry concealed weapons.)

So maybe it's a good idea for everybody to remember that even though
the news media tend to portray only gun owners as potentially violent
fanatics, there actually are some fanatics on both sides of the issue.

Just ask Professor Lott. Not all "gun nuts" are people who own guns.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun makers feel they're under a state of siege
Date: 09 Mar 1999 21:23:00 -0700


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

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/qlobby9.htm

Gun makers feel they're under a state of siege

March 9, 1999

BY MELANIE EVERSLEY
Free Press Washington Staff

With more and more lawsuits attacking
gun manufacturers, the people who make
firearms and the people who shoot them
are starting to feel like targets.

Lawsuits in New Orleans, Chicago and
other cities seeking to hold
manufacturers financially responsible
for gun violence -- the sort of
lawsuits that Detroit and Wayne County
are mulling -- are not fair, said Jack
Adkins of the American Shooting Sports
Council, an Atlanta-based organization
that represents gun makers.

"The firearm industry is feeling that
they're under a state of siege," Adkins
said.

For almost a year, the group has tried
to carve an agreement with members of
the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The
conversations have not gone well.

Among changes cities want are new
safety devices that permit only a gun's
owner to shoot it.

One industry insider says the
technology to personalize guns has been
around for some time, in the form of
locks, which are available with any
gun.

"Frankly, that technology has existed
for decades," said Jeff Reh, general
counsel for Beretta USA, in Accokeek,
Md.

The industry believes gun limitations
should focus on criminals, not all gun
buyers, Adkins said. That theme runs
strong through the entire gun-advocate
community.

The suits do not take into account that
hunters practice safety, or that guns
usually only hurt or kill people when
they get into the hands of criminals,
said Jo Swartz, board member of the
Wayne County Sportsmen's Club in Huron
Township.

Swartz has been shooting skeet for
about six years and hunting for about
three. Her husband, David, and
18-year-old daughter, Jennifer, are
hunters too.

"I just enjoy being outdoors," said
Swartz, who lives in Brownstown
Township.

People who use guns legally, for sport,
believe in safety, advocates say.

Swartz said her group, which has 200
members, teaches youngsters about guns
so that they will not get into trouble.

"We know there have been accidents with
children and firearms. If the kids are
educated, the curiosity is not there
and they don't think it's a toy," she
said.

For their part, gun advocates have been
throwing a lot of energy into defending
what they view as their Second
Amendment right to bear arms.

When a news story said that Michigan
Attorney General Jennifer Granholm was
considering suing the gun industry on
behalf of the state, gun advocates
flooded her with calls.

And the Michigan United Conservation
Clubs, a Lansing organization that
represents 500 local groups throughout
the state, recently adopted a
resolution urging the Legislature to
prohibit any lawsuit against the gun
industry.

Said Swartz, "It doesn't make any sense
to go after the gun companies because
once they sell the guns, it's no longer
their responsibility."

RELATED STORIES
'Don't feel as though you are invincible'

A mom learns to cope, but 'it's not fair'

Gun makers feel they're under a state of siege

Like to carry a weapon? Tag along to the morgue

With guns, everyone pays


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


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Are Americans headed for world government?
Date: 09 Mar 1999 21:23:00 -0700


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

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/19990308_xex_are_american.shtml

MONDAY MARCH 08 1999

[WND Exclusive Commentary]
Are Americans headed
for world government?

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
⌐ 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

A few days ago, eight black helicopters
belonging to the elite Delta Force hit
buildings in Kingsville, Texas with real
explosives and live ammunition in a
training exercise that scared local
civilians. Similar events have occurred in
Miami, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Washington,
New Orleans, Los Angeles and other U.S.
cities, including a Chicago suburb where
they bombed an abandoned seminary.

So what's the fuss about a military
training exercise? Well, Tomas Sanchez in
Texas is concerned, and he's no dummy.
Sanchez is emergency management
coordinator for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and head of the military
police unit of the Texas State Guard under
the National Guard. He's also had 30 years
service in Navy intelligence work with a
top secret clearance, and he's one of the
few people who've seen Presidential
Decision Directive 25.

Here's what he said about the Delta Force
special operation: "The scenario if I were
creating this ops plan [is that] martial
law has been declared through presidential
powers and war powers act, and some
citizens have refused to give up their
weapons. They have taken over two of the
buildings in Kingsville. The police cannot
handle it. So you call these guys in. They
show up and they zap everybody, take all
the weapons, and let the local Police
Department clean it up." Sanchez and other
military experts believe PDD 25 is the
document being used to authorize such
military action with the U.S., and he
said, "It's a done deal. I think there's
some UN folks involved in this thing too."

Before you dismiss this as all part of
some conspiracy nonsense, you should know
that on February 20, 1997, Ronnie Edelman
of the U.S. Department of Justice wrote a
letter explaining the Clinton
administration's views on the Second
Amendment and handguns as follows: "The
current state of federal law does not
recognize that the Second Amendment
protects the right of private citizens to
possess firearms of any type." Relevant to
the UN, when Boutros Boutros-Ghali was
secretary-general, he supported the report
of the Commission on Global Governance,
which said: "We strongly endorse community
initiatives to ... encourage the disarming
of civilians." We also know that President
Clinton has been deferential to the U.N.,
saying on Oct. 19, 1993, that his
administration was engaging in a political
process regarding Somalia "to see how we
can ... do all the things the United
Nations ordered to do." And U.S. Army
Specialist Michael New was court-martialed
several years later for refusing to wear
U.N. insignia on his American military
uniform.

Are Americans headed for world government?
Over a century ago, Cecil Rhodes developed
a plan that would bring about a world
government. On July 20, 1992, Bill
Clinton's Rhodes scholar roommate, Strobe
Talbott, wrote an article for Time, in
which he declared: "Perhaps national
sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after
all," and "the case for world government"
is "clinched." President Clinton made
Talbott number two at the State
Department, and in June 1993, the World
Federalist Association gave Talbott its
Global Governance Award for his article.
On June 22 of that year, President Clinton
sent a letter to the WFA noting that
Norman Cousins, a past WFA president, had
worked for world peace and "world
government," and President Clinton
concluded his letter by wishing the WFA
"future success."

All of this in no way means that the
president and the U.N. are going to send
military forces to your home to break down
your door and confiscate your firearms.
But the actions and quotations above are
troubling and do not auger well for the
future of our freedoms, rights, and
national sovereignty.

-------

Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., is the author of
"Secret Records Revealed," pertaining to
President Clinton and others (Hearthstone
Publishing, 800-652-1144).

⌐ 1999 Western Journalism Center



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NRA endorses Olympic Gun Ban
Date: 11 Mar 1999 23:30:24 -0700

This is enough to make you sick.

Check out http://www.nralive.org for their special endorsement of the
Olympic gun ban, and interview with Elwood Powell, Chair of the Utah
Shooting Sports Council.  (It's the March 11 news story.)

While the NRA was _claiming_ it was neutral on the Olympic ban, it actually
sent an endorsement of the bill to legislators.

Aren't you glad the NRA is "protecting _your_ rights?  UGH!

Sarah


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

PROTEST 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: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Klinton's policy on the Second Amendment
Date: 11 Mar 1999 10:53:00 -0700


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

I have a photocopy of this official letter.
Mark

Ms. Deleted
Address: Deleted

Dear Ms. Deleted

     We received your letter of March 12, 1997, and are pleased
to respond to your question about the Second Amendment.

     In your letter, you relate a statement made by Sarah Kemp
Brady to the effect that the Second Amendment of the United
States Constitution does not guarantee the right of individuals
to possess firearms. This is, in fact, correct. Althought those
who oppose any form of gun control commonly assert the the
Second Amendment confers the right to individual ownership of
firearms, this view is not sustained by case law interpreting
that amendment. The courts have uniformly held that the Second
Amendment protects only against federal attempts to disarm or
abolish organized state militia, and does not confer on an
individual the right to own or possess firearms. This has been
the consistent position of the Supreme Court and the eight United
States Courts of Appeals which have considered the issue.

     Thank you so much for your interest in this important issue
and we hope this information is helpful.

                                    Sincerely,

                                    Ronnie L. Edleman (sig.)
                                    Principal Deputy Chief
                                    Terrorism and Violent Crime Section



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: S. 154 `Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999'
Date: 13 Mar 1999 21:40:00 -0700


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

Call your Senators about this one.

106th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 154

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the licensing of
ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 19, 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the licensing of
ammunition manufacturers, and for other purposes.

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 `Handgun Ammunition Control Act of 1999'.

SEC. 2. RECORDS OF DISPOSITION OF AMMUNITION.

(a) AMENDMENT OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE- Section 923(g) of title
18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting after the second sentence the
following: `Each licensed importer and manufacturer of ammunition shall
maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, sale, or
other disposition of ammunition at the place of business of such
importer or manufacturer for such period and in such form as the
Secretary may by regulations prescribe. Such records shall include
the amount, caliber, and type of ammunition.'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Each licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition shall annually
prepare a summary report of imports, production, shipments, sales, and
other dispositions during the preceding year. The report shall be
prepared on a form specified by the Secretary, shall include the
amounts, calibers, and types of ammunition that were disposed of, and
shall be forwarded to the office specified thereon not later than the
close of business on the date specified by the Secretary.'.

(b) STUDY OF CRIMINAL USE AND REGULATION OF AMMUNITION- The Secretary of
the Treasury shall request the National Academy of Sciences to--

(1) prepare, in consultation with the Secretary, a study of the criminal
use and regulation of ammunition; and

(2) submit to Congress, not later than July 31, 1998, a report with
recommendations on the potential for preventing crime by regulating or
restricting the availability of ammunition.

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN LICENSING FEES FOR MANUFACTURERS OF AMMUNITION.

Section 923(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) as subparagraphs (B)
through (E), respectively; and

(2) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as redesignated, the
following:

`(A) of .25 caliber, .32 caliber, or 9 mm ammunition, a fee of $10,000
per year;'.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 3/3
Date: 15 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
KELLERMANN'S CORPSES

In the conclusion of Kellermann's 1986 New England Journal of
Medicine paper (his "43 times" study), he stated the following: "We
noted 43 suicides, criminal homicide, or accidental gunshot deaths
involving a gun kept in the home for every case of homicide for
self-protection" -- presumably deaths of friends and family
members. According to Dr. Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns (1997),
there are between 1,400 and 3,200 "legal civilian defensive
homicides" yearly.

There is a factor in research called "external validity" that
concerns the degree to which the conclusions of a study apply to
populations outside the study population -- in this case, to the
rest of the United States. So we ran the figures to see how they
came out.

In order to get the total number of yearly estimated deaths if
Kellermann's 43-times factor was extrapolated to the rest of the
United States, one needs to multiply the number of "legal civilian
defensive homicides" by Kellermann's factor of 43, and then add in
that same number of "legal civilian defensive homicides."

However, according to the CDC's National Center for Health
Statistics, firearm-related deaths from all causes, in the home and
outside, totaled 35,957 in 1995. Subtracting that figure from
Kellermann's prediction produces a discrepancy of anywhere from
approximately 10,000 (using the low-end estimate) to 67,000 deaths
(using the high-end estimate).

GUNS & AMMO/APRIL 1999
***********************************************************************
Beyond the Mainstream Media's Addendum:

In a review of Robert Waters' book "The Best Defense: True
Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves
With a Firearm" in the Washington Times Weekly Edition
March 8-14 edition: Mr. Waters said "The pro-gun side needs
to debate less about the Second Amendment and more about
issues that really matter to people, such as self-defense."

As much as we wish that simply referring to the Second
Amendment would be enough to disarm gun control advocates,
we agree with Mr. Waters that highlighting a person's ability
to defend [herself] in the manner [she] chooses is the best
angle to use against the anti-gunners.

Below is a letter to the local newspaper by a female
editor here at Beyond the Mainstream Media. Please note
the last paragraph. Woman especially should ask gun
control advocates: "Why are you limiting my options on how
I defend myself?"

Letter to the Editor;

"...considering that fewer than 1 percent of all guns are involved
in a crime and only 12 percent of all violent crimes involve a gun,
gun control laws could have only a modest effect on crime - even
if they worked exactly as intended, which they don't." "...a
comprehensive 1993 study covering all forms of gun violence and
encompassing every large city in the nation...gun control laws had
no significant negative effect on violence." "...gun control laws are
more likely to disarm the general public than criminals."

"...Americans use guns of all types to defend themselves 2.5 million
times each year, while guns are used in just over 500,000 crimes
each year." "...evidence suggests that guns are an effective crime
deterrent in the hands of legal owners." "Although government has
taken control of the public criminal justice system, courts have ruled
that it nevertheless does not have a specific duty to protect
individuals. These rulings are probably consistent with the original
intent of the founding fathers. Some legal scholars argue that the
framers of the U.S. Constitution assumed that law-abiding people
would largely be responsible for their own safety."

-- "Gun Control and Crime", Morgan O. Reynolds, Texas A&M
University and W. W. Caruth III, National Center for Policy
Analysis (1997).

I, personally, am not about to surrender my responsibility to protect
myself to some government entity. If you, as a citizen of a free
country, do not recognize your duty and responsibility to arm
yourself against society's predators, please, do not infringe upon
my efforts to ensure my own safety.

-- Jill Laughlin
**********************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research
and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
**********************************************************************
HERE COMES THE FLOOD is a First Amendment publication
of 'Beyond the Mainstream Media Services' and is edited
by Scott Laughlin. You are welcome to redistribute this post in
its entirety.

Beyond the Mainstream's objective is to provide timely
information on current issues of the day with an bias
to Free Market economic analysis, anti-statism commentary,
and legal research all with an awareness of the
computer design defect known as Y2K.

We scan many 'outside the mainstream' media publications
(financial newsletters, alternative magazines, patriot
and constitutionalist legal research, libertarian
writings, Bible studies, etc.) to bring you commentary on
items that might otherwise have gone unreported by the
mainstream "journalism" outlets.

**********************************************************
Did someone else forward this post to you? To be certain
of receiving all issues of our E-Journal, please consider
subscribing directly. Currently the service is totally
free and carries no obligation. Your e-mail address
remains strictly confidential. To receive "HERE COMES THE
FLOOD" on a regular basis (up to 2 or 3 times a week) send
the following message "Please subscribe [Your Name] to the
HERE COMES THE FLOOD list: [Your e-mail address]" to:
[e-mail].
To unsubscribe, all you have to do is ask.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 2/3
Date: 15 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Since then, other cities have filed similarly frivolous lawsuits.
Rendell and other like-minded politicians are preparing to soak
firearm manufacturers for all they' can get by using blatantly
doctored scientific reports to advance firearm prohibition in the
process.

Paul Heiruke, mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and president of the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, called Rendell's ideas "interesting and
novel." Helmke told The Washington Times that part of the theory
of the tobacco suits was that tobacco products are dangerous but
the buyer doesn't know it ... everyone knows guns are dangerous."

But the case against "dangerous" firearms is based on the same kind
of flawed, junk-science 'research" the EPA used in making its case
for the alleged dangers of second-hand smoke. For example it's now
common knowledge (isn't it?) that a gun kept in the home for
self-protection is "43 times" more likely to kill a family member or
friend than an intruder. Never mind that the junk-science
'research" which spawned this factoid has been discredited. Never
mind that the one who concocted it was Arthur Kellermann, whose
brand of "science" has been so blatantly inferior that Congress has
cut off funding to both Kellermann and the CDC for future research
on guns and violence.

And never mind that the thousands of corpses of our spouses and
children, inferred from Kellermann's conclusions, are nowhere to be
found.

Still, the damage has been done, and the myth persists and is
repeated ad nauseum. And people like Rendell and Helmke continue to
knowingly use these lies in the formulation of public policy.

In attempting to make its case against second-hand smoke, the EPA
resorted to the same kind of underhanded perversion of the
scientific method. Although the EPA had 58 studies available on
which to base its conclusions, it used only 31 of these. In their
suit, the plaintiffs charged that inclusion of the omitted studies
"would have undermined the EPA's claim of causal association between
ETS exposure and lung cancer." In finding for the plaintiffs, the
court agreed that the EPA's study selection process was "disturbing"
and that the EPA had hand-picked the data it used.

In the tobacco case, the court was unable to conclusively determine
whether the EPA's omissions were intentional or coincidental. When
it comes to firearms and firearm-related violence, however, this
tactic of selective omission is used so routinely by politically
motivated "researchers" that there can be no doubt of its
intentional nature.

THE TRUTH BE DAMNED

People like Rendell and Helnike deliberately ignore any research
that weakens their case and shows the benefits of firearm ownership,
like the research of Drs. Gary Kleck and John Lott.

Kleck is one of the most prominent researchers on defensive gun use
in America. According to Kleck, in a study with colleague Dr. Marc
Gertz published in 1995, ordinary law-abiding Americans use guns
defensively 2.5 million times or more each year. About 75 percent
of those instances involve handguns. Further, use of a firearm is
the safest and most effective means of resisting violent criminal
attack. The presence of a firearm at the time it's needed the most
means that lives are saved, rapes are prevented, injuries are
avoided, medical costs are minimized and property is protected.

Lott is the author of the most exhaustive study to date on the
deterrence of violent crime through the concealed carry of handguns.
His is the first systematic analysis of nationwide crime data from
all 3,054 counties in the United States, between 1977 and 1994.
Unlike the EPA researchers, Lott didn't pick and choose his
numbers.

Before the results of Lott's research became available, firearm
prohibitionists could always point their finger at the dead child
killed by a gun and his grieving family -- all ghoulishly exploited
by a mainstream media committed to civilian disarmament.
Conversely, law-abiding gun owners could only point to the less
sensational account of a would be victim saved by the presence of a
gun -- one who had lived to tell his or her tale of survival.

Showing that "nothing" happened is a tough act! But now we know
with certainty that nothing did happen -- that the violent crimes
that should have taken place didn't -- because Lott's sophisticated
computer-assisted research confirmed that firearms provide a
measurable deterrence to violent crime.

Recent findings like these, ignored by unscrupulous mayors, lawyers
and a corrupt mainstream media, serve to underscore the one major
difference between tobacco and firearms. While second-hand tobacco
smoke may not be dangerous enough to actually cause cancer and may
even be a non-factor in the public health equation, there is
overwhelming evidence of the benefit to society from the possession
and use of firearms by ordinary citizens.

SCIENCE IN THE WITNESS BOX

One of the big differences between the tobacco industry and the
firearm industry is the virtually limitless money pit available to
tobacco. Robert Ricker, director of the Government Affairs
Department of the American Shooting Sports Council, a broad
coalition of industry-related groups, elaborated on that in a
television segment that aired on December 23: "We don't have the
big bucks that the tobacco companies did. The tobacco industry
bought itself out of a difficult situation. We're going to have to
fight."

The firearms industry has all the science on its side to back it up
in demanding court relief for itself at the hands of the same
underhanded tactics. It can prove that falsified research, intended
to harm it, has been systematically used by America's firearm
prohibitionists to implement restrictive firearm laws and to mold
public opinion to their way of thinking. Now, with the decision in
North Carolina against the EPA, it has legal precedent on its side.

Sound public policy can only be formulated when premised on truth
and accuracy. Quietly accepting the continuing pattern of outright
lies and deception from junk scientists, aided and abetted by a
mainstream media bankrupt of all journalistic integrity -- all of
which is calculated to change our actions and attitudes about
firearm ownership -- will not serve us well. A viable firearm
industry is in the interest of all Americans who wish their children
to live in the safest society possible and who care about passing
down their birthright of liberty to future generations.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Second-Hand Gunsmoke 1/3
Date: 15 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700


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

*******************************************************
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE COMES THE FLOOD    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
*******************************************************
The E-Journal of 'Beyond the Mainstream Media Services'
Edited by Scott Laughlin                 March 12, 1999
*******************************************************
Guns & Ammo April 1999

Second Amendment
Fight for your firearms freedom!

By Drs. Paul Gallant and Joanne Elsen

SECOND-HAND GUNSMOKE

'Cooking Statistics' to Eliminate Freedom and Eradicate the Firearms
Industry.

In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a report about
the alleged dangers of second-hand smoke. That report was prepared
with a singular purpose which was the ultimate elimination of
tobacco products in America. It formed the basis for countless
bureaucratic and legislative rulings about tobacco use throughout
the country. By scaring Americans about the false dangers of
second-hand smoke, anti-tobacco forces could plunder the tobacco
industry through legalized extortion and eventually drive it out
of business.

But there was one small problem. The EPA report was rigged. The
tobacco industry fought back and, on July 17, a United States
District Court in North Carolina ruled in favor of the tobacco
industry.

America's firearm prohibitionists have been trying to pull the same
kind of scam about a different kind of second-hand smoke --
second-hand gunsmoke. Instead of the tobacco industry and cigarette
smokers, the targets are America's gun manufacturers and law-abiding
gun owners. In place of the EPA's junk science on tobacco, they've
cited junk science and falsified "research" on firearms and
firearm-related violence. And, just like the EPA's second-hand smoke
reports, these "scientific" reports are designed to ultimately put
America's gunmakers out of business.

A perfect example appeared in the 1993 New England Journal of
Medicine. In order to inflate his figures and "prove" that the
risks of keeping a firearm in the home outweigh the benefits, Dr.
Arthur Kellermann counted 15 persons 'killed under legally excusable
circumstances" -- i.e. violent criminals -- among his collection of
"victims."

In another study published just one year earlier, Kellermann lumped
together lawful self-defense with outright murder in order to "prove"
that when a woman is armed with a gun, the victim was "five times
more likely to be [her] spouse, an intimate acquaintance or a member
of [her] family than to be a stranger ..." That statistical sleight-of-hand
provided him a pretext to "seriously question" the "wisdom of
promoting firearms to women for self-protection." Kellermann's
research has been funded by American taxpayers through the Centers for
Disease Control.

Unlike most of us, Kellermann is apparently unable to understand that
felons killed by law-enforcement officers in the line of duty are
not "victims." Nor is he able, apparently to comprehend the
difference between lawful self-defense and murder

FIRST-HAND LIES

The plaintiffs in the tobacco lawsuit were six tobacco companies.
The defendants were the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
agency's administrator, Carol Browner. The lawsuit against the EPA
centered around the Radon Research Act of 1986, which required that
the EPA "establish ... an advisory group comprised of individuals
representing the States, the scientific community, industry and
public interest organizations to assist [the EPA] in carrying out
the research program ... for indoor air quality."

However, presiding Federal Judge William Osteen found that the EPA
had failed to establish such an advisory committee. Further, he
questioned whether the findings in the EPA's research report would
have been different if the proper committee had been formed in the
first place. Under such circumstances, Osteen concluded that an
atmosphere more conducive to an unbiased set of conclusions would
undoubtedly have existed. Claiming that the EPA's report was
doctored by the anti-tobacco lobby the plaintiffs challenged the
EPA's evaluation of the respiratory health effects of breathing
second-hand tobacco smoke ("environmental tobacco smoke" or ETS) and
its subsequent classification as a carcinogen. They charged that
'the EPA excluded nearly half of the available studies ..." Even
then the EPA needed to "adjust" its scientific methodology in
order to demonstrate what amounted to only a weak relative risk."

In short, "... the EPA's [second-hand smoke] Risk Assessment was
not the result of reasoned decision making," but of a predetermined
decision based on a dislike of tobacco use, by a hand-picked,
biased, partisan committee.

In deciding in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Osteen cited litany of
abuses perpetrated by the EPA and found that not only had the EPA
exceeded the authority given it by Congress, but it "disseminate[d]
findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to
restrict plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion ...."
[emphasis ours]

DOWN THE SAME CROOKED PATH

There is no more perfect example illustrating the parallel in
tactics used against the tobacco industry and against America's
gunmakers than the actions and ideas articulated by Philadelphia
Mayor Ed Rendell. In early 1998, Rendell set out his plans to file
suit against gun manufacturers and hold them liable for the criminal
misuse of lawfully manufactured firearms. The Washington Times
reported that Rendell's suit would target the nation's nearly
four-dozen gunmakers, arguing that they have created a "public
nuisance" by knowingly flooding cities with more handguns than they
could expect to sell to law-abiding citizens.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: 1934 Group to challenge CLEO certification for C3
Date: 23 Mar 1999 17:25:35 -0700

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:07:32 -0700
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA13856; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:50:49 -0700
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA27030;
    Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:58:45 -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

On Mar 23, Chuck S wrote:

[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows -------------------=
-]

Please Repost where it might do some good.  Feel free to copy and leave at =
your
local gun shop or gun shows.

Friends,

I am posting this to inform you of a grass roots initiated legal action, =
which
seeks to overturn the "CLEO Certification" requirement for individual =
ownership
of machineguns and other "NFA Firearms."  I believe this effort will be =
successful
but donations are needed NOW!   For those of us who truly believe that the =
Second
Amendment "ain=3D92t about duck hunting," this represents a solid =
opportunity to
actually win a round in the fight to restore our rights.=20

Background

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but private ownership by =
individuals
of machineguns, short-barreled shotguns or rifles, suppressors, destructive=

devices, and AOWs (Any Other Weapon =3D96 pen guns, some short shotguns =
and the
like) is perfectly legal, except where otherwise prohibited by State law =
or
local ordinance (This leaves you Californians out, btw).  Under the =
National
Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA34) such firearms (a.k.a. Title II, Class 3, or =
NFA
firearms) became regulated via a federal tax (similar to liquor taxes).  =
For
most NFA firearms the tax is $200 and for AOWs the tax is $5.  (See Note =
1).


In order for an individual to make or obtain an NFA firearm (See Note 2), =
the
tax payment is sent with two copies of a) ATF Forms 1, 4, or 5, b) recent =
photographs
and c) fingerprint cards to BATF.  All this is very similar to the =
paperwork
requirements for obtaining a concealed handgun license in those states =
that
have "shall-issue" CCW laws. =20

But guess what?  There=3D92s one additional "gotcha" in this process.  On =
the back
of the ATF forms is a section entitled "LAW ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION" and =
this
turns out to be the spoiler for most people interested in NFA Firearms.  =
Currently,
ATF will not approve a transfer (i.e. will not accept the tax payment) =
unless
this section of the form is filled out and signed by the "chief law =
enforcement
officer" (CLEO) having jurisdictional authority (to issue or serve a =
criminal
warrant) for the applicant. =20

The CLEO certification states that the person signing has "no information =
that
the transferee will use the firearm=3D85for other than lawful purposes=3D85=
" and that
"the receipt and/or possession of the firearm=3D85would not place the =
transferee
in violation of State or local law."  Sounds simple, right?  It turns out =
that
Police Chiefs and Sheriffs, particularly in urban areas, will simply not =
sign
the certification.  They are not legally bound to, nor does it make much =
political
sense for them to do so (to them anyway). =20

For those of you out there who are on good terms with your sheriff, police =
chief,
district attorney, or district criminal judge =3D96 then good for you.  At =
least
'til the next election.

For the rest of you, this means you probably aren=3D92t "allowed" to =
obtain some
of the most interesting and unique firearms available in the world.  Too =
bad.


By the way, unlawful possession of one of these things can get you 10 =
years
in club fed and $100,000 lighter in the bank account.  Not recommended for =
the
entertainment value.

Fortunately, there may be some relief on the horizon.

1934 Group

The 1934 Group is a non-profit corporation established to take on legal =
issues
in the NFA arena.  It is entirely donor supported.  Donations are NOT =
tax-deductible
because this IS a lobbying organization.  The corporation was organized =
after
several months of brainstorming and data gathering by an informal group of =
individuals,
dealers, and manufacturers in the NFA world who realized that none of the =
"mainstream"
gun rights organizations were fighting their fight.  So they decided to do =
something
about it. =20

Attorneys Jim Jeffries III and Steven Halbrook have agreed to pursue a =
case
to overturn the CLEO certification requirement - Provided that the 1934 =
Group,
through its contributors, supplies the financial ammo to see this through. =
These
two highly respected attorneys need no introduction to those of us active =
in
the fight to preserve the Second Amendment.  To date, hundreds of =
individuals
or their companies have pledged thousands of dollars to get this started.  =
Thousands
of dollars more will be required to see it through and I urge you to =
provide
support for this effort through your own financial contributions and by =
spreading
the word.=20

Donations in personal or company check, money order (Please make a =
notation
on the "memo" field of your check if you prefer to stay anonymous to the =
CL3
community) or cash can be sent to:=20

1934 Group=20
12701 NE 9th PL Suite #D312=20
Bellevue, WA 98005=20

For more information, check out the 1934 Group web site at=20

http://www.teleport.com/~dkw/1934WWW.htm

_Small Arms Review_ publisher Dan Shea has written about the 1934 Group =
and
their efforts in the March issue of that magazine, which by the way is THE =
journal
to have for those interested in, or involved with, the NFA community.  =
See=20


http://www.smallarmsreview.com/

Jim Jeffries, in a letter to Dan Shea, has outlined the case by the 1934 =
Group.
The letter is posted on James Bardwell=3D92s web site at:=20

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/cleo_lawsuit/jeffr=
ies_shea_letter.txt


So there, now I=3D92ve said it.  Here=3D92s an opportunity to win one =
again.  For those
gun owners who believe this doesn=3D92t affect them, well, all I can do is =
paraphrase
Franklin  - We must hang together in this fight, or surely we=3D92ll hang =
separately.


Oh, and I don=3D92t duck hunt either.  But without folks like us, the duck =
hunters
will be toast eventually.

And for those of you who will protest that this effort is wrong because it =
doesn=3D92t
go far enough (NFA34 is un-Constitutional and all that=3D85), I hear you =
and trust
me, you're preachin' to the choir.  But the law is what it is, regardless =
of
eloquent arguments to the contrary.  So I choose, for now, to fight this =
particular
battle within that context.

Finally, I have no financial stake in any of this except that if we win, =
my
boys might get to keep some of their daddy's guns.

Thanks for your time.

Chuck S=20
Spring, Texas=20
March 23, 1999

Note 1: For an interesting and enlightening take on NFA34, take some time =
to
read _Unintended Consequences_, by John Ross.

Note 2: Unlicensed individuals may not obtain machineguns manufactured =
after
May 1986, but this is a battle for another time.

[------------------------- end of forwarded message -----------------------=
-]

--
-
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
-
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand =3D Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy =
a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus =
Christ
----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
-


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA'99: What Happened to the 1998 Member Initiated Bylaw Amendments?
Date: 23 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700


Forwarded by: [e-mail] (schuetzen) and Gary Westfall
<[e-mail]>

On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:48:12 -0500,
"Dean Speir" <[e-mail]> wrote:

As the 1999 NRA Board of Directors campaign winds down, there is one
issue which has yet to be addressed by NRA or any of the current Board,
and that is what happened to the seven members-initiated NRA Bylaw
Amendments which were to have been discussed and voted on at the last
membership meeting in Philadelphia.

Instead, Director Oliver North, seemingly stooging for "The Winning
Team" triumvirate of out-going President Marion Hammer, Executive V.P.
Wayne LaPierre and the Charlton Heston/Angus McQueen (Mercury Group)
entry, stepped to an open microphone and moved that the meeting be
closed. This was quickly followed by a second from former NRA President,
Joe Foss, an NRA icon, and Ms. Hammer was quick to gavel the proceedings
to an early close. Some of the movers of the ByLaw amendments like Joe
Tartaro, one of the architects of the celebrated "Cincinnati Reforms"
of 1977, were left at dead microphones.

Those initiatives, five of which were actually on the ballot, were
"referred to the Board for consideration" by outgoing President Hammer.

The problem is, that under the laws of incorporation of the State of
New York (where NRA is chartered), the Bylaws can ONLY BE AMENDED BY
THE MEMBERSHIP, and not by the Board of Directors.

There are other considerations at work as well, but that action
alone and the "circular-filing" of legally presented amendments in
contravention of NRA's own bylaws, are reason enough to suggest that
something unwholesome is at work within NRA, something which does not
trust its general membership to respond to anything which has not been
spoon-fed to them by The Winning Team.

This isn't a "dissident faction" (read "Knoxite") versus "The Winning
Team" deal... Neal Knox and his merrie band of hard corps Second
Amendment faithful had their shot and, for whatever reasons, blew it.
They let NRA staff and at least one of NRA's vendors run rough-shod
over the organization and ultimately lost control of matters.

It's really about how the general membership is going to make
themselves heard and their wishes known to the leadership of NRA,
a leadership (and staff) which is running the Board of Directors
rather than the other way around. A leadership (and staff) which
is (and there's no other word for it) profligate with the money
the membership is continually sending them in response to a steady
barrage of insultingly witless fund solicitations disguised as "polls"
and "membership surveys," and cries for "emergency financial help"
wrapped in certified mailings!

Look closely sometime at where that membership money is going!
And not just the little stuff such as those dreadful solicitations
and appeals, but some of the little known "big ticket items." Ask
yourself why the NRA needs to expend enormous sums to prop up
personality-oriented organizations such as Marion Hammer's USF,
or Roy Innis' CORE, or LeRoy Pyle's LEAA.

But you can't ask this of The Winning Team leadership, because your
microphone will be cut off and others will be informed that you are
a "malcontent" or a "rabble-rouser."

And you can't ask this of the bulk of the current Board of Directors,
since they either don't know, or they are too frightened for their
continued political existence to answer honestly and openly. Those who
don't absolutely toe The Winning Team line are not only not supported
for re-election, they are actively campaigned against and listed in the
"Do Not Vote For" column.

Study that list of 14 names closely... sure, Sally Drews Brodbeck
was one of the Knox faithful whose husband got into an ugly physical
confrontation with one of Marion Hammer's "security guards" in
Philadelphia last June, and Howard Fezell was the prime mover in the
successful lawsuit a year ago which forced The Winning Team to obey its
own bylaws... they are both naturals for the "Do Not Vote For" list.

But what about people such as Bob Hodgdon and Glen Voorhees? What does
one suppose that their transgressions were which landed them on The
Winning Team's "enemies list." (And make no mistake, that extraordinary
Do Not Vote For column is an "enemies list" in the disgraceful tradition
of the Nixon administration's darker side.)

The Fitzgerald v. NRA decision (available upon request) of 1974 was
very clear that NRA cannot use "corporate instrumentalities" (read:
"The American Rifleman" at the time, now also "The American Hunter"
and "The American Guardian") to influence corporate elections:

  "The principles enunciated above make it clear that officers and
   directors cannot utilize corporate instrumentalities such as
   The American Rifleman to perpetuate themselves in office."
   [383 F.Supp. 162, United States District Court, D. New Jersey;
   Thomas FITZGERALD, a New Jersey Citizen, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
   The NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, a New York corporation,
   Defendant. Civ. A. No. 772-73.]

This is very much at the root of the sole Bylaw Amendment on this
year's ballot... those who control the NRA publications control how the
membership which bothers to vote, votes. The rest of the time leadership
and staff are content to treat the membership like mushrooms: kept in
the dark and fed the occasional shovelful of horse manure... except for
the regularly scheduled pleas for money.

Passage of this year's Bylaw Amendment will make it even harder for
anyone who has not curried favor with leadership and staff to make a
meaningful run for the Board of Directors. And without strong, independent
voices on the already over-sized BoD, we will continue to see an NRA
which is out of the control of its members, and wholly in the grasp of
self-interested leadership, staff and vendors on the NRA's teat.

There should be one and only one agenda of the NRA, and that is
preserving our Second Amendment rights and firearms heritage. And I
don't see as how the Brady Law, the Assault Weapons portion of the
Crime Bill, the Lautenberg Amendment or regional atrocities such as
Prop. 17 in Pennsylvania (never mind the Utah/Olympic fiasco) can be
anything but antithetical to those objectives.

But that's what our recently constituted NRA has brought us. It's about
"power"... damn the original objective... "we can deal with the gun rights
stuff later, let's just stay on top in the NRA, and if we have to dirty
up some soon-to-be-former friends and colleagues," [shrug] "ecccch."

Well, that's not the NRA to which I signed on for Life.

Please, study the bios and ballots carefully, and if there's things
which seem strange to you, ask some tough questions about them,
especially if you have access to any of those who are running for the
BoD this year! Don't be content with the horse manure spoon-fed you by
The Winning Team in the publications, fund solicitations and NRA-ILA
fax alerts.

The completed NRA 1999 Ballots must be received by 11 April in order
to have them counted. Time is running out.

- Dean Speir, Life NRA
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
It's not a perfect world out there... it's why we _have_ guns!

Internet: [e-mail] (Gary Westfall)
AirPower Information Services  The Pro-freedom Online Service, since 1989!
BBS:610-259-2193 Telnet://airpower.dynip.com  ftp://ftp.airpower.dynip.com
http://www.airpower.com http://www.airpower.dynip.com
This message was processed by AirPower's NetXpress Server.




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Okay, let's put a stop to this! 1/2
Date: 23 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700


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

"Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win
without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be
sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have
to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance
for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when
there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than
to live as slaves." -- Winston Churchill.
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/politics/quotes/freedom.html

RKBA Defenders,

It is one thing for the relatively few American citizens who subscribe
to the RKBA Listserv to share this information amongst ourselves. It is
another to convey this information back to Congress and let them know
that we seek action on this matter.

The rule of the squeaky wheel holds true in politics and this is no
time for us to remain silent. Please contact your Congresscritters.

I've written a letter which you may wish to cut and paste to the GOA
mass- mailer for U.S. Congress. Also, you can select all Senators
and/or Representatives by doing a right-button click, holding it down
and scrolling down the address list.
http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html

We must put a stop to this now, rather than face the consequences later.

In Liberty,

Rick V.

Dear Senator,

I am very, very alarmed by reports coming in from Texas, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Ohio, California and from many other states.

The U.S. military (the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment
Airborne, Combat Applications Group, CAG, or "Night Stalkers" --
commonly referred to as "Delta Force") is conducting night-time
practice assaults on civilian areas using night vision devices,
unmarked helicopters and, in at least some instances, live ammunition.

There was and is no need to conduct operations anywhere close to
civilian-occupied areas -- unless the purpose is to get civilians
used to night-time raids, or worse yet, to prepare for these troops
for actual operations AGAINST CIVILIANS.

This is highly alarming and extremely dangerous. The potential for
military mishaps, such as the helicopter crash that ended the failed
Iranian Hostage rescue attempt at "Desert One," or stray live rounds
hitting civilians is tremendous. As great as this risk is, it is not
the most dangerous aspect.

What possible objective can these raids have other than to be setting
the stage for the implementation of Clinton's Executive Orders, which
the House and Senate have failed to stop?

You MUST initiate an investigation into the matter and put a stop to
this! The American armed services are meant to protect and serve the
U.S. Constitution and the citizens of the United States. This series
of raids works directly against both missions.

These raids, coupled with their likely purpose and the unconstitutional,
unilateral and secret attempt by Clinton to absolve these specialized
troops under Presidential Decision Directive 25, sets the stage for a
military seizure of power.

He is purporting to grant authority he himself cannot give. Every
elected official, soldier and law enforcement officer has sworn an
oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign
and domestic." By attempting to release elite fighting units from
the constraints of the Constitution, Clinton is violating his Oath,
attacking the Constitution he has sworn to uphold, and threatens to
unleash brutal, unchecked, deadly force against American civilians.

According to the sources cited below, the 160th Group has been granted
authority to do just about anything with total immunity from the law,
including the Posse Comitatus Act. "They will follow and do whatever the
president tells them to do. In that regard, they are somewhat
dangerous," stated one source.

I urge you to put a stop to these operations; to repeal PDD 25 and all
other similar assaults on our Constitution.

Ours is a nation of laws. The President cannot be allowed to write laws
unilaterally, or in secret, or those which purport to absolve his
hand-picked henchmen of legal liability. PDD 25 is the worst of all
worlds rolled into one. You must put a stop to this NOW.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard E. Vaughan, Esq.



At 10:48 AM 3/22/99 -0500, [e-mail], wrote:

>The U.S. military (the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment
>Airborne, Combat Applications Group, CAG, or "Night Stalkers" --
>commonly referred to as "Delta Force") is conducting night-time practice
>assaults on civilian areas using night vision devices, unmarked
>helicopters and, in at least some instances, live ammunition.

The 160 Special Operations Aviation Regiment/Night Stalkers and Delta Force
are *not* the same unit, as you seem to indicate. The 160th is based at Ft.
Campbell while Delta is based at Ft. Bragg. The 160th are the taxi drivers
for Delta and other units, as well as their "eyes in the sky".

>He is purporting to grant authority he himself cannot give. Every
>elected official, soldier and law enforcement officer has sworn an oath
>to "uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and
>domestic." By attempting to release elite fighting units from the

That should be "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

>constraints of the Constitution, Clinton is violating his Oath,
>attacking the Constitution he has sworn to uphold, and threatens to
>unleash brutal, unchecked, deadly force against American civilians.

If you want to turn off your CongressCritter, one sure way is not to have
all your facts straight, especially those that are easily verified (in the
articles you referance in fact)

The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution.
---Doug McKay" <mckay003_AT_maroon.tc.umn.edu>

Joe Sylvester
Don't Tread On Me !

Internet: [e-mail] (Joe Sylvester)
AirPower Information Services  The Pro-freedom Online Service, since 1989!
BBS:610-259-2193 Telnet://airpower.dynip.com  ftp://ftp.airpower.dynip.com
http://www.airpower.com http://www.airpower.dynip.com
This message was processed by AirPower's NetXpress Server.



Joe Sylvester wrote:

>The 160 Special Operations Aviation Regiment/Night Stalkers and Delta
>Force are *not* the same unit, as you seem to indicate. The 160th is
>based at Ft. Campbell while Delta is based at Ft. Bragg. The 160th are
>the taxi drivers for Delta and other units, as well as their "eyes in
>the sky".
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Okay, let's put a stop to this! 2/2
Date: 23 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Jurist responds:

Okay...
...you might want to take a look at all the URLs I posted at the bottom
of the message. The articles cited to in the URLs go into greater depth
in unit identification -- that's why they are included. There certainly
is a distinction between the various units, be they Delta, Special
Forces, Rangers, et cetera.

Point of fact, the Night Stalkers have been identified by the sources,
once again, --- in the URLs -- as being involved with the night-time NVG
raids, but Marine and Navy units have also been involved in night urban
assaults as well (Laser Cup, Last Dance, what have you).

Many units are involved, some of which have yet to be identified, due to
OPSEC and lack of unit markings on the aircraft. For example:

"H Howard Lewis Bloom" <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] wrote:

>"I'm a pilot. I flew out to Lancaster (LNS) a few months back to practice
>some in pattern emergencies and had to taxi around "Crystal 17". Crystal
>17 was what they called themselves and what the tower called them. There
>were no markings on this black helicopter, no markings at all. I have no
>idea who they were, or what they were doing, as there was absolutely no
>way to identify them save for their own identification of "Crystal 17"."

Reports have come in concerning even National Guard units. They range
from plans to activate all units and have them standing by for New
Year's Eve 2000, to withdrawal of ammunition from NG units, to
stockpiling of MRE's. Indeed, last year many Eastern European units
were reported as undergoing joint operations with Marines in my old
stomping grounds of Camp Lejeune, NC.

Splitting hairs over First Battalion or Second Regiment ignores the fact
that those at the highest levels of government show every indicator of
turning America's finest against Americans. This is a perversion of the
American system and is nothing less than treason.

As a former Marine, it makes me seethe to think that I may be forced to
choose between violating my own oath to uphold and defend the Constitution
(which is still in effect from the time I took it!) to giving up my Arms,
giving up my Freedom, giving up on America, or firing on my Brothers in
Arms. This is despicable and tragic. I want to head this off by all
possible peaceful means -- hence the need for us to take political and
legal action NOW.

As far as pissing off Senators or Representatives, you must be operating
with a different Congressional animal from the kind I have met. Many
haven't a clue about the Constitution, or oftentimes, about the content
of the Bill they are voting for.

That Bills are constantly being introduced -- much less passed -- in
Congress that violate the plain-language prohibitions against ex post
facto laws, search and seizure, freedom of speech and assembly, et
cetera, shows this to be true.

Whether through ignorance or contempt, the result is the same.
Moreover, we have fewer prior-service in Congress than we've had in a
very long while. What we *do* have in government are the Sarah Lister
types, who -- like Clinton -- 'loathe' the military and have no concept
of how the inner workings of a military unit functions.

Here are some more URLs

-- please have a look first....

Rather than attack each other over inanities, let's turn our attention
to heading this thing off before the "exercises" stop and the "operations"
begin.

This is for real people.

In Liberty,

Rick V.

Why attack the military?
--------------------------
http://freeweb.digiweb.com/pages/RKBA/atak_mil.htm

Night raids on Civilian Areas
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990319close4.asp
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990309_xex_new_livefire.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990225_xex_the_military.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990226_xex_inside_view_.shtml

Examples of Lister/Morris in top levels of US Government:
http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/pirn9779.htm
http://www2.dk-online.dk/users/nsu/militari.htm
http://www.neopolitique.org/articles/oct97-military.html
http://tiger.bpa.missouri.edu/Research/Centers/CSOC/Howard_Schwartz.html
http://www.reagan.com/HotTopics.main/document-4.4.1997.8.html
http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/morris/morris.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895263769/o/qid%3D901808185/sr%3D2-2/002-0511558-1324255

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



At 06:45 AM 3/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Joe Sylvester wrote:

>>The 160 Special Operations Aviation Regiment/Night Stalkers and Delta
Force are *not* the same unit, as you seem to indicate.The 160th is based
at Ft. Campbell while Delta is based at Ft. Bragg. The 160th are the taxi
drivers for Delta and other units, as well as their "eyes in the sky".

>Jurist responds:

>Okay...
>...you might want to take a look at all the URLs I posted at the bottom
>of the message. The articles cited to in the URLs go into greater depth
>in unit identification -- that's why they are included. There certainly
>is a distinction between the various units, be they Delta, Special
>Forces, Rangers, et cetera.

Been there, done that. I made the point because any little inaccurracy,
even inconsequential ones, will be used to discredit the entire thesis.

>Point of fact, the Night Stalkers have been identified by the sources,
>once again, --- in the URLs -- as being involved with the night-time NVG
>raids, but Marine and Navy units have also been involved in night urban
>assaults as well (Laser Cup, Last Dance, what have you).

>Splitting hairs over First Battalion or Second Regiment ignores the fact
>that those at the highest levels of government show every indicator of
>turning America's finest against Americans. This is a perversion of the
>American system and is nothing less than treason.

NO? You don't say? :(

>As a former Marine, it makes me seethe to think that I may be forced to
>choose between violating my own oath to uphold and defend the
>Constitution (which is still in effect from the time I took it!) to
>giving up my Arms, giving up my Freedom, giving up on America, or firing
>on my Brothers in Arms. This is despicable and tragic. I want to head
>this off by all possible peaceful means -- hence the need for us to take
>political and legal action NOW.

Tell me about it. They and you are my brothers in arms too. I just wore a
different colored "suit". See .sig

>Rather than attack each other over inanities, let's turn our attention
>to heading this thing off before the "exercises" stop and the
>"operations" begin.

Twer not an attack, just a correction/clarification. Call it *constructive*
critisism.

>This is for real people.

I guess that means it leaves me out. I've been called a lot of things,
egghead, fatso, even "Sir", but never a real person. :)

Dennis J. Sylvester
Captain USAFR(ret)


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: What? MORE Helicopter raids in civilian areas? - WHY?
Date: 23 Mar 1999 20:47:00 -0700


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

Ladies and Gents of the RKBA,

What's going on here? I used to play helicopter commando with the
Marines. We had lots of space and "combat towns" on board base to do
training with.

There was and is no need to conduct operations anywhere close to
civilian-occupied areas -- unless the purpose is to get civilians used
to your presence ('lulling' into a false sense of complacency?).

When you play connect-the-dots with the personalities in charge of the
USA, their political agenda and the intentions and capabilities of their
allies in the press, overseas (Red China et al) and in Congress (58
Socialists there - http://www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.caucus.html), it does not
look good.

For those of you with plans of cacheting valuables - pay attention to
the scenario given below.

Believe me, all this has *everything* to do with the RKBA, and with
Freedom. We must pay attention and find out just what is going on.
We have 8 months left. Buy your Night Vision equipment now.

In liberty,

Rick V.

Not ready for rumble

Sleepers alarmed by helicopter-borne commandos Friday, March 19, 1999

By Torsten Ove, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

In the black of a peaceful winter night in the Beaver County
countryside, the first mean machines came chop-chop-chopping low and
loud over Don and Phyllis Wilfong's house at 3:27 a.m. yesterday,
rattling the windows and obliterating any hope of sleep.

A second intimidating ruckus followed about five minutes later.

Then, five minutes after that, another.

"It sounded like they were landing on the house," said Phyllis, 57, of
New Sewickley, who bolted up in bed with Don and the couple's suddenly
very alert Chihuahua. "It shook everything. Our house was shaking. Our
bed was shaking. I don't know how anyone couldn't hear that. I couldn't
figure out what the heck was going on."

Short answer: A squadron of 12 military helicopters was on maneuvers,
and lots of people got scared.

...
So, were these the dreaded black helicopters of legend? Were they filled
with commandos out to sabotage the nuclear power plant in Shippingport?
Was this a prelude to an invasion? And wasn't that the Cigarette-Smoking
Man in the lead chopper?

"We've been taking calls all morning," said Capt. Michael Mastroianni of
the Penn Township police in Westmoreland County. "We don't know who they
were. Needless to say, the military doesn't check in with us."

...Everyone had the same question: What's up with these helicopters?

...Maybe Beth Nicholson and her husband, Shawn, could explain. At 3:30
a.m., a group of choppers churned over their house on Stiefel Avenue in
Franklin, Beaver County. Fifteen minutes later, another group blasted
by, and 25 minutes later, a third.

...Not a war, but a one-day training operation, the exact details of
which remained sketchy yesterday.

"According to the Army, the choppers were taking part in a joint Army and
Air Force Special Operations training mission called "Exercise Laser Cup."

[PAY ATTENTION TO THIS PART]

***[S]pecial forces officers were to practice finding buried items near
an old mine.****

[end item]

....Flying at night is necessary because almost all special forces
missions are conducted in darkness.

...Soldiers practicing urban warfare techniques slid down ropes from
hovering helicopters amid simulated explosions and gunfire.

...Trouble was, no one seemed to know about it, and finding out who
owned the choppers proved an exercise in frustration.

When asked if the helicopters might have come from his unit, for example,
an officer at the Army Reserve base in Oakdale said the outfit "has no
rotary-wing assets." Translation: We don't have choppers.

... "We made some inquiries, but nobody would tell us who they were,"
said Jay Schall, a supervisor at the Westmoreland County 911 center.
"I would prefer they notify us so we can tell the people who call. But
[the military] doesn't have to tell us anything. They're federal and
we're county. There's nothing we can do about it."
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990319close4.asp

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990309_xex_new_livefire.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990225_xex_the_military.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990226_xex_inside_view_.shtml

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


-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LPU: DesNews editorial
Date: 24 Mar 1999 21:49:31 -0700 (MST)

While I don't support the contention that rights are totally dependent
on the will of the majority, the DN and the Trib keep saying this, but
how accurate and unbiased are the polls on which these statistics are
based? Does anyone have access to the raw data, such as date, polling
firm, exact questions asked, who responded as compared to who was
approached in addition to the actual numbers of total and specific
responses, etc.?

Scott

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [e-mail] provided:

> Keep schools, churches gun-free=20
> Deseret News editorial

>       An overwhelming number of Utahns advocate the obvious =97 guns
> should be kept out of schools and churches. We concur.
SNIP
>       90 percent of Utahns believe
> all weapons should be banned from public schools. Eighty-six percent
> think guns =97 including concealed weapons =97 should be kept from
> churches. Three-fourths want firearms prohibited from Olympic venues in
> 2002. While 58 percent feel they should be kept out of private
> businesses open to the public.
SNIP to end


-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: FYI: Important Gun Data
Date: 25 Mar 1999 11:47:10 -0700 (MST)

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

----------

This gun data brought to you by the

National Center For Policy Analysis
DAILY POLICY DIGEST
Wednesday, March 24, 1999

PointCast can automatically load NCPA's Policy Digest summaries
on your desktop for easy reading.  For information go to
http://www.ncpa.org/pointcast.html


LAWSUITS IGNORE BENEFITS OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE

The mayors of Chicago and New Orleans have filed lawsuits against
the gun industry, arguing that their cities should be reimbursed
for the public health and safety costs associated with treating
and preventing firearms injuries.

Gun control advocates have compared these suits to those against
the tobacco industry.  But a new National Center for Policy
Analysis study concludes that unlike tobacco, guns produce
tangible social benefits.

Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates there are about 2.5 million
defensive gun uses annually -- often merely showing the weapon.
And research supports the view that the best defense against
violence is an armed response.  For example:

   o   Women faced with assault are 2.5 times less likely to
       suffer serious injury if they respond with a firearm than
       if they defend themselves with less effective weapons or
       offer no resistance (see Figure II
       http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223/gif/s223fig2.gif ).

   o   The Justice Department says only one-fifth of the victims
       who defended themselves with firearms suffered injury,
       compared to almost half of those who used weapons other
       than firearms or had no weapon.

Socially, the benefits of defensive gun use exceed the costs of
firearm crimes by as much as $38.9 billion -- an amount equal to
about $400 per year for every household in America.

Serious crime in the U.S. is at a 20-year low, and one reason is
that since 1987, 22 states have made it easier for private
citizens to get concealed carry permits.  For instance, economist
John Lott found that:

   o   Concealed carry laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by
       5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent (see Figure III
       http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223/gif/s223fig3.gif ).

   o   Had liberalized concealed carry laws prevailed throughout
       the country in any given year, there would have been 1,600
       fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe
       assaults.

These lawsuits would not only establish bad policy, but bad law,
concludes the study.  Courts have recognized that firearms are no
different from other potentially dangerous products and have held
that legislatures should decide whether guns should be legal and
widely available.  Furthermore, it is a well-established tort law
principle that manufacturers are not responsible for the criminal
misuse of their products.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "Suing Gun Manufacturers" Hazardous
to Our Health," Policy Report No. 223, March 1999, National
Center for Policy Analysis, 12655 N. Central Expy., Suite 720,
Dallas, Texas 75243, [phone].

For text go to http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223.html

For more on Liability and Guns
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/crime51.html


-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request: negative effects of gun control
Date: 25 Mar 1999 16:43:09 -0700 (MST)

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

Anybody care to help this person:


I am 15 and doing a report on the negative effects of gun control. I would
like any info as to where to get statistics and other info.  Any other help
is appreciated. Thanks!

We have a new web site!
http://www.onelist.com
Onelist: The leading provider of free email community services

Internet: [e-mail] (Paul Nixon)
AirPower Information Services   The Pro-freedom Online Service, since 1989!
BBS:610-259-2193 Telnet://airpower.dynip.com  ftp://ftp.airpower.dynip.com
http://www.airpower.com               http://www.airpower.dynip.com
This message was processed by AirPower's NetXpress Server.


-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective
Date: 25 Mar 1999 18:57:33 -0700 (MST)

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

Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA,

This message is intended for Mr. Alan Gottlieb.  If this should arrive
at the wrong address, please pardon the error and kindly delete the
message.

Dear Mr. Gottlieb,

I understand you are supporting a Bill supporting gun locks on weapons
in an effort to head off more onerous legislation.

It is this same exact flawed reasoning that has severely damaged our
fundamental right to self defense, as recognized by the U.S.
Constitution and many State Constitutions.

As anyone can recall from the dark days leading into WWII, the name
Neville Chamberlain is remembered as being associated with cowardly
concessions that served on to encourage a beastial tyrant on to greater
efforts.  The people of Czechoslovakia were betrayed by their allies and
given up to the wolves in order to obtain "peace in our time."

Please note this next part is given with the greatest respect, but
brought out because it is quite relevant:  I take it from your name that
your are of Jewish extraction.  Nothing need be said as to how the Jews
suffered under this same man who failed to be bought off with
concessions.  However it should be noted that Hitler's rise to power and
the fate of the Jews was sealed by the gradual disarmament of any
opponents to the State under the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, which became
the blueprint for the Gun Control Act of 1968 http://jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

If there is a learning curve when dealing with guns, freedom, gun laws
and anti-gun activists, we must know that gun laws merely serve to
disarm the law-abiding.  We must know that those seeking gun laws are
doing so for ulterior motives or because they are "useful idiots" whose
thinking ignores history, law and fact -- neither of which is a proper
basis for a change in the laws. Particularly when the Rights being
attacked are FUNDAMENTAL to LIFE ITSELF.

We must know that any time only the government has guns, freedom is on
the brink of extinction, and oftentimes mass slaughter of civilians
results. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/DBG.CHAP1.HTM results.

I submit now is not the time for concessions.  Now is the time for a
ROLLBACK -- going on to the offensive -- so to speak.  We need to hold
up the 1968 Gun Control Act up as the NAZI LAW that it is.  We need to
indelibly stain the supporters of that law as NAZI LAW supporters and
keep pounding them with that drumbeat: 'a NAZI LAW has no place in the
American body of laws' and 'What?! YOU support and defend a NAZI LAW???'

These tactics are the sort that the Left has used with the glaring
differences of 1) it being based on TRUTH and 2) that a repeal of the
NAZI 1968 GCA will SAVE lives.

I urge you to cease any further attempts at placating our enemies.
Their mindset is a Totalitarian one and I shudder to think what kind of
society it will be when they are FINALLY placated.


Your friend in Liberty,

Richard E. Vaughan, Esq.

http://freeweb.digiweb.com/pages/RKBA/commies.htm

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

New laws - justified by WHAT facts????

YAHOO NEWS
WASHINGTON (Reuters) Monday December 28 12:31 AM ET  - The violent crime
rate in the United States fell almost 7 percent in 1997 to the lowest
level since the National Crime Victimization Survey was started 25 years
ago, the Justice Department announced Sunday.

In 1997, the last year for which full statistics were compiled, there
were an estimated 39 violent crimes per 1,000 U.S. residents 12 years or
older.

That was lower than the 42 per 1,000 the year before and represented a
21 percent drop since 1993. The nation's murder rate alone fell by 8
percent meaning the 18,210 murders last year were
28 percent lower than in 1993.

The survey was begun by the department's Bureau of Justice Statistics
in 1973 and at that time there were an estimated 48 violent crimes per
1,000 residents. Violent crime went up drastically in the 1980s but the
rate has been coming down in recent years.

Most categories of crime were down in 1997 with property crime also
reaching its lowest level since the survey's beginning. Last year there
were an estimated 248 attempted or completed property crimes per 1,000
U.S. households, down from 266 the previous year and 554 in 1973.

Robbery fell the most among 1997 violent crime, down 17 percent, while
the statistics for rape and sexual assault did not change from the year
before.

The West had the highest crime rate in 1997, and about half of the
violent crimes were committed by someone the victim knew.

``As in previous years, males were more vulnerable to violent crime than
females, younger people more vulnerable than older people and blacks
more vulnerable than whites,'' the department said in a statement.
``Persons in urban areas had violent and property crime rates that were
higher than the rates for suburban and rural residents.''

Still, the survey estimated that only 37 percent of all crimes and 44
percent of all violent crimes were ever reported to police.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/pl/story.html?s=v/nm/19981228/pl/crime_2.html

(URL may wordwrap)

MORE AMMO

"National crime rates have been falling at the same time as gun
ownership has been rising... states experiencing the greatest reductions
in crime are also the ones with the fastest growing percentages of gun
ownership." http://www.toledoblade.com:80/editorial/edit/8k23fole.htm

MURDER STATISTICS ARE BEING SCRUTINIZED Wash. Times, 07/02/1998 at C5 "In
the first half of 1997, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles led the
nation in slayings.  Baltimore placed fifth and the District [of
Columbia] sixth, according to statistics released by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation." [ALL have had long-standing gun bans!]

Thirty-one states now have Right-to-Carry (RtC) laws.  As states passed
RtC reform over the 19 years encompassed by the monumental University of
Chicago Lott/Mustard study, the number of multiple-victim public
shootings declined by 84%.  Deaths from these shootings plummeted on
average by 90%, injuries by 82%.  Violent crime such as murder, rape and
aggravated assaults were down in every category of statistics collected
wherever the citizen's right to carry concealed arms was recognized.
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Lott/guncont.html

Indeed, Americans use privately-owned guns 2,500,000 times each year to
thwart violent attacks against themselves and their loved ones. Where
concealed handgun laws had been in effect for 5 years, murders declined
by at least 15%, rapes by 9% and robberies by 11%.  Permit holders were
found to be extremely law-abiding, and data on accidental deaths and
suicides indicate there were no increases.

In fact, studies have shown that you stand a greater chance of being
shot by a cop than by a gun-toting civilian: 11% of individuals involved
in police shootings were later found to be innocents mistaken for
criminals, while only 2% of those in civilian shootings were so
misidentified.  Moreover, private citizens in urban areas encounter and
kill up to three times as many criminals as do law enforcement
personnel.

Women also benefited under the relaxed carry laws, but those who
behaved passively when they were attacked proved to be 2.5 times more
likely to be seriously injured than women who defended themselves with a
gun.

Gun Control Advocates Purvey Deadly Myths
http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/lottgun.htm

General Firearms Facts
http://amfire.com/afistatistics/general.html

Firearms and Crime Statistics
http://www.av.qnet.com/~harv/stats.htm

Most violent crime committed by repeat offenders, about one-third of
whom are already on probation, parole or pretrial release.
http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/juvcrm/eocp2.html

Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/tennmed.html

John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and
Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns".  - THE Definitive Study, showing
that beyond a reasonable doubt, Guns Save Lives and stop crime.
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html

Large City Crime Rates - FBI Confirms Downward Trend
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/crime/index.html

Report: School crime down
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/US/9810/15/school.violence.01/

Suter vs Kellerman home invasion study
http://rkba.org/letters/suter.kellerman.home-invasion

Gun Control Kills Kids (Freedom, Genocide and Gun Control)
http://www.webspan.net/~hhr/myths.html

Second Thoughts of an Armed Liberal - Debunks some myths
http://www.arcrafts.com/2think.html

Statistics Links
http://www.aloha.net/~davidht/koloa/refstats.htm


-



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

From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective
Date: 25 Mar 1999 18:18:32 -0800



Scott Bergeson wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500
> From: [e-mail]
> To: Multiple recipients of list PRN <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective
>
> Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA,
>
> This message is intended for Mr. Alan Gottlieb.  If this should arrive
> at the wrong address, please pardon the error and kindly delete the
> message.
>
> Dear Mr. Gottlieb,
>
> I understand you are supporting a Bill supporting gun locks on weapons
> in an effort to head off more onerous legislation.
>

This is NOT true.  "Preemptive concession" is not the basis for support of the bill.
As others in the gun lobby already acknowledge, Washington's EXISTING reckless
endangerment law (RCW 9A.36.050) can and has been used to prosecute individuals who
allow a minor unauthorized access to a firearm.  HB 1424 NARROWS that prosecutorial
option.


The remainder of the message being answered is inaccurate drivel totally irrelevant to
th efacts in this case.  This issue is being promoted by GOA in an attempt to attack
another member of the gun rights community.  By all means visit the GOA web site
addressing the issue.  The please show the courtesy to visit the CCRKBA web site at
http://www.ccrkba.org and read the other side of the story.

Joe Waldron
Executive Director, CCRKBA


-



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

From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective
Date: 25 Mar 1999 18:21:35 -0800



Scott Bergeson wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500
> From: [e-mail]
> To: Multiple recipients of list PRN <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective
>
> Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA,
>
> This message is intended for Mr. Alan Gottlieb.  If this should arrive
> at the wrong address, please pardon the error and kindly delete the
> message.

Interesting, too, that the message is supposed to be directed at Mr. Gottlieb and
CCRKBA, but it seems to be making it's way through the various gun list on the 'net.
That may say more about the real motives of the message than the words indicate.

Joe Waldron
Exec Dir, CCRKBA


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LPU: DesNews editorial
Date: 26 Mar 1999 00:26:10 -0700

I wrote to the Deseret News and asked for a copy of the survey and the
final results.  They never responded.  The Trib has refused to make survey
info available and claims "all the information I need" is in the article
and/or graphs. =20

Sarah


At 09:49 PM 3/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>While I don't support the contention that rights are totally dependent
>on the will of the majority, the DN and the Trib keep saying this, but
>how accurate and unbiased are the polls on which these statistics are
>based? Does anyone have access to the raw data, such as date, polling
>firm, exact questions asked, who responded as compared to who was
>approached in addition to the actual numbers of total and specific
>responses, etc.?
>
>Scott
>
>On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [e-mail] provided:
>
>> Keep schools, churches gun-free=20
>> Deseret News editorial
>
>>       An overwhelming number of Utahns advocate the obvious =97 guns
>> should be kept out of schools and churches. We concur.
>SNIP
>>       90 percent of Utahns believe
>> all weapons should be banned from public schools. Eighty-six percent
>> think guns =97 including concealed weapons =97 should be kept from
>> churches. Three-fourths want firearms prohibited from Olympic venues in
>> 2002. While 58 percent feel they should be kept out of private
>> businesses open to the public.
>SNIP to end
>
>
>-


-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DesNews editorial
Date: 26 Mar 1999 06:28:06 -0700 (MST)

Thank you. I will consider this refusal of the papers to answer
a tacit admission of their prevaricated use of "statistics".

Scott

"Statistics don't lie, but liars sure can use statistics."

----------

I wrote to the Deseret News and asked for a copy of the survey and the
final results.  They never responded.  The Trib has refused to make
survey info available and claims "all the information I need" is in the
article and/or graphs. =20

Sarah


At 09:49 PM 3/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>While I don't support the contention that rights are totally dependent
>on the will of the majority, the DN and the Trib keep saying this, but
>how accurate and unbiased are the polls on which these statistics are
>based? Does anyone have access to the raw data, such as date, polling
>firm, exact questions asked, who responded as compared to who was
>approached in addition to the actual numbers of total and specific
>responses, etc.?

>Scott

>On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 [e-mail] provided:

>> Keep schools, churches gun-free=20
>> Deseret News editorial

>>       An overwhelming number of Utahns advocate the obvious =97 guns
>> should be kept out of schools and churches. We concur.
>SNIP
>>       90 percent of Utahns believe
>> all weapons should be banned from public schools. Eighty-six percent
>> think guns =97 including concealed weapons =97 should be kept from
>> churches. Three-fourths want firearms prohibited from Olympic venues in
>> 2002. While 58 percent feel they should be kept out of private
>> businesses open to the public.
>SNIP to end


-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Pre-emptive concessions?  Let's hear your side of it.
Date: 26 Mar 1999 07:18:10 -0700 (MST)

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

Say it ain't so, Joe,

No, Scott did not write this letter, it was I who penned this -- warts
and all.  I have to admit, the grammar was not the best I have ever
composed, but on closer examination of the facts, I have seen nothing --
other than indignant denials -- to prove it wrong.  Scott just did me
the favor, I suppose, of reposting my article to a wider audience.

Now, please keep in mind that I have no intention in joining or forming
a new circular RKBA firing squad.  We have plenty of enemies already,
both foreign and domestic, to keep our bloodpressures up and our
keepboards smoking.  You may not have noticed, but I did couch my terms
in the tentative fashion, as I did not want to start shooting before I
understood the whole story.

At this point I have visited both the CCRKBA website AND GOA's website
to try and get both sides of the story.

[http://www.ccrkba.org/]   [http://www.gunowners.org/]

I found very little on the CCRKBA's website that directly addressed this
issue, [as a matter of fact, I DID call the 1-800 number to give the
U.S. Attorney in question a ration; but the receptionist hadn't a clue
of what the message posted on the site referred to].

GOA's site at http://www.gunowners.org/swadocs.htm, on the other hand,
has about six files that document the back-and-forth between Larry Pratt
and Alan Gottlieb.

In one section, Mr. Gottlieb is quoted as saying:

>"A pro-active approach to the child safety issue is more than damage
>control. It is about reaching out to legitimately concerned citizens
>with the message that gun rights are not incompatible with safety and
>responsibility. If we allow our enemies to hijack the issue of child
>safety, we put ourselves on the losing side of a battle that could
>decide the war."

Perhaps you interpret it differently than I do, but in this particular
instance, it stinks very strongly of "pre-emptive concession."

In case you have been paying attention over the past 20-odd year years,
THAT TACTIC HAS NOT WORKED FOR US!  It HAS worked to salami-slice away
our Second Amendment rights.

I, for one, have no intention of cooperating with the Executioners of
the Constitution.  I want to expose them as the liars they are.  I want
to get a COMPLETE ROLLBACK of all gunlaws until we have nothing left but
the Second Amendment, okay?  That's where I am coming from.  Concessions
aren't part of my vocabulary.

In my letter, I suggested we go on the counterattack and demand the
repeal of the NAZI LAW that is the Gun Control Act of 1968.
http://jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm  I hope that isn't part of the 'inaccurate
drivil' you were referring to.

Now, between SAF, CCRKBA, NRA and GOA, I know of no organization in the
USA who has had the gumption to use this excellent club that is
available to us and shame the Left into repealing this NAZI LAW.  None
have come forward and taken action.  None have demanded that they wanted
the Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution and NOTHING LESS than the
Constitution.  Instead, we're constantly backpeddling, cringing, and now
-- so it would seem -- all too eager to commit suicide rather than allow
someone else to shoot us.  I'm sick of it.

Now, I HOPE we are all on the same team.  Larry has put up facts on his
website, to include reposts of your (?) organizations' transmissions to
him.  The way I see it, he has introduced evidence sufficient to show
that Alan is making pre-emptive concessions.  I now invite your, level-
headed, factual response rebutting what has been proferred.

As far as the supporting information included with my initial letter, by
calling it "inaccurate drivel" you attack every major argument we have
against the introduction of mandatory gunlock legislation.

Okay Joe, I yield back my time and the floor over to you.  Let's hear
the facts, as you see them please.  Let's try to keep the bloodshed
within the family to a minimum.

Best regards,

Rick Vaughan, Esq.
[e-mail]


Joe Waldron wrote:

> Scott Bergeson wrote:

> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 23:30:11 -0500
> > From: [e-mail]
> > To: Multiple recipients of list PRN <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Pre-emptive Concessions are dangerous and ineffective

> Attn: Mr. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA,

> Dear Mr. Gottlieb,

> I understand you are supporting a Bill supporting gun locks on weapons
> in an effort to head off more onerous legislation.

> This is NOT true.  "Preemptive concession" is not the basis for
> support of the bill.  As others in the gun lobby already acknowledge,
> Washington's EXISTING reckless endangerment law (RCW 9A.36.050) can and
> has been used to prosecute individuals who allow a minor unauthorized
> access to a firearm.  HB 1424 NARROWS that prosecutorial option.

> The remainder of the message being answered is inaccurate drivel
> totally irrelevant to the facts in this case.  This issue is being
> promoted by GOA in an attempt to attack another member of the gun
> rights community.  By all means visit the GOA web site addressing the
> issue.  The please show the courtesy to visit the CCRKBA web site at
> http://www.ccrkba.org and read the other side of the story.

> Joe Waldron
> Executive Director, CCRKBA

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


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: It doesn't take much to shoot down this anti-gun propaganda
Date: 26 Mar 1999 22:41:00 -0700


It doesn't take much to shoot down this anti-gun propaganda
Charley Reese
The Orlando Sentinel
March 21, 1999.

The ignorance and inability to think of many Americans is appalling.
The choice is either to believe that or to accuse them of something
even worse -- deliberate lying and propaganda.

This is plainly evident in the current propaganda campaign being
directed against the private ownership of firearms.

Let me quote from an article published in the New York Times. The
headline states, "To rejuvenate gun sales, critics say, industry
started making more powerful pistols."

The story is based on assertions by Tom Diaz, who is described as
a "former congressional expert on handgun control." Now, first of
all, congressional expert is an oxymoron.

Here is an example of Diaz's propaganda:

"The increase in pistols that are more deadly began with a shift in
design from revolvers, which generally hold six rounds, to faster-
firing semiautomatic pistols with larger magazines capable of
holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition . . . ."

Now, what's wrong with that? First, magazine capacity has nothing
to do with the power of a pistol. That is a factor of the cartridge.
Second, semiautomatic pistols were invented in 1899 by George Luger,
a German. There has not been a "shift in design" from revolvers to
semiautomatics. Semiautomatics and revolvers both have been around
for virtually all of this century. Finally, revolvers can be fired
as rapidly as semiautomatics or close enough to make no difference.
Again, rapidity of fire has nothing to do with the power of the gun.

Diaz then makes a totally false statement, if the reporter has
accurately summarized his argument. Here it is: "The next step was
the introduction of higher-caliber ammunition, moving from the older
and smaller .22- or .38-caliber pistols to the larger 9-millimeter
or .40-caliber handguns."

Maybe they just don't know math. They sure know nothing about the
history of firearms. Caliber refers to the diameter of the bullet.
A .38 caliber, which is expressed in inches, is the same as a 9
millimeter, which is expressed in the metric system.

Furthermore, calibers of pistols in the 19th century tended to be
larger -- .50 caliber in some cases, .45 caliber or .44 caliber.
Apparently, this congressional expert never saw many cowboy movies
as a child.

Then he tries to blame manufacturers for producing very small,
lightweight pistols. That's also nonsense. Small pocket pistols
have been in production for more than 140 years. Has he never heard
of the Lincoln assassination? Lincoln was killed with one shot from
a tiny pocket pistol, popularly referred to as a derringer. Though
many manufacturers made them, Henry Deringer invented the first one
in 1852. Notice that his name, misspelled, became the generic name
for pocket pistols.

Diaz' thesis, which is false, is part of trying to rationalize suing
gun manufacturers. He purports that they are making more powerful
pistols to combat lagging sales. As I've pointed out, that's total
nonsense. Americans, for historical reasons, traditionally favor
revolvers while Europeans traditionally favor semiautomatics. Until
recently, the .38-caliber revolver was the standard police weapon in
America -- the 9mm semiautomatic is the standard police and military
weapon in Europe. The 9mm cartridge is only marginally faster than
the .38 police special and the same diameter.

The most widely used 9 millimeter cartridge today is the 9 millimeter
Luger introduced in 1902. The .357 Magnum was introduced in 1935.
Heifer dust can't trump the facts.

[Forwarded For Information Purposes Only - Not Necessarily Endorsed
By The Sender - A.K. Pritchard]


A.K. Pritchard
http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/

To subscribe to "The Republican"  email list - just ask!

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction."

-- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768
"Commentaries on the Laws of England."



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: "Atlas Shrugged" banned in Sweden?
Date: 26 Mar 1999 22:41:00 -0700


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

Stan Moskal wrote:

> Will these special units, when the chips are down, follow orders and
> actually carry out actions against American civilians? Granted many
> of the Nazi's acted because they were just following orders, but I'd
> like to think that in general the American military is different.
> Especially an all volunteer force made up of Americans. Will these
> professional "super soldiers" actually attack and kill Americans?
> I mean they are not FBI or BATF thugs are they?

ARE THEY? (Good question Stan)

QUESTION 46

- Would you shoot and kill American Civilians Resisting Disarmament?
The Combat Arms Survey: Question 46
http://www.covertops.com/news.htm#scenario
About the Combat Arms Survey that contained Question 46, U.S. troops
attitudes towards firing on U.S. citizens.

>"46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale,
> transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty
> (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned
> over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number
> of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms.

The statement that the U.S. Marines were asked to respond to:

I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of
firearms banned by the U.S. government.

(   )       (   )              (   )     (   )  (   )
No opinion  Strongly disagree  Disagree  Agree  Strongly agree

The Responses

Of the 300 U.S. Marines asked this question, 264, or 88% of them responded.
The outcome of the survey was as follows:

Strongly disagree 127  42.33%
Disagree           58  19.33%
Agree              56  18.67%
Strongly agree     23  07.67%
No opinion         36  12.00%

          Total:  300  100.00%

Summary of the responses to question 46.

The survey results indicated that 61.66% (42.33 + 19.33) said they would
refuse to fire on U.S. citizens, whereas 26.34% (18.67 + 7.67) indicated
they would fire. According to Lt. Cdr. Guy Cunningham, the author of the
thesis and designer of the survey questions;

>"This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent
> of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil remarks
> on their response or written comments in the margin space."

>Is there a problem here?

What troubles Lt. Cdr. Cunningham and other opponents of using U.S.
military forces for U.N. peacekeeping and non-traditional missions
within United States territories is the 26.34% indicating they would
fire.

> In another scenario, such a significant minority could be separated
> from those unwilling to shoot their fellow citizens, and easily
> organized into a unit that would obey such orders.
> http://www.covertops.com/news.htm#scenario


OKAY AND HERE'S HIS EXCUSE FOR THE PURGE OF THE MILITARY:

Left setting Conservatives in the military for a purge and redefining
Conservatives as 'Terrorist.' http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/presley.htm
Don't be fooled. They LABEL and thus EQUATE Conservative, patriotic and
Constitutionalist with "KKK," "Nazi," "Facist" and soon "Terrorist."

AND HERE'S HIS (CLINTON'S) HAND-PICKED HENCEMEN

"I can tell you specifically. In my humble opinion, based on my
background, the scenario if I were creating this ops plan... Martial law
has been declared through presidential powers and war powers act, and
some citizens have refused to give up their weapons. They have taken
over two of the buildings in Kingsville. The police cannot handle it. So
you call these guys in. They show up and they [kill] everybody, take all
the weapons, and let the local P.D. clean it up," "Presidential Decision
Directive 25 is the authority given to them to operate and to be not
covered by posse comitatus. ...

"Some military sources, too, are concerned with the way the CAG has
evolved, and he is very concerned about the way the group has been
granted authority to do just about anything with total immunity from the
law, including the Posse Comitatus Act...."

"They will follow and do whatever the president tells them to do. In
that regard, they are somewhat dangerous."

"Everything is training for them. You train like you fight and you fight
like you train. There's very little distinction between the two."...
[T]hey were under the direct control of the Department of Justice,"...
"If they are told to shoot somebody they will shoot them, you know,
without question," claims the source."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990225_xex_the_military.shtml


OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS

Remember hearing anything about the U.S. experiments when people were
ordered to give electrical shocks, with increasing severity, to other
people? Well, even Americans continued to administer shocks up to very
high levels.
 - Milgram's study on Obedience to Orders
http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~cultsock/MUHome/cshtml/Obed.html
http://www.cyber.vt.edu/mbo/commres/lectures/ethics/milgram/obediance.html
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jcook/milgram.htm

THEY'RE ALREADY KILLING AMERICANS

- Bonus Marchers
- Kent State ("Four Dead in OH-HI-OH")
- Ruby Ridge
- Waco
- Sallisaw
- Taft
- All the unreported incidents.....

Police are receiving military-style training, which is great for the
battlefield, but not appropriate for a traffic stop for exceeding the
speed limit - and Citizens are getting slaughtered. Govt. says "it's
okay"

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo102.htm
http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/policeguns.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/dcpolice/deadlyforce/police1page1.htm
http://civilliberty.miningco.com/msubmenu5.htm
http://www.bakersfield.com/special/taftshooting/

Who's behind all these so-called "laws?" Not Americans! (for the most part)

Surplus Weapons and the MicroDisarmament Process
- "Increase in U.N. Involvement in the MicroDisarmament Process"
Essentially, the excuse to divide humans into two groups:
those government-armed humans and suubject-unarmed humans.

Like Clint Eastwood said:
>"Ya know Tuco, there are two kinds a' people in this world...
Those who have guns, and the kind who dig... now DIG!"

More - yes you guessed it, U.N. involvement in domestic disarmament
http://bicc.uni-bonn.de/weapons/events/micro/laurance.html
http://bicc.uni-bonn.de/weapons/brief3/chap5.html

And just in case you *still* aren't depressed enough already, I got this
tidbit in from Sweden this morning. Sounds like the United States is
the last holdout. Once the RKBA/Freedom goes in the United States, who
is left to rescue us? Where is there a place simply to flee to?

Nowhere. It is up to us.

>"Those Swedes not accepting the system are leaving. In a few years they
> will have very big problems here, as not only big companies are leaving
> Sweden, but also well educated people. Somehow this all reminds me of
> Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged". Do you know that book? It is forbidden here
> in Sweden!"

Please contact your Congresscritter and demand a Rollback.

In liberty,

Rick V.

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



-