ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.199904

Internet Message Format | 1999-04-28 | 21KB

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: WHY I HATE THE NRA
Date: 03 Apr 1999 22:34:00 -0700


 * Forwarded message

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



Ladies & gentlemen:

There is a lot of talk about treason these last few months, mostly
centering on our president and those gutless cowards we call our
representatives and senators.

Real treason is an act most foul. It isn't really treason when a
no-good, son-of-a-bitch like President Clinton betrays us, because
hey!, you knew he was a snake when you elected him, so don't bitch
when he bites you! The same can be said about our representatives
and senators.

But when a body like the NRA betrays you .... that cuts right to the bone.

How many Americans have asked; "Why doesn't the NRA pursue a legal
challenge based purely upon the Second Amendment?" Why indeed?!!

I have patiently watched the NRA gather billions in contributions to
fight local and state gun issues here and there and everywhere. They've
collected a lot of money these past years, and in fairness, they've
spent it on the fights ... they picked. But every time the NRA had the
opportunity to bring a federal lawsuit to challenge an errant federal
law on purely Second Amendment grounds, their legal staff remained mute.
This troubled me greatly, and it caused me to question the integrity of
the NRA. Why in the world would they keep missing these opportunities
to, once and for all, set this issue to rest?

The very fact that I would ask such a question demonstrates my own
foolishness.

We've all seen it: A group of laborers is treated unfairly, they form
a union to force the employers to treat them fairly, they succeed, and
then what happens? The Union begins to operate as a separate entity,
often acting in it's own best interest in matters where the interest
of the union member should be held most sacred. The NRA has devolved
into the same animal. Face it, as they have: If a solid United States
Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear
arms is either denied to, or guaranteed to, the individual citizen, the
NRA is out of business. The game is over. No more cushy jobs, no more
television appearances, no more income, no more controversy ... NO MORE.

That was before a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, by the name of Sam
Cummings slammed federal prosecutors -- and the NRA -- back into reality.
It seems a man going through a divorce was served a temporary restraining
order -- even though he'd never threatened his soon-to-be-ex-wife. What
he didn't know was that, buried in Clinton's massive and complicated 1994
Crime Bill, was a prohibition against possession of a firearm by anyone
served with a restraining order! When the feds found out he still had
possession of firearms, he was indicted. The accused' attorneys presented
a defense based upon both Article II and V of the Bill of Rights. Fat
chance, right? Not this time!

In his decision, Judge Cummings, who sits on the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, wrote this:

" A historical examination of the right to bear arms ... bears proof
that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should be,
construed as an individual right."

And:

"The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded
as the other individual liberties enshrined in the bill of Rights."

And:

"It is absurd that a boilerplate state court divorce order can
collaterally and automatically extinguish a law-abiding citizen's
Second Amendment rights..."

The judge's decision goes even farther in support of the individual's
right to keep arms, including the individual's right to keep so-called
"assault weapons", based upon the case of Miller vs US, 1939, but that
is not the point of this article. The point of this article is to
illustrate the damnable and treasonous failure to act on the part of
the National Rifle Association, an organization I belonged to and
contributed to for over twenty years.

The NRA didn't bring this case to Judge Sam Cummings, but they should
have. The NRA should have brought similar cases to federal judges on
Second Amendment arguments all across this nation as they presented
themselves over the years, but they didn't. We now have tainted and
corrupt federal judges all across this nation, and only now will a case
bearing strictly Second Amendment issues be subjected to a federal
appeals court, and you can bet that by the time this case reaches their
ears, the appeals "court" will be well-prepared to support the corrupt
federal government side of this issue.

If you ever give another dime to the NRA, you're a damn fool.

Carl F. Worden
Liaison & Intelligence Officer
Southern Oregon Militia



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Respond to AJC poll
Date: 11 Apr 1999 16:30:38 -0600


>Time to speak out.....
>NH
>===========
>
>
>>In a ground-breaking move, Saturday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>>actually
>>mentioned John Lott's Chicago study which shows that areas with
>>concealed
>>carry laws have less violent crime than those which restrict the
>>possesion
>>of firearms.
>>
>>They have asked readers to respond to the question "Should people be
>>allowed to carry concealed firearms?" at the website
>>http://www.accessatlanta.com/community/talk/ .
>>
>>Please log on and make your voice heard!
>>
>>Spread this message to everyone you can! It's about time the voice of
>>reason was heard in Atlanta's paper.
>>


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Guns and the Constitution--Wall Street Journal
Date: 24 Apr 1999 20:00:00 -0700


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

April 12, 1999

Rule of Law

Guns and the Constitution

By Eugene Volokh, who teaches constitutional law at UCLA Law School.

A federal judge in Texas has just done something no federal
court had done in more than 60 years: On March 30 he held
that the Second Amendment protects people's right to keep
and bear arms. If this decision is affirmed by the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, the case has a very good chance of
going to the Supreme Court, which hasn't yet resolved this
issue. And behind the narrow Second Amendment matter lies
a deeper question about the utility of a written Constitution.

As in many constitutional cases, the defendant--Timothy
Emerson, a San Angelo doctor--isn't the best of fellows.
During Dr. Emerson's divorce proceedings, his wife claimed
he had threatened to kill her lover. The state divorce court
apparently made no findings on this, but entered a boilerplate
order barring Dr. Emerson from threatening his wife.

Though this state order said nothing about firearms, a
little-known federal law bars gun possession by people
who are under such orders. Dr. Emerson not only failed to
dispose of his guns, as the law required, but eventually
brandished one in front of his wife and daughter. He was
then prosecuted under the federal law, though for gun
possession rather than gun misuse.

The instinctive reaction here is that Dr. Emerson is the very
sort we'd like to disarm, trouble waiting to happen. But when
the divorce court issued its order, Dr. Emerson hadn't been
found guilty of anything. Had he been convicted of a felony,
all agree he would have lost his right to keep and bear arms
as well as his right to remain at liberty. Here, though, there
was no trial, no conviction, no finding of misconduct or future
dangerousness. So when the federal law barred Dr. Emerson
from possessing guns, he was a citizen with a clean record,
just like you and me. Hence his Second Amendment defense.

The hot constitutional question is whether the Second Amendment
protects only states' rights to arm their own military forces,
or whether it protects an individual right. If the states-rights
view is correct, Dr. Emerson could have been disarmed with no
constitutional worries--and so could anyone else. But the Second
Amendment's text and original meaning pretty clearly show that
it protects individuals. The text, which is reprinted nearby,
says the right belongs to people, not states. And in the Bill
of Rights "the right of the people" refers to individuals, as
we see in the First and Fourth Amendments.

Moreover, the Second Amendment is based on the British 1688 Bill
of Rights and is related to right-to-bear-arms provisions in
Framing-era state constitutions. The British right must have
been individual; there were no states in England. Same for the
state constitutional rights; a right mentioned in a state Bill
of Rights, which protects citizens against the state government,
can't belong to the state itself. So in the Framing era, the
"right to bear arms" meant an individual right.

What about the militia? The Second Amendment secures a "right
of the people," not of the militia; but in any event, as the
Supreme Court held in 1939, the Framers used "militia" to refer
to all adult able-bodied males under age 45. Even today, under
the 1956 Militia Act, all male citizens between 18 and 45 are
part of the militia. (Women are probably also included, given
the Supreme Court's sex-equality precedents.) "Well-regulated
militia" in late 1700s parlance meant the same thing--"the body
of the People capable of bearing Arms," which is how an early
proposal for the amendment defined it. And the individual-rights
view is the nearly unanimous judgment of all the leading 1700s
and 1800s commentators and cases.

Based on this evidence, federal Judge Sam Cummings concluded
Dr. Emerson's gun possession (though not his gun misuse) was
constitutionally protected. If the Second Amendment is to be
taken seriously, then Judge Cummings was right, and the other
lower court cases holding the contrary were wrong.

If, that is, the Second Amendment is to be taken seriously.
The notion of a written, binding Constitution tells us it
should be, but cases like this lead some to wonder. Why, they
ask, should today's decisions be bound by the dead hand of the
past? If we have a "living Constitution" onto which courts may
graft new rights, why can't they prune away obsolete ones?

These are genuinely tough questions, which go far beyond just
the Second Amendment, and which have been raised in past
controversies by conservatives as well as liberals. Let me
give a few responses.

First, government entirely by the sometimes hyperactive hand of
the present also has flaws. The benefits of liberties, however
real, are often less visible than the costs. When we see Dr.
Emerson before the court, accused of making violent threats,
it's tempting to treat the right to possess guns as a nuisance.
But we don't as easily see the hundreds of thousands of people
who use guns each year in self-defense, including separating
spouses who defend themselves against would-be abusers.

Second, modern innovations that restrict traditional liberties
are often oversold. Realistically, people willing to violate
laws against violent crime will rarely be deterred by laws
against gun possession. Conversely, if Dr. Emerson is the
poster child for why some shouldn't have guns, he is equally
an example of how the law could effectively punish people
for misusing guns (by brandishing them in a threatening
way) rather than just for having them. Maybe ignoring the
Constitution is neither so valuable nor so necessary.

Third, while some think gun rights are "obsolete," others
disagree. Since 1970, 15 states have enacted new state
constitutional rights to bear arms or strengthened old ones;
44 constitutions now have such provisions. In the mid-1980s,
nine states let pretty much all law-abiding adults get a
license to carry concealed weapons; now the number is 31. A
conclusion that the right is obsolete thus doesn't rest on
any unambiguous consensus; it can rest only on the judge's
personal policy preferences. Do we trust judges that much?

And finally, do we trust judges to determine when other
provisions--the Establishment Clause, the privilege against
self-incrimination, the jury trial, the freedom of speech--
become obsolete, too?



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Pres. Hinckley's Remarks
Date: 24 Apr 1999 20:00:00 -0700


Original spelling preserved

Excerpted from http://www.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/shxhinck.htm

L.D.S. Church President's Remarks at Thomas Funeral

Unofficial Transcript

"It becomes apparent to all that a way must be found to keep
the mentally ill from senseless acts of violence. You cannot
have an indiscriminate allowance of firearms without abuses.
All of us cannnot be held hostage by a few whose minds are
sick and who lack judgement and reason. We cannot live and
work in a bunker mentality. The very nature of our lives is
based on our freedom to go and come while doing our work."


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: FW: Colorado Incident
Date: 25 Apr 1999 17:48:00 -0700


For distribution. Note that the original author, whose identity
Jim Dexter has concealed, misuses the term "liberals" as a
euphemism for 'totalitarian tyrants'.

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

MORE ON COLORADO SHOOTINGS

As anyone with an ounce of sense could have predicted, the debate
following the Columbine High School shootings now centers on gun control.

Those of you who listened yesterday might have caught a short interview
with John Lott Jr, author of "More Guns, Less Crime." He brought up two
very interesting facts concerning the affect of making it easier for
law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

First --- some additional research Lott has done shows that there is an
81 percent decrease in shootings with multiple victims when people are
allowed to carry concealed weapons.

Another interesting fact. Two of the school shootings that happened in
recent years were stopped by civilians with guns =D2 not by the police.
In one of these cases an Assistant Principal of the school had a permit
to carry a concealed weapon. He kept that weapon in his car while at
school and parked his car off school property so that he would not
violate laws concerning guns on school grounds. When the shooting
started he ran a quarter-mile to his car to get the gun, ran back to the
school and held the shooter for the cops. In another case a passer-by
heard the gunshots in the school. He grabbed the gun he kept in his car,
ran into the school, and stopped the gunkid before he could shoot anyone
else.

Study after study after study has shown that crime rates go down, murders
go down, aggravated assaults go down ....when law abiding citizens are
allowed to carry guns for protection. In spite of the facts we still have
the left screaming for more gun control.

The Colorado legislature put off deliberations yesterday on a bill that
would make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get gun permits. It makes
no sense. A law that just might have prevented the tragedy is delayed ---
while people discuss and promote the idea of disarming victims.

Remember --- when these liberals start talking about gun control, they're
only talking about keeping guns out of the hands of people who obey the
law. Ask them what their plan is to get the guns away from the criminals
and they'll return a blank stare.

Fact .... 96 percent of the guns used in crimes in this country are NOT
bought through retail outlets. Waiting periods and other regulations have
NO EFFECT on these sales.

The lesson here is clear: Gun control laws only succeed in making it more
difficult for law-abiding people to protect themselves from criminals ---
and it emboldens the criminals with the realization that their victims are
probably unarmed.

THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO HERE IS .....

........put the blame where it actually belongs. On the two kids who did
the shooting.

In case you haven't noticed --- and Lord knows I've done my best to bring
it to your attention, liberals, and that includes the mainstream media in
this country, just absolutely hates the idea of holding individuals
responsible for their actions.

Remember, if you believe that people should be free to make their own
decisions, and should be held responsible for the consequences of those
decisions, then how do you promote the idea of an all-powerful government
that manages every aspect of our daily lives? The liberal dream of a
paternalistic, womb to tomb government can only be supported by promoting
the idea that individuals are not to be held responsible for their actions
or their status in life. What we are, what we think, what we do, and what
we become is all dependent on outside influences that control our lives
-- not on our own decisions. Since these outside influences are so
overpowering the only way they can be managed -- for the benefit of us
all, of course -- is through government.

So --- for the actions of the two shooters --- who do we blame? The guns!
That certainly works for a lot of liberals. But let's also throw in video
games, violent movies and the Internet. Since it is impossible for
individuals to stand up to these negative forces in their lives --- the
government must do it.

Face it, folks. These two kids were deranged, evil people. They are to
blame for the shootings. They committed a deranged, evil act. Deranged,
evil people have been, and will continue to commit acts of unspeakable
evil throughout history. And every time one of these deranged, evil
persons commits a deranged and evil act there will be some despot out
there who will see the event as a perfect excuse to enhance his own
power over the people he pretends to "serve."

WHEN NUT-CASES BRING GUNS TO SCHOOLS

As you know, most schools around the country have a "zero-tolerance"
policy on weapons. If you bring a gun to school you get kicked out.
Expelled. No questions asked --- you're gone.

But --- there's a catch.

What if you're certifiably crazy? What if you have some pretty severe
personality disorders? What if you're not wound too tight, and you get
caught with a gun at school. Are you permanently expelled? Are you kicked
out for the rest of the school year?

Probably not.

You see, these kids are disabled. They're mentally disabled. That means
they can claim protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Check it out. If someone -- or someone's parents, want to claim
protection under the ADA the government will step in and tell the school
district that these kids have to be put back in class.

So, what do we have here. Sane kids get expelled for the remainder of the
year. Those not-so-sane are back in a few weeks.

Now which group do you think might present the biggest threat?



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: If we don't do it, who will?
Date: 29 Apr 1999 09:35:31 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 08:57:08 -0600
Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA16741; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 08:39:12 -0600
Received: (from petidomo@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA03964;
    Thu, 29 Apr 1999 07:50:10 -0700
Received: from smtp1.gte.net (smtp1.gte.net [207.115.153.30])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA03960
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 07:50:09 -0700
Received: from gte.net (1Cust68.tnt1.harrisonburg.va.da.uu.net [153.37.233.68])
    by smtp1.gte.net  with ESMTP
    for <[e-mail]>; id JAA04109
    Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:49:41 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Re Royce's comments on ABC:

In a sense, attacks on the NRA by the media are a compliment. But they
also lay a heavy burden on our shoulders, because they are essentially
correct in saying that the only thing blocking a flood of
unconstitutional gun-control legislation is the opposition of the NRA.

The public agrees with us and complains about its rights, but it DOESN'T
take the trouble to respond to polls and write to Congress, let alone
get involved in elections.

To steal a slogan from PBS: If we don't do it, who will?

Bob Strippy
6th VA

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


-