ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.199908

Internet Message Format | 1999-08-29 | 272KB

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Shinika on Tribune Polls
Date: 01 Aug 1999 18:56:00 -0700


http://www.sltrib.com/08011999/commenta/11956.htm

Utah Gun Supporters Blast Tribune Public Opinion Poll

By Shinika Sykes

Whenever I read or hear about an opinion poll reflecting a point
of view that is not in line with my own, my reaction is: "Oh really?
Well, no one asked me."

Utah concealed-weapons supporters seem to hold a similar belief.
In what appeared to be an orchestrated campaign of Public Forum
letters and phone calls to The Salt Lake Tribune, they deemed biased,
flawed and without merit a recent survey which showed that a majority
of Utahns want tighter gun laws. They claimed the objective of the
survey was part of a "liberal media plot" to take away Second
Amendment rights from law-abiding citizens.

An opinion poll is defined as a survey to learn the attitudes,
beliefs or opinions of a representative number of people. In all
polls, only a small number of the population, randomly chosen, are
actually questioned. If they have been scientifically selected,
their opinions should accurately reflect those of the entire group.
Public opinion polls are used regularly by the news media
(newspapers, magazines, television and radio), politicians,
businesses, government agencies and social scientists.

The survey in question, conducted by Valley Research for The
Tribune, showed that from a random statewide sampling of 511 Utah
adults, 79 percent said no one other than law-enforcement officers
should be allowed to carry guns in schools.

"Did the [pollster] tell people that it is already against the law
to carry weapons into schools? Has that stopped [some individuals]
from killing kids in schools?" asked several callers.

"Any survey that tries to place restrictions on law-abiding citizens
should not be put on the front page masquerading as facts," said a
reader in Payson. "Put it on the Opinion page, along with all the
other liberal opinions."

True, there are laws on the books that prohibit anyone from carrying
weapons into schools. However, Utah concealed-weapon permit holders
are exempt from such laws. That said, my purpose in addressing this
issue is not to get in the middle the state's current gun debate.
My goal is to give Tribune readers some pointers on what to look for
when they are confronted with surveys and polls.

According to the Washington, D.C.- based American Newspaper Publishers
Association and the Pew Research Center, all polls are not equal.
Therefore, some factors ought to be considered when their results
are presented. For example:

-- Consider the objective of the polling firm. Newspapers and TV
stations pay for polls taken by private companies. These surveys
usually deal with subjects of broad public interest. A survey by an
independent group has more credibili y than a poll from a group with a
stake in the results. (The Tribune would have published the findings
the poll about weapons in schools no matter what the outcome.)

-- A poll is accurate only at the time it is taken. If individuals do
not have firm opinions about the issue, the results could vary widely
from one day to the next. The low number of undecided responses (4 to
6 percent) indicates little ambiguity in the survey of guns in schools.

-- Polls deal best with simple questions. Complex questions are likely
to produce distorted results.

-- A poll should have a margin of error that is based on the number of
people polled, not the population. This is expressed as a range -- a
certain number of percentage points -- above or below the reported
findings of the poll. (The poll in question has a plus or minus 4.5
percent margin of error.)

In other words, think of a poll as taking a sample spoonful from a
pot of soup to test its taste. It is not necessary to eat the entire
pot because a few sips from a spoon give an accurate indication of the
whole pot. A scientific poll by an independent, reputable research
firm, using a representative sampling of a specified population, can
and does provide a credible point of view, whether or not we agree
with the results.

SNIP
_________

The Reader Advocate's phone number is 237-2015. Write the Reader
Advocate, The Salt Lake Tribune, P.O. Box 867, Salt Lake City, Utah
84110. E-mail: [e-mail].

Copyright 1999, The Salt Lake Tribune



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Stop Congress from Ending Gun Shows
Date: 01 Aug 1999 19:43:00 -0700


-----

Stop Congress from Ending Gun Shows

Call your Representatives and Senators and call the offices
of the congressman appointed to the conference committee.
Insist that the final Juvenile Justice Bill contain NO
PROVISIONS against guns and gun shows.

Point out to them what if just one of the women Yosemite
Murder victims had a concealed gun the murders could have
been stopped. What if just one of these Atlanta victims
assaulted had a firearm to stop this murderous assault?

(by Alan Korwin ACTING ON ITS OWN, FBI CLOSES GUN
SHOWS NATIONWIDE Congressional Oversight Apparently
No Longer An Issue 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 on Sunday, by turning off its national instant
background check system (NICS) for the day.)

The Juvenile Justice Bill now in conference contains
provisions which in practical terms will put an end to gun
shows and which will follow private sales at gun shows. It is
the registration of sale of firearms. Registration is the one
thing that makes confiscation possible. The only reason the
anti-gun politicians can steal the guns is that they have a
record of firearms ownership. GET BETWEEN THESE RECORDS AND
YOUR GOVERNMENTS ANY WAY YOU CAN.

You are advised to call your congressperson at the following
toll-free numbers US Capitol Switchboard 1-888-449-3511 You can
also call them using the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
E-Mail Link To The U.S. Congress. http://in-search-of.org/
To spread the word call Rush Limbaugh at 1-800-828-2882
For the latest happenings at NRA contact www.2ndamendment.net
For legislative updates contact www.nealknox.com and go to
"Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line"
*****************************

SENATE conferees
Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.)
Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)

HOUSE conferees - Fourteen (the majority of them anti-gun)
are specifically authorized to discuss the gun sections.
Republicans Henry Hyde (Ill.)
Bill McCollum (Fla.)
George Gekas (Pa.)
Howard Coble (N.C.)
Lamar Smith (Tex.)
Charles Canady (Fla.),
Bob Barr (Ga.)
Democrats John Conyers (Mich.)
Barney Frank (Mass.),
Robert Scott (Va.)
Howard Berman (Calif.)
Zoe Lofgren (Calif.),
plus substitutes on some gun issues
Sheila Jackson-Lee (Tex.)
Marty Meehan (Mass.).

HOUSE conferees - The dozen not authorized to vote on gun
issues are
Bill Goodling (Pa.)
Tom Petri (Wis.)
Mike Castle (Del.)
Jim Greenwood (Pa.)
Jim DeMint (S.C.)
William Clay (Mo.)
Dale Kildee (Mich.)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY)
William Bliley (Va.)
John Dingell (Mich.)
Mike Bilirakis (Fla.)
Billy Tauzin (La.)

Neal Knox - House Appoints Juv. Justice Conferees The House
appointed 26conferees to the House-Senate conference on H.R.
1501, the Juvenile Justice bill. The Senate appointed five
on Wednesday.

The House also voted 305-84 in favor of a motion by Judiciary
Committee Ranking Democrat John Conyers, instructing the
conferees to support a background check on all gun show sales
but which does not "weaken the effectiveness of existing checks"
or existing law, that all conference sessions be open, that
amendments be allowed (raising the question whether Conyers
intends to stack on something like one-handgun-per-month),
and report a compromise bill before next week's adjournment
for the rest of August.

It's most unlikely that the conference committee would move
that quickly. All such instructions are eyewash; the Senate
also insisted on its version, as is usual.

While the anti-gun crowd is calling for immediate action,
nothing is likely to be agreed in conference until well after
Labor Day. Then both Houses must agree to their version before
the bill would go to President Clinton, who is threatening to
veto anything less than the Senate-passed gun provisions.

Interestingly, opponents of Conyers' motion included Majority
Leader Richard Armey, Majority Whip Tom Delay and GOP
Conference Chairman J.C. Watts.

Fourteen of the conferees -- the majority of them anti-gun --
are specifically authorized to discuss the gun sections. They
are Republicans Henry Hyde (Ill.), Bill McCollum (Fla.), George
Gekas (Pa.), Howard Coble (N.C.), Lamar Smith (Tex.), Charles
Canady (Fla.), Bob Barr (Ga.); Democrats John Conyers (Mich.),
Barney Frank (Mass.), Robert Scott (Va.), Howard Berman (Calif.),
and Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), plus substitutes on some gun issues
Sheila Jackson-Lee (Tex.) and Marty Meehan (Mass.).

The dozen not authorized to vote on gun issues are Bill Goodling
(Pa.), Tom Petri (Wis.), Mike Castle (Del.), Jim Greenwood (Pa.),
Jim DeMint (S.C.), William Clay (Mo.), Dale Kildee (Mich.),
Carolyn McCarthy (NY). William Bliley (Va.), John Dingell (Mich.),
Mike Bilirakis (Fla.) and Billy Tauzin (La.)

Both Reps. Dingell and McCarthy authored gun show amendments that
were accepted and rejected, respectively, but not included in the
final bill.

Usually on a massive, multi-part bill like this one, the conferees
meet several times, and members participate in discussions in which
they are authorized or particularly interested.

I checked with the Speaker's office, Judiciary Committee and
Mr. Dingell's office trying to determine if Mr. Dingell and Mrs.
McCarthy will be allowed to speak on the gun issues. I was
told it will be up to the conference committee when they meet.
===============

Thank goodness the Atlanta killer committed suicide when he
was cornered by police at a gas station. Instead of endangering
anyone else, he performed the incredible feat of simultaneously
shooting himself in the head with two guns.

We've still heard nothing about where he got the guns he
apparently used during the office killings, a Glock 9mm and
Colt .45ACP ("which together hold 24 rounds," the press
happily tells us). And there are reports that he had two other
guns in his car when stopped by police.

But we now know that he used a hammer to beat to death his
present wife and two children, and that he was the primary
suspect -- but was never charged -- with hacking to death his
first wife and her mother in 1993.

I wonder how many blows were left in that hammer?

****************************
The 2ndAmendmentNews Team
The way to protect your own rights is to protect the rights of
others. Our right to own and use firearms is under attack.
This list was created in a hurry due to the emergency
presented by anti-gun politicians and the media dancing in
the blood of those who died in the recent massacre.

If you've received this as a forward and wish to subscribe
please send a reply to me at [e-mail] or
[e-mail]

Cordially Yours,
The 2ndAmendmentNews Team

2ndAmendmentNews is published by volunteer activists who
support the full original individual rights intent of the 2nd
Amendment and oppose any appeasement on gun rights. The
moderators include Chris Behanna, Weldon Clark (an NRA
director), Russ Howard (past NRA director) and Steve Cicero.

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. -- Samuel Adams,
speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: NEWS - UN urges control on light weapons
Date: 03 Aug 1999 01:33:00 -0700


-----

"U.N. panel to urge intl control of light firearms"

7/31/99

Yomiuri Shimbun

A U.N. panel of experts studying international controls on light
firearms, such as handguns, machine guns and assault rifles, is to
propose the establishment of an international agreement controlling
such weapons, it was learned Saturday.

The panel, chaired by Mitsuro Donowaki, special assistant to the
foreign minister, will also call for an embargo on such weapons either
in a U.N. Security Council resolution or by some other method, sources
close to the panel said.

According to the sources, the panel may submit its recommendations in
a report as early as Monday to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who
is hoping to adopt the recommendations at a U.N. General Assembly
scheduled for September.

The U.N. Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, established under
a 1997 General Assembly resolution, has been preparing the report. The
panel consists of 23 disarmament experts from 23 countries including
Japan, the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, Brazil and
Egypt.

They have held meetings and workshops in a number of places, including
New York and Tokyo, to work toward solutions for problems related to
small arms.

According to the sources, the report proposes holding an international
U.N. conference on small arms sometime in the summer of 2001 to seek
agreement on the establishment of a legally and politically binding
international agreement, such as a treaty, on light firearms control.

It also urges the world body to adopt an international plan of action at
the conference to reduce the number of light firearms in countries that
have accumulated and used a large number of such weapons, such as the
Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan. By so doing, the
international community would raise public awareness about the problem
of small arms, the sources said.

The panel also suggests that research be conducted into the possibility of
limiting the production and trade of light firearms by limiting the number
of licenses issued for them in each country.

It will also ask the Security Council to take appropriate steps to enforce
an effective embargo on small arms, such as a Security Council resolution.

In its report, the panel will urge U.N. member states to:

-- Introduce legal and administrative measures to control the production
of light firearms.

-- Exercise tight controls on the transfer of light firearms to regions
of conflict.

-- Introduce a system whereby the date and location of the production
of such weapons are marked on the weapons themselves.

Large quantities of light firearms were produced in the Cold War era and
have subsequently found their way to regions of conflict around the world,
according to the sources.

However, there are no international agreements controlling the
production and trade of such weapons as there are concerning weapons
of mass destruction. As a result, many people have been injured or
become refugees due to the proliferation of these weapons, which are
also partly to blame for the expansion and prolonged fighting in
regions such as Kosovo.

In 1995, then U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali called for
controls on small arms, and the 1997 General Assembly adopted a report
proposing closer international cooperation among police and customs
authorities as well as research into the creation of a database of
producers and traders of such arms.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah Media Release For Distribution and Posting to all lists
Date: 03 Aug 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.

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: JPFO ALERT: THE ANTI-GUN CULTURE KILLS NINE IN ATLANTA
Date: 03 Aug 1999 17:18:00 -0700


Excellent, except that the word 'socialist' should more properly
be rendered 'corporatist' or 'fascist'.

-----
ALERT from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

August 1, 1999

To all JPFO Supporters:

THE ANTI-GUN CULTURE KILLS NINE IN ATLANTA

The calculating killer in Atlanta (Mark Barton) beat his ex-wife and
children to death with a blunt instrument on Tuesday and Wednesday.
The next day he entered two separate office buildings and coldly
murdered nine more people.

None of these victims or their co-workers had taken the simple
precaution that Georgia law allows -- none of them was carrying
a concealed firearm.  Why not?

A Georgia state legislator informs us that law-abiding, sane citizens
of that state can obtain a concealed carry permit without difficulty
under Georgia's "shall issue" concealed carry law.  Why weren't any
of these people carrying a firearm?

The answer is startling simple: the "mainstream culture" discouraged
them.  Media mouths and "gun control" lobbyists have conditioned people
to hate and fear firearms.  Governments have promised to protect people
from crime and installed "911" systems for response to emergencies.
The result has been _de facto_ disarmament of victims.

Now try to follow this logic: the "gun control" lobbyists say that
gun violence is escalating, and that we need more "gun control" laws
to stop the violence.  The lobbyists point to the several relatively
recent killings in school yards, Post Office facilities and other
such places.  They say that there is so much shooting going on that
the people need to be disarmed. And yet, if an armed attacker is
menacing, they tell citizens to dial 911 to get help ... from police
officers carrying guns.

Connect the dots of the gun phobes and you see this result: WHEN THERE
IS AN INCREASE IN VIOLENT ATTACKS, THERE MUST BE AN INCREASE IN ARMED
RESPONSE.  The gun prohibitionists want the armed response to come
only from police, but they still want an armed response.  The fact is,
however, that the police in the great majority of states owe no legal
duty to protect individuals from criminal attack.  Also, the police
cannot be everywhere all the time.  (Well, at least not until the
totalitarians take over.)

So if the gun prohibitionists are correct about the wave of maniacal
murders in offices and schools, then the answer must be to have an
armed response even more available than the police.  That answer is
to encourage peace-loving, nonviolent, sane people to carry concealed
firearms for defense.

The anti-gun propagandists have taught people to avoid or refuse to
arm themselves.  They have taught people, as have the socialist
propagandists, to rely upon the government to take care of everything.
It isn't chic, or cool, or hip, or politically correct to carry a
firearm.  City-dwellers in office buildings, and teachers and
administrators in schools, leave themselves wide open to criminal
attackers, because the anti-gun lobby has dictated what's fashionable
in defense strategy.

The anti-gun propaganda helped assure the deaths of those people killed
in the Atlanta brokerage offices.  Remember the woman who left her
firearm in her car when she and her parents ate at Lubey's cafeteria
in Texas?  The armed killer who came in that day cut her parents down,
right before her eyes, and the woman was unable to protect them ...
BECAUSE SHE HAD BEEN AFRAID OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF PEACEFULLY CARRYING
A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR DEFENSE.

How many of the office workers in Atlanta might have brought a firearm
to work every day, routinely and peacefully, had they felt that it was
their right and duty to help defend against possible criminal attack?

Ironically, in Georgia many of those office workers could have
carried a concealed firearm to work every day ... lawfully ... but
were probably deterred by the negative attitude many Americans have
toward firearms and their owners.  This negative attitude, this fear
of having and using a firearm, this dependence upon government for
all protection, is the direct result of "gun control" advocacy and
legislation.  And so, defenseless people died ... BECAUSE THEY WERE
CONVINCED NOT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

* * *



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: CBS vs RKBA
Date: 04 Aug 1999 14:02:00 -0700


-----

I had lunch with a nonmember friend, a non-gun-owner who is largely
apolitical, who asked me if I'd seen the CBS report on the 2nd Amendment
last night. I related my cable outage woes and asked him what they reported.

He said that CBS had determined that the 2nd refers only to the national
guard and that under the constitution, no one has an individual right to
RKBA.

He then noted that his impression was that it was the most biased report
he'd ever seen; that there was absolutely no attempt to  seek any contrary
opinion.

Guess we have to stop watching CBS.  Or else fid Dan Rather walking in
Central Park and ask him, "What's the caliber, Kenneth?"


-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Costs of guns but no mention of benefits
Date: 04 Aug 1999 16:55:52 -0600

For your reference, Prof. John
Lott, Jr. has estimated that the economic benefit to the economy from the

reduction in violent crime that accompanies "shall-issue" concealed carry

laws is $6.6 billion, so the benefits of concealed carry exceed the
"costs"
of gun violence (almost none of which is caused by permittees of course!)

by a factor of nearly three.  This of course does not take into account
the
non-economic value of the lives that are saved, and the thousands of
other
crimes that are prevented, when good citizens carry firearms.

Moll

This article from today's DesNews details the costs of treating gun
related injuries.  Conveniently it doesn't make any mention of how many
injuries (rapes, muggings, murders) or property crimes (theft, arson,
etc) are prevented by ready access to guns.  Methinks some letters to the
editor are in order.

<http://www.desnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,105002038,00.html?>

U.S. spent $2.3 billion to treat gun victims in a year

                      CHICAGO (AP) ù The cost of treating the nation's
gunshot victims in a recent year was $2.3 billion and the government paid
half the bill, researchers reported Tuesday.
                      The figure is an estimate of what the nation spent
treating gunshot victims in 1994, based on data from hospitals in
Maryland and New York that year, from South Carolina
                emergency rooms in 1997 and other sources.
                      "We have been concerned that a lot of folks don't
see gun violence as their problem, they see it as someone else's
problem," said one of the researchers, Philip Cook, director of
                the Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke
University.
                      "The costs are shared by everyone through
government
payment. In that sense, we all have a stake in reducing gun violence."
                      This has not been lost on many cities and counties
ù
at least 23 are pursuing gunmakers in court to recover money spent
treating gunshot victims.
                      The study published in Wednesday's Journal of the
American Medical Association looked at the costs hospitals incurred
treating almost 135,000 gunshot injuries, including
                fatal ones. The average cost per injury was $17,000. When
a victim was hospitalized, the average lifetime cost jumped to $35,000,
the researchers estimated.
                      A researcher not involved in the study said it was
a
solid analysis of the limited data that is available. Mark Cohen, a
Vanderbilt University economist who does research in
                this area, said the breakdown of who bears the costs of
gunshot wounds is the study's most valuable component.
                      The government, mostly through Medicaid and
Medicare
payments, paid $1.1 billion of the total cost, the study found. Private
insurers covered 18 percent of the cost, and
                victims picked up another 19 percent.
                      The researchers speculated that victims' costs are
often passed on to other patients because many victims can't afford
treatment.

==================================================================
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: Ch 4 Pro-Gun Interviews
Date: 04 Aug 1999 14:02:00 -0700


-----

"On WEDNESDAY, 10:00 pm, August 4th, Channel 4 will have stories
of people who carry concealed weapons.  A female doctor and another
professional (attorney or court officer) will be amoung the live
interviews.

"It behooves all of us to monitor TV specials of this type.  Stay tuned."


The female doctor is Sarah Thompson, and the attorney may be (not confirmed)
Mitch Vilos, of Utah Gun Owners Legal Defense (U-GOLD). Please watch, and
send your feedback to: [e-mail] or

     4 Utah KTVX
     1760 Fremont Dr.
     Salt Lake City, Ut. 84104

     General Office: [phone]
     General Fax: [phone]
     News Desk: [phone]
     News Tip Line: [phone]
     Programming Fax: [phone]



-



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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ch 4 Pro-Gun Interviews
Date: 05 Aug 1999 07:42:32 -0600

this is real nice to hear about after the fact.  da.
larry
-----Original Message-----


>
>-----
>To: [e-mail]
>Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:40:22 -0600
>From: "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: FW: Ch 4 Pro-Gun Interviews
>
>"On WEDNESDAY, 10:00 pm, August 4th, Channel 4 will have stories
>of people who carry concealed weapons.  A female doctor and another
>professional (attorney or court officer) will be amoung the live
>interviews.
>
>"It behooves all of us to monitor TV specials of this type.  Stay tuned."
>
>
>The female doctor is Sarah Thompson, and the attorney may be (not
confirmed)
>Mitch Vilos, of Utah Gun Owners Legal Defense (U-GOLD). Please watch, and
>send your feedback to: [e-mail] or
>
>     4 Utah KTVX
>     1760 Fremont Dr.
>     Salt Lake City, Ut. 84104
>
>     General Office: [phone]
>     General Fax: [phone]
>     News Desk: [phone]
>     News Tip Line: [phone]
>     Programming Fax: [phone]
>
>
>
>-
>
>



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Message for Gun Owners
Date: 06 Aug 1999 02:02:00 -0700


-----

Dear Fellow Gun Owners:

I'm familiar with the "wasted vote" argument and all of the other excuses
that gun owners offer for continuing to support a Republican Party that has
proven not only willing, but enthusiastic, about selling out your right to
keep and bear arms. I'm not going to come onto this list and ask you to
vote for the 2000 Libertarian Party candidate a year from this November --
at least not yet.

What I AM going to ask you to do is to take a few steps that will increase
the ability of gun owners to affect the electoral process between now and
the 2000 presidential election. These steps are easy, simple, and leave
you free to cast your vote for George W. Bush or Libby Dole next fall if
you insist on pretending to yourself that either of these boobs is "the
lesser evil" compared to their brothers and sisters in the other wing of
the Victim Disarmament Party.

Step 1: Endorse a pro-gun candidate. That doesn't mean you have to vote
for him next November. It just means that right now, your voice will be
added to the collective voice of gun owners *threatening* to vote for
someone who actually views the Bill of Rights as something other than
toilet paper. The candidate of choice for excercising this option is L.
Neil Smith, and I encourage you to surf over and have a look at

<http://smith4prez.freeservers.com/gunowners.html>
or
<http://www.lns2000.org/>

....where you will be able to sign an online petition endorsing Smith,
after establishing to your own satisfaction that he is, indeed, *the*
RKBA candidate.

Step 2: While you're at that first URL, you'll note that many of us are
pushing for L. Neil Smith to receive the nomination of the Libertarian
Party next year. Now, like I said, I'm not going to ask you to vote LP
next November -- yet. But, given the fact that the two likely GOP
candidates, Bush and Dole, have already flatly stated that they don't
give a damn about your Second Amendment rights, is there any reason not
to vote in the Libertarian *primary*? And to vote for the candidate, L.
Neil Smith, who is most firm and strident in his dedication to the Right
to Keep and Bear Arms?

Think about it. You retain your right to vote for Victim Disarmament
Party A or Victim Disarmament Party B in the November election -- but in
the primary, you'll be sending a message to their prospective nominees:
"I went somewhere else this spring. Perhaps you should get your act
together on the gun issue before November, or I may just stay there."

A sufficient number of gun owners defecting to the LP in the primary
will almost certainly bring forth pledges of undying love for the Second
Amendment from the candidates. I'll set aside the fact that these pledges,
like every other avowal of devotion to the constitution by GOP candidates
since Goldwater, are empty promises predicated on the assumption that
you'll forget once they are elected, or at least before they're up for
*re-election*, or that you have nowhere else to go. If, having voted LP
in the primary, you decide to back down and go for that "lesser of two
evils" in November, that's your choice. A bad one, but yours.

Step 3: Forward this message or one like it to your friends. Pretty
easy, huh? There are 70 million gun owners in the U.S. Most of them are
law-abiding, and most of them are -- or at least are eligible to be --
voters. Let's get in touch with them. If as many as a million of our
honest, hard-working, law-abiding, gun-owning fellow citizens display a
willingness, however temporary or transient, to vote on principle instead
of cowering in fear and grasping at the "best" of two bad alternatives,
perhaps we can get somewhere.

Sincerely,
Thomas L. Knapp
[e-mail]
The Ad Hoc Conspiracy to Draft L. Neil Smith

*******************************************************
FREE-MARKET.NET -- YOUR GATEWAY TO LIBERTY ON THE WEB
Thomas L. Knapp <[e-mail]>
Senior Editor and Editor of "Freedom Book of the Month"
*******************************************************


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: NRA Takes On CBS  1/2
Date: 07 Aug 1999 01:10:00 -0700


GOUtah!
Gun Owners of Utah

GOUtah! Alert #25 - 5 August 1999

Today's Thoughts on Liberty:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty;
it is the argument of tyrants, the creed of slaves."

-- William Pitt

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.

NRA/ILA Charges:
CBS Commits Fraud Against Americans and Constitution

NRA urges citizens to call and give CBS a "Reality Check"
on individual right of law-abiding Americans to own firearms.

An NRA/ILA News Release -- August 3, 1999

(WASHINGTON) -- Immediately after last night's airing of CBS Evening News'
blatantly biased "Reality Check" segment, which ignored recent scholarly
research and falsely claimed that the Second Amendment is not an individual
right, the National Rifle Association launched a campaign to provide CBS
News with its own reality check.

"Clearly, the reality of CBS is not in step with the reality of the view
of the vast majority of law-abiding Americans, nor in line with the view
of most constitutional scholars. The national media elite at CBS wouldn't
know reality if it stepped in front of Dan Rather's limousine," said James
J. Baker, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action.
"This alleged news network completely ignored a mountain of recent research
from constitutional scholars who agree that the Second Amendment refers to
an individual right, just as the entire Bill of Rights refers to individual
rights."

Baker said he was urging NRA members and concerned citizens to call CBS
News and local CBS affiliates to express their outrage that last night's
so-called "news" report would ignore the bulk of recent scholarly research.
"Every American, every journalist, who values truth, accuracy and balanced
reporting should call and express their outrage at CBS' effort to disguise
their editorial bias as news," Baker said. "It is little wonder that their
ratings continue to diminish."

Baker noted several key failures on the part of CBS:

** CBS FAILED to cite the 1990 Supreme Court reference to the Second
Amendment in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez that stated, "`the people' protected
by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments ... refers
to a class of persons who are part of the national community." Each of
these rights are individual.

** CBS FAILED to report this year's federal court ruling from the Northern
District of Texas, U.S. v. Emerson, in which the federal judge overturned
a federal gun law on Second Amendment grounds and argued, "The rights of
the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual
liberties enshrined in the bill of rights."

** CBS FAILED to report that, in the last decade, scholars from across
the political spectrum have concluded that the Second Amendment, from any
method of analysis, protects an individual right, and that this view is now
commonly referred to as the "Standard Model" (Glenn Harlan Reynolds, 1995).

** CBS FAILED to note that the nation's leading constitutional scholars
such as Lawrence Tribe (Harvard), Akil Reed Amar (Yale), William Van
Alstyne (Duke), and Sanford Levinson (Texas) ascribe to the concept of
the individual Second Amendment right as the "Standard Model."

** CBS FAILED to report the conclusion of Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds,
of the University of Tennessee, that scholars adhering to an individual
rights interpretation, "... dominate the academic literature on the Second
Amendment almost completely," and that this view is "... the mainstream
scholarly interpretation."

"The bottom line is that CBS failed as a news organization last night,"
Baker said. "They even completely ignored statements by a Supreme Court
Justice, Clarence Thomas, in clear and full support the Second Amendment
as an individual right and in anticipation of ruling on a future case to
that effect."

Baker said the NRA, the nation's oldest grassroots civil rights organization,
would continue its work to preserve the Second Amendment, and the entire Bill
of Rights, for future generations. "The Bill of Rights, including the Second
Amendment, and the NRA were here long before CBS was founded and, I suspect,
will remain long after they're gone," Baker said. "And that bodes well for
future generations of freedom-loving Americans."

-End NRA/ILA Release-

CBS Contact Information:

CBS Television Network
CBS News Division
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
www.cbs.com

CBS-Utah Affiliate

KUTV Channel 2
ATTN: Station Manager
2185 South 3600 West
West Valley City, Utah 84119
[phone]
www.kutv.com

KTVX Channel 4 Airs Positive Utah CCW Story!

KTVX Channel 4, the local ABC affiliate aired a segment on Utah CCW permit
holders on 4 August 1999. Reporter Paul Murphy interviewed Dr. Sarah
Thompson, attorney Mitch Vilos and CCW instructor Steve Beckstead about
their decisions to carry a firearm for lawful self defense. All three are
active in the gun rights movement in Utah.

The overall tone of the segment was objective, balanced and showed the
public an accurate picture of the 30,000 reasonable, responsible and
prudent individuals carrying firearms under the authority of a Utah CCW
permit today.

GOUtah! suggests you contact KTVX today and express your appreciation for
this well-reported and accurate story. We believe in giving credit where
credit is due!

KTVX Channel 4 Television
ATTN: Tom Sides, News Director
1760 Fremont Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84104
801-975-4444
www.4utah.com
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: NRA Takes On CBS  2/2
Date: 07 Aug 1999 01:10:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Police Shooting Incidents Reach All Time High in Utah

The number of police-involved shootings will apparently reach an all time
high in the state in 1999. A police shooting by South Ogden officers in
Washington Terrace this week put the 1999 figure at 15 for the year to
date, exceeding the statewide total for all of 1997 and 1998 combined.
Eight of the 15 individuals shot by police this year have been killed.

Two of the 1999 shootings have been held to be unreasonable. In one, a Salt
Lake City PD officer fired at a fleeing car after a traffic stop, and has
been fired from the department and charged with a criminal offense. In the
other, a deputy transporting a prisoner shot the fleeing individual in the
back, and has been fired from his job but no criminal charges have been
filed to date.

There are many potential reasons put forth for this dramatic increase
in the uses of lethal force by Utah law enforcement officers, including
increased willingness of suspects to use force against police, changes
in police training methods and other similar factors.

Another possible cause was articulated by David Bishop, a retired Captain of
the Salt lake County Sheriff's Office. In a recent interview in the Salt Lake
Observer, Bishop indicated that current training of law enforcement officers
includes a much lower threshold of a 'perception of threat' to the officer's
safety than ever before. As such, an officer today may resort to the use
of deadly force in a given situation, while some much lower level of force
would have been employed in years past. In years past use of deadly force
was considered an absolute last resort, while current shooting statistics
indicate this level of force appears to be applied much more often.

GOUtah! has and will continue to be supportive of legitimate and reasonable
law enforcement functions. However, the huge surge in police shooting
incidents also gives the public at large a legitimate cause of concern
regarding their own safety, particularly for that segment of the public
which is lawfully armed under the authority of a Utah CCW permit.

GOUtah! suggests that all Utah CCW permit holders continue to act with
the greatest restraint and with prudent caution whenever they interact
with any law enforcement officer in the course of their official duties.
Be aware that an otherwise innocent or normal action, movement or statement
might be construed as potentially threatening behavior, and could have
tragic results. Utah CCW holders have acted with good judgment and with
great restraint in the past, and we should all try to continue this
exemplary record in the future.

GOUtah! also suggests that law enforcement training and policy include a
prudent and respectful level of restraint and tolerance by law enforcement
when dealing with CCW holders, and that elected civilian oversight boards
evaluate police use of force issues, department policy, training doctrine
and all use of force incidents in law enforcement jurisdictions throughout
the state.

Let's all be careful out there...officers and civilians alike.

SLC Gun Turn-in Program Has Impressive First Day

The SLC Gun Turn-in and Destruction Program has shown impressive results,
according to our contacts in the media who are closely watching the effort.
As of the afternoon of Day 1, the entire take apparently consists of one
broken BB gun turned in by an elderly widow, who reportedly was house
cleaning and discovered the relic which had belonged to her late husband.

This major anti-gun crime-fighting initiative comes on the heels of two
brutal murders in the Salt Lake City during the previous 24 hours. Two
unarmed women were stabbed in their home, one fatally, by an armed intruder
during a home invasion robbery. The female victim was on the phone with 911
when she was murdered. Another unarmed man was shot in his own home, in front
of his family, by several gun-wielding intruders. No arrests in either case
have been made at this point. However, the SLC Gun Turn-in and Destruction
Program continues, helping to make our community safer... but for whom?

GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch

"Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and
politicians." -- Geoffery Boothroyd, as quoted in the UR&PA Newsletter,
June-July 1999 issue.

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


Correction: The GOUtah Alert # 24 contained a minor text error. The last
paragraph of the SLC Gun turn-in news release as published in the Alert was
actually an artifact left over from an earlier edition of the Alert series,
and was not part of the release text sent to the media. We hope this error
did not cause undue confusion in the field. Oops!

This concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #25 - 5 August
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: ALERT: Zelman & Mermelstein interviewed in Jerusalem Post
Date: 12 Aug 1999 13:58:15 -0600

ALERT from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

Thursday, August 12, 1999

US Jewish gun advocates call for self-defense
By MARILYN HENRY

NEW YORK (August 12) - Aaron Zelman isn't calling for gun
control  after the Tuesday shooting at a Los Angeles Jewish
center that wounded five people, including four children.
Quite the reverse: He is aggressively pushing Jewish
self-defense.

"The Jewish community is blind," said Zelman, the chairman
of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. "We must
be able to defend ourselves against evil-doers."

Zelman's sentiment runs counter to mainstream Jewish
organizations. They were quick to condemn the shooting at
the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills,
California, and are expected to reissue calls for gun control.

"It is galling that innocents continue to be shot down in cold
blood, as gun apologists insist that whoever wants guns should
be able to obtain them without restriction," said Phil Baum,
executive director of the American Jewish Congress.

A Marine Corps veteran, Zelman has contempt for the Jewish
communal leadership and says that Israelis could teach these
leaders a thing or two about self-defense.

American Jewish leaders "have always believed in victim
disarmament. They don't believe in defending themselves, and
they think that by not punishing criminals but by punishing
law-abiding citizens, things will be peachy-keen," he said.

His organization was formed 10 years ago to give "a Jewish
perspective on self-defense and firearms ownership and to
speak out against the Jewish leadership who, for the most
part, blindly and foolishly support gun control," Zelman
said in a phone interview from his home in Hartford, Wisconsin,
about 35 miles northwest of Milwaukee.

"I chose to move out of the city of Milwaukee and take my
children out of a Jewish day school because the people who
run these Jewish day schools don't give a damn about security.
What they call security doesn't amount to a $25 system from
K-Mart," said Zelman, the father of two.

"I am not going to subject my children to being sitting ducks
because of what I call Jewish stupidity. They are not going
to be victims like these kids today," he said, referring to
the Los Angeles shooting.

According to Zelman, the organization has some 5,000 members,
most of them in the US.

"The JPFO is not a bunch of redneck, paranoid Jewish gun nuts,"
according to Rabbi Reuven Mermelstein, director of the group's
editorial board and the author of its "Ask the Rabbi" series.

"We keep trying to win over more Jewish minds, especially my
personal campaign to convert Orthodox Jews to our thinking,"
Mermelstein wrote in one of his columns.

"It says in our Torah, 'And you must surely guard your life.'
I understand this injunction to mean stay out of inclement
weather, eat wisely, and be armed."

http://www.jpost.com/News/Article-8.html

(c) Copyright 1995-1999, The Jerusalem Post - All rights reserved

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

Phone: [phone]
   Fax: [phone]
http://www.jpfo.org/

To subscribe to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:

     [e-mail]

To Un-subscribe to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:

     [e-mail]

In either case, respond to the confirmation message you will get
back.


________________________________________________________________________
Start an Email List For Free at Topica.  http://www.topica.com/register


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: UT: A Campaign To Replace Hatch
Date: 12 Aug 1999 22:35:12 -0600

Save the Second Amendment and the Constitution:
Replace US Senator Orrin G. Hatch

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

Thursday, August 12, 1999


Utah Senator Orrin G. Hatch no longer represents his gun-owning,
freedom loving, and Constitution-minded constituents.  In recent
years, his voting record on firearms issues has moved in the
direction of his close personal friend and colleague, the
ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy!  Most recently Senator Hatch enlisted the
assistance of Senators Kennedy, Schumer, and others to obtain Senate
passage of his S. 254 (the "Juvenile Crime bill").  This legislation
contains several provisions attacking gun owners, including
provisions that would:

   * Restrict or ban safe and lawful firearms use by young persons
and imprison their parents for clerical violations;

   * Ban importation of personal defense ammunition magazines greater
than 10 rounds;

   * Require all gun show attendees to present photo identification
for permanent registration in a BATF log book;

   * Enable future legislation requiring all firearms to be locked
up, preventing their use for self-defense; and,

   * Threaten gun show operators with jail if even one person buys a
gun without the instant background/registration check.  This could
make gun shows a thing of the past.


If You Help, Senator Hatch Can Be Replaced

Senator Hatch must win in next year's elections to continue
"representing" Utah's gun owners.  His greatest vulnerability will
occur on Monday, March 27, at 7 PM.  On this evening delegates for
the County and State Conventions will be elected at neighborhood
caucus meetings throughout the state.  These delegates will
determine the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, and almost
certainly Utah's next Senator.  If approximately 2200
pro-Constitution delegates are elected to the State Convention, Utah
will no longer be shamed by the anti-gun advocacy of Orrin Hatch.


What You Must Do Now!

1. Contact one of GOA's volunteer coordinators to identify yourself
as a supporter of the gun owner campaign to replace Orrin Hatch.
Please contact either Arnold Gaunt or Sarah Thompson, preferably via
e-mail, as follows:

Arnold Gaunt
PO Box 1096
Clearfield, UT 84089-1096
[phone]
[e-mail]

Dr. Sarah Thompson
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
[phone]
[e-mail]

2. Commit to attend the neighborhood caucus meetings at 7:00 PM on
March 27, 2000, and gain the commitments of family, friends, and
associates to do the same.


**************
Not paid for by any candidate or candidate's committee. Authorized
and paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund.

**************
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 #26 - 11 August 1999 1/2
Date: 12 Aug 1999 17:10:00 -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 #26 - 11 August 1999

Today's Voice of Liberty:

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom;
and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more,
it will lose that, too."

-- Somerset Maugham

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.

Federal Anti-Gun Show Legislation Still Looms!
Additional Efforts Needed This Week to Help Kill S. 254.
ANTI-GUN CONGRESSMEN TO PROMOTE GUN CONTROL WHILE ON RECESS

from the NRA-ILA Fax Alert , Vol. 6, No. -- 8/6/99

In meeting for the first time yesterday, the congressional conference
committee assembled to resolve the differences between the House and Senate
Juvenile Justice Reform bills underscored the divisiveness among members
regarding any gun-control brought before the conference committee.

Pro-gun Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), in referring to the Lautenberg gun
show language passed earlier by the Senate said, "It can't pass. . . .
You can't have that amendment written that way," In what should come as
no surprise to NRA members, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) threatened that
a failure by House and Senate leadership to come to an agreement would
not signal an end to continued attacks on law-abiding firearms owners in
stating, "If we don't get it done [in conference], we're going to get it
done on other pieces of legislation this year."

With a full debate on this issue less than a month away, it is critical that
you call the conference committee members, as well as both your U.S. Senators
and your U.S. Representative, to ensure that no anti-gun language is included
in the final conference committee's legislation. -End NRA Fax Alert-

GOUtah! and NRA suggest you contact each of these elected officials today.
You should also ask for the dates and locations of all local 'town
meetings' these officials will be holding between now and the end of the
month. Ask your pro-gun friends and family to join you at these meetings.

Prepare a specific question ahead of time about gun control, like "What is
your position on background checks at gun shows, limiting purchases to one
gun a month, and licensing law-abiding gun owners and registering their
guns with the federal government?" Stand up and proudly ask your question
during the question and answer period. Don't settle for a non-answer. If
they dodge and weave, ask the question again and demand a clear answer.
Remember these people work for you!

Follow up your town meeting questions with a letter and a phone call. Ask
for a written response to your questions, and fax a copy of the elected
official's reply to GOUtah! at [phone] for our records. Do it today!

Sen. Orrin Hatch
Local Office: 8042 Federal Bldg.
125 South State St.
SLC, Utah 8484138-1102
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Sen. Robert Bennett
Local Office: 4225 Federal Bldg.
125 South State St.
SLC, Utah 8484138
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Rep. Jim Hansen (R)
Local Office: 324-25th Ave.
Ogden, Utah 84401
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax: [phone]

Congressional District 2: Salt Lake Metro Area

Rep. Merrill Cook (R)
Local Office: 125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84138
Utah Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Congressional District 3: Central and Eastern Utah

Rep. Chris Cannon (R)
Local Offices: 51 South University Drive
Provo, Utah 84606
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Local Media Website is a Gateway to Many TV, Radio and Newspapers for
Utah's Pro-Gun Rights Activists.

GOUtah! activist Mr. Black has indicated a website which allows fellow
pro-gun activists to directly contact many Utah TV and radio stations,
newspapers, magazines and other media outlets, and puts their editorial
pages, letters from readers and other opportunities to comment on the
gun rights cause at their fingertips.

Log on to: www.utahmedia.com

from there you can choose media website links throughout the state and
nation, including many smaller markets and publications. We suggest you
bookmark this site for extensive future use. You may also link directly
to the Utahmedia site from the GOUtah! website.

Utah Not Unique in Allowing CCW Guns in Schools

Utah has been blasted in the press and among gun control advocates as being
the only state in the nation allowing CCW permit holders to carry their
guns into schools. The actual fact is that Utah is one of 4 of the 14 states
in the Western U.S. that provides for this practice, along with Colorado,
Oregon and Washington. Further, Idaho is reportedly considering adoption of
the practice as well. There have been no verifiable reports to date of acts
of criminal violence by CCW holders at schools in any of these states. This
information has been provided to state lawmakers by the Legislature's
Research Office.

When you hear this inaccurate information being repeated in the media and
in conversation, please make sure you help set the record straight. CCW
permit holders are not the problem with violence in schools.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #26 - 11 August 1999 2/2
Date: 12 Aug 1999 17:10:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
SLC Gun Turn-in Program Doubles Their Take at
End of First Week of Operation.

The SLC Gun Turn-in and Destruction Program continues to show impressive
results, according to our contacts who are closely watching the effort. As
of the end of the first week of operation, the department was able to fully
double their take, adding a single "Dixon" firearm of unknown description
to the one BB pistol turned in earlier by an elderly widow, who reportedly
was house cleaning and discovered the relic which had belonged to her late
husband.

At the same time, only one arrest has been made related to the killing of
an unarmed man in his own home, in front of his family. The arrested
individual is reported to be one of the drivers of the killer's getaway
car. The killer of another unarmed women, also murdered in her own home
while calling 911 for help remains at large.

Utah Legislature's Administrative Rules Committee Blasts DPS/BCI Proposals
for CCW Renewal Policy.

The Administrative Rules Committee of the Utah Legislature had hash words
for DPS/BCI staff at a committee hearing on 9 August 1999 at the State
Capitol. Legislators were unimpressed by the new BCI policy which does not
provide for a mailed reminder to renew a CCW permit. Elected leaders asked
BCI staff what would happen if other state permits, obligations and fees
such as drivers licenses and state income tax forms were not sent to
citizens needing to take action on these matters.

Administrative Rules Committee members asked DPS/BCI to come back in 60
days with new language regarding their policy, including a proposed 30 day
grace period for renewals. For more information on the abusive DPS/BCI
policies, please refer to GOUtah! Alert # 18 - 7.1.99. Also see comments in
the Gun Rights QuoteWatch in this Alert.

Unfortunately, DPS/BCI has both a long history and well-earned reputation
among gun owners for setting abusive policies and providing minimal
services. These abusive policies were the primary motivation for Utah
adopting their 'shall issue' CCW laws in 1995. Only during a short two year
period, from about 1996 to 1997, under the management of Rich Townsend and
the supervision of Todd Peterson, did the DPS/BCI unit make a serious
effort to accommodate the needs of Utah gun owners and CCW permittees by
adopting a positive customer-oriented attitude. Since that time, DPS/BCI
customer services have deteriorated, fees have been raised, and other
abusive practices have been proposed or adopted. The additional authority
given to DPS/BCI during the last Legislative session will likely accelerate
this negative trend. It's time to reverse the trend and make DPS/BCI more
accountable and accessible to their customers.

GOUtah! suggests you contact each member of the Administrative Rules
Committee and request they instruct that DPS/BCI implement each of the
following points in their CCW policy. If you or someone you know have had
problems with DPS/BCI services or policy, please make sure all the members
of the Committee have full details of these abuses.

1: CCW Renewal notices must be sent by mail to each permit holder within
a window 90 to 60 days prior to expiration of their permit. This would be
a minimal effort with their automated records system now in place.

2: Adopt a formal renewal 'grace period' of 30 calendar days after expiration
of a CCW permit without any additional charge or other renewal requirements.

3: Investigate the potential of online renewal of Utah CCW permits via the
internet.

4: Allow CCW permits to be renewed on-site at any local DMV office statewide.
Have CCW renewal applications always available at all DMV offices, county
clerks offices, and other government services offices, similar to voter
registration forms.

5: Accept the same forms of payment for CCW permits and renewals that exist
for any other Utah permit or license, including personal check, credit or
debit card, and other widely-used payment methods or instruments.

Utah Legislature's Administrative Rules Committee members to contact today:

Sen. Howard Stephenson,1038 E. 13590 S., Draper, UT 84020, [phone]
Home. [phone] Office

Sen. Al Mansell, 6995 Union Park Center, #100, Midvale. Ut 84047, (801)
942-6019 Home, [phone] Office, [phone] Fax

Sen. Howard Nielson, 580 Sagewood Ave. Provo, UT 84604, [phone] Home

Sen. Mike Dmitrich, 566 N. Dover Circle, Price, UT 84501, [phone]
Home, [phone] Office, [phone] Fax

Sen. Ed Mayne, 5044 W. Bannock Cir. WVC, UT 84120, [phone] Home,
[phone] Office, [phone] Fax

Rep. David Ure, 661 S. Lambert Lane, Kamas, UT 84036, [phone] Home,
[phone] Office, [phone] Fax

Rep. Marty Stephens, 3159 N. Higley Rd. Farr West, UT 84404, [phone]
Home, [phone] Office, [phone] Fax

Rep. Judy Buffmire, 765 E. 4255 S. SLC, UT 84107, [phone] Home

Rep. James Gowans, 240 S. 200 W. Tooele, UT 84074, [phone] Home

Rep. John Swallow, 1260 E Bell View Cir., Sandy, UT 84094, [phone]
Home, [phone] Office, [phone] Fax

GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch.

"Let me say [that] passing a juvenile justice bill without closing the gun
show loophole is a dealbreaker." -- Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) commenting
on the future of S.254 in a national wire service story in the Salt Lake
Tribune. (GOUtah! thinks having S.254 die a quiet and natural death would
be just fine...)

"Maybe I was a little idealistic. We felt that if people were responsible
enough to get a concealed-carry permit, they were responsible enough to
know when to renew it." -- Joyce Carter, DPS/BCI Supervisor, as quoted in
the Salt Lake Tribune, 10 August 1999

"The timing seems suspect. The timing seems to be another attack on the
concealed gun permit." -- Sen. Howard Nielson, (R-Provo) as quoted in the
Salt Lake Tribune, 10 August 1999

"The public is at risk here in not knowing that you're not going to send
out renewal notices." -- Rep. David Ure (R-Kamas) as quoted in the Salt
Lake Tribune, 10 August 1999

"It's in the best interests of public safety for everyone who has a permit
to be notified that it's about to expire." -- Sen. Howard Stephenson
(R-Draper) as quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune, 10 August 1999

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! Alert #26-11 Aug 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: GOP Leadership Takes Aim at NRA for NOT working to stop gun control
Date: 13 Aug 1999 21:45:00 -0700


-----

The following is from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.....

RMGO Alert Members
If you are unfamiliar, Roll Call magazine is one of the most read
political publications in Washington, D.C. The following article
appeared in its latest magazine.


GOP Takes Aim at NRA
Gun Group Criticized Over Lobbying Tactics

By Jim VandeHei
ROLL CALL

The National Rifle Association is under fire for its lobbying tactics,
but, this time, the shots are coming from Republicans and other pro-gun
activists. The NRA, easily the largest and most influential gun-rights
lobby in America, has been too quick to compromise and too slow to
mobilize its troops to defeat anti-gun legislation in the House and the
Senate, GOP leadership sources and gun activists say.

As a result, several sources warned that the NRA has presented anti-gun
Democrats with the perfect opportunity to score a major political
victory next month when key Members of the House and the Senate convene
to put the finishing touches on the juvenile justice bill, which is
expected to include the first new collection of gun laws since 1994.

The NRA plans to focus most -- if not all -- of its attention on killing
a 72-hour waiting period for purchases at gun shows. But the group, which
Democrats claim is the major obstacle to gun restrictions, is willing to
allow several provisions, such as the so-called Juvenile Brady proposal,
to sail through, according to its top lobbyist, James Baker.

Baker's strategy, which reflects a belief inside the NRA that some gun
control measures will pass in the wake of recent shooting sprees, has
ticked off many pro-gun Members and activists who deplore any talk of
a compromise.

"They are not effective at all," said a senior GOP leadership source.
"Their efforts have been disorganized and mis-targeted and when they
actually fire up their grass roots, it's an effort that [has been]
less than impressive."

Another senior GOP leadership source added: "They have told us
all along that it would be fine to support Juvenile Brady and other
proposals and their membership would not care. But they did
[care], and [Republican leaders] are not happy about that."

Larry Pratt, executive director for Gun Owners of America, said he
and many other pro-gun activists are unhappy with the NRA as well.

"People want a more proactive position [from the NRA]. That's why
our membership has increased" since the June debate over gun
control, said Pratt, who estimated that thousands of former NRA
members have defected to his organization. Gun Owners of
America, he said, opposes any new gun control measures.

Baker defended the NRA's performance as reasonable and
effective. "If we had opposed everything, we would have lost
everything," he said. "We had a responsible position."

"It's easy to second-guess when you don't have three million
members and gun owners nationally you are trying to protect."

The NRA, duplicating the approach it employed during the gun
debates in June, will not oppose new trigger locks or a ban on the
possession of assault weapons by most people under the age of
18. It vehemently opposes the 72-hour waiting period idea proposed
by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and the Senate version of the
ban on the importation of ammunition clips.

While several GOP leadership sources said the NRA's position virtually
ensures that some new control measures will be enacted, Baker says a
more reasonable approach is needed in today's political climate.

It's unclear which provisions will be written into the final compromise
version of the juvenile justice conference report, which is slated for
floor action in September, but the aforementioned items are on the table.
The House-Senate conference team includes the highest-ranking members of
the Judiciary committees from both chambers.

While the juvenile justice bill is the logical home for gun control
measures, Democrats and Republicans alike also predicted a new round of
gun debates when the House and Senate conferees sit down to hammer out
the final details on spending bills. Appropriations bills, Baker said,
"have become the Christmas tree of choice" for anti-gun forces.

Ignoring the criticism, the NRA is preparing a media and lobbying
strategy to target conferees and several Democrats, such as Reps.
Bart Stupak (Mich.) and Chet Edwards (Texas), on the 72-hour
waiting period proposal.

One leadership source said, "The NRA failed by not going after
Stupak and Edwards and others who voted wrong the first time,"
but one NRA official said their time will come.

The short-term lobbying plan, according to Baker, will include direct
mail, radio ads and one-on-one pressure from the group's lobbying
team when Members return from the August recess. Baker refused to
say how much money the NRA is willing to spend on its new campaign.

It will focus on conferees initially, but the NRA also has its eyes
trained on Members like Stupak who they feel voted the wrong way
on gun control the first time around.

In 1998, according to records filed under the Lobbying Disclosure
Act, the NRA spent $2.25 million on lobbying. The NRA has 10
in-house lobbyists working Members on Capitol Hill and has six
lobbying firms on retainer. Lobbyist Mark Barnes, whom the NRA
paid $360,000 in 1998, and the firm Timmons and Company, Inc.
($300,000) do most of the outside work for the organization.

Other pro-gun groups plan to lobby as well, but they lack the clout
and resources the NRA can bring to the table.

Pratt's group, which spent less than $150,000 on lobbying last
year, is considered the most aggressive pro-gun lobbying
organization. "Gun Owners [of America] is much smaller, but much
more active. They moved quickly and we heard from their people,"
said one leadership source close to the issue.

John Snyder of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms says his organization spends nominal money directly
lobbying Members, but he insisted its network of members can
exert pressure from the outside far more effectively.

"The real power of the gun lobby is so many ... people own guns.
That's the most significant respect of the gun lobby per se," he
said. "So we're informing our members and supporters around the
country and encouraging them to visit their Congressmen."

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
PO Box 3114
Denver, Colorado  80201
[phone] Fax [phone]
Colorado's largest pro-gun lobby
http://www.rmgo.org
[e-mail]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Australia Crime Increases After Guns Are Confiscated
Date: 13 Aug 1999 21:45:00 -0700


Australia Crime Increases After Guns Are Confiscated
Orange County Register
Letters to the Editor Section
8/4/99:

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were
forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed,
a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars.

And now the results are in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2
percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-
wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent). In the
state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms (changed drastically in the past 12
months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how
no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental
effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of
guns." Bet you won't see this data on the evening news or hear your
governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this
information. It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of
honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws
only affect the law-abiding citizens. Take note, Californians,
before it's too late!

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

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

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

"In any nation in which people's rights have been subordinated to the
rights of the few,  in any totalitarian nation, the first institution
to be dismantled is the jury. I was, I am, afraid."

--Gerry Spence



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Fewer guns, more crime?
Date: 13 Aug 1999 21:45:00 -0700


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19990812_xex_fewer_guns_m.shtml

Fewer guns, more crime?
Firearms rights defended in Los Angeles shooting aftermath

By Stephan Archer
(c) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

In the wake of another multiple victim public shooting,
some are calling on American gun owners to stand up for
their constitutional right, even as legislators across the
nation are drafting new gun restrictions and questioning
the wisdom of the Second Amendment.

Three children and two adults were injured Tuesday when a
gunman, carrying a 9mm Uzi, opened fire at the North Valley
Jewish Community Center in the Los Angeles suburb of Granada
Hills. The suspect, Buford Oneal Furrow, was apprehended
yesterday by police in Las Vegas after he had fled across
the California desert in taxicabs.

Although disturbed by the horror that took place at the
Jewish community center, Aaron Zelman of Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership told WorldNetDaily
that all law-abiding Americans who own guns need to stand
together to make sure that their right to bear arms remains
protected.

"It's time for the American gun owners -- Jewish and
non-Jewish alike -- to take a stand together, shoulder to
shoulder, and tell the 'victim disarmament' crowd that the
blood is on their hands for what happened (in Los Angeles),"
said Zelman. "The blood is on their hands every time one
of these shootings takes place."

Zelman believes that the nation's "victim disarmament"
policies will eventually lead to a police state in the
U.S. This police state, Zelman explains, will, in turn,
lead to an overabundant flow of illegal and unregistered
machine guns supplied by organized crime.

Zelman spoke very critically of what he calls the liberal
Jewish community and its support of gun control programs.
According to Zelman, about 96% of the Jewish community as
a whole supports gun restrictions of one form or another,
and this overwhelming support, Zelman concludes, is a sign
of ignorance.

"Liberal Jews don't have the intelligence to see beyond
their nose and see what they're doing," Zelman said. "Time
and time again, liberal Jews have done the same stupid
thing, that is, get into bed with an evil government
thinking that they will be exempt -- thinking that going
along to get along and promoting evil policies somehow
will be better for Jews or anybody else."

"The liberal Jewish agenda in this country is just part of
the socialist agenda," continued Zelman, "and that is, to
disarm the American people -- have victim disarmament --
and be able to control people totally because they won't be
able to fight back against the police state. That's what
the Anti-Defamation League crowd wants to bring about."

When Zelman was asked about whether or not he considered
the shooting a "hate crime," he responded by saying that
he thought the whole "hate crime" terminology was absurd.

"A hate crime is whatever the government wants it to be so
they can divide people -- us against them," said Zelman.
"What they're doing is they're trying to psych people up
into saying yes. If you say no, than they're going to
accuse you of being anti-Semitic.

Zelman added he believes the classification of criminal
firearm misuse as a hate crime forces the nation to walk
on some "dangerously thin ice."

But are stricter gun laws the only answer for a nation
that has more than 190 million guns?

On Tuesday evening's edition of ABC News Nightline, Ted
Koppel interviewed Gary Greer, the deputy chief of police
for Vancouver, Canada. WorldNetDaily also contacted Greer,
who told the newspaper that he was asked onto the ABC show
to discuss the differing levels of violence from firearms
between Canada and the United States.

"You just can't get guns here like you can in the United
States," Greer said.

"It's not only difficult to buy a gun, you have to go
through a fairly rigorous thing to have a gun."

Indeed, in Canada, a person can't own a handgun unless
he or she is a member of a "bona fide" target club. Even
if they are allowed to own a gun, it has to be dismantled
when it is in the house, and the gun can only be
transported between the target club range and the home.

A prospective gun buyer in Canada is also subjected to
a 28-day waiting period during which a background check
of personally selected references takes place. Once the
gun buyer has gone through the process and purchases a
firearm, the new gun owner is subjected to a silent
computer check every 24 hours to make sure no laws
were broken, indicating a misuse of the firearm.

In Canada, "the people's right to bear arms" is not
recognized by the government. It's a privilege similar
to that of a driver's license.

"From our point of view within Canada, the concept of
having a gun to protect oneself isn't a reason (to own
a gun), where I think in the United States, people are
believing that they need to have a firearm to protect
themselves," Greer said.

John Lott, a law professor at Yale University who
specializes in Second Amendment issues, disagrees with
Greer, and believes that the ability of the people to
protect themselves with a firearm is a fundamental right.

"The safest course of action by far for someone to take
when confronted by a criminal -- whether the criminal's
armed or not armed -- is to have a gun yourself, and it's
dangerous to go and tell people that they should behave
passively," Lott said.

Lott explained that women who behave passively when
confronted by a criminal are 2.5 times more likely to be
injured while men who passively behave when confronted
by a criminal are 1.4 times more likely to be injured.

"What happens is you leave people out to be sitting ducks,"
Lott said. "You make it so that they're not able to defend
themselves, and it encourages people to engage in these
kinds of attacks."

Lott said that although Canada claims to have fewer gun-
related homicides, the claim isn't quite accurate. In the
northern border states, Lott said, the murder rate is
actually lower than in Canada even though the northern
border states tend to have the highest rate of citizen
gun ownership in the country.

"If you look across the United States, those states with
the highest gun ownership rates tend to have the lowest
murder rates and lowest violent crime rates across the
board," said Lott, "and probably more importantly, those
states that have had the biggest increases in gun ownership
have had the biggest relative drops in violent crime."


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: ALERT: Aaron Zelman and Rabbi Mermelstein on the radio
Date: 13 Aug 1999 21:45:00 -0700


-----
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 1:46 PM

ALERT from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
Thursday, August 12, 1999

Aaron Zelman and Rabbi Mermelstein on the radio.

Aaron Zelman will be on the Don Dayl show on Phoenix, Arizona
radio station KFYI Saturday August 14th at 7:00 PM CDT. The
show is also carried over the Internet at http://www.kfyi.com/
Aaron will also be on Tom Gresham's "Gun Talk" radio show,
which is carried nationally. The time is 2:00 PM CDT, the
date is Sunday August 15. You can also listen to the show
over the Internet via URL http://www.guntalk.com/listen.htm
Rabbi Mermelstein will appear on an Internet broadcast show
Friday August 13 at 9:00 AM CDT. The URL is http://www.FBGC.com/
The topic will be Wednesday's JPFO e-mail alert.
Anyone with a sound card and an Internet connection can listen
to the Internet broadcasts.

This Alert from the Liberty Crew at JPFO.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
http://www.jpfo.org/
To subscribe to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:
[e-mail]
Respond to the confirmation message you will get back.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: ALERT: Feinstein Gun Poll
Date: 13 Aug 1999 21:45:00 -0700


-----
Sen. Feinstein's Webpage has a poll obviously seeking support for
more gun control. Let her know what you think.

http://www.senate.gov/member/ca/feinstein/general/survey.html


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Gun Rights Rally
Date: 16 Aug 1999 23:01:59 -0600


>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:28:04 -0700
>To: [e-mail]
>From: "Dr. Ken Larsen" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Gun Rights Rally
>
>I am suing for my right to keep and bear arms (RKBA).  All RKBA supporters
>are invited to attend the press conference Wednesday, August 18th at 10:00
>a.m. in front of the Federal Court house at 350 South Main (not the new
>Matheson Courthouse).
>
>Also, if you are willing, please repost this widely.  Those who are
>inclined are invited to call talk radio tomorrow (Tuesday) and announce
>this gun-rights rally.  Let's show the media I'm not standing alone for
>RKBA.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ken
>
>*****************
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>& Request for Coverage
>CONTACT: Dr. Ken Larsen
>at 533-8658
>
>Mayoral Candidate Sues Government Over Right To Keep and Bear Arms
>
>SALT LAKE CITY (August 16, 1999) -- While other mayoral candidates debate
>the details of gun control, Candidate Dr. Ken Larsen is suing for his
>Constitutional right to keep and bear arms after his attempt to purchase a
>handgun was refused.
>
>Dr. Larsen will be on the east steps of the U.S. District Court House, 350
>S. Main Street, at 10 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 18, to address the media and
>respond to questions. Then, he will file a civil rights lawsuit against the
>city, county, state and federal governments in Federal Court.
>
>Dr. Larsen visited Capitol Jewelry and Loan on Monday, Aug. 16, to pay cash
>for a handgun without surrendering any personal information. He was
>informed that he could not buy a gun without waiting for an FBI background
>check and giving his name, address, birthdate, Social Security number, sex,
>height, weight, eye color, hair color and two forms of identification.
>
>"This requirement violates my Fourth Amendment right to be secure in my
>personal papers. It makes gun ownership a government privilege, rather than
>an inalienable right," Larsen said.
>
>The Utah State Constitution begins with, "All men have the inherent and
>inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties."  It
>further states that "The individual right of the people to keep and bear
>arms for security and defense . . . shall not be infringed; . . ."
>
>"Just what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't they understand?" Larsen
>asked. "The Constitution is what We, the People, established, not what
>they, the government, say it is. Now is the time for us, the people, to
>take back our Constitutional civil rights."
>
>"If I had a piece of cloth with fringe on the edges, how much of the fringe
>could you trim without cutting the fringe?" Larsen asked. "Furthermore, how
>much of my right to keep and bear arms can you infringe without infringing
>my right to keep and bear arms?"
>
>Speaking of the government, Larsen said, "They punish us for violating
>their laws so I am asking a jury to punish them for violating our
>Constitution.  I will sue for $100, attorney's fees and whatever punitive
>damages the jury decides."
>
>"No government official can advocate any form of gun control without first
>proposing a constitutional amendment," Larsen said. "Otherwise she/he is
>violating his/her oath of office and should be removed and forever banned
>from government service."
>
>For further information, contact Dr. Ken Larsen at 533-8658, or attend the
>press conference on the east steps of the U.S. District Court House, 350 S.
>Main Street, 10 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 18.


-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Gun Rights Rally
Date: 17 Aug 1999 13:59:33 -0600

I sincerely wish Dr. Larsen the greatest success in this endeavor.
However, for all of our sakes I hope and pray he has both the good sense,
finacial reserves, and other resources to mount a serious, credible case
with EXTREMELY competant and top notch professional legal
counsel--someone of the caliber of Gerry Spence or David Hardy at least.


The last thing any of us need is for a hostile judiciary to be able to
easily set an anti-individual-RKBA precedent--and a hostile media to have
that precedent to trumpet about--because the "pro"-gun side failed to
mount a credible and serious case.  "Miller" should and could have been a
slam dunk for the pro-RKBA side--an end to gun control acts of
prohibition and another safety wedge against the gun control of the 60's
to today.  However, Miller's failure to appear at the Supreme Court
allowed the anti-gun government to offer lies and falsehoods unchallenged
and we ended up with a ruling that appears, too easily to the masses, as
a loss for our side.

This case is too important and has the potential to adversely affect too
many of us too directly for anyone to show up in a tinkerbell hemp
goddess outfit, a Brigham Young costume, to start babbling about fringe
on the courtroom flag, U.N. conspiracies, insist on representing himself,
or otherwise do or say anything that looks or sounds crazy or easily
discounted.  In this day and age, unfortunately, simply asserting that a
person has the right to buy, own, and carry guns without asking for
governmental permission or providing ID makes a person sound crazy and
radical all by itself.  Anyone making such claims had better, IMHO,
appear, act, and be 110% sane, credible, and down-to-earth in EVERY other
regard--at least until after the case is won.  He better have not only
absolutely irrefutable case law, constitutional intent, and modern
studies, but also present those data in a completely credible and
compelling manner.

My $.02 worth.

On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:01:59 -0600 "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
writes:
>
> >X-Sender: [e-mail]
> >Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:28:04 -0700
> >To: [e-mail]
> >From: "Dr. Ken Larsen" <[e-mail]>
> >Subject: Gun Rights Rally
> >
> >I am suing for my right to keep and bear arms (RKBA).  All RKBA
> supporters
> >are invited to attend the press conference Wednesday, August 18th
> at 10:00
> >a.m. in front of the Federal Court house at 350 South Main (not the
> new
> >Matheson Courthouse).
> >
> >Also, if you are willing, please repost this widely.  Those who are
> >inclined are invited to call talk radio tomorrow (Tuesday) and
> announce
> >this gun-rights rally.  Let's show the media I'm not standing alone
> for
> >RKBA.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Ken
> >
> >*****************
> >
> >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> >& Request for Coverage
> >CONTACT: Dr. Ken Larsen
> >at 533-8658
> >
> >Mayoral Candidate Sues Government Over Right To Keep and Bear Arms
> >
> >SALT LAKE CITY (August 16, 1999) -- While other mayoral candidates
> debate
> >the details of gun control, Candidate Dr. Ken Larsen is suing for
> his
> >Constitutional right to keep and bear arms after his attempt to
> purchase a
> >handgun was refused.
> >
> >Dr. Larsen will be on the east steps of the U.S. District Court
> House, 350
> >S. Main Street, at 10 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 18, to address the media
> and
> >respond to questions. Then, he will file a civil rights lawsuit
> against the
> >city, county, state and federal governments in Federal Court.
> >
> >Dr. Larsen visited Capitol Jewelry and Loan on Monday, Aug. 16, to
> pay cash
> >for a handgun without surrendering any personal information. He was
> >informed that he could not buy a gun without waiting for an FBI
> background
> >check and giving his name, address, birthdate, Social Security
> number, sex,
> >height, weight, eye color, hair color and two forms of
> identification.
> >
> >"This requirement violates my Fourth Amendment right to be secure
> in my
> >personal papers. It makes gun ownership a government privilege,
> rather than
> >an inalienable right," Larsen said.
> >
> >The Utah State Constitution begins with, "All men have the inherent
> and
> >inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties."
> It
> >further states that "The individual right of the people to keep and
> bear
> >arms for security and defense . . . shall not be infringed; . . ."
> >
> >"Just what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't they understand?"
> Larsen
> >asked. "The Constitution is what We, the People, established, not
> what
> >they, the government, say it is. Now is the time for us, the
> people, to
> >take back our Constitutional civil rights."
> >
> >"If I had a piece of cloth with fringe on the edges, how much of
> the fringe
> >could you trim without cutting the fringe?" Larsen asked.
> "Furthermore, how
> >much of my right to keep and bear arms can you infringe without
> infringing
> >my right to keep and bear arms?"
> >
> >Speaking of the government, Larsen said, "They punish us for
> violating
> >their laws so I am asking a jury to punish them for violating our
> >Constitution.  I will sue for $100, attorney's fees and whatever
> punitive
> >damages the jury decides."
> >
> >"No government official can advocate any form of gun control
> without first
> >proposing a constitutional amendment," Larsen said. "Otherwise
> she/he is
> >violating his/her oath of office and should be removed and forever
> banned
> >from government service."
> >
> >For further information, contact Dr. Ken Larsen at 533-8658, or
> attend the
> >press conference on the east steps of the U.S. District Court
> House, 350 S.
> >Main Street, 10 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 18.
>
>
> -
>

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

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

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Gun Rights Rally
Date: 17 Aug 1999 14:39:45 -0600

Ken was bcc'ed the same post that went to utah-firearms.

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:13:03 -0600 "Leo Huber" <[e-mail]>
writes:
> Maybe you should send your remarks to Dr. Larsen Also!
> I intend to be there, if only to support Our 'right to keep and bear
> arms'
>
>
> Leo R Huber
> Satellite Engineer
> Utah State University
> Http://cc.usu.edu/~fahuber/index.html
> [e-mail]
> [e-mail]
> Gun Control is NOT Crime Control!!!
>
> >>> charles hardy <[e-mail]> 08/17/99 01:59PM >>>
> I sincerely wish Dr. Larsen the greatest success in this endeavor.
> However, for all of our sakes I hope and pray he has both the good
> sense,
> finacial reserves, and other resources to mount a serious, credible
> case
> with EXTREMELY competant and top notch professional legal
> counsel--someone of the caliber of Gerry Spence or David Hardy at
> least.
>
>
> The last thing any of us need is for a hostile judiciary to be able
> to
> easily set an anti-individual-RKBA precedent--and a hostile media to
> have
> that precedent to trumpet about--because the "pro"-gun side failed
> to
> mount a credible and serious case.  "Miller" should and could have
> been a
> slam dunk for the pro-RKBA side--an end to gun control acts of
> prohibition and another safety wedge against the gun control of the
> 60's
> to today.  However, Miller's failure to appear at the Supreme Court
> allowed the anti-gun government to offer lies and falsehoods
> unchallenged
> and we ended up with a ruling that appears, too easily to the
> masses,
> as
> a loss for our side.
>
> This case is too important and has the potential to adversely affect
> too
> many of us too directly for anyone to show up in a tinkerbell hemp
> goddess outfit, a Brigham Young costume, to start babbling about
> fringe
> on the courtroom flag, U.N. conspiracies, insist on representing
> himself,
> or otherwise do or say anything that looks or sounds crazy or easily
> discounted.  In this day and age, unfortunately, simply asserting
> that a
> person has the right to buy, own, and carry guns without asking for
> governmental permission or providing ID makes a person sound crazy
> and
> radical all by itself.  Anyone making such claims had better, IMHO,
> appear, act, and be 110% sane, credible, and down-to-earth in EVERY
> other
> regard--at least until after the case is won.  He better have not
> only
> absolutely irrefutable case law, constitutional intent, and modern
> studies, but also present those data in a completely credible and
> compelling manner.
>
> My $.02 worth.
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 23:01:59 -0600 "S. Thompson"
> <[e-mail]>
> writes:
> >
> > >X-Sender: [e-mail]
> > >Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 22:28:04 -0700
> > >To: [e-mail]
> > >From: "Dr. Ken Larsen" <[e-mail]>
> > >Subject: Gun Rights Rally
> > >
> > >I am suing for my right to keep and bear arms (RKBA).  All RKBA
> > supporters
> > >are invited to attend the press conference Wednesday, August 18th
>
> > at 10:00
> > >a.m. in front of the Federal Court house at 350 South Main (not
> the
> > new
> > >Matheson Courthouse).
> > >
> > >Also, if you are willing, please repost this widely.  Those who
> are
> > >inclined are invited to call talk radio tomorrow (Tuesday) and
> > announce
> > >this gun-rights rally.  Let's show the media I'm not standing
> alone
> > for
> > >RKBA.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Ken
> > >
> > >*****************
> > >
> > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> > >& Request for Coverage
> > >CONTACT: Dr. Ken Larsen
> > >at 533-8658
> > >
> > >Mayoral Candidate Sues Government Over Right To Keep and Bear
> Arms
> > >
> > >SALT LAKE CITY (August 16, 1999) -- While other mayoral
> candidates
>
> > debate
> > >the details of gun control, Candidate Dr. Ken Larsen is suing for
>
> > his
> > >Constitutional right to keep and bear arms after his attempt to
> > purchase a
> > >handgun was refused.
> > >
> > >Dr. Larsen will be on the east steps of the U.S. District Court
> > House, 350
> > >S. Main Street, at 10 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 18, to address the
> media
> > and
> > >respond to questions. Then, he will file a civil rights lawsuit
> > against the
> > >city, county, state and federal governments in Federal Court.
> > >
> > >Dr. Larsen visited Capitol Jewelry and Loan on Monday, Aug. 16,
> to
>
> > pay cash
> > >for a handgun without surrendering any personal information. He
> was
> > >informed that he could not buy a gun without waiting for an FBI
> > background
> > >check and giving his name, address, birthdate, Social Security
> > number, sex,
> > >height, weight, eye color, hair color and two forms of
> > identification.
> > >
> > >"This requirement violates my Fourth Amendment right to be secure
>
> > in my
> > >personal papers. It makes gun ownership a government privilege,
> > rather than
> > >an inalienable right," Larsen said.
> > >
> > >The Utah State Constitution begins with, "All men have the
> inherent
> > and
> > >inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties."
>
>
> > It
> > >further states that "The individual right of the people to keep
> and
> > bear
> > >arms for security and defense . . . shall not be infringed; . .
> ."
> > >
> > >"Just what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't they
> understand?"
> > Larsen
> > >asked. "The Constitution is what We, the People, established, not
>
> > what
> > >they, the government, say it is. Now is the time for us, the
> > people, to
> > >take back our Constitutional civil rights."
> > >
> > >"If I had a piece of cloth with fringe on the edges, how much of
> > the fringe
> > >could you trim without cutting the fringe?" Larsen asked.
> > "Furthermore, how
> > >much of my right to keep and bear arms can you infringe without
> > infringing
> > >my right to keep and bear arms?"
> > >
> > >Speaking of the government, Larsen said, "They punish us for
> > violating
> > >their laws so I am asking a jury to punish them for violating our
> > >Constitution.  I will sue for $100, attorney's fees and whatever
> > punitive
> > >damages the jury decides."
> > >
> > >"No government official can advocate any form of gun control
> > without first
> > >proposing a constitutional amendment," Larsen said. "Otherwise
> > she/he is
> > >violating his/her oath of office and should be removed and
> forever
>
> > banned
> > >from government service."
> > >
> > >For further information, contact Dr. Ken Larsen at 533-8658, or
> > attend the
> > >press conference on the east steps of the U.S. District Court
> > House, 350 S.
> > >Main Street, 10 a.m. Wednesday, Aug. 18.
> >
> >
> > -
> >
>
> ==================================================================
> 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.
>
> -
>

==================================================================
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: [2ndamendmentnews] Congress Ignores Facts in Gun Grab Bill
Date: 17 Aug 1999 15:08:00 -0700


-----

CONGRESSMEN & SENATORS ARE NOW HOME

Professor Lott and 290 scholars from institutions as diverse as Harvard,
Stanford, and Northwestern have informed Congress that gun laws make
matters worse. But Congress will not hear until they feel the heat.
It's up to you and your friends to turn up the heat while Congress is
home during the August recess. Call your Congressman and Senators, and
the offices of the so-called Republican leaders, and complain. Defeat
the anti-gun provisions including the "registration" of sales in the
Juvenile Justice Bill.

You can call your representatives at the toll-free number 888-449-3511.
You can also call them using the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
Here's an e-Mail Link To Congress. http://in-search-of.org/
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html
For the latest happening at NRA go to http://www.2ndamendment.net
For legislative updates contact http://www.nealknox.com and go to
"Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line"


More Gun Controls? They haven't worked in the Past.

By John R. Lott

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet with no academic evidence that gun regulations prevent crime,
and plenty of indications that they actually encourage it, we
nonetheless are now debating which new gun control laws to pass.
With that in mind, 290 scholars from institutions as diverse as
Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, and UCLA released an open letter
to Congress yesterday [Wednesday June 16] stating that the proposed
new gun laws are ill-advised: "With the 20,000 gun laws already on
the books, we advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to
investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed
to the problem we currently face."

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


Mr. Lott, a fellow in law and economics at the University of Chicago
Law School, is author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of
Chicago Press, 1998).


The way to protect your own rights is to protect the rights of others.
Our right to own and use firearms is under attack. This list was created
in a hurry due to the emergency presented by anti-gun politicians and
the media dancing in the blood of those who died in the Colorado massacre.

To subscribe please send a reply to [e-mail] or [e-mail]

Cordially Yours,
The 2ndAmendmentNews Team

2ndAmendmentNews is published by volunteer activists who support the
full original individual rights intent of the 2nd Amendment and oppose
any appeasement on gun rights. The moderators include Chris Behanna,
Weldon Clark (an NRA director) and Steve Cicero.

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. -- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia
State House, August 1, 1776.




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: FYI - "Reasonable" gun control
Date: 17 Aug 1999 11:50:00 -0700


-----

Keep in mind that whenever gun-grabbers say, "Let's be reasonable," the
first victim is reason itself which is quickly replaced by their paranoid
phobias and, as the following points out, lies.

Excellent article with some good talking points and valuable information.
--------------------------

Independence Institute Feature Syndicate Opinion-Editorial

"REASONABLE" GUN-CONTROL: AN OXYMORON

On July 29, 1999, Mark Barton, armed with 2 handguns, went on a shooting
rampage at two Atlanta brokerage firms. When the shooting stopped, 10-people
lay dead, including Morrow from self-inflicted wounds. Thirteen more lay
wounded.  Earlier that morning, Barton bludgeoned his wife and two children
to death with a hammer.

On July 31, the Los Angeles Times reported that, "Against the backdrop of
the latest horrific killings to transfix the nation, Congress broke a
months-long logjam and took a step toward passing gun control legislation
before children return to school this fall".

Less than 2 weeks later, Buford Furrow, a neo-Nazi sympathizer "with racist
views and a nasty temper", shot up a Los Angeles Jewish community center,
wounding 3 children and 2 adults.  President Clinton called for the
tightening of gun restrictions.

An all-too-familiar story, with a wholly predictable response: new,
"reasonable" gun-control laws needed, "for the children".

We are told by Bill Clinton that "every day in America, 13 children are
killed by guns".  It's virtually the same claim made repeatedly by other
politicians, and by groups advocating firearm-prohibition like Cease Fire.
And the sense of urgency to enact new legislation, calculated to result from
such a sound bite, is almost irresistible.

But the claim is bogus. The source cited by Cease Fire is the National
Center for Health Statistics.  Anyone who bothers to check the figures will
quickly find that claims like "13 children are killed each day by guns" are
true only if one counts 20-year old armed robbers shot by the police, and
19-year old drug dealers shot by rivals, as "children".  For those taken in
by the vision of babies, toddlers and pre-teens caught in the crossfire, the
scam worked as expected.

If gun-control laws are so "reasonable", why the need to deceive Americans
in order to win support for them?

We are told that "reasonable" trigger-lock laws are the cure for firearm
accidents and gun thefts.  What we are not told is that, in 1994, fatal gun
accidents reached the lowest annual level since record-keeping began in
1903. They dropped again in 1995, lower still in 1996, and even lower,
again, in 1997.

In 1997, with an estimated 240 million guns in America, there were 22 fatal
gun accidents among children aged 0-5. More children under the age of 5 die
from drowning in buckets than die from gun accidents.

Trigger-locks won't stop 10-year olds, much less 20-year old "children" or
determined criminals.  So just who is the target of these "reasonable" gun
laws, and what's their real purpose?  Why is it "reasonable" to mandate
trigger-lock use when there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest they'll
perform as billed?

How "reasonable" is it to destroy what's left of our Constitution - for how
else could trigger-lock use be enforced, other than by house-to-house
searches?

Every year, guns are used to thwart criminal attack 2.5 million times, or
more.. But every manufacturer of trigger-lock devices warns against using
them on a loaded gun.  To defend against an attacking intruder requires
locating the key for the lock, unlocking the gun, then loading it - all
before it can be used in defense of one's family.  That's not firearm safety
- that's costing lives by removing guns from the realm of self-defense.

Rather than saving lives, could it be that trigger-lock laws are intended,
instead, to condition Americans into believing that firearms aren't
acceptable for self-defense, or worth the bother?

We are told we need "reasonable" legislation to close the "gun-show
loophole" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  But how "reasonable"
is it to pass new laws, when previous ones go ignored and unenforced?  Case
in point - the Clinton Administration's track record on prosecution for
violation of existing firearm laws:

* Federal prosecution of felons who used guns in the commission of a crime
dropped 47% since Bill Clinton took office.

* Of 6,000 students caught at school with guns in the past 2 years, the
Clinton administration prosecuted only 13.

* During the last 2 years, the Clinton administration prosecuted only 11
juveniles for illegal possession of handguns, 11 persons for illegally
transferring handguns to juveniles, and 37 persons for illegally
providing firearms to felons.

How "reasonable" is it to premise public policy on fraud and deceit? And
just how "reasonable" is it to entrust the lives of our families to those
who play politics with them, all the while playing the game of victim
disarmament?

Paul Gallant is a dentist, and a Research Associate with the Independence
Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden, http://i2i.org.


-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Gun Rights Rally
Date: 17 Aug 1999 18:07:43 -0600

On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:17:24 -0700 "Dr. Ken Larsen" <[e-mail]>
writes:

> Dear Charlie,

Dr. Larsen,

On this side of the Atlantic that form of Charles is not only far too
familar a way to address someone to whom you've never even been
introduced, it is also generally viewed as at least somewhat
condensending when used to address someone who does not refer to
themselves in that manner.  I have given you the respect of your degree.
I'll ask that you offer the respect of civilized society and address me
as either "Mr. Hardy," or simply "Charles," unless you can speak and type
with a Scottish brogue in which case "Charlie" will be acceptable to me.

>
> Two men were standing together in their fox hole.  The first was
> busy
> repairing a beautiful rifle.  The second had only a rusty old
> single-shot
> pistol.  The enemy charged and the man with the rifle was killed in
> his
> hole while getting ready.  The other man came out of his hole,
> screamed
> with enthusiasm and killed an enemy.  He wounded two others with his
> pocket
> knife before finally dying.  Would you have him wait and die with
> his buddy
> because he was insufficiently armed for the battle?

You write a good story.  Unfortunatly, it is a poor analogy to the
situation at hand.  Let me offer a better one.

An entire army is quietly and steadily moving into position for a
surprise attack on the enemy.  Everyone is dutifully doing his part.  Not
all of those parts are glamorous.  Infantry is making ready their rifles.
 Cooks are making sure everyone is well fed.  Medics are preparing for
the inevitable casulties.  Mechanics are tuning up jeeps, tanks, and
planes.  Pilots sit in briefing rooms going over flight plans.  Hundreds
of miles behind the lines non-combatants are making countless sacrifices
to support the army at the front.  Suddenly, a lone sodier gets a hero
complex and takes it upon himself to single-handedly charge the enemy
positions.

Not only does he not inflict any damage whatsoever, he is captured.  On
his person the enemy find detailed notes of radio frequencies and call
signs used, code books, lists of the various units assembled for battle
along with their strengths and weaknesses, maps of current camps, mine
fields, and escape routes, and finally detailed plans of how the upcoming
battle will be waged.   The enemy makes use of this information and
easily defeats the army before they every launch the attach and
ultimately the enemy conquers the entire nation.

Would you or any other sane, thinking person call the lone soldier a
"hero" or speak of his "selfless sacrifice?"  Of course not.  At best
you'd consider him a grossly misguided fool; at worst a traitor to his
army and nation.

Our judicial system is, for better or worse, greatly influenced and even
bound to some degree by precedence.  If you wage a weak fight and allow a
bad precedent to be set you don't do any harm to yourself but you do a
great harm to the cause.  In fact, I don't see that you have any heroic
risk at all here.  You've not gone out and commited an act of "civil
disobediance" by sawing off a shotgun or converting a rifle to full-auto
in defiance of current law.  You're no marytr.  Not even a potential
marytr at this point.  You face nothing worse than possibly paying some
government attorney fees for wasting their time with bad arguments.  You
can, however, potentially, raise the bar even higher for those future
suits that might otherwise stand a chance of doing some good.

You showed guts and leadership when you got the anti-cruising ticket.
Fight and win that case before handing the enemy such an easy victory.
The evil is sufficient for the day.  Wage one battle at a time.  Wage it
well.  Win.  Then and only then move on.

> If you think
> anything
> about my person should be relevant to my case, then nobody can fight
> for
> freedom because we are all flawed.  Would you tell a fellow Minute
> Man to
> go home because his sling shot was inferior to your rifle?  Or would
> you
> welcome everyone to the battle?  This is not about professional
> warfare.
> It's about ordinary people like me with all their quirks and
> weaknesses
> just having enough and throwing whatever they have at the enemy,
> rather
> than suffer another minute of tyranny.

Judges (and juries if you get that far) are human.  A lot about your
person is, implicitly, relevant to the case.  It may not be right, but it
is the way it is.  Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows it.   No
defense attorney allows his client to stand trial for murder while
wearing the clothes in which he was arrested.  Suits and ties and clean
hair cuts all around.  Rants and raves and bad anologies and quotes from
the founding fathers (acurate as they may be) are not going to cut it in
today's courtroom.  By and large the judiciary is hostile to guns to
start with.  If you want to do more good than harm, you must go in wisely
and with every advantage rather than going off half-cocked like our lone
soldier above.

>
> I will win for the same reason that Gideon won.  God reduced
> Gideon's
> forces to show that no human could have done what Gideon did without
> the
> help of God.

Ironic that you would ask me if I wouldn't welcom everyone to battle in
and then 3 sentences later mention Gideon.  Gideon, at the command of God
did not welcome everyone to battle.  He only welcomed those who
demostrated, via the tests God prescribed, they would be an asset rather
than a detriment.  Who would argue that our army above would not have
been infinately better off if the would be hero had not stayed home?

>God will show that even Ken Larsen can strike a blow
> for
> freedom, so nobody else needs to hold back because of personal
> failings or
> inadequate legal assistance.

Are you hereby claiming to have received direct revelation from God on
this point directing you to your present course of action?  If so, I'll
not offer another word of protest or concern.  If not, I believe it may
be time to exam your personal interpretations, feelings, faith, and ego
and make sure that one or more of them are not guiding you astray this
time.

> If I can enter this battle, even you,
> Charles, can participate.

The cooks and mechanics and supporting civilans did far more good by
abiding their station than did the single would-be hero who choose to
"enter the battle" inprudently.

Sad that I should feel compelled to remind a Dr. to "First, do no harm."

>
> Ken
>
> PS  Please come to the rally if you can, even though you will be
> wearing a
> bag over your head.

I do not make a habit of going places where I would be so ashamed as to
have to disguise myself.  If I were to attend (and I won't be) I'd not
hide my appearance.  But thanks for the invite.

And for my sake even more than for yours, I do wish you success.

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

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

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Gun Rights Rally
Date: 18 Aug 1999 11:31:36 -0600

On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 00:03:48 -0700 "Dr. Ken Larsen" <[e-mail]>
writes:
> Believe me, Mr. Charles Hardy, no offense was intended.  Although
> "Dr." is
> on my official address, you will see that I always sign as "Ken."
> It never
> occurred to me that such familiarity would be offensive.  Consider
> yourself
> the recipient of whatever proper respect is expected.  If I wanted
> to
> offend, I would never consider calling you "Charlie."  I would use
> some
> less friendly term, such as "Asshole."

Thank you.

> Show me that army and I will instantly join.  Are you suggesting
> it's the
> NRA, the LP, or some other such group?

Not the NRA for sure.  They've helped write more unconstitutional gun
laws than HCI.  The LP has the correct principles on the issue, but isn't
really in much of a position to influence yet.  However, JPFO, GOA,
GOUtah, and WAGC are all working to turn the tide of  legislation and/or
public beliefs which have allowed the bad legislations.  The growing
conservative movement within the Utah GOP is also making strides.
Nationally I believe there is even a group known as Democrats for the 2nd
Amnd.  There are also countless individuals who work to persuade friends,
family, and co-workers of correct principles in this area.  Many make a
point to take some number of non-shooters out to the range each year,
exposing them to guns, shooting, and dispelling, one-on-one, media myths.
 There are also some very compentent lawyers who work on well-thought out
challenges.  Locally David Harmer did great work in the Texas case where
the federal judge ruled in favor of individual right.  Sherrif Mack who
won against certain aspects of Brady is running for office in Utah county
and could surely use campaign assistance.  You are running for mayor.
Natinally, Gerry Spence and David Hardy have done tremendous legal work,
while John Lott and others have done serious and credible academic work.

All of these organizations and individual actions help to further freedom
without giving our enemies an easy open door to get favorable court
rulings and precedencts set.  They don't do it as some kind of cheap
side-show campaign stunt.  They do it with thoughtfullness and
intelligence.  Most of the work isn't nearly as glamorous as charging
single handed into battle.  It is not at all exciting attending mass
meetings, county and state conventions, calling legislators, manning
booths at gun shows, donating time or money to help a good person get
elected or to help a well-conceived court challenge to move forward,
doing serious, credible, peer-reviewable studies in econimics,
statistics, or medicine, or even taking a gun-phobic friend shooting.
There is your army.  Feel free to jump on board.  There is no single
silver bullet I'm afraid.  It will take a lot of work on a lot of fronts.
 Legal challenges are one part of that.  But they must be good, solid
challanges if they are to do more good than harm.

> Personally, I think any citizen who waits for someone else to defend
> his
> Constitutional rights, doesn't deserve them.

Any citizen who takes it upon himself to speak for others--in this case
gun owners--ought to at least know whereof he speaks.  In your complaint
you posted last night you cite "federal, state, county, and city" laws
that prevented you from buying a gun without providing personal info.
Now, I'm well aware of the federal laws that require that information.
There are some State laws that require the same thing--especially in
complying with federal laws.  I firmly believe those laws violate the
federal and State constitutions.  A *credible*, well-conceived challenge
to them would be well in order.  But I've never seen a county or city law
in this State that required it.  Indeed, the preemption portion of State
law firearms law leads me to firmly believe no such county or city law
exists--or would be allowed to exist under statute--in this State.  How
do you expect me, or a judge, to take you or your suit seriously when you
try to sue over a law ("county and city") that doesn't even exist?

> John the Baptist attacked the government of Herod by himself.  He
> lost.  He
> was, in fact, a hero whose selfless sacrifice will forever be
> celebrated.

John the Baptist attacked Herod's iniquity as a prophet called of God by
proper authority.  Are you claiming to be such a prophet?  Or do you just
go around comparing yourself to the Lord's annointed?  I'm also unaware
of any great harm caused to his fellow Jews by his actions.  John
suffered greatly, but he didn't inflict any great harm on his fellows.

> That's funny, I don't remember reading in my copy of the
> Constitution where
> it says it can be amended by precedent.  I'm not citing any previous
> cases,
> because doing so would be an acknowledgement that previous cases and
> court
> rulings are relevant.  Officers of the government, including jurors,
> are
> required to take an oath to support the Constitution.  They are not
> required to consider any previous case and it's outcome.  My whole
> case
> will be presented on the premise that the Constitution is in English
> and
> anyone can read and understand it and it is clear and I should win!

Trust me, if you incist on going forward I hope you do win.  Or, in the
almost certain case that you don't, I hope your case is at least laughed
out of court BEFORE any nasty precedencts with which the rest of us would
have to live are set.  It may not be right, but the way it is is the
Supreme Court has taken it upon themselves to "interpret" the
Constitution.  Media lies to the contrary, virtually every on-point
Supreme Court decision does support the individual right to bear arms (at
least those useful to military endeavers) view.  A properly researched
case could stand a very good chance.  But trying to tell some local judge
he ought to ignore higher court precedence will get you nowhere.  Current
judical rules may not be proper or fair, but you are not in a position to
change them.  You don't win at football by trying to invoke the rules of
baseball.

>
> >You showed guts and leadership when you got the anti-cruising
> ticket.
> >Fight and win that case before handing the enemy such an easy
> victory.
> >The evil is sufficient for the day.  Wage one battle at a time.
> Wage it
> >well.  Win.  Then and only then move on.
>
> Next, I'm going to challenge the marriage laws by taking another man
> to the
> County Clerk and asking for a marriage license.  When it is denied
> on the
> basis of sex, I will sue again for violation of civil rights under
> color of
> law.  I'm not about cruising, guns or homosexuality.  I'm about
> rights and
> you know I'm right.

What happened with the cruising ticket case?  Have you sued?  Where does
it stand?


>  By and large the judiciary is hostile to guns
> to
> >start with.  If you want to do more good than harm, you must go in
> wisely
> >and with every advantage rather than going off half-cocked like our
> lone
> >soldier above.
>
> I'll put more credence in your advice when you show me, rather than
> telling me.

I trust the court will show you by negative example.

>
> Your conclusion from your story is correct.  So?

So if my story is a better analogy to our current situation than your
story--and I believe it is--then you should clearly see the potential
damage that can be caused by running around half-cocked waging
ill-conceived suits that are not only doomed to fail but provide an open
door for judges to set bad precedence that will be followed in the
future.

> I believe my inspirations are as valid as yours or those of John the
> Baptist.  Yes, I  believe God has inspired me to enter this case as
> I have
> done.  His miraculous assistance will not be unnoticed.  I have
> seen it
> too many times to dare deny His participation in my life.

First, I've never claimed any revelations or inspiration in this area.
And true to my word, given your religious convictions, I'll not offer any
further critiques of your actions.  I will merely wish you well and abide
my own convictions to see what fruits are brought forth from your
actions.  By those fruits I shall know whether your inspiration, and
actions relative to them, are from God, or some other source.  Please let
us all know how things turn out.

Best of luck.

==================================================================
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: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Senator Bennett's schedule for town meetings, please
Date: 18 Aug 1999 13:54:21 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:22:46 -0600
Received: from THIOKOL.COM by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA16880; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:01:07 -0600
Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM
    with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 13:11:25 -0600
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Senator Bennett has scheduled the following town meetings.  Please attend
and let him know that no gun control or erosion of civil rights is
accepeable and that he must vote no on any form of S. 254

August 18  Cedar City,  SUU campus Sharwan Smith Ballroom 6:30
August 19  St George, Dixie College Cox Auditorium, 7:00
August 20, Kanab, Kanab Library, 6:30

Please attend and spread the word!



Below is a message from GOA:

Neil Sagers
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
e-mail [e-mail]

>>> Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]> 08/16 4:06 PM >>>
GOA Alone Is Fighting To Kill All Anti-Gun Measures
   -- your contacts this month are the only thing that will stop the
gun grabbers


Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org=20


   The NRA, duplicating the approach it employed during the gun
   debates in June, will not oppose new trigger locks or a ban
   on the possession of assault weapons by most people under
   the age of 18. -- Roll Call, Aug. 12, 1999


(Monday, August 16, 1999) --  For several months now, GOA has been
fighting the so-called "Juvenile Justice" legislation, as currently
embodied in S. 254. The bill is in a joint House-Senate conference
committee-- despite the efforts of Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and her
ilk to blast it out earlier this month, S. 254 will remain there
until Congress reconvenes in September.

It is during this traditional August recess that the fate of gun
control in the 106th Congress will likely be decided. Legislators
are back in their districts, scheduling town meetings, and
interacting with constituents. It is absolutely imperative that gun
owners contact their Representative and Senators this month.

Consider that Roll Call (the newspaper of record covering Washington
political activity) had the following to say about lobbying efforts
regarding the Juvenile Justice legislation:

   The NRA... has been too quick to compromise and too slow to
   mobilize its troops to defeat anti-gun legislation in the
   House and the Senate, GOP leadership sources and gun
   activists say.... "Gun Owners [of America] is much smaller,
   but much more active. They moved quickly and we heard from
   their people," said one leadership source close to the issue.


No-compromise Is The Key To Victory.   Sen. Bob Smith (I-NH) showed
last year that we do not have to succumb to defeatism on the eve of
a battle. Smith was told that there were only 40 votes in support of
his proposal to cut off FBI funding for their registration of Brady
Instant Check gun buyers. When the smoke cleared, Smith got 69
votes. From "no way will this pass" to a veto-proof majority, the
Smith amendment proved that the People, not the vote-counting
insiders, determine the fate of legislation in America.


Preemptive Concessions Are Not Only Wrong, They Can Backfire.
Another telling quote from the Roll Call article shows what happens
when gun owners give up without fighting:

   The [NRA]... is willing to allow several provisions, such as
   the so-called Juvenile Brady proposal, to sail through,
   according to its top lobbyist, James Baker. Baker's
   strategy, which reflects a belief inside the NRA that some
   gun control measures will pass in the wake of recent shooting
   sprees, has ticked off many pro-gun Members and activists who
   deplore any talk of a compromise.... Another senior GOP
   leadership source added: "They have told us all along that
   it would be fine to support Juvenile Brady and other
   proposals and their membership would not care. But they did
   [care], and [Republican leaders] are not happy about that."


Here's What To Do.  Make certain that you contact your Members of
Congress while they are home on break. You can get their home office
phone numbers from the government pages of your phone book, or call
the Capitol toll-free at 1-888-449-3511 and request them. It is
specifically asked that you do not use e-mail as a contact method
this month. This is a time to directly confront legislators. Ask the
local office if there are any town meetings scheduled. If so, be
sure to attend and make gun rights a central part of the discussion.
Have a friend seated away from you to "follow up" on your point when
the politician tries to duck your question. And above all, spread
the word. Get other pro-gun friends and family to make calls as
well. The message is simple: THERE IS NO GUN CONTROL THAT IS
ACCEPTABLE.


**************
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: Firearms Facts at a Glance for 1999 1/2
Date: 18 Aug 1999 13:21:00 -0700


----------

GOUtah!
Gun Owners of Utah

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

Firearms Facts at a Glance for 1999
(Source(s) Citation Follows in Parenthesis)

U.S. Firearms Ownership in General

Privately-Owned Firearms In U.S: More than 200 million total firearms,
including 65-70 million handguns.(BATF)

Firearms Owners In U.S: 60-65 million overall, including 30-35 million
handgun owners, or nearly half of U.S. households. Firearms ownership
in Utah is reported at about 65-70% of households statewide, varies by
location.(BATF, Ut. St. Health Dept. and other estimates)

Firearms as Used in Lawful Self Defense

Firearms Owners Having Used a Gun for Self Defense In U.S: 11% of all
individuals owning firearms, and 13% of those owning handguns. Use of
a firearm is proven as the most effective method for a victim to deter,
defend against and/or avoid injury from a violent criminal assault,
exceeding both cooperation with assailant and the use of any other
instrument or method of self defense.(FBI, US DoJ, Bureau of Justice
Stats, Crime Victimization Survey)

Number Of Protective Uses Of Firearms In U.S: Projected at a minimum of
2.5 million cases annually, equal to 1% of total U.S. population each year.
Criminal assailants are killed by their victims or others in only about
0.1%, and wounded in only about 1.0% of incidents as described above. Most
such crimes are prevented by mere presence of a firearm in the hands of an
intended victim.(Dr. Gary Kleck, PhD, Florida State University, Targeting
Guns, 1998)

Lawfully-Permitted Concealed Carry (CCW) of Firearms for Self Defense

Nationally: 31 of 50 states currently have 'shall issue' laws allowing
private citizens the ability to legally carry a concealed firearm for
lawful self defense. Half of U.S. population currently lives in 'shall
issue' states. States with 'shall issue' CCW laws enjoy 18% overall lower
violent crime rates than those states without such 'shall issue' CCW laws.
Overall, homicide rates are 21% lower, robbery rates 33% lower, and
aggravated assaults 11% lower in the 'shall issue' states than in
'non-issue' states.(FBI UCR)

National studies conclude such 'shall issue' laws decrease crime rates,
deter violent criminal behavior, and do not contribute to an increase in
firearm accident rates. If the 'non-issue' states had adopted 'shall issue'
laws in 1992, projections indicate 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes and 60,000+
aggravated assaults would have been avoided in those states each year. The
estimated economic benefit to society from such reduced crime rates, reduced
victim injury costs and other savings would be a minimum of $6.214 billion
dollars annually. A CCW permit holder is statistically less likely to be
arrested or involved in acts of violence or other criminal behavior than
a member of the general population.(Lott and Mustard, Crime, Deterrence
and Right to Carry Concealed Handguns, University of Chicago study 1997)

In Utah: Utah has been a 'shall issue' state since 1995. Permits are issued
by Utah DPS/BCI only after an extensive background check, fingerprinting,
checking personal references and certification of the applicant's familiarity
with firearms safety, firearms laws and 'use of force' laws. A history of
violence, moral turpitude, substance abuse or other similar behavior will
disqualify an applicant. A Utah CCW permit has been valid statewide 'without
restriction' since 1986. Nearly 30,000 Utah CCW permits are currently issued,
to about 3 % of the eligible adults in the state. Non-residents may also be
issued a CCW permit under Utah law. A valid Utah CCW permit exempts holder
from Utah's Brady background check requirement at point of purchase. Utah
currently honors CCW permits issued from AK, AR, AZ, HI, LA, NC, NV, OK,
SC, TN and TX. Utah CCW permits are currently valid in AK, AR, AZ, ID, IN,
KY, MI, OK and WY. (DPS/BCI, Ut.Code 53-5-701 to 53-5-711)

Since 1995, no discernible, documented pattern of abuse has developed among
Utah's nearly 25,000 CCW permit holders. No Utah CCW permit holder is
currently known to have been convicted of a serious crime of violence in
which their concealed firearm was used.(DPS/BCI)

Firearms as Used in Crime

Annual Criminal Abuse of Firearms Nationally: Less than 0.2% of all firearms,
and less than 0.4% of all handguns. More than 99.8% of all guns, and 99.6% of
all handguns are NOT used in criminal activity in any given year.(BATF, FBI)

Crime in the United States

Chance of Any Single Individual Being a Victim of Violent Crime In Their
Lifetime: Currently about 65 to 70%, depending on age, profession,
lifestyle, geographic and demographic factors.(US DoJ, FBI UCR)

U.S. Crime Rate and Incarceration: From 1960 to 1980, the number of U.S.
prison inmates per 1000 violent crimes dropped from 738 to 227, and the crime
rate predictably tripled. Nationally, each year more than a quarter-million
felons, convicted by state courts, are not incarcerated as part of sentencing.
Only 29% of convicted felons are now incarcerated, with 71% on some form of
conditional release, and now on the streets. On average a imprisoned criminal
will only serve one-third of their sentence before early release. The average
career criminal commits more than 180 crimes per year, and thus contributes
to the nearly 14 million violent and property crimes annually. On average
nationwide, convicted criminals on probation or parole commit 14 murders,
48 rapes and 578 robberies daily.(US DoJ, Rand Corp, FBI UCR)

In Utah: Currently Utah has one of the lowest rates of incarceration of all
the states, at only 218/100M population, compared to 433/100M nationally. The
average Utah criminal actually serves only 16% of their sentence, the lowest
ratio of sentence-to-time-served in the nation. Utah has the highest percentage
of prisoners with prior felonies, highest percentage of parole violators and
highest rate of parole recidivism of any state. Utah spends only 2.8% of state
budget on corrections, compared to a 4.8% national average. Since 1993, Utah's
overall index crime rate ranking has jumped from 21st to 9th among the 50
states. Utah ranks 1st in theft, 6th in property crimes, 12th in rape, 21st
in burglary, 22nd in auto theft, 35th in aggravated assault, 39th in robbery
and 43rd in murder nationally.(FBI UCR, Ut. Bar Journal, Feb.1999)

Firearms Accidents and Firearms Safety Education

Fatal Firearms Accidents for All Ages Annually: 1,134 nationwide in 1996. Rate
of 0.4 per 100M population. Represents a roughly 90% decrease from record high
in 1904. Accident rate is down by 65% since 1930, while U.S. population has
doubled and number of privately-owned firearms has quadrupled. Compare to other
types of fatal accidents, for all ages: Motor Vehicles 16.7/100M, Falls 4.8/
100M, Poisoning 4.0/100M, Drowning 1.7/100M, Fires 1.6/100M, Choking 1.1/100M.
(Nat'l Safety Council, Nat'l Center for Health Statistics, BATF, US Census)
Fatal Firearms Accidents for Children 14 and Under Annually: 138 nationwide
in 1996. About 3% of all fatal accidents under age 14. Represents a 75%
decrease from record high of 550 in 1975. Compared to other types of fatal
accidents for children: Motor Vehicles 44%, Fires 16%, Drowning 14%,
Choking 4.5%.(Nat'l Safety Council, Nat'l Center for Health Statistics)
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Firearms Facts at a Glance for 1999 2/2
Date: 18 Aug 1999 13:21:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
In Utah: Average of 1 to 1.5 unintentional fatal shootings annually among
those 18 and under, a number which has remained fairly constant over the
last decade.(Ut. St. Dept. of Health)

Education, beginning at an early age, in firearms safety helps develop
responsible attitudes toward lawful firearms ownership, and are demonstrated
to be the most effective measures available for preventing firearms accidents.
Foremost among such programs are those developed by the National Rifle
Association of America, including Eddie Eagle and other firearms safety
programs, and are used by schools, law enforcement and youth groups nationwide.
NRA has nearly 40,000 certified firearms safety instructors nationwide.(NRA)

Firearms Commerce and Economic Issues

National Economic Impact: The hunting and shooting sports market generates
in excess of $30.9 billion dollars of primary economic activity nationally
each year, creating and sustaining 986,000 American jobs. There are 31.9
million hunters and recreational shooters in the country. (National
Shooting Sports Foundation, National Sporting Goods Association, 1998)

In Utah: Several major firms, including Browning Arms, Barnes Bullets, LAR
Manufacturing, North American Arms, Liberty-National Security Safe, Rocky
Mountain Safe, Pro-Steel Safe, Ft. Knox Safe, and many others provide high
paying, skilled jobs to many hundreds of Utah residents, and contribute to
a viable sales and property tax base for their communities.

Existing Gun Laws and the Brady Background Check for Retail Firearms Purchase

Federal Brady Law: Since early 1994, Brady has mandated a criminal background
check at point of sale on buyers of all handguns, and since late 1998, for
all firearms, new or used (rifle, shotgun or handgun) when purchased from a
federally-licensed dealer (FFL). The National Instant Check System (NICS) has
now largely replaced a 5-day wait, except where individual state laws impose
a waiting period or state records are non-compliant with federal requirements.
FFL dealers at gun shows, pawn shops, exhibitions and all other sales
locations have complied with this requirement since early 1994. FBI is now
widely reported as retaining Brady records in violation of existing federal
law, to establish a Federal gun owner database.

In Utah: Compliance with Federal Brady mandate has been satisfied by Utah BCI
Instant Check system since early 1994. Total annual checks for 1999 currently
projected at about 75,000 to 80,000. In 1997 the rejection rate (for handguns
only) was 2.4%.This means almost 98% of all Utah gun buyers are required to
pay a state fee to prove they have no disqualifying record before the exercise
of a constitutional right. In 1997, reasons for Brady rejections were divided
about equally for criminal record, outstanding warrants and domestic violence
record/protective orders.(DPS/BCI Crime in Utah, 1997, with 1999 projections
based on updated Brady stats for Dec 1998, Jan, Feb. and Mar. 1999)

Actual Effect on Criminals: Since early 1994, Utah has not arrested, charged,
prosecuted, convicted or incarcerated a single disqualified individual for
'attempt to purchase' a firearm in violation of Brady laws. Nationally
convictions for 'attempt to purchase' by disqualified individuals under Brady
now total 7 since early 1994. There are now in excess of 20,000 federal, state
and local gun laws on the books, yet few if any have proven clearly effective
in reducing violence or a criminal's access to firearms. Some 93% of firearms
used in crime are reported as stolen or come from some other uncontrollable
source.(DPS/BCI, US DoJ, BATF) Selected Resources for Further Information

Major Studies, Annual Reports and Research Publications

FBI Uniform Crime Report, published annually by the US DoJ & FBI.

National Crime Victimization Survey, published annually by US DoJ, Bureau
of Justice Stats.

Crime in Utah, published annually by Utah DPS, Bureau of Criminal
Identification.

Dr. Gary Kleck, PhD, Florida State University, multiple research studies
including Targeting Guns, Aldine De Gruyter. NY. 1997

Prof. John R. Lott, David B. Mustard, Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry
Concealed Handguns, University of Chicago study, 1997

Prof. John R. Lott, William W. Landes, Multiple Victim Public Shootings,
Bombings, and Right To Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and
Public Law Enforcement, University of Chicago School of Law, 1998. (Available
online at http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Publications/Working/index.html)

James Wright, Peter Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous, US Department of
Justice study, 1986

Books

More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott Jr. 1998, University of Chicago Press. USA

Second Amendment Primer, Les Adams, 1996, Palladium Press, Birmingham,
Alabama, USA

Guns, Crime and Freedom, Wayne LaPierre, 1994, Regnery Publishing,
Washington DC, USA

Gun Control and the Constitution, Sources and Explorations of the Second
Amendment, Robert J. Cottrol, Ed., 1994 Garland Publishing, New York and London

Criminal Justice? The Legal System vs. Individual Responsibility, Robert James
Bidinotto, Editor, 1994, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson
NY, USA

That Every Man Be Armed, The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, Stephen
Halbrook, 1984, Independent Institute, Oakland, CA, USA

Online Resources

Gun Owners of Utah: e-mail to [e-mail], http://www.slpsa.org/goutah!

National Rifle Association of America: http://www.nra.org, http://www.nraila.or

Gun Owners of America: http://www.gunowners.org

Citizens Committee for Right to Keep and Bear Arms: http://www.ccrkba.org

Neal Knox Associates: http://www.NealKnox.com Version 2.0. This information
is current as of 1 August 1999. Copyright 1999 by GOUtah! All rights reserved.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: CA May Seize "Assault Weapons"
Date: 18 Aug 1999 13:21:00 -0700


-----

Why doesn't anyone tell them about Australia and Great Britain?

Calif. Shifts on Assault Weapons
By DOUG WILLIS Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - The state attorney general agreed Tuesday to drop
his predecessor's appeal of a lawsuit over gun registration, clearing the
way for the state to order owners of about 1,600 assault weapons to
surrender them to law enforcement.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer will ask the Legislature to provide funding to
compensate owners who turn in the weapons, valued at $750 to $1,500 each,
spokesman Nathan Barankin said.

A June 1989 state law prohibited the sale and possession of 62 models of
military-style assault weapons. But it let residents who owned the weapons
at that time keep them if they registered them with the state by March 30,
1992.

Lockyer's predecessor, Dan Lungren, let people who owned the guns before
June 1989 register them without prosecution or confiscation after the 1992
deadline.

Handgun Control and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence sued Lungren and
won a ruling from a San Francisco judge in 1997 that any registration of the
banned weapons after March 1992 was invalid. Lungren appealed.

Lockyer, a Democrat who succeeded the Republican Lungren as attorney general
eight months ago, plans to ask a state appeals court this week to approve
the settlement, Barankin said.

Lungren did not respond to a message left Tuesday on his home answering
machine by The Associated Press seeking comment on Lockyer's decision.

Luis Tolley, the Western director of Handgun Control, called Lockyer's
proposal a victory.

``Gun smugglers and others who broke the law are now on notice that the
assault weapon law will be enforced and those caught with illegal,
unregistered assault weapons will be held accountable,'' Tolley said in a
written statement.

Sam Paredes, deputy director of Gun Owners of California, accused Lockyer of
going after owners who registered their weapons in good faith.

``It is unreasonable to have citizens who tried to obey the law and who
followed the directions of the attorney general to be forced to surrender
their guns. That is ridiculous,'' Paredes said.

Nearly 50,000 assault weapons were registered by the 1992 deadline.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun rights lawsuit
Date: 18 Aug 1999 13:21:00 -0700


FYI, format as received.

-----

As promised, here is the copy of the verified complaint I will file at the
Federal Court House 250 South Main in  Salt Lake City tomorrow (Wednesday
the 18th at 10:00 a.m.)

VICTOR MARSHALL GORDON  #5851
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
944 West 600 North
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH  84116
TELEPHONE: [phone]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DR. KENNETH R. LARSEN        )
          Plaintiff                                 )
                                          )
VS.                                      )                  VERIFIED
                                                        )
COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES,                         )
STATE OF UTAH,                         )
SALT LAKE COUNTY,                )
SALT LAKE CITY                         )
                          Defendants.           )

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, complains and
alleges as follows:

1.  All events herein alleged occurred within the State of Utah, Salt Lake
County, and Salt Lake City.

2.  That on or about the 16th of August, 1999, Dr. Ken Larsen entered the
premises of Capitol Jewelry and Loan at 1450 South Main, Salt Lake City,
Salt Lake County, State of Utah and attempted to purchase a handgun.  At
that time, he was not allowed to purchase the gun because of existing
Federal, State, County and City statutes that require personal information
and or a background check prior to the sale of a firearm.  Dr. Larsen was
informed that he could purchase an archery set capable of killing with no
surrender of personal information.  The information required for the
purchase of a handgun included: name, address, birthdate, Social Security
number, sex, height, weight, eye color, hair color, along with two forms of
identification.

3.  That the enforcement of such laws constitutes an infringement of the
civil right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the United States
Constitution, Amendments II and III, and the Utah State Constitution,
Article I, Sections 1, and 6.

4.  That the infringement of such Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights
under color of law is actionable under 42SC 1981, 1982 and 1983.

5.  That any infringement of any Constitutionally guaranteed civil right
cannot be tolerated without jeopardizing all such rights.

DATED this __18th__ day of AUGUST, 1999.

[signature]
VICTOR MARSHALL GORDON

[signatuare]
DR. KENNETH R. LARSEN

I, The undersigned, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was mailed or delivered this ___18th___ day of _____AUGUST_____,
1998,
to:
US ATT Richard G. MacDougall
FAX [phone]
COR LD NTC
US Attorneys Office, Utah

[signature]
VICTOR MARSHALL GORDON



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Horowitz on the NAACP's Anti-Gun Suit 1/2
Date: 18 Aug 1999 13:21:00 -0700


-----

Telling like it is.

----------

BY DAVID HOROWITZ

When the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
announced plans recently to file an injunctive class-action suit "to force
[gun manufacturers] to distribute their product responsibly," the NAACP
president, Kweisi Mfume, noted that gun violence takes a disproportionately
high toll among young black males.

According to an NAACP press release, African-American males between the
ages of 15 and 24 are almost five times more likely to be injured by
firearms than are white males in the same age group. "Firearm homicide has
been the leading cause of death among young African-American males for
nearly 30 years," it stated.

Am I alone in seeing this as an absurd act of political desperation by the
civil rights establishment? What's next? Will Irish-Americans sue whiskey
distillers, or Jews the gas company?

That last analogy only works, of course, for those who think the Holocaust
was a self-inflicted wound. In fact, black leaders have already accused
white and Korean liquor vendors of "invading" black communities and
intoxicating their inhabitants. Boycotts have followed these charges, and
anti-white, anti-Korean race riots as well.

But who forces alcohol down reluctant throats? And who makes guns shoot in
ways that victimize blacks more than whites?

How can the NAACP even make the comparison between gun deaths of blacks and
whites, if not as a racist insinuation that whites are somehow the cause of
those "disproportionate" violent deaths, just as whites are the implied
cause of nearly every other social pathology that afflicts the
African-American community?

In the sociology of the left, including the NAACP, there cannot be a wound
the black community inflicts on itself that is not ultimately the
responsibility of malicious whites. To think otherwise would be to "blame
the victim." Only mean-spirited conservatives (like me) would even think of
doing that.

The fact is that while blacks make up only 12 percent of the population,
they account for 46 percent of total violent crime and 90 percent of the
murders of other blacks. It is they, not whites or gun manufacturers, who
are responsible for the disproportionate gun deaths of young black males.
Firearms don't kill people. Sociopaths do. It takes a human brain to pull
the trigger. If young black males abuse firearms in an irresponsible and
criminal fashion, why should the firearm industry be held accountable? Why
not their parents? Why not themselves?

Unfortunately, as a nation we have become so trapped in the melodrama of
black victimization and white oppression that we are in danger of losing
all sense of proportion. If blacks are oppressed in America, why isn't
there a black exodus? Why do all those black Haitians want to come here?
To be oppressed?

In the grips of a politically inspired group psychosis, we find it natural
to collude with demagogic race hustlers in support of a fantasy in which
African-Americans are no longer responsible for anything negative they do,
even to themselves.

If blacks constitute just under half the prison population, for example,
that cannot be allowed to suggest that the black community might have a
problem when it comes to raising its children as law-abiding members of
society. Oh no. Such a statistic can only be explained by the racism of a
criminal justice system that is incarcerating too many blacks.

Nonsense like this is proposed daily by the entire spectrum of the civil
rights leadership from racist bloviator Al Sharpton to urbane Urban League
President Hugh Price. Against the intimidating atmosphere this consensus
creates, to suggest the obvious-that too many blacks are in prison because
blacks commit too many crimes-is to be identified as an apologist for
racism, and perhaps even a closet racist oneself.

The NAACP's anti-gun lawsuit comes on the heels of the crusade to defend
crack dealers because 90 percent of them are African-American and their
sentences are considered "too harsh." This insipid campaign was launched by
Jesse Jackson at the Washington rally of race-hater Louis Farrakhan.
That 90 percent of crack cocaine dealers are black cannot be seen, of
course, as a moral stain on those crack dealers or as a massive social
problem for the community that produces them. It can only be the result of
a white legal system that stigmatizes crack as a more dangerous and more
culpable drug than the powder cocaine it uses itself.

Forget that the heavier penalties were originally demanded by black leaders
who claimed that crack was associated with street violence in the black
community and the white criminal justice system did not care enough about
its destructive consequences to make the penalties harsh.

That was then, this is now. And now, lessening the sentences that were
previously raised has become a crusade for "social justice" that
overshadows the need to combat the crime wave itself. Because racial
oppression is the main enemy, the villainy of the crack trade is
transformed into yet another symbol of white unfairness.

This kind of race baiting has now intruded into the presidential contest
as a means of smearing the Republican leader, George W. Bush, who is
distinguished by his outreach to minority communities and by his support
among blacks. Is there a vast left-wing conspiracy that sees Bush's black
support as a political threat?

Well, of course there is. It is precisely because Bush is perceived as a
candidate who can break the vicious stereotyping of Republicans as
anti-black that he has to be smeared. Bush was thus labeled Governor Death
in a Christopher Hitchens column.

The clear implication of Hitchens' attack was that Bush is collusive in a
racist justice system in Texas that executes blacks in disproportionate
numbers. "Perhaps you wonder if capital punishment is unevenly applied, as
respects race and class, in the state of Texas," wrote Hitchens. "Wonder no
longer. Just read the Amnesty report Killing With Prejudice: Race and the
Death Penalty in the USA."

Well, Christopher, I read the Amnesty report. Maybe you should, too. The
Amnesty report does not even mention racial or class statistics in Texas
and could not possibly be used to draw such a conclusion. Moreover, a
perusal of the report reveals no self-evident truths even nationally.
 Rather, it is a slovenly produced, inflammatory document.

Under the heading "Racist Representation of Indigent Defendants," for
example, it offers this evidence: "Gary Burns, black, executed in Indiana
on 20 November 1997, was described to the jury by his white attorney as an
'insignificant, snivelly little street person.'" End of example.

What is this supposed to prove? That someone else must have done the dirty
work because Burns was too weak to be guilty of it himself? Who can tell
from this example? Most of the report consists of unsystematic and
frustratingly brief snippets of cases like this, combined with a sprinkling
of unanalyzed statistics that are arrayed to serve a partisan agenda.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Horowitz on the NAACP's Anti-Gun Suit 2/2
Date: 18 Aug 1999 13:21:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
It is true that the number of blacks executed in Texas (and nationwide) is
greater than their proportion in the population. But it is also true that
the proportion of black murderers far exceeds the proportion of blacks in
the population at large. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 1996
report (released May 1999), blacks commit 54 percent of the homicides in
America even though they constitute only 12 percent of the population.
An individual black male is eight times more likely to commit murder than
an individual white male. Thus, in the most equitable system imaginable, a
black male would be eight times more likely than a white male to be
executed for murder.

In fact, however, convicted white murderers are more likely to be executed
for their crimes than convicted black murderers. In 1996-97, whites
accounted for 62 percent of the convicted murderers executed in Texas.
According to statistics provided by the Justice Department, the proportion
of whites presently on death row compared to the total white population is
almost four times that of the comparable proportion of blacks on death row
in terms of the total black population.

Whatever these statistics prove, it is not that justice in America is
systemically biased against blacks. But the desperation to prove white
turpitude is so great that instead of celebrating this as a triumph of
civil rights reform in the law, the race baiters merely shift their focus
to the victims of capital crimes.

Thus the statistic with which Amnesty opens its case is this: "Of the 500
prisoners executed between 1977 and 1998," according to Amnesty, "81.8
[percent] were convicted of murdering a white person, even though blacks
and whites are the victims of homicide in almost equal numbers nationwide."
No attempt is made of course to explain how the criminal justice system
might systematically discriminate in favor of white victims but not against
black defendants (except by this indirect method). What the report's raw
statistic fails to take into account is that the death penalty is only
imposed in aggravated circumstances, which can include the violence of the
crime, whether it is committed in the course of another crime or whether
the perpetrator has a prior criminal record of violent crimes.

All these factors are ignored in the Amnesty report. It so happens that
black felons commit 43 percent of aggravated assaults, 66 percent of armed
robberies, 27 percent of rapes and 85 percent of interracial crimes of
violence, mainly against whites (this last figure from a Justice Department
report for 1993).

Since juries generally don't demand the death penalty for crimes of
passion, where the victim is known to the killer, and since blacks are far
more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than are whites against
blacks, the disparity that offends Amnesty may not imply a racial bias on
the part of prosecutors and juries at all. The report does not even
acknowledge this as a problem.

The defense of criminals as a civil rights cause is only an extreme
manifestation of what has apparently become the very essence of the civil
rights movement. Do black children fail to achieve in school? White
oppression explains their failure. (Nothing else could without blaming the
victims.)

Poor black academic performance cannot be seen as a failure of black
families to educate their children, or of the black community to support
educational values, which are often referred to derisively as "thinking
white." Black failure can only be the result of some lingering residue of
the white perfidy involved in slavery and segregation. Call it
"institutional racism."

Of course, those who invoke the phantom of "institutional racism" are too
sophisticated to claim that there are actual racists lodged in our liberal
education establishment who refuse to admit black children to legally
integrated schools or refuse to teach them when they get there.
Instead, the concept of "institutional racism" is made to encompass an
entire system of oppression that invisibly conspires to keep black children
down. It may do so through culturally rigged tests; or through the failure
to provide black role models in positions of authority; or by providing
only underfunded schools to black neighborhoods; or as a result of the
pervasive negative pressure exerted by an environment of poverty that
cannot be countered with a mere six hours of school. (And, indeed,
compulsory preschool is already being proposed by Al Gore and the left as a
new social cure-all.)

In reality, the failure of African-American children to make the
educational grade cannot be explained by any of the above factors.
 Statistics analyzed by the New York Times (July 4, 1999) dispel the
poverty argument by establishing that impoverished white children whose
parents earn less than $10,000 a year score higher on standardized SAT
tests than black children whose parents earn more than $70,000.

None of the above arguments, moreover, can explain why Vietnamese children
who are poor and discriminated against, whose schools are underfunded and
who are culturally at a greater disadvantage than blacks, and have even
fewer "role models" to inspire them, still manage to be educationally
competitive.

While the oppression theme dominates public discourse, no attention is paid
to the real problems that hold African-American children back. There is a
symbiosis, in fact, between the political mumbo jumbo of the Kweisi Mfumes
and Jesse Jacksons (abetted mightily by patronizing white liberals) and the
seemingly intractable social problems of the black community.

The myth of racial oppression, invoked to explain every social deficit of
blacks, is an exercise in psychological denial. Crying racism deflects
attention from the actual causes of the problems that afflict
African-American communities. Its net result is to deprive people and
communities who could help themselves of the power to change their fate.
Nearly 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock. A child raised
in a single-parent, female-headed household is six times more likely to be
poor than a child of any color born into a two-parent household. Seventy
percent of youth violence is committed by males from female-headed
households, regardless of race.

If the NAACP and other black leaders want to end the terrible scourge of
gun violence committed by young inner-city blacks, they should launch a
campaign to promote marriage and family formation in the African-American
community; they should issue a moral plea to the community to stigmatize
fathers who abandon their children and parents who have more children than
they can afford.

Instead of waging war against law enforcement agencies and supporting
destructive racial demagogues like Al Sharpton, they should support the
Rudy Giulianis and other champions of public safety, whom they now attack.
They should campaign for a tripling of police forces in inner-city areas to
protect the vast majority of inhabitants who are law-abiding and who are
the true victims of the predators among them.

But to take these remedial steps would require rejecting the bogus charge
of white oppression. It would mean abandoning the ludicrous claim that
white America and firearms manufacturers are the cause of the problems
afflicting African-Americans. It would mean taking responsibility for their
own communities instead.

Copyright * 1999 Salon.com All rights reserved.



-



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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gun rights lawsuit
Date: 18 Aug 1999 17:33:19 -0600

Must not pay too much attention to the form (ATF F 4473)  that is to be
filled out, because you left out RACE which is something I cant even ask
someone who is looking for a job,  and also place of birth,  just to name a
few things you left out.
larry

-----Original Message-----


>
>FYI, format as received.
>
>-----
>Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 23:35:54 -0700
>From: "Dr. Ken Larsen" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Gun rights lawsuit
>
>As promised, here is the copy of the verified complaint I will file at the
>Federal Court House 250 South Main in  Salt Lake City tomorrow (Wednesday
>the 18th at 10:00 a.m.)
>
>VICTOR MARSHALL GORDON  #5851
>ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
>944 West 600 North
>SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH  84116
>TELEPHONE: [phone]
>
>IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>
>DR. KENNETH R. LARSEN        )
>          Plaintiff                                 )
>                                          )
>VS.                                      )                  VERIFIED
>                                                        )
>COMPLAINT
>UNITED STATES,                         )
>STATE OF UTAH,                         )
>SALT LAKE COUNTY,                )
>SALT LAKE CITY                         )
>                          Defendants.           )
>
>COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, complains and
>alleges as follows:
>
>1.  All events herein alleged occurred within the State of Utah, Salt Lake
>County, and Salt Lake City.
>
>2.  That on or about the 16th of August, 1999, Dr. Ken Larsen entered the
>premises of Capitol Jewelry and Loan at 1450 South Main, Salt Lake City,
>Salt Lake County, State of Utah and attempted to purchase a handgun.  At
>that time, he was not allowed to purchase the gun because of existing
>Federal, State, County and City statutes that require personal information
>and or a background check prior to the sale of a firearm.  Dr. Larsen was
>informed that he could purchase an archery set capable of killing with no
>surrender of personal information.  The information required for the
>purchase of a handgun included: name, address, birthdate, Social Security
>number, sex, height, weight, eye color, hair color, along with two forms of
>identification.
>
>3.  That the enforcement of such laws constitutes an infringement of the
>civil right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the United States
>Constitution, Amendments II and III, and the Utah State Constitution,
>Article I, Sections 1, and 6.
>
>4.  That the infringement of such Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights
>under color of law is actionable under 42SC 1981, 1982 and 1983.
>
>5.  That any infringement of any Constitutionally guaranteed civil right
>cannot be tolerated without jeopardizing all such rights.
>
>DATED this __18th__ day of AUGUST, 1999.
>
>[signature]
>VICTOR MARSHALL GORDON
>
>[signatuare]
>DR. KENNETH R. LARSEN
>
>I, The undersigned, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
>foregoing was mailed or delivered this ___18th___ day of _____AUGUST_____,
>1998,
>to:
>US ATT Richard G. MacDougall
>FAX [phone]
>COR LD NTC
>US Attorneys Office, Utah
>
>[signature]
>VICTOR MARSHALL GORDON
>
>
>
>-
>
>



-



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

From: "Will Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Gun rights lawsuit
Date: 18 Aug 1999 21:25:04 -0600

Yes, race is there, but it has been ruled "unlawful" to require
that information be given.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of larry larsen
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 5:33 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Gun rights lawsuit
>
>
> Must not pay too much attention to the form (ATF F 4473)  that is to be
> filled out, because you left out RACE [..snip..]
> larry


-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Gun Rights Rally
Date: 18 Aug 1999 22:56:02 -0600

On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:04:02 -0700 "Dr. Ken Larsen" <[e-mail]>
writes:
>Well, Charles, the friendly tirade continues ;-) .

Actually, no.  At this point it ends.  At least from my side.  In my last
post on this topic I said I'd not offer any further arguments.  I
conclude by giving you the last word, if you want it and wishing you well
in both the cruising and the gun suit.  (I suspect you've got a VERY good
chance with the cruising suit if the defendants and/or courts do not find
or employ some way to keep the case from ever reaching a jury.)  If you'd
really like to continue this discussion, re-send your last post to me
after the gun suit is concluded.

And best of luck with your mayoral race.  Utah, and especially SLC, could
use some high ranking elected officials who are willing to do what you
say you will do if elected.

Charles


----------------
Charles 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: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Misinformation Fueling Nation's Furor Over Guns
Date: 19 Aug 1999 09:12:47 -0600

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/1999/08=
/17/ED8694.DTL=20

Freegards, Bob=20

Misinformation Fueling Nation's Furor Over Guns=20

Law-abiding owners of firearms tarred by media's brush Jarold Hayden =
Tuesday, August 17, 1999=20

THOSE WHO SUPPORT law-abiding gun ownership feel that a war of misinformati=
on is being waged against them. Citizens who support the Second Amendment =
know that it is they who are blamed for the criminal actions of the =
few.=20

Every time some nut-case or felon wreaks mayhem, the media point their =
fingers at gun advocates, saying it is the proliferation of guns that =
leads to these events.=20

But in times past, when almost every man owned a gun as a necessary tool =
for his survival, such wanton slaughter was rare.=20

Gun control is promoted as a cure for the tragedies that have grabbed =
headlines in recent months. But is our government doing a good job with =
the laws that already exist?=20

We have seen Sarah Brady, President Clinton and Janet Reno laud the Brady =
Bill for preventing more than 400,000 firearms purchases by those who are =
prohibited from buying a gun. This success story has been hyped by the =
media.=20

What is ignored is the fact that fewer than 20 of those criminal attempts =
to buy a gun have been followed up by prosecution. Because convicted =
felons are prohibited from ever owning a gun, trying to buy one is an =
offense that should send them back to prison.=20

Why hasn't this been happening, and where is all the public outrage?=20

If the National Rifle Association controls Congress, it is gun control =
advocates who control the media. Groups such as Handgun Control Inc. can =
win an ever-ready audience with reporters with a simple press release, =
while gun rights groups are ignored.=20

Information touted as fact is never questioned. Vicious crimes that don't =
involve guns often slip into obscurity, while those that do merit banner =
headlines.=20

When touting gun-violence statistics, 20,000 U.S. suicides are added to =
the list of 16,000 homicides, as well as the 1,000 accidents and 1,500 =
justifiable homicides (such as police shootings of armed criminals).=20

Japan, with virtually no gun murders, is held up as a paradise of peace. =
Yet Japan is not without its share of tragedy. The United States, with 270 =
million citizens, has about 31,000 suicides a year; Japan with 131 million =
has 30,000. A suicide victim who doesn't use a gun is just as dead.=20

The graphics on television broadcasts and in the newspapers frequently =
depict a silhouetted gun to represent violent crime, often whether or not =
a gun was actually used.=20

Two days after the slaughter in Atlanta, a San Francisco news broadcast =
characterized the murders as 12 shootings, forgetting the gruesome fact =
that the killer's own family was beaten to death with a hammer.=20

While every incident involving a gun at school has been given prominent =
attention by the media, there was another school tragedy in the week =
following Littleton. In Costa Mesa, a mentally deranged man used a car to =
mow down seven children at a private day-care center, killing two of them. =
Where were the reporters, the news cameras, the live broadcasts from that =
crime scene?=20

Sometimes the anti-gun rhetoric culminates in absurd results. In San =
Francisco, educators indoctrinate our children with the idea that guns are =
intrinsically evil. The natural evolution of this propaganda was an =
attempt by the school board to ban police from carrying guns on campus!=20

Guns can be a vital tool to prevent violence when wielded by those on the =
right side of the law. It is frustrating for supporters of the Second =
Amendment to see facts bent to support a political agenda.=20

Too often we have seen deranged killers inexplicably destroy innocent =
lives before the madmen are killed or captured. But guns are a small part =
of that picture. Some mass killers have set disastrous fires or planted =
bombs. And who can or would want to understand the mind of a mother who =
strangles her own three children?=20

There are no simple answers here, only the horror of wasted lives struck =
down by enraged strangers, or by those who should have loved them. We need =
to look deeper; we can't expect knee-jerk legislation to solve this =
ghastly conundrum.=20

Jarold Hayden is a contractor and carpenter who lives in San Francisco.

1999 San Francisco Chronicle Page A19 _____________________________________=
__________________________________________ ________________________________=
_______________________________________________=20


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Operation We the People
Date: 19 Aug 1999 09:31:47 -0600



Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:35:18 -0700 (PDT),=20

Rich Walden <[e-mail]> wrote: From: Rich Walden <[e-mail]>=
=20

Dear armed Americans, Advertising Creative Director, Jim Houck, working =
with the Lawyers Second Amendment Society (LSAS, www.rightguide.com/Links/l=
sas.htm), has formed a non-profit corporation for the sole purpose of =
giving all American firearms owners, big and small, a way to strike back =
and strike back hard against the Rights Killers.=20

After repeated attempts to work with NRA and GOA, Mr. Houck made the =
decision, along with the LSAS, to form an elite commando-style organization=
 in order to bypass bureaucracy and time-consuming political red tape and =
get into the fight.=20

The NRA and GOA have a role in this fight and are doing all they can and =
are to be credited with such.=20

But there is an overwhelming need for an operational group which can =
strike fast, strike hard and strike without fear of political reprisal. =
This is such a group. Every dollar received will go into extremely =
aggressive advertising, TV, print, radio, outdoor and guerilla, with a =
single purpose, to destroy those who are tampering with 2nd Amendment =
freedom. This campaign will not be apologetic, it will not play fair, it =
will hit below the belt whenever the opportunity presents itself, it will =
not take prisoners. In short, it will be very aggressive and very =
effective.=20

There are some people out there who would like to get into the fight, but =
for career reasons or political reasons cannot. Here is your chance. There =
are many who would like to get into the fight, but have no way of doing =
so. Now you can take a swing directly at the teeth of people like Chuck =
Schumer, impeached-President Bill Clinton, Sarah Brady, you name it. The =
campaign will be created and managed by Creative Director, Jim Houck, a =
career advertising professional who has done work for bluechip clients =
like Toyota, DIESEL Jeans, Mitusibishi, Procter & Gamble, Sony, The Miami =
Heat Professional Basketball Team and Sunglass Hut International, to name =
a few. The company has been created by and will be managed by attorney Dan =
Schultz of the LSAS.=20

Creative campaigns are in progress and will be operational as soon as a =
budget has been amassed and media buys can be made.=20

Please make copies and forward to all concerned parties.=20

Send your checks (NO CASH, WE'RE PLAYING BY THE BOOK AND EXPECT AUDITS AND =
CLAIMS OF THEFT FROM THE RIGHTS KILLERS) immediately to: LAWYERS SECOND =
AMENDMENT SOCIETY=20
PMB 447 2118 WILSHIRE BLVD.=20
SANTA MONICA, CA 90403=20

In the memo section of your check write 'Operation We the People'. As you =
may have noticed, we have purposely located in the heart of enemy =
territory.=20

Already I have been asked what my response will be to those who question =
my advertising on the grounds of political correctness. Considering that =
'political correctness2' is a ten dollar way of saying 'censorship', my =
official response is, screw'em.=20

Going to war, Jim Houck Creative Director, Los Angeles [e-mail]=
t=20


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Orrin Hatch on KSL 1:00 8-19-99
Date: 19 Aug 1999 10:09:30 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:57:32 -0600
Received: from THIOKOL.COM by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id JAA18328; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:35:49 -0600
Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM
    with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:48:57 -0600
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
        UTAH.Inet#c#xmission.com#c#[e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

This may be a good opportunity to publicly confront the good senator on
converting himself into a leader of the anti-gun movement and doing his =
best
to erode civil rights.

GOA in their 08-16-99 alert wrote:

This is a time to directly confront legislators. Ask the
local office if there are any town meetings scheduled. If so, be
sure to attend and make gun rights a central part of the discussion.
Have a friend seated away from you to "follow up" on your point when
the politician tries to duck your question. And above all, spread
the word. Get other pro-gun friends and family to make calls as
well. The message is simple: THERE IS NO GUN CONTROL THAT IS
ACCEPTABLE.


If you need more ammunition to confront Senator Hatch, consider the August
12, 1999 GOA alert:

Save the Second Amendment and the Constitution:
Replace US Senator Orrin G. Hatch

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund
(A Project of Gun Owners of America)
E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org=20

Thursday, August 12, 1999


Utah Senator Orrin G. Hatch no longer represents his gun-owning,
freedom loving, and Constitution-minded constituents.  In recent
years, his voting record on firearms issues has moved in the
direction of his close personal friend and colleague, the
ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy!  Most recently Senator Hatch enlisted the
assistance of Senators Kennedy, Schumer, and others to obtain Senate
passage of his S. 254 (the "Juvenile Crime bill").  This legislation
contains several provisions attacking gun owners, including
provisions that would:

  * Restrict or ban safe and lawful firearms use by young persons
and imprison their parents for clerical violations;

  * Ban importation of personal defense ammunition magazines greater
than 10 rounds;

  * Require all gun show attendees to present photo identification
for permanent registration in a BATF log book;

  * Enable future legislation requiring all firearms to be locked
up, preventing their use for self-defense; and,

  * Threaten gun show operators with jail if even one person buys a
gun without the instant background/registration check.  This could
make gun shows a thing of the past.


If You Help, Senator Hatch Can Be Replaced

Senator Hatch must win in next year's elections to continue
"representing" Utah's gun owners.  His greatest vulnerability will
occur on Monday, March 27, at 7 PM.  On this evening delegates for
the County and State Conventions will be elected at neighborhood
caucus meetings throughout the state.  These delegates will
determine the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, and almost
certainly Utah's next Senator.  If approximately 2200
pro-Constitution delegates are elected to the State Convention, Utah
will no longer be shamed by the anti-gun advocacy of Orrin Hatch.


What You Must Do Now!

1. Contact one of GOA's volunteer coordinators to identify yourself
as a supporter of the gun owner campaign to replace Orrin Hatch.
Please contact either Arnold Gaunt or Sarah Thompson, preferably via
e-mail, as follows:

Arnold Gaunt
PO Box 1096
Clearfield, UT 84089-1096
[phone]
[e-mail]=20

Dr. Sarah Thompson
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
[phone]
[e-mail]=20

2. Commit to attend the neighborhood caucus meetings at 7:00 PM on
March 27, 2000, and gain the commitments of family, friends, and
associates to do the same.


**************
Not paid for by any candidate or candidate's committee. Authorized
and paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund.

**************
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 #27 - 20 August 1999
Date: 23 Aug 1999 12:28:00 -0700


GOUtah!
Gun Owners of Utah

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

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

GOUtah! Alert #27 - 20 August 1999

Today's Voice of Liberty:

"Liberty lies in the hearts and minds of men and women. When it dies there,
no constitution, no law, no court can save it."--Justice Learned Hand

If you wish to be added to the GOUtah! list, please log onto our website
at http://www.slpsa.org/goutah! or send an e-mail to [e-mail]
or send a fax to [phone] asking to be added to the GOUtah! list.


DPS/BCI CCW Renewal Policy Revisions

An Update from Shirley Spain of Concealed Carry Specialists, Utah's major
CCW trainers.

I just got off the phone with Joyce Carter at BCI. We might want to let
(Utah CCW) permit holders know the following:

1. DPS/BCI has moved. They are NO LONGER located in the Calvin Rampton
building at 4501 South 2700 West. Their NEW address is: 3888 West 5400
South, right behind McDonalds. Their phone number, however, is still the
same [phone]. Their mailing address is PO BOX 148280, SLC, UT
84114-8280

2. The permit renewal process has also changed. They are still not sending
out renewal notice and permitees still have a 30-day grace period to renew.
Now here's the change. IF the permitee goes past the 30-day grace period,
he/she has TWELVE MONTHS from the expiration date of their permit to renew
as long as they pay a $7.50 late fee. NO REAPPLICATION NECESSARY ANYMORE!!!!!
That means: No fingerprints. No photo. No notary of application. No letters
of character reference. No $59 fee!

3. BCI is striving to do whatever they can to help the renewal process
including:

- Providing instructors (at instructor's request) with renewal forms

- Faxing a renewal app. to the permitee, at the permittee's request

- Making the renewal app. available via the Internet at:
http://www.bci.state.ut.us

Joyce told me that the NEW renewal process went into effect July 1.

Utah's Orrin Hatch Ends Up Dead Last in
Iowa Straw Poll for GOP Presidential Hopefuls

Utah's Senior U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch finished ninth of the nine GOP
presidential hopefuls in the recent Iowa Straw Poll. George W. Bush was
declared the winner, followed by Steve Forbes and Liz Dole. The Iowa Straw
Poll is a pay-to-vote 'beauty contest' for Iowa GOP voters and has no
direct bearing on the GOP nomination still a year away, but is considered
an indicator of a candidate's ability to organize, raise funds, connect
with the voters and present a message and a public image which will enable
them to make a viable run for national office.

Lamar Alexander, the sixth place finisher, has withdrawn from the race,
indicating he cannot run an effective campaign with that low level of voter
support, which was several times greater than that of Hatch. Several of the
key staff on former Vice President Dan Quayle's campaign have bolted to
other candidate's campaigns. Senator Hatch immediately left Iowa for New
Hampshire to campaign further.

Congress still has a conference committee report on S.254, the juvenile
crime bill, to complete. It is critical that no gun control provisions be
included in the conference report. GOUtah! is concerned that Senator Hatch
may be spending his time and resources on a clearly doomed presidential
bid, while ignoring or providing less than full attention to defeating the
anti-gun provisions of the conference report in Congress. We suggest you
contact Senator Hatch today and discuss your concerns about his current
political priorities with both him and his staff.

Sen. Orrin Hatch
131 Russell Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510-0001
DC Telephone [phone]
DC Fax [phone]
Local Office: 8042 Federal Bldg.
125 South State St.
SLC, Utah 8484138-1102
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch.

"This is not a gun control issue. This is a safe campus issue."

--DeVere Day, Student Body President, Snow College, commenting that
student leaders from Utah's colleges and universities will lobby
legislators for a total CCW and gun ban on campuses, as reported in the
Salt Lake Tribune, 16 August 1999

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 #27 - 20 August
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: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Alert: Standard Examiner Lies and Poll
Date: 23 Aug 1999 18:08:21 -0600


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

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

The Standard Examiner is running a special series on gun control.  While
they've made a superficial attempt to "appear" unbiased, the articles are

worse than anything you might find in the LA Times.

Among the idiocies:
Claiming that gun violence is increasing, when it is in fact decreasing.
Claiming that guns "mesmerize" people into committing
crimes.  (Interestingly they only do this to people "unfamiliar with
firearms", which seems like a good reason to implement mandatory firearms

familiarity classes!)
Promoting Kellerman's fraudulent study claiming that you're more likely
to
be murdered if you have a gun in your home.
They also push Project Exile, the NRA's plan to revoke the Bill of
Rights.

There's also a poll on whether you support more gun restrictions - and so

far the votes are overwhelmingly opposed - showing that at least some
people won't fall for this blatant propaganda.

You can find the articles at: http://www1.standard.net/se_news/guns.asp
The poll is at: http://www1.standard.net/polls/pollquestion.asp
The address for letters to the editor is [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: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Those Who Bend Their Guns Into Shovels...
Date: 24 Aug 1999 17:35:15 -0600

Do Not

COMMUNIQUE  #2174
-----------------

MOTOR CITY MADMAN for PRESIDENT
USA JOIN TODAY: http://www.tnugent.com   1-800-343-HUNT
ONE EIGHT HUNDRED THREE FOUR THREE HUNT !!!!!!!!
http://TeamInfinity.com/~ralph/nuge4president.html=20

http://204.107.208.2/~ralph/howtodefeatright/AAA_TOC.html <-SECRETS of =
LEFT

THOSE WHO BEND THEIR GUNS into SHOVELS will SHOVEL for THOSE WHO DO NOT

For a while anyway, if they are LUCKY !

Ever try blocking bullets with a pillow...
Or with a telephone ?
Or how about stopping a speeding car with your hands ?
Or how about blocking a machette with your forearms ?
Or a knife with your back, face, hands or torso ?

LENIN [Vladimir Israel Blanc Ilich Ulanyoff] Said:

For every man with a machine gun and I can control 100 men without.

ALL MASSACRES, including whatever actually happened to the Jews & others =
in Germany, the Christians in Russia, the Chinese in
China, the Hutus in Rwanda, the Serbs massacred in their own
lands, could not have happened until they were FIRST disarmed.

SHARE this with all people opposed to Private Gun Ownership.

Mass murder requires that the victims be unarmed.

Remember this name: Thomas Glenn Terry.
By Ann Coulter
08/13/1999

Remember this name: Thomas Glenn Terry. It won't be bandied quite as much =
as "Mark O. Barton" over the next few weeks, but it should be. A few years =
ago two armed men burst into a Shoney's restaurant in Anniston, Alabama =
and herded the patrons and employees into a walk-in refrigerator, at gun =
point. =20

The robbers kept the manager behind for his assistance as they
looted the restaurant. One patron, however, also remained
behind. Thomas Glenn Terry had opted against being locked in a
refrigerator, and hid from the attackers under a table.

As one of the armed robbers ransacked the cash register,
another patroled the restaurant. When he came across Mr. Terry,
he pulled his gun.

But unlike the recent victims in Atlanta, this victim was
armed.  Using his own legally concealed handgun, Terry shot and
killed the robber. The other armed robber, who had had his gun
trained on the manager, then opened fire on Terry. Terry shot
back, mortally wounding the second robber. The two dozen
hostages were released unharmed. Only the criminals -- who had
been armed with stolen guns by the way -- didn't make it out
alive.

You probably hadn't heard of the Shoney's restaurant
incident. In the media's boundless capacity to stultify the
public with sensational news stories, they have made places like
Littleton, Colorado household names. But "Anniston, Alabama"
doesn't ring a bell.

A massacre is a story. Thwarting a massacre isn't. But once
you know about Anniston, and similar averted tragedies,
something will start to leap out at you as you read news
accounts of gunmen shooting scores of innocents.  Massacre
stories always include a terrifying account of how the killers
proceeded from victim to victim, pausing to reload, and shooting
again. Mass murder requires that the victims be unarmed.

Thomas Glenn Terry, though heroic, is not altogether unique.
Two years ago in Pearl, Mississippi a deranged student shot and
killed two of his classmates. Fortunately, Joel Myrick, the
assistant principal had a gun in his car. He prevented the
shooting from becoming a Littleton level massacre by holding the
student at gunpoint until the police arrived.

A year later, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a 14-year-old boy
opened fire at an eighth-grade graduation dance, killing a
teacher and wounding three others. A single murder did not
become a mass murder only because a near-by restaurant owner,
James Strand, happened to be armed. As the shooter stopped to
reload, Strand immobilized the shooter, holding him for over ten
minutes, until the police appeared. A lot of killing can be
accomplished in ten minutes when none of your victims is armed.

How long did it take the police to arrive in Atlanta? Barton
walked into one office building in Atlanta shot four people
dead, then left the building, ambled across the street, entered
another building, and killed at least five more people. As in
Littleton there are film clips of policemen scaling the
building's walls to rescue terrified and completely defenseless
people inside.

Most striking in the news reports of Barton's shooting spree
was this: Fully three hours after the shooting, some people were
still hiding in the building. Hiding. Waiting like pigs before
the slaughter. Because none of them was armed. None but the
madman.

But for some reason, the government's response is always to
disarm more citizens. Not to disarm itself, by the way, but to
disarm people other than the police who show up 15 minutes after
the shooting has begun. This isn't a complaint about the police,
they simply can't be everywhere at once. It's a plea for more
citizen guards. There may be bad citizens, but, let me remind
you, there are also bad police. Why are they the only ones don't
have to hide in their offices when madmen with guns show up?

More guns will not create more Mark Bartons. Guns can do a
lot of things, like protect you from lunatics, but they don't
make you criminally insane.  Consider Mr. Barton. The initial
reports have been that he killed his children because his stock
porfolio had declined. Well, that's a rational response. Whether
it was his stocks or his wife or the weather -- he killed his
children. This is a madman. In the absence of a gun, he could
have used an axe, a bomb, or a machette. One of the most
efficient murder sprees this century was accomplished not with
guns, but with machettes. Madmen in Rwanda murdered almost one million =
people in under four months.

If only Thomas Glenn Terry had been there.

Elbert A. Evans, Jr.
Colonel, USAF Retired
The Retired Officers Association
Sons of the American Revolution
8989 Beavers Nest Drive
Shreveport, LA 71129-8533
[phone]

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: ThoseWhoBendTheirGunsIntoShovelsWillShovelForThoseWhoDoNot
Date: 24 Aug 1999 20:47:00 -0700


THOSE WHO BEND THEIR GUNS into SHOVELS will SHOVEL for THOSE WHO DO NOT

Remember this name: Thomas Glenn Terry.
By Ann Coulter
08/13/1999

Remember this name: Thomas Glenn Terry. It won't be bandied quite
as much as "Mark O. Barton" over the next few weeks, but it should
be. A few years ago two armed men burst into a Shoney's restaurant
in Anniston, Alabama and herded the patrons and employees into a
walk-in refrigerator, at gun point. The robbers kept the manager
behind for his assistance as they looted the restaurant. One patron,
however, also remained behind. Thomas Glenn Terry had opted against
being locked in a refrigerator, and hid from the attackers under a
table.

As one of the armed robbers ransacked the cash register, another
patroled the restaurant. When he came across Mr. Terry, he pulled
his gun.

But unlike the recent victims in Atlanta, this victim was armed.
Using his own legally concealed handgun, Terry shot and killed the
robber. The other armed robber, who had had his gun trained on the
manager, then opened fire on Terry. Terry shot back, mortally
wounding the second robber. The two dozen hostages were released
unharmed. Only the criminals -- who had been armed with stolen
guns by the way -- didn't make it out alive.

You probably hadn't heard of the Shoney's restaurant incident.
In the media's boundless capacity to stultify the public with
sensational news stories, they have made places like Littleton,
Colorado household names. But "Anniston, Alabama" doesn't ring
a bell.

A massacre is a story. Thwarting a massacre isn't. But once you
know about Anniston, and similar averted tragedies, something
will start to leap out at you as you read news accounts of gunmen
shooting scores of innocents. Massacre stories always include
a terrifying account of how the killers proceeded from victim
to victim, pausing to reload, and shooting again. Mass murder
requires that the victims be unarmed.

Thomas Glenn Terry, though heroic, is not altogether unique. Two
years ago in Pearl, Mississippi a deranged student shot and killed
two of his classmates. Fortunately, Joel Myrick, the assistant
principal had a gun in his car. He prevented the shooting from
becoming a Littleton level massacre by holding the student at
gunpoint until the police arrived.

A year later, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a 14-year-old boy opened
fire at an eighth-grade graduation dance, killing a teacher and
wounding three others. A single murder did not become a mass
murder only because a near-by restaurant owner, James Strand,
happened to be armed. As the shooter stopped to reload, Strand
immobilized the shooter, holding him for over ten minutes, until
the police appeared. A lot of killing can be accomplished in ten
minutes when none of your victims is armed.

How long did it take the police to arrive in Atlanta? Barton
walked into one office building in Atlanta shot four people dead,
then left the building, ambled across the street, entered another
building, and killed at least five more people. As in Littleton
there are film clips of policemen scaling the building's walls
to rescue terrified and completely defenseless people inside.

Most striking in the news reports of Barton's shooting spree was
this: Fully three hours after the shooting, some people were still
hiding in the building. Hiding. Waiting like pigs before the
slaughter. Because none of them was armed. None but the madman.

But for some reason, the government's response is always to disarm
more citizens. Not to disarm itself, by the way, but to disarm
people other than the police who show up 15 minutes after the
shooting has begun. This isn't a complaint about the police, they
simply can't be everywhere at once. It's a plea for more citizen
guards. There may be bad citizens, but, let me remind you, there
are also bad police. Why are they the only ones don't have to hide
in their offices when madmen with guns show up?

More guns will not create more Mark Bartons. Guns can do a lot of
things, like protect you from lunatics, but they don't make you
criminally insane. Consider Mr. Barton. The initial reports have
been that he killed his children because his stock porfolio had
declined. Well, that's a rational response. Whether it was his
stocks or his wife or the weather -- he killed his children. This
is a madman. In the absence of a gun, he could have used an axe,
a bomb, or a machete. One of the most efficient murder sprees this
century was accomplished not with guns, but with machetes. Madmen
in Rwanda murdered almost one million people in under four months.

If only Thomas Glenn Terry had been there.

Elbert A. Evans, Jr.
Colonel, USAF Retired
The Retired Officers Association
Sons of the American Revolution
8989 Beavers Nest Drive
Shreveport, LA 71129-8533
[phone]



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: ALERT: Talk radio
Date: 25 Aug 1999 18:15:38 -0600


>From: Gunmoll <[e-mail]>
>Subject: ALERT: Talk radio
>
>Aaron Zelman, Executive Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
>Ownership (JPFO) will be a guest on Jack Stockwell's  radio show on
>Tuesday August 31, starting at 8 AM.  (The show runs from 7-10
>AM.)   Listen in on KTKK, AM 630, or on the web, at
>www.k-talk.com.  Better yet, you can call in and talk to Aaron yourself!
>
>Mr. Zelman is one of the foremost "no-compromise" defenders of the Second
>Amendment, and is also co-author (with science fiction writer and maybe
>presidential candidate L. Neil Smith) of _The Mitzvah_, a wonderful new book.
>
>For more information about JPFO, see www.jpfo.org.
>
>
>


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Send In The Waco Killers
Date: 26 Aug 1999 11:56:12 -0600

Parshall" <[e-mail]>=20


Hi - Most of you have heard about Vin Suprynowicz' book 'Send In The Waco =
Killers' by now. Many of you have ordered and read it. It has been selling =
VERY well, with copies even being ordered from around the world. He =
definitely is on our side - pro Liberty, pro Second Amendment w/ NO =
compromises, strings or permits attached, and opposed to government =
intervention in our lives. Here is a free and quick way to help spread his =
word.=20

Many of the larger book stores have not chosen to carry this book, saying =
such drivel as that they don't think it would sell well or that it is not =
main-stream enough, even though it is getting close to the time for a =
second edition in such a short time with word spreading mainly mouth to =
mouth. Random House is currently conducting a poll of readers choices for =
the top 100 non-fiction books of the century.=20

Vin's book hit #50 this morning and is still climbing! If we can get polls =
like this to reflect the sales of the book, it will be much harder for =
them to turn down the book for inclusion in their stores. If you would =
take a minute and go to this URL:=20

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100best/=20

and vote, it would be much appreciated. You can vote once a day, every day =
(and those votes over several days really do add up!)=20

This book is destined to reach the interest and sales levels of such =
pro-gun classics as 'Unintended Consequences' by John Ross. Look how hard =
he had getting his book out to the public. I had to wait until I saw him =
at a gun show to get mine, back when it first came out. BOTH books are =
definitely ones the klintonites don't want you to read. And of course, =
don't forget '101 Things to do until the Revolution' by Claire Wolfe when =
you are voting! Thanx! Glen PS - For more info on the book, check out =
Vin's web page at http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html -- Glen R. =
Parshall mailto:[e-mail] mailto:[e-mail] =
mailto:[e-mail] ** ** RKBA! Join The Resistance! ** **=20


-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: ALERT!  Don't be a victim!
Date: 26 Aug 1999 14:07:08 -0600


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

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

Ever wonder if you're likely to be a victim of violent crime?  Want to
know
what you can do to reduce your chances of becoming a victim?

Check out: http://www.nashville.net/~police/risk/

The site, sponsored by the Nashville PD, has three tests to determine
your
risk of being murdered, assaulted, or burglarized.  Each test will
evaluate
your risk, and provide you with suggestions for decreasing your risk.
It's
a fun and educational site that will probably open your eyes.

___________________________________________________________________
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: Fwd: ALERT: Christian Science Monitor Gun Poll
Date: 27 Aug 1999 12:21:19 -0600

--=====================_2756556==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


>X-Sender: [e-mail] (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
>Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:10:41 -0600
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>From: Gunmoll <[e-mail]>
>Subject: ALERT: Christian Science Monitor Gun Poll
>
>As Dave Jones likes to say, "This one's a no-brainer!"  Or at least it
>should be.  The actual votes are discouraging, so vote now!
>
>  <http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/commop/polls/p-0826guns.html>

--=====================_2756556==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="The Christian Science Monnitor  Poll1.url"

[DEFAULT]
BASEURL=http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/commop/polls/p-0826guns.html

[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/commop/polls/p-0826guns.html
Modified=8009FC5357F0BE01DE

--=====================_2756556==_--


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Police oppose Canadian gun registration!
Date: 27 Aug 1999 11:11:00 -0700


-----

The light at the end of the the tunnel may be a policeman's flashlight.

----------

Headline: Canada's cops rethink gun control
Byline: Tom Regan, Special to The Christian Science Monitor

(HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA)
In a move that may have ramifications for the gun-control debate in the
United States, the Canadian Police Association (CPA) is considering
reversing its stand on gun registration.

Like police in the US, Canadian police have long been a bedrock of support
for stricter gun control. But yesterday at the CPA's annual meeting in
Regina, Saskatchewan, members took up a resolution to withdraw their
support for the Firearms Act, which many say in hindsight has become too
expensive and unworkable. The controversial Firearms Act, which took effect
in late 1998, requires all rifle and shotgun owners in Canada to register
their weapons by 2003.

The resolution, which will be voted on tomorrow and which has been brought
forward by the executive committee of the Saskatchewan Federation of Police
Officers (SFPO), has a 50-50 chance of passing, according to some police
officials.

If the CPA passes the resolution, the officials say, the Firearms Act's
standing with the public would be seriously undermined. "It will sound the
end bell," says Murray Grismer, a 13-year veteran of the police force in
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

"The federal justice department has sent a deputy minister to Regina this
week to lobby the national association to support something that is already
a law," says Mr. Grismer, who serves as SFPO's spokesman. "To me, that says
the government knows that there is no concrete support for the bill with
the public and that it needs groups like the CPA in order to sell the law
to the public."

The Firearms Act is the latest major piece of gun-control legislation in
Canada, the first of which was passed in 1934. The country has been far
ahead of the US on such measures and can serve as a sort of test case for
Americans as they consider their own legislation.

A move in Canada toward less gun control could thus impact the direction of
lawmaking in the US. In September, a US congressional conference is
expected to hammer out new gun-control legislation in the wake of such
tragedies as the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo.

So far, about 90,000 Canadians have complied with the new law. The
government estimates that about 28 percent of Canadians own firearms, a
figure somewhere between 7 million and 9 million. By comparison, one-third
of US households are estimated to have a gun. Statistics Canada, a
government agency in Ottawa, says there were 193 homicides that involved
firearms in Canada last year - 77 with a rifle and 99 with a handgun.
Overall, homicide figures in Canada hit a 30-year low. In the United
States, an average of 87 people a day are killed by firearms.

Grismer says many police are reexamining their initial support for the
Canadian act because it has turned out to be far more expensive than
originally forecast. Original estimates were about $85 million to create
the infrastructure to support the act; some people now say the total cost
could be about $200 million or more. Creating an accurate, accessible
database for police to track firearms has also proved to be much harder
than expected, especially since "criminals don't register their guns," says
Grismer.

"The government's own audit says the system is 80 to 90 percent inaccurate.
What value is that to me as a police officer? If I go into a domestic
dispute and use the system to do a check and it tells me that there is no
firearm in the dwelling, then even subconsciously, I let my guard down. And
if the system is wrong, then that's trouble."

The CPA resolution is just the latest move to undermine the act. Several
national gun-owner groups and six of the 10 provinces are challenging the
constitutionality of the law before the Canadian Supreme Court. They argue
that the federal government overstepped its authority when it imposed the
Firearms Act on the provinces. Many national firearms groups, such as the
National Firearms Association, are also calling on their membership to
ignore the law.

But those who support the act, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs
of Police, say that many of these arguments are misleading and that the act
is working as intended.

"Much has been said about the problems of smuggled handguns in crime, and
it may be true that 'criminals' will not register their guns," Dave Cassels
wrote in an opinion piece in the Edmonton (Alberta) Journal last month. He
is former chief of the Winnipeg, Manitoba, police and deputy police chief
of Edmonton.

"However, the fact remains that most criminals get their guns from
so-called 'law-abiding' gun owners and that without mechanisms to track
firearms, we have no way of controlling the illegal gun trade or enforcing
existing safe storage laws."

Mr. Cassels also credits the rise in cost of implementing the law to the
federal government's need to fight costly battles to defend it in court.

And Jean Valin, director of public affairs for the Canadian Firearms Center
in Ottawa, which handles all requests for registration forms, says many gun
owners support the law. In a survey of 3,300 Canadians last year, 50 of gun
owners supported the mandatory registration of all firearms; 80 percent of
all respondents said that they were in support.

Mr. Valin also notes that the gun lobby represents an increasingly small
number of Canadians. "The dynamic is that the sport aspect of owning a gun
is in steady decline. People want to do other things - go rollerblading or
hiking. In fact, even 46 percent of Canadians who do own a gun say they
never use them anymore."

Both sides can show support for their positions. Pro-gun-control forces won
an important battle late last year when the Alberta Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of the Firearms Act by a 3-2 margin. But on the other
hand, Grismer points to the recent election of new premiers in New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia, who both took strong stances against the law.

Grismer says he is also aware of what the CPA vote could mean for the
gun-control debate in the US, and recent suggestions by some politicians
that the US needs a similar gun-registration law.

"I don't think it would ever happen anyway. But if the CPA reverses its
opinion, then yes, I do think it will make an impact on the debate in the
US. It means [a gun-registration system] will never, ever happen."


To read this story online

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/08/26/fp6s1-csm.shtml

(Shortcut hint: copy and paste the URL above into the location line of
your browser.)

To visit our home page

http://www.csmonitor.com


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: MCRGO: Interesting If True...
Date: 27 Aug 1999 11:11:00 -0700


-----

The Shreveport Times (August 19, 1999), points out that since 1993, 82
children have been killed in school shootings; 99 children have been killed
in that same period by goverment-mandated airbags.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Emerson to be Appealed 1/2
Date: 28 Aug 1999 18:30:00 -0700


From USA TODAY:

08/27/99- Updated 12:35 AM ET

Case could shape future of gun control
The Second Amendment establishes a right to possess firearms. The question
is: Is it an individual right or a military necessity?

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

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. -
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 1791

Tucked inside this famous paragraph, amid the multiple clauses, odd
punctuation and 18th-century syntax, lies the right that Americans both
cherish and fear: the right to have a gun.

But whose right is it anyway? Is there an individual right to own a
gun, like the individual right to freedom of speech or religion? Or
does the Second Amendment mean only that Americans can defend themselves
collectively through state militias, like the modern-day National Guard?

The debate over what the Second Amendment actually means has filled
a forest of law review articles and scholarly papers over the past
10 years. Now it is about to spill out of the ivory tower and into
the real world of guns and gun control.

For the first time, a federal judge has ruled that the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual's right to own a gun. In the process, the judge
invalidated a 1994 federal law that denies guns to anyone who is under a
restraining order to prevent him or her from harassing a spouse. The law
was part of a measure aimed at reducing domestic violence by limiting
access to guns.

If the decision by a federal district court judge last April in Texas is
upheld on appeal, it could be a huge setback for gun control advocates,
placing perhaps hundreds of laws in danger of being struck down. And it
would be a victory for gun control opponents such as the National Rifle
Association, which has consistently argued that an individual's right to
a gun is protected by the Second Amendment.

An appeal of the case, U.S. v. Emerson, begins with the filing of briefs
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans Friday.

The case, which is likely to be argued next January or February, is
unfolding as liberal scholars such as Harvard's Laurence Tribe, who
has long been hostile to the individual-rights argument, have begun
to move toward the NRA's position.

"The real-world consequences (of the Texas case) could be enormous,"
says Carl Bogus, a specialist on the Second Amendment at Roger Williams
Law School in Bristol, R.I.

If the lower-court ruling is upheld, "it would stand the law on its
head," Bogus says. It would destroy Congress' ability to create gun
control laws. Anyone arrested under current (gun control) laws could
argue they're unconstitutional. This is not just an academic exercise."

The renewed debate over the Second Amendment's meaning comes as recent
shootings in Atlanta, Los Angeles and Littleton, Colo., have increased
pressure for new gun control laws. This week, authorities in Los Angeles
took the unprecedented step of banning sales of guns from the nation's
largest gun show.

The very fact that there is a debate is likely to surprise many Americans,
many of whom assume that the Second Amendment already guarantees them the
right to own a gun. A CBS News poll Aug. 15 found that 48% of adults
believe there is an individual right to a gun, while 38% do not.

Case began as domestic dispute

The case began last August when Sacha Emerson, 26, a nurse from San
Angelo, Texas, filed for divorce. The local court placed a restraining
order on her husband, physician Timothy Joe Emerson, 41, after she
complained that he had verbally threatened her boyfriend.

Timothy Emerson owned a handgun, which automatically put him at odds
with the federal law barring gun ownership by people under state
restraining orders in domestic disputes. A federal grand jury indicted
Emerson, who was "greatly surprised" to learn that he may have violated
any law, according to his lawyer, David Guinn.

The case never got to trial. In April, U.S. District Court Judge Sam
Cummings found that the law denying guns to those under a restraining order
was an unconstitutional infringement of the "individual right to bear arms."

The federal law, Cummings wrote, "is unconstitutional because it allows
a state court divorce proceeding, without particularized findings of
the threat of future violence, to automatically deprive a citizen of
his Second Amendment rights."

The decision took gun control advocates and opponents by surprise.
Cummings, 54, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan,
had a reputation as a middle-of-the-road jurist who seldom set aside an
indictment. And Emerson's lawyer, assistant federal public defender David
Guinn, had raised the Second Amendment argument almost as an afterthought.

Both sides are taking the appeal very seriously. The National Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the NRA plan to file briefs supporting
Emerson and his argument that there is an individual right. A consortium
of 45 law professors and legal historians has filed on behalf of the other
side.

The solicitor general's office in Washington, which handles appeals for
the federal government, is helping federal prosecutor William Mateja with
his argument that the domestic violence law should be upheld and the
indictment reinstated.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Emerson to be Appealed 2/2
Date: 28 Aug 1999 18:30:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Amendment is open to interpretation

Arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment can be murky, because
both sides rely on the amendment's wording to reach radically different
conclusions.

Proponents of the theory that the Second Amendment confers only a
collective right to bear arms focus on the mention of "militia" in
the amendment's opening clause.

"Clearly, the reference to 'militia' is there for a reason," Bogus
says. If the Amendment's drafters had "wanted an individual right, they
wouldn't have needed to qualify it. That first (clause) is all-important.
They're saying, 'Because there's a need for a militia, we're bringing up
the subject of arms.'"

These theorists say that history, too, is in their favor. James Madison's
original draft of the Second Amendment, the theorists note, exempted the
"religiously scrupulous" - conscientious objectors - from bearing arms,
indicating that the right protected only arms related to militia service.

"If the Second Amendment had been adopted as originally drafted by Madison,
there'd be no question that its scope is limited to the possession of
weapons for use in the militia," says David Yassky, a Brooklyn Law School
professor who has filed a brief supporting the collective view in the Texas
case.

Supporters of the militia interpretation also say that to accept an
individual right to arms is to endorse anarchy.

"The Second Amendment can't mean that you have the right to form a private
army," says Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Center to Prevent Handgun
Violence.

"That's the logic of (Oklahoma City bomber) Timothy McVeigh," Henigan says.
The framers of the Constitution "couldn't have intended to bestow a right
to armed insurrection. That would have destroyed what they were trying to
build."

Those who advocate the right of the individual to bear arms say their
adversaries are misreading the Second Amendment.

"You've got to understand: The militia at the time (the amendment) was
written was basically all able-bodied men," says Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer
in Fairfax, Va., who has filed a pro-gun-rights brief in the Texas case.

When the framers "are talking about the 'militia,' they are talking
about the 'people.' They'd be shocked if anybody thought they meant
something different."

Both sides say history supports them

Those in the individual-rights group also say history supports them,
not their opponents.

"When the amendment was written and through most of the 19th century
and into the 20th, it was assumed that the individual right (to a
weapon) existed," says Robert Cottrol, a Second Amendment specialist
at George Washington University law school and author of Gun Control
and the Constitution.

"It wasn't until federal (gun control) laws were enacted, during
Prohibition and later during the 1960s, that it even became an issue."

Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale University law professor and scholar of the
Bill of Rights, says the right is neither collective nor individual
but something in between: the right of a small community of family
and friends to defend their homes, as the Minutemen had done during
the American Revolution.

"They weren't thinking of establishing a right for the National Guard
or for the Michigan militia," Amar says. "They were thinking about
Lexington and Concord, where they stood with their families and friends
to resist an imperial army. If you get Lexington and Concord, you get
the Second Amendment."

America's courts have had little to say about the debate. When they
have weighed in, it has been on the side of those who says there's
no individual right.

During Prohibition, Arkansas bootlegger Jack Miller was indicted under
the first national gun control law for carrying a sawed-off shotgun
across state lines.

Miller argued that the Second Amendment gave him the right to carry the
weapon and that the charge should be dismissed. But the Supreme Court
disagreed, saying in a unanimous 1939 decision that the shotgun had no
"reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well-regulated militia" and was thus not protected by the amendment.

U.S. v. Miller was the first and so far the only Supreme Court case to
address the issue. Since then, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have used the
case's reasoning to uphold gun restrictions in at least 21 separate cases.

"As long as a (gun control) law exempts the National Guard or police,
it has passed muster," says Dennis Henigan of the Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence. "The law has been all our way."

But liberal scholars, after backing the militia theorists for years,
have begun to side with individual-rights proponents.

Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas law school began the trend
10 years ago with an influential law journal article that compared the
Second Amendment to an "embarrassing relative, whose mention brings a
quick change of subject."

"This will no longer do," Levinson wrote, concluding that the
individual-rights argument had a historical basis.

Others picked up on that argument.

"If you're going to look at (the Second Amendment) fairly, you have
conclude that it means a lot more than its critics say," Amar of Yale
says. "It's there in the middle of the Bill of Rights for a reason."

In a striking departure, Harvard University's Tribe now concludes that
the Second Amendment guarantees more than a militia right and includes
an individual right to own firearms. Tribe's new view is included in
an updated version of his treatise American Constitutional Law, which
is out this month.

"Some very serious scholars are concluding that it is too simplistic
to say that the Second Amendment only protects the militia," Tribe
says. "It's not just the 'hired guns' for the NRA."

The stakes are large. If the Fifth Circuit upholds the individual right
to own guns, it would conflict with decisions in other appeals courts over
the years. This probably would prompt a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And if the individual-right theory is upheld there, state and federal
legislatures could have a much harder time passing gun control laws.
Current laws, too, would be open to challenge. Courts probably would
impose a "balancing test" to determine whether a proposed gun control
law unduly restricts an individual's rights. Essentially, courts would
weigh the justification for the gun control statute against the
restriction imposed on the individual citizen.

"To date, any restriction short of prohibition (of private gun ownership)
has been deemed acceptable by the courts," George Washington University's
Cottrol says. "If a right is involved, presumably the whole picture changes.
Any law impacting on that right might have to pass a much stricter test."

No one is making book on how the Fifth Circuit will rule. Mateja says
he'll argue that the militia rights view is "well settled" in law and
that Judge Cummings' decision was "flat wrong."

Guinn says he'll fall back on the language of the Second Amendment and
its promise of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms."

"The 'people' means the people," he says. "What else could it mean?"
Cover story index </leadpage/covindex.htm>

Go to News front page </news/nfront.htm>
Go to USA TODAY front page <http://www.usatoday.com>



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Tribe's American Constitutional Law
Date: 28 Aug 1999 18:30:00 -0700


http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndsthu08.htm

By Tony Mauro, USA TODAY

Publication of the first volume of a revised edition of a legal
treatise would not ordinarily make news.

But even before it began arriving at law schools last week, Laurence
Tribe's American Constitutional Law was causing a stir.

Tribe, a Harvard law professor who is probably the most influential
living American constitutional scholar, says he has already gotten
hate mail about his new interpretation of the right to bear arms
contained in the Second Amendment.

Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the book in 1978,
the right to bear arms earns Tribe's respect in the latest version.

Tribe, well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to
bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should
not be dismissed as "wholly irrelevant." Rather, Tribe thinks the
Second Amendment assures that "the federal government may not disarm
individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."

Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, "admittedly of
uncertain scope," to "possess and use firearms in the defense of
themselves and their homes."

None of Tribe's new thinking changes his view that gun-control
measures are "plainly constitutional," but his shift has been enough
to anger gun-control advocates.

"I've gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who
said, 'How could you?'" Tribe says. "But as someone who takes the
Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what
the Second Amendment says, and how it fits."


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Standard Examiner Poll Comments
Date: 29 Aug 1999 17:45:00 -0700


-----

The Ogden Stupid-Exaggerator recently ran an misleading, misinformed
highly-biased article on the desperate need for gun control and asked
readers to respond to their online poll. Here are the results and selected
comments. (They didn't publish mine.)

----------

Readers passionate in responses to Web poll on gun control

Sunday, August 29, 1999

Editor's note: Following a two-part series that ran Aug. 21-22 on one small
chapter of the gun issue -- that the majority of people in prison for killing
someone with a gun had no prior criminal record -- we asked the following
poll question on StandardNET: "Considering that 75 percent of the people
imprisoned for murder by firearms in Utah had no prior criminal record,
would you support tighter overall restrictions on guns?" The response was
overwhelming and largely opposed to any additional gun controls. In this
unscientific poll (those responding, for instance, could cast more than one
vote, and some respondents answered as many as a dozen times) the total, as
of Friday, was 421 "no" responses and 21 "yes" responses; none of the "yes"
respondents would allow their comments to be published. Here's a sampling:

No. I believe education is still the major answer. Controls for those with
severe mental illness or a history of violence would be wise. MaryEllen
Greene Brigham City

No. Tighter gun laws only affect those people who obey the law. Such laws
keep guns from people who obviously aren't going to commit crimes if they
are going to obey the laws for legally obtaining a handgun. The people who
"break the laws" and commit crimes of violence are just that "law breakers"
and will not be stopped by stricter laws. Troy Henrie Lombard, Ill.

No. Considering that 75 percent of the people imprisoned for murder by
firearms in Utah are men, would you support tighter overall restrictions on
men? Considering that the Standard-Examiner's "push poll" employs a leading
question, would you support tighter overall restrictions on their polling?
Considering that the news media's continuous coverage of gun violence
encourages copycat crimes, would you support tighter overall restrictions
on the freedom of the press? Dave Harmer Draper

No. This is a typical biased, liberal poll question on gun control. Why not
tell the truth that the vast majority of the people in jail are those in the
18 to 26-year-old range. Why not tell the truth that the vast majority of
these people were juvenile offenders, and their files were sealed when they
turned 18 so it appears they were law-abiding citizens with no prior
criminal record.

No, the question could not be asked in that manner as it would not obtain
the results you seek. You are fooling no one. Richard Pierce Brooks, Calif.

No. We already have the ultimate law -- the death penalty -- and it isn't
much of a deterrent when a person decides to commit murder. Jim Sommer St.
George

No. People are not afraid of our laws. They know that if they commit a
violent crime, chances are they will not be severely punished. A 7-year
prison term for murder is not sufficient and the victims of violent crime
are once again victimized in the court of law, while the accused is
treated like a king.

If people in our society knew they would be punished for their crimes, they
would think twice about committing them. We live in a civilization where
parents, government and police cannot punish our children for the things
they do wrong. We've raised a generation with no conscience, no regrets
and no understanding of punishment. It will only get worse. Jeannie Smith
Riverdale

No. I feel the laws we have are enough if they are enforced. We are looking
at total control of guns with time if this continues, and those who want
guns will still get them from other illegal sources. If we buy guns from
shops, you can enforce the laws already on the books. Ben Schelb Ogden

No. Your premise that without firearms these crimes would not have been
committed does not hold water. If someone is going to commit the crime,
they will use whatever is necessary. Delmon Nelson Clearfield

No. There are already enough laws on the books. If they would bring back
public executions, there would be less violent crime. Carl Hadley Plain City

No. If you really look at the statistics, you will note that crime is down.
More people die from prescription drugs than from guns. The way the media
covers guns, you would believe that blood was running in the streets and if
we step out of our doors, we need to take cover from all the gun violence.

How many people die from cars in the United States? How many people die
while riding their bikes? In a free society, you take your chances. Do
we no longer want a free society? Lora Mengucci Salt Lake City

No. Judging by the way this question was written, I would bet that your
polling staff was trying to get a different result than 118 (at that point)
"no," one "unsure" and three "yes" answers. I believe gun control advocates
rejoice at tragedies such as Columbine and the day care center shooting
because they can cry for more gun laws. John Kelley Layton

No. I think the government and law enforcement officials need to start
enforcing the laws already in place. Many horrible things involving guns
have occurred in this country lately, but to blame the weapon used is a
fruitless accusation. The people who committed these acts could have used
any number of things at their disposal. One event proved this with the use
of explosives.

This country has no concept of the term "terrorism," and if things continue
to progress as they are now, we will learn very quickly. I grew up living in
Germany as a military brat, and I fully understand the helpless feeling that
terrorism can bring to a community. I honestly believe that the private
ownership of guns has prevented a lot of terrorism from entering the United
States more than it already has. Paul Gardner Riverdale

No. Perhaps an equal number of murderers who used other weapons never
had a prior conviction. Neil Sager North Ogden

No. You cannot assume bad behavior any more than you can guarantee good
behavior. I could not live in a society where you could be arrested and
convicted of a crime that statistics or probability indicated you would
commit some day. John K. Krater Roy

No. Considering that there have been more people murdered by despotic
governments after gun control was established than all of the deaths from
criminals and accidents involving firearms combined leads me to believe
that more gun control is not the answer. Bruce Anderson Hooper

No. Criminals who use guns in crimes should have the book thrown at them.
The same thing should be done to felons who try to buy guns. If more
murderers were actually executed promptly instead of in 10, 15 or 20
years, how many less murders would there be? Brad Farnsworth Thatcher

No. As long as directions are put over the Internet about how to make a
bomb, I oppose hunters and collectors being penalized for the misdeeds of
others. Peggie L. Frew Tucson, AZ

No. I laugh when you gun haters spout statistics, i.e., "XX percent of
people violently killed are with guns." What percentage of that percentage
are the criminals killed by police protecting themselves or innocent people?
Statistics always favor the writer -- never the true facts. Randall Johnson
Ogden

No. It is unlikely that more gun controls based on arbitrary evidence such
as this would make anyone safer. What happened the previous 20 years? Is
this just an anomaly? Shawn Worthington Roy



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Fratrum: Heads UP!!! Clinton Launches a New Attack on
Date: 30 Aug 1999 09:51:08 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:11:04 -0600
Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA00382; Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:49:07 -0600
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
    by fs1.mainstream.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA12004;
    Fri, 27 Aug 1999 20:00:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
X-Divvy-no: 1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Aug 27, Huck wrote:

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

Here we go again. We whupped him last time, let's do it again. After all,
it's OUR Bill of Rights!

Huck

> Subject: [APC News Wire] EO 13132 - Clinton Launches a New Attack on
> Federalism
> From: <[e-mail]
> Subject: APC News Wire
> American Policy Center  http://www.americanpolicy.org
> August 26, 1999 Volume 2, Issue 9
>
> Clinton Launches a New Attack on Federalism -
> Executive Order #13132
>
>  Bill Clinton is back with a new executive order,
>  #13132, and a new assault on the Constitution.  As
>  you may remember, last year President Clinton issued
>  Executive Order #13083, deceitfully entitled
>  "Federalism," which virtually eliminated the 10th
>  Amendment.  It revoked a previous executive order
>  penned by Ronald Reagan designed to promote
>  Federalism and protect the 10th Amendment of the
>  U.S. Constitution.  E.O. #13083 was designed not
>  only to wipe out the Reagan legacy, but to wipe out
>  the vision of government that our Founding Fathers
>  fought for in the Revolutionary War.
>
>  The reaction to E.O. #13083 was amazing!  A
>  firestorm of protest erupted across the nation from
>  American citizens, organizations like the American
>  Policy Center, State and local officials, and
>  Congress.  The pressure was so overbearing that
>  Clinton, for the very first time, had no choice but
>  to kill his own executive order.  But instead of
>  taking that opportunity to strengthen the priciples
>  of Federalism, the coalition that defeated E.O.
>  #13083 took their ball and bat and went home.
>  Clinton didn't, and now, more than a year later,
>  he's back with a new, more deceiving executive order,
>   and more power behind him to validate it.  It's
>  time again for you and me to go to war and stop the
>  renewed assault on the Constitution.
>
>  "The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the
>  Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson
>
>  Clinton and his administration reintroduced his new
>  "Federalism" executive order in a very unscrupulous
>  manner.  In an attempt to avert opposition by
>  governors, state legislators, mayors and other local
>  government officials who challenged him last time,
>  Clinton brought together the liberal hired hands of
>  the National Governors Association and the other
>  State and local governments' national organizations,
>  known as "The Big Seven."  Sure enough, these
>  like-minded bureaucrats sold us down the river.  And
>  in what is a most vile slap-in-the-face to those of
>  us who are principled Federalists, Clinton used
>  Ronald Reagan's Federalism Executive Order as the
>  language for his own, manipulating the words just
>  enough to gut its meaning by asserting the supremacy
>  of the Federal government through weakening the
>  power of State and local governments.
>
>  Executive Order #13132 specifies that where State
>  rules directly conflict with federal law-federal law
>  shall be supreme.  Behind the flowery language this
>  E.O. says the Federal government can do whatever it
>  wants - just as long as they consult the States
>  first.  It tells federal agencies to dictate policy,
>  then go to the States and tell them to pass their
>  own legislation, making the federal program a State
>  one.  In effect, E.O. #13132 makes the State or
>  local government a pawn to federal dictates.  This
>  is Clinton's definition of "partnership."  You and I
>  need to tell Clinton and anyone else who supports
>  E.O. #13132 that such a partnership is already
>  defined in the Constitution.  The States have the
>  power and the Federal government has its
>  well-defined duties.  Period.
>
>  The Solution
>
>  We can stop E.O. #13132.  Remember, we did it last
>  time.  Most state and local officials probably have
>  no idea what is really included in the new order.
>  You and I must alert them and your Congressmen to
>  what E.O. #13132 really does.  The Washington Times
>  recently printed a front page "Special Report" on
>  Clinton's executive orders.  That means that every
>  member of Congress has read it and Clinton's abuse
>  of power is on their minds.  Now is the time to
>  strike.  Now is the time to get their phones
>  ringing.  And if their phones are ringing off the
>  wall, if their mail is jammed with angry letters -
>  they will act.
>
>  We need to create a firestorm of protest against
>  E.O. #13132 and of support for those state, local
>  and federal representatives who want to restore the
>  10th Amendment to its original meaning.  We must be
>  their backbone to exercise their constitutional
>  duties and rescind E.O. #13132 and restore Ronald
>  Reagan's legacy on Federalism.  For more information
>  on E.O. #13132, visit our web site at
>  www.americanpolicy.org.
>
>  URGENT Action to Take
>
>  1.  Call your governor, state legislator and mayor
>  and demand them not to be fooled by the Clinton
>  Administration and their own organizations'
>  bureaucrats into accepting this new "Federalism"
>  Executive Order #13132.
>  2.  Call your Senators and Congressman and demand a
>  response from Congress in opposition to Executive
>  Order #13132.  Capitol Hill Switchboard: (202)
>  224-3121 (Senate) and [phone] (House).
>  3.  Call GOP Leadership and demand they take a stand
>  against Clinton's idea of Federalism.  Rep. Richard
>  Armey [phone], Sen. Trent Lott (202)
>  224-3135.
>  4.  Call Governor Mike Leavitt (Utah), the newly
>  elected chairman of the National Governors
>  Association and who was a major force in defeating
>  Clinton's first Federalism E.O., #13083, and implore
>  him to oppose E.O. #13132 just as fiercely. (801)
>  538-1000.

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

--
-
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
-
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand =3D Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy =
a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus =
Christ
----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------=
-
-
To unsubscribe, send a message to [e-mail], and as the
body of the message (plain text, no HTML), send the following:
.
unsubscribe noban email-address
.
where email-address is the address under which you are subscribed.
Report problems to [e-mail]




-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FBI agent with a .50-caliber Browning machine gun
Date: 30 Aug 1999 12:15:22 -0600

A former Special Forces commando says he spoke yesterday to a Delta Force =
commando who was present at the final tear-gas assault on the Branch =
Davidian compound. Keith Idema, who was a member of Special Forces and =
Special Operations units from 1975 to 1992 and helped to train hostage =
rescue team personnel for both Delta Force and the FBI, says pictures from =
Waco released this week by the Texas Department of Public Safety have been =
mistakenly identified by the department as gun silencers and suppressors =
belonging to David Koresh and his followers which were found inside the =
compound after the fire. Idema says they are actually concussion grenades =
manufactured by a company, Defense Technology, and purchased by the FBI. =
Idema also says the bright light seen on video footage as flashing inside =
the building moments before the fire broke out have been misidentified as =
a fire started by Branch Davidian leader David Koresh, when, in fact, to =
the trained eye of a Special Forces explosive expert it is unmistakably =
the flash caused by a "concussion grenade" that has been lobbed inside the =
compound.=20

A concussion grenade uses a brilliant flash and loud bang to render an =
enemy in its vicinity blind, deaf and immobile for a brief period during =
which commandos can overpower them. Such grenades should be used only for =
military purposes and were wholly inappropriate, if not illegal to be used =
in a situation involving women and children -- and any situation where =
potentially inflammable tear gas was still hanging in the air, the former =
Special Forces operative said.=20

Charges that the FBI used incendiary grenades which may have caused the =
fire were dismissed by Reno. For six years, since the assault on April 19, =
1993, until six days ago, Reno maintained that no military weapons were =
used. When a report from Texas DPS forced her to admit that some might =
have been used, she still dismissed any possibility that they could have =
caused the fire, stating that they were used in the early morning hours =
before the fire began.=20

According to Idema, the FBI was taking an ill- advised chance using a =
military CS tear gas grenade at any time knowing that, unlike the kind of =
tear gas used in civilian situations, this type leaves a vapor that hangs =
in the air for a longer period of time and can ignite under certain =
circumstances.=20

The concussion grenades and military fuses he says were used moments =
before the fire broke out could have ignited the lingering tear gas vapors =
and started the fire.=20

Idema also points out that other photographs released clearly show an FBI =
agent with a .50-caliber Browning machine gun next to his leg. Such =
weapons are to be used only against armored equipment and weapons, =
certainly not civilians, says Idema.=20

"Why were they there?" he asks. "Koresh didn't have any tanks or helicopter=
s, or APCs.=20

The Geneva Convention states that these weapons are never to be used in an =
anti-personnel role." The bureau's admission that such devices "may have =
been used" marked an abrupt reversal of a long-standing denial that its =
agents used anything capable of sparking a fire at the church. Bureau and =
Justice Department officials have maintained that the devices could not =
have played a role in the fire because they were used hours before the =
blaze and were fired at an underground bunker adjacent to the wooden =
church compound. A pending wrongful-death suit filed by surviving Branch =
Davidians and families of the dead has alleged that agents launched =
pyrotechnic devices into the compound and fired into the building. The =
government vehemently denies those charges. Federal officials from =
President Clinton down have staunchly maintained in the six years since =
the tragedy that FBI agents did not fire a single shot during the entire =
51-day siege. ?=20



1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. ------------------- "...There is no nation on =
earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should =
it ever come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of =
the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness =
and negligence." - Daniel Webster -----------------------------------------=
INTERNATIONAL Anomalous Images and UFO Files http://www.anomalous-images.co=
m -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to [e-mail] -> Posted by: =
"Steve Wingate" <[e-mail]>=20


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #28 - 26 August 1999 1/3
Date: 30 Aug 1999 11:17:00 -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 #28 - 26 August 1999

Today's Voice of Liberty:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who
approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

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.


Barrage of bad bills at state and federal levels.

Last month, we at GOUtah! were patting our activists on the back for having
played a pivotal role in derailing Governor Leavitt's plans for a special
session of the state legislature on gun control. We were also quite happy
that the U.S. House of Representatives had blocked the addition of gun
control measures to the House version of the Federal Juvenile Justice Bill.
We deemed it appropriate to wipe the sweat from our brow, sit in the shade
with a cool glass of lemonade, and take a moment to savor our hard-won
victories. As we did this, we knew that our respite would be short-lived,
and that more bad news would be coming our way soon. We were right. In
the last few days, a deluge of terrible legislation has been proposed at
both the state and federal levels. In addition, serious efforts are being
made to re-inject gun control into the federal Juvenile Justice Bill. In
this alert, we will focus on developments taking place at the federal
level. Our next alert will look at the ugly stuff being cooked up by the
interim committees of our own Utah State Legislature. As you read this,
please remember that it is up to you to defeat these proposals by keeping
up the pressure on your lawmakers. A brief letter or a fax or a phone
call, or, best of all, a personal visit, can have a big impact. If all
GOUtah! activists do this, the effect will be felt by those in government.


Feinstein introduces gun confiscation bill.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - California), author of the infamous 1994
federal ban on "assault weapons", is at it again. As you may recall, her
1994 legislation prohibits the manufacture and importation of ammunition
magazines over 10 rounds for sale to civilians, and bans the manufacture
and importation of certain semiautomatic firearms based purely on their
cosmetic appearance. Of course, criminologists, law enforcement experts,
and even some anti-gun members of Congress who voted for the bill have made
it clear that this law has played absolutely no role in reducing violent
crime. Thanks to Feinstein's law, however, magazines for many handguns now
cost upwards of $100, as the supply of legal pre-1994 magazines continues
to dwindle. Thanks to her law, if you are at the National Matches shooting
a post-1994 Colt Sporter rifle and your upper receiver assembly
malfunctions, and you swap upper receivers with a pre-1994 Sporter (which
can be done in a few seconds), you have just committed a federal felony,
because the older barrel features an integral flash suppressor and bayonet
lug, which turns your post-1994 rifle into an "assault weapon".
Many Americans, mistakenly thinking that the "assault weapons" banned in
1994 were somehow functionally different from other semi-automatic
firearms, naively supported Feinstein's bill. Of course, those of us who
know something about guns know that the term "assault weapon" is not a
valid piece of firearms terminology, but is simply an emotionally-charged
buzzword invented in the late 1980s by the anti-gun movement to describe
semi-automatic firearms that look like fully-automatic military weapons.
Back in 1994, those of us who take the Second Amendment seriously were
deeply disturbed by the fact that our government had just prohibited the
manufacture of certain firearms simply because of their looks, yet we
comforted ourselves with the belief that we were not going to be required
to turn in any guns that we already owned. Some gun owners even thought
that the 1994 "assault weapon" law would keep the anti-gun crowd happy,
preventing them from doing anything more onerous. They were mistaken.
According to the August 18th edition of The Los Angeles Times, Senator
Feinstein has announced that she is about to introduce a bill aimed at
"banning possession of all assault weapons." According to the Times
article, by reporters Matt Lait and Tina Daunt, "a spokesman for Feinstein
said the proposal would seek to collect weapons already in the hands of gun
owners. Details of the 'turn-in' program, such as how the owners would be
compensated, have not yet been worked out, the spokesman said."
Feinstein's bill has not yet been formally introduced or numbered, and
details are not available at this time. However, the use of the words
"turn-in" and "collect" in any piece of gun legislation is enough to send
cold shivers down the spine of gun owners everywhere. Many of us thought
it would never come to this, but now it has.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #28 - 26 August 1999 2/3
Date: 30 Aug 1999 11:17:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Feinstein wants to ban .50-caliber rifles.

While you ponder the ominous implications of the above legislation, get
ready for more bad news. Suddenly, a number of politicians are becoming
terrified of .50-caliber rifles. The fact that a small number of wealthy
people own $6,000 rifles weighing 90 lbs. and chambered for the .50 BMG
cartridge seems to be too much for some folks in Congress to handle, even
though such guns have been around for quite some time and have never been
used in violent crime. According to an article in the August 17th issue of
The Washington Post, written by Barbara Vobejda and David Ottaway, Senator
Feinstein and anti-gun Representative Rod Blagojevich (D- Illinois) "are
preparing legislation that would ban the rifles for all civilians except
for competitive marksmen who belong to .50-caliber shooting clubs. In those
cases, the guns would be kept under the control of the club itself." There
is only one ".50-caliber shooting club" in the United States, known as "The
.50-Caliber Shooters Association", which has a Post Office box address but
no physical facility or shooting range. Again, details are sketchy at this
point, but the proposed legislation sounds a lot like the law regulating
.22-caliber pistols in England until recently. You may recall that the
British Government banned private ownership of all handguns except .22
rimfire pistols a few years ago after a madman owning several legally
registered firearms killed 15 children at a schoolyard in Scotland. At the
time, British shooters were told that they had to turn in all centerfire
handguns (which were easy for the authorities to locate, thanks to
registration). However, shooters were generously allowed to still own
pistols chambered for .22 rimfire ammunition, provided that the pistol and
ammunition were stored in a secured locker at a government-approved gun
club at all times except when being used for target practice. Of course,
when Tony Blair took over as Prime Minister a year later, Parliament
proceeded to completely ban private ownership of all .22-caliber handguns.
It is not clear at this point whether Feinstein's proposal would include
guns chambered for other .50-caliber cartridges, such as certain African
big-game guns and black powder muzzleloaders, or whether it focuses only on
the .50 BMG cartridge. Either way, the real reason for Feinstein's
proposal, according to pro-gun activist Neal Knox, is to introduce the term
"sniper rifle" into the national political dialogue. We note a pattern
here. The gun-control lobby has invented several terms in the past which
have little technical meaning but which make for effective sound bites
designed to terrify naive suburban voters. These buzzwords include
"cop-killer bullets", "assault weapons", "Saturday night specials", and
"junk guns". The same folks apparently wish to add "sniper rifle" to the
legislative lexicon, so that the term can be employed by politicians and
media pundits wanting to "do something" about a non-existent problem. Of
course, any expert on military affairs will tell you that a true "sniper
rifle" is simply a deer-hunting rifle that has been painted black.
Naturally, Feinstein and her allies are counting on gun owners to sit idly
by while she outlaws .50-caliber rifles, since most of us have neither the
money nor the inclination to own such a gun. You as a GOUtah! activist
should be very concerned about this attack on our flanks, even if you don't
own a .50-caliber weapon. If someone shoots, he's one of us and we must
defend his gun rights as if they were our own. We're all in this together.
Rep. Blagojevich has also introduced legislation to prohibit the possession
of armor-piercing .50-caliber ammunition. In addition, according to the
Times, a bill currently in House-Senate negotiation (probably the Juvenile
Justice Bill, but we have not been able to confirm this) contains an
amendment by Rep. Blagojevich prohibiting the sale of military surplus
.50-caliber ammunition by the government.


Feinstein to introduce gun registration bill.

Senator Feinstein just won't leave us alone. She announced earlier this
week to several California newspapers that she has drafted a bill that
would require registration of firearms and licensing of gun owners. She
plans to introduce the bill in September. Again the details are not yet
available but we can be certain that they won't be nice.


Status of the Juvenile Justice Bill

Congress is still in recess, but will reconvene after Labor Day. The fate
of the gun control provisions of the Senate version of the Juvenile Justice
Bill (S. 254) is still up in the air. House and Senate negotiators will
attempt to hammer out a compromise bill based on the Senate and House
versions. Once the final compromise has been reached, it must be approved
by both houses of Congress before it can reach the President's desk.
The House version contains no gun control provisions, while the Senate bill
contains several, including one which would essentially make gun shows a
thing of the past and another that would make it a federal crime to let
your teenage son or daughter handle or shoot an "assault weapon", i.e. a
semiautomatic firearm that doesn't have the government-approved cosmetic
appearance. In addition, the Senate version would make it illegal to wear
body armor while committing a federal crime of any sort, including
non-violent crimes such as cheating on one's taxes. Another section of
this bill allows law enforcement officers to intercept electronic pager
messages without a warrant. Basically, S. 254 is a bad bill, even without
the gun provisions.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #28 - 26 August 1999 3/3
Date: 30 Aug 1999 11:17:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
FBI admits that its agents used pyrotechnic devices at Waco.

The two paramilitary assaults on the Branch Davidian church in 1993 are
making headlines again. Both attacks (one by the BATF and the other by the
FBI) demonstrated what can happen when government gets out of control. One
assertion which the FBI has made repeatedly since the final assault on the
Davidian compound is that federal agents used no pyrotechnic devices of any
sort. On Wednesday, however, the FBI was forced to officially acknowledge
that pyrotechnic devices had indeed been used to insert CS gas into part of
the compound. The issue came up earlier in the week when Danny Coulson, a
former senior FBI official, disclosed the use of pyrotechnic grenades while
being questioned during preparations for a lawsuit being brought against
the government by relatives of some of the Davidians killed in the attack.
Although it is not likely that these particular devices started the fire,
according to Coulson, the new admission indicates that the FBI and the
Justice Department have been lying through their teeth for six years.
In addition, we have learned from Thursday's edition of the Dallas Morning
News that a retired CIA agent, who worked with the U.S. Army's elite
clandestine unit known as Delta Force, has revealed that several Delta
Force soldiers told him fairly detailed stories after the Waco incident
about having participated in the final assault on the church, not just as
technical advisors but as actual operatives. If this is true, it directly
violates federal law, which prohibits the use of military personnel in law
enforcement activities, except for narcotics operations.
We at GOUtah! recommend that you visit Blockbuster Video and rent a copy of
the Academy Award-nominated documentary film, Waco: The Rules of
Engagement, if you haven't already done so, and invite your friends to
watch it with you. Note that Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel gave
this film two thumbs up. The basic premise of gun control is that only the
government can be trusted with firearms. Waco: The Rules of Engagement
provides a powerful rebuttal to that argument. One of the reasons why so
many Americans nowadays seem willing to surrender their liberties,
including their Second Amendment rights, is that most of us don't think
that our own government is capable of doing terrible things to its
citizens. This film provides striking evidence to the contrary. Its
director, William Gazecki, is a liberal Buddhist from Berkeley who admits
that he has always hated guns. After having made this documentary,
however, he says that he now understands why we need the Second Amendment.
For more information, please visit the film's website at www.waco93.com.


What you can do this week.

Please call your Congressman and both U.S. Senators, visit them in person,
or write letters to them. Tell them that the Juvenile Justice Bill must
not pass if any gun control provisions remain in it. Ask them whether they
have read the entire text of the bill, and if they haven't (which is
probably the case), ask them why they would vote for something they haven't
read. Also, tell Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett that you are aware of
Senator Feinstein's efforts to whittle away at your Second-Amendment
rights, and that you will not tolerate any support for her activities by
any member of Utah's Congressional delegation. In particular, please ask
Senator Hatch to use his clout to oppose Feinstein's efforts. While
Congress is in recess, our senators and representatives are likely to be in
Utah, where you can visit them in person. Also, please attend any town
meetings at which your representatives are present.

Sen. Orrin Hatch
Local Office: 8042 Federal Bldg.
125 South State St.
SLC, Utah 8484138-1102
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Sen. Robert Bennett
Local Office: 4225 Federal Bldg.
125 South State St.
SLC, Utah 8484138
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Congressional District 1: Northern and Western Utah, except Salt Lake Metro
Rep. Jim Hansen (R)
Local Office: 324-25th Ave.
Ogden, Utah 84401
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax: [phone]

Congressional District 2: Salt Lake Metro Area
Rep. Merrill Cook (R)
Local Office: 125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84138
Utah Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Congressional District 3: Central and Eastern Utah
Rep. Chris Cannon (R)
Local Offices: 51 South University Drive
Provo, Utah 84606
Utah Phone: [phone]
Utah Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Results of Salt Lake City's gun turn-in program.
We congratulate our GOUtah! activists who made appearances on TV and radio
to denounce the Salt Lake Police Department's recent gun turn-in program.
We contacted the SLPD recently to ask how many guns had been turned in
altogether, and we received answers ranging from 5 to 10, though no one
seemed quite certain.

GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) Quote Watch.

"I, too, would like to see guns banned. . . . I can even vote that way and
still win reelection. But the vast majority of lawmakers cannot, so we vote
on measures now that we can. And then we move society along."

-- Kevin Shelley (D - San Francisco), Democratic Floor Leader of the
California State Assembly (the lower house of the California State
Legislature), quoted in the August 18th edition of The Los Angeles Times.

"Taking a long view of history, we may say that anyone who lays down his
arms deserves whatever he gets."

-- Col. Jeff Cooper (USMC, Ret.)

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 #27 - 20 August
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.



-