ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.199906

Internet Message Format | 1999-06-27 | 263KB

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Today's Washington Times Article
Date: 01 Jun 1999 12:22:15 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:52:46 -0600
Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA27594; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:33:42 -0600
Received: (from petidomo@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27824;
    Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:46:40 -0700
Received: from dub-img-11.compuserve.com (dub-img-11.compuserve.com [149.174.206.141])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27821
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:46:39 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
    by dub-img-11.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.18) id NAA05496;
    Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:44:21 -0400 (EDT)
        Gary Akers <[e-mail]>,
        Brett Feinstein <[e-mail]>,
        Hank Ford <[e-mail]>,
        "INTERNET:[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
        Warren B Jones <[e-mail]>,
        NRA-ILA-EVC List <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[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

Thought you would be interested in this.

David Adams
NRA-ILA-EVC, VA 7th
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/
____________________________________________

NRA sets sights on gun-show measure

-----
By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

-----
     The National Rifle Association is proposing legislation to require
background checks on every gun sold at gun shows, which it says will
eliminate "the red tape" in the gun bill passed by the Senate.

     James J. Baker, the NRA's chief lobbyist, says as many as 211 House
Republicans and between 30 and 55 Democrats could support the NRA's
legislation.

     "I'm cautiously optimistic," he says in an interview.

     The NRA was "disappointed with the results" of the May 20 Senate =
vote,
Mr. Baker says, but cites only two provisions of the legislation that the
NRA opposes.

     One is the Lautenberg amendment that the NRA chief lobbyist says =
would
be a "bureaucratic nightmare" and would shut down most gun shows because =
of
the paperwork the law would require.

     "The other issue we oppose is the large-magazine issue, which would
ban importation of ammunition-feeding devices containing more than 10
rounds," Mr. Baker says.

     Currently, there are no analyses suggesting there is more crime from
larger magazines, he says.

     But Mr. Baker says the magazine issue may be "tougher" to derail than
the Lautenberg amendment, so named for its sponsor, Sen. Frank R.
Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat. "It's more of a marginal issue that has
less impact on the average gun owner."

     The NRA opposes the Lautenberg amendment, which passed the Senate on
Vice President Al Gore's tie-breaking vote, because it "registers gun
owners, gun collectors, and gun-show promoters," "penalizes gun-show
promoters" and "invades the privacy of honest citizens."

     Under this measure, the NRA argues, a "person sitting at home
discussing the sale of a personal firearms collection of 50 or more
firearms would be required to have first registered his home as a 'gun
show' with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms" and pay a
registration fee set by the bureau.

     The NRA also objects to the "massive record-keeping" requirements the
amendment would impose on gun-show promoters. "In addition to being
required to register and pay a fee to hold a gun show, gun-show promoters
would also be required to check the identification of every show attendee
who even discusses a gun sale," NRA spokesmen say.

     The NRA says the Lautenberg amendment "penalizes gun-show promoters"
by "forcing them to pay fees with no set limits, forcing them to register
with the government, forcing them to perform duties for the government, =
and
exposing them to civil liability for acts by third parties over [whom] =
they
have no control."

     The 2.8 million-member gun-rights organization holds that the
legislation would invade privacy, since it would allow the federal
government to retain for 90 days information about a person who clears an
instant check. "Current law demands that information be destroyed
immediately," the NRA says.

     "And it would be another handoff of legislative responsibility to the
Treasury Department," because registration regulations would be promulgated=

by the Treasury secretary, Mr. Baker says.

     The NRA, he says, is promoting a "much more reasonable provision to
substitute" for the Lautenberg measure that "still provides background
checks on every firearm sold at any gun show" --whether the purchaser is a
dealer or a private individual.

     "We think we have a better way to do this without all the bureaucracy"=

and "without the additional red tape that would be put on law-abiding
people," he says.

     House leaders have said the House will take up the gun-control bill =
in
mid-June, and the NRA says its lobbying efforts already are well under =
way.

     "We talked to a lot of members before the recess, and NRA members =
will
be talking to them at town meetings they hold in their districts," says =
Mr.
Baker.

     In addition, he says, the NRA mailed requests to all its members,
asking that they write or call House members and express their opposition
to the Lautenberg amendment.

     Mr. Baker scoffs at speculation that the NRA has lost its influence
with Republicans in Congress. "Our obituaries have been written for 10
years, maybe 20 years," he says.

     Members of Congress "respect the voice of constituents who own
firearms" and who are concerned about excess bureaucracy and regulation =
and
more executive-branch control," he says. He counts "at least 11 Republicans=

in the House that we might lose" in its fight against the Lautenberg
amendment, based on their prior voting records.

     He declined to identify all but Rep. Constance A. Morella of =
Maryland.
"She's a Republican who votes with the Democrats on a lot of social
issues," he says.

     He thinks the NRA legislation can pick up 30 to 55 Democrats, based =
on
previous voting records of Democrats. NRA spokesmen will appear on talk
radio to increase pressure for their legislation.

****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]
    *********** Established 1998 ***************


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cook's Office
Date: 01 Jun 1999 12:51:57 -0600

Just got off the phone with Ray at Cook's office, these guys are getting =
hammered by the calls expressing outrage at Cook's comments in the Trib =
over the weekend that he will support the latest round of gun control.

Ray even admitted that he didn't know why Cook had turned around and =
decided to vote for more gun control when all along Cook has been saying =
that we aren't enforcing the existing laws, so why pass more laws.

Please take a minute to call Cook's office at 524-4394, let Rep Cook know =
how you feel about him voting for more gun control.  The fax number is =
524-5999.


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: The Back Door
Date: 01 Jun 1999 14:06:48 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 31 May 1999 13:35:03 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA26476; Mon, 31 May 1999 13:16:01 -0600
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA04755;
    Mon, 31 May 1999 15:26:14 -0400 (EDT)
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

WHERE'S THE BACK DOOR?

We all know there are two powerful things that always=20
get a politician's attention: money, and votes.

But there's a third item, not discussed as often, called
the "Back Door." It's a very useful tool as well as a powerful
metaphor. It is an ingredient that has been MISSING in our
battle against the latest wave of gun control. When
this item is missing, it's like a gun without ammo --=20
it invariably guarantees we're going to lose.=20

Simply put, a back door is the excuse(s) or reason(s) a=20
politician gives when he/she votes for or against=20
something that will upset a segment of their constituency.

A number of Republicans are now writing gun control laws,=20
and voting for them. They could not do this unless they had=20
a back door: they use the excuse of Littleton and Georgia,
and they also use the back door that these new laws
are "reasonable" and "appropriate." Another back door=20
is that "the people want it."=20

A lot of politicians are so dumb and lazy that you have to
explain in full detail the back door they can use before they=20
will consider voting the way we want them to.

The old back doors that "gun control doesn't work"
or that "we already have enough laws" were beaten out by
our opponents' arguments: "In the wake of Littleton,"=20
or "Let's do it for the children," or "How many more
have to die?" Powerful, emotional cliches repeated over
and over. For weeks the public was shown thousands of=20
images of anguished, hysterical faces, and then shown=20
images of guns -- on tables at gun shows, or lining the
walls of gun stores. Logic went into meltdown. Fear ruled.
The "connection" or "link" between guns and unbearable pain=20
was seared into the collective conscious.=20

So what can we do? Well, we can start searching for and=20
hopefully find a fresh, good, and usable new back door for=20
the Republicans who are now pushing gun control. If we can
find and deliver one, some of these Republicans might change=20
their position. We might even persuade a few Democrats, too.=20
We should also keep in mind that the best back doors may not be=20
waiting to be un-covered or dis-covered; they might have to=20
be "invented" from scratch.

A great back door is, of course, also a great sound bite.
Too many Republicans who have decided to vote for gun=20
control are saying, "Littleton clinched it for me," followed by,=20
"We have to do something -- anything."=20

Bottom line: Our side has failed to come up with the=20
sound bites/back doors that could beat our opponents'=20
"arguments." Voting against gun control by saying "The=20
Constitution clinches it for me" is not enough (even=20
though it should be enough). The back door that the
Colorado killers already broke about 20 gun laws
clearly did not cut it. The back door that none
of the new batch of proposed laws would have affected
the Littleton tragedy also is insufficient. And, sorry, but
the NRA's back door that all the current laws are just not=20
being rigorously enforced doesn't have enough juice, even=20
if it is absolutely true.

Basically, the Republicans who go on TV and face the=20
nation have been *disarmed.* By default, they only have an=20
excuse or reason to vote FOR gun control, not AGAINST it.=20
We did not give them an obvious, viable, and believable=20
back door, and they certainly were not able to figure one out
for themselves.=20

Personally, my response has been to use the old method:=20
I e-mailed, snail-mailed, and phoned my party's politicians=20
and officials to let them know I am withdrawing my=20
VOTE and my MONEY.

For me, the back doors my elected officials are using are=20
stupid, unreasonable, and emotional -- they are=20
patently absurd excuses to pass even more laws that=20
can only affect people who obey the law in the first place.=20

But I failed. WE failed. Our side is FAILING.=20

We were unable to offer them what they really needed. I
could not give them what might have worked and made the=20
difference: I could not offer them a powerful back door.

I don't know what this new back door might look like. I have
no idea of its shape or color. But I know that I don't know,
and that's a good start. If we don't know that something is=20
missing, we're not going to be able to solve the problem.=20
I am saying the back door is missing. But I am also
wondering to myself what I am trying so hard NOT to say.
=20
It is very obvious to me that next time there is another
Littleton -- and it is inevitable -- we had better have a=20
brilliant, slam-dunk new back door figured out and already=20
in place.  =20

If we don't, I am afraid that the next Littleton and subsequent=20
wave of gun control may well be the last.

[e-mail]


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: SEE THE FUTURE? Cal DOJ SKS "buy back"
Date: 01 Jun 1999 16:29:01 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 01 Jun 1999 00:52:26 -0600
Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id AAA26916; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:33:19 -0600
Received: (from petidomo@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07207;
    Mon, 31 May 1999 23:47:04 -0700
Received: from aesir.community.net (aesir.damerica.net [206.14.37.8])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA07204
    for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 31 May 1999 23:47:02 -0700
Received: from p2i4o9 (n163.coco.community.net [140.174.226.163])
    by aesir.community.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id XAA08630;
    Mon, 31 May 1999 23:40:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
  program begins
Cc: [e-mail],
        "Member Council List" <[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

#1-- To the EVC list members this is what happens when the socialists win
elections!!

#2-- MCers in Calif -- We need to make BIG POSTERS [yes I'm shouting] WITH
THE AUSTRALIAN gun confication pics and get them out!! Themes to be
discussed on MC General.

#3-- Fairfax -- Can U help with #2?? Or shall we wing it??

#4 -- N.Cal KSFO fans - I left a message with Geoff Metcalf -- So Cal
contact your talk show hosts.

#5--  Those in other states wish us luck -- we need it!

Regards Ron Babcock -- Pres. MC Vallejo -- EVC Ca. CD-01

At 05:44 PM 5/31/99 EDT, [e-mail] wrote:
>DOJ has begun the implementation of the SKS Sporter confiscation program. =
=20
>
>See it for yourself at the DOJ website:
>
>http://www.sksbuyback.org/content.html
>
>Need any more reasons to become politically active?!
>
>Chuck Michel
>
>
>


****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]
    *********** Established 1998 ***************


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Paul Harvey on Littleton
Date: 02 Jun 1999 10:06:56 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 02 Jun 1999 06:53:03 -0600
Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id GAA28805; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 06:33:55 -0600
Received: (from petidomo@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11877;
    Wed, 2 Jun 1999 05:47:40 -0700
Received: from hpdmgaaa.compuserve.com (dh-img-1.compuserve.com [149.174.206.131])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA11874
    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 05:47:40 -0700
Received: (from mailgate@localhost)
    by hpdmgaaa.compuserve.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/HP-1.4) id IAA29436;
    Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:45:03 -0400 (EDT)
        "INTERNET:[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
        NRA-ILA-EVC List <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[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

PAUL HARVEY ON LITTLETON


Paul Harvey read this Letter to the Editor on his  news cast a couple of
weeks ago. It was tracked down on the Internet through the San Angelo
Standard - Times; give them full credit  for this article.

4/27/99
How can we blame it all on guns?


For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in
Littleton, Colorado. If only the parents had kept their children away from
the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must
have been the guns.

It couldn't have been because of half our children being raised in broken
homes.

It couldn't have been because our children get to spend an average of 30
seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day.  After =
all,
we give our children quality time.

It couldn't have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets =
as
children.

It couldn't have been because we place our children in day care centers
where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the =
law
of the jungle while employees who have no
vested interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is
spilled.

It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch, on the
average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of
sex and violence that isn't fit for adult consumption.

It couldn't have been because we allow our children to enter into virtual
worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as
possible in the most sadistic way possible.

It couldn't have been because we have sterilized and contracepted our
families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so =
spoiled
with material things that they come to equate the
receiving of the material with love.

It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have been =
seen
as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created
when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in
their spare time.

It couldn't have been because we give two-year prison sentences to
teenagers who kill their newborns.

It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children that
they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some
primordial soup of mud by teaching evolution as fact and by
handing out condoms as if they were candy.

It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are no laws
of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that =
actions
don't have consequences. What the heck, the president
gets away with it.

Nah, it must have been the guns.

****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]
    *********** Established 1998 ***************


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Rush Limbaugh Advertizement Parody
Date: 04 Jun 1999 10:58:28 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 04 Jun 1999 07:09:44 -0600
Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id GAA01970; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 06:50:35 -0600
Received: (from petidomo@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29444;
    Fri, 4 Jun 1999 06:03:22 -0700
Received: from dub-img-9.compuserve.com (dub-img-9.compuserve.com [149.174.206.139])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29441
    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 06:03:19 -0700
Received: (from root@localhost)
    by dub-img-9.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.18) id JAA11329
    for [e-mail]; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:00:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_C99FABCB.62036D6C"

--=_C99FABCB.62036D6C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I have a feeling that many of you have heard this on Rush but just in =
case,
I thought you might enjoy it.  You must have "RealPlayer 5.0 to open the
file (which only runs on Windows 95 and Pentium or higher processors).=20
RealPlayer can be downloaded from the web free if you have not already
retrieved a copy.

If you have a hard time opening the attachment, go to:

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/9693/parodies/rush.html

and scroll down to Second Amendment to play it.

Rush has spent a lot of time on our issue since this began in mid May, =
more
than I think anything other than impeachment.

Enjoy

David Adams
NRA-ILA-EVC, VA 7th
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8358/



--=_C99FABCB.62036D6C
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="C:My DocumentsRushfilessecond.ram"

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/9693/parodies/files/second.ra
--=_C99FABCB.62036D6C--

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: TESTIMONY OF FATHER OF VICTIMS
Date: 04 Jun 1999 15:14:21 -0600

TESTIMONY OF DARRELL SCOTT FATHER OF TWO VICTIMS OF COLUMBINEHIGH SCHOOL =
SHOOTING LITTLETON, COLORADO BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEEON CRIME HOUSE =
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE UNITED STATES HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES.THURSDAY, MAY =
27,19992:00 P.M. 2141 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDINGSince the dawn of =
creation there has been both good and evilin the heart of men and of =
women. We all contain the seedsof kindness or the seeds of violence.The =
death of my wonderful daughter Rachel Joy Scott, and thedeaths of that =
heroic teacher and the other children who diedmust not be in vain. Their =
blood cries out for answers.The first recorded act of violence was when =
Cain slew his brotherAbel out in the field. The villain was not the club =
he used.Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The =
truekiller was Cain and the reason for the murder could only be foundin =
Cain's heart.In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed =
athow quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA.I am =
not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even owna gun. I am =
not here to represent or defend the NRA - because Idon't believe that they =
are responsible for my daughters death.Therefore I do not believe that =
they need to be defended. If Ibelieved they had anything to do with =
Rachel's murder I would betheir strongest opponent.I am here today to =
declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -it was a spiritual event =
that should be forcing us to look atwhere the real blame lies!Much of that =
blame lies here in this room. Much of that blame liesbehind the pointing =
fingers of the accusers themselves..I wrote a poem just four nights ago =
that express my feelings best.This was written way before I knew l would =
be speaking heretoday. Your laws ignore our deepest needs Your words are =
empty air. You've stripped away our heritage. You've outlawed simple =
prayer. Now gunshots fill our classrooms. And precious children die. You =
seek for answers everywhere. And ask the question "WHY"? You regulate =
restrictive laws. Through legislative creed. Add yet you fail to understand=
. That God is what we need!Men and women are three part beings. We all =
consist of body, soul,and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third =
part of ourmakeup, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and =
hatredto rush in and wreak havoc.Spiritual influences were present within =
our educational Systemsfor most of our nation's history. Many of our major =
colleges beganas theological seminaries. This is a historic fact.What has =
happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor Godand in doing so, =
we open the doors to hatred and violence.And when something as terrible as =
Columbine's tragedy occurs,politicians immediately look for a scapegoat =
such as the NRA.They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws =
thatcontinue to erode away our personal and private liberties.We do not =
need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would nothave been stopped by =
metal detectors. No amount of gun laws canstop someone who spends months =
planning this type of massacre.The real villain lies within our OWN =
hearts. Political posturingand restrictive legislation is not the =
answers.The young people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritualaw=
akening taking place that will not be squelched!We do not need more =
religion. We do not need more gaudy Televisionevangelists spewing out =
verbal religious garbage. We do not needmore million dollar church =
buildings built while people with basicneeds are being ignored.We do need =
a change of heart and an humble acknowledgment thatthis nation was founded =
on the principle of simple trust in God.As my son Craig lay under that =
table in the school library and sawhis two friends murdered before his =
very eyes. He did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or =
politician to denyhim that right!I challenge every young person in America =
and around the world torealize that on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High =
School - - prayerwas brought back to our schools. Do not let the many =
prayersoffered by those students be in vain.Dare to move into the new =
millennium with a sacred disregard forlegislation that violates your =
conscience and denies yourGod-given right to communicate with Him. To =
those of you who would point your finger at the NRA - I giveto you sincere =
challenge. Dare to examine your own heart beforeyou cast the first =
stone!My daughter's death will not be in vain. The young people of =
thiscountry will not allow that to happen.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Australia Shamed!
Date: 06 Jun 1999 14:19:00 -0700


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

" IF WE OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE THEM!"

(http://communities.msn.com/outdoors/magazines/firearms/1/australia.asp)

Australia after Gun Confiscation

The following is a synopsis of an interview conducted by Ginny Simone
with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association.

One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal
firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and
shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars,
the results are in...

A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun
control advocates respond, "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see..."

OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
 * Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
 * Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
 * Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)

* In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%. Figures
over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms
(changed dramatically in the past 12 months)

* Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in
armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)

* There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly

* At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a
reason for owning a firearm"

* From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about
1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.

* The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international
sport shooting competitions

* The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen
to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to
organize against further controls, which are expected.

* Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no
improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort
and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns".
Their response has been to "wait longer".

"...The best organization you've got there, the biggest organization
you've got there is the NRA. We don't have an organization that size.
We didn't have an organization that size, and as a consequence, we
suffered. And we hope that you don't suffer..."



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: SO YOU REALLY WANT TO SHOOT THAT GUN!!! 1/2
Date: 06 Jun 1999 14:19:00 -0700


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

SO YOU REALLY WANT TO SHOOT THAT GUN!!!

It is September, 1998 in Anytown, Canada. You walk past the local gun
store, and, acting on impulse go back, step in and fall in love! There,
locked behind glass, is the gun of your dreams. That special handgun you
KNOW is going to make you look good on the range. And the price is just
too good to be true! It feels custom-made for your hand, and with a great
deal of joy you say, "Wrap it up, I'll take it!"

Thus you have unknowingly taken the first step in a road becoming less and
less traveled....

The first thing you are asked is, "Can I see your FAC?" While you look
blankly the salesman, he says again he wants to see your Firearms
Acquisition Certificate. While you are still looking blankly at him,
he starts explaining to you.

"A firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) is required before you can
purchase any firearm here in Canada. If you don't have a valid FAC, you
must get one, and when you have it, you come back and I will sell you the
gun. By the way here is a list of instructors."

Feeling a bit let down, you take the paper and mumble your way back home,
and start phoning.

FAC Instructors and Examiners are certified by the Federal Government to
teach and test for FAC's. You discover that you have to take a minimum of
12 hours of classes, and two tests, one written and one practical to prove
you have basic firearms knowledge, and supposedly some safety knowledge as
well. Cost $100-125. Finally you find someone who is putting on a course
in the next week who has an opening, so you leap at it. After all, you
don't know enough about the current legislation to challenge the course,
so feel this is the best plan. Time passed since you saw the gun - 1
week. You take the course, think it's interesting, but seems to be too
repetitive and doesn't really attend to safety too much, but what the
heck, now you can go get your gun. Wrong! Course takes two weeks spread
out over several evenings - Cost to date: $125.00 - time passed 3 weeks.

You make your first trip to your local police department to get the forms
you need to fill out to apply for the FAC. This four page triplicate form
is an imposing 8.5"x14" and asks such questions as what colour are your
eyes, blue green, gray, hazel or maroon? **Maroon? Just where do they
think you come from?** They ask about your private life, family life,
health, finances, relationship breakups, prior brushes with the law and
about medications you may be taking. Severe penalties are dispensed if
you lie on this form, it warns ominously. You also have to acquire the
oaths of two people who have know you for more than three years who think
it's ok if you have a gun... BUT... they must be of certain "Classes" of
people.. Doctors, lawyers, military officers, tribal band leaders, fellow
employees, hair dressers, clergy or your (married to you) spouse (common-
law, while good enough to ding you for taxes is not good enough to sign as
a character witness). There goes another week! Time passed - 4 weeks.

So you take your recently acquired certification of course completion; two
passport photos of yourself ($12.00); the fee for an FAC application which
is non-refundable ($50.00) and the completed application form to your local
police department. Again, you get excited thinking the gun is now yours.

Wait!! The police officer takes your money, application, etc. and says
"OK it'll come in the mail if you qualify. We keep it here for 28 days
before we even start to process, most are taking 6-7 months to come back"
SIX TO SEVEN MONTHS!! In that time frame the police will contact your two
endorsers and grill them about you, they will check your neighbours to see
what they think of you (**nothing like letting the whole neighbourhood
know you will have guns on premises) they will call your employer, and
lastly, but not least they call up any ex's in your last two year time
frame and ask them if they feel alright about your owning firearms!!!
But it's the law.. What can you do? (Cost to date: $187.00 +14% tax).

You are one of the lucky ones, your FAC arrives in a speedy six months.
Full of joy you rush down to the gun store to finally buy your gun. With a
flourish you present your FAC and plunk your money down, drooling over
your new toy. The salesman carefully writes down reams of information on
his receipt book, name, address, gun stats, numbers, and on and on, and
you bounce from foot to foot in anticipation. You sign a big legal book
stating you have actually purchased this firearm, the salesman takes your
money and hands you the sales slip and smiles. "When you get your Permit
To Register come back and we will give you your gun." Stunned you once
more go to your local police department. Of course you don't live near
the gun store, and have to go to the police in your jurisdiction so waste
another day or two there, but we won't count those. Time passed - 7 months.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: SO YOU REALLY WANT TO SHOOT THAT GUN!!! 2/2
Date: 06 Jun 1999 14:19:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
The police take your sales slip and tell you to come back the next day or
so, and they will have the Permit filled out for you. Getting really
frustrated you come back two days later, and they ask what time you want
on the Permit. They guestimate it takes 1 hour from the gun store to the
police department.. So they give you a specified time span of 1.5 hours to
complete the task. To the cop shop? "Yes, you have to bring the gun back
here for verification." So off you go to the gun store, show the salesman
the Permit and he says, "OK, where's your case and locks?" Numbly you hand
over money for a small gun case; one trigger lock and one case lock. ($40.00)
You notice the time and drive through heavy traffic and get to the cop shop
barely within the specified time. You open the case, and the officer carefully
inspects the firearms verifying all the numbers. You are planning some weekend
shooting tomorrow. Wrong. The officer smiles, locks the case and walks off
with it saying, "When you Registration Certificate comes in the mail from
Ottawa, phone us and let us know and we will start the next step.. Have a
nice day!" Cost to date: $227.00 +14% tax (not including the firearm), time
passed (and now we will count those days last week.. 7 months, 1 week!
And you are getting REALLY ***** *** (angry).

Patience has worn extremely thin by now, but at this point you have invested
quite a bit of money, so you wait... and wait... and wait. Finally anywhere
from 3-6 months later, your green registration slips arrive from Ottawa (we
will use 3 months in our count). Ecstatic, you race down to your local police
department to claim your gun... finally! Time passed: 10 months 1 week)

There you are informed that before you can pick up your gun, they must do one
more check and make sure there are no restraints against you... after all it
has been months now!! The next day, getting really cranky, you go down to the
police and FINALLY, you can take you gun home with you on a Permit to
Transport... but again it has a very short time span. As you are leaving,
you comment that "Finally I can go shooting!!" "Wait", says the officer, "do
you have a valid Permit to Carry? Firearms Licence? Club Membership Card?
Need those before you can go out and use that thing!" WHAT?????

As ****** ** **** (more angry) you slam into the house, chuck the locked
case in the gun safe and start dialing your local gun club. Yes you can
get a membership for $50, and yes they will sign an application for a
Permit to Carry stating you are a member in good standing... but not until
next month's meeting. It will take about 3 month's to get the Permit
back, and you can not go to the range without one, they remind you the
penalty is 2 years in jail and a hefty fine!!! Livid you go to a sporting
goods store and buy the Firearms Licence issued by the Provincial
Government (**knowing damn well it is just a tax grab), and they nail you
another $21.00. By now you are furious.

At the club meeting 3 months later you finally get your Permit to Carry.
Time passed: 13 months - Cost: $298.00 + 14% taxes NOT INCLUDING ANY
FIREARM OR AMMO.

Finally you can go to the range. But somehow, the thrill of discovery 13
months ago just isn't there.

___ *** ___ *** ___ *** ___

On October 1, 1998 the Firearms Act came into effect in Canada. It is
supposed to decrease the time and trouble to acquire all the above. It is
all computerized, fast, fool-proof and efficient. **and if you believe
that, I have a bridge for you. In the next installment, I will tell you
what's new, what's not working, and what's coming down the chute.

DON'T THINK FOR A SECOND BECAUSE YOU ARE IN AMERICA YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM
THIS STUPIDITY... YOU ARE NOT!!

ALL THIS IS HEADING YOUR WAY..Ms. Brady et.al. Are out to get you. It is
vital you fight for your rights. You will soon see there is more to this
than losing your guns... YOU ARE LOSING YOUR FREEDOM!!

DON'T STOP FIGHTING.. EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. WRITE TO YOUR LEGISLATORS..
The only thing they fear more than an armed citizen is a lost vote. Tell
them how you will vote... many times over. JOIN THE POLITICAL PARTY OF
THOSE DOING THE MOST HARM TO YOU.... fight them from the inside. WRITE
LETTERS... remember each letter is one count, multi signed letters, even
with ten signatures is one count. Send ten letters! JOIN GROUPS THAT
SUPPORT FOREARMS OWNERSHIP ... (even if they ticked you off in Littleton
by backing off).. they are all you have.

You will see in the next installment, it get's worse. So fight, fight, fight!!!

Northy in Canada - and yes, I'm female. :)

E-Mail to [e-mail] with the word "help" in the message body. Go
to http://www.GOA-Texas.org/Email.htm for subscriber information. 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. Our Website is http://www.GOA-texas.org The views contained herein do
not necessarily reflect the views of Gun Owners Alliance. We do not
officially represent Gun Owners of America.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: GOUtah! Alert #15-1 June 1999 1/2
Date: 06 Jun 1999 14:19:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
GOUtah!
Gun Owners of Utah

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

Visit our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah!

GOUtah! Alert #15-1 June 1999

Today's Maxim of Liberty:

"The freemen of America will remember, that it is very easy to change a
free government into an arbitrary, despotic, or military one: but it is
very difficult, almost impossible to reverse the matter -
very difficult to regain freedom once lost."

-The Freeman's Journal
Philadelphia, March 5, 1788

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

Gun Control Bills Now Move To The U.S. House. Utah's Republican
Representatives Need To Be Contacted Today!

The stridently anti-gun Juvenile Crime bill has passed the U.S. Senate and
now will be debated in the U.S. House of Representatives. The leadership of
the Republican-controlled body have indicated they intend to support much
if not all of the Senate anti-gun measures and add a few of their own. It
sounds like 1968 all over again.

Orrin Hatch, as the bill's Senate floor manager, was also the leading
Republican Senate compromiser, inviting the anti-gun forces in both parties
to load the bill with additional gun control measures, including Brady
background checks on private party sales gun shows and pawn redemptions,
stepped up enforcement of federal gun laws, huge budget increases for BATF,
ammunition magazine import bans, mandatory gun locks, prohibitions of
juvenile possession of some types of firearms and similar draconian
restrictions.

It is critical that you contact your U.S. Congressional Representatives and
demand that they vote against any further restriction on your rights to keep
and bear arms. Make it clear to them that if they choose not to protect your
rights, there will be a heavy political price paid at the polls in the next
election. Please call early and often on this issue.

You may reach Utah's U.S. Congressional Representatives at the following
addresses, telephone and fax numbers, and by e-mail:

Congressional District 1: Northern and Western Utah, except Salt Lake Metro

Rep. Jim Hansen (R)
242 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail: www.house.gov
click on Members and select Jim Hansen

Local Office: 324-25th Ave.
Ogden, Utah 84401
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax: [phone]

Congressional District 2: Salt Lake Metro Area

Rep. Merrill Cook (R)
1431 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0001
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Local Office: 125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84138
Utah Phone: [phone]

Congressional District 3: Central and Eastern Utah

Rep. Chris Cannon (R)
118 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4403
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Local Offices: 51 South University Drive
Provo, Utah 84606
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax [phone]

Congressman Chris Cannon Proposes Pro-Gun Amendment

Utah's Chris Cannon (R-3rd Dist) intends to propose a pro-gun amendment
designed to force the Department of Justice to "immediately" destroy all
records of Brady background checks for those individuals who have no
disqualifying background and pass the check. Currently the FBI is reported
to be retaining all Brady records for some 6 to 18 months for 'audit
purposes.' Cannon's amendment also limits the time period for a law
enforcement response to a blocked sale from 5 to 3 working days. GOUtah!
has been in discussions with Congressman Cannon's staff and have also
suggested that his amendment address the following points:

-Create a permanent, independent oversight and audit board to review and
insure Federal compliance with record destruction on an ongoing basis,
comprised of the GAO, along with gun rights and civil liberty organizations,
which will report to Congress on regular intervals, not to exceed every six
months.

-Prohibit the use of any funds, public or private, for developing or
maintaining any such gun records in violation federal law. Create a budget
'defunding' penalty equal to twice the amount any federal agency might
spend on such record keeping programs in violation of federal law. Create
specific civil and criminal penalties for any federal employee, agent or
appointee who directs or implements any such record keeping in violation of
federal law.

-Prohibit the creation or maintenance of any federal database of gun owners
or firearms owned, based in whole or in part on the 'out of business' records
of the hundreds of thousands of FFLs who were driven out of business by the
current administration's anti-gun policies. Order the destruction of any
central online database based on these records which may currently exist.

GOUtah! asks you to contact Rep. Chris Cannon and encourage him to adopt
the points listed above in his amendment as it works its way through
drafting and into the committee and floor process.

Gov. Leavitt Calls For Special Gun Session In Fall Of 1999

Governor Leavitt intends to call for a special session of the Utah Legislature
to consider Utah gun laws in the Fall of 1999. If he cannot get a majority of
Utah legislators to support the special session, it will not take place.

GOUtah! asks every Utah gun owner and concerned citizen to immediately and
repeatedly contact their state representatives and senators at home and
again urge them to take a measured and rational approach to these issues,
rather that blame peaceable gun owners for the deep seated ills of our
society. We must now work overtime to avoid a special session of the Utah
Legislature, which would likely devolve into a free-for-all legal and media
circus which will ride roughshod over our gun rights.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: GOUtah! Alert #15-1 June 1999 2/2
Date: 06 Jun 1999 14:19:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Please remember to attend the Utah Interim Legislative Committee hearings on
Wednesday, 16 June 1999 at 2:00PM in Room 303 of the Utah State Capitol. It is
critical we be there in force! Make your voice heard to protect your rights!

Reviewing the Lessons of Gun Control History
Submitted by GOUtah! Activist B.D.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20
million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million
Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and other "mongrelized
peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million
"educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Those who do not learn from the lessons of history are bound to learn those
same lessons first-hand.

GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch

"I urge you to trust and believe in your local law enforcement officers and
to trust and believe in the courage of following your heart and
surrendering your fear and anger.''

-- Actress Sharon Stone, urging Americans to follow her lead by giving up
their privately owned firearms,Yahoo! News Oddly Enough Headlines Notable
Quotes, Friday May 21, 1999. Submitted by GOUtah! Webmaster Martin Glantz.

"Fear is the path to the dark side...fear leads to anger...anger leads to
hate...hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda, the fictional character in the newest "Star Wars" movie
as quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune, 15 May 1999. (Perhaps Ms. Stone was taking
the Star Wars fictional character's advice just a little too literally...Yoda
is just an animated puppet, Ms. Stone, not a moral sage for the ages.)

"Freedom-loving Americans better wake up to the fact that we're fighting
against a wave of massive government intrusion."

--Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association. as
quoted in the NRA American Guardian Magazine, February 1999

"They ought to take him out and shoot him with a .44 Bulldog."

--Spike Lee, the well-known African-American film director, quoted as
advocating the destruction of the National Rifle Association, and apparently
the deliberate, cold-blooded murder of its elected president, Charlton
Heston, in comments made to reporters at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival.

"Nowhere else do I see them trying to exploit the tragedies (in Littleton,
Colorado and other recent shootings) as much as they are in Utah. It seems
to be coming from the Governor's office."

--Brian Judy, NRA/ILA state liaison to Utah, in an interview published 31
May 1999 in the Salt Lake Tribune.

I'm not one who wants my child going to a school where the way we protect
children is to arm teachers."

--Governor Michael O. Leavitt, describing himself as a "very strong
defender of the Second Amendment" as quoted in the same article published
in the Salt Lake Tribune, 31 May 1999.

"The fact that I support these measures in no way detracts from my ardent
support of the right of an American to own and even operate a gun."

--Rep. Merrill Cook, the Republican Congressman for Utah's 2nd District,
explaining why he intends to vote in favor of drastic gun control
measures, including mandatory background checks on all gun buyers, along
with child safety locks on all handguns and raising the minimum age for
firearms purchases to 21, as quoted in an interview in the Salt Lake
Tribune, 31 May 1999. The article also noted that Rep. Cook received
$62,105.00 in direct donations and independent expenditures on his
behalf from the National Rifle Association during his 1998 re-election bid.

"The gun-violence problem is more than the problem of guns in the hands of
bad people. It's also a problem of guns in the hands of good people."

--Dennis Henigan, a representative of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.
as quoted by Peter J. Boyer in a recent issue of The New Yorker magazine.

"It's time for a national dialogue."

--Bob Templeton, Owner of Crossroads of the West Gun Shows, indicating his
support for Brady background checks on private party firearms purchasers at
gun shows., Salt Lake Tribune, 22 May 1999. (Note: Mr. Templeton is also a
long-time member of the Board of Trustees of the Utah Shooting Sports Council)

"Habitual Republican lack of discipline and strategy collided last Thursday
with a barely hidden Democratic agenda of eventual gun confiscation. The
result was a political windfall that had Democrats giddy."

--Robert Novak, describing the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate's headlong
retreat from protecting gun rights, Chicago Tribune, 24 May 1999

"...guns should be thought of as pathogens, and gun ownership, perhaps, as
a disease."

--Peter J. Boyer paraphrasing statements made by Dennis Henigan, a
representative of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, in a recent issue
of The New Yorker magazine.

If you have a gun rights quote you'd like to share, please send it, along
with a verifiable original source reference to GOUtah!

That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #15 - 1 June
1999. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending
your firearms rights. Remember that getting this information is meaningless
unless YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash,
your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash
with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal! Copyright 1999 by GOUtah!
All rights reserved.




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: May the Force
Date: 06 Jun 1999 21:10:00 -0700


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

Darth Sidius, the eventual evil emperor in the Star Wars saga, says this in
"The Phantom Menace."

"Fear is the path to the dark side...fear leads to anger...anger leads to
hate...hate leads to suffering."

Erin Partridge (Dick's son) observes:

Despite that this was said by a fictional character, it does have a lot of
wisdom and is very applicable to the gun issue to gun owners favour.

Littleton created a lot of FEAR of guns and their owners.

In fact a lot of people got ANGRY at gun owners.

Many actually showed HATE ---such as by protesting the NRA at Denver, saying
"they're not welcome."

But if gun prohibitionists -- mostly well meaning but misled people -- do
get there way ---

What will it lead to?



-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for recording of GOP convention--off topic
Date: 07 Jun 1999 12:54:24 -0600

Apologies for an off topic post, but I'm hoping some here may have the
info I need.

I am currently trying to track down audio or video recordings made at the
State GOP convention this past Saturday.  I am especially interested in
any recordings of Senator Hatch's remarks.  In addition to seeing several
individuals with camcorders I also saw several larger cameras and crews
like those used by the professional media.  I have checked with TV
stations KUTV (ch 2), KUWB (ch 30), KTVX (ch 4), and KSL (ch 5).  None of
them had camera crews at the convention.  I have also contacted the State
GOP HQ, but they do not have any recordings or further info as of yet
(maybe something will come into their hands in the next few days, but no
guarantees).  I have a call into Hatch's local office to request a
transcript, but have not heard back from yet either.

If anyone has a recording of Hatch's speech, or if you know of anyone,
idividual or organization (ie did you notice which stations had film
crews there or did you see any video broadcast on any news reports), who
may have made a recording of his comments, please let me know.  I very
much want to get a copy of his speech and will happily pay any reasonable
price for copying, etc.

Thank you

Charles.


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: June 7 column -- private mailboxes--a bit on guns in this one
Date: 08 Jun 1999 13:01:26 -0600


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

--------- Forwarded message ----------
Message-ID: <v02130529b3825ce83690@[0.0.0.0]>
Return-path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from mx1.boston.juno.com (mx1.boston.juno.com [207.205.100.50])
    by x13.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA5X3MNWANXBST2
    (sender <[e-mail]>);
    Tue,  8 Jun 1999 01:43:48 -0400 (EST)
Received: from ez0.ezlink.com (ezlink.com [199.45.150.1])
    by mx1.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA5X3MNWADML79A
    (sender <[e-mail]>);
    Tue,  8 Jun 1999 01:43:48 -0400 (EST)
Received: (from list@localhost)
    by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA16982;
    Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:43:00 -0600
Resent-From: [e-mail]
Resent-Date: xMessageSize=30000000
Resent-Sender: [e-mail]
Resent-Message-ID: <"UHS623.0.X84.rqANt"@ez0.ezlink.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JUNE 7, 1999
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    You dared use a private postal competitor?

    Why is there suddenly so much talk about an "alternative tax system"?
Because our congresscritters just now started to feel compassion for us,
their long-suffering milk cows, after 85 years? It couldn't be because
"voluntary compliance" with the existing system is plummeting as folks
enter the gray market of offshore e-commerce, a trend which can only
accelerate as rumors spread that the already sclerotic computer system of
the IRS may not survive Y2K?

  Couldn't that help explain the accelerating frenzy to ear-tag and track
every American and his money? It is in this context that we must view the
frantic haste with which the Clinton administration now seeks to "close
the
loopholes" and make sure federal agencies permanently record the serial
number of every firearm -- as well as the buyer's home address --
whenever
there's a transfer. In this context, it starts to make sense that the
process of "voluntarily applying" for a Social Security number (like you
could really get a job without one) no longer waits till the wide-eyed
youth's first job at age 16, but is now imposed on squalling infants in
the
hospital delivery room  -- whether parents sign the consent form or not.

  This growing panic that some members of the formerly docile herd may
somehow slip out of the observation and grasp of those who enjoy milking
us
weekly shows up in the recent requirement that federally-regulated banks
(any other kind of bank is illegal, of course) report every customer
transaction over $5,000 --  justified as a step against drug-dealers,
though in fact 99.9 percent of transactions thus reported turn out to
involve no "crime."

  Yet even (start ital)that(end ital) wasn't enough for the FDIC, which
beat a hasty retreat from its far more onerous "Know Your Customer" bank
snitch regulations earlier this year only after a record 200,000 citizens
filed objections via the Internet.

  But it didn't take long for them to assault our remaining privacy from
another front. Though the average postal regulation draws fewer than a
dozen total comments, more than 8,000 citizens wrote in during December
of
1997 to oppose a new requirement that will seriously affect 1.5 to 2.5
million individuals and small businesses who rent private mailboxes.

  The Postal Service put its new rule into effect a month ago,  anyway.
(Perhaps they found the 10 favorable responses more compelling than the
8,000 objections.)

  As of April 24, according to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, "Any
American
currently renting or planning to rent a commercial mailbox must provide
the
commercial agency with personal information, including two forms of
identification: one must display a photograph of the renter, and the
other
include a 'serial number ... traceable to the bearer' ... generally
today's
de facto national ID -- the Social Security Number.

  "The Postal Service now requires that the commercial agency send the
information to the Post Office, which in turn will maintain the
information
in a database. ... It should not escape notice that the Postal Service,
under the Privacy Act of 1974, is prohibited from doing this itself. How
ironic, and outrageous, that the Post Office is mandating a private
business do what Congress has explicitly forbidden the Post Office from
doing."

  Rick Merritt of the new organization Postal Watch -- created
specifically
to oppose these new restrictions -- points out this regulation also
requires that the initials PMB -- for "Private Mail Box" -- must by
October
appear on a separate line on any mail addressed to such an address, "or
the
Postal Service has said they will return the mail to the sender marked
'undeliverable.'

  "This is the first time, to my knowledge, that they will have violated
their original mandate to deliver mail to all communities in the United
States," says Merritt, a computer consultant who has operated his
business
out of a private mailbox in Dallas for the past nine years. "And this is
what is driving the cost; it appears the minimum first level cost will
exceed more than $1 billion," in the next six months, as the estimated
1.5
to 2.5 million private boxholders have to spend time and money advising
everyone who might send them mail of this new "PMB" address requirement.

  Affected are "a very large constituency of people who live essentially
full-time in their recreational vehicles and depend on a mail-forwarding
service to get their mail," Merritt says, as well as "survivors of
domestic
violence and stalking victims who use these mailboxes to remain anonymous
from the perpetrators of those crimes. ...

  "The justification from the postal service is that people have the
right
to know where they're sending their mail, that it's deceptive to use
'suite' or just the box number," Merritt reports. The post office also
cites the risks of mail fraud and "identity theft," though ironically the
new regulation for the first time mandates the creation of a document
containing all the information a culprit would need to "steal" a
boxholder's identity.

  On the other hand, nearly every American who rents a private box is
taking that business away from his local post office -- and also now
finds
it easier to receive UPS and Federal Express packages at the same
address,
spurring more growth for those postal competitors.

  "The post office likes this database because it will give them a
100-percent, no-error list of people who have opted against using a
Postal
Service PO Box and related services," comments Rep. Paul. "The long-term
cost of this rule is incalculable, but will no doubt force some of these
businesses into bankruptcy."

  What can be done before those 10,000 small, independently owned
businesses start closing their doors? Contact your local congresscritter,
and urge him or her to support Rep. Paul's House Joint Resolution 55, the
Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, calling for expedited action to overturn
the new regulations.

  Or, contact Postal Watch,  3419 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Virginia
Beach,
VA 23452, through the group's web site at  http://www.postalwatch.org, or
by dialing 877-576-7825.


Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal, is the author of "Send in the Waco Killers."

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John
Hay, 1872

The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us
not
get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts
ceases
to discriminate between good and evil.  He becomes a slave in body and
soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt
against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943

* * *


------
If you have subscribed to [e-mail] and you wish to
unsubscribe,
send a message to [e-mail], from your OLD address,
including
the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line.

To subscribe, send a message to [e-mail], from your
NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks)
in the "Subject" line.

All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my
columns
until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and
that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their
entirety, preserving the original attribution.

The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be
reached directly at [e-mail]. The web sites for the Suprynowicz
column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and
http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth
in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at [e-mail].


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: HR 1790, Separation of Powers, STOP THIS!!!!
Date: 08 Jun 1999 14:11:00 -0700


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

When you call your critter to tell him to stop the juvie Justice bill and
all the 2d Amend violations, tell him to stop HR1790 in its tracks! read the
following then WRITE (snail) or CALL - do NOT be satisfied with an EMAIL!

This is a serious and grave problem that will truly give the President the
right to create laws IF he ever loses his right to issue PDDs and EOs and
then gives those the full power of legislative laws.

Read this and WRITE or CALL your representative even, the critters local
office. FAX a message on this and on Juvie Justice. HCI is really gearing
up in support of new 2d Amend violating amendments to the bill and the
caving Republicrats have got to get the word!!!


1999 11:01:45 -0400 EMERGENCY ALERT II

This writer has obtained a copy of the full text of the bill that was the
subject of the first alert (H.R. 1790). It's not as bad as was painted in
that article. It's worse!

Although the subject matter of the bill (off-site consequence analysis
information) will not be considered very important by some, the "legal"
precedents it tries to establish are a template for control by the executive
branch in other areas where similar (unconstitutional) laws are passed.

In plain English the bill would do the following. It would criminalize any
"knowing" violations of restrictions or prohibitions established as authorized
by the bill. Those prohibitions and restrictions would be established through
"guidance" issued by the "administrator" of the federal agency or any officer
or employee of the agency to whom the administrator wished to delegate the
authority. The "guidance" would not be subject to judicial review. The
"guidance" would preempt any state or local law in conflict with it. The
subject information would be exempted from Freedom of Information Acts
(federal, state and local). It equates presidential Executive Orders with
statutes passed by Congress in establishing "legal" requirements. It allows
the administrator to withhold, or prevent the release of, information if
he or she determines that release may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health or welfare or the environment.

Finally, it allows, but does not require, the Attorney General to report to
Congress regarding enhancing site security practices (read guidance) and the
need for continued implementation or modification of the Act.

The "administrator", or other employee of the agency developing the
"guidance", would be required to consult with other "appropriate" federal
agencies, but not with state or local officials who would be subject to
criminal penalties if they violated the "guidance".

This bill, if enacted, would violate at least three provisions of the
constitution:

1.Article I, Section. 1, states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate
and House of Representatives". 2.Article I, Section 8 states "The Congress
shall have the power? To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the
land and naval Forces". 3.Again in Article I, Section 8 "The Congress shall
have the Power..To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested
by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof".

This is a separation of powers issue. The Congress cannot delegate to the
executive branch the power to issue anything that has the force of law no
matter what it is called (guidance, regulations, executive orders or
whatever) any more than the president can delegate his authority as
commander-in-chief of the military to the Congress.

Please forward this follow up to all who received the original alert and
continue your protests to the Congress over this unconstitutional delegation
of power to the Executive.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: ALERT! The Real S. 254
Date: 08 Jun 1999 14:11:00 -0700


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

The House of Representatives will soon vote on an omnibus "juvenile crime" bill.

A new Issue Paper from the Independence Institute details the civil
liberties horrors hidden in Senate Bill 254, the juvenile crime bill
recently passed by the Senate. Many or all of these provisions may be placed
in the House bill, which is still being drafted.

Among the dangerous items in S. 254 which have been ignored by the media are
a provision that would allow federal prosecutors to effectuate forfeitures
for _state_ misdemeanors and felonies.

Below is the Executive Summary of key points from the new Issue Paper. The
full 22-page text is available at: http://i2i.org/suptdocs/crime/unfair.htm

The paper is titled "Unfair and Unconstitutional: The New Federal Juvenile
Crime and Gun Control Proposals." It is written by David B. Kopel and James
Winchester.


Executive Summary:

I. Too Fast, Too Big, No Legitimate Congressional Involvement

This Issue Paper addresses some of [the] most obvious problems with the
Senate Bill 254, and with any House of Representatives counterpart which
copies provisions from S. 254.

S. 254 and its House counterpart are massive bills--far too large for any
legislator to examine carefully before voting-especially when bills are
brought to the floor almost as fast as they are drafted. Such mammoth
legislation is an abdication of the responsibilities of representative
government; if Representatives do not even know what is in the bill they are
voting on, they are not real representatives.

S. 254 and its House counterpart violate the Tenth Amendment by imposing
federal hegemony on states' authority over juvenile justice.

S. 254 and its House counterpart purport to exercise Congressional powers,
such as the power to regulate interstate commerce, that have only tenuous
and trivial connections to juvenile justice. Although these bills claim to
be a "law and order" bill, they are in fact a lawless usurpation of power.
Almost nothing [in] S. 254 criminalizes conduct which is actually harmful
to anyone. Instead, S. 254 broadens the scope of various pr[text missing]

II. Gun Control Provisions

Existing federal gun control law prohibits any use of records created for
firearms regulation to be used to create a registry of gun owners. The
Lautenberg Amendment to S. 254 in effect destroys this protection against
the compilation of lists of people who exercise their constitutional rights.

The Lautenberg Amendment applies to much more than gun shows. It ratifies
the Clinton Administration's illegal practice of using the National Instant
Check System to compile lists of gun buyers--including buyers who buy at gun
stores, not at gun shows.

The Brady Act was never intended to apply to transfers of firearms by
private persons. The Act was intended only for sales by federally licensed
dealers. That the Brady Act does not apply to private sales is not a
"loophole" created by the NRA; it is the decision of Mrs. Brady and her
organization, in the language that they proposed to Congress in 1993, 1992,
1991, 1990, 1989, and 1988.

Lautenberg does much more than require a NICS (National Instant Check
System) verification of the gun purchaser's legal eligibility. In addition,
there is a requirement that identity and address of the purchaser be
permanently registered in writing.

Lautenberg imposes an additional registration step unprecedented in Federal
firearms control law: the sale must be reported within 10 days to the
Department of the Treasury. Firearms sales in firearms stores do not even
have this requirement! (In a firearms store, the buyer fills out a
registration form, but this form is retained by the dealer, and not sent to
the federal government.)

The Lautenberg Amendment is not about loopholes, it is about creating a
firearms tracking system for private sales; today the gun shows, tomorrow
all private sales.

The amendment creates hugely onerous burdens to conducting a gun show,
including an unlimited tax, registration of private sellers and perhaps
attendees as well. This is a bullying attempt to destroy gun shows, which
are currently the main method for political communication in the Second
Amendment community.

Violation of Lautenberg's convoluted system--even by mere attendees at gun
shows--is made a felony, in gross disregard of the lack of seriousness of
the underlying "crime."

S. 254 imposes a mandatory one-year prison sentence on adults who violate
the current federal prohibition on giving handguns to minors. Thus, a father
who gives a family heirloom in a locked glass case to a son on the son's
seventeenth birthday would spend a mandatory year in prison.

S. 254 expands the ban on juvenile possession of handguns (which is properly
a matter for state, not federal law), by extending the ban to so-called
"assault weapons." As defined by federal law, "assault weapons" are ordinary
firearms which have certain cosmetically incorrect features, such as bayonet
lugs, or a "conspicuous" magazine. Young people should not be forbidden to
possess firearms simply because the firearms look ugly to people who know
nothing about firearms.

The Appendix to this Issue Paper details the nineteen state and federal
weapons control laws which were broken by murderers Eric Harris and Dylan
Klebold.

III. Other Civil Liberties Violations

The media's obsessive focus on gun control has prevented public discovery-so
far-of numerous provisions in S. 254 which effect major intrusions on civil
liberties. These include:

A provision allowing interception of the content of electronic communications
without a warrant.

Provisions to encourage suspicionless drug testing of students.

A new federal law providing extra punishment for people who wear body armor
during a crime-even if the armor has nothing to do with the crime (e.g., a
liquor store owner cheats on his taxes, while wearing body armor for
protection from robbery). Incredibly, the penalty does not apply to law
enforcement officers who criminally violate a person's civil rights!

An expansion of the scope and penalties of the federal law regarding "criminal
street gangs"-so that the law would apply to activities which have nothing to
do with gangs or streets.

A major expansion of forfeiture powers, which would allow U.S. Attorneys to
bring forfeiture cases for state felonies of all types and for many state
misdemeanors.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: About the GOP Convention 1/2
Date: 08 Jun 1999 14:11:00 -0700


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

The reporter (who was anonymous in the copy I received) neglects to mention
that Gerry Arthus got 22% of the vote for GOP state chair.

Those who attended might be able to identify the writer by the actions
described herein.

----------
Introduction:

The following covers various aspects of the Utah Republican Party State
Convention that I thought were significant or in which I had interest.
Before doing so, however, I wish to commend all those who participated
in what I felt was a very successful event.  For your information, at
the bottom of this lengthy message you can find links to news coverage
of the Convention.

Summary:

At Convention the delegates approved resolutions opposing the anti-gun
provisions in Sen. Orrin Hatch's S. 254, and Gov. Leavitt's call for a
special legislative session to enact gun control.  A Constitutional
Amendment to institute proportional selection of national delegates
narrowly failed to receive a 2/3 vote.

----------

Convention Guide:

The Guide was distributed to virtually every delegate (approximately
1200) attending the Convention.  Significant recipients of the Guide
included Sen. Orrin Hatch, who was seen entering the Dee Events Center
with a copy in hand.  Hatch's anti-gun S. 254 was analyzed inside.  With
its attractive red, white, and blue cover, containing a graphic of the
US Constitution superimposed upon a 13 star flag, and containing a copy
of the Bill of Rights on the back side, the Guide no doubt invited
consideration by the delegates of its contents.

And consideration of the contents did seem to have their intended effect
and raised concern among Convention officials.  At the beginning of the
Convention, Chair Nolan Karras informed the delegates that the only
"official" material made available by the URP was the delegate package
obtained during registration, and that any other similar looking
materials were not official.

One of the areas addressed in the Guide contents was common abuses of Robert's
Rules.  Possibly because these abuses were defined and remedies proposed,
it was not necessary to refer to them in the course of the Convention.
I see some analogies to General Washington's remarks on how to ensure peace.

Another impact was on the reporting of the Convention by the Standard-Examiner
which noted explicit objections to Hatch's anti-gun S. 254.  These objections
came directly from the Guide.

Lastly, the use of the Guide as various items of Convention business
were conducted apparently infuriated some, including one delegate who
arose to denounce it as a misrepresentation.  Her position did not seem
to be supported by many other delegates, however.

Convention Business:

Rules

The Convention Chair was Nolan Karras (not Rob Bishop), which may have been in
response to a Convention rule amendment submitted that stated that candidates
for Party officer positions were not eligible to be Convention Chair.

An extended period for consideration of the other Convention Rules
Amendments arose when on the first vote, which by all estimation of
those around me and myself had been clearly decided favorably, was
counted.  After counting and its consumption of 15 minutes or so, the
outcome was exactly as it had clearly been in the first place.
Following this, however, the Chair's ability to determine which side had
won seemed to improve.  All the amendments were accepted, except for one
to allow extension of debate by a majority vote, and another reducing
the quorum requirement to 400.

Agenda

Following adoption of Rules, an effort was made to amend the agenda to
move delegation reports to after the resolutions, giving the politicians
an opportunity to respond.  This amendment attempt was defeated by an
immediate call for the previous question, which was approved.

Delegation Reports

The reports of Leavitt and Hatch are worthy of mention.  Leavitt seems to
be trying to redefine his image as someone who has national/international
perspective, qualifying him for a Cabinet position with George Bush.  In
keeping with his objective to curry favor with Bush, he transparently
lobbied in his speech against the proposed Constitutional change to
allocate national delegates proportionally.

When Leavitt got to the Second Amendment, he said he supports it, but ...
This is the typical weasel approach that we've seen time and time again.
At this point the Convention gave him some feedback, by jeering, shouting,
etc.  He said he didn't want his kids to be protected by armed teachers,
but dozens or hundreds of delegates shouted back "I do, I do".  I have
never seen this kind of a reception before for any politician before the
Convention.  It appeared that Leavitt had even more gun control advice for
the Convention when he abruptly moved on to another topic.

Senator Hatch talked of America's greatness and the need for spiritual and
moral renewal.  Sadly, it is good advice that he doesn't follow when it
comes to the moral imperative of upholding the original intent of the US
Constitution and its Bill of Rights.  Apparently sensing some vulnerability on
his anti-gun S. 254, he went through a lengthy citation of crime statistics,
all "proving" the need for more "solutions" by the federal government.
He stated that 98% of the bill was solidly Republican, and 2% was not.

Having looked through the bill (approximately 700 pages), I found
virtually nothing that could qualify as being consistent with Republican
principles.  The bill, excluding its gun control provisions, increases
funding for the federal police, implements further control of state
government by use of block grants, and extends federal jurisdiction
beyond its already unacceptable limits.

One of the more appalling appeals made by Hatch was to read from a letter by
James Baker, head of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, recognizing
him for his efforts on S. 254.  While this letter had the appearance of
vindicating Hatch's actions, it actually reflects upon the increasingly
anti-gun positions of NRA officers and staff and their support for anti-gun
politicians (I am a fully paid $750 NRA life member, by the way).

Consider just some of the horrors in S. 254 and ask yourself if you join
with Hatch and the NRA staff in supporting them (or doing little or
nothing to stop them):  1) Imprisonment for parents who don't generate
permission slips when their children safely and lawfully use certain
legal firearms; 2) Expansion of property forfeiture powers by the
federal government; 3) Ban on the importation of ammunition magazines
greater than 10 rounds useful for defensive and sporting purposes; 4)
Compulsory purchase of safety locks by handgun buyers, facilitating
later legislation that requires their use at all times to prevent
handguns from being used for self defense in the home; and 6) Permanent
registration by picture ID of all gun show attendees into a book that
can be inspected at any time by federal police, to enable the BATF and
other agencies to harass, threaten, and intimidate these likely
political opponents of the Democrats.

Hatch received some applause at the conclusion of his remarks, but it
seemed much less enthusiastic than in most Conventions I've attended.
And the reaction from some was definitely stone cold.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: About the GOP Convention 2/2
Date: 08 Jun 1999 14:11:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Constitution and Bylaws Amendments

All of the Constitutional amendments approved by the State Central Committee
were approved by the Convention.  The one reducing the nomination threshold to
60% was close, but was accepted.  I spoke in favor of this particular change.

After this, I withdrew my Bylaws amendment to require disclosure of conflicts
of interest by Party officials.  This withdrawl received a fair amount of
applause.  Though I believe this remains an important addition to the Bylaws,
the value of doing so at the Convention became virtually non-existent.  A
substitute motion was prepared by Marreen Casper and was being distributed
when I announced the withdrawl.  Her substitute would have required Party
registration to run, not disclosure of conflicts of interest.

Following the bylaws amendment, I presented a Constitutional amendment
to institute proportional (rather than "winner take all" being advocated
by Mike Leavitt) allocation of National delegates.  This was made with
reference to the Guide.  The amendment was debated intensely, and it
received 63% of the vote, which was short of the 66.7% required for passage.

However, a move is now underway to reconsider this issue at a special
meeting of the State Central Committee.  With a significant change in the
philosophical make up in the new Committee, the outcome may be different
than what it was last month.

Resolutions

Just prior to consideration of Resolutions, a delegate rose and proposed
a rule amendment that no person could speak to more than three questions
in the Convention.  While not naming me directly, its intent was clear.
In a great compliment by the Convention, this motion was overwhelmingly
defeated.  I then presented the rationale for the resolution opposing
Hatch's and Bennett's perfidy on S. 254.  Debate was closed and the
resolution passed by a large margin.

There are at least two signficant points to be made here.  First, Orrin
Hatch sponsored an enormous free breakfast for everyone attending the
Convention (I did not partake).  This would appear to have two
objectives:  1) Increase the turnout by Orrin Hatch supporters to
improve his ability to defeat the resolution, and 2) pacify those that
were already going to attend the Convention by showing how generous
Orrin is.  In effect, the breakfast amounted to a peace offering.

The second point is that two years ago when Orrin was soundly denounced
in Convention via resolution for his advocacy with Ted Kennedy on
socialized medicine for children, the naysayers at that time stated that
the resolution would not have passed if only Orrin could have spoken
before the resolution and let the delegates know about its defects.

This argument cannot be raised regarding the delegates' approval of the
resolution opposing the gun control content of S. 254, since Hatch spoke
at length before the resolution was considered, and directly to it.  The
delegates made an informed decision, and fortunately despite Hatch's efforts
with the breakfast and focus of his Convention report, the decision by
them was to oppose his legislative subversion of the Second Amendment.

The next resolution considered was one that requested that Gov. Leavitt not
call a special session of the Legislature to enact further restrictions on
self defense (ie imposition of more gun control).  This resolution was also
passed by a large margin.

Copies of the two gun control-related resolutions follow.

Other resolutions dealing with abortion, light rail, closed primaries,
Chris Cannon's involvement in the impeachment trial, and Clinton's
possible treason in Kosovo were also passed.

----------

A Resolution of the Utah Republican Party Regarding Preservation and
Defense of the Second Amendment

Submitted by: Arnold J. Gaunt

Whereas, the Second Amendment guarantees to Americans protection of the
individual right to keep and bear arms; and

Whereas, despite the Second Amendment, the recent tragedy in Colorado has
been shamelessly exploited by infamous Democrats such as William Clinton,
Janet Reno, and Charles Schumer to promote further infringement of this
right; and

Whereas, in response to this exploitation the United States Congress is
actively responding to the gun control agenda of these Democrats; and

Whereas, this agenda contains unacceptable proposals that include
registration in an FBI database of private firearms transactions at gun
shows, banning the importation of ammunition magazines useful for personal,
family and community defense in times of civil unrest, and long term
imprisonment for inconsequential procedural oversights by parents
regarding their children's safe and responsible use of firearms; and

Whereas, either one or both of Utah's Senators voted for these proposals
infringing upon citizens' rights; and

Whereas, by their support for these oppressive proposals they have ignored
Utah's freedom-loving Republicans and citizens, demonstrated lack of
attention to the Utah Republican Party Platform, failed to properly
consider the higher law of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and
diverted attention from the failure of government to disarm and imprison
criminals and hold them accountable for their actions; now, therefore be it

Resolved, That the Utah Republican Party requests that Utah's US Senators
and Representatives uphold their oath of office by voting against all
proposals and legislation that compromise or subvert the Second Amendment,
and utilize whatever means are necessary, including the filibuster, to
prevent their passage, so as to protect the inherent rights of Utahns and
Americans; and be it

Further resolved, That the Chairman and Secretary are directed to
authenticate and transmit this resolution without delay to Utah's US
Senators and Representatives.


A Resolution of the Utah Republican Party Regarding a Special Session of
the Legislature in 1999

Submitted by: Arnold J. Gaunt and Neil Sagers

Whereas, recent tragedies in Utah and Colorado have been exploited to
promote the call for a special legislative session to enact additional
gun control laws in Utah; and

Whereas, accommodating this exploitation, Governor Leavitt has facilitated
the call by forming a committee able to offer gun control proposals and
recommendations; and

Whereas, since Governor Leavitt has consistently opposed viable self-defense
in houses of worship and schools, advocacy by the committee for more gun
control laws may be expected; and

Whereas, despite the predictable failure of each gun control law to curb
crime, the failures are used to justify even more gun control laws; and

Whereas, the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms by gun
control laws has already proceeded to a threatening and unacceptable
point; now, therefore be it

Resolved, That the Utah Republican Party requests Governor Leavitt
exercise prudence, responsibility, and restraint by not calling a
special session of the Legislature for the purpose of enacting laws that
infringe on the right of self-defense; and be it

Further resolved, That the Chairman and Secretary are directed to
authenticate and transmit this resolution to the Governor without delay.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: LPU: FW: About the GOP Convention
Date: 08 Jun 1999 14:11:00 -0700


 * CARBON COPY:
 * Original was to [e-mail] (Libertarian Party of Utah)

On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:50:43 -0600 Jim Dexter stated:

>The reporter (who was anonymous in the copy I received) neglects to mention
>that Gerry Arthus got 22% of the vote for GOP state chair.

Kitty Burton tells me that Gerry Arthus received 29% of the vote,
and that the reported 22% is a miscount.



-



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

From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: U.S. HOUSE GUN BILL TEXT (H.R. 2037)
Date: 08 Jun 1999 18:02:37 -0700

The text of the proposed House version of the new gun bill can be found at
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2037.pdf

Note: It is NOT available at the "Thomas" site (at least not that I could find).
While H.R. 2037 is a marked improvement over S. 254, there are still significant
problems with it.  The bill will allegedly pass directly out of committee
tomorrow, and be acted on on the House floor next week.  There WILL be amendments
from the floor.

There is some confusion on the bill number.  In a press release, Judiciary
Committee chair Henry Hyde referenced H.R. 1501 as the baseline bill.  1501 IS
available at Thomas ( http://thomas.loc.gov ), but does NOT address firearms.

More after I have digested the bill.

Joe Waldron



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: About the GOP Convention 1/2
Date: 08 Jun 1999 19:37:11 -0600

At 02:11 PM 6/8/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 11:50:43 -0600
>To: [e-mail]
>From: "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>
>
>The reporter (who was anonymous in the copy I received) neglects to mention
>that Gerry Arthus got 22% of the vote for GOP state chair.
>
>Those who attended might be able to identify the writer by the actions
>described herein.


I believe the author is Arnold Gaunt, the sponsor of the two resolutions
mentioned.

Sarah

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Salt Lake Tribune -- Nation/World
Date: 09 Jun 1999 14:28:50 -0600

http://www.sltrib.com/06091999/nation_w/nation_w.htm

                                                            Wednesday,
>                                                              June 09, 1999
>=20
> Feds Check If IOC Boss Broke U.S. Firearm Laws             =
 [Advertisement]
>=20
> BY GREG BURTON =A9 1999                   [Image]
> THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE                  Samaranch           [The Front
Page for Today]
>     Federal investigators                                  [Notable News
-- Links to Newspapers on the Net]
> are trying to determine whether a handgun given to         [Image]
> International Olympic Committee President Juan Antonio     [Search]
> Samaranch during a 1991 visit to Salt Lake City was taken  [Tribtalk]
> out of the country in violation of U.S. firearms laws.     [Tribaccess
Archives]
>     As part of the government's investigation into the bid [Help Desk]
> for the 2002 Olympics, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and  [Links and
special features]
> Firearms (ATF) is examining a series of transactions       [Contact the
Tribune]
> between the Salt Lake bid committee, the IOC and Browning
> Arms Co., The Salt Lake Tribune has learned.
>     The Morgan County gun manufacturer sold or delivered 10
> weapons to the bid committee. At least three of those guns   Today's
> were given to Samaranch.                                     Headlines:
>     "We were interviewed by the ATF and the FBI and we
> discussed the facts that the products we sold to [the bid    [Image] GOP
> committee] were spotted in other parts of the world," said   Poll Shows
> Rich Bauter, Browning's vice president of marketing. That    Public Backs
> acknowledgment essentially ended the interview, Bauter       Gun Laws
> said.
>     Visitors to the United States must obtain approval from  [Image]
> the U.S. State Department before leaving the country with
> weapons purchased or obtained here.                          Browning Says
>     Violators could be charged under federal law with        Gun-Crime
> felony exportation of a firearm without a permit, said ATF   Report Isn't
> spokesman Larry Bettendorf. Other federal laws restrict      Accurate
> non-U.S. citizens from possessing firearms without a permit
> and prohibit unlicensed dealers from exporting firearms      [Image]
> from the country.                                            Babbitt: West
>     The ATF inquiry dovetails with investigations of wire    Is Awash in
> fraud and money laundering by the FBI, tax fraud by the      Water, It=
 Just
> Internal Revenue Service and a U.S. Customs probe of a       Needs an
> transport of large sums of cash out of the country.          Efficient=
 Plan
>     "I really can't comment on any ongoing information that
> we may or may not have," Bettendorf said.                    [Image] Reel
>     The Department of Justice also declined to comment on
> any aspect of the investigation, although The Tribune has    Dilemma:
> learned at least two people are facing indictments in the    Violence, Sex
> Olympic scandal.                                             Treated
>     Browning has found invoices for 10 firearms bought by    Differently
> the bid committee. A 7 mm bolt-action rifle and
> semiautomatic shotgun were delivered to Samaranch in May     [Image]
> 1995 at the bid committee's request.                         Theaters=
 Agree
>     Another invoice was for a 9 mm pistol sold to the bid    to Enforce
> committee in February 1991, two months before Samaranch's    Film-Rating
> first visit to Utah. The invoice, for $395.86, was directed  System
> to Tom Welch, the former head of the bid committee and the
> Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC).                       [Image]
>     The pistol was presented to Samaranch during a dinner
> at the home of businessman Jon Huntsman.                     Carmakers to
>     "[Our] counsel has not been informed of any involvement  Install
> by ATF," SLOC spokeswoman Shelley Thomas said Tuesday.       Trunk-Release
>     The IOC has acknowledged that Sam-aranch was given a     Latches
> pistol and a rifle, and Samaranch has said he was given
> guns on two visits to Salt Lake City.                        [Image]
>     The rifle was presented in a case with an engraved       Legislators
> plaque that read, "Presented to President Juan Antonio       Try to Save
> Samaranch from the Browning Arms Co. on behalf of the        Big With
> people of Salt Lake City."                                   Lobbyist Cash
>     Last year, Samaranch gave conflicting answers about
> where the rifle and pistol are kept. In a press conference,  [Image] U.S.
> he said they are in the Olympic Museum in Lausanne,
> Switzerland. But in a subsequent interview, he said they     Gathers Its
> are in his office.                                           Peacekeepers
>     "I am in a position to show them to any of my            as It Keeps
> visitors," he reportedly told a European newspaper.          Bombing Serbs
>     A Browning Arms Model 1886 lever-action rifle and
> custom case delivered to the bid committee at 1994 Winter    [Image]
> Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway, was apparently given to     Balkans Peace
> the king of Norway.                                         =20

>  ---------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> =A9 Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune
> All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt
> Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may
> be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from
> The Salt Lake Tribune.


-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FYI. Leavitt Speaks on Gun Control!
Date: 10 Jun 1999 11:20:30 -0600

If there is ANY gun owner in this State who still thinks Leavitt is any
better than a Democrat would be, I'd like to see about selling them some
ocean front property in St. George.

I suggest everyone also check out the accompanying article at
<http://www.sltrib.com/06101999/utah/180.htm> (or via the link on the
front page <http://www.sltrib.com/>).  On the one hand, even the BATF
basically admits that many of the so called "dangerous felons"
"prevented" from buying guns are nothing more than someone who committed
check fraud 20 years ago and aren't even worth arresting for trying to
buy a gun.  On the other, even those convicted of violent felonies are
almost never arrested unless there happens to be an outstanding warrant
at the time the purchase is attempted.  Even then, they aren't likely to
actually be charged with trying to buy a gun illegally.

On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:04:02 -0600 "Mr. Black" <[e-mail]>
writes:
>To All:
>
>See your marvelous Governor finally revealing his true colors on the
>front
>page of the SL Tribune:  "Weapons Don't Belong in School, Governor
>Says" at
>http://www.sltrib.com/
>
>Gore/Leavitt in 2000!
>
>Mr. Black
>
>P.S.  In the next Star Wars movie, I nominate Hatch to play Senator
>Palpatine and Leavitt to play his new apprentice -- Darth Liar.  Call
>it
>"The Phantom Republicans."

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: House Votes Coming Next Week
Date: 11 Jun 1999 09:41:00 -0700


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

House to Tackle Anti-gun Crime Bill Soon

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, June 10, 1999

"House Republican leaders yesterday embraced gun control legislation
written with the help of the National Rifle Association and announced
plans to rush it to a final vote." -- The Washington Post, 6/9/99


House To Take Up Gun Control Next Week

Voting on juvenile crime legislation will probably begin next week.
There will be gun control amendments offered on the floor of the
House, and many of these provisions will probably parallel the gun
issues that were considered in the Senate (background registration
checks, import bans on self-defense magazines, liability on gun
owners who don't lock up their guns, etc.).

The House Republican leadership is supporting a proposal that, among
other things, will impose background registration checks on those
buying guns from PRIVATE individuals at gun shows. Gun owners should
begin calling their Representatives and urge them to vote "NO" on
all gun control-- including any Gun Control "Lite" provisions that
are sponsored by Republicans. [Activists can now get an exact copy
of the juvenile crime bill (S. 254) that passed in the Senate at
http://www.gunowners.org/gts254.htm on the GOA Website.]


Republicans Getting Hammered On Capitol Hill

Irate gun owners from across the country are deluging Republicans with
correspondence, both at the Republican National Committee and on Capitol
Hill. Reports have indicated that the RNC has been "besieged" with mail,
as "several boxes" of faxes, emails and letters have been unloaded upon
their offices. House Speaker Denny Hastert's office has admitted to
receiving a thousand calls a day from angry gun owners.

In what could be an attempt to counteract this grassroots response,
the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep.
Tom Davis (R-VA), released a poll recently supposedly showing that
80% of Republicans favor stricter gun controls, such as those which
passed in the Senate juvenile crime bill. This ignores the fact
that truly honest polls-- such as those conducted by the Denver
Rocky Mountain News (5/20/99)-- have found that 65% of people want
less gun control, like easier concealed carry.

"Should people ought to have to register a gun like they register
their cars? Do I think that? Of course I do. Of course I do." --
President Bill Clinton, June 4, 1999


Democrats Pushing For More Gun Control

Even before the House of Representatives has had a chance to vote on
the juvenile crime bill, top-ranking Democrats in Congress and in
the White House are predicting that the current batch of gun control
provisions will be followed by more stringent proposals. For example,
on June 4, President Clinton stated on ABC's Good Morning America that:

"I have made it perfectly clear that I want to get what was passed
in the Senate, passed in the House. Then we will come back and try
to pass some more [gun control]."

The current gun control proposals in Congress are mere stepping stones
to Clinton's next goal. He has openly stated he wants to move towards
full-fledged gun owner registration. Gun owners should not fall for
Congressional promises that once this anti-gun crime bill is finished
with, they will get the whole gun control debate "behind them." Not
true. If the current gun restrictions in Congress become law, we will
see an immediate move towards even stricter proposals. The time to stop
the hemorrhaging is now. Make sure your Congressman hears from you.

ACTION: If you have not done so already, please contact your Representative
and ask him to oppose Gun Control "Heavy" (from the Democratic side of the
aisle) and to oppose Gun Control "Lite" (from the Republicans). Moreover,
Representatives should be encouraged to vote "NO" on the final passage of
any juvenile bill that contains even the least 2nd Amendment infringement.

Call the House at 202-225-3121 or toll free at 1-888-449-3511. The address
for all Representatives is: [Name of Rep.], U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington DC 20515. See http://www.gunowners.org/h106th.htm for fax and
e-mail contact info.

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


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Vin: May 31 column -- kids with guns
Date: 11 Jun 1999 09:41:00 -0700


 * CARBON COPY:
 * Original was to [e-mail] (Shinika Sykes)

This is another excellent column for The Salt Lake Tribune to print.
I believe it is quite easy to obtain syndication rights from Vin
Suprynowicz and the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Please request your
editors to do so.

Scott Bergeson

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

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 31, 1999
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
To prevent a life of crime, buy your kid a gun

It's called propaganda: Simplify your lie down to an easily-recalled slogan,
repeat it often enough, and people will eventually get it down by heart and
accept it as fact.

Take: "The cause of all these school shootings is the too-easy availability
of guns."

Prior to the National Firearms Act of 1933, there was no law to
discourage a veteran of the Great War from keeping a fully-operational
souvenir machine gun in the bedroom closet. There were few towns in
America where the local lads didn't know the location of at least one
such weapon. Yet none was ever used in a "school shooting."

As late as the 1960s, it was not unusual in rural America for young
boys to carry their .22 rifles to school with them, parking them in the
principal's office until needed for the target matches after school. At
age 49 I am no doddering old-timer, but I can remember young lads walking
the country roads of Ohio and Connecticut after school with their rifles
(or bicycling home with the weapons across their handlebars), hoping to
pick off some predatory bird with the full encouragement of area farmers.
A neighbor might chide you about watching where your bullets went if you
missed, but no one ever called the police to report "The Jones boy is
heading down the road with his gun; come arrest him!"

When I went away to Eaglebrook School in Massachusetts (yes, "Own a gun,
go to jail" Massachusetts) in 1962 at the age of 12, I took my rifle. We
fired for accuracy at the range on Saturdays. I daresay we could have
snuck them out of the lockers down at the gym for some mayhem if it ever
crossed our minds ... but it never did.

The violent media? Today's TV offers nothing like "The Rifleman" or
"Wanted Dead or Alive," programs of the early 1960s in which Chuck
Connors and Steve McQueen ended every episode by mowing down some
reprobate who had kicked the town dog or insulted Millie down at the
general store, in McQueen's case using a sawed-off Winchester which
it's now a federal felony even to recreate for a museum.

This focus on "the availability of guns" -- ignoring the fact they were
far more accessible only 40 years ago, when you could order a 20-mm Lahti
anti-tank gun through the mail from an ad in the back of a comic book --
is intended not only to advance the prior agenda of those who want a
disarmed and enslaved citizenry, but also to distract us from asking what
it is about the mandatory behavior modification labs (public schools) which
creates such rage and frustration in our incarcerated adolescent males. We
don't see these shoot-em-ups in the private schools, or among home-schoolers.

It also diverts attention from the perfectly relevant question of how many of
these shooters had been on drugs known to affect the judgment, like Ritalin
and Luvox, (start ital)prescribed and administered by their government
wardens(end ital).

In the face of all this misdirection, isn't it too bad the government
has never conducted an actual scientific study on how it affects a
child's likelihood of committing crimes if his parents buy him a gun?

Um, actually ... they have.

The study was conducted from 1993-1995 by the U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Child
psychologists tracked 4,000 boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver,
Pittsburgh, and Rochester, N.Y. Their findings?

-- Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%)
while children who get guns illegally are quite likely to do so (21%).

-- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind
of street crime (14%) than children who have no gun in the house (24%) --
and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an
illegal gun (74%.)

-- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use banned
drugs (13%) than children who get illegal guns (41%.)

-- Most strikingly, the study found: "Boys who own legal firearms have
much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal
guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns."

This wouldn't have surprised anyone before the rise of the modern welfare
state. It used to be common knowledge that the best way to get kids to act
"responsibly" was precisely to give them some "responsibility." Why would
we assume a child taught by his parents to use a gun responsibly wouldn't
also be more responsible in his other behaviors?

"Want to dramatically reduce the chance that your child will commit a
gun-related crime or -- heaven forbid -- go on a shooting spree?" asked
the national Libertarian Party in a May 21 news release detailing these
study results. "Buy your youngster a gun."

"Politicians are apparently more interested in demonizing guns than they
are in facts," commented LP national director Steve Dasbach, himself an
Indiana government schoolteacher. But "The evidence is in: The simplest
way to reduce firearm-related violence among children is to buy them a
gun and teach them how to use it responsibly."


Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal, is author of the book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays
on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998."

***


Vin Suprynowicz, [e-mail]

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John
Hay, 1872

The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us
not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts
ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body
and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust!
Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943

* * *

If you have subscribed to [e-mail] and you wish to unsubscribe,
send a message to [e-mail], from your OLD address, including
the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line.

To subscribe, send a message to [e-mail], from your
NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks)
in the "Subject" line.

All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns
until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and
that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their
entirety, preserving the original attribution.

The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be
reached directly at [e-mail]. The web sites for the Suprynowicz
column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and
http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth
in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at [e-mail].



-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: May 31 column -- kids with guns
Date: 10 Jun 1999 23:51:33 -0600


----------------
Charles Hardy
<[e-mail]>

--------- Forwarded message ----------
Message-ID: <v02130509b374f889cff6@[0.0.0.0]>


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 31, 1999
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    To prevent a life of crime, buy your kid a gun

    It's called propaganda: Simplify your lie down to an easily-recalled
slogan, repeat it often enough, and people will eventually get it down by
heart and accept it as fact.

  Take: "The cause of all these school shootings is the too-easy
availability of guns."

  Prior to the National Firearms Act of 1933, there was no law to
discourage a veteran of the Great War from keeping a fully-operational
souvenir machine gun in the bedroom closet. There were few towns in
America
where the local lads didn't know the location of at least one such
weapon.
Yet none was ever used in a "school shooting."

  As late as the 1960s, it was not unusual in rural America for young
boys
to carry their .22 rifles to school with them, parking them in the
principal's office  until needed for the target matches after school. At
age 49 I am no doddering old-timer, but I can remember young lads walking
the country roads of Ohio and Connecticut after school with their rifles
(or bicycling home with the weapons across their handlebars), hoping to
pick off some predatory bird with the full encouragement of area farmers.
A
neighbor might chide you about watching where your bullets went if you
missed, but no one ever called the police to report "The Jones boy is
heading down the road with his gun; come arrest him!"

  When I went away to Eaglebrook School in Massachusetts (yes, "Own a
gun,
go to jail" Massachusetts) in 1962 at the age of 12, I took my rifle. We
fired for accuracy at the range on Saturdays. I daresay we could have
snuck
them out of the lockers down at the gym for some mayhem if it ever
crossed
our minds ... but it never did.

  The violent media? Today's TV offers nothing like "The Rifleman" or
"Wanted Dead or Alive," programs of the early 1960s in which Chuck
Connors
and Steve McQueen ended every episode by mowing down some reprobate who
had
kicked the town dog or insulted Millie down at the general store, in
McQueen's case using a sawed-off Winchester which it's now a federal
felony
even to recreate for a museum.

  This focus on "the availability of guns" -- ignoring the fact they were
far more accessible only 40 years ago, when you could order a 20-mm Lahti
anti-tank gun through the mail from an ad in the back of a comic book --
is
intended not only to advance the prior agenda of those who want a
disarmed
and enslaved citizenry, but also to distract us from asking what it is
about the mandatory behavior modification labs (public schools) which
creates such rage and frustration in our incarcerated adolescent males.
We
don't see these shoot-em-ups in the private schools, or among
home-schoolers.

  It also diverts attention from the perfectly relevant question of how
many of these shooters had been on drugs known to affect the judgment,
like
Ritalin and Luvox, (start ital)prescribed and administered by their
government wardens(end ital).

  In the face of all this misdirection, isn't it too bad the government
has
never conducted an actual scientific study on how it affects a child's
likelihood of committing crimes if his parents buy him a gun?

  Um, actually ... they have.

  The study was conducted from 1993-1995 by the U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Child
psychologists tracked 4,000 boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver,
Pittsburgh, and Rochester, N.Y. Their findings?

  -- Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0
percent) while children who get guns illegally are quite likely to do so
(21 percent).

  -- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any
kind
of street crime (14 percent) than children who have no gun in the house
(24
percent) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who
acquire an illegal gun (74 percent.)

  -- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use banned
drugs
(13 percent) than children who get illegal guns (41 percent.)

  -- Most strikingly, the study found: "Boys who own legal firearms have
much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal
guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns."

  This wouldn't have surprised anyone before the rise of the modern
welfare
state. It used to be common knowledge that the best way to get kids to
act
"responsibly" was precisely to give them some "responsibility." Why would
we assume a child taught by his parents to use a gun responsibly wouldn't
also be more responsible in his other behaviors?

  "Want to dramatically reduce the chance that your child will commit a
gun-related crime or -- heaven forbid -- go on a shooting spree?" asked
the
national Libertarian Party in a May 21 news release detailing these study
results. "Buy your youngster a gun."

  "Politicians are apparently more interested in demonizing guns than
they
are in facts," commented LP national director Steve Dasbach, himself an
Indiana government schoolteacher.  But "The evidence is in: The simplest
way to reduce firearm-related violence among children is to buy them a
gun
and teach them how to use it responsibly."


Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal, is author of the book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays
on
the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998."

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John
Hay, 1872

The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us
not
get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts
ceases
to discriminate between good and evil.  He becomes a slave in body and
soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt
against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943

* * *


------
If you have subscribed to [e-mail] and you wish to
unsubscribe,
send a message to [e-mail], from your OLD address,
including
the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line.

To subscribe, send a message to [e-mail], from your
NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks)
in the "Subject" line.

All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my
columns
until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and
that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their
entirety, preserving the original attribution.

The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be
reached directly at [e-mail]. The web sites for the Suprynowicz
column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and
http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth
in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at [e-mail].


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #16 - 11 June 1999 1/2
Date: 12 Jun 1999 10:45:00 -0700


GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah

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

Visit our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah!

GOUtah! Alert #16 - 11 June 1999

Today's Maxim of Liberty:

"It is unreasonable ...to oblige a man not to attempt the defense
of his own life." -Montesquieu, in The Spirit of Laws

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

U.S. House To Take Up Gun Control Next Week-Your Action Is Urgently Needed!
A Special Report from Gun Owners of America -10 June 1999

"House Republican leaders yesterday embraced gun control legislation written
with the help of the National Rifle Association and announced plans to rush
it to a final vote." -- The Washington Post, 6/9/99

Voting on juvenile crime legislation will probably begin next week. There
will be gun control amendments offered on the floor of the House, and many of
these provisions will probably parallel the gun issues that were considered
in the Senate (background registration checks, import bans on self-defense
magazines, liability on gun [owners] who don't lock up their guns, etc.).

The House Republican leadership is supporting a proposal that, among other
things, will impose background registration checks on those buying guns from
PRIVATE individuals at gun shows. Gun owners should begin calling their
Representatives and urge them to vote "NO" on all gun control--including any
Gun Control "Lite" provisions that are sponsored by Republicans. [Activists
can now get an exact copy of the juvenile crime bill (S. 254) that passed
in the Senate at http://www.gunowners.org/gts254.htm on the GOA website.]

(GOUtah! Note: An NRA/ILA Alert mailed nationwide to all NRA members this
week indicated that the Lautenberg language from the U.S. Senate version
describes "events" rather than only "gun shows" and "transfers" rather than
"sales." These terms are not defined in the bill. As such, this language
could easily be stretched to include any event at which any firearms transfer,
sale, gift or other exchange might take place, such as a shooting competition,
club meeting, family gathering, business lunch, etc. Clearly the intent of
the bill is to require every private party transfer, regardless of nature,
circumstance or location to require a background check, along with the
potential for registration and potential confiscation. We urge you to oppose
any expansion to the current Brady background check system.)

Call and write your U.S. Congressman TODAY!

Congressional District 1: Northern and Western Utah, except Salt Lake Metro

Rep. Jim Hansen (R)
242 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail: www.house.gov
click on Members and select Jim Hansen

Local Office: 324-25th Ave.
Ogden, Utah 84401
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax: [phone]

Congressional District 2: Salt Lake Metro Area

Rep. Merrill Cook (R)
1431 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0001
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Local Office: 125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84138
Utah Phone: [phone]

Congressional District 3: Central and Eastern Utah

Rep. Chris Cannon (R)
118 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4403
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Local Offices: 51 South University Drive
Provo, Utah 84606
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax [phone]

Republicans Getting Hammered On Capitol Hill
A Special Report from Gun Owners of America -10 June 1999

Irate gun owners from across the country are deluging Republicans with
correspondence, both at the Republican National Committee and on Capitol
Hill. Reports have indicated that the RNC has been "besieged" with mail,
as "several boxes" of faxes, emails and letters have been unloaded upon
their offices. House Speaker Denny Hastert's office has admitted to
receiving a thousand calls a day from angry gun owners.

In what could be an attempt to counteract this grassroots response, the
head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Tom Davis
(R-VA), released a poll recently supposedly showing that 80% of Republicans
favor stricter gun controls, such as those which passed in the Senate
juvenile crime bill. This ignores the fact that truly honest polls-- such
as those conducted by the Denver Rocky Mountain News (5/20/99)-- have found
that 65% of people want less gun control, like easier concealed carry.

Democrats Pushing For More Gun Control
A Special Report From Gun Owners of America-10 June 1999

Even before the House of Representatives has had a chance to vote on the
juvenile crime bill, top-ranking Democrats in Congress and in the White
House are predicting that the current batch of gun control provisions will
be followed by more stringent proposals. For example, on June 4, President
Clinton stated on ABC's 'Good Morning America' that:

"I have made it perfectly clear that I want to get what was passed in the
Senate, passed in the House. Then we will come back and try to pass some
more [gun control]."

The current gun control proposals in Congress are mere stepping stones to
Clinton's next goal. He has openly stated he wants to move towards
full-fledged gun owner registration. Gun owners should not fall for
Congressional promises that once this anti-gun crime bill is finished
with, they will get the whole gun control debate "behind them." Not true.
If the current gun restrictions in Congress become law, we will see an
immediate move towards even stricter proposals. The time to stop the
hemorrhaging is now. Make sure your US Congressman hears from you TODAY.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #16 - 11 June 1999 2/2
Date: 12 Jun 1999 10:45:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
1999 Utah GOP State Political Convention Review-
Elected Leader's Anti-Gun Positions Rebuked by Republican Party Delegates
A Report From Arnold Gaunt, Utah State Republican Party Delegate

Senator Orrin Hatch's and Governor Mike Leavitt's advocacy for gun control
were opposed by delegates attending the Utah Republican Party State Organizing
Convention on Saturday June 5 at the Weber State Dee Events Center in Ogden.
Both politicians made appeals to the Party prior to the hearing of resolutions
addressing their promotion of gun control at the federal and state level,
respectively.

In the case of Orrin Hatch, he provided a free breakfast preceding the
Convention in a failed effort to lure his die-hard supporters to oppose the
resolution. In addition, in his Convention report, he dramatized the impact
of crime in America and the resultant "necessity" of his anti-gun S. 254.
According to Sen. Hatch, gun owners should be happy that S. 254 isn't even
worse than it is.

As proof of his Second Amendment advocacy, Hatch stated that he had been
deputized as a Special US Marshal when his life had been threatened, and
thereby was authorized for concealed carry. However, his deputization
proves nothing more than hypocrisy on the issue of self-defense. When
Orrin is threatened, he receives a carry permit that is valid throughout
the US, preempts state and local laws, and is good even on airplanes.

On the other hand, when a private citizen faces similar threats, no similar
carry permit is available. Can it be that some people's right to life is
greater than others?

Governor Leavitt, who appears to be accompanied by armed bodyguards, shares
Hatch's position that some people (like "important" politicians) should be
able to defend their lives without restriction, while the rest should accept
ever-increasing "reasonable" infringements on their right to be armed. When
Leavitt offered some "reasonable" Second Amendment infringements to the
Convention, delegates didn't buy his gratuitous advice, and responded by
shouting back at him and jeering. Abruptly, the Governor changed subjects.

Resolutions were finally considered after Hatch and Leavitt had presented their
respective arguments for more gun control legislation. The first resolution
requested that Hatch and Bennett "uphold their oath of office by voting against
all proposals and legislation that compromise or subvert the Second Amendment,
and utilize whatever means are necessary, including the filibuster, to prevent
their passage, so as to protect the inherent rights of Utahns and Americans".

The second resolution requested that Gov. Leavitt "exercise prudence,
responsibility, and restraint by not calling a special session of the
Legislature for the purpose of enacting laws that infringe on the right of
self-defense". Happily, both resolutions were passed by large margins.
So, if Hatch and Leavitt don't represent the Republican Party on the Second
Amendment, whom do they represent?

The text of the Utah Republican Party resolutions passed is available on
the GOUtah! website at www.slpsa.org/goutah!

Utah Legislative Committees Will Meet on Wednesday, 16 June to Discuss
Gun Control Measures. Be There!

Please remember to attend the Utah Interim Legislative Committee hearings
on Wednesday, 16 June 1999 at 2:00 PM at the Utah State Capitol. It is
critical we be there in force! Make your voice heard to protect your rights!

The Judiciary Committee will meet in Room 403 to discuss issues related to
pleas and prosecution of gun crimes, additions to prohibited classes for
gun purchases, and other items.

The Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee will meet in Room 416 to
discuss updates on the Federal laws under consideration. BCI background
Checks, Mental health records access, gun shows, and progress reports form
the Governor's anti-gun working groups.

Governor Leavitt intends to call for a special session of the Utah Legislature
to consider Utah gun laws in the Fall of 1999. If he cannot get a majority of
Utah legislators to support the special session, it will not take place. So
far the Utah Senate has indicated they will favor the session, while the Utah
House is as yet uncommitted. Focus your calls, email and letters to the Utah
House members!

GOUtah! asks every Utah gun owner and concerned citizen to immediately and
repeatedly contact their state representatives and senators at home and
again urge them to take a measured and rational approach to these issues,
rather that blame peaceable gun owners for the deep seated ills of our
society. We must now work overtime to avoid a special session of the Utah
Legislature, which would likely devolve into a free-for-all legal and media
circus which will ride roughshod over our gun rights.

Feds Look Into Salt Lake Olympic Committee's Possible Gun Law Violations

The Salt Lake Tribune reports in a 9 June 1999 article that the FBI and ATF
are examining possible federal weapons export law violations by members of
SLOC and the Salt Lake Olympic Bid Committee, related to the numerous gifts
of Browning firearms to IOC members, including IOC President Juan Antonio
Samaranch. These allegations come close on the heels of media reports that
at least two members of the Salt Lake Olympic bid group will be facing
federal grand jury indictments regarding their actions in the
bribery-scandal plagued 2002 Winter Olympic Games bidding process.

GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch

"Should people ought to have to register a gun like they register their cars?
Do I think that? Of course I do. Of course I do."
-- President Bill Clinton, television interview, June 4, 1999

I'm one Republican who doesn't want my child going to a school where teachers
are armed." -- Governor Michael O. Leavitt, in a speech to the Utah Republican
Party Convention in Ogden, Utah on 5 June 1999

"I do! I do!" -- Shouted responses from numerous Utah Republican Party
Delegates, loudly disagreeing with the above comments by Governor Leavitt.

If you have a gun rights quote you'd like to share, please send it, along
with a verifiable original source reference to GOUtah!

That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #16 - 11 June
1999. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending your
firearms rights. Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless
YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun
rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it.
Get involved, get active and get vocal! Copyright 1999 by GOUtah!
All rights reserved.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Twice Damned, Ben Fulton
Date: 13 Jun 1999 18:14:00 -0700


 * CARBON COPY:
 * Original was to [e-mail]

I just read your June 3, 1999 issue (Vol 16. No. 1).
Kudoes to David Owen for the last two paragraphs of
his Voices column. I was beginning to think the SALT
LAKE City Weekly favored extermination of the populace,
or at least draconian suppression of civil rights.

However, I fail to see why Ben Fulton is opposed to
proprietors of houses of worship exercising their right to
freedom of speech if they "want to remain firearm free".
My religious beliefs demand that worshipers take good
care of the stewardship their Creator gave them; as in

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life" ...

Please apprise Mr. Fulton that I do not appreciate his
relegating my religious beliefs to the trashbin, by
demanding that I forfeit my Right to Life should I wish
to peaceably assemble for religious worship. If he wants
to post his house and places of business and worship as
safe criminal zones that is his business, but don't give
the criminals free reign at mine. His column borders on
a declaration of war (death threat) against anyone who
wishes to visit a school or house of worship.

Scott Bergeson
[e-mail]



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Willie the Salesman
Date: 15 Jun 1999 09:50:57 -0600


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_rockwell/19990614_xclro_the_clinto.sht=
ml=20

The Clinton gun boom=20

One ironic legacy of the Clinton administration is the rearming of the =
American citizenry. Each time Clinton and his friends in Congress threaten =
another round of anti-gun regulations, the American people respond by =
stocking up on as many guns as possible. This is all to the good: an armed =
citizenry translates to less crime and more security, and reminds the =
government that its bureaucrats aren't the only ones with firepower.=20

The trend began in 1989 with the passage of restrictions on so-called =
"assault weapons," which brought about the initial boom in gun sales. =
After a brief respite, the Brady Bill, which imposed background checks on =
buyers, was passed in 1993. The politicians claimed they were only after =
the criminals. But the main effect was to convince people that the federal =
government was determined to disarm the public.=20

Of course the politicians always say that they are only after the =
criminals, not hunters and not people who only desire self-protection. But =
by definition, criminals aren't interested in regulations. Legal restrictio=
ns on gun sales only make it more difficult for people who scrupulously =
keep the law to defend themselves against those who do not.=20

This point may be too complicated for politicians to understand, but =
average people get the point. After the Brady Bill, another gun boom =
ensued, as people loaded up in anticipation of further regulations.=20

Public perceptions were right on the money. Without missing a beat, the =
feds banned the domestic manufacture of military-style guns and clips =
holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The result was the biggest =
regulatory backfire of them all. The limited number of "assault" (i.e., =
government-style) weapons still in circulation are selling at twice their =
pre-ban prices. And since it takes more clips to equal the old firepower, =
clip manufacturers are profiting as never before, according to data =
assembled by the Wall Street Journal.=20

Finally, sending the market into overdrive was the threat that gun makers =
will be bankrupted by lawsuits. People saw what the courts did to tobacco =
companies, and what happened to cigarette prices in the aftermath. Unlike =
cigs, guns are not perishable, so people figured they might as well stock =
up now, before judges do to gun makers what they did to cigarette =
makers.=20

The flurry of legislation introduced after the Littleton, Colo., shootings =
(in which the killers paid no attention to all the existing laws) =
underscored the message that government does not want private individuals =
to own guns. The gun industry is benefiting once again from people's fears =
of what government may be prohibiting in the future.=20

Anti-gun fanatics view all this stockpiling as a catastrophe, since their =
goal is the disarming of Americans. But they are caught on the horns of a =
dilemma. Weaving gun bans through the legislative process takes more time =
than the waiting periods and regulatory barriers already enacted into law. =
The existing windows of freedom permit people to defy the intentions of =
the gun banners while there is still time.=20
The countrywide stockpiling now taking place should cheer the hearts of =
even people who have no interest in owning a gun.=20

That is because wide ownership of guns confers what economists call =
"positive externalities" on people who do not wish to own them. For =
example, if you do not own a gun, you still benefit from the perception =
that you may, a perception that can only continue so long as the reality =
of widespread ownership is true. The fear of people willing to fight back =
is what keeps criminals at bay.=20

A massive and detailed literature has proven time again time that the more =
guns that are owned in a community, the less crime that community has to =
put up with. The data are so overwhelming that no reasonable person can =
deny them. (The "Firearms Fact Sheet" should be in every thinking person's =
favorites list). Why, then, does the gun-ban lobby continue to say that =
restrictions on guns are the key to cutting crime?=20
It's time that the ideological orientation of the gun grabbers be examined =
more carefully. Notice that their theory about gun ownership does not =
appear in isolation; it is part of a larger package of political beliefs =
about the role of government in society. Almost to a man, they favor the =
entire big-government/politically-correct agenda. What they want is not a =
disarmed society, but a society where government has a monopoly on gun =
ownership.=20

Consider this shocking reality: the present anti-gun hysteria is taking =
place in the very month in which the federal government's guns have laid =
waste to an entire nation. The U.S. has brought about a large-scale =
massacre in Yugoslavia, and set back its standard of living some fifty =
years. It is a display of brutality that hasn't been seen on Europe's soil =
since the 1940s.=20

Also consider that the Congress' feeble attempt to place controls on the =
warfare state's use of guns has amounted to nothing. Clinton's war was =
defiantly illegal. The White House has put the War Powers Act through a =
shredder, and when a few brave congressmen tried to sue, a federal judge =
(which is to say, a judge in the pay of the Clinton administration) threw =
out the case.=20

This is in keeping with the general principle that criminals don't obey =
the law -- and it doesn't matter whether those criminals are street =
hoodlums or the holders of high elected office. Just as the Littleton =
killers ignored anti-gun statutes already on the books, Washington's war =
party ignored legal strictures designed to restrain their ability to kill =
and destroy.=20

Where are the gun control advocates when it comes to preventing politicians=
 from the unrestrained use of violence and weapons of mass destruction? =
They avert their eyes, because what they want is not a disarmed America, =
but an America in which only criminals in the public sector own guns. In =
short, the attempt to strip regular Americans from owning guns is a =
totalitarian agenda unaffected by any amount of facts and data that =
contradict their claims.=20

Thank goodness for what is left of the free market in guns, which has made =
it possible for people to respond to the threat of gun regulation by =
stockpiling. If we truly value freedom and security, we need not more =
restrictions on private ownership, but repeal of existing restrictions. =
And given recent events in the Balkans, it should be clear that Congress =
needs to pass very severe restrictions on the ability of bureaucrats and =
warmongers to acquire and use weapons.=20

The danger to a free society is not the guns owned by the citizens but an =
unconstrained government, especially one that is better armed than the =
public. An armed society is a self-governing society, just as a disarmed =
people are vulnerable to arbitrary power of every kind.=20


Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute =
in Auburn, Alabama.

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another angle on the CCW debate
Date: 16 Jun 1999 10:11:12 -0600


I will not be able to attend the hearings this afternoon.  However, I did
call several members of the Law Enforcment Committee last night.  The
angle I took was this:

"I'm concerned about what federal laws may come into effect if Utah
changes the validity of CCW permits at schools.  The federal gun free
school act applies not only to schools and the grounds themselves, but
extends 1000' (nearly 1/5 mile or 2 city blocks) in all directions.
Currently, a Utah CCW permit is valid on school grounds so the federal
law doesn't apply to permit holders.  However, I'm worried that if CCW
permits are invalidated at schools, the federal law could come into play
and CCW permit holders would commit a federal felony every time the drove
or walked withing 2 city blocks of a school, day care, pre-school etc.

"This is very concerning to me because I live within 1000' of Mt. Jordan
Middle School.  Now this has seemed to be a fairly decent area and I'm
not terribly concerned about criminals.  But, we do have a huge number of
very large, very potentially dangerous dogs (pit bulls, rottwhilers (sp),
Huskies, dobermans, etc) which are not contained nearly as well as the
should be.  My wife and I do enjoy taking walks in the evening, seeing
the neighborhood and the neighbors, but becuase of the dogs, and bearing
in mind the off-duty police officers who have had to defend themselves
against loose dogs in the last year, we feel it is only prudent to carry
a firearm on these evening walks.  I hope and pray we never need it.
But, I simply am not prepared to see me or my wife end up in the
emergency room over an improperly restained, 90 pound, dog.

"If my permit is no longer valid in school zones, I'm afraid I will
guilty of a federal felony the moment I step off my driveway and onto the
sidewalk for my evening walks.  I don't want to live with a "bunker
mentality" where  I come home at night and hide behind locked doors.  I
want to be out and about and neighborly.  But becuase of these dogs it
simply isn't safe to do so without some means of protection.  I don't
want to have to choose between obeying the law and being a good,
friendly, outgoing neighbor.  If you allow CCW permits to be invalidated
on school grounds, you will turn me from a perfectly respectable,
law-abiding citizen, into a potential federal felon.  Please don't do
that.

"Please remember that the Utah legislature does not work in a vacum and
there are myriad federal laws that could adversly affect us."

You'll note I work in the "bunker mentality" used recently by Pres.
Hinckley and do so in such a way as to show that not having the means to
defend myself is what leads to living behind locked doors.

I also make it clear I am concerned about my wife's safety (even better
if women simply point out they can't stop a dog, etc).  I also change the
focus from criminals to dogs, simply becuase it is more accurate in my
case, and because I think it probably hits home a  little better.
Honestly, most of the legislators (or the rest of us) have never
confronted a criminal.  But who hasn't had close calls with loose dogs.
Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a
criminal attack with a gun.  But we've had a couple of well publicized
cases of at least off-duty cops having to shoot a stray dog that was
attacking.


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: The Hill's Hidden Crime Agenda (CATO Commentary)
Date: 16 Jun 1999 11:05:00 -0700


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


June 15, 1999

The Hill's Hidden Crime Agenda

by Dave Kopel

     Dave Kopel is an adjunct professor at New York University Law
     School and an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

As the House is poised to vote on a major crime bill, the media
can be expected once again to focus only on the bill's gun control
provisions. Unfortunately, by ignoring the other provisions, a
wide variety of dangerous measures may sneak past public scrutiny.

That is just what happened with the recently passed Senate "juvenile
crime bill," S. 254. The bill is laden with provisions to expand
forfeiture, increase wiretapping without warrant, promote drug
testing and immunize police who commit violent crimes from criminal
punishment. When senators are presented with a 648-page-long bill,
few bother to read it. Thus, many senators who voted for S. 254 may
have been unaware that the bill contains a sweeping new forfeiture
provision that allows U.S. attorneys to base forfeiture on
violations of state law -- even misdemeanors.

Currently, there is a special federal forfeiture statute that
applies to the transfer of military information to a foreign
government and any federal crime in which a person is physically
harmed, such as rape or assault. It states that if a convicted
criminal makes money from selling their story of the crime, any
profits from the sale may be forfeited.

S. 254 significantly expands that statute to include any felony,
including state felonies, and any state misdemeanor involving
physical harm. Instead of just applying to profits from the sale of
a criminal's story, the statute as revised by S. 254 would allow
forfeiture of any enhanced value, in any property owned by the
criminal, that resulted from the crime. But the measure ignores the
constitutional fact that forfeitures for state law violations ought
to be determined by state legislatures and carried out by state and
local prosecutors, not by the federal government.

Also buried deep within S. 254 is language that for the first time
allows the police to intercept the content of electronic
communications -- the contents of pager messages -- without a
warrant. Those messages can reveal information about a person's
travel schedule, private life and current location. The bill's
"cloned pager" language is the latest expansion of wiretap authority
to be buried in a large, complex bill where the public, which is
generally skeptical about wiretapping, is not likely to notice.
"Public safety" seems to demand that the public be protected from
any opportunity to debate whether the federal government needs more
power to peek in on the public without a search warrant.

Another section of S. 254 includes provisions to encourage
suspicionless drug testing for students -- even though Littleton
murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, whose rampage was the
pretext for rushing the legislation through Congress, were both
"drug free" according to their autopsies.

Although they ignored the wiretap and drug testing provisions of S.
254, the media did glance at the bill's body armor provisions, but
the media didn't report the provision's details, which turn a
reasonable concept into a very unreasonable law.

S. 254 requires at least a two-sentencing-level increase for any
crime in which the defendant uses body armor. Such an increase can
add as much as 36 months to a defendant's sentence. There is no
requirement that the defendant's "use" be in conjunction with a
violent crime or for any type of offensive purpose. The enhancement
would apply to a liquor store owner who cheats on his taxes while
wearing body armor for protection from robbers.

Reflecting a view of law enforcement that would have horrified the
framers of the Constitution, the bill grants a special exemption
from the body armor sentencing enhancement. The exemption applies
only to law enforcement officers who while "acting under color of
the authority" of law enforcement, "violate the civil rights of a
person." In other words, police officers who wear body armor while
robbing drug dealers, prostitutes and gambling operations are immune
from the sentencing enhancement. So are police officers who rape,
rob or murder while on the job.

So if the police arrest a gun store owner for improper paperwork and
the owner is wearing body armor at the time of his arrest, he may
spend an additional three years in prison. But if the arresting
officers, who are also wearing body armor, rape the arrestee with a
toilet plunger, they are specifically exempt from additional punishment.

If representatives don't even know what is in a bill they're voting
for, they are not really representatives. If Congress is serious
about "law and order," it ought to take the time to read the laws
it is considering before calling a final vote.

(c) 1999 The Cato Institute


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate
Date: 16 Jun 1999 12:41:00 -0700


On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:11:12 -0600 Charles C. Hardy wrote:

>I did call several members of the Law Enforcment Committee last night.
>The angle I took was this:

>"I'm concerned about what federal laws may come into effect if Utah
>changes the validity of CCW permits at schools.  The federal gun free
>school act applies not only to schools and the grounds themselves, but
>extends 1000' (nearly 1/5 mile or 2 city blocks) in all directions.
>Currently, a Utah CCW permit is valid on school grounds so the federal
>law doesn't apply to permit holders.  However, I'm worried that if CCW
>permits are invalidated at schools, the federal law could come into play
>and CCW permit holders would commit a federal felony every time the drove
>or walked withing 2 city blocks of a school, day care, pre-school etc.

How about carrying your firearm to or from your home, or for that matter,
just about anywhere considering the propinquity of schools to most every
street, road and thoroughfare, if you don't have a CCW permit? Even if
there is an exemption, must you always have a story ready about a purchase,
repair, or hunting or target shooting trip?

>very large, very potentially dangerous dogs (pit bulls, rottwhilers (sp),

Rottweiler

>I also change the focus from criminals to dogs, simply becuase it is
>more accurate in my case, and because I think it probably hits home
>a little better.  Honestly, most of the legislators (or the rest of
>us) have never confronted a criminal.

Do you and the legislooters really live such sheltered lives???
Might be an effective slant anyhow, considering that statists
protect criminality as much as possible without making it too
obvious both because of professional courtesy, and to keep the
public psychologically needing the State to "protect them".

>Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a
>criminal attack with a gun.

The SLC Library bomber.

Scott


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Forfeiture Update
Date: 17 Jun 1999 09:32:00 -0700


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

----------

To all -

GOOD NEWS!  Please contact your representative and urge him to SUPPORT
HR 1658, the Asset Forfeiture Reform bill, and make sure it makes it to the
House floor for a full vote.

The following alert came from The Liberty Project.

On Tuesday, June 15, 1999, the bi-partisan civil asset forfeiture reform
bill was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee by an overwhelming
margin of 27-3.

HR 1658 passed out of the Committee in its unaltered form.  Background on
HR 1658 is available by visiting http://www.criminaljustice.org or
http://www.thomas.gov.

The three representatives voting against HR 1658 were:  Rep. Ed Bryant
(R-TN); Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-ARK); and Anthony Weiner (D-NY).

Supporting organizations of HR 1658 which include the Liberty Project, the
NACDL, the ACLU, Cato Institute and Common Sense for Drug Policy hope to
see the bill move quickly to the House floor, but expect a hard fight
against DOJ-drafted amendments.

The time is NOW to encourage all concerned citizens to contact Congress and
voice their support for HR 1658.

The Liberty Project makes it easy for you to contact your House
representative and voice your support for this reform act.  Simply visit
our site at www.libertyproject.org or call toll free 1-877-474-3200.

Thanks for helping us preserve liberty!


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: TO THE POINT: Asset Forfeiture: An Unbroken Line of Broken Constitutional Promises
Date: 17 Jun 1999 09:32:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
  Constitutional Promises

TO THE POINT: A Sutherland Institute Public Policy Perspective
June 15, 1999

Asset Forfeiture: An Unbroken Line of Broken Constitutional Promises
By Maxwell A. Miller and David Harmer

When pressed for legal justification for control of the Panama Canal, Teddy
Roosevelt is said to have remarked: "What's the Constitution among
friends?"  Teddy had a point.  History is replete with government
do-gooders stretching the Constitution for self-proclaimed noble purposes.
Yes, the Constitution can be a pain.  Crime would surely decrease if we
summarily shot accused felons rather than try them -- at public expense, no
less -- but not only does the Constitution forbid it, we would not want it.
 History's lesson is that external restraints against anti-social behavior
-- criminal laws -- become more onerous when societal morality breaks down.

Drug laws are a perfect example.  More than 25 years ago, the Nixon
Administration officially declared a "War on Drugs," no doubt with
humanitarian objectives.  Since then, the war has escalated notwithstanding
dubious results.  Federal and state governments combine to spend over $48
billion annually to combat drugs.  Prisons are filled with non-violent
offenders.  Nonetheless, drug dependence soars, and drug-related crime
represents an increasingly large percentage of all crime.  Bluntly
speaking, the war is a bust, whatever one thinks about its original intent.

Society's answer to this conundrum has been to resurrect property
forfeiture laws, a 19th century relic used to seize property of remote
wrongdoers, like pirates and slave-traders.  Necessity being the mother of
invention, these laws emanated from the absurd notion that property, not a
person, can be guilty of illegal activity.  From that illogical premise it
logically follows that constitutional protections of persons may be
cavalierly jettisoned when mere property is at stake.  Property is
automatically subject to forfeiture if there is "probable cause" (which can
be based on hearsay, innuendo, or self-serving testimony) to believe it was
"used" or "intended for use" by anyone to violate controlled substance
statutes.

Thus triggered, government may seize "guilty" property, even that of
innocent owners, almost at will.  There need be no conviction (or even
arrest) of the real criminal. Standing the principle of "innocent until
proven guilty" on its head, forfeiture laws oblige an innocent owner to
prove that the government should not keep already-seized property.  Faced
with government's overwhelming resources, many owners simply give up.
Forfeiture laws, moreover, spawn corrupt incentives for law enforcement
officials to fund themselves through seizures.

Hyperbole aside, some recent forfeiture examples include:

* Under a Michigan forfeiture statute, a wife whose husband "used" the
family car in order to engage a prostitute lost the car;

* Under a Puerto Rican law, a leasing company, having no knowledge that its
luxury yacht was "used" for illegal drugs, lost its boat;

* Acting under California law, sheriff's deputies shot Donald Scott inside
his own home when he resisted their "lawful" break in.  The district
attorney's report concluded the department, motivated by a chance to seize
a million dollar ranch, had lied about probable cause.

Given the United States Supreme Court's recent ventures at curing societal
ills in the name of constitutional imperatives, some hoped in 1995 the
court would recognize real constitutional rights when it saw them, and
mandate reformation of forfeiture laws.  Unfortunately, in an ironic
reversal of judicial activism, the court abdicated its proper role in a
series of three cases -- and for the flimsiest of circular reasons.  Asset
forfeiture laws, the court said, are "long standing" and have been upheld
in "a long and unbroken line of cases."  Longevity hence trumps
rationality.  Dissenting Justice Stevens more thoughtfully wrote there is
no justification in the court's jurisprudence for "confiscation of an ocean
liner just because one of its passengers sinned while on board."

The Utah Supreme Court has also recently entered the fray over asset
forfeiture.  In 1994, the court ruled that the restraint against excessive
fines under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution limits
Utah's forfeiture law.  True, but that ruling did not acknowledge Utah's
constitution, which recognizes "an inalienable right to ... possess and
protect property."  With that unique language in the Utah Constitution, why
would the Utah Supreme Court mirror what five justices in Washington say
the federal constitution means?

The Utah Legislature has finally shown some interest in reforming asset
forfeiture laws.  Last session, it tabled HB 127, which would have
implemented a modicum of reasonable reforms.  These reforms included
shifting the burden of proof to the state to justify forfeiture by clear
and convincing evidence, and preventing seizure cases from being
transferred to the federal government to circumvent Utah's laws.  Would-be
recipients of forfeited assets argued such reforms would cost local
government over $6 million.  Strange that even under present law, forfeited
assets should be deposited with the Division of Finance, which claims never
to have received a penny of the $6 million.  A legislative audit is
currently being conducted, but as Teddy might have shrugged, what's an
audit among friends?

# # # # # #

Maxwell A. Miller is a shareholder in the law firm of Parsons Behle &
Latimer, and is a trustee of the Sutherland Institute, a Utah public policy
research institute. David Harmer is an attorney with Riddle & Associates
and is an adjunct policy specialist with the Sutherland Institute.  Their
views do not necessarily represent the views of their employers. Permission
to reprint this article in whole or in part is granted provided credit is
given to the authors and to the Sutherland Institute.

For more information about the Sutherland Institute and/or to order
additional copies of this article, call the Institute office, (801)
281-2081, or write: The Sutherland Institute, 111 E. 5600 South, Suite 208,
Murray, UT  84107.  Fax: [phone]; e-mail: [e-mail];
web address: www.sutherlandinstitute.org.  Nothing written here is to be
construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Sutherland Institute,
as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation, or as an
endorsement of any candidate or initiative.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: State Leg Interim Committee on law enforcement & crim justice 6/16/99 mtg
Date: 17 Jun 1999 09:32:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
 mtg

I saw no other Libertarians in the packed committee room where numerous
citizens spoke out, some eloquently, in favor of 2nd Amdmt rights and
against more govt. infringement.

A chilling presentation was made by two from the state Health Dept. and Div.
of Mental health, the thrust of which was that about the only predictor of
violent behavior by the insane is their prior history of such violence, that
the mentally ill are no more violence-prone than 'normal' people, but - and
here's the chilling aspect - they have proposals for the legislature to:

a) institute FORCED MEDICATION on the state-certified mentally ill

b) establish (initially) 2 MOBILE TEAMS to search out and apprehend for
forced medication the state-certified mentally ill who don't comply with
doctors orders (more SWAT-style teams to be added later)

c) create a new MENTAL HEALTH COURT SYSTEM to enforce "Assertive Community
Treatment". (These plans-in-the making brought to my mind the Soviet Communist
gulag system where enemies of the state were declared insane and hauled off to
Siberian prison camps).

And they have a list of 200 Utah residents upon whom they are ready to
pounce if the laws were in place to allow it.  There was a further string of
full-employment-for-bureaucrats previsions proposed by the state bureaucrats
testifying.

But THE HIGHLIGHT of this stuffy hearing was a stirring, eloquent, assertive,
well-reasoned and principled defense of the 2nd Amendment by Scott Engen of
Gun Owners of Utah.  (If this e-mail gets to Mr. Engen or GOUTAH, I would
really like to have a transcript of his testimony).

These are dangerous times for liberty (and tax-rates) in Utah.  What happens
to 2nd Amendment rights here will be a bellwether for the nation which sees
Utah (however wrongly) as a paragon of conservative and constitutional values.
The 1999 special session and citizens' attention and reaction to it will show
whether Utahns want and deserve Freedom.

A 3rd Committee meeting will be scheduled.


 6/16/99 mtg

Well I am a fellow Libertarian and I was in the committee room with you.
It looks like the Health Department is willing to help with setting up a
database of citizens that have been committed as long as they are given
funds to promote their own agenda. There where also talks of mental health
courts and special gun courts, nobody wants to fix the court system we have
they just want to have another reason to increase the size of government.

It seems to me that this is so slow moving that as long as we stay united
we can kill anything that comes down the pipe.




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate
Date: 18 Jun 1999 08:18:00 -0700


As requested. I responded to both LPU and utah-firearms because
Charles originally posted it to both.

Scott

----------

Scott,

Please pass along to anyplace else you posted your response to me.  Thank
you.

On Wed, 16 Jun 99 12:41:00 -0700 [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
writes:
>How about carrying your firearm to or from your home, or for that matter,
>just about anywhere considering the propinquity of schools to most every
>street, road and thoroughfare, if you don't have a CCW permit? Even if
>there is an exemption, must you always have a story ready about a purchase,
>repair, or hunting or target shooting trip?

I would suggest consulting with a legal professional or at least someone
far more knowledgable than I about specifics of federal law.  However,
having said that, my understanding is that so long as the gun is unloaded
and cased, or disassembled, etc, it may be freely transported even
through the 1000' perimeter of schools.  Further, I believe the Federal
law makes an exemption for a CCW permit that requires a criminal
background check so the gun may be carried according to the provisions of
the permit.  I am unclear as to how the federal law handles CCW permits
that are specifically not valid on school grounds.  I don't know whether
it is still permissable to CCW in the 1000' buffer area or not.  Hence my
concern to lawmakers.

>Rottweiler

Thank you.

>Do you and the legislooters really live such sheltered lives???

I don't know that you'd call it sheltered.  What is the current
percentage of people who have ever been the victim of a violent or other
crime against the person (rapes, mugging, assaults etc)?  What is the
current percentage of *anglo men* who have ever been the victim of one of
these crimes?  What is the percentage of *anglo men*, raised in Utah over
the age of 30 or even 40 who have ever been the victim of one of these
crimes?  I, and most of our legislators are anglo men raised in Utah.
Most of them are well over the age of 30.

While I have been the victim of a few property crimes (but I sure can't
convince myself, let alone anyone else, that CCW would have had any
effect of whether or not an unattended car was burglarized), and
witnessed a couple altercations between long standing acquantances, I've
been blessed to never have been the victim of any kind of violent or
other crime committed against my person.  But, I am a healthy anglo male,
somewhat taller than average, grew up in rural Utah in a county that
averaged less than one murder a year, I generally avoid areas (and times)
known for trouble, do my best to keep a keen eye for potential trouble
when I am out and about, avoid the display of cash or valuables at such
times, etc.  IOW, I'm probably not the "easiest" target out there so
criminals are likely to pass me up for someone who will give them less
trouble.

>Might be an effective slant anyhow, considering that statists
>protect criminality as much as possible without making it too
>obvious both because of professional courtesy, and to keep the
>public psychologically needing the State to "protect them".

>>Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a
>>criminal attack with a gun.

>The SLC Library bomber.

While you and I consider that a fine example, I believe the citizen was
an off-duty LEO, which in the minds of the statists doesn't count.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate
Date: 18 Jun 1999 08:18:00 -0700


On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:19:08 -0600 Charles C. Hardy wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jun 99 12:41:00 -0700 [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
>writes:
>>How about carrying your firearm to or from your home, or for that matter,
>>just about anywhere considering the propinquity of schools to most every
>>street, road and thoroughfare, if you don't have a CCW permit? Even if
>>there is an exemption, must you always have a story ready about a purchase,
>>repair, or hunting or target shooting trip?

>I would suggest consulting with a legal professional or at least someone
>far more knowledgable than I about specifics of federal law.  However,
>having said that, my understanding is that so long as the gun is unloaded
>and cased, or disassembled, etc, it may be freely transported even
>through the 1000' perimeter of schools.  Further, I believe the Federal
>law makes an exemption for a CCW permit that requires a criminal
>background check so the gun may be carried according to the provisions of
>the permit.  I am unclear as to how the federal law handles CCW permits
>that are specifically not valid on school grounds.  I don't know whether
>it is still permissable to CCW in the 1000' buffer area or not.  Hence my
>concern to lawmakers.

The specific exemption to which I referred was to homeowners and renters
living within 1000' of a school perimeter. I hope you are correct about
unloaded and cased guns, though that doesn't help much if you need self
defense. Have you looked at a map to see the coverage of area and travel
routes these free fire zones for criminals enjoy? How does Vermont deal
with this federal edict?

>>Do you and the legislooters really live such sheltered lives???

>I don't know that you'd call it sheltered.  What is the current
>percentage of people who have ever been the victim of a violent or other
>crime against the person (rapes, mugging, assaults etc)?  What is the
>current percentage of *anglo men* who have ever been the victim of one of
>these crimes?  What is the percentage of *anglo men*, raised in Utah over
>the age of 30 or even 40 who have ever been the victim of one of these
>crimes?  I, and most of our legislators are anglo men raised in Utah.
>Most of them are well over the age of 30.

Beats me. ;-) I believe the FBI compiles such statistics. Perhaps my
experience isn't typical for Utahns since I have lived outside of Utah,
but a close friend was mugged IN Utah, and I seem to recall you lived in
or near Boston for a while. OTOH, I can't recall getting bested by a dog
since I was 5 years old, and few propose arming 5-year-olds with guns.

>I've been blessed to never have been the victim of any kind of violent or
>other crime committed against my person.  But, I am a healthy anglo male,
>somewhat taller than average, grew up in rural Utah in a county that
>averaged less than one murder a year, I generally avoid areas (and times)
>known for trouble, do my best to keep a keen eye for potential trouble
>when I am out and about, avoid the display of cash or valuables at such
>times, etc.  IOW, I'm probably not the "easiest" target out there so
>criminals are likely to pass me up for someone who will give them less
>trouble.

I'm glad your rural Utah experience in a low crime area, combined with
street smarts, continued in Massachusetts. They say that God created men,
and Col. Colt made them equal. This may apply even more to men (species)
of the female persuasion.

>>>Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a
>>>criminal attack with a gun.

>>The SLC Library bomber.

>While you and I consider that a fine example, I believe the citizen was
>an off-duty LEO, which in the minds of the statists doesn't count.

Odd this would bother you, since the best-publicized case of defense
against dogs involved an LEO. See Chris Kierst's civilian examples.

Scott



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: FW: Another angle on the CCW debate-Reply w/3 local examples
Date: 18 Jun 1999 08:18:00 -0700


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

In response to the following exchange between Charles and Scott:

>>>Further, I'm unaware of any publicized cases of Utahns stopping a
>>>criminal attack with a gun.

>>The SLC Library bomber.

>While you and I consider that a fine example, I believe the citizen was
>an off-duty LEO, which in the minds of the statists doesn't count.

Example 1 - A local publicized instance of an armed citizen thwarting a
robbery attempt can be found in a 2/3/97 article in the Salt Lake Tribune
by Dan Egan entitled "Man Fleeing Police Loses Leg" in which a crook tried
to fool three men headed out on a hunting expedition into believing that
The Club (the car locking device, which he had concealed under his jacket!!!)
was a gun.  While one of the hunters was pulling money from his pocket
another was pulling out his concealed 9mm.  The (as yet uninjured) crook
shagged, jumping into his nearby parked car.  The hunters got the plates
and notified the cops who identified the car as stolen.  10 minutes later
the cops located the crook outside the car and tried to capture him.  He
tried to escape by jumping a freight but fell between the cars, losing a
leg.  This crook was no Einstein.  Records revealed that on a previous
occasion he had wounded himself in the foot after stealing a rifle.

Example 2 - Salt Lake Tribune article of 7/10/96 in which a 17 year old boy
broke into an occupied  residence through an open window.  The 35 year old
homeowner attempted to call the cops but the kid jerked the phone and chucked
it out the window.  The older man ran into his room, fetched a gun from a
drawer and shot the kid, puttng him in the hospital.

Example 3 - Salt Lake Tribune article of 2/16/96 by Taylor Syphus (Special to
the Tribune) entitled "Springville Man Recovers Stolen Car After Wild Ride"
in which a 21 year old man returned his mom's stolen Nissan Pathfinder after
clinging to the side of the vehicle after spotting it in a parking lot with
3 teenagers (1 was 18 and the others were 17) aboard.  He wouldn't let go
despite the kids driving off.  While they tried to splatter him on concrete
overpass supports his plight was noticed by an armed citizen motorist who
eventually forced the SUV over with his PU, covering the car thieves with
his .38 pistol while calling the cops with his cellphone.  The deliquents
had a record of other offenses including car burglary and theft.  Will this
do for the short run?



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: The Washington Times - Opinion
Date: 18 Jun 1999 08:18:00 -0700


http://www.washtimes.com/opinion/ed3.html

Published in Washington, D.C.
5am -- June 16, 1999

Disarming good people

Editor's note: The following is an open letter from 287 economists, law-school
professors and other academics to Congress, regarding gun-control legislation
before the House of Representatives. Some but not all of the names of the
signatories appear here.

After the tragic attacks at public schools over the last two years, there is an
understandable desire to "do something." Yet, none of the proposed legislation
would have prevented the recent violence. The current debate focuses only on the
potential benefits from new gun control laws and ignores the fact that these
laws can have some very real adverse effects. Good intentions don't necessarily
make good laws. What counts is whether the laws will ultimately save lives,
prevent injury, and reduce crime. Passing laws based upon their supposed
benefits while ignoring their costs poses a real threat to people's lives and
safety.

These gun control laws will primarily be obeyed by law-abiding citizens and
risk making it less likely that good people have guns compared to criminals.
Deterrence is important and disarming good people relative to criminals will
increase the risk of violent crime. If we really care about saving lives we must
focus not only on the newsworthy events where bad things happen, but also on
the bad things that never happen because people are able to defend themselves.

Few people would voluntarily put up a sign in front of their homes stating,
"This home is a gun-free zone." The reason is very simple. Just as we can
deter criminals with higher arrest or conviction rates, the fact that would-be
victims might be able to defend themselves also deters attacks. Not only do
guns allow individuals to defend themselves, they also provide some protection
to citizens who choose not to own guns since criminals would not normally know
who can defend themselves before they attack.

The laws currently being considered by Congress ignore the importance of
deterrence. Police are extremely important at deterring crime, but they
simply cannot be everywhere. Individuals also benefit from being able to
defend themselves with a gun when they are confronted by a criminal.

Let us illustrate some of the problems with the current debate.

The Clinton administration wants to raise the age at which citizens can possess
a handgun to 21, and they point to the fact that 18- and 19-year-olds commit
gun crimes at the highest rate. Yet, Department of Justice numbers indicate
that 18- and 19-year-olds are also the most likely victims of violent crimes
including murder, rape, robbery with serious injury, and aggravated assault.
The vast majority of those committing crimes in this age group are members of
gangs and are already breaking the law by having a gun. This law will
primarily apply to law-abiding 18-to-21-year-olds and make it difficult for
them to defend themselves.

Waiting periods can produce a cooling-off period. But they also have real
costs. Those threatened with harm may not be able to quickly obtain a gun
for protection.

Gun locks may prevent some accidental gun deaths, but they will make it
difficult for people to defend themselves from attackers. We believe that
the risks of accidental gun deaths, particularly those involving young
children, have been greatly exaggerated. In 1996, there were 44 accidental
gun deaths for children under age 10. This exaggeration risks threatening
people's safety if it incorrectly frightens some people from having a gun in
their home even though that is actually the safest course of action.

Trade-offs exist with other proposals such as prison sentences for adults
whose guns are misused by someone under 18 and rules limiting the number
of guns people can purchase. No evidence has been presented to show that
the likely benefits of such proposals will exceed their potential costs.

With the 20,000 gun laws already on the books, we advise Congress, before
enacting yet more new laws, to investigate whether many of the existing laws
may have contributed to the problems we currently face. The new legislation
is ill-advised.

Sincerely,

Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University; Charles W. Baird, California
State University, Hayward; Randy E. Barnett, Boston University; Bruce L.
Benson, Florida State University; Michael Block, University of Arizona;
Walter Block, Thomas Borcherding, Claremont Graduate School; Frank H. Buckley,
George Mason University; Colin D. Campbell, Dartmouth College; Robert J.
Cottrol, George Washington University; Preston K. Covey, Carnegie Mellon
University; Mark Crain, George Mason University; Tom DiLorenzo, Loyola College
in Maryland; Paul Evans, Ohio State University; R. Richard Geddes, Fordham
University; Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas; John Heineke, Santa Clara
University; David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Melvin
J. Hinich, University of Texas, Austin; Lester H. Hunt, University of
Wisconsin - Madison; James Kau, University of Georgia; Kenneth N. Klee, UCLA;
David Kopel, New York University; Stanley Liebowitz, University of Texas at
Dallas; Luis Locay, University of Miami; John R. Lott, Jr., University of
Chicago; Geoffrey A. Manne, University of Virginia; John Matsusaka, University
of Southern California; Fred McChesney, Cornell University; Jeffrey A. Miron,
Boston University; Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary; Craig M.
Newmark, North Carolina State University; Jeffrey S. Parker, George Mason
University; Dan Polsby, Northwestern University; Keith T. Poole, Carnegie-Mellon
University; Douglas B. Rasmussen, St. John's University; Glenn Reynolds,
University of Tennessee; John R. Rice, Duke University; Russell Roberts,
Washington University; Randall W. Roth, Univ. of Hawaii; Charles Rowley,
George Mason University; Allen R. Sanderson, University of Chicago; William F.
Shughart II, University of Mississippi; Thomas Sowell, Stanford University;
Richard Stroup, Montana State University; Robert D. Tollison, University of
Mississippi; Eugene Volokh, UCLA; Michael R. Ward, University of Illinois;
Benjamin Zycher, UCLA; Todd Zywicki, George Mason University.

Copyright 1999 News World Communications, Inc.



-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another angle on the CCW debate
Date: 18 Jun 1999 11:31:25 -0600

On Fri, 18 Jun 99 08:18:00 -0700 [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
writes:
>The specific exemption to which I referred was to homeowners and
>renters
>living within 1000' of a school perimeter. I hope you are correct
>about
>unloaded and cased guns, though that doesn't help much if you need
>self
>defense. Have you looked at a map to see the coverage of area and
>travel
>routes these free fire zones for criminals enjoy?

Haven't actually looked at a map, but I live in that 1000' zone.  Once I
leave it, I drive through at least 4 more that I know of just getting to
work.  And that doesn't count all the day cares and private preschools
that I don't know about.  Obviously, in the State with the highest
percapita number of children, we probably have the highest percapita
number of schools.  It is probably all but impossible to go anywhere of
importance in this county without passing through several school zones.

>How does Vermont
>deal
>with this federal edict?

I haven't the foggiest, but suspect they simply don't arrest, and thus
don't prosecute people who are peacably carrying guns.

>Beats me. ;-) I believe the FBI compiles such statistics. Perhaps my
>experience isn't typical for Utahns since I have lived outside of
>Utah,
>but a close friend was mugged IN Utah, and I seem to recall you lived
>in
>or near Boston for a while. OTOH, I can't recall getting bested by a
>dog
>since I was 5 years old, and few propose arming 5-year-olds with
>guns.

Yup, 4 years in Cambridge.  I consider myself blessed to have been spared
criminal problems.  Of course, the Lord does help those who help
themselves, and I did my best to take prudent measures within the realm
of what the law allowed.  I also have never had problems with a dog.  But
the visible and audible threat is there every time I walk my
neighborhood.  I believe similar situations exist for many of our
legiscritters.  Further, the natural adversion to killing a human makes
many people adverse to even considering the need to ever do so, IMHO.
OTOH, far fewer people have any strong adversion to putting down an
attacking dog.  So I don't sound like so much of a cowboy or hot shot if
I talk about the need to protect myself and family from dogs than I do if
I talk about "plugging criminal scum."  I'm not suggesting this is the
best or only approach to take on this issue.  I'm only saying it seems to
have been well received by the legislators I've talked to so far--better
than my older approach of talking about criminals.

>
>Odd this would bother you, since the best-publicized case of defense
>against dogs involved an LEO. See Chris Kierst's civilian examples.

It isn't that it bothers me.  It's that legislators are quick to dismiss
it.  Once again, even though the dog case involved an LEO, it does seem
to be better received.  I'm not relating what "should" be, only what I
have experieced.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: More Gun Controls? They Haven't Worked in the Past
Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700


Wall Street Journal
June 17, 1999

O p - E d
More Gun Controls?
They Haven't Worked in the Past.

By John R. Lott Jr., a fellow in law and economics at the University of
Chicago School of Law. He is author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding
Crime and Gun Control Laws" (University of Chicago Press, 1998).

Everyone from President Clinton to the hosts of the "Today Show" attributes
the recent wave of school violence to the greater accessibility of guns.
Gun-control groups claim that today "guns are less regulated than toasters
or teddy bears." Proposed solutions range from banning those under 21 from
owning guns to imprisoning adults whose guns are misused by minors. Today
the House will consider yet another measure, this one requiring a waiting
period and background check for anyone wishing to make a purchase at a gun
show.

Such legislation might make sense if guns had indeed become easier to
obtain in recent years. Yet the truth is precisely the opposite. Gun
availability has never before been as restricted as it is now. As late as
1967, it was possible for a 13-year-old virtually anywhere in the U.S. to
walk into a hardware store and buy a rifle. Few states even had age
restrictions for buying handguns from a store. Buying a rifle through the
mail was easy. Private transfers of guns to juveniles were also unrestricted.

But nowhere were guns more common than at schools. Until 1969, virtually
every public high school in New York City had a shooting club. High-school
students carried their guns to school on the subways in the morning, turned
them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved them after
school for target practice. The federal government even gave students rifles
and paid for their ammunition. Students regularly competed in citywide
shooting contests, with the winners being awarded university scholarships.

Since the 1960s, however, the growth of federal gun control has been dramatic.
Federal gun laws, which contained 19,907 words in 1960, have more than
quadrupled to 88,413 words today. By contrast, in 1930 all federal gun-control
laws amounted to only 3,571 words.

The growth in state laws has kept pace. By 1997 California's gun-control
statutes contained an incredible 158,643 words-nearly as many as the King
James version of the New Testament-and still another 12 statutes are being
considered in this legislative session. Even "gun friendly" states like
Texas have lengthy gun-control provisions. None of this even begins to
include the burgeoning local regulations on everything from licensing to
mandatory gun locks.

The fatuity of gun-control laws is nowhere better illustrated than in
Virginia, where high-school students in rural areas have a long tradition
of going hunting in the morning. The state Legislature tried but failed to
enact an exemption to a federal law banning guns within 1,000 feet of a
school, as prosecutors find it crazy to send good kids to jail simply
because they had a rifle locked in the trunk of their car while it was
parked in the school parking lot. Yet the current attempts by Congress to
"put teeth" into the laws by mandating prosecutions will take away this
prosecutorial discretion and produce harmful and unintended results.

But would stricter laws at least reduce crime by taking guns out of the
hands of criminals? Not one academic study has shown that waiting periods
and background checks have reduced crime or youth violence. The Brady bill,
widely touted by its supporters as a landmark in gun control, has produced
virtually no convictions in five years. And no wonder: Disarming potential
victims (those likely to obey the gun laws) relative to criminals (those
who almost by definition will not obey such laws) makes crime more
attractive and more likely.

This commonsense observation is backed by the available statistical evidence.
Gun-control laws have noticeably reduced gun ownership in some states, with
the result that for each 1% reduction in gun ownership there was a 3%
increase in violent crime. Nationally, gun-ownership rates throughout the
1960s and '70s remained fairly constant, while the rates of violent crime
skyrocketed. In the 1990s gun ownership has grown at the same time as we
have witnessed dramatic reductions in crime.

Yet with no academic evidence that gun regulations prevent crime, and plenty
of indications that they actually encourage it, we nonetheless are now
debating which new gun control laws to pass. With that in mind, 290 scholars
from institutions as diverse as Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, the
University of Pennsylvania and UCLA released an open letter to Congress
yesterday stating that the proposed new gun laws are ill-advised: "With the
20,000 gun laws already on the books, we advise Congress, before enacting
yet more new laws, to investigate whether many of the existing laws may
have contributed to the problems we currently face."

It thus would appear that at the very least gun-control advocates face
something of a dilemma. If guns are the problem, why was it that when guns
were really accessible, even inside schools by students, we didn't have the
problems that plague us now?

Copyright 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #17 - 17 June 1999
Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700


----------
GOUtah!
Gun Owners of Utah

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

Visit our website at www.slpsa.org/goutah!

GOUtah! Alert #17 - 17 June 1999

Today's Maxim of Liberty:

"...The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been
considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers
a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and
will generally, even if successful in the first instance, enable the people
to resist and triumph over them."-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story,
writing in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833.

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

U.S. House Gun Control Debate and Vote Status Report

The US House of Representatives will be voting on Federal gun control
legislation on Thursday, 17 June 1999. You must pick up the phone RIGHT NOW
and call both the Washington DC and SLC offices of each of the Utah
Congressional Delegation listed and demand they vote against any gun
control measures now before the House. DO IT RIGHT NOW! Their phone
numbers are listed below.

Call your U.S. Congressman TODAY!

Congressional District 1: Northern and Western Utah, except Salt Lake Metro

Rep. Jim Hansen (R)
242 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail: www.house.gov
click on Members and select Jim Hansen

Local Office: 324-25th Ave.
Ogden, Utah 84401
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax: [phone]

Congressional District 2: Salt Lake Metro Area

Rep. Merrill Cook (R)
1431 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0001
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Local Office: 125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84138
Utah Phone: [phone]

Congressional District 3: Central and Eastern Utah

Rep. Chris Cannon (R)
118 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4403
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Local Offices: 51 South University Drive
Provo, Utah 84606
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax [phone]


Utah Legislative Committees Report and Status

On Wednesday, June 16, the Joint Law Enforcement Committee of the Utah
State Legislature held an interim meeting to discuss various topics
regarding the expansion of gun control laws in Utah. Scott Engen, Director
of Policy for GOUtah!, presented testimony to the committee. Scott, who
had to leave shortly afterwards to travel to Atlanta to compete in the U.S.
National Championships of Free Pistol and Air Pistol, will elaborate on the
proceedings of the Joint Committee's meeting in a future GOUtah! Alert.

GOUtah! Activist N. William Clayton attended an interim meeting of the
Joint Judiciary Committee. Here is his report:

The Joint Judiciary Committee heard testimony from several individuals,
mostly representing various bureaucracies of the state government. Topics
included access to firearms by mentally ill individuals, expanding state law
to prohibit people who have been convicted of "violent misdemeanors" from
owning firearms, and codifying portions of the common law to make it easier
to sue gun owners, gun retailers, and gun manufacturers. The topic of guns
in schools was not on the agenda, as that is the purview of the Education
Committee. However, this issue ended up taking center stage for a while,
despite the best efforts of the committee chairman to keep people off it.

One of the more interesting bits of testimony was given by Camille Anthony,
who works in the Governor's Office. Gov. Mike Leavitt assembled a special
commission on "gun violence" to come up with proposals to submit to the
State Legislature, in the hope that these proposals will become law during
a yet-to-be approved special session of the Legislature sometime this fall.

Ms. Anthony was on this committee, and presented a summary of its
recommendations. She mentioned in passing that the committee had
recommended that police officers be placed in all public schools on a
full-time basis, and that these officers be given specialized training in
"early identification" of potential troublemakers and be instructed on "how
various materials used in school construction react to bullets." According
to Ms. Anthony, one of the duties of school police officers would be to "do
searches". Other recommendations made by the Governor's Commission
included increased use of surveillance cameras and metal detectors in
schools, volunteer "parent patrols" in and around schools, and the
designation of all public schools and school grounds as completely
"gun-free zones", where nobody, not even holders of concealed-carry
permits, would be allowed to possess firearms. During the ensuing Q&A
session, one legislator asked whether police officers assigned to school
duty would be exempted from the proposed ban on guns in schools. He noted
that the report of the Governor's Commission did not mention any exceptions
to the proposed "gun-free" policy. Would policemen be exempt? Ms. Anthony
responded by saying that this issue had not been considered by the
commission, because they had simply "[taken] it for granted that police
officers would be exempt." Legislators responded by asking whether this
exemption would extend to off-duty officers who attend PTA meetings in
school buildings. Ms. Anthony said that the commission had not considered
such details, but that she assumed that off-duty officers would probably be
exempt. What about judges and prosecutors who carry guns? Could they have
their guns with them when they drop off their kids at school? Again, Ms.
Anthony said that the commission hadn't considered this, but speculated
that judges and prosecutors might be exempt from the ban, because they have
"extra gun training" compared with ordinary holders of concealed carry
permits. What about members of the proposed "parent patrols"? Would those
with carry permits be exempt? Again, Ms. Anthony said that the commission
had not discussed this. One legislator asked whether a police officer has
a greater right to personal safety while on school property than an
ordinary concealed-weapon permit holder. She said that the commission had
not considered such details.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #17 2/2
Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Virtually every bureaucrat who testified indicated support for the
Governor's proposal to ban the possession of firearms by persons convicted
of "violent misdemeanors" and "gun-related misdemeanors" such as
concealed-carry violations, brandishing, and "terrorist threats." Thus,
for example, someone without a concealed carry permit who puts an unloaded
pistol in an unlocked box in the back of his sport utility vehicle and
transports it to the shooting range could be convicted of illegally
carrying a concealed firearm, and could be permanently prohibited from
owning a gun. Paul Boyden, the executive director of the Statewide
Association of Prosecutors, said that the legislature should simply obtain
a list of all misdemeanor offences currently on the books and go through
it, selecting the misdemeanors that should disqualify someone from owning a
gun. Although such a list might start out small, he indicated that the
legislature "can always expand the list" in future sessions. However,
Brian Miller of the Utah Division of Mental Health obliquely suggested that
the list be constrained to encompass only violent misdemeanors committed by
mentally ill people.

I came away from the meeting with the following impressions:

1) A substantial number of legislators in the committee appeared less
enthusiastic about the prospect of a special session than they were last
month. The amount of work that would be needed to craft the proposed
legislation and iron out the details in preparation for such a session
would be enormous. Even one anti-gun legislator appeared disgruntled with
the proposed process for doing this. One representative said "why don't we
just wait until the regular January session?" The Governor and the local
media will keep pressing the Legislature to convene a special session,
continued pressure from pro-liberty activists could tilt the balance in our
favor. Please contact your state legislators and tell them that you are
opposed to a special session. A full list of legislators can be found at
the GOUtah! Web site, shown at the top of page 1 of this alert.

2) The "guns in schools" hysteria may be starting to wane a bit among
legislators. It has certainly not waned enough to prevent bad legislation
from passing, but it has waned enough to give us hope that we can tilt the
balance by continuing to make our voices heard. During the meeting,
legislators intelligently discussed the issue, and many of them seemed to
be aware that teachers, parents, and school principals who hold
concealed-carry permits are not a hazard to public safety. However, the
Governor, the major local newspapers and television stations, all major
religious establishments in Utah (including the LDS Church), and a large
majority of voters (probably due to naivete) still support the "gun-free
school zones" concept. However, legislators tend to pay attention to
people who make the effort to write to them, so YOU can make a difference
by contacting your state representative and state senator and telling them
that you have as much right to self-defense when you go to a PTA meeting as
does an off-duty policeman. We have a long row to hoe here, but there is
hope that we can derail this thing if we keep the cards, letters, e-mails,
and phone calls coming into the offices of our elected officials. Keep up
the letters to editors of local newspapers as well, as this is a good way
to influence public opinion.

3) The legislators' lack of opposition to the idea of prohibiting firearms
ownership for those who have committed misdemeanors is alarming. Please
tell your legislators that you don't think that a misdemeanor should
disqualify you from exercising your Second-Amendment rights, any more than
you think that people convicted of misdemeanors should be prohibited from
voting.

Pro-Gun Constitutional Seminar Scheduled by Utah Republican Assembly for 26
June in Orem, Utah.

The Utah Republican Assembly (URA), a conservative, Constitution-based wing of
the Utah Republican Party, will host a constitutional workshop on Saturday, 26
June 1999 in the Ballroom of the Sorenson Student Center at Utah Valley State
College in Orem. The program will begin promptly at 9:00AM, and URA asks
attendees to arrive a half-hour early for registration and seating.

David Harmer, J.D., will be conducting a seminar on Second Amendment
issues. Other issues such as states rights and asset forfeiture will also
be covered. Cost for the program will be $30.00 per person, and $15.00 for
spouses or partners. To register or for additional information, contact
Vona Hunsaker at [phone] or Joe Ferguson at [phone].

As an independent, non-partisan gun rights organization, GOUtah! has not
reviewed the URA program content, has no political connection the URA, and
receives no economic benefit from URA or this program. This notice appears
only for the benefit of our activists.

GOUtah! Takes Message to Radio Listeners Statewide.

Members of the GOUtah have recently been guests on a number of local and
statewide radio programs dealing with the gun rights and gun control issues.
Among our recent efforts were two half-hour interviews with Metro Networks,
which will air early Sunday mornings on a number of stations around the
state. Tune in and hear what GOUtah! is doing for you and your gun rights.

GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch

"We can always expand this list in the future."

-- Paul Boyden, Executive Director of the Statewide Association of
Prosecutors, testifying before the Joint Judiciary Committee of the Utah
State Legislature. Mr. Boyden was referring to the proposed creation of a
"small" list of misdemeanor offenses which would prohibit a person from
owning a firearm in the state of Utah.

"There is no limit to the creativity that can be employed in this arena."

-- A representative of the Utah Trial Lawyers Association, testifying
before the Joint Judiciary Committee. This man, whose name we didn't
catch, was referring to the use of civil law suits to go after gun owners,
gun dealers, and gun manufacturers.

"We took it for granted that the police would be exempt."

-- Camille Anthony, an assistant to Gov. Mike Leavitt, explaining why the
Governor's Commission on Gun Violence neglected, in its final report to the
Legislature, to explicitly exempt police officers from the Governor's
proposed ban on firearms in schools.

If you have a gun rights quote you'd like to share, please send it, along
with a verifiable original source reference to GOUtah!

That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #17, 17 June
1999. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending
your firearms rights. Remember that getting this information is meaningless
unless YOU ACT ON IT TODAY. If you just read it and dump it in the trash,
your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash
with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal! Copyright 1999 by GOUtah!
All rights reserved.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: We Are Training Our Kids to Kill 1/3
Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700


----------
We Are Training Our Kids to Kill
by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

Saturday Evening Post - July/August 1999, pgs. 64-72

I am from Jonesboro, Arkansas. I travel the world training medical, law
enforcement, and U.S. military personnel about the realities of warfare. I
try to make those who carry deadly force keenly aware of the magnitude of
killing. Too many law enforcement and military personnel act like "cowboys,"
never stopping to think about who they are and what they are called to do.
I hope I am able to give them a reality check. So here I am, a world
traveler and an expert in the field of "killology," when the (then) largest
school massacre in American history happens in my hometown of Jonesboro,
Arkansas. That was the March 24, 1998, schoolyard shooting deaths of four
girls and a teacher. Ten others were injured and two boys, ages 11 and 13
were jailed, charged with murder.

Virus of Violence

To understand the why behind the Littleton, Jonesboro, Springfield, Pearl
and Paducah, and all the other outbreaks of this "virus of violence," we
need first to understand the magnitude of the problem. The per capita murder
rate doubled in this country between 1957; when the FBI started keeping
track of the data; and 1992. A fuller picture of the problem, however, is
indicated by the rate at which people are attempting to kill one another;
the aggravated assault rate. That rate in America has gone from around 60
per 100,000 in 1957 to over 440 per 100,000 in the middle of this decade.
As bad as this is, it would be much worse were it not for two major factors.

The first is the increased imprisonment of violent offenders. The prison
population in America nearly quadrupled between 1975 and 1992. According to
criminologist John A. DiIulio, "dozens of credible empirical analyses . . .
leave no doubt that the increased use of prisons averted millions of
serious crimes." If it were not for our tremendous imprisonment rate (the
highest of any industrialized nation), the aggravated assault rate and the
murder rate would undoubtedly be even higher.

The second factor keeping the murder rate from being even worse is medical
technology. According to the U.S. Army Medical Service Corps, a wound that
would have killed nine out of ten soldiers in World War II, nine out of ten
could have survived in Vietnam. Thus, by a very conservative estimate, if
we still had a 1940-level medical technology today, our murder rate would
be ten times higher than it is. The murder rate has been held down by the
development of sophisticated lifesaving skills and techniques, such as
helicopter medevacs, 911 operators, paramedics, CPR, trauma centers, and
medicines.

Today, both our assault rate and murder rate are at phenomenally high levels.
Both are increasing worldwide. In Canada, according to their Center for
Justice, per capita assaults increased almost fivefold between 1964 and
1993, attempted murder increased nearly sevenfold, and murders doubled.
Similar trends can be seen in other countries in the per capita violent
crime rates reported to Interpol between 1977 and 1993. In Australia and
New Zealand, the assault rate increased approximately fourfold, and the
murder rate nearly doubled in both nations. The assault rate tripled in
Sweden and approximately doubled in Belgium, Denmark and England and Wales,
France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Scotland. Meanwhile, all these nations
had an associated (but smaller) increase in murder.

This virus of violence is occurring worldwide. The explanation for it has
to be some new factor that is occurring in all of these countries. There
are many factors involved, and none should be discounted: for example, the
prevalence of guns in our society. But violence is rising in many nations
with Draconian gun laws. And though we should never downplay child abuse,
poverty, or racism, there is only one new variable present in each of these
countries that bears the exact same fruit: media violence presented as
entertainment for children.

Killing is Unnatural

Before retiring from the military, I spent almost a quarter of a century as
an army infantry officer and a psychologist, learning and studying how to
enable people to kill. Believe me, we are very good at it. But it does not
come naturally; you have to be taught to kill. And just as the army is
conditioning people to kill, we are indiscriminately doing the same thing
to our children, but without the safeguards.

After the Jonesboro killings, the head of the American Academy of
Pediatrics Task Force on Juvenile Violence came to town and said that
children don't naturally kill. It is a learned skill. And they learn it
from abuse and violence in the home and, most pervasively, from violence
as entertainment in television, the movies, and interactive video games.

Killing requires training because there is a built-in aversion to killing
one's own kind. I can best illustrate this fact by drawing on my own
military research in the act of killing.

We all know how hard it is to have a discussion with a frightened or angry
human being. Vasoconstriction, the narrowing of the blood vessels, has
literally closed down the forebrain -- that great gob of gray matter that
makes one a human being and distinguishes one from a dog. When those neurons
close down, the midbrain takes over and your thought processes and reflexes
are indistinguishable from your dog's. If you've worked with animals, you
have some understanding of what happens to frightened human beings on the
battlefield. The battlefield and violent crime are in the realm of midbrain
responses.

Within the midbrain there is a powerful, God-given resistance to killing
your own kind. Every species, with a few exceptions, has a hard-wired
resistance to killing its own kind in territorial and mating battles. When
animals with antlers and horns fight one another, they head-butt in a
non-fatal fashion. But when they fight any other species, they go to the
side to gut and gore. Piranhas will turn their fangs on anything, but they
fight one another with flicks of the tail. Rattlesnakes will bite anything,
but they wrestle one another. Almost every species has this hard-wired
resistance to killing its own kind.

When human beings are overwhelmed with anger and fear, we slam head-on into
that midbrain resistance that generally prevents us from killing. Only
sociopaths -- who by definition don't have that resistance -- lack this innate
violence immune system.

Throughout all human history, when humans have fought each other, there has
been a lot of posturing. Adversaries make loud noises and puff themselves
up, trying to daunt the enemy. There is a lot of fleeing and submission.
Ancient battles were nothing more than great shoving matches. It was not
until one side turned and ran that most of the killing happened, and most
of that was stabbing people in the back. All of the ancient military
historians report that the vast majority of killing happened in pursuit
when one side was fleeing.

In more modern times, the average firing rate was incredibly low in Civil War
battles. British author Paddy Griffith demonstrates in his book The Battle
Tactics of the Civil War that the killing potential of the average Civil War
regiment was anywhere from five hundred to a thousand men per minute. The
actual killing rate was only one or two men per minute per regiment. At the
Battle of Gettysburg, of the 27,000 muskets picked up from the dead and dying
after the battle, 90% were loaded. This is an anomaly, because it took 90% of
their time to load muskets and only 5% to fire. But even more amazing, of the
thousands of loaded muskets, only half had multiple loads in the barrel --
one had 23 loads in the barrel.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: We Are Training Our Kids to Kill 2/3
Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
In reality, the average man would load his musket and bring it to his
shoulder, but he could not bring himself to kill. He would be brave, he
would stand shoulder to shoulder, he would do what he was trained to do;
but at the moment of truth, he could not bring himself to pull the trigger.
And so he lowered the weapon and loaded it again. Of those who did fire,
only a tiny percentage fired to hit. The vast majority fired over the
enemy's head.

During World War II, U.S. Army Brig. Gen. S.L.A. Marshall had a team of
researchers study what soldiers did in battle. For the first time in
history, they asked individual soldiers what they did in battle. They
discovered that only 15 to 20% of the individual riflemen could bring
themselves to fire at an exposed enemy soldier. That is the reality of
the battlefield. Only a small percentage of soldiers are able and willing
to participate. Men are willing to die. They are willing to sacrifice
themselves for their nation; but they are not willing to kill. It is a
phenomenal insight into human nature; but when the military became aware
of that, they systematically went about the process of trying to fix this
"problem." From the military perspective, a 15% firing rate among riflemen
is like a 15% literacy rate among librarians. And fix it the military did.
By the Korean War, around 55% of the soldiers were willing to fire to kill.
And by Vietnam, the rate rose to over 90%.

The method to this madness -- desensitization.

How the military increases the killing rate of soldiers in combat is
instructive because our culture today is doing the same thing to our children.
The training methods militaries use are brutalization, classical conditioning,
operant conditioning, and role modeling. I will explain each of these in
the military context and show how these same factors are contributing to
the phenomenal increase of violence in our culture. Brutalization and
desensitization are what happens at boot camp. From the moment you step off
the bus, you are physically and verbally abused -- countless push-ups,
endless hours at attention or running with heavy loads, while carefully
trained professionals take turns screaming at you. Your head is shaved; you
are herded together naked and dressed alike, losing all individuality. This
brutalization is designed to break down your existing mores and norms, and
force you to accept a new set of values that embraces destruction, violence,
and death as a way of life. In the end, you are desensitized to violence and
accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.

Something very similar to this desensitization toward violence is happening
to our children thorugh violence in the media -- but instead of 18-year-olds,
it begins at the age of 18 months when a child is first able to discern what
is happening on television. At that age, a child can watch something happening
on television and mimic that action. But it isn't until children are six or
seven years old that the part of the brain kicks in that lets them understand
where information comes from. Even though young children have some
understanding of what it means to pretend, they are developmentally unable
to distinguish clearly between fantasy and reality.

When young children see somebody shot, stabbed, raped, brutalized, degraded,
or murdered on TV, to them it is as though it were actually happening. To
have a child of three, four, or five watch a "splatter" movie, learning to
relate to a character for the first 90 minutes and then in the last 30
minutes watch helplessly as that new friend is hunted and brutally murdered,
is the moral and psychological equivalent of introducing your child to a
friend, letting her play with that friend, and then butchering that friend
in front of your child's eyes. And this happens to our children hundreds
upon hundreds of times. Sure, they are told: "Hey, it's all for fun. Look,
this isnit real; it's just TV."

And they nod their little heads and say OK. But they can't tell the
difference. Can you remember a point in your life or in your childrens'
lives when dreams, reality, and television were all jumbled together?

That is what it is like to be at that level of psychological development.

That is what the media are doing to them. The Journal of the American
Medical Association published the definitive epidemiological study on the
impact of TV violence. The research demonstrated what happened in numerous
nations after television made its appearance as compared to nations and
regions without TV. The two nations or regions being compared are
demographically and ethnically identical; only one variable is different
-- the presence of television. In every nation, region, or city with
television, there is an immediate explosion of violence on the playground,
and within 15 years there is a doubling of the murder rate. Why 15 years?

That is how long it takes for the brutalization of a three to five-year-old
to reach the "prime crime age." That is how long it takes for you to reap
what you have sown when you brutalize and desensitize a three-year-old.

Today the data linking violence in the media to violence in society are
superior to those linking cancer and tobacco. Hundreds of sound scientific
studies demonstrate the social impact of brutalization by the media. The
Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that "the introduction
of television in the 1950s caused a subsequent doubling of the homocide rate,
i.e., long-term childhood exposure to television is a casual factor behind
approximately one half of the homocides committed in the United States, or
approximately 10,000 homocides annually." The article went on to say that
"if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there
would today be 10,000 fewer homocides each year in the United States,
70,000 fewer rapes, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults" (June 10, 1992).

Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning is like the famous case of Pavlov's dogs they teach
in Psychology 101. The dogs learned to associate the ringing of the bell
with food, and once conditioned, the dogs could not hear the bell without
salivating. The Japanese were masters at using classical conditioning with
their soldiers. Early in World War II, Chinese prisoners were placed in a
ditch on their knees with their hands bound behind them. And one by one, a
select few Japanese soldiers would go into the ditch and bayonet "their"
prisoner to death. This is a horrific way to kill another human being. Up
on the bank, countless other young soldiers would cheer them on in their
violence. Comparatively few soldiers actually killed in these situations,
but by making the others watch and cheer, the Japanese were able to use
these kinds of atrocities to classically condition a very large audience to
associate pleasure with human death and suffering.

Immediately afterwards, the soldiers who had been spectators were treated to
sake, the best meal they had had in months, and to so-called comfort girls.
The result? They learned to associate committing violent acts with pleasure.
The Japanese found these kinds of techniques to be extraordinarily effective
at quickly enabling very large numbers of soldiers to commit atrocities in
the years to come. Operant conditioning (which we will look at shortly)
teaches you to kill, but classical conditioning is a subtle but powerful
mechanism that teaches you to like it.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: We Are Training Our Kids to Kill 3/3
Date: 18 Jun 1999 19:02:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
This technique is so morally reprehensible that there are very few examples
of it in modern U.S. military training, but there are some clear-cut examples
of it being done by the media to our children. What is happening to our
children is the reverse of the aversion therapy portrayed in the movie A
Clockwork Orange. In A Clockwork Orange, a brutal sociopath, a mass murderer,
is strapped to a chair and forced to watch violent movies while he is
injected with a drug that nauseates him. So he sits and gags and retches as
he watches the movies. After hundreds of repetitions of this, he associates
violence with nausea. And it limits his ability to be violent.

We are doing the exact opposite: Our children watch vivid pictures of human
suffering and death, and they learn to associate it with their favorite soft
drink and candy bar, or their girlfriend's perfume. After the Jonesboro
shootings, one of the high-school teachers told me how her students reacted
when she told them about the shootings at the middle school. "They laughed,"
she told me with dismay. A similar reaction happens all the time in movie
theatres when there is bloody violence. The young people laugh and cheer and
keep right on eating popcorn and drink pop. We have raised a generation of
barbarians who have learned to associate violence with pleasure, like the
Romans cheering and snacking as the Christians were slaughtered in the
Colosseum. The result is a phenomenom that functions much like AIDS, a
phenomenom I call AVIDS: Acquired Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrome. AIDS
has never killed anybody. It destroys your immune system, and then other
diseases that shouldn't kill you become fatal. Television violence by itself
does not kill you. It destroys your violence immune system and conditions
you to derive pleasure from violence. And once you are at close range with
another human being, and it's time for you to pull that trigger, Acquired
Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrome can destroy your midbrain resistance.

Operant Conditioning

The third method the military uses is operant conditioning, a very powerful
repetitive procedure of stimulus-reponse, stimulus-response. A benign example
is the use of flight simulators to train pilots. An airline pilot in training
sits in front of a flight simulator for endless hours; when a particular
warning light goes on, he is taught to react in a certain way. When another
warning light goes on, a different reaction is required. Stimulus-response,
stimulus-response, stimulus-response. One day, the pilot is actually flying
a jumbo jet; the plane is going down, and 300 people are screaming behind
him. He is wetting his seat cushion and he is scared out of his wits; but
he does the right thing. Why? Because he has been conditioned to respond
reflexively to this particular crisis.

When people are frightened or angry, they will do what they have been
conditioned to do. In fire drills, children learn to file out of the school
in orderly fashion. One day there is a real fire, and they are frightened
out of their wits; but they do exactly what they have been conditioned to
do, and it saves their lives. The military and law enforcement community
have made killing a conditioned response. This has substantially raised the
firing rate on the modern battlefield. Whereas infantry training in World
War II used bull's-eye targets, now soldiers learn to fire at realistic,
man-shaped silhouettes that pop up into their field of view. That is the
stimulus. The trainees have only a split second to engage the target. The
conditioned response is to shoot the target, and then it drops.

Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, stimulus-response -- soldiers or police
officers experience hundreds of repetitions. Later, when soldiers are on the
battlefield or a police officer is walking a beat and somebody pops up with
a gun, they will shoot reflexively and shoot to kill. We know that 75 to 80%
of the shooting on the modern battlefield is the result of this kind of
stimulus-response training.

Now, if you're a little troubled by that, how much more should we be troubled
by the fact that every time a child plays an interactive point-and-shoot
video game, he is learning the exact same conditioned reflex and motor
skills? I was an expert witness in a murder case in South Carolina offering
mitigation for a kid who was facing the death penalty. I tried to explain to
the jury that interactive video games had conditioned him to shoot a gun to
kill. He had spent hundreds of dollars on video games learning to point and
shoot, point and shoot. One day he and his buddy decided it would be fun to
rob the local convenience store.

They walked in, and he pointed a sub-nosed .38 pistol at the clerk's head.
The clerk turned to look at him, and the defendant shot reflexively from
about six feet. The bullet hit the clerk right between the eyes -- which is a
pretty remarkable shot with that weapon at that range -- and killed this
father of two. Afterward, we asked the boy what happened and why he did it.

It clearly was not part of the plan to kill the guy -- it was being videotaped
from six different directions. He said, "I don't know. It was a mistake. It
wasn't supposed to happen." In the military and law-enforcement worlds, the
right option is often not to shoot. But you never, ever put your money in
that video machine with the intention of not shooting. There is always some
stimulus that sets you off.

And when he was excited, and his heart rate went up, and vascoconstriction
closed his forebrain down, this young man did exactly what he was conditioned
to do: he reflexively pulled the trigger, shooting accurately just like all
those times he played video games. This process is extraordinarily powerful
and frightening. The result is ever more "homemade" sociopaths who kill
reflexively. Our children are learning how to kill and learning to like the
idea of killing and then we have the audacity to say, "Oh my goodness, what
is wrong?"

One of the boys involved in the Jonesboro shootings (and they are just boys)
had a fair amount of experience shooting real guns. The other one, to the
best of our knowledge, had almost no experience shooting. Between them, those
two boys fired 27 shots from a range of over 100 yards, and they hit 15
people. That is pretty remarkable shooting. We run into these situations
often -- kids who have never picked up a gun in their lives pick up a real
gun and are incredibly accurate. Why? Video games. (continued next issue)


Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, an expert on the psychology of killing, retired
from the U.S. Army in February 1998. He now teaches psychology at Arkansas
State University, directs the Killology Research Group in Jonesboro, Arkansas,
and has written On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in
War and Society (Little, Brown and Co., 1996). This article was adapted from
a lecture he gave at Bethel College, North Newton, Kansas in April 1998



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: RKBA: An *Individual* Right
Date: 21 Jun 1999 08:28:00 -0700


-----

Lots of talk about RKBA being an *individual* right---as opposed to a
"collective" right, as espoused by some (even esteemed professors of
constitutional law). The following (posted to another RKBA list) might
prove enlightening:

--------------
Well, the antis claim that no Court has ever held that RKBA, as referred
to in the Second Amendment, is an *individual* (versus a *collective*)
right and that no court has ever overturned a federal gun law on Second
Amendment grounds. This is not true.

The federal district court which heard the case of Miller and Layton for
violating the NFA of 1934 by carrying a short-barreled shotgun acquitted
the defendants, finding the NFA unconstitutional, effectively overturning
the NFA on Second Amendment grounds

The federal government appealed directly to the Supreme Court (it wasn't
necessary to go through the circuit appellate court in those days). By
issuing a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court agreed that Messrs.
Miller and Layton had "standing", which they most certainly would *not*
have had if the Second Amendment applied only to State governments
regarding the conduct of their individual militiae.

In short, the 1939 Supreme Court was all set to strike down the National
Firearms Act of 1934 by vindicating Jack Miller and Frank Layton---except
that their attorney was prevented from offering evidence to support their
Second Amendment defense because his clients (the stupid b*st*rds!) had
fled the country, rather than stand before a Supreme Court very ready to
exonerate them! (see *U.S. v. Miller* 307 U.S. 175-176 (1939).

So the case was decided against them by default, even though they would've
won if only they had appeared!
---------------

David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte
Wheeling, Illinois

Replies/Abuse: [e-mail]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Public Policy Position Paper - 16 June 1999
Date: 21 Jun 1999 09:28:00 -0700


----------
GOUtah!
Gun Owners of Utah

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

Public Policy Position Paper - 16 June 1999

Regarding the Expansion of the Brady Background Check to Include Private
Party Sales, Gifts or Transfers, Mental Health Status and the Inclusion of
Misdemeanor Offenses to the List of Disqualifying Criteria for Firearms
Possession of Purchase by Adult Citizens.

Position: Strong Opposition

Private Party Sales, Gifts or Transfers at Gun Shows or Any Other Circumstance.

The provisions of the unfunded 1993 Federal Brady mandate never intended
and further specifically exempted private party transfers from the Brady
background check system. This was not a loophole in the law, but was
included in each of the legislative drafts of Brady from 1987 until its
passage in 1993. The Brady check initially covered only handguns, and as of
November 1998, covers all firearms purchased from any federally licensed
dealer regardless of time, location or circumstance.

Currently Utah is anticipated to check some 75,000 firearms transactions in
calendar 1999 under the DPS/BCI Instant Check System as was implemented to
comply with the unfunded Federal Brady mandate. Rejections for disqualified
individuals attempting to purchase under the Utah system currently run
slightly over 2% of all transactions. This means NEARLY 98% of those
purchasing firearms under Brady are being charged $7.50 in state fees per
transaction to prove their innocence to the state before being allowed to
exercise an enumerated Constitutional right. Criminals do not, will not and
never have obtained their firearms from legitimate sources, regulated or
not. In other words, Brady, as based on the actual numbers, is arguably a
98% failure in both concept and in execution. Expanding Brady to include
private party transfers at gun shows or at any other time, place or
circumstance, will yield similar dismal crime reduction results. Demanding
that before one citizen, a friend or a neighbor might sell a privately
owned firearm to another, or before a grandparent might give a grandchild
the a gift of a firearm on Christmas morning that a Brady check must be run
on all parties involved is not good public policy, and it is contemptible
that the idea should even be discussed with a straight face in a
legislative forum such as this.

According to recent discussions with Utah DPS/BCI personnel, of the more
than 3000 individuals who have been denied purchase of a firearm under
Brady in the last 5 years, a grand total of ZERO have been arrested on
the charge of attempting to purchase in violation of existing law by Utah
authorities. It follows that referrals to prosecution were also ZERO, as
were prosecutions, convictions, sentencing and incarcerations.

ZERO + ZERO + ZERO + ZERO + ZERO + ZERO = ZERO.

Currently a reported grand total of federal convictions for attempts to
purchase under Brady over the last 5 years throughout all 50 states stands at
SEVEN.  Out of the supposed tens and hundreds of thousands of disqualified
individuals denied under Brady, only SEVEN were convicted of violation of
Brady by Federal authorities over 5 years, and an impressive total of ONE
in the last three years.

It becomes abundantly clear that if arrest, prosecution and punishment of
those disqualified individuals attempting to purchase under Brady is not a
priority, what then is the underlying purpose of the Brady program? In our
opinion, it is two-fold.

First, the fees from Brady provide the administering agency with a most
attractive non-appropriated revenue stream. Based on 1999 projected checks,
Utah firearm purchasers will be charged by DPS/BCI a total of some $562,500
in Brady fees, and yet $549,000 of that amount WILL COME FROM THOSE WHO ARE
NOT PROHIBITED for purchase or possession.

Fee increase as proposed by DPS/BCI during the 1999 General Session would
double Brady fees, and new fee-setting authority given to DPS/BCI during
that session makes such fee increases both inevitable and in all
likelihood, abusive and punitive. Will we see improved user services
provided by DPS/BCI in exchange for these fee increases? No. For example,
BCI reportedly no longer conducts on-site Brady checks for FFL dealers at
gun shows. BCI reportedly has stopped sending out permit renewal notices to
Utah's 25,000 CCW holders as of March 1999. If a CCW renewal is more than
30 days late, the entire CCW application process with full application
fees, less the training class, must be repeated. It is doubtful any other
state license or permit renewal is handled in this manner. Clearly the
DPS/BCI policy direction is increased user fees and less service for Utah
gun owners and purchasers. That is why we strongly opposed the recent fee
setting authority moving from legislative oversight and justification to
administrative agency control.

Law abiding Utahns lawfully purchasing firearms are now being charged more
than ONE-HALF MILLION DOLLARS EVERY YEAR to prove they are law-abiding
citizens before they can exercise a Constitutional right. However, for this
ONE-HALF MILLION DOLLARS annually, Utah's firearms owners receive NO
DIRECT,, INDIRECT OR TANGIBLE BENEFIT WHATSOEVER. If any benefit, however
dubious, comes from the Brady check system, it is an alleged benefit to
society as a whole, not to firearms owners or purchasers as a group.
Therefore, as the supposed beneficiaries, society as a whole should fund
any such system in its entirety. As such, GOUtah! will be working on
legislation to place all Brady administrative costs under general state
funding, rather than user fee-based funding, for the duration of the Brady
program. We, as law-abiding citizens and as gun owners will not be taxed to
exercise a Constitutional right. We will not be forced by the state to pay
for the rope with which we'll be hung.

Secondly, the purchase and transaction records generated by the Brady
system, or any other firearms registration proposal, are now clearly
subject to abuse by the administrative agencies involved. The FBI is widely
reported as, and admits to retaining NICS records on the firearms purchases
by law abiding citizens, in direct and knowing violation of existing
federal law. This practice has resulted in lawsuits being filed against
the FBI by the National Rifle Association and by others. Rep. Chris Cannon
of Utah's 3rd District is currently developing legislation to force FBI
compliance with existing federal laws in this area. Further, BATF is widely
reported as scanning the many years worth of sales records of the hundreds
of thousands of federally-licensed firearms dealers forced out of business
by the current administration's anti-gun policies, again in violation of
existing federal laws prohibiting the creation or maintenance of any such
centralized database of firearms or firearms owners.

The purpose of any scheme or system to register firearms or firearms owners
has historically been to either tax such firearms ownership, or to provide
the information needed to implement confiscation of privately owned firearms,
or both. Make no mistake, and harbor no illusions. These existing and proposed
systems are not about crime prevention. They are about firearms registration,
taxation and/or confiscation. This pattern has been demonstrated repeatedly
throughout the world in this century and is being implemented in places
like New York City, Chicago and New Jersey even as we speak.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Public Po 2/2
Date: 21 Jun 1999 09:28:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Mental Health Issues:

Current existing federal and state law prohibits those adjudicated by a court
as mentally incompetent to own, possess or purchase a firearm. In one recent
instance, an individual who may have been so adjudicated was able to purchase
a firearm used in violence at retail from a licensed dealer. In this instance,
it is reported that court records of commitment were not available to the
DPS/BCI information system. It is clear the problem is one of reasonable
information sharing and access, not expansion of the definition of mental
incompetence or criteria for denial of firearms ownership, purchase or
possession. Any such disqualification must be strictly limited and defined,
have competent legal and medical representation, a full measure of due
process and judicial review for the subject, and any individual so defined
should be in the physical custody of the state or other agency for
confinement for the duration of such treatment. If they are adjudicated as
too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, they are also too dangerous to
be freely circulating in our communities.

Disqualification Based on Misdemeanor Offenses:

Our society and our legal system has always provided a clear and unambiguous
'line in the sand' regarding the criteria for a lifetime loss of the civil
rights held by its citizens. That line is a conviction in a court of law for
a felony crime. With such conviction comes the loss of the right to vote,
to hold office of public trust, engage in certain professions, possess
dangerous weapons or materials, move freely within our society and other
restrictions and prohibitions.

We are firmly opposed to any loss or restriction of any basic constitutional
and civil right, including the right to own, possess or purchase a firearm,
based on anything less than the lawful conviction of a felony level crime,
period.

It becomes clear that those whom we consider a threat to our society, based
on their violent criminal actions, are currently breaking numerous felony-
level laws already on the books. For example the theft of or possession of
a recently stolen firearm, like auto theft, is a second degree felony under
Utah law, and also a federal violation if the firearm has moved in interstate
commerce. Yet our prosecutors and courts constantly play 'let's make a deal'
with violent felony level crime in hopes of streamlining the process of
justice. Yet this criminal justice 'barter bazaar' plea bargaining system
is at the root of the problem. If an individual has broken the law, and it
can be proven in a court of law, then it should be properly tried, a verdict
rendered, and appropriate punishment swiftly administered. That's the way
the criminal justice system works, and that's the way it must work. Justice
'on the cheap' is not justice. It's institutionalized contempt for the very
core values and principles our justice system is sworn to uphold.

As a society we have collectively decided which violent crimes are serious
enough to warrant a lifetime loss of rights, and we call them felonies. We
need to administer our criminal justice system based only on that standard,
not based on 'how many beds are available at the gray bar hotel tonight' or
what our 'public indignation flavor of the month' might be. If Judicial and
Correctional resources are the limiting factor driving this public policy
equation, then you, as Legislators, must stop creating non-violent, victimless
crimes where none now exist, and you will soon find the resources are
available to punish violent crimes where they do exist. That's the proven
way to a safer and more tolerant society. To tamper with the civil rights
of any citizen, absent their lawful conviction of a felony level crime,
is both unfair and unacceptable.

Conclusion:

Utah's peaceable firearms owners are not the problem, Utah's current gun
laws are enough. They don't need to be fixed. The laws now in place need to
be enforced. The criminal justice system needs to get up off its knees and
administer effective justice. The public's safety needs to be protected,
and our citizens rights need to be preserved.

As peacable firearms owners, we will stand with you to help implement
meaningful improvements to our public institutions. We will also stand
squarely in the middle of this political debate, without apology and
without compromise, to delay, block, derail and otherwise prevent the rights
and interests of Utah's peaceable firearms owners from being trampled
or sacrificed on the altar of public hysteria or political expediency.



-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: ALERT! Leavitt's Mental Health Proposals Unveiled!
Date: 21 Jun 1999 17:13:27 -0600


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

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

To All:

On June 23, 1999 (Wednesday) from 5pm to 6pm, on Tom Draschil's show
(KTALK
630 AM), Ruth Andrus will be exposing Fuehrer Leavitt's and Oberfuehrst
Robin Arnold-William's mental health proposals for the special session.
Ruth has acquired the tapes from the interim committee meeting last
Wednesday, as well as Leavitt's letter to Beattie and Stephens, and other
special papers.  Here's a couple highlights:

Under Leavitt's final solution, even non-violent misdemeanors can have
you
involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- where they _forcibly_
inject you with whatever wonderful drugs they deem neccessary to keep you
passive and controlled.  New mobile squads of state-funded thugs will
search the streets, looking for people (like you, you
ultra-right-wing-whackos!) to send directly to new "mental health
courts,"
where inconvenient constitutional rights will be jettisoned for the good
of
the Reich, and where they will make certain you are protected from your
own
self.

For you pro-second amendment folks, Leavitt's Auschwitz-type mental
health
proposals are far worse than simply removing guns from schools and
churches.  You'd better respond to this greater threat quickly!  I have
the
actual proposals in front of me -- it is Nazi Germany all over again.

Listen to the program, get the documentation you need, and call your
legislators!

--------- End Forwarded message ----------


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Food for thought from the Chuck Wagon for 06/22/99
Date: 22 Jun 1999 09:19:38 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:57:12 -0600
Received: from gulf1.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id FAA24346; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:37:27 -0600
Received: from gulf1.com [208.226.47.226] by gulf1.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-5.04) id A969B7D0106; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:54:17 CST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-EM-Version: 4, 5, 0, 0
X-EM-Registration: #30C3410514B417038530
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Must Witherspoon Apologize?

June 22, 1999

=20

I received a postcard yesterday from a Christian Brother telling me that I
cared nothing for souls, that I should resign my pulpit and that I was
wasting my time getting involved in "reformation" efforts. It is his
opinion that I should stick to preaching the gospel and do nothing else.
Doubtless, he finds my activism in civil liberty offensive. I=C6ve been =
told
this before.=20

I find the attitude of Christians and ministers such as this brother very
interesting and very disturbing. Must I do nothing but preach the gospel?
Am I "out of God=C6s will" when I engage the great cultural battles of our
day? Dr. John Witherspoon didn=C6t think so.

John Witherspoon was one of the most learned and powerful preachers of his
day. He was a direct descendant of the great reformer, John Knox. The son
of a minister, (No less than 12 of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence were the sons or grandsons of ministers.) Dr. Witherspoon
graduated with honors from the University of Edinburgh and was ordained to
the ministry at age 22. His scholarship and pulpit skills were so highly
regarded that he was invited to become the president of New Jersey =
College,
later called Princeton University. He was inaugurated president of the
College on August 17, 1768.=20

As the sentiments of independence were building within the colonies, Dr.
Witherspoon preached with great knowledge and persuasion the Biblical
principles of freedom and self-government. So influential were
Witherspoon=C6s sermons that he was asked to assist in the formation of a =
new
constitution for New Jersey. Later, he was elected as a delegate to the
General Congress and on August 2, 1776 affixed his signature to the
Declaration of Independence.

Throughout John Witherspoon=C6s illustrious civic career he never stopped
preaching the gospel. He authored numerous theological works and even when
blind continued to preach until his death at age 72.

John Witherspoon was not the only preacher to be actively involved in the
fight for independence. Include in this list Episcopalian ministers Dr.
Samuel Provost, Dr. John Croes and Rev. Robert Smith. The Presbyterian
Church provided several notable preacher-patriots including Rev. James
Armstrong and Rev. James Caldwell. Baptist ministers, like Rev. Joab
Houghton and Pastor M=C6Clanahan enthusiastically joined the fight for
freedom and independence.=20

George Washington was so impressed with the contribution that numerous
Baptists had made to the Revolutionary War that he penned a letter to them
in which he said, "I recollect with satisfaction that the religious
societies of which you are a member have been, throughout America,
uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friends to civil liberty, and
the persevering promoters of our glorious Revolution."

And, who can forget the preacher and patriot, the great Lutheran pastor,
John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg of Virginia? He led the men of his
congregation to join the revolutionary army in our fight for independence.=
=20

Now I ask you, will Witherspoon and Muhlenberg and Houghton and Caldwell
and the countless other ministers of Christ who preached, prayed and =
fought
for this country have to apologize for getting involved in the fight for
civil liberty? I wonder if my good brother bothers to vote? If he does, is
he wasting his time and outside his calling? I wonder if he personally
celebrates Independence Day? I wonder if he understands how the
significance of this day came about?=20

Desperate days call for desperate measures. The truth is, if all of my
preacher brethren were the salt that Christ told us to be a few of us
wouldn=C6t have to spend quite as much time trying to restore the =
fundamental
principles that have been stripped away from us.=20

And, without trying to sound heretical, evangelism is not enough to save a
nation! During the past four decades we have expanded the evangelistic
outreach of the church in ways never before known. We have recorded more
conversions, built more church buildings and raised more money for the
Lord=C6s work than at any time in history. (And, while desiring to do more =
in
this regard, the dear Lord has blessed us with the privilege of winning
hundreds of souls to Christ during the last two decades of ministry.) With
all this evangelism going on why is America facing such desperate days?

Our Lord warned us that if the salt lost its character it would be "good
for nothing" and would be "trodden under the foot of men." That is exactly
what is happening today. The salt has lost its character and the clanging
sounds of tyranny are beginning to be heard all over the land.

It takes character to live a pure life. It takes character to raise a =
godly
family. It takes character to build an honest business. It takes character
to engage cultural evils and impact society for good and for God. Anyone
can build a moat around their lives and pretend that they don=C6t have a
responsibility to the outside world. Anyone can pretend that it is not
their "calling" to dirty their hands with "politics."=20

Our Christian forefathers were as saved as we are. They loved God as much
as we do. They prayed. They worshipped. They preached. They won souls to
Christ. They sent missionaries. They started Christian schools, orphanages,=

hospitals, seminaries and universities. They believed the Bible as much as
we do and relied on the Holy Spirit as much as we say we do. They also
helped to give birth to this great land of freedom that we know as the
United States of America. Somehow, I don=C6t think that they are the ones =
who
are going to have to apologize.


NOTE:


Chuck's editorials are published weekdays on Gulf1.com and are sent via
email to anyone who requests them. Newspapers also carry his editorials.
Visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com for more
information.




-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: FYI--Fw: Oldies & HCI
Date: 23 Jun 1999 12:36:16 -0600


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

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

Just thought I'd let you know that the radio station "Oldies 94.1" is
running commercials from Handgun Control Inc. I can't  get through to
their
web site from work to protest and it is the only computer access I have.
I
thought maybe you could pass this info along to your E-Mail group. The
station's web site is www.oldies941.com. Maybe you could get through and

find an E-mail address and let us know.

Note from Dave:

I just called Tom Sly, who is the general manager of JACOR Broadcasting,
the
company that owns Oldies 94.1. He says that he defends the playing of
the
HCI ad in the name of freedom of speech. I pointed out to him that many
of
us who listen to 94.1 grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, and that
these
ads leave a terrible taste in our mouths, since we believe that HCI is
attempting to subvert the Constitution, freedom, and the right to
self-defense. I explained that we listen to 94.1 for the nostaligia of
the
old times, and that when ads condemning firearms are run, it makes us
turn
off our radios. Since 94.1 is essentially a business, I believe that
their
are shooting themselves in the foot by running these ads. The email
address
of Oldies is

        [e-mail]

Tom Sly can be reached at 908-1300, and he does return calls. A few
calls might help him
avoid political hot potatoes?

The ads are ending as of June 22, 1999, says Tom.


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALERT! KSL POLL ON HATCH!
Date: 23 Jun 1999 18:14:57 -0600

Do you want "Gun-Grabber" Hatch to be your next president?

KSL Poll at http://www.ksl.com/radio/ demands your action!

Vote now!

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: FYI--Fw: Oldies & HCI
Date: 24 Jun 1999 09:12:00 -0700


Talk about a business shooting itself in the foot -- this is one of
the most despotic Web sites I have encountered in a while. It is
entirely javascript, and absolutely demands a cookie to proceed.
Listen to KTKK 630AM rather than these fascists.

Scott

----------

Charles C. Hardy
<[e-mail]>

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

Just thought I'd let you know that the radio station "Oldies 94.1" is
running commercials from Handgun Control Inc. I can't get through to
their web site from work to protest and it is the only computer access
I have. I thought maybe you could pass this info along to your E-Mail
group. The station's web site is www.oldies941.com. Maybe you could get
through and find an E-mail address and let us know.

Note from Dave:

I just called Tom Sly, who is the general manager of JACOR Broadcasting,
the company that owns Oldies 94.1. He says that he defends the playing of
the HCI ad in the name of freedom of speech. I pointed out to him that
many of us who listen to 94.1 grew up in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, and
that these ads leave a terrible taste in our mouths, since we believe
that HCI is attempting to subvert the Constitution, freedom, and the
right to self-defense. I explained that we listen to 94.1 for the
nostaligia of the old times, and that when ads condemning firearms are
run, it makes us turn off our radios. Since 94.1 is essentially a
business, I believe that their are shooting themselves in the foot by
running these ads. The email address of Oldies is

[e-mail]

Tom Sly can be reached at 908-1300, and he does return calls. A few
calls might help him avoid political hot potatoes?

The ads are ending as of June 22, 1999, says Tom.



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Rosie O'Donnell Call-In 1-800-RINGING (fwd)
Date: 25 Jun 1999 14:37:38 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:10:21 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id XAA27123; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:23:38 -0600
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA14106;
    Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:35:53 -0400 (EDT)
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 Jun 23, David Wisniewski wrote:

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

It seems that the Bell Campaign is teaming up with Rosie O'Donnell, in a
effort to boost Rosie's ratings and promote gun control.  On Thursday, =
June
24, call 1-800-RINGING and tell them how you feel.

http://www.jointogether.org/sa/action/advancing_policy/alerts/reader.jtml?O=
bject_ID=3D259199

Dear friends and colleagues:=20

When Congress failed last week to close the gun show loophole, it proved
that the NRA is still
writing our nation's gun policy. The gun lobby is so entrenched in
Washington that it will take a
national citizen's movement to break the gridlock that is contributing to
93 deaths everyday.=20

The Bell Campaign is a national, grassroots organization created by
survivors of gun trauma to mobilize the majority of Americans who support
stronger gun laws. One of our founders, Mary Leigh Blek, will appear as a
guest on Rosie O'Donnell this Thursday, June 24, 1999.  Mary Leigh's son,
Matthew, was killed with a handgun during an attempted robbery in June
1994. During her appearance on Rosie, Mary Leigh will invite viewers to
help prevent gun death and injury, and support victims of gun trauma by
joining The Bell Campaign. She will
give out our toll-free number, 1-800-RINGING (1-800-764-4464) and web
address: http://www.bellcampaign.org=20

If you have 5 minutes: It is important that Rosie hear from you. We know
that she will get blasted
by pro-gun people for showcasing The Bell Campaign. Please send Rosie an
e-mail thanking her for informing her audience about ways they can help to
stop the gun epidemic. You can e-mail Rosie's through her web site by
clicking here. http://rosieo.warnerbros.com/cmp/mail.htm

If you have a little more time: Invite some friends over to watch Rosie on
Thursday, June 24. Call
your local newspaper, radio or TV station (especially ABC) and tell them
that you are having a 'Rosie watching party' to show your support for
stronger gun laws.

It is critical that the momentum started by the Columbine shootings =
changes
how our nation deals with gun policy. The single most important lesson of
the recent events in Congress is that meaningful gun policy change will =
not
happen until ordinary citizens hold elected officials accountable for =
their
votes. You can do that by
joining The Bell Campaign.

--=20
David Wisniewski  RKBA & Official Kmart/Rosie O'Donnell Protest Page
[e-mail]   http://rosie.acmecity.com/happy/365

[------------------------- 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: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Asbestos Lawsuit Ruling to Have Gun Industry Impact?
Date: 25 Jun 1999 15:25:14 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:06:46 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id UAA28691; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:54:55 -0600
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA24954;
    Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:07:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <000501bebead$33cac920$9e0b81ce@bugbox>
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

Nobanners,

The Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling in the challenge to a $1.5 billion asbestos
settlement involving the Dallas-based Fibreboard company may drive certain =
U.S.
gunmakers out of their recently forged alliance with the Clinton administra=
tion.

In the face of multiple product liability lawsuits, and with the proposed
federal tobacco settlement serving as a model, many gun manufacturers have =
been
distancing themselves from the 2A lobby in hopes of positioning themselves =
for a
better deal when the Gummint gets around to trying to establish a massive
mandatory gun liability settlement. Now that SCOTUS has declared such
settlements illegal, expect to see gunmakers going back to a harder line =
on many
of the gun-rights issues.

In another case (those who disparage the importance of having a Republican
president, take note!), SCOTUS also ruled once again in favor of states' =
rights,
with all the justices appointed by Democrats voting in the minority.

Kevin McGehee
Fairbanks/North Pole, AK
[e-mail]
http://www.mcgeheezone.com/

Visit The McGehee Zone Bookstore
http://www.mcgeheezone.com/capitalism/bookstore.htm




-