ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.199907

Internet Message Format | 1999-07-30 | 289KB

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #18 - 1 July 1999 1/2
Date: 03 Jul 1999 17:18:00 -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 #18 - 1 July 1999

Today's Maxim of Liberty:

"The State does not have rights in itself, but only possesses such powers
as are necessary to safeguard and uphold the rights of the citizens."
-James Bovard, Author of Freedom in Chains, The Rise of the State and
the Demise of the Citizen, 1999

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.

Leavitt, Stephens, Utah House GOP Float CCW Permit Compromise That Rapes
Your Right of Self Defense! Your Vocal Political Action is Needed TODAY!

The Utah print and broadcast media is widely reporting information indicating
the so-called 'pro-gun' stance of Utah House Speaker Marty Stephens appears to
be little more than shallow window dressing to placate gun rights advocates.
Stephens is reported to have crafted a compromise which will strip you of much
of the ability to protect yourself under the authority of a Utah CCW permit.
Here's what we understand has transpired to date, based on the best
information in hand at this time.

To recap, Governor Mike Leavitt has recently taken up the role of strident
gun control advocate, to make restrictions on gun ownership and CCW validity
a major agenda item as he positions himself for higher elected office or a
possible appointment in a future GOP federal administration. He has gone so
far as to call for a special session of the Utah Legislature to enact this
agenda. Utah conservatives in the House have opposed this anti-gun agenda,
as have the many GOP party delegates who publicly rebuked Leavitt and others
at the recent GOP State Convention in Ogden.

GOUtah! representatives, along with other gun-rights representatives, were
invited to an informal private meeting at the residence of Speaker Stephens
on 28 May 1999 to discuss the issue and to help formulate a rational response.
NRA/ILA Liaison Brian Judy was unable to attend due to a schedule conflict,
but submitted written NRA positions very close to the established GOUtah!
no-compromise stance. This meeting invitation came to GOUtah! from Utah GOP
Chairman and USSC-paid lobbyist Rob Bishop. The 28 May meeting was suddenly
canceled the night before, and was tentatively rescheduled for 16 June at
the Interim Legislative Hearings at the State Capitol. GOUtah! was never
informed of or invited to any other policy discussion or meeting with the
House Speaker, legislative leadership, legislators or other gun rights
activists on the 16th or at any time since.

However, some sort of high level gun policy discussion, without any GOUtah!
invitation or involvement, clearly took place at or about that time. Paul
Rolly in the 27 June issue of the Salt Lake Tribune discusses the situation
in more detail. (You may refer to the article on the Tribune's website at
www.sltrib.com)

GOUtah! also received a forwarded e-mail from reliable pro-gun sources that
apparently originated within the Utah Shooting Sports Council, outlining
the options proposed by House GOP leadership and asking for input from USSC
leadership. We assume the individual listed as "Woody" is Elwood Powell,
Chair of the USSC Board of Trustees. Rob Bishop is the paid USSC lobbyist,
and Brian Judy is the NRA/ILA Liaison for Utah. Those options appear here
exactly as received in the USSC e-mail message, typos and all.

"I did receive a call from Rob Bishop yesterday. Marty Stephens called him
about a deal. This evidently is a follow up on Rob's and Brian Judy's
impromptu meeting on Wednesday with Lane Beattie before the afternoon
interim session committee meetings.

The options Marty Stephens was calling about were these:

1. A special session with the house and the senate voing their conscience
on the gun issues with no muscle from leadership.

2. Ban guns in schools in exchange for a suit ban against manufactures,
dealers, instructors, etc.

3. Enact some kind of super concealed carry permit for schools on a "good
cause" showing to the Department of Public Safety. This was one of the
Governor's task force recommendations.

4. A referendum petition drive which will put the entire horizon of gun
restrictions on the ballot in November.

5. The last option was to do nothing in the gun area.

The question put to Rob Bishop was "what will we accept" short of do nothing?
Rob's tenative reponse without canvasing the Board was option 5.
What are your thoughts?

Woody"

It becomes clear that some substantial and dangerous 'wheeling and dealing'
with our gun rights is being proposed and conducted behind our backs at the
Utah State Capitol. GOUtah! will maintain our established position of no
compromise, no retreat and no surrender on these issues. In response to the
options listed above, GOUtah has the following comments:

1: A special legislative session is neither needed nor warranted, and as
such GOUtah! is firmly opposed to any special legislative undertaking
outside the normally-scheduled annual session. Any changes in the laws
should be by the regular legislative process.

2: As GOUtah! has clearly established in our Statement of Purposes and
Principles, "GOUtah! will never compromise one portion of our rights or
sacrifice one segment of the lawful gun-owning public to preserve or
protect the interests of another. We'll throw no one to the sharks in order
to buy time or curry political or media favor. We denounce anyone and any
organization which elects to do so."

As such, GOUtah! will seek to both protect CCW holders from any restriction on
their ability to possess a firearm for lawful self defense, and we will also
work toward legislation protecting legitimate firearms owners, instructors,
dealers and the firearms industry from all abusive or punitive lawsuits as
a matter of sound public policy. We will not trade one issue for the other,
and we will denounce anyone and any organization that does.

3: Establishment of a two-level permit system takes Utah gun owners right back
to the abusive DPS/BCI 'proving need' situation we so long endured before
earning 'shall issue' CCW legislation in 1995. The 'Super' CCW permitee would
clearly enjoy all the rights available to current permittees, and it would
undoubtedly be issued only to politicians, judges, prosecutors, lawyers,
agents of government, media and society VIPs and other elites, just as Utah
CCW permits were issued prior to 1995.

The 'average' Utah CCW permit holder, by contrast, would face an endless and
ever-expanding list of prohibited times, places and circumstances where their
permit was invalid, and therefore their ability to provide for their own
safety and the safety of their families would be seriously compromised. The
life of every Utah citizen has equal value. CCW permit holders are not second
class citizens, and we will not be treated as such! All the animals in the
Utah CCW barnyard are equal, period!

4: Any threatened referendum by anti-gun forces is irrelevant. The statewide
referendum undertaking is expensive, time consuming and likely far beyond
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #18 - 1 July 1999 2/2
Date: 03 Jul 1999 17:18:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
their ability to successfully execute. Further, any use of tax dollars, public
time or public facilities for furthering such an effort is likely illegal,
thus professional educators and other public servants would be severely
limited in their ability to further that effort in schools and other public
facilities. The pro-gun forces have won almost every public initiative battle
waged in the last several decades. We can win this one too, if needs be.

5: GOUtah! will also not sit by and 'do nothing.' We will be very active in
promoting and expanding the rights of Utah gun owners, and will offer an
aggressive legislative agenda to that end. If others wish to sit on the
sidelines and 'do nothing,' while claiming to be 'protecting your rights',
then let them. Utah's dedicated gun owners will do it for themselves, in
spite of the 'spineless' among the ranks.

So what's to be done to change this situation? Here's what you must do TODAY
to protect your gun rights. Please refer to the GOUtah! positions as listed
above in your contact with legislators and the media. Please remember to be
polite and respectful but firm and to the point in all your communications.

1: Call, write, email and if possible personally visit with both your elected
Utah State Senator and Representative and demand they do not infringe on your
rights of self defense or firearms ownership in any way. Further demand that
they do not support and not vote for holding any special legislative session
dealing with firearms issues.

2: Call, write, email and if possible personally visit with both Utah House
Speaker Marty Stephens and Senate President Lane Beattie, and let them know
where you stand as a firearms owner and CCW permit holder. They can be reached
at:

Rep. Marty Stephens, 3159 N. Higley Rd, Farr West, UT 84404, [phone]
Res, [phone] Off, [phone] Fax. Email: [e-mail]

Sen. Lane Beattie, 319 State Capitol, SLC, UT, 84114, [phone] Res,
[phone] Off, [phone] Fax, Email: [e-mail]

3: Call, write, email and if possible personally visit with Governor
Leavitt. He can be reached at:

Gov. Mike Leavitt, State Capitol, SLC, UT 84114, [phone], Email:
[e-mail]

4: Call, write, email and if possible personally visit with the leadership
and membership of your local gun club, your local gun store, and all other
interested groups, and spread the word about this issue and the dangers it
poses to all of our freedoms.

5: Call, write, email and personally visit your local newspaper editor or
editorial board. Write repeated 'letters to the editor' in support of your
gun rights. Call in to talk radio programs and spread the truth.

6: Share the GOUtah! message with all your pro-gun friends, family and
associates via fax, email, the internet and make photo copies of the GOUtah!
alerts to pass out to fellow gun owners at your club, range or gun store.

If you don't do it, it will not get done. It's your guns, your rights and
your freedom. Do it right now!

Utah CCW Permits Now Top 29,000. Utah DPS/BCI Begins Limiting Renewal
Services to All of Them.

The number of CCW permits in Utah reportedly now tops 29,000, and may
approach 30,000 as you read this. There has been a recent run on permits in
early 1999 as many gun owners seek to 'get in before the gate closes' on a
more restrictive CCW permit system.

GOUtah! is very supportive of a broad base of citizens lawfully carrying
firearms for self defense under the authority of a CCW permit, but we are also
concerned that this 'permit rush' smacks of the same 'panic buying' we all saw
during the looming approach of Brady and the 'assault weapon' and ammunition
magazine bans of the mid-1990s. At this time many individuals, rather than
redoubling their political efforts to help defeat the pending, and at that
time still defeatable bans, instead put their time, effort and resources into
buying up guns, magazines, ammo and the like as if the proposed bans were
already in place.

Because of that shift in priorities, from gun owners fighting the political
fight for freedom to admitting defeat in the middle of the battle, retreating
and 'panic buying' everything in sight, the political battle was lost. That
big 17 round magazine for your Glock pistol now costs $75.00 or more used, if
and when it can be found, while before the ban it was perhaps $25.00 or less
brand new. It's still at very best a $25.00 magazine, but due to far too many
gun owners admitting early defeat during the political battle, they now cost
everyone at least $75.00 today and perhaps twice that a year from now. It
shouldn't be that way. It didn't have to be that way. It's a clear case of
misplaced political priorities on the part of gun owners.

We believe we all should be putting our very best efforts and resources into
blocking any infringement or limitation on the time, place or circumstances
of the validity of any Utah CCW permit, rather than running out to get a CCW
permit and then sitting back and grumbling to anyone who will listen that the
CCW permit is now invalid for many of your necessary daily activities. Having
a heavily-restricted CCW permit is like having no permit at all, except you
have just submitted your fingerprints, photos, life history and a good chunk
of hard-earned cash to the government to get a worthless slip of plastic.
Don't get mad after the fact. Work harder now and you'll have nothing to be
mad about later.

We have also received word from Concealed Carry Specialists (CCS), Utah's
largest CCW trainers, that the Utah DPS/BCI administration as of 1 March
1999 will no longer be sending a renewal notice and application when your
CCW is about to expire. That means you must now monitor your CCW status and
renew without any reminder. We suggest you check your CCW permit now and
mark your calendars a couple of months prior to your renewal date and make
sure you're submitting your renewal in a timely fashion.

Further, according to CCS, DPS/BCI indicates they will allow only a 30 day
grace period after a permit expires to renew. After 30 days, you will have to
undergo the entire CCW application process again, except for the training
requirement. Photos, fingerprints, fees, notary and such will all have to be
resubmitted to get a new CCW permit.

It is doubtful that any other state issued license or permit is treated in
this abusive manner for renewal. It is clear that with the new regulatory
authority and fee setting granted to DPS/BCI by the 1999 Utah Legislature,
DPS/BCI intends to erect every possible roadblock, 'time and hassle tax',
excessive fees, and other administrative impediments to Utah citizens wishing
to exercise their right of self defense. This is unacceptable, and we suggest
you discuss the issue in great detail with your elected state Senators and
Representatives. GOUtah! will be working toward specific legislative remedies
to this issue in the next Utah legislative session.

GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch

"I just don't see why we have to be concerned about the safety of a few
individuals who want to be armed in schools vs. the safety of the children."
-- Bill Nash, Utahns Against Gun Violence, quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune,
29 June 1999

That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #18, 1 July 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: Special legislative session on guns urgently needed
Date: 04 Jul 1999 11:20:00 -0700


Deseret News column from a local Quisling.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,100009427,00.html

Deseret News, Sunday, July 04, 1999, 12:00 AM MDT

Special legislative session on guns urgently needed

By Sen. Scott Howell

The recent tragedy at Columbine High School has once again focused our
private and public energies on the issues of youth violence and firearms
control. Representatives of the Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, United
Methodist, Disciples of Christ and Episcopal churches called for a special
legislative session to confront these issues soon after Columbine. The PTA
and LDS Church officials, while declining to comment on a special session,
have expressed similar concerns about guns.

As a responsible gun owner, I recognize and support the constitutional
right to bear arms. Not even the Second Amendment, however, condones
all types of weapons ownership; instead, it states "a well-regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I do not believe that firearms-control legislation is a panacea that
will solve all of society's ills. The problem of violence, particularly
youth violence, is a complex issue involving everything from parental
responsibility to school safety to the entertainment industry. It would
be wrong to simply pass firearms-control legislation while ignoring the
other issues involved.

It would be equally wrong, however, to oppose new firearms-control
legislation just because it cannot solve the entire problem. We should
not target law-abiding gun owners. However, sensible reforms to keep
guns from kids and criminals are a vital part of any comprehensive
approach to solving the youth violence crisis.

Reasonable gun-control legislation need not be a partisan issue. Instead,
we should work together in a bipartisan manner to keep guns out of the
hands of children. The Republican speaker of the United States Congress,
Denny Hastert, commented, "I don't think kids, and that means anybody
under 21 years of age, ought to be able to get handguns; I think that
makes sense, and that's something I think that we can work on."

I believe that we should consider the following firearms-control measures:

1. We should encourage companies to continue developing "smart
technology" as a viable, marketable product which would enable
guns to recognize their owners. This technology could potentially
personalize weapons so that only an authorized owner could fire
the gun. Stolen guns would be rendered useless to criminals.

2. Juveniles involved in serious gun violations should not be
allowed to own firearms as an adult.

3. As Hastert urged, we should limit handgun purchases to those
over 21 years old. Federal law currently prohibits the sale of
handguns from licensed dealers to those under 21; This restriction
should apply to all who sell handguns, not just licensed dealers.

4. Background checks should be instituted at gun shows. This
would lengthen purchase time by only five or 10 minutes and
prevent criminals from acquiring firearms in this manner.

5. All background checks should include information on mental
illnesses and prevent those who are mentally ill from acquiring guns.

6. Guns should come equipped with trigger-locks to protect against
accidental shootings. Too often we read of children who are
accidentally killed while playing with guns that were improperly stored.

7. Churches, schools, hospitals and private-property owners should NOT
have to post signs prohibiting concealed weapons. Rather, respecting
the right of private-property owners, carriers of concealed weapons
should request permission to carry their weapons into these places.
I believe that there is simply no place for guns in churches, schools
or hospitals.

8. Plea bargaining violations from felonies to misdemeanors should
not be allowed except in very rare circumstances. When this is the
case, provision should be enacted to prohibit firearms purchase and
possession in the future.

The problems facing our society are about much more than guns. While
addressing reasonable gun-control legislation, we should not ignore
the "culture of violence" created and perpetuated by the entertainment
industry. Movies and music currently carry ratings and warning labels;
what about software and video games? Movie ratings themselves should
be tightened; extreme violence, not just graphic sex, should merit an
NC-17 rating. As parents, we all need to be more aware of what movies
our children are viewing, what video games they are playing and how
much TV they are watching. Ultimately parents are responsible for
their children.

Our young people are being constantly bombarded with images of filth
and violence. We need to address all of the issues involved in a
bipartisan manner to create a safe environment in which our children
can live and learn. For these reasons and more, I applaud the governor
for calling a special legislative session to set new public policy;
even if we can save just one life, that would be reason enough.


Scott Howell is Senate Minority Leader. Elected to the Utah Senate in
1990, he represents Senate District 8.

Copyright 1999, Deseret News Publishing Corp.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun Facts Pamphlet1/2
Date: 05 Jul 1999 14:32:00 -0700


-----


The following fact sheet is designed to be easily formatted for
pamphlet form, on 8-1/2x14 legal-size stock (I use Goldenrod or
Yellow). It can be folded in half, and then in half, again, to
provide a neat 2-sided, 4-paneled pamphlet.

Print this out for friends, family, and your elected officials,
and let them know the facts about gun-owners and their firearms,
NOT just hysterical propaganda!

You can insert your own club or organization's name at the bottom,
in place of the information about LAGR shown below. If you send an
SASE to me at LAGR's PO Box, I will send back a "master" copy
printed out on white legal-size paper, with a blank space in place
of LAGR's contact information, so that you can insert your own
group's contact information.

PAUL GALLANT

GUNS IN AMERICA: THE FACTS

...what the media WON'T tell you!!

Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-
defense does not end violent crime - it just makes victims more
vulnerable! Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the
responsibilities of firearm ownership - not from gun-control laws.
Here's why:

SELF-DEFENSE & CRIME

* In 1990, a convicted felon could expect to serve the following
prison time: 1.8 years for murder, 60 days for rape, 23 days for
robbery, 6.7 days for arson, and 6.4 days for aggravated assault.
According to a U.S. Justice Department survey in 17 states, of
felony offenders placed on probation in 1986, 43% were rearrested
on other felony charges within 3 years of their release. (1)

* Passage of the Brady Law in 1994 has NOT been accompanied by a
statistically significant decline in murder or robbery. It has
been associated with significant increases in rape and aggravated
assaults, presumably from the increased difficulty encountered by
law-abiding citizens in obtaining firearms for self-defense. (2)

* In 1987, Florida's concealed-carry law went from "may-issue"
to "shall-issue" (also known as "Right-To-Carry", or RTC). This
meant that issuing authorities must provide a concealed-carry
handgun license to all qualified applicants. Other states
followed suit, and modeled their own RTC laws after Florida's.
On 4/7/98 (the latest date such figures were available),
Florida's Dept of Law Enforcement announced that the state's
murder rate had dropped, again, in 1997, just as it had in each
of the 5 previous years. The additional drop marked the lowest
murder rate experienced by "Dodge City East" since 1933. (3)

* In 1982, Kennesaw GA (pop. 17,000) passed a law requiring
heads of households to keep at least one firearm in their home,
exempting those with criminal records or religious objections.
Seven months after it took effect, the residential burglary rate
dropped 89%, vs. 10.4% statewide. Since 1982, only 2 murders
have occurred (1984 and 1989), both committed with knives. (4)

* Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent
crime. The reduction corresponds very closely to the number of
concealed-handgun licenses issued. On average, murder rates in
states banning concealed-carry are 127% higher than in states
having the most liberal carry laws. A 1% increase in firearm
ownership reduces violent crime by 4.1%. Large, densely populated
urban areas benefit the most from concealed-carry laws. (5)

* Ordinary, law-abiding Americans use guns defensively 2.5
million times, or more, each year. About 75% of these instances
are with handguns. That translates to rapes prevented, injuries
avoided, medical costs saved, and property protected. (6)

* Firearms provide the safest and most effective means of
resisting violent criminal attack. For robbery and assault,
resistance by defenders armed with a gun leads to termination of
the incident with the smallest chance of injury to the victim.
In U.S. gov't studies, victims resisting robbery with a gun were
injured 17.4% of the time. Those who did nothing at all were
injured 24.7% of the time. Those who used non-violent resistance,
like trying to run away, were injured 35.9% of the time. Those
who resisted with a knife were injured 40.3% of the time. For
assault, injury rates were 12.1%, 27.3%, 25.5%, and 29.5%,
respectively. While 17.4% of those who resisted robbery with a
gun were injured overall, this includes victims who were first
injured before they used their guns; less than 6% of robbery
victims were injured after using a gun to resist. (7)

* Women who carry concealed handguns provide a greater margin of
safety for other women. While murder rates decline when either
more men or more women carry concealed handguns, the drop is even
greater among women than among men. Rapists are particularly
susceptible to the deterrence of a potentially armed woman. (5)

* Increased incidents of "road rage" from allowing more citizens
to carry guns have not materialized. In the 31 states where it is
currently legal for citizens to carry a concealed handgun, there
have been no documented instances of such acts by armed
law-abiding citizens. (2)

* Armed defenders lose their guns to an attacker less than 1% of
the time. (7)

* The net value of private firearm ownership - the dollar savings
from defensive gun use, minus the costs of "gun-violence" - has
been estimated at up to $38.9 billion, annually. (8)

* So-called "assault weapons" are military look-alike semi-
automatic firearms, and are exactly the same as guns which have
been around for over 100 years -only their looks have changed.
Semi-automatic firearms do not "spray" bullets, and are not
machine guns - they require a separate pull of the trigger for
each shot to be fired, just like a revolver - and are used in
3% or less of all firearm-related crimes. They are the most
modern tools the law-abiding citizen can use for self-defense
and protection of home and family. They are especially valuable
for physically handicapped victims. (9)

* In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement
had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to
enforce the laws. (10) In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals held
that "there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the
state against criminals or madmen. The Constitution does not
require Federal or State government to provide services, even
so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."(11)

* In Great Britain, handguns are outlawed, and possession of long
guns is severely restricted. Yet, despite strict gun-control, as
of 1995, rates for robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle
theft in England and Wales had surpassed those here in the States.
On average, for all 4 crimes, English rates were double U.S. rates.
(12)

MASS SHOOTINGS & "GUN-FREE" SCHOOL ZONES

* Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings (like Jonesboro
AR, and Littleton CO) fall dramatically after RTC concealed-
handgun laws are enacted. Where data was available both before
and after passage of such laws, the average death rate from mass
shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws took effect, and
injuries dropped by over 80%! (2,13)

* Armed with a hunting rifle, 16-year-old Luke Woodham killed his
ex-girlfriend and her close friend, then wounded 7 other students,
in 1997 at a high school in Pearl, Mississippi. Assistant Principal
Joel Myrick retrieved a handgun from his car, and interrupted
Woodham's shooting spree, holding him at bay until police arrived.
Earlier that morning, Woodham had stabbed his mother to death. (14)
[ Continued In Next Message... ]




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun Facts Pamphlet2/2
Date: 05 Jul 1999 14:32:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
A similar script played out in 1998 in Edinboro, Pennsylvania,
when local merchant James Strand used his shotgun to "coax"
14-year old Andrew Wurst into dropping his gun, and surrendering
to police. Wurst had just killed one teacher, wounded another
and two classmates. (14)

* "...the recent rash of public school shootings...raise[s]
questions about the unintentional consequences of laws. The five
public school shootings [which occurred during the 1997-98 school
year] took place after a 1995 federal law banned guns (including
permitted concealed handguns) within a thousand feet of a school.
The possibility exists that attempts to outlaw guns from schools,
no matter how well meaning, may have produced perverse effects.
It is interesting to note that during the 1977 to 1995 period [of
our study], 15 shootings took place in schools in states without
right-to-carry laws and only one took place in a state with this
type of law. There were 19 deaths and 97 injuries in states
without the law, while there was one death and two injuries in
states with the law." (13)

* A July 1993 U.S. Department of Justice study found that "boys
who own legal firearms...have much lower rates of delinquency and
drug use [than those who obtained them illegally] and are even
slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns." It concluded
that, "for legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place
in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place
'on the street'". (15)

ACCIDENTS & SUICIDES

* In 1994, fatal firearms accidents dropped 11% from 1993 figures,
to the lowest annual number since record-keeping began in 1903.
They dropped even lower by almost 7% in 1995. Motor vehicle
accidents, falls, fires, drownings, poisonings, suffocation, and
other accidents all accounted for more deaths than did firearm
accidents. Among children aged 0-14 years, there were 185 fatal
firearms accidents, vs. 500 per year in the mid-1970s. (16)

* In 1993, there were 1,334 drownings and 528 firearm-related
accidental deaths from ages 0-19. While firearms outnumber pools
by a factor of over 30:1, the risk of drowning in a pool is
nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident.
From ages 0-5, the risk of drowning skyrockets to 500 times the
risk from a gun! (16,17)

* "Trigger-lock" laws don't equal safety. While California has
such a law on the books, it saw a 12% increase in fatal firearm
accidents in 1994. Texas doesn't have one, and experienced a 28%
decrease, instead. (16) "Trigger-locks" do, however, render guns
inaccessible for self-defense.

* Accident and suicide rates are unaffected by the passage of
Right-To-Carry concealed handgun laws. (2)

* Suicide rates fluctuate independently of gun control laws and
gun ownership. Banning guns will not affect the suicide rate -
other equally deadly implements would only be substituted in
their place. (18)

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

* The scholarship on the 2nd Amendment overwhelmingly agrees that
it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and not
simply the right to arm the "militia". (19) In 1982, the Senate
Subcommittee on the Constitution evaluated the historical record,
and unanimously came to the same conclusion. (20)

REFERENCES
1. Reynolds M, Caruth W; "Myths About Gun Control"; National Ctr
for Policy Analysis, 1992
2. Lott J; "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-
Control Laws"; University of Chicago; 1998
3. Florida Department of State documents 4. "Kennesaw Update";
The New American, 6/10/96
5. Lott J, Mustard D; "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry
Concealed Handguns"; Journal of Legal Studies; Vol 26(1); Jan 97
6. Kleck G, Gertz M; "Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun"; Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology; Vol 86#1, Fall 1995
7. Kleck G; Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control; Aldine de
Gruyter; NY 1997
8. National Center for Policy Analysis, March 1999
9. Suter E; "Assault-Weapons" Revisited - An Analysis of the AMA
Report;Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, May 1994
10. South v. Maryland, 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L.Ed.433(1856)
11. Bowers v. DeVito, US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 686F.2d
616 (1982)
12."Crime and Justice in the United States and England and Wales,
1981-1996"; U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics; October 1998
13. Lott J, Landes W; "Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings,
and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and
Public Law Enforcement"; University of Chicago,Working Paper #73, 1999
14."How to Stop Mass Public Shootings"; Lott J; The L.A. Times 3/25/98
15. U.S. Department of Justice
16. National Center for Health Statistics
17. National Spa and Pool Institute
18. Suter E; "Guns in the Medical Literature: A Failure of Peer Review";
Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, Mar 1994
19. Reynolds H, Kates D; "The Second Amendment and States' Rights:
A Thought Experiment"; William & Mary Law Review; Vol 36 #5,8/955
20. Senate Subcommittee of the Commission of the Judiciary on The
Constitution, 97th Congress, 1992

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: The Committee for Law-Abiding
Gun-Owners, Rockland [LAGR] Paul Gallant, O.D., Chairman PO Box
354 Thiells, NY 10984-0354 914-354-9090 914-354-9091 Fax E-Mail:
[e-mail] 05/99

Why do liberals trust the bad guys to be good and expect the law-
abiding to be bad?

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

thomasW429

Copy this posting into a word-processor, format it, then make
MANY copies to give out at any and all public events.

Republic Radio (on the Internet): http://www.audiocasting.com/republic.ram

FREE AMERICAN 9AM Eastern Mon-Fri 12.16 Mhz
EXPOSING CORRUPTION 2PM Eastern Mon-Fri. 9.4 Mhz
INTELLIGENCE REPORT 8PM Eastern Mon-Thurs. 5.085 Mhz

REPUBLIC RADIO: http://www.republicradio.freeservers.com/

Shortwave stations on the Internet: http://www.audiocasting.com/networks.html

MILITIA of MONTANA: http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/mom.html

FREE AMERICAN: http://www.freeamerican.com/

NEWSMAX: http://www.newsmax.com

WorldNetDaily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.html

JUDICIAL WATCH: http://www.judicialwatch.org/

NEW AMERICAN: http://www.jbs.org/okc/index.htm

Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation Committee: http://www.okcbombing.org/
NewsGroup: alt.current-events.amfb-explosion

CONSTITUTION SOCIETY: http://www.constitution.org/

THIRD CONTINENTAL CONGRESS: http://www.afn.org/~mpress/3cc/3ccindex.html

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death:
http://home.nebonet.com/users/headhome/dadmisc/liberty.htm

Patrick Henry On-line: http://www.mo-net.com/~mlindste/index.html

On the front line of the information war.

GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA: http://www.gunowners.org/

Purchase a surplus M1 Garand rifle: http://www.odcmp.com/

ALL-PURPOSE AMMO: http://www.dragonsbreath.com/ (mostly shotgun
specialty ammo - FLECHETTE, FLAME-THROWER, ARMOR-PIERCING, etc.)

CASCADE AMMO: http://www.cascade-ammo.com/index.html (many varieties
including the old favorites of military grade rifle loadings)

BUSHMASTER: M-16 type rifles of MILSPEC quality (they sell to the
military) at much lower cost than others. (Gun stores can order for
delivery in a few days). GUN TESTS magazine rated the BUSHMASTER
XM-15 more accurate than the Colt AR-15. http://www.bushmaster.com/

MILITIA - THAT MEANS YOU! http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/mom.html

BILLINGS ASSAULT MILITIA: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/shootin/

Gun Tests is published monthly (12 issues) by Belvoir Publications,
Inc. 75 Holly Hill Lane Box 2626 Greenwich, Conn. 06836-2626
1-800-829-9084 Subscriptions are $29.00 annually. ~~ Highly Recommended!



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: great article by the house conservative at
Date: 07 Jul 1999 14:16:41 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 07 Jul 1999 09:29:55 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id JAA13460; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 09:09:40 -0600
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA07421;
    Wed, 7 Jul 1999 11:18:58 -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=ISO-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

What's gun control got to do with it?=20


The 20,000 laws already on the books couldn't stop the Columbine massacre,
and one more won't either, but liberals just don't get that.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By David Horowitz=20
July 6, 1999 | The other day I picked up a phone message from a woman
concerning a charity event for homeless youngsters that I was helping
organize in Hollywood. The woman is a liberal, and she said she had found =
a
friend who was willing to volunteer her home for an event we had planned =
for
the children -- then she paused -- "but not if Charlton Heston comes."=20
Then she paused again. "In fact," she said, "none of my friends' homes =
will
be available if Charlton Heston comes." It was unnecessary for her to say,
as she also did under her breath, "They murdered those kids," to alert me =
to
the fact that this was about the Columbine tragedy in Colorado, where two
sociopathic teenagers had barged into a high school and ambushed their
classmates before turning their weapons on themselves.=20
Nor did she have to connect the dots and say that the passions that Heston
provoked as head of the National Rifle Association, which had thwarted the
passage of gun control legislation in the aftermath of these events, was =
the
cause of her friends' determination to shun Charlton Heston and make him a
social pariah.=20
Accustomed as I am to such intolerant reflexes in people who otherwise =
think
of themselves as "liberal," this one caused me to stop and reflect for a
moment on what it had revealed. Consider, dear reader, the people you know
and call your friends. How many individuals could you name whom these
friends would want to bar from a social gathering whose sole purpose was =
to
raise money for homeless kids? O.J. Simpson? Slobodan Milosevic? David =
Duke?

For myself, I don't have a single conservative friend or acquaintance who
would say, "If Barbra Streisand wants to help us raise money for poor =
kids,
I don't want her in my house." (OK, maybe one or two.)
       =09
Charlton Heston is no conservative troglodyte. He is a New Deal Democrat,
the former chairman of the Hollywood committee for the Rev. Martin Luther
King Jr.'s march on Washington, a lifelong champion of civil rights and
artists' rights (he was a staunch defender of the National Endowment for =
the
Arts) and generally a decent, humane and ecumenical soul.=20
Of course, such data is irrelevant in this matter, because the ideological
hatred liberals bear toward Heston has no real-world referrent in terms of
who the man actually is. Even Heston's role as spokesman for the NRA =
doesn't
make their passion any more intelligible to someone outside their
ideological bubble. Do the 3 million mainly lower-middle-class and
working-class members of the NRA want to see children die? Would the
legislation they defeated have indisputably saved those children or others
to come?=20
The fact is that there are 20,000 gun laws already on the books, 17 of =
which
were violated by the Columbine killers. What would one more law accomplish
that the other 20,000 could not? Especially one that would merely mandate
background checks on buyers at gun shows? Is there any evidence that these
shows are the sites of a significant number of criminal purchases or that
such legislation would have any effect on armed crimes?=20
The Brady Bill has been violated on 250,000 occasions, according to police
records, but not a single violator has been punished. Is there any
correlation at all between stringent registration laws and low gun deaths?
Apparently not. A social scientist named John Lott has just published a
study that claims that communities in which citizens are armed have lower
incidences of gun violence than communities where guns are relatively
absent.=20
In places where gun violence has actually been reduced, like New York, =
where
the murder rate has been cut by a phenomenal 60 percent, the reason =
appears
to be aggressive police methods, which have come under fire from many of
these same liberals who think gun control is the answer. Do the people who
hate Chuck Heston adore Rudy Giuliani? Hardly.=20
I do not intend this as an argument for or against the gun legislation =
that
was proposed and that failed in the wake of Columbine. It is merely a case
for sobriety in assessing the issues that make up the dispute. The gun
legislation in question may have been worthy or not. The point is that any
difference it might make is so insignificant that it could not justify the
foam-at-the-mouth response of its proponents or the stigma they have
attached to people, like Heston, who disagree with them about it.=20
Why are liberals so hypocritically bigoted? It's not a question that can =
be
casually dismissed. After all, the conservatives who would shun a Barbra
Streisand make no fetish out of "diversity" the way liberals do, nor do =
they
wave the bloody flag of past witch-hunts whenever they come under attack, =
as
liberals are known to do as well.=20
Moreover, the little auto-da-f=C8 over the possibility that Chuck Heston =
would
materialize at a charity event is no aberrant case. George Stephanopoulos'
recent memoir captures a parallel moment at the very center of the =
political
process. Before impeachment irretrievably embittered the atmosphere of the
Clinton White House, Stephanopoulos and the president were discussing an
open congressional seat and the prospect of an upcoming special election.
"It's Nazi time," Clinton remarked to Stephanopoulos, meaning time to get
back to campaigning against Republicans.
Two years later, at the outset of another campaign, Clinton told Dick
Morris, "You have to understand, Bob Dole is evil, what he wants is evil."
This of a war hero who had played the role of consensus builder in his =
years
as Senate majority leader.=20
  =09
Nor is Clinton alone in his rabid hatred of the Republican opposition. =
Rep.
John Lewis, D-Ga., publicly referred to House Republicans as "Nazis" =
merely
for proposing to keep the expansion of Medicare within the rate of =
inflation
lest the whole system go bankrupt, as a presidential commission indicated =
it
would.=20
Other Democrats, like Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., referred to Republicans as
racist for similar disagreements on budgetary allocations. As in the case =
of
gun control legislation, there is no perceivable connection between the
offenses and the demonization of the offenders by liberals.
Outside the KKK-Farrakhan hate fringe (which embraces bigots on the left =
and
right), there is no conservative analog to this liberal paranoia. Perhaps
there is a Republican officeholder who every now and then enters the
electoral cycle with the war cry "It's commie time," but I certainly =
haven't
met him. The current Clinton security leaks are grave enough to have
generated a hundred Joe McCarthys, but not one has yet appeared.=20
There is simply no analog to the liberal passion of conservative bashing
that has unfairly stained the reputations of figures as disparate as Bork,
Thomas, Gingrich, Barr, Connerly and now DeLay. Conservatives have not =
even
laid a glove on such obvious targets as Barney Frank and Maxine Waters. =
They
tend to think of their opponents as irresponsible or simply misguided. But
they do not treat them as agents of the devil.
But then Republicans are political amateurs. They typically leave a =
business
in the business sector to go fight City Hall over practical matters. They
want to restrain the leviathan that is suffocating enterprise. Or, less
nobly, they want to harness it to some self-interested goal.=20
Liberals have a grander design. Their interest in politics is missionary.
They see government as a means to social redemption, to change the world.
They're not there to tinker with gun control laws. They're there, as =
Hillary
Rodham Clinton put it, "to define what it means to be human in the 21st
century." In the nightmares of NRA supporters, this means to do whatever =
it
takes and to trample over any rights necessary to remove all 240 million
guns from public possession in the quest for a utopia where violence no
longer exists.=20
The reason liberals are so bigoted lies in a vision that has ancestral =
roots
in the Puritan origins of the American new world. They see themselves as
soldiers in the army of the saints -- a vision incomplete without the
counter-army of Satan, the dark adversary corrupting the innocent and
blocking their progress. People like Charlton Heston stand in the way of
their impossible dream. In the fantasies of these liberal Lenins, all the
little dead children killed in drive-bys across America could be walking =
the
safe streets of the 'hood if only the Chuck Hestons of this world would
disappear.=20
salon.com | July 6, 1999




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: OT: U.S. Army Soldiers Magless and Muzzled Way Down in
Date: 07 Jul 1999 15:00:12 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:37:33 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA13360; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:17:17 -0600
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA04846;
    Wed, 7 Jul 1999 10:27:02 -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

Say it ain't so, Senator Robert "Cool Ranch" Dolito. In an AP photo
printed on page A6 of the July 5, 1999 issue of The Boston Globe, there
you sit, enjoying some G.I. chow at a "holiday barbecue" at Camp
Bondsteel near the southern Kosovo town of Vitina, as highlighted by the
AP photo's accompanying caption. Propped against the near end of the
wooden table at which you and a half-squad of BDU-clad soldiers sit is
one of those Clintonista-feared and Clintonista-hated assault rifles, a
real, bona fide M-16A2 black rifle capable of  celebrating (functional)
diversity either in semi-automatic or full automatic mode. (Well, what
do you know? It actually takes a battle rifle in the hands of an
honorable American of character to save a village! How about that?)

Back to the main point. Missing from the empty well of the M-16A2 rifle
shown in the photograph is a Clintonista-feared and Clintonista-hated
high capacity magazine loaded with 30 rounds of 5.56mm mil spec ball
ammunition! It also appears as if that M-16A2 rifle's muzzle is covered
by a protective plastic cap, ostensibly to prevent WASPs, Roman
Catholics or other assorted "Christian Right" extremists from deciding
to nest, along with a copy of The Ten Commandments, deep inside that
rifle's barrel during Senator "Cool Ranch" Dolito's visit?

Humor aside, reflect back to the date of the infamous, horrific truck
bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. Recall that over
240 brave U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy corpsmen assigned to the U.S.
Marine unit stationed there lost their lives as a smiling, suicidal
Saracen drove his explosives laden lorry past USMC sentries who, by
policy, were not allowed to have their M-16 rifles' magazine wells
charged with loaded magazines, which heightened state of readiness might
have allowed them to instantaneously chamber live rounds upon detecting
danger and to bring significant firepower to bear on an advancing
terrorist madman.

Would the sentries alone have been able to stop the Beirut truck bomber?
We will never know, will we, because some special assistant to an
assistant bonehead at either the Department of State or the Department
of Defense or at some other stratospheric level within the Pentagon
probably intimidated the local USMC commanding officer into conforming
with stateside, peacetime policies mandating the carriage of unloaded
weapons at a military facility if not on a supervised rifle range.. Hey,
we would not have wanted to anger the Hezbollah Hollow Hee Haw Boys'
Choir, now would we? What would the Hezbollah terrorists active in
Lebanon have thought if camouflage-clad U.S. Marines had actually been
allowed to perform sentry duty at their barracks while carrying weapons
charged with fully loaded magazines? Again, we will never know, will we?

But we sure as heck know now that Senator Bob Dole, a decorated war
hero, is apparently content to sit in southern Kosovo, a confirmed
unsecured combat zone, with U.S. Army soldiers next to whom one unloaded
and oh-so-Clintonally-child-safe M-16A2 rifle rests as a powerful symbol
of all that is wrong with a still superbly trained and highly motivated
U.S. military that has been used worldwide as a political football by
so-called President Clinton and his (liquor) cabinet of (it takes a)
village idiots.

President Clinton, Secretary of Defense Cohen and Senator Dole, if you
should happen to see a copy of this e-mail message, which I sincerely
hope will be forwarded to selected members of Congress who serve on U.S.
House and U.S. Senate Armed Forces Committees, would you please advise
the Chairman of the JCS and commanders in the field that unloaded
personal weapons in combat zones may lead (again) to unloaded coffins
bearing the bodies of soldiers or Marines (killed in action) who should
have been prepared to take up, to chamber a live round in, and then to
fire their already loaded magazine-equipped rifles at a second's notice
in the event of a sudden attack upon their camp or compound?

Our brave soldiers' rifles "magless" and "muzzled" in Kosovo? Shame on
President Clinton, shame on Secretary Cohen, shame on General Clark
(commander of NATO forces in Kosovo) and his boss at the JCS in the
Pentagon, shame on local U.S. Army unit commanders, and some shame, too,
on Senator Dole for sitting by and not demanding unequivocally that
soldiers in his presence be ordered to bear rifles, pistols and other
issued automatic weaponry charged with fully loaded magazines to enable
an immediate, aggressive defense against any enemy's assault on their
position. Combat zones are inherently unsafe. Mandating that our
soldiers (and our Marines) carry unloaded weapons way down in Kosovo is
an unforgivable blunder that must be corrected before lives are lost in
action with hostile forces. Correct this unfortunate situation, now, Mr.
President, Secretary Cohen, General Clark and Senator Dole. Just do it.
Let soldiers be soldiers. Let Marines be Marines. Stop "managing" combat
zones as if they were Clintonized, politically correct Fortune 500
office environments. One telephone call should make "loaded weapons"
happen at Camp Bondsteel and elsewhere, way down in Kosovo. Thank you,
gentlemen, for attending, in prompt fashion, to this important matter.

Respectfully,

Christopher C. Ferris
(Street address deleted)
Nashua NH
[e-mail]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun rights vs. Property rights
Date: 08 Jul 1999 16:14:00 -0700


At Reams I found a copy of the Salt Lake Valley News, East Valley
News Edition, Vol. 3-10 May 31, 1999 -- June 14, 1999 with an
editorial that calls for a response. The publisher is Kim Folsom.
Message Center: 493-7880, Fax [phone]. Apparently no Web or email
presence. Any takers?

Scott Bergeson
[e-mail]

Editorial: Gun rights vs. Property rights

Recently the Salt Lake Valley News received a press release from
GO Utah which is an organization that says it is, "Utah's
Uncompromising, Independent Gu Rights Network, No Compromise, No
Retreat, No Surrender, Not Now, Not Ever." This is kind of talk
you may have heard at the Alamo or maybe from those two teenagers
that killed their classmates in Colorado. I worry about any
organization that believes the NRA is week in its approach.

This is not the time to take sides, but to use our logic. Yes the
rights of gun owners could be threatened by public sentiment about
recent shootings. Something should be done. We should try to find
out what will solve the problem and put those measures into action.
I agree that restrictions may not be the answer but what is? We
need to keep guns out of places guns should not be anyway. You may
have the right to carry a gun but not at church, or at school or
in private businesses and homes where your gun is not welcome.
Property rights are more important than gun rights.

Authorities should have access to all information that would have a
bearing on a person's ability to be responsible with a firearm. Mental
problems that would impact this ability or prior violent criminal
behavior should be accessible.


If you have contrasting opinions send them to
Salt Lake Valley News
Box 520905
Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-0905.



-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Alert; Range protection
Date: 08 Jul 1999 17:07:35 -0600


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

Dear Marksmen and Interested Shooters:

    I have attached an anouncement of the public hearings which will take
    place this month (July 1999) on the proposed destruction of the
Tooele
    Army Depot 30 position military range on the far southwest corner of
    the Depot.  Your immediate action is needed.  Please write comments
    opposing the destruction and closure of this range, and plan on
    attending the July 14, and the July 29, 1999 public meetings.  Your
    support is urgently needed.

Elwood Powell
President
Utah State Rifle & Pistol Association


Important Meetings Wednesday, July 14, 1999 and Thursday, July 29, 1999
at Tooele

There is a superb rifle range at the Tooele Army Depot. It is fully
developed with 30 firing points at 200 and 300 yards and full target pit
facilities. It is designed so that firing points could be added at 600
yards.

The Army intends to destroy this range rather than turn it over to Tooele
County for future use. Reportedly this is based on environmental issues.

With the rapid population growth in Utah it is harder and harder to find
safe places to shoot. It is nearly impossible to acquire suitable land to
build new ranges anywhere near population centers. Rapid growth in the
Tooele area and Eagle Mountain makes preservation of this range vitally
important. Preserving this range will ensure a safe facility is available
for shooters so they will not be tempted to use open areas that may
inadvertently endanger people or livestock.

There will be a public meeting Wed. July 14, 1999 at 9:30 AM in Building
7
at the Tooele Army Depot. This is a quarterly meeting of the TAD
Restoration Advisory Board/Technical Review Committee. They will "review
environmental projects, increase community awareness and assure that the
interest of the community is addressed during the decision making
process."
For more information contact Larry McFarland, TEAD Environmental
Management Division [phone]; or Randi Nelson, Kleinfelder
Community Relations Coordinator. [phone].

The public comment period on the proposed plan of destruction is June 28
to July 28, 1999. There is an another public meeting scheduled for July
29, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at the Tooele County Courthouse, Tooele, Utah.
Written comments should be sent to Larry McFarland/SDSTE-IRE,
Environmental Management Division, Tooele Army Depot, Building T8,
Tooele, Utah 84074-5000.

You need to let these people know that preservation of this range
facility
is very important to the citizens of the community. Tax dollars paid for
the facility and if necessary more taxpayer funds should be spent to
preserve it rather than closing it. Options such as only allowing use of
a
smaller pistol type range nearby are not acceptable.

Please attend the meeting if at all possible, dress appropriately and be
polite. If you cannot make the meeting, then call the numbers above to
express your concerns. If you live in Tooele, contact Representative Ron
Allen, Senator Jim Gowan and also the Tooele County Commissioners. and
ask them to formally request that this range be preserved.

---END FORWARDED MESSAGE---

==================================================================
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: ALERT: The Treachery Of Orrin Hatch
Date: 10 Jul 1999 09:47:00 -0700


-----

Sen Smith has announced he's leaving the GOP for a third party. I hope he
picks us.

Attention Utah Gun Owners: Betrayal in the Beehive State!

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

(July 9, 1999) -- Your Senator, Orrin Hatch, is at it again.

In May, Senator Hatch helped push Clinton's gun ban agenda through
the Senate and then voted for S. 254, a bill that was replete with
gun bans and gun owner registration.

That was bad enough.  But now he's gone one step further.  Senator
Hatch is avidly working to send this bill to President Clinton.  But
thankfully, a pro-gun Senator from New Hampshire has placed some
procedural roadblocks in the way of this anti-gun bill.

That Senator is Bob Smith (R-NH), who is using every parliamentary
maneuver imaginable to keep Clinton's anti-gun crime bill bottled
up, and has placed a "hold" on the juvenile crime legislation. A
"hold" is a parliamentary procedure that can indefinitely delay
unconstitutional legislation-- as long as the leadership is willing
to honor the "hold."

Unfortunately, Senator Orrin Hatch does not agree with Sen. Smith.
And that presents a problem for gun owners.  Sen. Hatch, as the
Judiciary Committee Chairman, is one of the most powerful men in the
U.S. Senate.  In a one-on-one battle between Senators Smith and
Hatch, the Judiciary Committee Chairman is going to win.

And that's why your help is needed immediately.

It is imperative that Sen. Hatch hear a huge outcry from the
grassroots in his state.  He needs to know that folks like yourself
don't want this anti-gun legislation going to the President's desk.

ACTION:  Please mail or fax the letter below, and encourage your
family members and friends to do the same.  You can contact Senator
Hatch at:

Office Phone:   [phone]
Office Fax:    [phone]
Judiciary Com. Phone:   [phone]
Judiciary Com. Fax:    [phone]
Toll-free phone:  [phone]
E-mail:   [e-mail]
Address:   Sen. Orrin Hatch, SR-131 Russell SOB, Washington, DC
20510-4402


----------------- Clip-n-Send --------------------

Dear Sen. Hatch,

I was disappointed to see that you voted for the horrendous juvenile
injustice bill in May (S. 254).  All the gun control proposals that
you voted for will do NOTHING to stop crime, and they are all
infringements of the rights guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment!

I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to undo the damage
that's already been done.

I was also disappointed to hear that as our nation was getting ready
to celebrate Independence Day, the Republican leadership in the
Senate (which of course, includes you) was saying they were going to
"push forward" with this juvenile injustice bill, even though
Senator Bob Smith has a "hold" on this awful legislation.

The Washington Times (July 3, 1999) reports that the Republican
leadership wants to "appoint Senate conferees despite Mr. Smith's
threat [to filibuster]."

Senator Smith is, quite frankly, doing the job you guys should be
doing.  You should be supporting him, not opposing him.  The "hold"
that Smith has placed on this terrible legislation is exactly the
kind of leadership that I am asking you to provide.

I do not want ANY of the anti-gun provisions in S. 254 going to the
President's desk.  If they do, I will know that you have betrayed
the gun owners of your state and of this great nation.  After all,
you have the power, as the Judiciary Committee Chairman, to kill any
such legislation that comes out of your committee.

Don't bother telling me that the Democrats might retaliate by
offering their anti-gun provisions as amendments to other bills.
Let them try.  If they do attempt such a plan, then why don't you
adopt the House strategy that was so effective in killing gun
control in that chamber?

The House leadership encouraged truly pro-gun amendments to be
offered to their juvenile crime bill.  An amendment allowing D.C.
residents to own guns and another amendment partially repealing the
Brady law were more than the anti-gun Democrats could bear.  These
pro-gun provisions forced the anti-gun zealots in the House to VOTE
AGAINST H.R. 2122, the anti-gun juvenile bill.  As you know, the
House passed a separate juvenile bill that focused more on
"cultural" solutions to crime, rather than gun control.

Please learn from the successes of the House leadership.

I hope that you will honor Senator Smith's hold, and I hope that you
will keep any of the anti-gun provisions from S. 254 from ever going
to the President's desk.  In short, it is my wish that you work
tirelessly to bury this legislation.

This issue is very important to me.  Thank you.

Sincerely,


**************
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: FW: Fuehrer Gore and Biometric Gun Licenses
Date: 13 Jul 1999 10:50:00 -0700


----------
I doubt anyone on this list would consider voting for OwlGore, but this will
define the terms of the debate....

http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560261526-711


01:37 AM ET 07/12/99

Gore To Unveil Anti-Crime Agenda
By KAREN GULLO
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) _ Vice President Al Gore is proposing an anti-crime
agenda that includes photo licenses for all new handgun owners, a
ban on cheap handguns, increased spending on police training and a
constitutional amendment for victims' rights, The Associated Press
has learned.

In one of his first major pronouncements since kicking off his
presidential campaign last month, Gore will propose sweeping
changes in the criminal justice system designed to get tough on
criminals.

It includes a new policy that includes more federal money for the
nation's court system and a requirement that criminal defendants
pledge to get off drugs if they want to stay out of jail.

The vice president, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential
nomination, was to announce the proposals in a speech today at the
headquarters of the Boston police department, said sources familiar
with his plans who spoke on condition of anonymity.

While many specifics of the agenda, including how much it will cost,
were not available, the most far-reaching proposals deal with gun
control. School shootings this year in Littleton, Colo., and Conyers,
Ga., have turned gun control into a major issue in the 2000
presidential campaign.

Gore wants every new gun owner to have a photo license. At present
there is no federal requirement for gun owners to carry licenses.

Cheap, easily concealed handguns, known as "junk guns" or
"Saturday night specials," would be banned under Gore's proposal.

The junk gun industry traces its roots to a crackdown on handguns
that followed the June 1968 assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy
by Sirhan Sirhan, who used a European-made .22-caliber revolver.

Until then, most cheap handguns sold in the United States were
made overseas. Congress then banned the import of such weapons
but did not outlaw their manufacture in this country.

Under current federal law, semiautomatic rifles equipped with
detachable magazines and certain other features are banned.
Similar guidelines are imposed on handguns and shotguns.

Gore also wants tougher penalties for gun trafficking.

The vice president has already said he supports raising the age
for handgun possession from 18 to 21; barring juveniles from
possessing assault weapons or large-capacity ammunition clips;
imposing new penalties for adults who sell guns to minors; and
requiring safety locks on guns.

Whether Gore's new gun-control proposals would be approved by
Congress is questionable. The vice president cast a tie-breaking
vote in May when the Senate passed legislation expanding a system
of background checks on firearms purchases so they would cover
all such buys at gun shows and pawnshops.

His campaign hoped that the moment of drama would add momentum
to his campaign. But political squabbling between Democrats and
Republicans helped kill a House gun-control bill in June.

Bill Bradley, Gore's only announced opponent for the Democratic
presidential nomination, has put forth his own gun-control plan,
including a proposal that all handguns be registered and a ban on
the manufacture and sale of cheap handguns.

Gore's anti-crime package includes a "Stay Clean to Stay Out"
policy that says defendants in drug-related crimes who are
awaiting trial must get off drugs to stay out of jail.

Criminals on parole also would have to stay off drugs to stay
out of jail, under the proposed policy.

Ever the technology buff, Gore would make increasing use of
computers in law enforcement, investing in software that community
police could use to map and target high-crime areas.

Other features of the anti-crime package include establishment
of "gang-free zones," more aid for professional development
and retraining of police officers and increased spending on
after-school programs for youths and anti-drug efforts.




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting thoughts
Date: 13 Jul 1999 16:29:17 -0600

I am talking to every liberal friend I have.  I tell them I don't care=20
whether they shoot or don't, own a gun or don't, but that it is time for =
them=20
to realize the shooters have had about all they will take.  I politely =
tell=20
them this is not about sporting purposes or hunting, it is about a =
basic=20
Constitutional liberty.  I ask them if they feel so strongly about=20
registration and the resulting confiscation that they are willing to =
declare=20
millions of Americans felons, because that is what will happen when we =
don't=20
comply.  I also ask if they are willing to endure a long and bloody =
guerilla=20
civil war that will make Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia or Lebanon look like =
a=20
picnic, because once I am a felon, I really have nothing left to lose.  =
I=20
point out that if just ten per cent of the registered hunters decided =
to=20
resist it would put about 1.5 million armed citizens on the line.  I =
tell=20
them that we have been willing to play by the political rules, even =
thought=20
we have have lost every round, so long as the Second Amendment was there =
as a=20
final check.  However, registration always leads to confiscation, and =
that=20
will certainly lead to war.   Lautenburg is registration, and it is time =
for=20
them to decide how far they want to go.

I am not confrontational.  I tell them it is my sole intent to prevent =
what=20
will surely happen if they continue in their ignorance of shooters and =
their=20
motives.   I ask them to consider the following:  would they stand still =
for=20
an usurpation of the First Amendment?   If not, then do not expect =
millions=20
of us to stand by while they take the Second.  I tell them this is like=20
America in the 1850's with neither side understanding the other enough =
to=20
avoid the civil war.  Clearly, the left may have an agenda, or it may =
be=20
ignorance, but from now on, I do not disguise the fact that we are going =
to=20
fight this, first in the legislature, then in the courts, and finally in =
the=20
streets if neccesary.  We can argue about the amount of welfare, or where =
the=20
next road will be built, but there is no arguing on the destruction of =
the=20
Constitution.

Surprisingly, this quiet little talk has got more of them to think than=20
anything else I have ever argued with them.   No one has ever told them =
this=20
is what will happen.  No one ever calculated a few numbers (10 % of =
hunters,=20
for example) and they never once considered the ramifications fo what =
would=20
happen if the armed citizenry decided to resist with force in order to =
keep=20
our liberty and be left alone.

Note:  I NEVER advocate revolution, I never advocate overthrow of the =
gov't,=20
but I do stress that for millions, the idea that the majority vote can =
take=20
away a basic constitutional liberty is not acceptable  for us.  I tell =
them I=20
am scared to death because for the first time ever, I am beginning to see =
no=20
way out except this end.    I travel a lot in my job, and I hear this =
from=20
even top executives now.  When they are talking like this, you can be sure =
it=20
is on more than a few peoples' minds.   So, rather than try to convince =
the=20
media, I am trying one on one to make our case and to warn of the=20
consequences. =20

So long as the other side sees no teeth, hears no objections and feels =
no=20
restraint, you can be sure they will keep coming.   They need to hear =
blunt,=20
not boastful or inflammatory, talk from everyone in the movement, and I =
mean=20
from all of us.  They need to understand these votes do have consequences =
and=20
that millions of Americans, other than right wing radical militias,=20
anarchists and the like fringe elements, are seriously contemplating =
the=20
exact point the reason the Second was put in the bill rights will come=20
needed.   Jefferson's quote about the Second just lying there until it =
is=20
needed is not a bad one to keep on hand, either.

Some will take these words as proof that more control is needed.  =
However,=20
for the first time, at least some of my liberal friends have some =
serious=20
evaluating of their policies going on.   I believe it is now time for all =
of=20

us to politely start drawing that line in the sand.  For years, we have =
all=20
debated when it is theoretically appropriate for armed resistance to =
begin.  =20
It varies, but the concensus in my discussions over the years has always =
been=20
"Registration and then confiscation".   OK, we are almost there.  Does =
the=20
other side really understand what these concepts mean to us?  Do they have =
a=20
clue what the consequences will be if they keep it up?  If they don't, it =
is=20
because they can marginalize the extremes of our group, but only if =
they=20
don't hear this from the mainstream.   It is one thing if a Rambo in =
fatigues=20
is yelling this, and something else when the local executives, business=20
leaders, clergy and educators and basic citizenry are quietly, firmly =
telling=20
them that this couse of action, if unchecked, will lead to civil war.  =
King=20
George III didn't really understand the ramifications of a gun confiscation=
=20
raid on Lexington.  Lets make sure our opponents are fully aware where =
that=20
road leads.

Scott Harmon

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Claire Wolf - Carty slugs it out with Compromisin' Sam
Date: 14 Jul 1999 09:06:01 -0600

Carty slugs it out with Compromisin' Sam=20
=A9 1999 Claire Wolfe

This is embarrassing, and you probably won't believe it anyway.=20
But our little mid-nowhere town of Hardyville has one political=20
throwback. This guy actually thinks that the way to get smaller=20
government is to vote for bigger government.

That's right: He thinks you get smaller government by voting, year=20
after year, for bigger, more powerful government. I know. It=20
sounds too crazy for anyone to credit, but there it is.=20

He calls it "compromise." And we call him "Compromisin' Sam."=20

Most of us ignore him and go on about our business. After all,=20
there's room in the world for all kinds. But there's one guy who=20
just can't resist getting in Sam's face. Carty -- true blue, retired=20
military, Jesse Ventura lookalike -- gets on Sam every time Sam=20
gets into town. They were at it this week, as they ran into each=20
other near the Statue of the Drunken Cowboy.=20

A crowd gathered as Carty barked, "If you don't stand for=20
something, you'll fall for anything."=20

Sam spluttered, "You people gotta quit being so pie-in-the-sky, if=20
you want to get anything done. You look at what you can get, and=20
what you can't, then you accept reality. You compromise."=20

"I'll compromise," said Carty. "On tactics. But the minute you=20
compromise on principle, you've not only lost the battle but lost=20
your a--."=20

"But you're gonna lose it, anyway, standing around saying, 'We=20
won't bargain. We have to have everything our own way.'"=20

"OK. I'll compromise, then. Tell you what: There are 20,000 gun=20
laws in the country and every single one violates the Second=20
Amendment. I want 'em all gone tomorrow. But just to show you I=20
can compromise, I'll settle for having 10,000 of them repealed in=20
the next five years -- and I'll even let Charles Schumer and Dianne=20
Feinstein choose which 10,000. There's your compromise. See?"=20

"That's ridiculous."=20

"Is it? But it's not ridiculous to always do half of what the other=20
guys want? Maybe you and your pals can tell me how come=20
compromise means we only move in their direction instead of=20
them movin' in ours?"=20

Nat Lyons chipped in, "I think I know. I once went down to the=20
Territorial Capital, thinking I might get with the big gun-rights=20
lobby group down there. You know what? They were sittin'=20
around and one guy was sayin', 'Well, we'd really like to have this.'=20
Then everybody else would go, 'Naw, the legislature'll never let us=20
have that.' So then they'd try to figure out what they could get, and=20
that's all they'd ask for. So 'course, the legislature knew they'd take=20
even less. I mean, can you picture the Teamsters starting out=20
saying, 'Well, we can't ask for that 'cause General Motors won't let=20
us have it'?"=20

"It figures," Carty nodded. "I've heard they do that in D.C., too.=20
One guy who knows told me -- on this new gun-control bill they're=20
still tryin' to get passed -- a gun-rights lobbyist was going to=20
senators and begging them to vote for it, the whole time his big=20
famous group was publicly yellin' about how bad it was. I believed=20
it, because the guy was using the group's old line, 'But if you don't=20
vote for this, you could get something worse.' Where have I heard=20
that before?"=20

"Have you heard about this Bob Smith guy?" Grouchy asked.=20
"He's not like that. He's up there in the Senate right now, stopping=20
that gun bill from getting into the conference committee. Now,=20
there's a guy who's like the Founding Fathers."=20

"Yeah," Carty scoffed: "But you know why Mr. Senator Smith's=20
putting on that big show -- I mean, aside from trying to impress=20
people who want him to run for president in a third-party?"=20

"Why?"=20

"Because -- and I'm tellin' you his own words, now -- because he=20
wants 'the weaker gun control provisions.' -- House version instead=20
the Senate version. This dude's no hero, takin' a big stand to save=20
the Second Amendment. He's just gun-grabber 'lite.' Then he goes=20
around on talk shows, sayin' he doesn't want any gun control.=20
[Male bovine byproduct.] Don't get me wrong, he's better than the=20
rest of those [bearers of the bar sinister]. I wish more of 'em had=20
his guts. But don't go all starry-eyed. He ain't your savior."=20

Compromisin' Sam nodded. "That Smith understands reality. You=20
can't buck public opinion."=20

"[Homonym of buck] public opinion," snarled Carty. "I'm talking=20
about rights."=20

"You can talk about rights all you want to," Sam says, "but that=20
isn't gonna get you anywhere."=20

"So where've we been getting with your [unfavored in the eyes of=20
the deity] compromisers?" Carty countered. "Have we gotten some=20
gun-rights back with the NRA making 'reasonable compromises'?=20
Have your pet Republicans stopped us from getting national ID?=20
Have they made government smaller? Got rid of the IRS? What?=20
Tell me."=20

"They've kept things from getting as bad as they could have," Sam=20
insisted.=20

"Look, you [child of a politician], things are getting that bad,=20
anyway! You expect me to be grateful because -- thanks to your=20
compromising pals -- it'll take 10 years for us to become complete=20
slaves instead of six? Or 20 years instead of 12? You want me to=20
tell you exactly how grateful that makes me? Let's just get it over=20
with. Let's have it now, right out in the open where we can fight it.=20
The only thing your compromising friends are doing is numbing us=20
down so we'll get used to it and learn to take it."=20

"But if we just support--"=20

"You do what you want, bud. But one thing you can stop doing,=20
right now -- and that's asking me to help you and your political=20
pals steer on down the road to tyranny. I don't care whether you're=20
going fast or slow. Here's the fact. I ain't goin' there. So don't=20
waste your time trying to tell me why George Jr. or a new tax or a=20
'compromise bill' or some other politician who says one thing and=20
votes the opposite deserves my support. Those guys are all going=20
the same direction.=20

"See that road over there? Hardyville Main Street? It runs in the=20
exact opposite way. Some of the people on it are usin' sports cars=20
and some are usin' 18-wheelers and a bunch more are towin' horse=20
trailers. But not one of 'em's goin' your way. We're goin' toward=20
freedom -- not away from it -- no matter how we have to get=20
there.=20

"You go wherever you want, Sam. And have a nice trip. But when=20
you find your pals have stranded you in the sagebrush with=20
nothing but a broken down old political wreck, and you're dying of=20
thirst for freedom and can't get a single drop, don't expect anybody=20
to ride to your rescue. You knew where you were heading when=20
you set off."=20
_______
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this=20
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed=20
a prior interest in receiving the included information for research=20
and educational purposes.

-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Sue The Mayors
Date: 14 Jul 1999 17:19:31 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:29:40 -0600
Received: from kendaco.telebyte.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA23006; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:09:12 -0600
Received: (from petidomo@localhost)
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA30826;
    Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:17:18 -0700
Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85])
    by kendaco.telebyte.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA30823
    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:17:18 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (sdn-ar-003fltampP244.dialsprint.net [158.252.77.6])
    by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA07917;
    Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <000801bece2d$919ba760$064dfc9e@oemcomputer>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_FEA84937.86E78949"

--=_FEA84937.86E78949
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Note the following link:
How would it be if we, as a group, filed a federal civil rights violation
against Buckhorn and with whomever he conspired to sue the gun
manufacturers?
They are, after all, interfering with the exercise of a Constitutional
right.

 http://www.amfire.com/helpguns.html

Chuck Hoskinson
"US Army, Retired
... and still serving proudly"


--=_FEA84937.86E78949
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Sue The Mayors.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.amfire.com/helpguns.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.amfire.com/helpguns.html
Modified=00089E072DCEBE0167

--=_FEA84937.86E78949--

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: FW: Desnews on Legislative Gun Movements.
Date: 15 Jul 1999 09:30:00 -0700


-----

Please let members of the Judiciary Committee know you oppose a special
session as well as additional gun control legislation!  A list of committee
members follows the article.  And, of course, if you can attend next week's
meeting, Wednesday, July 21, 1999, 2 PM, Room 403, State Capitol, please do
so!

Wednesday, July 14, 1999
Leavitt's gun ideas make slight headway

Legislative panel to vote on 3 bills, but . . . ?
By Bob Bernick Jr.
Deseret News political editor

Gov. Mike Leavitt's gun violence and school safety proposals will at least
get a formal vote in one legislative committee.

But the likelihood of a special legislative session on guns in October
appears doubtful, if talk Tuesday afternoon in the Legislature's Judiciary
Committee is any indication.

When committee members questioned the need to deal with guns in special
session, Senate Majority Leader Lyle Hillyard stepped in to salvage at least
a committee vote next week on Leavitt's ideas for restricting guns in
schools, to the mentally ill and to those with violent misdemeanor
convictions?

"Yep. That's what I'm doing," Hillyard, R-Logan, said after the confusing
three-hour meeting.

He said he would draft bills on the three specific areas that Leavitt, also
a Republican, told lawmakers could be solved quickly, if not easily, in a
special session.

Those bills will be presented at a committee hearing during next week's
legislative interim study day.

But what happens then is unknown. At least for now.

"I'm presenting them. And I think I can make a good argument for each. But
some (of the bills) may be so terrible that I'll be voting against them
myself," Hillyard said.

House Republicans on the joint House/Senate committee were moving toward a
vote not to even have a special session on guns when Hillyard read the mood
and intervened, asking members to allow him to draft "global" bills on
several issues.

As the meeting dragged on and specific issues were taken off the table for
debate, Hillyard said he was going to present bills on the issues Leavitt
wanted considered.

"At least he gets that," Hillyard said later. The gun control debate was
first ignited after the Legislature in 1995 made it easier to obtain a
concealed weapons permit. The issue flared again this year in the wake of
two fatal shootings in Salt Lake City and the massacre at Columbine High
School in Colorado.

At Tuesday's meeting, one after another conservative Republican on the
committee said they didn't see the need or the wisdom of a special session
on guns.

"We're in a fish bowl on this" issue, said Rep. Glen Way, R-Spanish Fork.
"Does the governor think we're dumb sheep getting marching orders" on gun
matters? "For cryin' out loud, we have a say" on whether a session is called
or not.

On the mentally ill possessing guns:

"I think we need to do something. . . . But in a special session?"
questioned House Majority Whip Dave Ure, R-Kamas, about the mentally ill
possessing guns.

"Who can tell me how we define someone who is mentally ill? Some would say
we (legislators) are all mentally ill for bein' here."

On banning legally permitted concealed weapon holders from taking their guns
in schools:

"We need to enforce the current law on taking guns in schools" by students,
Ure said. "I think (some school administrators) are being a good boy to
Johnny who is bringing a heater."

House Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt Lake -- a leader in the gun-control
fight -- brought one of his proposed bills to the committee. Although not a
committee member, Jones distributed the bill and asked committee members to
at least read it. He left without making further comment.

Jones said his bill would require that violent misdemeanor convictions be
included on gun-buying background checks, that all gun sales at gun shows
and other such venues come with a background check (not all do now) and that
people adjudicated mentally ill or who have used an insanity plea as a
defense in a criminal trial be denied gun purchases.

Earlier in the day, Jones told the Deseret News that he fully expects GOP
legislators -- a majority in the House and Senate -- to "stall" the gun
debate, avoiding a special session on the matter if possible.

The great frustration of lawmakers, expressed again and again Tuesday, is
that they believe there is little they can do that will affect gun violence
or school safety.

The white supremacist who shot people last week in Chicago tried to buy a
gun from a dealer, but the background check showed previous criminal
convictions, so he was denied.

"He went out on the street and bought one anyway. And anyone can do that,"
Hillyard said.


COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Sen. Terry Spencer, Senate Chair Rep. A. Lamont Tyler, House Chair Sen. Lyle
W. Hillyard Sen. David H. Steele Sen. Pete Suazo Rep. Patrice M. Arent Rep.
Chad E. Bennion Rep. Afton B. Bradshaw Rep. Katherine M. Bryson Rep. Gary F.
Cox Rep. Greg J. Curtis Rep. David L. Gladwell Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson Rep.
J. W. "Bill" Hickman Rep. LaWanna "Lou" Shurtliff Rep. Martin R. Stephens
Rep. John E. Swallow Rep. David Ure Rep. Glenn L. Way

Contact info can be found by going to www.le.state.ut.us and clicking on
either "House" or "Senate".


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Fw: California plans to confiscate guns
Date: 15 Jul 1999 14:52:53 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:35:22 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA00596; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:14:43 -0600
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA10395
    for noban-presents; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:24:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16])
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10387
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:24:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bugbox (ppp170.fai.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.170])
    by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA13189
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:24:15 -0800
Message-ID: <000601becef7$a8a0b160$aa0b81ce@bugbox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 10:49 AM


CALIFORNIA ANTI-GUN ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'S SECRET PLANS TO
CONFISCATE FIREARMS UNCOVERED

News/Current Events Extended News Free Republic
Source: www.gunowners.com / Bob Evans Vs Tom for 2000
Published: 7/14/99 Author: Bob Evans
Posted on 07/15/1999 07:47:36 PDT by Bob Evans

Subj: CA: Confiscation Plans



Reply-to: [e-mail] (Gun Owners of America)


ANTI-GUN ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL LOCKYER'S SECRET PLANS TO CONFISCATE
FIREARMS UNCOVERED

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert

8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151

Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]

http://www.gunowners.org

Gun Owners Of California

10100 Fair Oaks Blvd Suite 1

Fair Oaks, CA 95628

916-967-4970

http://www.gunownersca.com

[e-mail]

>>Please direct all questions to GOC.<<

Pro-gun groups, including Gun Owners of California, have obtained copies
of documents which outlined the Attorney General's plan
to confiscate privately owned firearms from citizens who registered
their firearms according to former Attorney General Dan
Lungren's instructions.

The documents include:

* A Department of Justice Information Bulletin addressed to "ALL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES" entitled
"RELINQUISHMENT OF ASSAULT WEAPONS" and dated June 11, 1999, signed by
Doug Smith, Chief of the Bureau of
Criminal Information and Analysis for Bill Lockyer, A.G.,

* A letter on Attorney General Bill Lockyer's stationary, entitled
"NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS WHO ATTEMPED TO
REGISTER AN ASSUALT WEAPON IN CALIFORNIA AFTER MARCH 30, 1992", dated
June 8,1999, signed by Mike
Broderick, Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Criminal Information and
Analysis for Bill Lockyer, A.G.

* A form entitled "LIST OF ASSAULT WEAPONS SUBJECT TO RELINQUISHMENT"
which will be sent to all gun owners
listing the "illegal assault weapons" and instructions for
relinquishment and a request for a refund of the REGISTRATION FEE
only!

This is what "law abiding" gun owners get for trying to do the right
thing by registering their guns according to Attorney General Dan
Lungren's instructions.

This proves the point that the ultimate goal of registration is to
facilitate CONFISCATION!

Of course, now that the documents were inadvertently leaked, the
Department of Justice is denying that they plan to confiscate
anything and that these documents were merely "drafts" and "for
discussion only" and that they have no plans to implement it at this
time.

All law abiding gun owners should feel free to register their outrage by
calling Governor Gray Davis and Attorney General Bill
Lockyer.


As I promised all of you after last years election, I will be soon
announcing my return engagement against our loved Congressman
Tom Lantos. This will be my second run for this office , and it will
prove secessful ...... with your help.

Sincerely.

Bob Evans

340 Foerster St.

SF, CA 94112

415-334-9923

1 Posted on 07/15/1999 07:47:36 PDT by Bob Evans ([e-mail])



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Provo Herald Gun Control Poll
Date: 15 Jul 1999 21:50:00 -0700


-----

----------
Vote against gun control!  The following was forwarded by Utah State
Senator Howard Stephenson (R-Draper):

The Provo Herald has a poll asking if concealed weapons should be allowed
in schools.  It's currently running 80-20 in opposition.  I wonder if the
question had been reworded to ask, "Should the police and those passing
an FBI check be prohibited from carrying concealed weapons in schools?",
would the results be different?
Their address is: http://www.heraldextra.com/dh/fppoll.nsf/



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Fwd: Connecticut Police Given Power to Confiscate Weapons!
Date: 16 Jul 1999 22:19:00 -0700


-----

Kick a cat in Connecticut and they'll take your guns.

----------
What this article does NOT mention is that the NRA SUPPORTED this
new law!  Expect to see NRA support for a similar bill in Utah to deal with
the "mentally ill" so-called "problem".


WALLINGFORD, Connecticut -- Some Connecticut gun enthusiasts are up in arms
about a new law signed this week by Gov. John Rowland that gives police the
right to seize firearms from the home of a person whom authorities believe
may be considering a criminal act.

It's considered to be the first law in the nation that allows confiscation
of a gun before the owner commits an act of violence.

"For them just to come in and blatantly want to take your guns, I believe
it's wrong," said one gun owner at the Blue Trail gun range.

"The Constitution is being broken apart, piece by piece," said another
opponent of the new law.

Police would have to show probable cause that the gun owner posed an
imminent risk. Among the factors to be considered by the judge issuing the
gun seizure warrant: Threats or acts of violence, cruelty to animals, and
drug or alcohol abuse.

Law passed after shootings at lottery office

Connecticut passed the law after the shootings deaths of four people at the
state's lottery headquarters last year by one employee whose behavior had
worried co-workers.

"It gives police the authority when it's clear that someone's become
dangerous -- and you know they have guns -- to go in and take the guns
before a tragedy takes place," said Rep. Michael Lawler.

But challenges are expected on the constitutionality of the law.

Some opponents call it the 'turn in your neighbor' law. They fear some
people might attempt to use the law to try to resolve petty disputes or to
impose their views about guns on their neighbors.

Some critics, such as gun lobbyist Bob Crook, say there are already too many
gun laws on the books that are not enforced.

But he says that in this case, the intent, at least, is on target.

"If the law is enforced, and it's enforced adequately, then what we've done
is taken a firearm or firearms away from a person who's mentally disturbed
and who shouldn't have them to begin with," said Crook.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Utahns head for gun vote
Date: 17 Jul 1999 10:08:00 -0700


http://www.desnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,100011391,00.html

Deseret News, Friday, July 16, 1999, 12:00 AM MDT

Utahns head for a gun vote

Coalition keeps vow for a ballot initiative

By Lucinda Dillon
Deseret News staff writer

A growing coalition of educators, religious officials and community
leaders have made good on their promise to take the emotional gun
issue to voters.

Lawmakers and Gov. Mike Leavitt still have not decided if or how they
will address the issue of gun control in a special fall session of the
Legislature.

No matter, says a coalition that includes the Catholic Diocese of Salt
Lake City, Episcopal Diocese, Utahns Against Gun Violence, Utah
Hospital Association, Utah Children, Utah Pediatrics Association and
the Utah Education Association.

On Friday, the coalition -- bolstered by the recent addition to
its ranks of higher education's Utah Board of Regents -- finished
its first draft of a ballot initiative that would allow guns,
including those carried by holders of concealed-weapons permits, to be
banned from schools, churches, hospitals and colleges.

The initiative is a direct result of the Legislature's "failure to
follow the will of the people," said Bill Nash, a member of the
coalition and head of Utahns Against Gun Violence.

In the past two weeks, Linda Plouzek, legislative vice president
for the PTA, has received eight or 10 calls -- from school board
officials to individual citizens -- who want to be involved.

"They feel like the time is right because of the safety issue," she said.

Harden Eyring, executive assistant to Cecelia H. Foxley, commissioner
of the Utah System of Higher Education, represents the regents, the
coalition's newest participant.

Eyring, who is in charge of policies and procedures for the higher
education system, attended a coalition meeting Tuesday.

At its June 4 meeting, the regents reaffirmed their long-standing,
no-guns-on campus position.

Higher education administrators started talking with the coalition
shortly after. "We reached an agreement that we would join in the
effort," he said.

Higher education's formal support and involvement adds a formidable
wallop to the ballot efforts. Nine public colleges and universities
and one private, Brigham Young University, are included in the
proposal.

"It's a big organization and indeed our sense is that the feelings are
quite strong on the campuses -- just as they are in the public at-large
-- in support of this initiative."

But Elwood Powell, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, says
the initiative is driven by a minority of Utahns. "There is a vocal part
of the population that believes this is neither necessary nor wanted."

And if the initiative includes more than public schools, it will run
into trouble, he said. "If they want to sweep in colleges and
universities, they're going to have a real fight on that."

People feel differently about removing guns from colleges than they do
about banning guns in public schools, Powell said, because the
students are adults and the environment can be more threatening.

Still, support for the coalition has continued to grow.

New people attend each meeting of the coalition. A group of women in
their 70s who meet monthly to talk about various issues attended.
Pediatricians, emergency room officials and victims of gun violence
ll have taken part.

The broad feedback has been invaluable, she said. The group will work
out wording of the initiative in a meeting Monday so the language is
simple for voters at the ballot.

"I feel good about the direction it's going," Plouzek said.

Once the initiative is finalized and submitted, members of the
coalition must set about gathering nearly 70,000 signatures that will
earn the initiative consideration at the ballot box.

"We've got such a broad-based group involved in the process --
we're really expecting a lot of organizations to help," Plouzek said.

By state law, the signatures must come from 20 of the state's 29
counties, in order to show broad support for the idea.

Plouzek has met with Leavitt, House Speaker Marty Stephens, R-Farr
West, and Senate President Lane Beattie, R-West Bountiful.

Efforts by the governor and House Minority Leader Dave Jones, D-Salt
Lake City, to change laws have been stymied by the GOP-dominated
House, whose members believe a special session on guns is unnecessary.

Stephens has suggested an option could be avoiding the petition drive
and have the Legislature put the question to Utah voters as a
referendum in 2000.

The coalition hopes to deliver its draft initiative to Stephens prior
to the interim meetings of the Utah Legislature Wednesday, she said.

The communication is still open (with lawmakers)," Plouzek said.
"Ideally, this could be addressed in the special session, but it
doesn't look like that is going to happen."

The growing support for the coalition is no surprise to Plouzek. It
mirrors state polls that show the vast majority of Utahns want guns
out of their schools and churches.

"What is surprising to me is that this hasn't been addressed before
this," she said. "For our children and for our safety, we have to take
a stand."

The group has received a couple of letters from writers concerned
about the coalition's actions.

But the initiative was born in broad public sentiment and in the
voices of 146,000 PTA members in Utah. PTA takes its direction from
650 local "units" located throughout the state.


Copyright 1999, Deseret News Publishing Corp.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Firearms alert! WEDNESDAY!
Date: 19 Jul 1999 17:51:00 -0700


-----

Please attend if you can.

----------

The final meeting of the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice interim
committee will be held this WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, at 2 PM. This committee
will then make its final recommendations to Gov. Leavitt regarding a
special session and/or the "need" for additional gun control.

While this should be reason enough to attend the meeting, there's an extra
incentive: Prof. John Lott, Jr. of the University of Chicago, author of the
landmark study showing that concealed carry reduces violent crime and also of
the book _More Guns, Less Crime_ will be testifying at the committee hearing.

According to today's Wall Street Journal, "The number of U.S. violent crimes
fell 7% to 8.1 million last year from 1997, the Justice Department said.
The decline continues a trend that began in 1994 and the violent-crime rate,
down 27% since 1993, is now the lowest since it began to be tracked in 1973."
While these numbers do not _prove_ that the dramatic increase in concealed
carry has led to a decrease in violent crime, they do refute the claims of
gun-grabbers that "all those evil guns" are causing an epidemic of crime.
(Of course, Prof. Lott's work _does_ show a correlation between concealed
carry and a decrease in violent crime!)

The agenda for the meeting follows:

AGENDA

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERIM COMMITTEE
Wednesday, July 21, 1999 - 2:00 p.m. - Room 416 Utah State Capitol

1. Committee Business
   Approval of minutes of the June 16, 1999 meeting

2. Youth Weapons Violations at School
   Verne Larsen, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinator, State Office of
   Education
   Captain Bob Lavin, Granite School District Police Department
   Chase Rogers, Director of Plans and Security, Davis School District
   Mike Christensen, Chief, Juvenile Division, Salt Lake District Attorney's
   Office
   Ray Wahl, Juvenile Court Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts

3. Effects of Gun Control on Crime
   Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., School of Law, University of Chicago

4. Committee Discussion and Recommendations for Report on Gun Violence
   Committee Members

5. Public Safety Fee Establishment Process
   John Massey, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Office of the Legislative Fiscal
   Analyst
   Chyleen A. Arbon, Research Analyst, Office of Legislative Research and
   General Counsel
   Herb Katz, Director of Criminal Investigations And Technical Services,
   Department of Public Safety

6. Other Items / Adjourn

PLEASE CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE! Let them know that you OPPOSE a
special session and that you oppose more oppression of law-abiding gun
owners!

The following list of committee members was provided by USSC. I have not
cross-checked it for errors.

Members: Joint Law Enforcement Committee (6/99)

Michael Waddoups, (R) Dist 6, SL: Co-Chairman
(H) 801-967-0225 (W) 801-355-1136 Fax: n/listed
E-mail: [e-mail]

Blake Chard, (R) Dist 15, Davis Co: Co-Chairman
(H) 801-773-7474 FAX: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Paula Julander, (D) Dist 1, SL, Member
(H) 801-363-0868 801-929-6019 FAX: n/listed
E-mail: [e-mail]

Trisha Beck, (D) Dist 48, SL, Member
(H) 801-572-2325 FAX: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Duane Bourdeaux, (D) Dist 23, SL, Member
(H) 801-596-8784 (W) 801-322-4411, or596-9081 FAX: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

DeMar Bowman, (R), Dist 72, Beaver/Iron, Member
(H) 435-586-8174
E-mail: [e-mail]

Perry Buckner, (D) Dist 42, SL, Member
(H) 801-964-8215 (W) 801-856-6754
E-mail: [e-mail]

David Hogue, (R) Dist 52, SL, Member
(H) 801-254-1668 (W) 801-253-7586 FAX: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Susan Koehn, (R) Dist 18, Davis, Member
Hm/Office: 801-296-1761
E-mail: [e-mail]

Carl Saunders, (R) Dist 11, Davis/Weber, Member
(H) 801-476-1110 (W) 801-476-7070 Mobile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Marlon Snow, (R) Dist 58, Utah, Member
(H) 801-224-6163 (W) 801-486-7121 or 722-4162
E-mail: [e-mail]

Nora Stephens, (R) Dist 13, Davis, Member
(H) 801-825-3792 801-731-5346 FAX: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

THANKS! I hope to see as many of you as possible Wednesday!


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #21- 19 July 1999
Date: 20 Jul 1999 10:35:00 -0700


-----

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 #21- 19 July 1999

Today's Maxim of Liberty:

"Under the 'New Cultural Order,' of thinking, common men aren't trusted to
exercise what we used to consider common freedoms."

-- Charlton Heston, NRA President
NRA President's Column, March 1999

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.

Leavitt's Gun Control Proposals in Trouble, but Your Immediate Action is
Needed to Stop Special Session!

Remember to Attend Joint Interim Committee Hearings -
2:00PM on Wednesday, 21 July at State Capitol!
Professor John Lott Scheduled to Testify on CCW Issues!

The Interim Committees of interest on Gun Control issues will be the
Education Committee, the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee
and the Judiciary Committee. All Interim Committees meet at the Utah State
Capitol in Salt Lake City. Please make plans to attend. The Committee room
assignments and agendas are posted on the Third Floor bulletin board next
to the House of Representatives. This information is also available on the
Legislature's website at:

www.le.state.ut.us

The Utah print and broadcast media is widely reporting information
indicating that Gov. Leavitt's gun control proposals are now in trouble,
and facing increasing resistance from GOP legislators. Your earlier efforts
are having a positive impact. YOU MUST KEEP UP THE PRESSURE TO PREVENT A
SPECIAL SESSION.

Contact your Utah House and Senate members again today. Ask them to
continue to hold firm against any further restrictions of your gun rights.
You should make the following points in the gun control proposals before
the Utah legislature.

1: A special legislative session is neither needed nor warranted.

2: A Referendum either by citizen petition or by Legislative bill is
neither needed nor warranted. The Utah Constitution is specific that the
Legislature has responsibility for Utah gun laws, not the Governor, the
media, the PTA, the teacher's union, or a religious institution.

3: Establishment of a two-level permit system takes Utah gun owners right
back to the abusive DPS/BCI 'proving need' situation we so long endured
before earning 'shall issue' CCW legislation in 1995. The life of every
Utah citizen has equal value. CCW permit holders are not second class
citizens, and we will not be treated as such!

4: Remind Legislators them that it was Governor Leavitt who opened this
political can of worms and dumped it in their laps. They should scoop the
worms back up and return them to Governor Leavitt and let him deal with it,
rather than letting the Legislature take the heat for this unpopular idea.

4: Make it clear to Legislators that you will be watching their votes and
their statements on this issue carefully, and you will be very active in
party political activities as a delegate and in informing and organizing
voters in their districts in the next election.

Important Utah Legislative Contacts:

Rep. Marty Stephens, 3159 N. Higley Rd, Farr West, UT 84404, [phone]
Res, [phone] Off, [phone] Fax. Email:
[e-mail]

Sen. Lane Beattie, 319 State Capitol, SLC, UT, 84114, [phone] Res,
[phone] Off, [phone] Fax, Email: [e-mail]

Gov. Mike Leavitt, State Capitol, SLC, UT 84114, [phone], Email:
[e-mail]

GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch

"It's a Bill of Rights, not Suggestions."

-- As seen on a t-shirt being worn by Utah ACLU Staff Attorney Stephen Clark

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 #21 - 19 July
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: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: A Sheriff Who Sees the Future and Is Taking Action
Date: 20 Jul 1999 15:51:38 -0600


>X-Sender: [e-mail] (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:49:01 -0600
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>From: Gunmoll <[e-mail]>
>Subject: A Sheriff Who Sees the Future and Is Taking Action
>
>Do we have a few (or even one) good sheriffs in Utah?
>
>http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5454
>
>Gary North's Y2K Links and Forums
>
>Summary and Comments
>(feel free to mail this page)
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Category: Government
>Date:     1999-07-19 19:17:45
>Subject:  A Sheriff Who Sees the Future and Is Taking Action
>Comment:
>
>There are over 3,000 counties in the United States. Every one of the
>sheriffs of these counties should send out a letter like this one.
>
>It's real. I have verified it. I have decided to remove his name and
>his county's name. He might suffer ridicule from reporters who do not
>live in counties as safe as this one, but who will wish they did next
>January.
>
>* * * * * * * * * * *
>
>Dear Concealed Weapons Permit Holder:
>
>These are troubling times. I personally believe that the potential
>exists for some very trying, perhaps even catastrophic events to come
>to pass during the next few years. And I strongly suspect that we may
>enter into this era of turbulence within the next 6 to 12 months.
>
>Any number of events could precipitate a series of reactionary social
>responses, which would almost certainly lead to times of deep unrest,
>hardships, and lawlessness of a magnitude unprecedented in our memory.
>I think the Y2K situation is far from being resolved. A stock market
>crash or other economic crisis could lead to a social breakdown with
>great and grave consequences. One would have to be totally deceived or
>deluded not to perceive the depravity and lawlessness present in our
>nation today.
>
>Recently I attended a law enforcement conference, which dealt with
>murder and serial killers. A number of detectives and investigators
>from major metropolitan areas detailed cases of such an horrendous
>nature that the ordinary mind boggles at the evil and malevolence of
>the acts committed. One of the instructors said, "If you knew how many
>of these psychopaths are among us you would be scared to death."
>
>I'm sure by now you are wondering why I am telling you all of this.
>The fact is the sheriff's office may need your help in a time of
>crisis. If that time should come we must be able to rely upon people
>who are solid, decent of character, and law-abiding. As a holder of a
>permit to carry concealed weapons you have been certified, by virtue
>of a background investigation, as morally and psychologically fit to
>accept the responsibilities which accrue to the possession of these
>permits. If I would have had no faith in your stability, integrity,
>and character, I would not have given this permit to you. There are
>roughly 400 concealed weapons permit holders in XXX YYY County. And it
>occurred to me that our permit holders comprise a great reserve of
>trustworthy individuals.
>
>I don't know if major disruptions or catastrophes will actually occur,
>but if they do we will almost certainly experience the collapse of
>many state and federal agencies, or an inability of those who staff
>these agencies to respond appropriately to the crisis. Most of the
>state and federal law-enforcement agencies are ill-equipped by
>training or experience to deal with local enforcement exigencies.
>Ironically, as you know, the major portion of your tax dollars are
>siphoned off to the state and federal branches of government, thereby
>depriving local government of the means to provide some really
>necessary services.
>
>The XXX YYY County Sheriff's Office has a force of fifteen sworn peace
>officers to uphold the law and provide for the safety of 32,000
>residents, roughly one officer for every 2,133 residents. No matter
>how well-equipped, trained, or dedicated these officers are it is
>plainly evident that we are simply too few to cope with a complete
>breakdown of social order. And this is where you come into the
>picture.
>
>I propose to put together a stand-by force comprised of concealed
>weapons permit holders. This would be strictly a volunteer pool of
>trustworthy people that I could summon in dire times. I further
>propose to issue to those who accept this invitation to volunteer for
>this list an identification card denoting the holders status as a
>stand by subject to call and deputization should an actual crisis
>occur. I urge you to give serious consideration to this call for
>volunteers. I have provided, with this letter, a short form of
>acceptance of this invitation. If you would be willing, during times
>of grave emergency, to work with the active members of the sheriff's
>office, please complete this form and return it to this office in care
>of my attention. This call for volunteers is restricted to the holders
>of valid XXX YYY County concealed weapons permits.
>
>I would like to close with a personal observation and opinion. Our
>nation was founded by mostly Christian men and any authority the
>federal government was allowed to possess was to derive solely from
>the purposely narrowly drawn tenants of the Constitution. Sadly and
>tragically this nation has renounced the Christian principles upon
>which it was founded. As a nation we have mocked the Sovereign God who
>blessed us, and we have denied Jesus Christ who saved us from eternal
>destruction. Be not deceived good friends, God will not be mocked.
>Whatever we sow we will reap. If God withholds His presence from this
>nation and leaves us to our own devices, we are indeed in deep
>trouble. And I do believe that time is at hand. Believe in Jesus and
>look to Him alone for leadership and guidance, and He will be with you
>even unto the end of the world.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>
>Sheriff
>
>P.S. A reminder that we all need to take the proper measures to
>protect and sustain our families and neighbors should a complete
>breakdown of social order come to pass.
>


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: ALERT! Tomorrow's Gun Debates at Capitol!
Date: 21 Jul 1999 11:22:00 -0700


-----

This Wednesday various Interim Committees will be meeting to
consider proposals to ban firearms ownership and their
lawful use.  The three we must be concerned with are the Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Judiciary, and Education.
The first two are meeting at 2 PM (links to the notice and
agenda are below), while Education is meeting at 9 AM in
Room 305, according to a source I have.  Please note that
Education is not posted on the Internet, and has the fewest
supporters of the Second Amendment on it.

Please plan to attend these meetings, and contact the
Committee members tomorrow night to let them know there are
already far too many gun control laws, none of which have
had any negative effect on criminals.

Be advised of the approach they (the gun banners) are now
taking.  They are seeking to have the ability to have
extra-judicial declarations of mental incompetence, after
which all of the firearms of a person so declared will be
permanently taken under federal law.  They advocate "mental
health" courts, that I'd be nearly certain are lacking an
essential element of justice: a jury.

Please don't allow recent favorable newspaper articles to
allow you to let your guard down.  We must press our attack
on these insidious proposals more vigorously than ever.


http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1999/interim/html/0721juda.htm
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1999/interim/html/0721lawa.htm


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: the freedom to own a gun
Date: 21 Jul 1999 11:22:00 -0700


-----

Orlando Sentinel
July 20, 1999

Worry about the freedom to own a gun -- even if you don't
Charley Reese

The most intense effort to infringe on the right of Americans to keep and
bear arms is now under way, led mainly by Democrats.

This is a constitutional matter, not a matter of hardware or crime-fighting.
All Americans, including those who don't own guns, should be concerned with
guarding a right that has been recognized in America for more than two
centuries. Some of us might not choose to exercise a right, such as speech
or assembly, but nevertheless we should not want that right taken away.

So it is with the right to keep and bear arms. No one has to exercise that
right, but all should rally to its defense. It, more than any other right,
signifies that Americans are a free people and that sovereignty rests with
the people, not with the government. If you are not a gun owner, then think
of the Second Amendment as a symbol of your status as a free person with
unalienable rights, which are a gift of God, not of the government.

And right here is a good time to point out that the Constitution does not, I
say does not, grant anyone any rights whatsoever. What the Constitution does
is simply acknowledge already-existing rights. If you read the first 10
amendments attentively, you can see that the language itself clearly
indicates this. Nowhere will you find language such as "the right to . . .
is granted."

Let's look at the Second Amendment, for example, from a grammatical point of
view. The text is as follows:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice that it does not state that the right of the states to have militias
shall not be infringed. This amendment consists of a nominative absolute and
a subject and verb.

The nominative absolute is the phrase "A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State." The subject of the sentence is
"right." The verb is "shall be infringed" modified by the adverb, "not."

Thus the main sentence states plainly that the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed. So what's with the nominative
absolute? Does it limit the right to keep and bear arms? Not at all. It
merely answers the question, why should the right to keep and bear arms not
be infringed.

Harper's English Grammar has this to say about nominative absolutes:

"The nominative absolute is, as a rule, the equivalent of an adverbial
clause . . . ." Adverbs, you may recall from high school, modify verbs,
other adverbs or adjectives. They do not modify nouns, which in this case is
"right."

A modern way of writing might state, "Because a well-trained militia is
essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The only modifiers of the noun "right" are the phrases "of the people"
(note, please, it refers to people, not state, not militia) and "to keep and
bear arms," which tells us which right.

At the time these amendments were written and ratified, the militia was the
people. And the word "regulate," in 18th-century usage, meant to train or
discipline. Today, we generally use the word to mean control.

Some might say the Second Amendment is obsolete. Our own century shows us
that it is not. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot and Mao
all saw to it that people were disarmed prior to commencing their reigns of
terror and tyranny. God forbid, but Americans, too, could find themselves
some day having to choose between submission or resistance to a tyrant.

An unarmed people are never a free people.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: A poll, please pass on
Date: 21 Jul 1999 11:22:00 -0700


-----

----------

An anti-gunners site is offering a poll...Please take it and post this
address on all other lists everyone is on....

http://www.intecomp.com/csc/
|     Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners     |
| P.O. Box 14014, Lansing, MI 48901. Membership $15/yr. |
|               http://www.mcrgo.org/                   |



-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: URGENT! VOTE & LISTEN NOW
Date: 22 Jul 1999 11:20:21 -0600

Current results look good.  Let's make sure they stay that way.

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

--------- Forwarded message ----------
To All,

KSL radio has a poll:

Did the Utah republicans blow it by not calling for a special legislative
session to deal with gun issues?

http://www.ksl.com/radio/

I wouldn't want to influence your _NO_ vote.

VOTE NOW THE ARE REFERING TO THE VOTE EVERY FEW MINUTES ON THE RADIO!

KSL is talking about the gun issue until noon.  I think the poll only
runs
till then also.


___________________________________________________________________
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: July 21 column -- guns bad
Date: 22 Jul 1999 23:21:27 -0600


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

--------- Forwarded message ----------
Message-ID: <v02130506b3b596426d57@[0.0.0.0]>


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 21, 1999
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    A gunfight on every streetcorner?


    In response to my July 11 column, pointing out there were no serial
killings in Santa Clara, California over the Fourth of July weekend
thanks
to an armed gun-store employee was able to put a stop to a would-be mass
murderer's rampage before it got started, one B.R. wrote in, asserting:

  "So, if'n we arm everyone, we can have real Viet Cong type snipers and
fire fights every Time we get a hankerin. ..."

  I replied:


    #   #  #

  Greetings, B.R. --

  In Switzerland, every head of household -- being a member of the
militia
-- is expected to keep a machine gun in his home. No one pretends this
right and duty has anything to do with fending off bears or Wild Indians
... or even "legitimate sporting use" (a phrase coined by Joseph
Goebbels.)
Yet firefights are notably rare in that extremely peaceful, modern
industrial nation.

  Before 1912, when there was no "gun control" in this nation and machine
guns could be purchased through the mail, foreign visitors found America
one of the most peaceful and polite nations on earth -- a condition which
six decades of "gun control" and the accompanying Cult of the Omnipotent
State are now, finally, beginning to destroy.

  In Germany and elsewhere in Eastern Europe in the 1920s, most citizens
--
notably including the Jews -- tried to prove they were "law-abiding" by
turning in their firearms as required by law. Many of them found cause to
regret that decision in the years immediately after 1939. In desperation
and at incalculable expense, the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto did finally
fight a two-month rebellion against their armed oppressors. (Why is it
those who say they "want to get rid of all the guns" can only laugh at
our
silliness when we propose that they start by disarming their own
government
police? Can it be they don't really mean (start ital)everyone(end ital)
would give up their guns, at all -- that they instead mean to duplicate
here the government (start ital)monopoly(end ital) on arms which
prevailed
in Nazi-occupied Europe from 1939 to 1945?)

  Starting on April 19, 1943 (a date which Janet Reno and Bill Clinton
decided to commemorate quite remarkably in 1993), those residents of the
Warsaw ghetto launched a hopeless rebellion with only 14 rifles and fewer
than 50 pistols. (You can still read all about in Leon Uris' great novel,
"Mila 18.") That rebellion nonetheless proved to the world that -- pushed
to the limit -- Jews (start ital)could(end ital) fight to defend their
children and their culture from utter extinction, and fight with nearly
superhuman zeal. It was, in great measure, that demonstration which made
thinkable the birth of the sovereign modern nation of Israel, in 1948.

  (And here we find another nation, by the way -- like peaceful
Switzerland
-- where no one has to worry any longer about children being shot up by
terrorists or madmen in the schools. And why not? Because the Israelis
finally wised up and issued their teachers semi-automatic pistols, at
which
point terrorism in Israeli schools stopped overnight. Oh, sorry, was I
not
supposed to bother your with any inconvenient facts?)

  Are you saying you believe the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto had no right
to
revolt against those who had imposed "gun control" upon them -- and who
were starving their children, raping their women, shipping off hundreds
of
thousands of their neighbors and family members to the extermination
camps,
and otherwise casually shooting them down in the streets like dogs? That
if
you had it in your power, you would see to it that they started their
revolt with (start ital)fewer(end ital) than 14 rifles and a few dozen
pistols?

  If I had it in my power to go back to that time and place and carry
along
one thing, I would take them a .30-caliber Browning machine gun, and as
many loaded ammo belts as I could carry.

  Instead, I can only strive to prevent it all from happening again ...
here.

  For what are you willing to dedicate your life? To see this becomes a
nation of disarmed slaves, subject to the whim of an armed, para-military
police force? If so, then I am glad to discover I have finally found the
person for whom I was long ago entrusted with a message. It was you, it
turns out, whom Samuel Adams was addressing when he said, at the
Philadelphia State House on August 1, 1776:

  "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We
ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed
you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that
ye
were our countrymen."

  You -- the smug, fascist toadie.


Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. His new book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the
Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at $21.95 plus $3 shipping ($6
UPS; $2 shipping each additional copy) through Mountain Media, P.O. Box
271122, Las Vegas, Nev. 89127. The 500-page trade paperback may also be
ordered via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html, or at
1-800-244-2224. Credit cards accepted; volume discounts available.

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

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

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed --
and
thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless
series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

* * *


------
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: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: June 18 column -- summer mreading
Date: 22 Jul 1999 23:20:10 -0600


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

--------- Forwarded message ----------
Message-ID: <v02130503b3b593d7dbfb@[0.0.0.0]>


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 18, 1999
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Summer reading: Sorry, no elves or unicorns


    This was the week Democratic heir-apparent Al Gore called for the
government registration -- photo ID cards, fingerprinting, the whole nine
yards -- of every handgun owner in America.

  Of course, in a careful minuet, Mr. Gore thus carved out a victim
disarmament position slightly more "moderate" than that of his Democratic
rival, former New Jersey Sen. and NBA Power Forward Bill Bradley, who
surely remembers how to execute the old picket fence.

  Mr. Bradley calls for the federal registration of every single firearm,
historically the last step before confiscation. Presto: Gore the
"Moderate."

  Regular readers will not be distracted by the fancy ball-handling. This
has nothing to do with "reducing crime" -- crime rates are now falling
everywhere, except among police officers, who are now getting dismissed
at
record rates for torturing and murdering innocent "civilians." (But we
wouldn't want to disarm (start ital)them(end ital), surely?)

  Rather, the goal here is to divide America into two classes. One class
will be our rulers and their armed minions, who will dress in battle gear
and carry assault rifles and instruct us in our new duties while being
"protected by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they
should commit on the Inhabitants of these States."

  The second class will be the rest of us -- the tax-paying, disarmed
serfs.

  It was in this context that I sat down to come up with this year's
"Summer Reading List," where regular readers will know better than to
expect any escapist romps soon to star Harrison Ford in a multiplex near
you. (What is with this "Tom Clancy" guy, anyway? Is that actually an
individual, or some sort of collective brand name, like "Pillsbury," or
"Smith & Wesson"?)

  If you haven't read it in 35 years, the most important book you can
pick
up this summer, as we contemplate an America where the armed government
goons will soon gather unrestricted power to have their way with us, is
Leon Uris' classic novel of the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto, "Mila 18."

  What abuses, indignities, and outright tortures will a peaceful people
endure before they finally take up arms in a desperate struggle against
tyranny? (One would be tempted to call it "a hopeless struggle," though
in
fact the ability of a handful of untrained civilians to hold off battle
hardened units of the Wehrmacht for two months in the Warsaw ghetto in
1943
stunned the world, and was in large measure responsible for the fact that
an armed and free state of Israel was even judged feasible.)

  The Bantam paperback edition of "Mila 18" is readily available.

  Not so easy to find, yet, is the thinner new novel "The Mitzvah," by
Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ("Lethal
Laws"), and by veteran novelist and Second Amendment advocate L. Neil
Smith
("Pallas," "The Probability Broach.") "The Mitzvah" recounts the tale of
middle-aged Chicago Catholic priest John Greenwood, who discovers he is
actually a Jewish Holocaust orphan, a revelation that forces him to
rethink
many of his "received" opinions, including the notion that the best
solution to an increasingly violent urban America is further victim
disarmament.

  Mind you, in competition for a permanent place in the literary
pantheon,
"Mila 18" is the heavyweight. But if you're looking for an outreach tool
for folks who might find a modest 243 pages more easily digestible, "The
Mitzvah" is $10.95 postpaid from JPFO, P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, Wisc.
53027.

  On the non-fiction front, we would be remiss not to mention that the
work
of Jim Bovard ("The Fair Trade Fraud") keeps getting better. In his
latest
hardcover, "Freedom in Chains" ($26.95, St. Martin's Press), Jim seems
almost ready to join the radicals, declaring:

  "The achievements of government will be forever limited by the primary
tool of government -- coercion. ... The people are irrevocably labeled as
'free' until the government completely wrecks the economy or slaughters a
statistically significant percentage of the population. People have
worshipped government too long. ... At this point, marginal reforms
should
suffice only for those who believe citizens deserve marginal lives --
lives
consisting of what politicians choose not to confiscate and bureaucrats
deign not to prohibit. To be overgoverned means lives thwarted, hopes
dashed, creativity suppressed, potential squandered, character subverted,
and dignity destroyed."

  By George, I think he's got it.

  Finally, in the video aisle, producer Mike McNulty (the Academy
Award-nominated documentary "Waco: The Rules of Engagement") reports
September is now the target date for release of his sequel, "Waco: A New
Revelation," which promises further documentation of the purposeful use
of
government snipers to keep women and children trapped in the burning
building on the day of the Branch Davidians' final incineration, while
federal agents blocked access to fire engines. (A federal judge in Texas
ruled this month those very charges have sufficient credibility to go
forward at trial, with sniper Lon Horiuchi -- the killer of Vicky Weaver
--
as a named defendant.)


Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal,
is
author of the new 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 whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed --
and
thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless
series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

* * *


------
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: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: July 11 column -- nothing happens in Santa Clara
Date: 22 Jul 1999 23:19:41 -0600


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

--------- Forwarded message ----------
Message-ID: <v0213051ab3ac63666f47@[0.0.0.0]>


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 11, 1999
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    No serial killings this week in Santa Clara


    Racist nut Benjamin Nathaniel Smith killed two and wounded nine in a
series of drive-by shootings of blacks, Asian-Americans, and Orthodox
Jews
in Illinois and Indiana before dying in a struggle with police on the
Fourth of July.

  Smith had tried to buy firearms from a federally licensed gun shop in
Illinois on June 23, the AP reports, but was turned down when he failed
the
"background check."

  Did he lie when filling out the federal form? Of course -- all such
forms
ask whether the applicant is under a court restraining order. Is lying on
that form a federal felony? It is. Did anyone try to detain, locate,
arrest, or prosecute this would-be killer in the ensuing 11 days? Of
course
not.

  So -- confirming the fact that such "gun control" laws never work
(confirming, in fact, that the folks who pass them have no intention of
(start ital)trying(end ital) to make them work, counting on their
predictable failure to justify further steps to disarm law-abiding folk
by
making gun ownership even (start ital)more(end ital) expensive,
inconvenient, and embarrassing), Smith remained free to buy pistols in
.22
and .380 caliber -- not "assault weapons," as some would have it --
illegally, from an unlicensed dealer already under investigation by the
BATF.

  Now, Benjamin Nathaniel Smith's insane crime spree brings predictable
calls for more "gun control."

  What do they propose to do: make it illegal to buy guns illegally?

  Meantime, no one mentions that again, as in Colin Ferguson's terrible
shooting spree on the Long Island Railroad a few years back (in a
jurisdiction where none of the victims were allowed to carry arms), and
as
in the worst American mass shooting in recent memory, in which 23
occupants
of the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas were shot down like dogs
because
state law required them to leave their firearms out in their cars ...
none
of Benjamin Nathaniel Smith's victims were armed.

  Such squirrelly characters are cowards at heart. Would someone like
Benjamin Nathaniel Smith even have (start ital)attempted(end ital) such a
thing if it were known that as many as 30 percent of blacks,
Asian-Americans, and Orthodox Jews in the Midwest were now carrying
concealed weapons, and had received training in how to use them? No.

  Yet instead of urging more folks to buy and carry guns and learn how to
use them, the "reformers" can only think of ways to create more disarmed
victims!

  "Oh, being armed is no solution," the mincing minions of genocide will
surely simper. "The bad guy will only take your gun away and use it on
you."

  OK: Let's take a look at what really happened last week when the
intended
victim of such a would-be shooter turned out to be armed:

  Reuters reported on July 6 from Santa Clara, California:

  "A shoot-out at a California shooting range ended a bizarre hostage
drama
during which three gun store employees found themselves staring down the
barrel of one of their own rented rifles, police said Tuesday.

  "Sgt. Anton Morec of the Santa Clara Police Department said the
aspiring
gunman, 21-year-old Richard Gable Stevens ... 'intended to go out in a
blaze of glory,' noting Stevens had accumulated more than 100 rounds of
ammunition for his rented 9mm semi-automatic weapon.

  " 'It certainly looks like he intended to take a lot more people out.'

  "Morec said Stevens arrived at the National Shooting Club Monday
evening
and rented the rifle for target practice. ... After several minutes on
the
range, however, Stevens returned to the club's gun store and shot at the
ceiling. He then herded three store employees out the door into an alley,
saying he intended to kill them.

 "Unknown to Stevens, one store employee was carrying a .45 caliber
handgun
concealed beneath his shirt. When Stevens looked away, the employee
fired,
hitting Stevens several times in the chest and bringing him to the
ground."

  After police arrived, Stevens was taken to a hospital, where he was
listed in critical condition. Finding a note from Stevens to his parents,
predicting they would be bankrupted by lawsuits from the relatives of his
intended "victims," police concluded "The quick action by the gun club
employee may have headed off a massacre," Reuters reports.

  Yet which case made the front pages and the evening news -- the tragedy
with the unarmed victims, or the story that proves, not in theory but in
real life, the best way to (start ital)stop(end ital) such crimes before
they start?

  Speaking of the 1991 Luby's cafeteria massacre, Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp
was there. She had left her firearm in her car, as required by law. She
therefore had to watch both her father and mother -- along with 21 others
-- butchered before her eyes. Dr. Hupp, who won election to the Texas
legislature in 1996 on a "right to self-defense" platform, will speak on
the Second Amendment and recent calls for more victim disarmament at the
monthly breakfast of the Nevada Republican Liberty Caucus, 7:30 a.m.
Monday
July 12, at the Country Inn in Green Valley.

  Tickets are $25; call Chuck Muth to see if any spaces are still open:
[phone].


Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. His new book, "Send in the Waco Killers" is available at
$21.95 plus $3 shipping through Mountain Media, P.O. Box 271122, Las
Vegas,
Nev. 89127, or at 1-800-244-2224.

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

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

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed --
and
thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless
series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

* * *


------
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: No Rest for the Righteous
Date: 22 Jul 1999 18:48:00 -0700


Jim Dexter provides:

-----

To All:

With God's help; we've won this round and have stopped the special session.
But we have only won a defensive action -- a retreat.  With our backs to
the wall, we have only slowed the enemy down in their unrelenting attacks
on our freedom.

The question is: Are we going to pat ourselves on the back now and go back
to sleep?  Will we sit back again and wait for the enemy to inevitably
force us into another corner?

WAKE UP!!!  Now is the time to go on the offensive, not sit in complacency
while the more-persistent liberals are plotting their next strike!

Everyone within the reach of this e-mail must DO the following:

1) Thank and reinforce those legislators who stood fast (or at least tried)
in the face of Leavitt's and the media's onslaught to rob us of our rights;

2) Find out the locations of the upcoming regional meetings on gun control
and absolutely stack them!  Post these regional meeting locations and times
on e-mail so we can help each other;

3) Build your circles of influence now WHILE WE STILL HAVE TIME!  We need
to multiply our numbers and add bodies to the fight!  Find 5 new people to
help you fight this fight.  Organize your 5-man team via the e-mail or some
other convenient mechanism;

4) Locate and commit a candidate in every state house and senate district
of those who are pushing this crap.  In addition, think about lining up a
third party candidate to at least knock out the really big losers like
Patrice Arent, Adolf Buckner, etc. (if you have questions on who other big
losers are, let me know).  Work with these third party folks to steal the
5-10 percent neccessary to help knock these jerks out!;

5) For you partisan-types, stack your party's caucuses NOW!!!  Don't wait
until next year to start thinking about this!  NOW IS THE TIME!  If you
don't know how, ask;

Patton's guiding philosophy was simple:  Always attack; never defend.
We have found the gap in Leavitt's armor and must now drive the sword into
his heart!  Each of us must now attack with everything we personally have
-- or watch helplessly as Leavitt and his liberal band of gangsters pat
each other on the back this January!


-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Fw: The Filibuster Is * On *
Date: 23 Jul 1999 17:42:39 -0600


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

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


>Senator Smith Throws Down the Gauntlet!
>  -- Stands up to Trent Lott by forcing filibuster on anti-gun crime
>bill
>
>Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
>8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
>Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
>http://www.gunowners.org
>
>(Friday, July 23, 1999) -- Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has set
>the Senate wheels in motion for a series of votes to stop Senator
>Bob Smith's filibuster on the juvenile crime legislation.  The first
>vote has been set for Monday, July 26.
>
>So far, Senator Smith (I-NH) has prevented any progress on the
>anti-gun crime bill by promising to use the ancient art of
>"filibuster."   Yesterday, that promise became reality when Smith
>objected to a motion by Sen. Lott to move the bill along.
>
>This is truly a David v. Goliath stand-off.  The Senate leadership,
>led by the Majority Leader, is trying to roll Senator Smith and
>bring his delaying tactics to an end.
>
>Of course, Senator Lott must first clear at least six parliamentary
>"hurdles" that have been erected by Senator Smith.
>
>The key vote will occur on Wednesday or Thursday when the Senate
>will determine whether the Gore/Lautenberg gun control crime bill
>(S. 254) will move forward.
>
>That vote will be on an effort to shut down debate on Sen. Smith's
>filibuster-- known in Washington as "invoking cloture" on the
>filibuster-- and will decide whether Sen. Lott can substitute the
>virulently anti-gun crime bill (S. 254) in lieu of the crime bill
>that was passed by the House.
>
>Eventually, Senator Lott wants to send the crime legislation to a
>House-Senate conference committee to iron out the differences
>between the two bills.  But that can only come after he's cleared
>the Smith "hurdles"-- a process that should take several days.  Lott
>can clear each one of these hurdles with a 60-vote majority in the
>Senate.
>
>If that happens, President Clinton will be one step closer to
>signing a crime bill that is replete with gun bans and gun owner
>registration.
>
>But if our side gets 41 votes at any point along the way, then
>Senate rules will allow Smith to continue filibustering the bill--
>which could entail his standing on the Senate floor and reading long
>passages from a library of pro-gun literature.  You may want to tape
>this from C-Span and label it "Second Amendment books on tape by
>Senator Smith."
>
>Smith is willing to do that.  He is committed to doing whatever it
>takes to defend the 2nd Amendment.  But he needs 40 other Senators
>to stand with him!
>
>Again, Monday's vote will begin a whole series of votes on this
>issue.  Each one is slightly different, and GOA will do its best to
>keep you informed as to what is coming down the pike.
>
>Until then, please start asking your Senators to support the Smith
>filibuster.
>
>Senator Smith is without question THE defender of 2nd Amendment
>rights in the Senate.  Tell your Senator that you would like him or
>her to follow Smith's lead on the upcoming series of votes.
>
>CONTACT INFORMATION:
>
>   * Toll-free at 1-888-449-3511.  [Please be patient when calling
>this number; sometimes it rings for quite a while.  But they will
>answer!]
>   * The regular Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121.
>   * Fax and e-mail contact info is available at
>http://www.gunowners.org/s106th.htm on the GOA webpage.
>
>
>P.S.  There has been quite a bit of confusion in the media as to
>what is actually transpiring on Monday.  Some in the media are
>reporting that Monday's vote is about the appointment of Senate
>conferees.  This is incorrect.  Technically speaking, the purpose
>for Monday's vote in the Senate is to bring up the House crime bill
>(H.R. 1501) for debate.  As stated above, Lott eventually wants to
>appoint conferees, but that will only happen if he can overcome
>every Smith filibuster.
>
>
>**************
>Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if
>you use http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online
>store.
>
>**************
>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.
>
>


___________________________________________________________________
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: Interim report and ACTION ITEMS 1/2
Date: 23 Jul 1999 22:39:00 -0700


Jim Dexter provides (from whom?):

-----

----------

What you won't read in the newspapers....  (This is an extremely biased
report; but at least I admit it!)

The most offensive thing about the committee hearings, as always, was the
list of people who were on the agenda to "speak officially".  With the
exception of Prof. John Lott, Jr., every single speaker was an unelected
bureaucrat.  Each one of these people is supported fully by OUR tax
dollars.  Each one advocated expanded funding for his or her department
(more taxes!), expanded power for the government, and the revocation of the
constitutional rights of citizens.  Each one stated that s/he "knows best"
what "is good for us", and that we are too stupid to manage our own lives,
make our own decisions, or rear our own children.  While these people were
given nearly unlimited time to espouse their socialist agendas, members of
the public were given only a minute or two to express their thoughts and
opinions.  If you find this as offensive as I do, please let your
legislators know that you would like them to conduct official business with
more respect for the citizens who elect them and pay their salaries!

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

Speakers:  Steve Laing, Superintendent of Public Instruction who espoused
the usual party line of giving government control of children and banning
guns from schools.

Rich West, Center for the School of the Future (USU) who spoke about CSF's
successful pilot program for reducing violence and helping "at-risk"
students.  Interestingly, West repeatedly made the point that coercion is
counterproductive and creates resistance, while respect and trust encourage
cooperation and promote safe behavior.  Unfortunately, neither he, nor the
committee members, were able to extrapolate this to conclude that treating
law abiding gun owners with respect and trust, instead of threatening them
with arrest and revoking their rights, might actually make our schools
safer and go a long way toward ending the current hostilities.  Why we
should treat juvenile delinquents with respect while treating law-abiding
adults as criminals is beyond me!

Susan Burke, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, who spoke about
various programs to deal with violence and "at-risk" youth.  Ms. Burke did
a responsible job of pointing out that programs need to be evaluated
objectively, and that program _design_ needs to be evaluated independently
of the success of charismatic program members.  While she advocates
increased spending (big surprise!), she did have good suggestions for doing
so in a more responsible manner.

John Watson, Chairman, State Board of Education, who read an amazingly
offensive statement calling for a total ban on firearms in schools and on
school premises, except, of course, for law enforcement officers.
Verne Larsen, State Office of Education who talked a lot and didn't say
anything that made any sense, at least to me.  He did state that the two
words students overwhelmingly use to describe school are "boring" and
"sucks".  (Could it be that the real problems are public schools and the
UEA, and not guns?)

Jill Kennedy (?) State Board of Education, who actually testified that if
she brought a gun to school she would be dead because the students would
murder her to get it!

No one explained (nor did anyone ask) why "serious and habitual offenders"
are still attending classes at public schools where they endanger other
students.

Rep. David Jones, who once again presented his proposed legislation calling
for a ban on guns in schools, churches, houses of worship, and private
residences.  Based on a quick reading, this was identical to his previous
bills on the subject.  Once again he demanded that anyone who has a gun
announce it before entering his home, because he's too lazy (or is it
cowardly?) to ask.  Does he really think that a criminal is going to
announce his intent?  (Why aren't gun RIGHTS advocates this stubborn and
persistent?!)

Members of the public were allowed to speak for one minute each, and the
majority of speakers opposed both Jones's bill and a ban on concealed
firearms (carried by those with permits) on school property.  Speakers
included Scott Engen (GOUtah!), Bill Clayton (GOUtah!), Terry Trease,
Sarah Thompson, Ruth Andrus, and Dave Hansen.  (Apologies to anyone
I forgot!  You were great!)  USSC apparently did not know about this
meeting, and so was not represented.

Jones's legislation was rejected by the committee.  Following that, the
committee debated a list of 16 proposed "solutions to school violence",
debating gun control proposals and other proposals separately.  The gun
control proposals were defeated.  Several other proposals, including
sharing records between schools and law enforcement, increasing counseling
services, etc. were passed.  (I don't yet have an accurate list of which
ones were passed.  Most of them appeared to be expensive "feel-good"
measures intended to show that "the legislature is doing something".)

Friends on the committee who particularly deserve your thanks: Rep. Matt
Throckmorton, Rep. Bill Wright, Rep. Tammy Rowan, Rep. Nora Stephens.
(The vote was straight party line, so all Republican members of the
committee deserve credit!)


JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

The Judiciary Committee considered two proposals, which Gov. Leavitt had
requested be considered as one proposed bill.  Sen. Terry Spencer refused
to allow consideration of a ban on guns in schools because the Education
Committee had rejected the proposal just a few hours earlier.

The first proposal was to make it easier to commit persons to a mental
institution, by removing the criterion that the person pose an immediate
danger to himself or others and including such vague criteria as posing a
non-immediate danger (at anytime in the future!), will suffer severe and
abnormal mental or emotional distress, will experience deterioration in
ability to function, and anti-social behavior.  (As one committee member
pointed out, this would include failure to pay child support in a timely
manner!  Another example offered by Dr. Meredith Alden of the Department
of Mental Health, was a "mentally ill" woman who engaged in prostitution.)

Of course commitment to a mental institution (whether or not it was
appropriate, and whether or not the person has recovered) results in a
lifetime ban on firearms ownership.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Interim report and ACTION ITEMS 2/2
Date: 23 Jul 1999 22:39:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Who's mentally ill?  Everyone did their best to ignore this issue.  But
the written statement from Robin Arnold-Williams, Executive Director of
the Department of Human Services reads: "Severe mental disorder" means
schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar disorder, delusional disorders,
psychotic disorders, and _other mental disorders as defined by the
board_.  In other words, if DHS _says_ you're mentally ill, you are!

Testifying for Gov. Leavitt's proposal were Meredith Alden, Director of
the Utah Division of Mental Health, Camille Anthony of the Commission
on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (I think!) and another woman whose name
I didn't get.  (No printed agenda was available.)

The arrogant paternalism (maternalism?) of these women was appalling;
they know what's best for everyone.  Rights are irrelevant and so is
any research that contradicts their agenda.  Alden seemed particularly
confused, alternately stating that the proposal was intended to "help
people" and that violence was a peripheral issue, and stating that the
proposal was necessary to "protect the public health" from violent
mentally ill people.  (Of course hauling someone off to a mental hospital
at gunpoint, restraining him and drugging him is an odd approach to "help".
And there isn't any evidence that mentally ill people who are not
substance abusers are more violent than the general public.

Those who testified against this proposal included Ruth Andrus, John
Spangler of USSC, and Sarah Thompson.  (Again apologies to anyone I forgot!)

The committee voted not to change the criteria for involuntary
commitment.  However they did approve a proposal to allow BCI to access
records of involuntary commitments for the purpose of background
checks.  Although in my opinion this is wrong because there is no
provision for due process petitioning for restoration of rights, its hard
to argue with the committee's action since this is already existing law,
and they were only making it possible for BCI to check for commitments.

The next proposal was to expand the criteria for revocation of firearms
rights for "attempt to commit a felony" or a "violent misdemeanor".  A
felony conviction has been the standard for revocation of rights since the
founding of this nation, but that's no longer "good enough" in this age of
plea-bargaining.  The prosecutors say that actually prosecuting violent
felons is "too expensive".  And actually proving their case is also too
difficult and expensive, so they even suggested punishing people based on
the _charges filed_, instead of the actual conviction.  (Imagine being
charged with attempted murder for driving too fast, being convicted of
speeding, and having your rights revoked for a speeding ticket because you
were _charged_ with a felony!)

The violent felony nonsense is just as bad.  Examples of "violent felonies"
include: criminal mischief, damage to or interruption of a communications
device, false alarm, harassment, interference with a public servant,
obstructing justice, carrying a concealed weapon (so much for permitless
carry!), domestic abuse in the presence of a child (yelling at your spouse
if your kids can hear it), cruelty to animals, and improper sales of
crystal iodine.

The intent of Gov. Leavitt's proposed legislation is clear.  Since he can't
get away with banning guns outright, he intends to make it impossible for
anyone to qualify to own one.  So even if you're a law-abiding, responsible
citizen, you can be declared mentally ill, or be disqualified based on a
trivial offense with a vague definition.  And should you manage to qualify,
it will be illegal to actually carry the gun anywhere outside of your own
locked bathroom.

The committee voted to "further study" this issue because the meeting
started 1.5 hours late and didn't have time to discuss it fully.  There
also wasn't time for public comment, but Chairman Spencer did say that he
will accept written comments from the public.  (Sen. Terry Spencer, 319
State Capitol, SLC 84114-0111 or Fax to 801-538-1414)

Friends on the committee who deserve your thanks:  David Ure, Glenn Way,
David Gladwell, Chair Terry Spencer, and John Swallow.  (Rep. Swallow
needs to hear from some friendly people who can educate him so he stops
embarrassing himself by saying things like "Getting guns out of the hands
of the mentally ill will stop gun violence".)

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

I did not attend this meeting which was so packed that people were lined
up in the hall outside.  Hopefully someone who did will provide us with
a more detailed report.  From what I heard, Prof. John Lott, Jr. did an
excellent job of presenting his research showing that concealed carry laws
prevent violent crime, and that concealed carry decreases multiple-victim
shootings. We can only hope that our legislators paid attention!
Apparently no specific legislation was discussed at this meeting.

If you would like additional information on Prof. Lott's research, the gun
violence and mental illness issue, or the proposed legislation, please let
me know.  (Plans are afoot for getting much of this information on the Web
soon!)

If you have additions, corrections, clarifications, etc. please let me know.
I make no claims to being a perfect reporter, and will happily and promptly
correct errors.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO:
1. Thank friendly legislators.  These folks really went out on a limb by
openly opposing Gov. Leavitt and they need to know that we appreciate them
and will do what we can to help them in the future.  Speaker Marty Stephens
in particular deserves our thanks.
2. Make sure you call and/or write to Sen. Spencer and other members of the
Judiciary Committee and let them know that revocation of rights based on
misdemeanor violations is not even remotely acceptable and should be
rejected outright.
3. Let the liberal media, all of whom are whining about "evil Republicans
who support murdering children", know that legislators did the right thing,
and back up your claims with scientific research.
4. Educate your friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. and get them involved.
5. Start planning and organizing now for the next caucuses, elections and
general session!

Thanks also to GOUtah! for their excellent alerts, testimony, and badges
for gun rights supporters and to USSC for hosting Prof. Lott.  (I don't
know for sure who contacted him and arranged this.)  And thanks to each
and every one of you who called, wrote, attended, testified, organized,
and otherwise worked to protect and defend our freedom.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Clinton and 'martial law' 1/2
Date: 24 Jul 1999 11:44:00 -0700


Clinton and 'martial law'

Posse Comitatus Act no check on White House power, attorneys claim

By Sarah Foster
May 21, 1999
WorldNetDaily

President Clinton doesn't need to sign an executive order to start
a full-scale gun grab. He doesn't need to declare martial law if he
wants to use the armed forces to deal with public unrest. And if he
figures a state government isn't doing all it should to enforce some
federal law that nobody likes, he can use federal troops to make
certain that the law is complied with -- even if the governor and
everyone living in the state are adamantly opposed to it.

He can do all these things on his own, without seeking advice or
approval from Congress.

Not even the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which Congress intended as a
shield to protect citizens from the military, places any significant
limitations on presidential power.

That's what Virginia attorneys William Olson and Alan Woll discovered
when they looked into the matter for Gun Owners of America, a Washington-
based lobbying organization dedicated to defending the Second Amendment.

Last December Olson and Woll published an analysis on "Executive
Orders and National Emergencies: Presidential Power Grab Nearly
Unchecked," which was featured in WorldNetDaily. This earlier work
prompted Larry Pratt, president and executive director of GOA,
to commission the attorneys to examine a related issue.

"I asked them to look at all the executive orders and see if there
was a nexus with guns; some kind of hook that would allow the
government to get a hook on our trigger guards, so our guns can be
pulled from our hands through some power they had delegated to them-
selves by executive order," Pratt recalled in a telephone interview.

Though unable to find a direct reference that would permit gun
confiscation, "What they discovered was worse," said Pratt. "The
president doesn't have to sign an executive order. He already has
the power to go after our guns."

The 35-page Olson-Woll report entitled "Presidential Powers to Use
the U.S. Armed Forces to Control Potential Civilian Disturbances,"
developed naturally from their earlier research, but it is written
as though it were a memo to the president, from a "Counsel's Office,"
in response to a White House request for a legal opinion about how
far the president can go in using the military for law enforcement
purposes in the event of a Y2K or other crisis: Would a declaration
of martial law be necessary to call out the military? What about
the Posse Comitatus Act?

"This memorandum is fictional but accurately depicts the broad powers
assumed and exercised by presidents to utilize U.S. military forces
to regulate civilian activity," the authors state in a disclaimer.

"We wrote it that way to draw peoples' attention to the issues,"
Olson explained by telephone. "We hoped that using this format to
present the information would make it more real. A lot of what we
talk about sounds like history, but it's quite current, and one
could imagine the president asking for advice on this very issue."

The answers to the hypothetical questions came as a "complete surprise"
to Larry Pratt and to the authors themselves. "We had no idea that his
powers were so broad," said Olson. "The fact that there are these vast
standby statutory powers is shocking. I'm afraid Congress keeps passing
the laws that grant this power and never stands back and asks, 'What
have we done?' It's time that they start looking and asking."

The statutes referred to are found in Title 10 of the U.S. Code,
which deals with the Armed Forces. Through them the president is
given authority to intervene with military force in a state's
domestic disputes, upon request from the state legislature or
governor -- or without it. Some examples cited by Olson and Woll:

Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 331: Whenever there is an insurrection
in any State against its government, the President may, upon the
request of its legislature or its governor ... use such of the armed
forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 332: Whenever the President considers
that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion
against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to
enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory ...
he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State,
and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce
those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 333: The President, by using the militia
or the armed forces, or both, or by other means, shall take such
measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any
insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy,
if it hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the
United States within the State ... or opposes or obstructs the
execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course
of justice under those laws ...

Olson and Woll discovered that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1863
that the president can unilaterally decide whether an insurrection is
in effect and determine how much force is necessary to suppress it.
He can "brand as belligerents the inhabitants of any area in general
insurrection."

Equally shocking, in Olson's view, as the fact that the president can
use the military against civilians, is the fact that former presidents
have done so on "many occasions" -- none of them declaring martial law.

For example, in 1914 President Woodrow Wilson deployed federal troops
in Colorado to suppress a labor dispute. Olson-Wolls point out that
Wilson ordered the U.S. Army to disarm American citizens -- including
state and local officials, sheriffs, the police and the National Guard;
to arrest American citizens; to monitor the state judicial process and
re-arrest (and hold in military custody) persons released by the state
courts; and to deny writs of habeas corpus issued by state courts.

Earlier, in South Carolina in 1871, without declaring martial law,
President Grant sent troops into nine counties of South Carolina to
enforce a proclamation commanding the residents to give up their arms
and ammunition. Grant suspended the writ of habeas corpus. More than
600 arrests had been made by the end of 1871.

Between 1807 and 1925, federal troops were used more than 100 times
to quell domestic disturbances -- sometimes the presence of the troops
alone was enough to discourage the participants.

"Look at the history," Olson exclaimed. "None of what's happening is
new. Could you ever imagine that the President of the United States
could order the Army to disarm sheriffs, disarm police, and disarm
the National Guard? Isn't that beyond what you'd ever dream?

"But it has happened. It's the fact that this has happened that
should cause people to take this issue seriously."
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Clinton and 'martial law' 2/2
Date: 24 Jul 1999 11:44:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
But doesn't the Posse Comitatus Act provide restrictions against
the use of the military? This is the act that prohibits the Army
or Air force from acting as a posse comitatus -- "the population
of a county the sheriff may summon to assist him in certain cases."

"No one should ever think the Posse Comitatus Act is any check
whatsoever on the ability of the federal government to employ
military might against civilians," said Olson.

"We were surprised at how weak the Posse Comitatus Act is," he
continued. "There have been no prosecutions ever, and it doesn't
apply to any branch of the armed forces except the Army and the
Air Force. It has a huge exception -- that deployment of the Army
or Air Force as a posse comitatus is a crime, 'except in cases
and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution
or Act of Congress.'

"That 'Constitution or Act of Congress' exception is so broad
you can drive a truck through," Olson remarked.

"The final thing that surprised us was that that the military
doesn't need an order from the president to have control over
civilians," Olson said. "I had always thought only the president
could declare martial law, but apparently not. Apparently any
commander can do it, can suspend all civil rights."

Larry Pratt considers this last the most egregious
of all the Olson-Woll findings.

"Military commanders can act on the basis that there is an emergency,"
said Pratt. "They don't have to wait until martial law is declared.
The powers that they have in their hands are tremendous.

"People can't expect President Clinton to sit there in front of a
camera and say, 'Tonight I have declared martial law,'" Pratt said.
"You'll just find out about it when you try and get on the main
highway and there's a humvee with a soldier who says, 'Turn back.'
And when you ask why, he puts his gun into ready position and says,
'I'm only following orders. Please turn back.'

"You can challenge that. You can say they -- the commander or the
soldier -- have no constitutional authority for this, and you may
be correct. But you will be arguing on the wrong side of a barbed
wire fence. They can simply do it. It will not be debated.

"It's wonderful," Pratt noted, ironically. "It goes beyond what
[White House spokesperson] Paul Begala said about executive orders:
You know, 'Stroke of a pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.' Martial
law could be initiated by one commander sending an e-mail to a guy
at the base to muster his troops.

"Stroke of a keyboard, martial law. Kinda cool," Pratt said.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: TO THE POINT: Don't Violate the Rights of the Mentally Ill
Date: 23 Jul 1999 23:01:00 -0700


***********************
     To the Point
***********************

To the Point: A Sutherland Institute Public Policy Perspective
July 23, 1999, 99-13

Don't Violate the Rights of the Mentally Ill
By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

The Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human Services (DHS) has
proposed several changes to Utah's mental health laws, changes that have
been enthusiastically endorsed by Governor Leavitt.  These proposals claim
to address the problem of "gun violence," but in actuality they would
deprive Utahns of their human rights.

The DHS proposal would make it easier to commit individuals even if they
pose no threat to themselves or others.  The criteria suggested by DHS
are so vague that it would be possible to commit virtually anyone based
on misdemeanor violations, arguments with neighbors, poor hygiene, or an
individual's refusal to take psychiatric medications.  In effect, people
would be committed based on the content of their thoughts, rather than on
the basis of behavior that places themselves or others at physical risk.
Once a person is committed, he would also be subjected to involuntary
medication.

In addition, DHS wants to legalize outpatient commitment.  This means that
innocent people living peacefully in the community could be sentenced to
forced medication.  Those who don't cooperate would be incarcerated and
injected with medications until they "agree" to cooperate.  These
medication sentences could be imposed for relatively trivial reasons, as
previously noted.  Because most psychiatric medications cause long-term
changes in brain chemistry, stopping them often causes a worsening of
symptoms.  Thus persons who are subjected to forced medication are usually
facing a lifetime of continued medication, even if the commitment is
withdrawn.  Outpatient commitment would be implemented through Programs
for Assertive Community Treatment (P/ACT), the so-called "hospital without
walls," which attempts to create hospital-type treatment for those living
in the community.

While psychiatric medications can be life saving for people who need them
and respond well to them, they do not work for all patients.  Side effects,
ranging from unpleasant to disabling to lethal, are not uncommon.  In
addition, many people choose not to take these medications for personal
or religious reasons, or prefer to try approaches other than medication.
Unfortunately, psychiatrists are often unwilling to consider any treatment
other than medication, and may be openly hostile to less intrusive measures
such as pastoral counseling, alternative medicine, and lifestyle changes.
P/ACT makes no allowance for individual, family, or religious choice;
medication is mandated.  With this in mind, it is understandable that
some of the strongest advocates of P/ACT are organizations funded heavily
by pharmaceutical companies.  Forcing a peaceful person to take medication
that may permanently disable him -- even kill him -- should not be
acceptable in a free society.  No one should be forced to sacrifice his
life for the alleged "good of society."

While P/ACT would benefit drug companies, it is unlikely to have a positive
effect on violent crime.  Although recent tragedies have generated a lot of
hysteria, the truth is that mentally ill people living in the community are
no more violent than their non-mentally ill neighbors are, as shown in a
1998 study by H.J. Steadman (Steadman, H.J., et al, _Archives of General
Psychiatry_, May 1998, p. 393-401).  Mental health professionals are not
able to predict which people will become violent.  Substance abuse, a
history of violent behavior, and head injuries are all greater risk factors
for violence than are schizophrenia or psychosis.  Thus, there is no
justification for routinely revoking the rights of the mentally ill, the
vast majority of whom are non-violent.

Ultimately, P/ACT would be expanded to include the entire state, and would
have its own "mental health courts" to handle commitments.  In addition,
law enforcement officers would be trained to identify those who might be
mentally ill and to initiate commitments.  These proposed special courts,
that presumably would use different procedures than those used in all other
legal proceedings, are unnecessary.   While it would be helpful for law
enforcement officers to know more about compassionately interacting with
the mentally ill, there is no reason to encourage them to begin practicing
medicine. While there are social costs from people with serious mental
illnesses who refuse treatment, there are similar costs from people who
refuse to take insulin, blood pressure medication, and so on.  Yet DHS has
not considered creating P/ACT teams to force people to take non-psychiatric
medications, nor to incarcerate people who are "non-compliant" with smoking
cessation, diet, or exercise programs.  The only difference is that the
mentally ill are irrationally feared and stigmatized and often unable to
fight for their own rights.

Providing convenient, comprehensive, in-home care to seriously mentally
ill people who choose to accept it is a humane and often cost-effective
alternative to confusing and intimidating health care systems, which would
make it easier for people to obtain optimal care.  But such programs must
remain voluntary, and not be used as an excuse to revoke civil rights.
Once a precedent is created for incarcerating and drugging people for
minor deviations from  "normal" thoughts and behavior, how far are we
from creating a system such as that used by the former Soviet Union,
where people were incarcerated and drugged for politically incorrect
beliefs?

The DHS plan is another expensive government mandate that would adversely
affect all Utahns.  It would require Utah's taxpayers to fund a program
designed to invade the privacy of their fellow citizens, force them to
take powerful drugs against their will, incarcerate those who do not
cooperate, and erode the civil rights of everyone.  Such flagrant and
abusive violations of civil liberties should not be tolerated.

######

Sarah Thompson is a medical doctor and policy specialist who authored
this piece for the Sutherland Institute, a Utah public policy research
organization.  Permission to reprint this article in whole or in part
is granted provided credit is given to the author and to the Sutherland
Institute.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun control logic
Date: 25 Jul 1999 14:07:00 -0700


-----

In the Sunday, July 11th edition of the Ogden subStandard Examiner the
following ranting letter was printed.

"With guns everywhere, the mayhem continues.

Last month a 10 year-old in Vernal had half his brains splattered on
his living room wall, thanks to a shotgun and another 10-year old kid.
This week in Illinois and Indiana, several dozen people, one of them
a 15-year-old, were shot at by a wacko who, just a few days earlier,
had been an ordinary, decent, law-abiding citizen who happened to own
a couple of handguns.

Nothing to worry about, right?  Several of his victims died, including
a young man from Korea.  The body count would have been higher, except
he apparently wasn't a very good shot.  Perhaps he should have taken
shooting lessons from the National Rifle Association.

Meanwhile, dozens of kids are killed with guns every day in this country,
and their deaths don't even make the evening news.  The reason they are
dying in such numbers is the ready availability of guns, the gruesome
efficiency of many of them as killing machines and their ubiquitous
nature.  Guns are everywhere, especially those that do much of the
killing - i.e., handguns and high-powered, rapid-fire assault weapons.

Until we start rounding up a lot of guns and really start regulating
their distribution, sale and conditions of ownership, nothing is going
to change.  The whole gun system in America stinks and it is getting
worse every day.

Hey, hey, NRA, how many kids have you killed today?
Hal Elliott, Ogden"


AT first I thought there is no way possible to respond to this absurd
type of logic but later decided to use a Rush Limbaugh tactic, respond
to the absurd with the absurd.  The following is my response and was
printed in the subStandard Examiner on July 24th.

"Strict regulations needed to stop car deaths.

The July 11 letter, "With guns everywhere, the mayhem continues,"
impressed me and I feel the author may be on to something.  Perhaps the
same logic should be applied to the carnage happening on our highways.
With cars everywhere, the carnage continues.

Last month a cyclist was seriously injured by a pickup truck driven by
an ordinary, law-abiding drunken driver.  The cyclist had his life
changed forever when it became necessary to amputate his leg.
Meanwhile, thousands of men, women and children are being injured,
maimed for life or killed every day on our highways.  The reason this
carnage continues in such numbers is the ready availability of cars,
the gruesome efficiency of many of them as killing machines and their
ubiquitous nature.

Cars are everywhere, especially those that do much of the killing - i.e.,
SUVs, Cadillacs and Corvettes.  Until we start rounding them up and
really start regulating their distribution, sale, condition of ownership
and discard the Constitution, nothing is going to change.  The whole car
situation in America stinks and is getting worse every day.

Hey, hey, AAA, how many kids have you killed today?
Don Kingsley, Syracuse



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Mayors Face Lawsuit by Second Amendment Foundation
Date: 25 Jul 1999 14:07:00 -0700


-----

I hope this is one lawsuit that happens!
Mark

X-Mailing-List: [e-mail]
X-Url: http://www.egroups.com/list/piml/
Amendment Foundation [Free Republic]
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Source: Second Amendment Foundation
Published: 7-19-99 Author: A Navy Vet
Posted on 07/19/1999 01:39:21 PDT by A Navy Vet

Second Amendment Foundation

12500 NE Tenth Place 7

BELLEVUE, WA (December 9, 1998)-The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF),
a gun owner advocacy and educational organization, notified the US
Conference of Mayors in a faxed letter dated Dec. 8 that it plans to
sponsor a "damage action" against the cities of Chicago and New Orleans
for conspiracy to violate civil rights, abuse of process and undue
burden on interstate commerce.

The Foundation's letter to J. Thomas Cochran, executive director of the
US Conference of Mayors, said that a steering committee of distinguished
law professors, who will serve without compensation, has been assembled
as a response to the "frivolous suits" which New Orleans and Chicago
filed recently against firearms manufacturers, their trade associations
and federally licensed firearms dealers. SAF warned the mayors' conference
on the eve of its scheduled Dec. 10 meeting in Chicago that the suit
which it expected to file in Louisiana early next year will also name
any other cities which follow the New Orleans and Chicago lead.

Noting that the mayors had invited lawyers involved in the suits against
the firearms industry to address the meeting, Alan M. Gottlieb, founder
of the Second Amendment Foundation, encouraged the conference to also
invite a rebuttal presentation by a member of the 12-member steering
committee, Daniel D. Polsby, Kirkland & Ellis professor of law at
Northwestern University.

"From coast to coast, noted law professors seem to agree with the many
newspaper editorials which have suggested that the lawsuits filed by
the cities of New Orleans and Chicago against firearms manufacturers
and marketers are ill-conceived, ill-advised and totally without merit,"
said Gottlieb.

"Whatever problems the cities may have with the criminal and negligent
misuse of firearms, their suits against the gun manufacturers make as
much sense as suing the National Weather Bureau for the cost of storm
damages," Gottlieb added.

Even newspapers and magazines which advocate strict controls over
firearms and their purchasers have with unusual consistency questioned
the advisability of the kind of suits that have been filed by the cities
against the firearms industry. They see these as an attempt to pervert
the concept of product liability as an extension of the arguments used
in the state attorneys general suits against the tobacco industry.

"The nature and status of guns and tobacco are not analogous," said
Joseph P. Tartaro, president of SAF. "Firearms have a significant
beneficial use in our society beyond recreation, since independent
research shows they are used over 2 million times a year to prevent
or terminate predatory criminal assaults."

"The New Orleans and Chicago lawsuits are not only frivolous they
are dangerous because they are an extension of legal and political
buccaneering that will rape Americans of the means to self-defense
while looting a legal industry."

"The Foundation's primary interest is to safeguard the traditional legal
rights of law-abiding and peaceable American gun owners," Gottlieb said.
"We are not industry advocates. Gun makers and sellers just happen to be
the visible targets of the frivolous actions brought by New Orleans and
Chicago. If these were standard product liability suits, we wouldn't have
more than a passing interest in what the cities are attempting to do."

The law professors on the Foundation's steering committee for the
lawsuit against the cities besides Prof. Polsby are: Steven Calabresi,
professor of law, Northwestern University, Chicago; Robert A. Carter,
professor of law and Judge Alexander P. Waugh Sr. scholar, Rutgers
University-Newark; Robert J. Cottrol, professor of constitutional law
and legal history, George Washington University, Washington, DC; Michael
I. Krauss, professor of law, George Mason University, Arlington, VA;
Gary S. Lawson, professor of law, Northwestern University, Chicago;
Calvin R. Massey, Hastings College of Law, San Francisco; John McGinnis,
Cardozo Law School, New York City; Glenn Harlan Reynolds, professor of
law, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN; Charles E. Rice, professor
of law; Notre Dame University, South Bend, IN; Larry Soderquist,
professor of law and director of the Corporate and Securities Law
Institute, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN;, and George Strickler,
professor, Tulane University Law School, New Orleans, LA.

The Second Amendment Foundation is a tax-exempt education, legal action
and publishing group founded in 1974 and now has over 600,000 individual
citizen supporters nationwide. It previously has funded successful
firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT,
and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3792e4391247.htm

For subscription info, go to:
http://www.egroups.com/list/piml

-> Send "subscribe snetnews" to [e-mail]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Same stuff, different time
Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:16:00 -0700


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/071199_reese11_21.htm

Same stuff, different time -- past replayed in the here and now
Published in The Orlando Sentinel on July 11, 1999.

The more you know about the past, the more you realize that there has been
a great deal less change than some folks think.

Take the year 1925. Guess what: People were proposing to ban handguns
to reduce crime. The proposal came from the magazine "The Nation". This
magazine is still published.

It came during alcohol prohibition. Our current ban-the-devil-firearm
proposals are occurring during drug prohibition. Trying to ban alcohol
produced the following effects: a product dirt cheap to make became
expensive on the black market; huge crime organizations grew wealthy;
bribery and corruption became rampant; there grew a general contempt
for the law. Perhaps that seems familiar.

At any rate, in 1925, H.L. Mencken, one of America's greatest and most
libertarian journalists, was writing columns for the "Baltimore Evening
Sun". The proposal to ban handguns produced this from Mencken:

"The new law that it [the magazine] advocated, indeed, is one of the
most absurd specimens of jackass legislation ever heard of, even in
this paradise of legislative donkeyism. Its single and sole effect
would be to exaggerate enormously all of the evils it proposes to put
down. It would not take pistols out of the hands of rogues and fools;
it would simply take them out of the hands of honest men."

Mencken even pointed out that prohibition agents could not stop liquor
coming in by the shipload of bulky cases, and they certainly would not
be able to stop something as small as a pistol. "Thus the camel gets
in," Mencken said, "and yet the proponents of the new anti-pistol law
tell us that they will catch the gnat. Go tell it to the Marines."

In our own times, a government unable to keep out drugs by the tons and
illegal aliens by the hundreds of thousands will certainly play heck
trying to stop firearms should Congress ever be silly enough to ban
guns. And Congress may be seized by such an attack of silliness. Outbreaks
of legislative silliness seem to be occurring with greater frequency. If
Mencken thought his era was a time of legislative donkeyism, he should
look down from heaven and see what nonsense consumes our public servants.

Mencken stated in his column that he owned two pistols and that his
brother had six and that they would certainly sell them on the black
market rather than let the government seize them. Indeed while Englishmen
and Aussies meekly surrendered most of their guns recently, I doubt
seriously that America's 80 million gun owners would do so. I personally
would not want the job of going around to confiscate folks' firearms. I
grew up in a part of the country where folks would shoot you for a whole
lot less than that.

But the point is that human nature never changes. There are always
people who think you can legislate paradise on Earth. There are always
people unwilling to allow others to be free, if what those others want
to do with their freedom (drink or snort) doesn't meet the do-gooders'
high standards for OPB -- other people's behavior.

Man is a fallen, sinful critter, but there is no salvation to be found
in a law book or the courthouse. Nor will any paradise ever be created
by legislation. Attempts at perfecting society through coercion have
produced human-rights disasters on an unprecedented scale.

Freedom means living with warts and risks, so to speak. But free people
just deal with the warts and risks on an individual basis. They know
that you cannot legislate warts and risks out of existence.

But people won't change, and maybe that's an argument for knowing nothing
about the past. At least then you wouldn't realize how repetitious it all is.

[Posted 07/10/1999 11:51 AM EST]

Charley Reese Commentary Send Charley Reese e-mail <[e-mail]>

<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/services/online/aboutoso/reese.htm">
Meet Charley Reese</a>

Charley ReeseCommentary

Recent columns

7/18:<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/071899_
reese18_21.htm">Result of Kosovo conflict: Situation is even worse than
before</a>

7/15<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/071599_
reese15_21.htm">Whole idea of a free lunch has no place on 21st century menu</a>

7/13:<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/071399_
reese13_21.htm">You can catch bad guys without spying on the rest of America</a>

7/11:<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/071199_
reese11_21.htm">Same stuff, different time -- past replayed in the here and
now</a>

7/8:<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/070899_
reese08_21.htm">Politicians should do more than talk about saving children</a>

7/6:<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/070699_
reese06_21.htm">Worry about the more humble among us, not the rich elitists</a>

7/4:<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/070499_
reese04_21.htm">Precious independence is nibbled around edges all the time</a>

7/1:<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/columnists/reese/070199_
reese01_21.htm">Revolution brewing: Disregard laws that violate conscience</a>




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Foreign troops here to practice rounding up "dissenters"!
Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:16:00 -0700


-----

Foreign Troops and National Guard Preparing for Y2K

Grayling, Michigan was the location for a unique training exercise
called the Partner Challenge 1999, which took place during the
weekend of June 18th and ended Tuesday, June 22.  Three states and
three European countries were in the middle of peacekeeping games
as they trained at Camp Grayling.

It couldn't be better, said Col. Joe McDowell of the Michigan
National Guard - quoted in the Traverse City Record Eagle, June 19th.
To bring people in (from) three states and three different countries
and have everything jell perfectly is just amazing.

According to the Record Eagle, Soldiers also will take in a land
navigation course and will practice taking over and securing an area
where they face dissenters and people begging for food and money.

After some training, these guys will be very good at their American
tactics and they will learn a lot here, Lt. Ervins Gailas, platoon
leader of Latvian National Guard said.

Franklin Frith - y2kcoming.com, attended the Michigan State Police -
Emergency Management Division Y2K Regional Symposium on June 23, 1999
in Grayling, Michigan.

Col. Dennis Hull, Emergency Management Coordinator for the Michigan
National Guard stated that the armories throughout the State of
Michigan have been trained to respond without higher level command.
The response that Col. Hull refers to was referred to by Deputy
Secretary of Defense John Hamre in his memo to the various military
departments in February 1999.  It is also referred to in the
Department of Defense Directive .1 - Military Support to Civil
Authorities.  The documents have been referred to by Deputy Secretary
of Defense John Hamre and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for
response to Y2K consequences.

Col. Hull also stated that the national guard is prepared to activate
state military emergency operations center and joint military operations.

We have developed a special national guard response plan for Y2K.
Conducting exercises with foreign troops to handle dissenters begging
for food and money may be due to the fact that Deputy Secretary of
Defense John Hamre stated that the armed forces and reserves would
fulfill their first responsibility of meeting war-fighting abilities
before providing military support to civil authorities.

Col. Hull stated that the National guard is federally funded, trained
by the federal government and all of the equipment is owned by the
federal government...The president can federalize the guard and use
them however he wants.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has said that the
Federal Response Plan operations will be functional through the Y2K
conversion period.  The Department of Defense Memo dated, February
22, 1999 defines the transition period to be from September 1, 1999 -
March 31, 2000.

In the event of a major disaster requiring a national response on
behalf of FEMA, the U.S. Army would be the executive agent.
According to Col. Hull, there is a plan with the department of Army
for a Y2K event on a national level.  The Army has a plan to use the
National Guard.  The national guard would be federalized for the Army
to use them.  In response to problems in Michigan, Col. Hull stated
that an Executive order already has been typed up for the State to
declare either an emergency or disaster for a fast response.  Public
act 390 - Michigan Emergency Management Act explains the powers of
the governor and the consequences of disobeying his orders.
Describing the Guard's view of the Y2K problem, Col. Hull stated We
do not know the level of this man-made emergency.

Franklin Frith has contacted various individuals with the National
Guard and will provide more information in the near future.

For more information, contact Franklin D. Frith at [phone] or
Email him at [e-mail].  Franklin addresses communities
at no costs and works on donations only.  He has addressed hundreds
of local governments, communities and churches regarding the real
consequences of Y2K with documented facts.  No opinions, rumors or
commentary.  You can visit his web-site for more information and his
speaking schedule.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The Times' new policy on gun ads
Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:16:00 -0700


Coming soon to a noosepaper near you?

http://www.qctimes.com/opinion/990717_story2.html

[Opinion]

The Times' new policy on gun ads

By Times editorial staff, QUAD-CITY TIMES -- July 18, 1999

"We don't need more gun laws. What we need is better
enforcement of existing gun laws."

For years, that has been the mantra of the National Rifle
Association and its supporters. And while some might take
issue with the first part of that statement, as this
newspaper has on several occasions, there does seem to be
widespread recognition that police and prosecutors could
do a better job of enforcing the laws now on the books.

Unfortunately, some of these laws were written in such a
way as to make enforcement very difficult. Take, for
example, the federal law that requires background checks
on the prospective buyers of handguns.

As you might expect, this law applies to all licensed gun
dealers.

The trouble is, the law still allows for the sale of guns
by unlicensed individuals -- and those sales are not
subject to background checks and waiting periods.

Typically, these unregulated sales take place at gun shows
or through the classified ads of newspapers. And, naturally,
it's the newspaper ads that are of particular concern to the
Quad-City Times.

Through its editorials, the Times has consistently favored
legislation to close the loopholes on the unregulated sale
of guns.

Now, however, the Times is advancing that same argument in
a different way -- by applying this editorial philosophy
to its own business practices and refusing any gun-for-sale
ads that do not come from licensed dealers.

Predictably, this new policy has already sparked complaints.
Some people have asked why a newspaper would refuse ads that
facilitate the legal exchange of goods that citizens have a
right to own.

The answer is simple.

When Congress passed the Brady Bill in 1993 and it
approved the National Instant Criminal Background Check
that went into effect last year, it did so with the clear
intention of preventing guns from falling into the hands
of felons and other unqualified buyers.

But because of the loophole for unlicensed dealers --
defined as people who sell guns only "occasionally" --
the intent of these laws is being thwarted.

Unqualified buyers, knowing they can no longer purchase a
gun through a licensed dealer, need only visit a gun show
or scour the classified ads of their local newspaper to
find their weapon of choice.

The rules of good corporate citizenship dictate that a
business should always consider the public welfare when
making decisions that have an impact on the general
populace. And on this issue, there's no question: The
publication of ads from unlicensed dealers undermines the
intent of federal legislation by providing an unregulated
marketplace for the sale of weapons to felons and other
unqualified buyers.

Generally speaking, advertisements are both a source of
revenue for a newspaper and a conduit of information for
its readers. And while the business interests of the
Times clearly are not served by turning away revenue and
restricting the flow of information from potential
advertisers, the Times has an overriding interest in
making this community a safer place in which to work,
live and raise a family.

That's why the Times will now only accept gun-for-sale ads
from dealers who are licensed and subject to the provisions
of federal law.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Part 1, COLUMBINE & Other Gov't Massacres
Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:16:00 -0700


-----
Newsgroups:
alt.politics,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.freedom,talk.politics.guns

Part 1, COLUMBINE & More Gov't Engineered Massacres

Folks, there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence in the United States
and in Europe indicating that the Columbine Massacre was engineered by black
operations specialists within the national intelligence apparatus. It has
become apparent that the New World Order has adopted the same tactics and
techniques that were used by the Nazi Party to seize power in Weimar Germany
of the 1930s. This earlier historical strategy of state terror was termed
"the Politics of Tension" by the surviving heirs of Hitler's and Mussolini's
intelligence corps in Europe following the surrender of Germany at the end
of the Second World War. The story of how and why American intelligence
rescued and promoted, instead of destroying, Hitler's Gehlen-led spy
network, is one that has been largely ignored by the complicitous mass media
for the past half-century. Little wonder that the mass media chooses to
withhold this profoundly crucial story from the people, considering that
the CIA has maintained supervision and direction of mainstream newspapers,
magazines and television networks for decades. These episodic reports are
done with a sense of urgency, rather than with prime regard for meticulous
organization. So, when you see story lines branching out in diverse
directions, and with organization neither by paragraph nor by thought,
please understand the urgent need to give you the essence of this tangled
and sordid web of evil, because that evil is sweeping over your life and
mine. And time becomes more precious as it runs out. How soon and how close
to your daughter and my son will come the next Columbine massacre? You can
see that I'm going to need your help on this, since this story is much too
big for one man to cover alone. So please stay close; research the names,
titles, events, places and dates that I'll be throwing out, and then compose
your own reports for broadcast to the Internet and whatever other
communications media to which we can gain access.

Our children are under assault by zombified shooters in their school
corridors, and this assault is only the beginning stage of a nationwide
assault on Americans' freedom to live, to earn a decent living, and to enjoy
a lifetime of contentment. So, work with me, folks. I need your help in
order to search out this vital evidence and present it to the media-deluged
people, media-deluded people, while they still have the time and openness
of mind to recognize that termites have deeply infested the structural
members of our beloved home, America, and that our house is about to
collapse upon all our heads. ...

Intelligence researcher Dave Emory has earned the credit for much of this
vital information. The first thing you should do is go to
www.spitfirelist.com, peruse the myriad of descriptions of archived radio
broadcast tapes that Dave Emory has done over the years as a broadcaster on
KFJC-FM radio, out of Foothills College in Los Altos Hills, California.
Order some of Dave's extremely valuable and esoteric broadcast tapes, and
then do your own research from there. ...

The story begins with ODESSA.
ODESSA is an acronym for veterans of the Nazi military apparatus. ...

When it became apparent that Germany was going to lose the war, many of
Hitler's highest officers made a deal with the OSS, the United States
Office of Strategic Services, our spy agency, soon to become the Central
Intelligence Agency. Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, in particular, was(is)
a man whom the OSS felt it needed as desperately as Gehlen needed to save
his neck from the Nuremburg executioner, for Gehlen alone had developed
an intelligence network capable of dealing with the emerging Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the mortal enemy of the American
capitalist system. OSS chief Wild Bill Donovan and future Director of
Central Intelligence Allen Dulles ushered nazi Gehlen and his intelligence
staff into the warm, protective wings of America's ultra-secret "Puzzle
Palace" (the title of a worthwhile book on the CIA which you might ask
your librarian to search out and lend to you). ...

In moving more directly toward the Columbine Massacre through this vast
field of intelligence information encompassing acres of data and decades
of time, let us examine the Stockton Schoolyard Massacre, an event having
a body of related facts which cast deep suspicion upon black operations
specialists within the national intelligence apparatus. ...

In 1989, Patrick Edward Purdy opened fire with an automatic rifle
on Asian-American schoolchildren in the schoolyard of the Cleveland
Elementary School in Stockton, California. Note the congruence of
racial targeting in this case to the racial targeting against the
student gunned down by Harris and Klebold at Columbine High School.
Note, also, the further congruence of this racial targeting to that
aimed against African-Americans in the Fourth of July 1999 drive-by
shootings committed by Benjamin Smith, who so conveniently later
killed himself; likewise, Harris and Klebold also conveniently killed
themselves, leaving no way in this world to reach into their heads
and find the MK-ULTRA mind control mechanisms that were likely planted
there in a documentable pattern of premeditated state terror --
scientifically-conceived terror with a purpose, that is. Yet again
likewise, Patrick Edward Purdy killed himself at the end of his
bloody spree. This clear pattern of the crazed shooter who wastes
himself at the end of his bloody spree is a pattern that occurs
over and over again. A favorite recipe from the CIA's cookbook of
how-to-create-a-mind-control-assassin-with-no-aftermess-to-clean-up.

Now, here are a number of facts about Purdy gleaned from inconspicuous
newspaper articles printed in Stockton-area newspapers. The following
information comes from Dave Emory's archive radio broadcast tape M55,
titled "The Stockton Schoolyard Shootings". By ordering this and other
tapes from Dave Emory's spitfirelist, you will obtain a great deal of
information cherished by anyone who would cherish freedom enough to
fight for it.

Stay Tuned for PART 2 of this series on The Columbine Massacre and Other
Government-Engineered Acts of Terror.

Please disseminate these reports and your own subsequent reports as widely
as you can, because, folks, AMERICA IS UNDER SIEGE, to quote the title of
a New World Order videotape expos'e by Linda Thompson. These should be
motivating you to help develop and publicize the whole appalling story of
how and why the long-conspiring New World Order persists in inflicting
terror upon our nation's innocent people. As you would surmise, state terror
is designed to inflame the citizenry to cry out for tough government
controls, whence the state terrorists will promptly slam-dunk us all into
their totalitarian New World Order slave plantation. These ruling elite
every day dream and drool about their envisioned world slave plantation.
Don't wait until you have to risk your life to stop it, folks.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: The Filibuster Is * On *
Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:16:00 -0700


-----
Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 6:37 PM

Senator Smith Throws Down the Gauntlet!
 -- Stands up to Trent Lott by forcing filibuster on anti-gun crime bill

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

(Friday, July 23, 1999) -- Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has set
the Senate wheels in motion for a series of votes to stop Senator
Bob Smith's filibuster on the juvenile crime legislation.  The first
vote has been set for Monday, July 26.

So far, Senator Smith (I-NH) has prevented any progress on the
anti-gun crime bill by promising to use the ancient art of
"filibuster."  Yesterday, that promise became reality when Smith
objected to a motion by Sen. Lott to move the bill along.

This is truly a David v. Goliath stand-off.  The Senate leadership,
led by the Majority Leader, is trying to roll Senator Smith and
bring his delaying tactics to an end.

Of course, Senator Lott must first clear at least six parliamentary
"hurdles" that have been erected by Senator Smith.

The key vote will occur on Wednesday or Thursday when the Senate
will determine whether the Gore/Lautenberg gun control crime bill
(S. 254) will move forward.

That vote will be on an effort to shut down debate on Sen. Smith's
filibuster-- known in Washington as "invoking cloture" on the
filibuster-- and will decide whether Sen. Lott can substitute the
virulently anti-gun crime bill (S. 254) in lieu of the crime bill
that was passed by the House.

Eventually, Senator Lott wants to send the crime legislation to a
House-Senate conference committee to iron out the differences
between the two bills.  But that can only come after he's cleared
the Smith "hurdles"-- a process that should take several days.  Lott
can clear each one of these hurdles with a 60-vote majority in the
Senate.

If that happens, President Clinton will be one step closer to
signing a crime bill that is replete with gun bans and gun owner
registration.

But if our side gets 41 votes at any point along the way, then
Senate rules will allow Smith to continue filibustering the bill--
which could entail his standing on the Senate floor and reading long
passages from a library of pro-gun literature.  You may want to tape
this from C-Span and label it "Second Amendment books on tape by
Senator Smith."

Smith is willing to do that.  He is committed to doing whatever it
takes to defend the 2nd Amendment.  But he needs 40 other Senators
to stand with him!

Again, Monday's vote will begin a whole series of votes on this
issue.  Each one is slightly different, and GOA will do its best to
keep you informed as to what is coming down the pike.

Until then, please start asking your Senators to support the Smith
filibuster.

Senator Smith is without question THE defender of 2nd Amendment
rights in the Senate.  Tell your Senator that you would like him or
her to follow Smith's lead on the upcoming series of votes.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

* Toll-free at 1-888-449-3511.  [Please be patient when calling this
number; sometimes it rings for quite a while.  But they will answer!]
* The regular Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121.
* Fax and e-mail contact info is available at
http://www.gunowners.org/s106th.htm on the GOA webpage.

P.S.  There has been quite a bit of confusion in the media as to
what is actually transpiring on Monday.  Some in the media are
reporting that Monday's vote is about the appointment of Senate
conferees.  This is incorrect.  Technically speaking, the purpose
for Monday's vote in the Senate is to bring up the House crime bill
(H.R. 1501) for debate.  As stated above, Lott eventually wants to
appoint conferees, but that will only happen if he can overcome
every Smith filibuster.

Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if you
use http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online store.

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: How gun show was shut down
Date: 25 Jul 1999 22:42:00 -0700


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/19990716_xnjdo_how_gun_sh.shtml

[WorldNetDaily]

FRIDAY JULY 16 1999

[WND Exclusive ]

How gun show was shut down
FBI turns off insta-check
system, halts business


By Jon E. Dougherty
=A9 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

Despite a turnout of "record numbers" of
people at the Crossroads Gun Show in
Phoenix, Ariz., not one gun dealer sold a
single firearm.

That's because earlier in the day on
Sunday, July 11, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation turned off its instant
background database system for, according
to a source who spoke with FBI officials,
"routine maintenance." As a result, dealers
were not able to perform the required
background checks on potential customers
and, hence, could not sell any guns.

"In what seemed like an arbitrary and
capricious attack on U.S. commerce, the
FBI, without warning, closed gun shows and
the firearms business in general," said
<http://www.gunlaws.com> Alan Korwin, noted
gun law expert and an opponent of the FBI's
background check system, who attended the
Phoenix event. Korwin is the author of "Gun
Laws of America," a reference almanac that
lists every state and federal law pertaining
to firearms in the country.

The move sparked widespread anger and
resentment from local Phoenix firearm
dealers and patrons alike, as well as
charges of an anti-gun conspiracy by the
federal government.

Though Korwin admitted the move was
dubious, he told WorldNetDaily there was
"absolutely no evidence" that the FBI
"maliciously" turned off NICS "for the
sole purpose of thwarting national gun
sales."

However, he said, "Did the FBI know such a
move would thwart gun sales? Of course
they had to know that because they're not
stupid. I'm just saying I don't know if
the move was malicious or conspiratorial."

The system, which is known as the National
Instant (Background) Check System, or
NICS, is a result of the Brady Law, which
mandated such a system by Nov. 30, 1998.
Specifically, it is a computer database
located in Clarksburg, W.Va., and is used
to "check available records on persons who
are disqualified from receiving firearms."

Clinton administration advocates have
touted the system as a legitimate
crime-fighting tool. Critics of the
system, however, claim that NICS is a
waste of taxpayer money and violates
Second Amendment restrictions on the
"infringement" of the right to keep and
bear -- and purchase -- firearms.

At the Phoenix event, Korwin said that
although licensed dealers were unable to
sell firearms, private transactions
between individuals occurred. "And as you
know," he added, "there currently is a
move to close that so-called loophole in
the law as well." President Clinton, Vice
President Al Gore and a number of
Republican lawmakers have recently said
they will seek legislation mandating that
all firearms transactions -- including
those at gun shows -- also be subjected
to a NICS check. Korwin said the most
frustrating aspect of the July 11 incident
was that gun dealers "had no prior knowledge"
that the system would be shut down.

"That was quite a surprise" to dealers, he said.

But he added, "I don't think any attention
was paid, that I'm aware of, that this
action could put people out of business by
stopping commerce. It was government
regulation of free enterprise in a way
that had never been done."

According to the FBI's own "fact sheet" on
the NICS system, "In accordance with the
Brady Act, the NICS shall allow Federal
Firearms Licensees ... to contact the
system by telephone or by other electronic
means in addition to the telephone, for
information, to be supplied immediately."
If the gun buyer has no disqualifying
criminal record, the transaction is
approved and a "NICS transaction number"
(NTN) is assigned to the purchase.

"If the FBI determines that disqualifying
information exists on the prospective
purchaser," the rules state, "the Federal
Firearms Licensee (FFL) will be advised
that the transfer may not proceed and will
be given an NTN to record on the ATF Form
4473 and retain the form for auditing
purposes."

States can also decide if they want FFLs
to contact a state agency for sales
approval instead of the federal government.


Korwin said that in the event the NICS
system is down for any reason, the Brady
law "only requires its use if it is up and
running." He said gun dealers may sell
guns without a background check if the
system is down, "but dealers don't do that
because they are terrified of reprisals by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms"
-- the agency primarily responsible for
regulating firearms sales.

He also said the NICS system "has been
temporarily down before, but never for a
full day."

"I've asked them for information on their
down time," he said, "but so far I haven't
gotten any." Typically, he said, the
system "glitches" from time to time, which
does not suggest any duplicity on the part
of the FBI. On the other hand, he added,
when the system is down it is costly for
gun dealers.

"There are some 23,000 guns sold daily in
this country, so you can imagine the
economic impact" of repeated system
glitches or prolonged down time, Korwin said.

He also said the Arizona show promoter,
Bob Templeton, "spoke with the FBI (on the
day of the Phoenix show) and Templeton
told me the FBI had shut off the NICS
system for the day."

Templeton could not be reached for
comment. Also, an attempt was made by
WorldNetDaily to fax a list of questions
to the FBI facility in West Virginia, per
the agency's request, without success.

Korwin questioned the necessity of the
NICS system on the whole, and said the
weekend shut down illustrates why it is
important to prevent the government from
overregulating the firearms industry.
-------

Jon E. Dougherty is a senior writer and
columnist for WorldNetDaily, as well as
a morning co-host of Daybreak America.



-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun turn-in in SLC
Date: 27 Jul 1999 15:27:13 -0600

I wonder if any effort will be made to make sure a gun isn't stolen and
to return it to its rightful owner before it is destroyed or how many
murderers will have their evidence destroyed for them, no questions
asked?

From today's DesNews:

S.L. residents get plea: Turn in surplus weapons

                     The Salt Lake Police Department is launching a
campaign to get as many guns off the street as possible.
                     Residents are urged to bring unwanted and unused
weapons to the Public Safety Building at 315 E. 200 South to turn them
in.
                     All weapons will be destroyed to decrease the
availability of firearms for unlawful use or accidental injury by
mishandling.
                     The police department joins other agencies that in
the past have initiated gun relinquishment campaigns in an effort to
deter street violence.
                     Guns remain a popular item stolen in burglaries of
homes and cars. In many cases, they are later sold or traded on the
streets for drugs.


==================================================================
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: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kids and Guns
Date: 28 Jul 1999 00:02:36 -0600

--=====================_35679208==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560452277-cb4

How can this be?  Vermont isn't a safe place for raising children -
people there carry GUNS!  Wouldn't kids be safer someplace like Washington,
D.C. with its strict gun control laws?


----------


10:45 AM ET 07/27/99

Maine Is Best for Raising Children

  Maine Is Best for Raising Children
  By CHRIS GOSIER=
  Associated Press Writer=
            PORTLAND, Maine (AP) _ Compiling data on factors ranging from
  immunization to juvenile crime, a national advocacy group concluded
  that Maine is the best state in which to rear a child.
            Maine advanced from eighth place last year, when Iowa was No. 1
  in the rankings compiled by the Children's Rights Council.
            Behind Maine were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New
  Hampshire. Bringing up the rear, in descending order, were
  California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana and Washington,
  D.C.
            The council, based in Washington, was announcing the rankings
  today.
            The report measured rates of abuse and neglect; the rate of
  immunizations under age 2; the dropout rate; children in poverty;
  the child death rate; the infant mortality rate; those not
  receiving natal care; total juvenile crime; the divorce rate; and
  the teen birth rate.
            The states were ranked by calculating the average of all 10
  factors for each. The report draws on data from public and private
  sources including the FBI, the Department of Health and Human
  Services, The Annie E. Casey Foundation and state law enforcement
  agencies.
            An increase in the high school graduation rate and decreases in
  the child poverty and teen birth rates helped Maine take the top
  spot, said Maryellen Dougherty, legislative assistant at the
  council.
            The top five slots shifted to New England in part because the
  council changed its calculation methods to focus more closely on
  the factors that directly affect children, she said.
            Data on deaths from drugs and alcohol were dropped because not
  all affected children, and data on the ones that did were not
  available. Also, data on single-parent households, unwed births and
  teen births were found to overlap last year, so the teen birth rate
  was the only one of the three included this year, she said.
            ``We felt that that unfairly weighed one area of raising a
  child,'' she said.
            Figures on the rates of immunization and prenatal care were
  included for the first time this year, she said.
            Maine officials took pride in the No. 1 listing but acknowledged
  that there's still room for improvement.
            ``It's nice to be recognized. We're going to pat ourselves on
  the back a little bit,'' said Dennis Bailey, spokesman for Gov.
  Angus King.
            He said King has made child welfare a top priority with programs
  such as the Children's Cabinet, formed in 1994 to let the heads of
  five state agencies collaborate on policies affecting parents and
  children.
            But he also noted that some areas for improvement aren't shown
  by the figures, such as those showing a low high-school dropout
  rate.
            ``What we don't do well in is the number of graduates going on
  to college or technical school,'' he said.



----------

--=====================_35679208==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<a href="http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560452277-cb4" eudora="autourl">http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560452277-cb4</a><br>
<br>
How can this be?  Vermont isn't a safe place for raising children
-<br>
people there carry GUNS!  Wouldn't kids be safer someplace like
Washington, D.C. with its strict gun control laws?<br>
<br>
<hr>
<br>
<br>
<pre>10:45 AM ET 07/27/99

Maine Is Best for Raising Children

 Maine Is Best for Raising Children
 By CHRIS GOSIER=
 Associated Press Writer=
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) _ Compiling data on factors ranging from
 immunization to juvenile crime, a national advocacy group
concluded
 that Maine is the best state in which to rear a child.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
Maine advanced from eighth place last year, when Iowa was No. 1
 in the rankings compiled by the Children's Rights Council.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
Behind Maine were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New
 Hampshire. Bringing up the rear, in descending order, were
 California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana and Washington,
 D.C.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
The council, based in Washington, was announcing the rankings
 today.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
The report measured rates of abuse and neglect; the rate of
 immunizations under age 2; the dropout rate; children in poverty;
 the child death rate; the infant mortality rate; those not
 receiving natal care; total juvenile crime; the divorce rate; and
 the teen birth rate.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
The states were ranked by calculating the average of all 10
 factors for each. The report draws on data from public and
private
 sources including the FBI, the Department of Health and Human
 Services, The Annie E. Casey Foundation and state law enforcement
 agencies.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
An increase in the high school graduation rate and decreases in
 the child poverty and teen birth rates helped Maine take the top
 spot, said Maryellen Dougherty, legislative assistant at the
 council.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
The top five slots shifted to New England in part because the
 council changed its calculation methods to focus more closely on
 the factors that directly affect children, she said.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
Data on deaths from drugs and alcohol were dropped because not
 all affected children, and data on the ones that did were not
 available. Also, data on single-parent households, unwed births
and
 teen births were found to overlap last year, so the teen birth
rate
 was the only one of the three included this year, she said.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
``We felt that that unfairly weighed one area of raising a
 child,'' she said.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
Figures on the rates of immunization and prenatal care were
 included for the first time this year, she said.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
Maine officials took pride in the No. 1 listing but acknowledged
 that there's still room for improvement.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
``It's nice to be recognized. We're going to pat ourselves on
 the back a little bit,'' said Dennis Bailey, spokesman for Gov.
 Angus King.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
He said King has made child welfare a top priority with programs
 such as the Children's Cabinet, formed in 1994 to let the heads
of
 five state agencies collaborate on policies affecting parents and
 children.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
But he also noted that some areas for improvement aren't shown
 by the figures, such as those showing a low high-school dropout
 rate.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
``What we don't do well in is the number of graduates going on
 to college or technical school,'' he said.
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
 <x-tab>       </x-tab>
</pre><hr>


</html>

--=====================_35679208==_.ALT--


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Communications with Phyllis Sorensen on Guns.
Date: 28 Jul 1999 12:15:00 -0700


-----

This is an interesting exchange.

Start at the bottom

----------

To All:

Perhaps my recent communications with UEA Pres. Phyllis Sorensen will be
helpful to you as you deal with others of this mindset.  Maybe I have no
tact or discretion, but I think it is time to call the sick bluff of these
lunatics and let them begin to feel the heat.

Mr. Black

>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:09:21 -0600
>To: Phyllis Sorensen <[e-mail]>
>From: "Mr. Black" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: A Concerned Parent Who Can't Understand What You Are Doing.
>In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

>Sorensen,

>Agree to disagree?  AGREE TO DISAGREE?!  Have you ever sent one of your
own children to a dangerous school?  Have you ever been robbed or otherwise
molested?  Have you ever personally felt helpless when confronted by
violence directed at you or your children?!

>I was the second person on the scene of the Murray bank robbery a few
weeks ago and spent several minutes trying to keep a "licensed, trained law
enforcement officer" from bleeding to death because he couldn't stop 2
punks from filling him full of bullet holes.  I held his guts in my hands
and watched his face turn white because the ambulance and his back-up
weren't getting there fast enough!  Where were your precious law
enforcement officers to save the day, hmm?!

>If this had occured in a school, what would you and your angelic squad of
unarmed nurturers have done?!  You would have done the same thing the
teachers did in Colorado -- run like hell while they gunned down our
children!  And, like at Columbine, you would probably wait outside singing
hymns for 4 hours while listening to the screams of children being
butchered.  Why?  Because the police would probably again be too stupid to
let anyone with a gun go into the building and try to rescue them; and also
too stupid to trust law-abiding, responsible teachers and adults with
firearms to deter crime and protect our children in the first place!!!

>I can tell you with 100% certainty that even when police ARE there, they
often can't stop violence by themselves (my father was a police officer in
this state for several years and I also have law enforcement experience).

>But you would leave our children utterly defenseless, and publicly
proclaim our public schools a relatively risk-free bloodfest for any whacko
out there who wants to go in and start shooting them up.  You are worse
than an idiot in an ivory tower!  You are purposely callous and oblivious
to human life and common sense!  You are sick and demented!  Make
absolutely certain I am no longer on your e-mail list(s)!

>Mr. Black


>At 11:08 PM 7/26/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>>Thank you for your comments.  We'll have to agree to disagree on the
>>concealed weapons in schools issue.  I have no problem with licensed,
>>trained law enforcement officers being in schools and having these
>>weapons, but teachers are there to nurture, teach and create a secure
>>and safe environment for children.  I apologize that it took me so long
>>to return an email.  I've been out of town.  Thanks again.

>>--- "Mr. Black" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Phyllis Sorensen,

>>> How can you say that guns have no place in schools?
>>> Police can't be
>>> everywhere.  Do you seriously want potential
>>> criminals and mental cases to
>>> know that our children are unprotected in this day
>>> and age?  Would you
>>> seriously announce to all the nuts of the world that
>>> your own home is
>>> completely unprotected?  Of course not.

>>> You are a school teacher and I know you pride
>>> yourself on concerning
>>> yourself data and facts, right?  Phyllis, you need
>>> to get the facts about
>>> concealed weapons permit holders (by the way, I am
>>> NOT one).  The fact is
>>> that they have never committed a violent crime in
>>> the history of the
>>> program, but on the other hand, they have stopped
>>> thousands of crimes from
>>> being committed in Utah and also in other parts of
>>> America.

>>> Why can't you see that THE MERE CHANCE that a
>>> trained, law-abiding adult
>>> with a concealed weapons permit MIGHT be at a school
>>> is a SERIOUS DETERRENT
>>> TO VIOLENT CRIME.  Objective research has proved
>>> that this deterrent saves
>>> the lives of men, women, and children.  How can you
>>> ignore the research and
>>> turn your back on the facts that can save the lives
>>> of our children?

>>> If you are willing to put aside the fears and
>>> emotions that have been
>>> ingrained in you long enough to get the very best
>>> facts, I am very willing
>>> to share them with you.  I believe I have made my
>>> point and am not
>>> interested in arguing.  If you are truly an open and
>>> honest person, this
>>> will be enough for you to investigate further.  I
>>> hope, for you even more
>>> than this issue (I mean that), that you are humble
>>> enough to investigate
>>> and -- after you have seen the unassailable facts --
>>> that you are also
>>> humble enough to publicly reverse your position on
>>> concealed weapon permit
>>> holders in our schools.

>>> Why is this so important to me?  Because if you are
>>> successful from banning
>>> guns from law abiding citizen-adults in Utah,
>>> statistics show that your
>>> actions will eventually cause the deaths of
>>> children.  You will then be
>>> personally liable for that inevitable tragedy.

>>> Mr. Black
>>> Salt Lake City

>>===
>>Phyllis Sorensen
>>Utah Education Association


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Guns and mental illness
Date: 28 Jul 1999 16:05:26 -0600

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Russ Laing's case...

Mr. Laing is a firearms enthusiast and collector who lives in
Pennsylvania.  In April, 1996 he was involuntarily committed to a
psychiatric hospital by the local sheriff's department, and his gun
collection was seized.  The basis for the commitment was that he had failed
to show up for work on time, and hadn't called in, and was therefore
"suicidal and dangerous".  Under Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act, he
was barred from ever possessing a firearm again.  That multiple
psychiatrists testified that Mr. Laing had no evidence of any mental
illness, and that the commitment was improper, was irrelevant; the law said
that he couldn't own firearms because he had been committed.

This is why we need to be fighting both Gov. Leavitt's gun control
proposals and his "mental health" proposals.  I suspect that Leavitt knows
that he won't get very far with outright gun bans, and is trying to do an
end run around our rights by simply disqualifying everyone from owning
firearms based on dubious claims of "mental illness" or "violent
misdemeanors" (most of which aren't even remotely violent).  If he
succeeds, what happened to Mr. Laing can (and likely will!) happen to each
and every one of us.

The good news is that Mr. Laing has won his case, the PA law has been
amended, and he has regained custody of his firearms collection.  His
"victory announcement" follows.



        *************RUSS LAING RESPONSE: Victory Announcement*********

        July 27, 1999

      Chris Stark
      Director, Gun Owners Alliance


      In Re: Russell Laing Case (Gun Confiscation Based on Non-Adjudicated
      Detention for Psychiatric Observation)

      Dear Chris,

      Last night I picked up my entire, totally intact gun collection from
      the local township police station, where it had been held for the past
      three years while I fought my way through eight different court
      systems, and three different criminal prosecuting attorneys from the
      Allegheny County District Attorneys Office here in Pittsburgh
      Pennsylvania. I fought for the return of my property, and the right to
      keep and bear arms, which had been taken from me under the pretext of
      an involuntary mental health commitment which I was subjected to in
      April 1996 by a local township policeman acting without a warrant.

      The return of my property was the final step in a hard-fought battle
      waged against the Allegheny County District Attorney's  Office,
      represented by Assistant DA Dan Fitzsimmons. Three years ago my first
      attempts to obtain justice were rebuffed, as DA Fitzsimmons
      characterized my gun collection as a "veritable arsenal" and argued
      that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms did not apply to
      private citizens. Subsequent appeals to higher courts were denied
      without ever being heard, based on procedural filing technicalities.
      An initial attempt to legally challenge the mental health commitment
      actions by the police was at first rejected by the courts, and then
      pended for more than a year while deciding whether my petition had
      been filed on a timely basis.

      Completely frustrated by a court system that was alternatively hostile
      or indiffferent to my case, I turned to the grassroots supporters of
      freedom. Gun Owners Alliance joined the cause by posting several
      Alerts on the GOA website, which culminated in a flood of e-mails to
      Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge urging justice for my case; I have
      received copies of such messages from virtually every state in the
      union, and some from overseas. What followed was nothing less than
      miraculous:

      1. Pennsylvania amended its Uniform Firearms Act (Act 17 of 1995) with
      PA Act 70 of 1998, which instantly removed the state provisions
      barring me from the right to keep and bear arms. (June 1998)

      2. I tested the revised law by successfully purchasing firearms and
      passing PA State Police Instacheck System (July 1998)

      3. My previously revoked Liscense to Carry Firearms is reinstated by
      court order (August 1998)

      4. The United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol,
      Tobacco and Firearms, issues a written ruling on my case in which they
      declare unconstitutional the Pennsylvania's Firearms law barring gun
      ownership for individuals who have been subjected to a non-adjudicated
      detention for psychiatric observation. In their ruling, the BATF
      states that such laws deny the basic constituional right of due
      process under the law, a right so fundamental that it pre-dates the
      formation of this country. (September 1998)

      5. The police officer who ordered the siezure and confiscation of my
      firearms is fired, based upon 21 different charges brought by his
      supervisor, the Chief of Police. One of these charges is referred to
      as the "Laing charges" and other allegations include accounts of
      making false or misleading police reports on other local residents.
      (early 1999)

      6. A lawsuit which I had filed against the police department and the
      hospital involved in my case is settled in a manner which I found to
      be very satisfactory. (May 1999) I have no criticism of either the
      police department or the hospital. I have since spoken directly with
      the Chief of Police and believe him to be a good and honorable man, as
      I believe others of his department to be in my interactions with them
      during the recent return of my property.

      7. A court ruling is made that overturns (vacates) the mental health
      commitment action taken against me, under a statute which states that
      there was insufficient evidence to support my being detained at all.
      The same court also orders that my record be expunged, thereby
      clearing my reputation. (June 1999)

      8. In a final dramatic showdown, I renew my original petition for
      return of my gun collection in the same court where I had started out
      three years ago, which had then denied my petition. This time, under
      an avalanche of evidence and testiomony, the anti-gun Assistant DA
      Fitzsimons is reduced to making a series of snivelling references to
      my "assault rifles". Judge David Cercone isn't buying any of it,
      however, and becomes visibly frustrated and angry with DA Fitzsimmon's
      absurd technical arguments, finally asking him questions like: "What
      constitutional principle are you basing this on?", and... "What about
      fairness?". DA Fitzsimmon's closing arguments are hardly more than a
      barely audible muttered whimper, spoken even as Judge Cercone is
      reaching over to sign my court order to return my property.


      I search for a way to thank you, Chris, and the numerous members of
      Gun Owners Alliance who wrote to Governor Ridge with such power and
      sincerity. No need anymore to ask Governor Ridge about where Russell
      Laing's guns are -- they are right here in his lawful possession,
      along with all of his other constitutional rights. These many
      freedom-loving patriots brought me the due process that the
      freedom-robbing anti-gun-hysteria laws of Pennsylvania had denied to
      me. The weight of the combined voices of free men became so great that
      even the most untouchable and arrogant gun-grabbers in the District
      Attorney's Office were shaken right out of their safe little tree of
      state authority, and believe me they landed on the ground with a
      resounding thud that was heard all the way from Pittsburgh to Texas!

      Let's make no mistake, we really clobbered them. And in the end, even
      though I had a legal means of avoiding it, my case was finally
      resolved in the very same court system where it had first been
      initially lost. This time we met the opposition head on, straight up,
      and with no apologies of any kind. And we won by an overwhelming
      margin.

      Please accept my sincere thanks, on behalf of all your members, for
      their support in my pursuit of justice. May we all be united by our
      common yearning for freedom.

      Russ Laing















-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The reason for the Second Amendment 2/2
Date: 29 Jul 1999 11:20:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for human
self-control, but this approach won't wash. It is the human moral will that
saves us from violence, not the presence or absence of weapons. We should
reject utterly the absurd theory that weapons are the cause of violence.

Consider, for example, the phony assertion that certain weapons should be
banned because "they have no purpose except to kill people." It is people
that kill people, and they can use countless kinds of weapons to do so, if
killing is in their hearts where love of justice should be. This week a
7-year old boy in Chicago apparently used a pair of underwear to commit
murder, because he wanted a bike.

So let's get down to the real issue: are we moral adults, or are we moral
children? If we are adults, then we have the capacity to control our will
even in the face of passion, and to be responsible for the exercise of our
natural rights. If we are only children, then all the particularly dangerous
toys must be controlled by the government. But this "solution" implies that
we can trust government with a monopoly on guns, even though we cannot trust
ourselves with them. This is not a "solution" I trust.

Anyone who is serious about controlling violence must recognize that it
can only be done by rooting violence out of the human heart. That's why
I don't understand those who say "save us from guns," even while they
cling to the coldly violent doctrine that human life has no worth except
what they "choose" to assign to it.

If we want to end violence in our land, we must warm the hearts of all
Americans with a renewed dedication to the God-given equality of all
human beings. We must recapture the noble view of man as capable of
moral responsibility and self-restraint -- of assuming responsibility
for governing himself. This is the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment,
and indeed of the entire American project of ordered liberty.

It is the business of every citizen to preserve justice in his heart,
and the material capacity, including arms, to resist tyranny. These
things constitute our character as a free people, which it is our duty
to maintain. And to fulfill our duty to be such a people we shall have
to return to the humble subjection to the authority of true moral
principle that characterized our Founders, and that characterized every
generation of Americans, until now. We must regain control of ourselves.

Most deeply, then, the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights is the assertion
that we intend to control ourselves, and submit to the moral order that God
has decreed must govern our lives. And just as we have no right to shirk our
duty to submit to that moral order, so we have no right to shirk our duty to
preserve unto ourselves the material means to discipline our government, if
necessary, so that it remains a fit instrument for the self-government of a
free people. The preservation of 2nd Amendment rights, for the right
reasons, is a moral and public duty of every citizen.

The Clinton Administration's flirtations with executive tyranny should
remind us that we have a duty to remain capable of disciplining our
government if necessary. Bill Clinton's comprehensive avoidance of
personal responsibility for his own actions, and our revulsion at the
kind of character which that avoidance has produced in him, should be
a kind of horrific preview of the kind of people we will all become if
we continue to let our government treat us as though we were incapable
of moral self-control. And Senator Smith's successful effort to defeat
several policies that treat us that way is precisely the kind of
principled defense of our liberty -- and of the premises of our liberty
-- that make him so worthy to be a representative of a free people.
Alan Keyes Web Site is http://www.AlanKeyes.com

Send e-mail to Alan Keyes
Go to Alan Keyes' Archive
Go to WND Exclusives Archive
Go to Page One

c 1998 Western Journalism Center

This page was last built 8/14/98; 12:46:47 AM
Site scripted with UserLand Frontier
Direct corrections and technical inquiries to [e-mail]

<<It is better to be free in a society with risks than a safe slave
in a dictatorship>>
(Forwarded for information purposes only - K. Furrer)



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The reason for the Second Amendment 1/2
Date: 29 Jul 1999 11:20:00 -0700


-------

Friends,

First, this interesting fact.

Ladies & gentlemen:

Those liars at Handgun Control Incorporated never talk about Vermont.
That's because Vermont has no restrictions, no limitations and no permits
or fees for her law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. If you
are so inclined, you simply pack your favorite sidearm under your jacket
or other suitable ensemble and go about your daily business.

There are no wild-west style shootouts in the streets, in the bars or
in the schools, and the folks who live in Vermont seem to be unusually
polite, helpful and friendly. Oh, and by the way: Vermont was just
named one of the ten best states in which to raise your children.

Go figure.

Carl F. Worden

Also, the Battle Lines are forming in the Senate -- Senator Bob Smith
forces colleagues to decide between God or gun control. Though you must
tire of these endless alerts to stop more gun control laws, please ask
your Senator to support Smith's filibuster of a "substitute" law
embodying the language of the Senate anti-gun crime bill (S. 254).

Jim Hardin

The Freedom Page
http://freedompage.home.mindspring.com
To receive Freedom Page mail, put "Subscribe"
as subject to [e-mail]
To be removed, put "Remove" as subject.

Alabama Committee To Get Us Out of the UN
http://themustardseed.home.mindspring.com


James,
I came across this article today, and even though it is almost a year old,
it bears repeating. As long as Americans blame everyone and everything
except themselves for their problems, this country will continue to slide
ever closer to a dictatorship. Mr. Keyes states that it is the DUTY of
every American to keep and bear arms -- not to fight each other with--but
to be prepared in case our government becomes tyrannical and oppressive.
We cannot defend ourselves against a tyrannical, oppressive government
without being armed.
Kathy in Idaho
[e-mail]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/keyes/980814.comak.html
FRIDAY AUGUST 14, 1998

Alan Keyes is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. His
WorldNetDaily column appears every Friday. You can hear his radio
program over the internet via Real Audio.

The reason for the Second Amendment

Sen. Bob Smith has succeeded in amending an upcoming appropriations bill to
beat back the latest wave of Clinton administration disrespect for two key
elements of a free citizenry -- privacy and the right to keep and bear arms.
Smith's amendment to the Justice-State-Commerce appropriations bill would
foil FBI plans to keep records of private identifying information on
law-abiding citizens who buy guns. The amendment also forbids a proposed tax
on gun purchases, and authorizes citizens to sue if the FBI doesn't observe
these restrictions.

Senator Smith is to be praised for keeping his eye on some balls that might
have been lost in the smoke of scandal and misinformation that the Clinton
Administration seems endlessly to emit. Actually, few things could make the
need for vigorous defense of 2nd Amendment rights clearer than the ongoing
spectacle of Clinton contempt for the citizens he is supposed to serve. For
the 2nd Amendment is really in the Constitution to give men like Bill Clinton
something to think about when their ambition gets particularly over-inflated.

The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders
merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts'
content. This is not to say that hunting game for the family dinner, or
defending against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms,
particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the real purpose of
the Amendment.

The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of
abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we
will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right
to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically
violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow
the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the material
capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is very hard to do
if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore,
that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

In our time there have been many folks who don't like to be reminded of all
this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the word "people"
in the 2nd Amendment means something there that it doesn't mean in any one
of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. They say that, for some
odd reason, the Founders had a lapse, and instead of putting in "states"
they put in "people." And so it refers to a right inherent in the state
government.

This position is incoherent, and has been disproved by every piece of
legitimate historical evidence. At one point in Jefferson's letters, for
example, he is talking about the militia, and he writes, "militia -- every
able-bodied man in the state. ..." The militia was every able-bodied man
in the state. It had nothing to do with the state government. The words
"well-regulated" had to do with organizing that militia and drilling it
in the style of the 19th century, but "militia" itself referred to the
able-bodied citizens of the state or commonwealth -- not to the state
government.

It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear
arms to state governments, since the principle on which our polity is based,
as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level,
can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend
ourselves against its abuses.

But the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to our
capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part
of the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are
capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper reason that
the defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense of liberty.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Update: Showdown On S. 254
Date: 29 Jul 1999 11:20:00 -0700


-----
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 10:36 AM

Battle Lines Forming in the Senate
* Senator Bob Smith forces colleagues to decide between God or gun control

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

(Tuesday, July 27, 1999) -- What does one do when outgunned by the other
side? Call for Divine help of course.

Senator Bob Smith (I-NH), who is fighting a lonely battle in the U.S.
Senate, has done just that.

It still appears that on this Wednesday, Smith will force a showdown
between two different approaches to fighting crime: one that emphasizes
the role of the Ten Commandments and prayer (the House crime bill) and one
that imposes even more gun control (the Gore-Lautenberg version passed in
the Senate).

Smith's parliamentary maneuvering resulted in yesterday's expected vote
being cancelled-thus leaving the ultimate showdown for later this week.
On Wednesday, the Senate will vote on whether to shut down Smith's
filibuster of a "substitute" embodying the language of the Senate
anti-gun crime bill (S. 254).

If Senators Trent Lott (R-MS) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) are successful in
overcoming Smith, then they will replace the House crime bill (H.R. 1501)
with the anti-gun Senate version.

IT IS CRITICAL THAT SENATORS VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE SMITH FILIBUSTER.
The Smith filibuster is the ONLY thing keeping the anti-gun S. 254
language from advancing in the legislative process.

Senators Lott and Hatch want to take the gun control language in S. 254
and substitute it into the House crime bill. The House bill contains
language reaffirming the role of the Ten Commandments and prayer in public
schools; prohibiting the release of dangerous criminals solely on the
basis of prison conditions; and recognizing the role of media violence,
the impact of certain music, and lack of school discipline in tragedies
such as the one which occurred at Columbine.

The House bill is not a perfect bill, but one can see the interesting
dilemma that Senator Smith has put his Senate colleagues in to. As Smith
is framing it, Senators must decide between choosing morality (in the
House bill) or choosing a Senate bill that contains the Al Gore/Frank
Lautenberg gun control provisions-including one that would almost
certainly put gun shows out of business (see Talking Point #4 below).

As far as Second Amendment rights are concerned, the ultimate yardstick
is to STOP S. 254 AND THE "SENATE SUBSTITUTE" THAT EMBODIES IT!!! Thus,
the message gun owners can relay to their Senators is that for every
crime bill vote that arises in the next couple of weeks, they should
always vote against the anti-gun Senate language.

HERE'S WHAT TO DO:
* Please call both of your Senators toll-free at 1-888-449-3511. You
can also call them using the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Ask
your Senators to vote in support of the Smith filibuster and to vote
AGAINST the S. 254 language at every point along the way.

* Please forward this message to as many interested people as you can.

* Many of you have already sent numerous faxes and e-mails to your
Senators, and we thank you for that. But at this late date, it is
imperative that we flood their offices with phone calls.

TALKING POINTS (Gun control in the Senate bill, S. 254):
1. Young adult gun ban. This ban, introduced by Senator John Ashcroft
(R-MO), could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch
a so-called semi-automatic "assault weapon." While the amendment allows
for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO
senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order
to avoid incarceration.

For example: What is a "semiautomatic assault weapon"? The definition,
plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code.
While a gun manufacturer will pay handsome salaries to attorneys to
decipher such convoluted definitions, it will be considerably harder
for a parent to determine which of his family firearms are so-called
assault weapons, and suspect under this provision.

2. Extending the ban on moderate-capacity magazines. This provision,
introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), would ban the importation
of any magazine that can hold over 10 rounds-no matter when the magazine
was manufactured.

3. Hatch-Kohl "Lock-up your safety" requirements. Senators Orrin Hatch
(r) and Herb Kohl (D) introduced this amendment which forces gun sellers
to include trigger locks with every handgun sold.

4. Banning private sales of firearms at gun shows. This amendment offered
by Sen. Lautenberg of New Jersey would ban private sales at gun shows-sales
between two PRIVATE individuals-unless the buyer first submits to a
background registration check. Under this provision, even displaying a
firearm at a gun show, and subsequently transferring that gun to a
non-dealer (if it is displayed with a notice that it is for sale), will
result in a two-year prison sentence-five years for the second violation.

This amendment would also impose a series of restrictions and requirements
upon gun show promoters-requirements that would almost certainly put gun
shows out of business. For example, this Lautenberg provision allows gun
show promoters to be imprisoned for two years for failure to notify EVERY
attendee of his legal requirements. Finally, this provision grants BATF
open-ended inspection authority to harass vendors at gun shows, and
explicitly gives BATF the right to keep a gun owner registration list for
up to 90 days.

**************
Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if you
use http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online store.

**************
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: FW: GOUtah! Alert #23 - 29 July 1999 1/2
Date: 30 Jul 1999 18:11:00 -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 #23 - 29 July 1999

Today's Thoughts on Liberty:

"The framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check
against tyranny..." -- Judge Sam R. Cummings U.S. v. Emerson,

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.

Utah Gun Owners Win a Major Battle!
The War on Your Gun Rights Continues!

Utah's gun owners proudly responded to the call to protect their rights and
scored a major political win against Governor Leavitt, the Utah State Senate,
House Democrats, educational and religious groups, the media and other
anti-gun interests in a hard fought battle to protect the rights of self
defense and gun ownership.

The conservative and freedom loving members of the Utah House of
Representatives, primarily Republicans, stood by your rights and held the
line against this frenzied onslaught. When the smoke cleared, Utah's gun
laws were left intact, but clearly the war is not won and we still have
much to do.

On Wednesday, 21 July, members of the House and Senate met at Interim Day
to discuss gun control proposals and decide of the need for a Special
Legislative Session. In all three committees, proposals from the Governor
to impose further restrictions on Utah CCW holders were rejected. Professor
John Lott of the University of Chicago carried the day in his testimony
before the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee with hard-hitting,
in-depth research demonstrating the overwhelmingly-positive social benefits
of private firearms ownership and liberalized concealed carry laws.

Suggestions for barring purchase of firearms to the mentally ill and to
violent misdemeanants were forwarded by the Judiciary Committee, but there
is still opportunity to derail these suggestions. There was clearly a lack
of support among a majority of House members for the Special Session, and
in a closed caucus session, Governor Leavitt was forced to strike his
colors on more gun laws for 1999.

Legislators instead proposed a series of town meetings around the state
where additional public input can be obtained. This is a tremendous
opportunity for Utah gun owners to meet face to face with legislators and
the media, to continue to spread the message the peaceable gun owners are
not the problem, and as such their right should not be infringed. GOUtah!
will provide you with the schedule and location of these meetings as soon
as it becomes available. GOUtah! will also supply you with facts, figures
and other information which will help you make your case in these meetings.

Predictably, the Governor, Utah Democrats, the media and other anti-gun
interests are having a field day bashing gun rights, gun ownership and
concealed carry permit holders, along with those House members voting
against the special session. However, the media's own polls are beginning
to show a steady erosion of support for the anti-gun side of the debate,
and the huge majorities of anti-gun sentiment seen earlier in the year are
now within the margin of error for these surveys. We as gun owners will
need to aggressively push back against this propaganda barrage with some
propaganda of our own. Now is the time to make points for our side in the
public opinion arena.

Utah gun owners also need to take this time to further organize, build our
own coalitions and support networks, improve our lines of cooperation and
communication, and begin to make additional inroads into the mainstream
political process and within the organization of all major Utah political
parties. GOUtah! will have additional information and training available in
the near future to help you in these efforts.

Utah's gun owners have done very well in this effort! You should be very
proud of your success, but also cautious that this early success does not
turn into arrogance or complacency. Take a breather, give yourself a pat on
the back, sharpen your political and information skills and prepare for the
political battles soon to come! There is still much left to do.

Here is what you as a GOUtah! activist must do!

1: Contact your Utah House and Senate members again. Thank them for holding
firm against the political opportunism and hysteria of the anti-gun
political agenda. Ask them to continue to hold firm against any further
restrictions of your gun rights. Tell them you'll be involved in and
monitoring this issue as the days and weeks progress.

You should make the following points about the current gun control proposals:

1: A Referendum either by citizen petition or by Legislative bill is
neither needed nor warranted. The Utah Constitution is specific that the
Legislature has responsibility of Utah gun laws, not the Governor, the
media, the PTA, the teacher's union, or a religious institution.

2: Establishment of a two-level permit system takes Utah gun owners right
back to the abusive DPS/BCI 'proving need' situation we so long endured
before earning 'shall issue' CCW legislation in 1995. The life of every
Utah citizen has equal value. CCW permit holders are not second class
citizens, and we will not be treated as such!

3: Any limitation on purchase or possession of a firearm by someone on the
grounds of mental illness should only be after a full measure of due legal
process, a capable and impartial medical evaluation, court adjudication and
the physical confinement or state custody of the patient.

4: No further limitation on purchase or possession of a firearm for anything
less than a felony conviction, ever. Promote the concept of ending plea
bargain options for all crimes of violence, regardless if any weapon is
involved. Reinforce that any loss of gun rights should also result in a loss
of voting rights, holding public office, and similar restrictions. Any new
restrictions based on past misdemeanor records constitutes an 'ex post facto'
law by increasing punishment for a given behavior after the fact, and is
unconstitutional.

5: Make it clear to Legislators that you will be watching their votes and
their statements on this issue carefully, and you will be very active in
party political activities as a delegate and in informing and organizing
voters in their districts in the next election.

Important Utah Legislative Contacts:

Rep. Marty Stephens, 3159 N. Higley Rd, Farr West, UT 84404, [phone]
Res, [phone] Off, [phone] Fax. Email: [e-mail]

Sen. Lane Beattie, 319 State Capitol, SLC, UT, 84114, [phone] Res,
[phone] Off, [phone] Fax, Email: [e-mail]

Gov. Mike Leavitt, State Capitol, SLC, UT 84114, [phone],
Email: [e-mail]
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #23 - 29 July 1999 2/2
Date: 30 Jul 1999 18:11:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Senator Lott's Betrayal of Gun Owners Nearly Complete
- Majority Leader rolls Sen. Smith and Moves Gun Control Forward

From Gun Owners of America, 29 July 1999

"On the juvenile justice bill [S. 254], I could have gone through all kinds
of contortions and gyrations to try to block that, but I thought . . . we
ought to take it up. . . . I didn't run around out here trying to block
[the anti-gun amendments]. Some of my colleagues said I should have done
that."--Majority Leader Trent Lott on his role in pushing the anti-gun
crime bill, July 26, 1999

(Thursday, July 29, 1999) -- It's official. Majority Leader Trent Lott
has finally succeeded in breaking Senator Bob Smith's stranglehold on the
anti-gun crime bill and has sent the bill forward to its next destination
in the legislative process.

The Senate voted 77-22 yesterday to break Senator Bob Smith's filibuster
and then moved to send the legislation to a conference committee that will
iron out the differences between the House and Senate crime bills.

The Senate rules would have allowed Smith (I-NH) to continue filibustering
the gun bill if he could garner 41 Senators to support him. Smith fell 19
votes short of stopping the Gore-Lautenberg gun control bill.

Ironically, Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle (SD) praised Senator Lott
for his leadership on this legislation. "I will say I support the effort
made by the majority leader to move this bill to conference and the method
he has employed to do so," Daschle said. "We have had a very good debate
on this bill. [Democrats] have had an opportunity to offer amendments.
I cite S. 254 as the model I wish we would follow on all bills."

Indeed, Senator Lott has been instrumental in moving this gun control
legislation at every point along the way. Consider that the Majority Leader:

* Scheduled a vote on a crime bill during the midst of the hysteria
following the Columbine shooting in May;

* Voted for several of the anti-gun provisions when they were offered as
amendments to the bill;

* Voted for final passage of the anti-gun S. 254 on May 20;

* Jump-started the whole gun control debate again this month by taking
the anti-gun Senate language (S. 254) and substituting it in place of the
relatively innocuous House crime bill (H.R. 1501);

* Dusted off his arsenal of parliamentary tricks to prevent Senator Smith
from offering constructive amendments to the crime bill during yesterday's
vote;

* Voted against the Smith filibuster yesterday; and finally,

* Allowed the Senate to send notoriously anti-gun Senators like Ted
Kennedy and Patrick Leahy to conduct negotiations in the conference
committee, while specifically excluding Senator Bob Smith, who is also
a member of the Judiciary Committee.

While Senator Smith promised yesterday to filibuster the bill once it
clears the conference committee, Senate rules will greatly restrict his
parliamentary options for delaying the bill. [The Senate conferees are
Hatch (R-UT), Kennedy (MA), Leahy (VT), Sessions (AL), and Thurmond (R-SC).]

At this point, no one knows how long the crime legislation will remain in
the conference committee. It is possible that it will remain there until
after the August recess. Eventually, both Congressional houses will have
to vote on an identical bill before they can send it to the President.

Gun owners will stand the best chance at defeating this legislation in the
House, seeing as how they succeeded in getting that body to defeat similar
legislation (H.R. 2122) in May. Please stay tuned for further updates.

Both Utah Senators Bennett and Hatch voted in favor of ending the Smith
filibuster and against your interests as a gun owner. Call Senator Hatch
to share your feelings about his betrayal vote at:

Senator Orrin Hatch
DC Office Phone: [phone]
DC Office Fax: [phone]
DC Judiciary Com. Phone: [phone]
DC Judiciary Com. Fax: [phone]
Toll-free phone: [phone]
SLC Office Phone: [phone]
SLC Office Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
DC Address: Sen. Orrin Hatch, SR-131 Russell SOB, Washington, DC 20510-4402
SLC: Sen. Orrin Hatch, Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake
City, UT 84138

GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch

"In a free society, making sure that the people control the government
is a higher value than making sure the government controls the people"
-- David Kopel, The Independence Institute

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

This concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #23- 29 July
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: GOUtah on SLC Gun Turn-In
Date: 31 Jul 1999 11:36:00 -0700


GOUtah! Gun Owners of Utah

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

Information Release to All Media- 29 July 1999

GOUtah! Suggests Informed Decisions and Economic Alternatives to the
Latest Salt Lake City Gun Turn-In and Destruction Program

As a broad-based network of responsible firearms owners in Utah, we are
concerned that the upcoming Gun Turn-In and Destruction Program to be
conducted by Salt Lake City from 3-13 August 1999 may not be in the best
interests of either the individual firearm owner or the public at large.

First, the firearms to be turned in will likely come from otherwise
peaceable citizens, who pose no threat to the safety or security of the
community. GOUtah! suggests that before anyone gives up their firearm
without any compensation to the government for destruction, they first
take it to a licensed firearms dealer for an appraisal of its current
value. Many firearms, even those which are old, have been well used or
even inoperable may still have a substantial dollar value to collectors,
hunters, target shooters and other legitimate users of firearms. The
licensed dealer will be able to give you a value of the firearm, and
may even offer to purchase it from you or place it on consignment sale
in their place of business. Licensed gun dealers city-wide are listed
in the yellow pages of the telephone directory under "Guns."

Another legitimate concern is the "No Questions" approach to this gun
turn-in program. This may have the effect of allowing a significant piece
of evidence to be destroyed without any attempt to identify or apprehend
the criminal. Also, under Utah law 76-10-525, all law enforcement agencies
in the state are required to determine the true owner of any recovered
weapon and promptly return it to them. There is no indication as yet that
the Salt Lake City program will obey this law, and thus many innocent
individuals who have had their firearms stolen would then also have their
property destroyed without compensation by the government, all in order
to make a dubious political or social statement.

-end-



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Filibuster Broken; Gun Control Advances
Date: 31 Jul 1999 11:36:00 -0700


Please note that by voting to end the filibuster, Senators Hatch and
Bennett are in violation of the resolution passed by the Republican
State Convention. Once again, they're in bed with Kennedy, Feinstein
and Lautenberg!

Senator Lott's Betrayal of Gun Owners Nearly Complete
 -- Majority Leader rolls Sen. Smith and moves gun control forward

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


"On the juvenile justice bill [S. 254], I could have gone through
all kinds of contortions and gyrations to try to block that, but I
thought . . . we ought to take it up. . . . I didn't run around out
here trying to block [the anti-gun amendments]. Some of my colleagues
said I should have done that." --Majority Leader Trent Lott on his
role in pushing the anti-gun crime bill, July 26, 1999


(Thursday, July 29, 1999) -- It's official. Majority Leader Trent
Lott has finally succeeded in breaking Senator Bob Smith's
stranglehold on the anti-gun crime bill and has sent the bill
forward to its next destination in the legislative process.

The Senate voted 77-22 yesterday to break Senator Bob Smith's
filibuster and then moved to send the legislation to a conference
committee that will iron out the differences between the House and
Senate crime bills.

The Senate rules would have allowed Smith (I-NH) to continue filibus-
tering the gun bill if he could garner 41 Senators to support him. Smith
fell 19 votes short of stopping the Gore-Lautenberg gun control bill.

Ironically, Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle (SD) praised
Senator Lott for his leadership on this legislation. "I will say I
support the effort made by the majority leader to move this bill to
conference and the method he has employed to do so," Daschle said.
"We have had a very good debate on this bill. [Democrats] have had
an opportunity to offer amendments. I cite S. 254 as the model I
wish we would follow on all bills."

Indeed, Senator Lott has been instrumental in moving this gun
control legislation at every point along the way. Consider that the
Majority Leader:

* Scheduled a vote on a crime bill during the midst of the
hysteria following the Columbine shooting in May;

* Voted for several of the anti-gun provisions when they were
offered as amendments to the bill;

* Voted for final passage of the anti-gun S. 254 on May 20;

* Jump-started the whole gun control debate again this month by
taking the anti-gun Senate language (S. 254) and substituting it
in place of the relatively innocuous House crime bill (H.R. 1501);

* Dusted off his arsenal of parliamentary tricks to prevent
Senator Smith from offering constructive amendments to the crime
bill during yesterday's vote;

* Voted against the Smith filibuster yesterday; and finally,

* Allowed the Senate to send notoriously anti-gun Senators like
Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy to conduct negotiations in the
conference committee, while specifically excluding Senator Bob
Smith, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

While Senator Smith promised yesterday to filibuster the bill once
it clears the conference committee, Senate rules will greatly
restrict his parliamentary options for delaying the bill. [The
Senate conferees are Hatch (R-UT), Kennedy (MA), Leahy (VT),
Sessions (AL), and Thurmond (R-SC).]

At this point, no one knows how long the crime legislation will
remain in the conference committee. It is possible that it will
remain there until after the August recess. Eventually, both
Congressional houses will have to vote on an identical bill before
they can send it to the President.

Gun owners will stand the best chance at defeating this legislation
in the House, seeing as how they succeeded in getting that body to
defeat similar legislation (H.R. 2122) in May. Please stay tuned
for further updates.


Senator Smith Responds To Senators After Yesterday's Vote

On Missing The Real Problem In Society. "What happened at Littleton
was a terrible tragedy. People used this on the Senate floor and
mounted an unprecedented assault on the second amendment rights of
law-abiding American gun owners. Not one law-abiding American citizen
had anything to do with Columbine, not one. . . . They cast the blame,
though, on the law-abiding gun owner . . . . The problem is guns,
they said, not the culture. It is interesting that we take prayer and
values out of the schools. What comes in? Violence, drugs, condoms.
Hello, America, wake up." --Congressional Record, July 28, 1999

On Trampling The Constitution. "[The Second Amendment] is pretty
clear: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.' Tell me where there is anything in that
amendment that allows us to do this under the Constitution of the
United States of America? I stood right there where the pages are
sitting and took the oath twice when I came to the Senate to protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that is what
I am doing now, and that is what I will continue to do.

"There is nothing in those words about background checks. There is
nothing in there about the people having a right to keep and bear
certain kinds of arms. There is nothing in there that says handguns
can be kept or not kept where shotguns can. Nothing. I sure do not
see anything in there that gives Congress any leeway whatsoever to
infringe second amendment rights whenever some group of anti-gun
zealots think what they like to call the 'public interest' requires
it. The public interest is to preserve and protect the Constitution
of the United States of America. That is what the public interest is
and nothing else. You trample on the Constitution; you trample on
the public interest." --Congressional Record, July 28, 1999

On His Intent To Continue Filibustering The Anti-gun Crime Bill. "I
am proud to stand up for the second amendment in the Chamber of the
Senate, and I will stand up here again and again, year after year,
month after month, whatever it takes to make this case because I know
I am right, and I am going to continue to do it. When this bill [S.
254] comes out of conference, I am going to filibuster it again for as
long as I can. I am going to do everything I can to kill it, whatever
I can do. I am only one person." --Cong. Record, July 28, 1999


-