ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.199909

Internet Message Format | 1999-09-28 | 147KB

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Chuck Baldwin's "Food for Thought from The Chuck Wagon"
Date: 01 Sep 1999 13:04:40 -0600

Received: from wvc
    ([204.246.130.34])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 01 Sep 1999 04:40:30 -0600
Received: from mail.gulf1.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id EAA05953; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 04:18:24 -0600
Received: from gulf1.com [204.214.21.67] by mail.gulf1.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-5.05) id A1673700009A; Wed, 01 Sep 1999 06:35:19 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-EM-Version: 4, 5, 0, 0
X-EM-Registration: #30C3410514B417038530
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Waco: Why Now?

September 1, 1999

=20

All of a sudden everyone in congress and the Justice Department are =
greatly
concerned about what really happened at Waco. Really? Why now?=20

I distinctly remember the hearings that were conducted in congress
concerning the Waco matter back in 1995. I sat mesmerized as I watched
those hearings on C-Span; most of them tape replays shown well after
midnight. I well recall Charles Schumer and the other Democrats on the
committee acting like defense lawyers for the government witnesses. They
stonewalled, smirked, delayed, postured and pandered for Reno=C6s =
henchmen.

At first, Republicans Bill McCollum and Bill Zeliff, the committee
co-chairmen seemed sincere in wanting to get to the truth. I was
encouraged. My confidence quickly evaporated as the hearings continued,
however. By the end of the hearings, Republicans and Democrats alike
sounded a united chorus that the government had done nothing amiss, that
there was no conspiracy, no cover-up, and no illegal activity on behalf of
the ATF, FBI and other federal agencies involved. Attorney General, Janet
Reno, was absolved of any wrongdoing. David Koresh and the other Branch
Davidians were painted as evil monsters that, basically, got what they
deserved. It was a stunning display of congressional cover-up and =
cowardice.

Now, these same congressmen seem shocked to learn that perhaps those
federal agents had lied. Shazaam! Maybe the Feds really did start the =
fire.
Maybe they did hide evidentiary material that would have incriminated =
them.
Maybe they did violate the Constitution and laws of our land. Golly Gee!
Let=C6s investigate! Let=C6s conduct more hearings. Let=C6s get the bottom =
of
this. Again, I ask the question, why now?

Congressmen, while you are at it, let=C6s get the facts about why those =
Delta
force troops and Special Forces troops from England were on hand at Waco.
Let=C6s find out why FBI agents were trained by our own Green Berets. =
Let=C6s
get the facts concerning why it was necessary for automatic machine guns =
to
open up on old men, women and children as they fled that inferno? Let=C6s
find those steel, front doors that would prove who fired first. And, since
you are suddenly energized to seek the truth, let=C6s get the facts about
that helicopter that fired a hail of bullets into those buildings. And, =
why
were Army tanks knocking holes in the building, if not to create a
tinderbox?=20

Here are some more questions for our suddenly concerned congressmen. Why
was an ATF raid necessary in the first place? Wasn=C6t it true that David
Koresh daily took long jogs alone? Wasn=C6t it true that he often =
frequented
the merchants in Waco and could have been peacefully apprehended at
anytime? Isn=C6t it true that shortly before the initial raid David Koresh
called the ATF and invited them come out and inspect the weapons that he
possessed? Why did the ATF not take him up on his invitation? Isn=C6t it =
true
that the charges of illegal weapons and child abuse were nothing more than
a ruse to give the Feds the excuse they wanted in order to justify their
illegal and unconstitutional raid?=20

We could go on forever. You get the point. This entire government has
covered up the Waco massacre from the beginning. For congressmen to
suddenly discover righteous indignation is the height of hypocrisy! Again,
why now? Could it be that Republicans want to use Waco as a campaign issue
for the presidential elections next year? Hmmm.

And, speaking of presidential elections, what did George W. Bush do since
becoming Texas Governor to get to the bottom of Waco? After all, those =
were
Texas citizens that were slaughtered. How did his "compassionate
conservatism" help the Waco victim=C6s families find closure?

Watch these developments carefully. I predict that in the end Janet Reno
will still be Attorney General. No federal agents will be charged with a
crime or punished in any significant way. It will be another circus. More
smoke. More mirrors. More rhetoric. No answers. No truth. No justice. But,
hey, Republicans can use it to try and win a presidential election.

Before you go to bed tonight remember the names of Chanel Andrade, 1,
Daylan Lord Gent, 3, Paiges Gent, 2, Bobbie Lane Koresh, 2, Cyrus Howell,
8, Star Howell, 6, Serenity Sea Jones, 4, Chica Jones, 1, Little One =
Jones,
1, (They were twins.) Crystal Martinez, 3, Isaiah Martinez, 4, Joseph
Martinez, 8, Abigail Martinez, 11, Startle Summers, 1, Hollywood Sylvia, =
2,
Mayanah Schneider, 2, Melisa Morrison, 8, and newborns Summers and Little
(born into the flames as their mothers perished). These are the little
children that were burned alive, suffocated or machine-gunned to death in
the Waco massacre. Then, go look in the faces of your own children or
grandchildren and know that what happened to the Davidian=C6s little =
children
could happen to yours!
=20
NOTE:

My editorials are published Tuesdays, Wednesdays & Fridays on Gulf1.com =
and
are sent via email to anyone who requests them. If you have friends whom
you would like to receive these editorials please forward their addresses
to me at [e-mail]

Newspapers, periodicals, journals and newsletters also carry my editorials.=

Editors or Publishers interested in running these editorials may contact
[e-mail]. To learn more about my radio talk show please
visit my web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
=20
For AOL users:
<A HREF=3D"http://www.gulf1.com "> Gulf1 </A>
<A HREF=3D"http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com "> Chuck Baldwin LIve </A>



-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Sept. 1 column -- pardon Davidian survivors
Date: 02 Sep 1999 13:39:10 -0600


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

--------- Forwarded message ----------
Message-ID: <v0213050ab3f34cf6c940@[0.0.0.0]>
Received: from mx1.boston.juno.com (mx1.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.51])
    by m10.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA565JFQA5UK2RA
    (sender <[e-mail]>);
    Wed,  1 Sep 1999 17:54:54 -0400 (EST)
Received: from ez0.ezlink.com (ezlink.com [199.45.150.1])
    by mx1.boston.juno.com with SMTP id AAA565JFQAEJ5NWA
    (sender <[e-mail]>);
    Wed,  1 Sep 1999 17:54:54 -0400 (EST)
Received: (from list@localhost)
    by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA07442;
    Wed, 1 Sep 1999 15:57:36 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: list
Resent-Message-ID: <"dbu983.0.Lo1.X4Qpt"@ez0.ezlink.com>
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailing-List: <[e-mail]> archive/latest/720
Resent-From: [e-mail]
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Loop: [e-mail]
Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 15:57:36 -0600


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 1, 1999
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Set the Branch Davidians free


    Documentary filmmaker Mike McNulty of Colorado, whose "Waco: The
Rules
of Engagement" was nominated for an Academy Award, is prepared to release
a
sequel this fall, presenting evidence that at least six spent incendiary
mortar rounds and "flash-bang devices" (the kind that can start fires)
were
found in the main Mount Carmel church (not just two, and not just in some
outbuilding) following the final assault by federal troops in Waco, Texas
in April of 1993. The new film will also document the assignment --
illegal
without a special presidential order -- of members of the Army's elite
Delta Force to be present during that final, deadly government assault,
against American civilians on American soil.

  What a coincidence that the FBI in the past week has admitted to only
as
much as Mr. McNulty and the Texas Rangers can apparently now prove --
"spinning" these revelations with the bizarre explanation that (only two)
incendiary mortar rounds were fired, only into an outbuilding, hours
before
the fatal fire which killed 80 people (including scores of innocent women
and children.)

  Of course, it was Mr. McNulty and his associates who first used the
Freedom of Information Act to pry from the federal government the aerial
"Forward-Looking Infrared" footage of the final Waco assault -- the real
assault, conducted on the back side of the building, out of sight of
commercial television cameras -- revealing what several experts have
interpreted as fully-automatic rifle fire into the building from
positions
behind the armored vehicles as those converted tanks moved in to knock
down
walls and staircases and spray in flammable and disorienting CS gas,
effectively making escape impossible for most.

  The idea that these are the first "Waco lies" to be revealed is mere
wishful thinking. To gain access to military helicopters for the initial
assault (by armed tax collectors supposedly investigating reports of an
unpaid $200 machine gun tax, but in fact mostly anxious to pull off a
dramatic televised raid shortly before their upcoming congressional
funding
hearings), government agents had to lie on affidavits contending they
believed the Rev. David Koresh was running a methamphetamine lab in his
church. He was not, and no one ever believed he was.

  The government has long insisted there was no gunfire into the building
from the helicopters during the initial February raid, though non-Branch
Davidian witnesses allowed into the building before it burned saw
downward-splintered bullet holes through the ceiling, and eyewitnesses
have
sworn to me they saw gunfire coming from those helicopters.

  Attorney General Janet Reno said the final assault had to be ordered
because of new evidence Koresh and others were abusing children in the
church, though the Justice Department later admitted there was no such
new
evidence.

  Some might be tempted to dismiss all this as ancient history. But let's
recall that most of the Branch Davidian survivors -- not their assailants
-- were put on trial following the fiery holocaust at Waco, and seven
were
sentenced to decades in prison despite being unanimously found (start
ital)innocent(end ital) on every major, capital charge.

  Yes, they're all still in jail, despite being unanimously acquitted of
any wrongdoing in the deaths of four federal agents -- agents killed in
the
initial raid by bullets whose type and caliber the prosecutors were never
willing to identify.

  And those sentences were meted out over the written objection of jury
forewoman Sarah Bain, a Texas schoolteacher, who tells me the jury was
shocked at the size of the sentences -- and who wrote to the judge that
the
jury assumed the defendants would be released for "time served" on the
few
minor, technical charges on which they were convicted.

  Writing in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Dr. Alan Stone, who teaches
both law and psychiatry at Harvard University and who was brought in by
the
Justice Department to write an independent review of the handling of the
Waco siege, says: "I do not know whether the FBI's pyrotechnic devices,
which the bureau has finally acknowledged, actually started the fire. I
do
know that much of the gas was aimed at the so-called bunker where most of
the children suffocated. I do not know whether Delta Force military
advisers drove the tanks; I do know the tank drivers departed from the
agreed-upon plan and, for reasons never explained, started crushing the
compound. As in Vietnam, the government decided to destroy the village in
order to save it. ...

  "But there is one truth that should be obvious by now; the Branch
Davidians were more victims than culprits. ... Mr. Clinton should pardon
them. By now he must realize both that the government made reckless
mistakes at Waco and that those federal prisoners were motivated by
deeply
held religious convictions."

  Dr. Stone is correct. If Mr. Clinton can justify his recent pardon of a
dozen pro-independence Puerto Rican terrorists who set off of bombs --
causing one police officer to lose an eye -- how can he allow breakaway
Seventh Day Adventist parishioners who merely tried to defend themselves
and their children when illegally attacked in their home to continue
serving sentences longer than those which we impose on many a
premeditated
killer?

  Set the Branch Davidians free. Indict their perjury-prone assailants.


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

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

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

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

* * *


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

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

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

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


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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Cato Daily Dispatch - 8/31
Date: 02 Sep 1999 19:27:00 -0700


----------

Cato Daily Dispatch
August 31, 1999
by Peter J.M. Orvetti, Manager of Editorial Services

http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/08-31-99d.html

SNIP

Lautenberg's Loud Call For Gun Restrictions

Retiring Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is drafting legislation that would
require registration of all new handguns bought in the United States, AP
reported. Lautenberg's bill may also require the registration of guns
bought in the past. National Rifle Association spokesman Bill Powers said
Lautenberg was actually adding to a proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.) for national gun registration. "Registration, licensing and
confiscation: That is what Dianne Feinstein wants to bring to America,
and now Frank Lautenberg is getting on board. You shouldn't have to get
government permission and licensing to own a firearm in your home for the
purposes of personal protection. It goes after law-abiding citizens who
own firearms, and makes them paperwork criminals," Powers said. Feinstein,
a potential vice presidential candidate next year, has made gun control
a major part of her legislative agenda.

In the Cato Policy Analysis "Trust the People: Case Against Gun Control"
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html, former Manhattan assistant district
attorney David B. Kopel writes, "Few public policy debates have been as
dominated by emotion and misinformation as the one on gun control. Perhaps
this debate is so highly charged because it involves such fundamental issues.
The calls for more gun restrictions or for bans on some or all guns are calls
for significant change in our social and constitutional systems. Gun control
is based on the faulty notion that ordinary American citizens are too clumsy
and ill-tempered to be trusted with weapons. Only through the blatant
abrogation of explicit constitutional rights is gun control even possible.
It must be enforced with such violations of individual rights as intrusive
search and seizure. It most severely victimizes those who most need weapons
for self-defense, such as blacks and women. The various gun control
proposals on today's agenda--including licensing, waiting periods, and
bans on so-called Saturday night specials--are of little, if any, value as
crime-fighting measures. Banning guns to reduce crime makes as much sense
as banning alcohol to reduce drunk driving. Indeed, persuasive evidence
shows that civilian gun ownership can be a powerful deterrent to crime."
In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, Kopel testified
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct5-24-5.html before the Senate Judiciary
Committee on the demonization of lawful gun owners.

Unwarranted "Justice" Legislation

Gun control is likely to play a part in a "juvenile justice bill" being
hammered out on Capitol Hill, the Washington Times reported late last week.
Republicans and Democrats expect to reach a consensus on legislation soon.
"They are very productive discussions. They're not a waste of time at all,"
a senior Democratic staffer said. Throughout the August recess, staffers
from both parties have worked to iron out differences between the House and
Senate versions of the legislation. The Senate version includes new gun
regulations such as background checks for all buyers at gun shows, sale of
trigger locks or similar safety devices with all handguns and a ban on the
import of large-capacity ammunition magazines and clips. The House version
includes no new gun control but does add increasing penalties for various
weapons offenses. In a June commentary
http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-15-99.html, Dave Kopel wrote that the Senate
version "is laden with provisions to expand forfeiture, increase wiretapping
without warrant, promote drug testing and immunize police who commit violent
crimes from criminal punishment. When senators are presented with a
648-page-long bill, few bother to read it. Thus, many senators who voted
for S. 254 may have been unaware that the bill contains a sweeping new
forfeiture provision that allows U.S. attorneys to base forfeiture on
violations of state law--even misdemeanors--S. 254 significantly expands
that statute to include any felony, including state felonies, and any state
misdemeanor involving physical harm. Instead of just applying to profits
from the sale of a criminal's story, the statute as revised by S. 254
would allow forfeiture of any enhanced value, in any property owned by
the criminal, that resulted from the crime. But the measure ignores the
constitutional fact that forfeitures for state law violations ought to
be determined by state legislatures and carried out by state and local
prosecutors, not by the federal government. Also buried deep within S. 254
is language that for the first time allows the police to intercept the
content of electronic communications--the contents of pager messages--
without a warrant. Those messages can reveal information about a person's
travel schedule, private life and current location. The bill's 'cloned
pager' language is the latest expansion of wiretap authority to be buried
in a large, complex bill where the public, which is generally skeptical
about wiretapping, is not likely to notice. 'Public safety' seems to demand
that the public be protected from any opportunity to debate whether the
federal government needs more power to peek in on the public without a
search warrant."

For highlights of this month's best audio clips check out CatoAudio
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catoaudio/ca-index.html, a lively monthly audio
series that brings you inside the Cato Institute for Policy and Book
Forums, speeches and debates.

To unsubscribe from this list, visit
http://www.free-market.net/partners/c/cato.html#dailydispatch



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Cato Daily Dispatch - 9/2
Date: 02 Sep 1999 21:12:00 -0700


Cato Daily Dispatch
September 2, 1999
by Peter J.M. Orvetti, Manager of Editorial Services

http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/09-02-99d.html

SNIP

Bush Wants Background Checks

Gov. George W. Bush (R-Texas) raised eyebrows last week by endorsing gun
control measures including raising the legal age for purchase of a handgun
from 18 to 21, Reuters reports. Bush, the GOP presidential frontrunner,
said he also supported congressional efforts to ban large ammunition clips
and to require instant background checks. "I think there's problems
everywhere when people illegally use guns, and so the first question we
must ask is, is it possible to have reasonable laws to keep the guns out of
the hands of people who shouldn't have them? That's why I support instant
background checks," Bush said.

But any background checks should be part of a "shall-issue" licensing law,
Jeffrey R. Snyder wrote in a 1997 Cato Policy Analysis
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html. "The key feature of the new
concealed-carry laws is that the issuing authority--usually a sheriff or
the chief of police--must grant the permit as soon as a citizen can satisfy
specific and objective licensing criteria. It is for that reason that those
reforms are often referred to as 'shall-issue' concealed-carry laws. So
long as the state requires a criminal background check, the check will
disclose whether the applicant who desires to carry a firearm is permitted
to possess a firearm under federal or state law. If not, obviously no
permit may issue, and the applicant's possession of a weapon would be in
violation of federal or state law. Further, since permit holders are
registered, that is, the application information is maintained in the
state's criminal records, the data provide a ready means of identifying and
confiscating the weapons of permit holders who commit a crime postissuance
or otherwise become disqualified (e.g., by drug use or mental illness).
Critics of laws liberalizing the ability of citizens to carry firearms in
public often ignore the fact that the new licensing statutes provide an
ongoing way of policing compliance with federal and state laws regarding
firearm ownership... Shall-issue licensing systems are not, as is sometimes
asserted by their opponents, another example of America's free-wheeling,
hands-off approach to guns. The licensing systems are gun control.
Applicants are registered and fingerprinted and their backgrounds are
thoroughly checked, both at the state and at the national level through the
FBI, for criminal histories, and histories of drug or alcohol abuse and
mental illness. In addition, the great majority of states require that
applicants have received training with firearms. On the basis of 10 years
of experience in 25 states, we may conclude that shall-issue licensing
systems work. They accomplish the twin goals of providing a mechanism by
which law-abiding citizens can carry the means with which to defend
themselves from a violent criminal assault that imminently threatens life
or grievous bodily harm and provide the public reasonable assurance that
those who receive permits are persons who will act responsibly."

Swiss Army Life

The Times of London featured Switzerland's long history of peace. "Created
as a nation in arms, Switzerland is proud of its heritage of Alpine
liberty, based on the legendary figure of William Tell, who is said to have
liberated the Swiss from aggressive Austrians in 1291. Switzerland has one
of the largest land-based armies in Europe. It has a small professional
army of about 3,300, with a pool of about 360,000 conscripts... Charles
Heyman, editor of Jane's World Army, said: 'The Swiss have a very large
defence establishment and it tells you straight away how Switzerland
managed to avoid the First and Second World Wars.' According to Article 18
of the Constitution, every Swiss male is subject to military service. In
1992, this was amended to allow alternative civilian service. When a Swiss
conscript enters military service, it will engage him virtually his entire
life. Until 1995, conscription lasted a period of 30 years, from 20 to 50.
Since then, it has been reduced to 22 years," the Times writes.

But it is Switzerland's gun policies and not conscription that keeps it
free and safe. "[P]rivate possession of weapons does not automatically lead
to their misuse: heavily armed societies like Israel and Switzerland have
only a fraction of our violent crime," Doug Bandow writes
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-26-99.html. And a Cato Policy Analysis
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html notes that "Switzerland, through
its militia system, distributes both pistols and fully automatic assault
rifles to all adult males and requires them to store their weapons at home.
Further, civilian long-gun purchases are essentially unregulated, and
handguns are available to any adult without a criminal record or mental
defect. Nevertheless, Switzerland suffers far less crime per capita than
the United States and almost no gun crime." As for conscription, it is not
advisable in a free society, Bandow writes in a just-released Cato Policy
Analysis http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-351es.html : "The draft was bad
policy during the Cold War and would constitute amazing foolishness today.
For instance, renewed conscription would reduce the quality of new service
personnel. Returning to the draft would also increase the costs of raising
a military force. Conscription is an expensive process-for individuals,
government, and society. For the armed services, a draft would yield higher
turnover, thus increasing training costs. Also, because few conscripts
choose to make the military a career, the Pentagon would have to hike
reenlistment benefits. A draft would not improve the retention rate of
skilled personnel or inculcate civic virtue. The military does have some
serious personnel problems; however, such problems could be solved by
returning to a foreign policy that is proper for a republic. The Clinton
administration's promiscuous use of military force in conflicts irrelevant
to U.S. security drives many potential recruits away from and current
career personnel out of the service. Furthermore, policymakers should
adjust compensation and benefits to more successfully attract both new
recruits and skilled personnel in the years ahead. A renewed draft would be
bad for the military. But more important, conscription would be unfair and
unjust-sacrificing the very constitutional liberties that the military is
charged to defend."

For highlights of this month's best audio clips check out CatoAudio
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catoaudio/ca-index.html, a lively monthly audio
series that brings you inside the Cato Institute for Policy and Book
Forums, speeches and debates.

To unsubscribe from this list, visit
http://www.free-market.net/partners/c/cato.html#dailydispatch



-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: two men drop out of the tank...begin automatic weapons
Date: 03 Sep 1999 11:02:12 -0600

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

This one is for Karl!

"you can see two men drop out of the tank escape hatch, roll over and =
begin automatic weapons fire into the building."=20



Message: 2 Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 10:36:57 -0500 From: schuetzen <chasm@ins=
ync.net> Subject: (fwd) Waco on Nightline! Evidence Seized!=20

On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 01:52:33 -0400, [e-mail] (Neal Knox) wrote: 1 =
a.m. Sept. 2 Neal Knox Report --=20

Ted Koppel's ABC Nightline just blew the lid off the Waco story, stating =
that U.S. Marshals seized evidence of FBI lying about whether pyrotechnics =
had been used at Mt. Carmel. After a devastating setup piece that showed =
parts of Mike McNulty's new soon-to-be-released film, including the =
evidence photo of the M651 pyrotechnic 40mm CS grenade that wasn't =
supposed to exist.=20

And the setup showed a reduced-size segment of the FLIR thermal-imaging =
tape, which you couldn't see unless you knew what to look for.=20

But viewers could hear the voice-over in which a FLIR expert was saying =
(approx.) "you can see two men drop out of the tank escape hatch, roll =
over and begin automatic weapons fire into the building."=20

That is the same segment that showed flashes in the Academy Award =
nominated "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," co-produced by McNulty and Dan =
Gifford.=20

But that version had been reprinted too many times to show the clearly =
visible black forms roll out of the tank and start shooting.=20

The new tape had been turrned over by FBI as a result of a Freedom of =
Information Act request filed by old friend Dave Hardy, who was featured =
in the interview segment of Nightline, going against chief FBI Hostage =
Negotiator at Waco, Byron Sage -- who is retired but is serving as an FBI =
front man.=20

Sage said that FBI told him this afternoon that the tape given to U.S. =
Marshals was that same FLIR tape taken from a circling aircraft on the day =
of the assault and fire. Sage said the FLIR tape simultaneously recorded =
tactical conversations of HRT FBI agents discussing the use of military =
pyrotechnic cartridges.=20

In response to Koppel's question, he said the uplink would have been heard =
live in the Waco command post and probably live or in near-real time "in =
the Washington, D.C. area."=20

What do you want to bet the tactical uplink was being heard other than in =
the FBI Headquarters -- like in the White House situation room.=20

Hardy read from the document he had obtained from his FOIA request in =
which FBI told him there were no audiotapes made, and that what he had =
received was an unedited first-generation copy of the original.

Sage said audio tapes were made on the FLIR tape only in the early =
morning; that no audio was made later in the day.=20

Hardy immediately said that was another case of perjury, for the FOIA =
claimed no tapes were made until 10:42 on the morning of the fire.=20

At Hardy's charge of perjury, Sage nervously looked at someone off-camera.=
=20

The tape seized by Marshals was "discovered" at the HRT Headquarters at =
Quantico.=20

Incredibly, in a Clinton-like parsing of words, Sage at another point =
claimed that the FBI's statements that "no incendiary devices were used" =
was actually true because "the two devices in question" were not fired at =
the wooden structure which burned.=20

Kopel challenged him on that nit-picking, and was obviously angry about =
what is going on, grumbling that FBI's credibility is down while that of =
Waco conspiracy theorists is "newly enhanced,"=20

Koppel all but called for Attorney General Janet Reno's resignation, =
opening the program by recalling his 1993 interview with her in which Ms. =
Reno said she "accepted full responsibility for the FBI's actions" at =
Waco.=20

He said he had asked if she intended to emulate Japanese officials who =
resigned when bad things happened in their commands. She said, "No."=20

Koppel said that stance had brought her great approval, and him great flak =
for having asked the question.=20

"Accepting responsibility without consequences is meaningless," Koppel =
said.=20

Let's see what the Clinton Administration's spin doctors do with this.=20

------------------- This morning's (Sept. 2) Dallas Morning News, which =
has been on point on these new revelations, thanks to conversations with =
McNulty and Hardy, says that more evidence than just the audio tape was =
taken by U.S. Marshals. -- You are receiving this message because you are =
subscribed to the Firearms Coalition Alerts list. To unsubscribe send mail =
to [e-mail] with the word "unsubscribe" in the body. =
Archives of these messages are stored at http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/. =
Copyright (c) 1999 Neal Knox Associates. All Rights Reserved. chas =
RKBA!=20


-



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

From: "David Sagers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Host Alan Stone on Waco
Date: 03 Sep 1999 11:08:33 -0600

>Message: 9
>    Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 16:53:12 -0500
>    From: schuetzen <[e-mail]>
>Subject: (fwd) SNET: [piml] Burned by Waco --by Alan Stone
>
>On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 14:24:25 EDT, [e-mail]  wrote:
>
>
>->  SNETNEWS  Mailing List
>
>Burned by Waco
>
>http://www.thenation.com/issue/950918/edit.htm=20
>
>On July 26 I sat for almost fourteen hours in a hearing room waitin g to
>testify before Congress on the tragedy at Waco, and watched a dismal
>performance. The full story of Waco is complicated, and its details have
>never been fully grasped by most Americans. Yet none of the Representative=
s
>seemed committed to a searching inquiry into what went wrong, and the
>committee's working rules seemed designed to achieve gridlock. Each of =
the
>thirty members was allocated five minutes on every round of questioning,=
=20
>but
>rather than use their time to ask probing questions or confront e vasive
>answers, most of them postured for the TV cameras and read statements
>prepared by their staffs. As the day progressed, I had the sinking =
feeling
>that Waco would end the way it had begun: with government officials
>grandstanding before the American p eople but demonstrating only their
>ineptitude.
>
>As a member of the Justice Department's 1993 panel appointed to make
>recommendations in the aftermath of Waco, I had become convinced that the
>Branch Davidian disaster was caused largely by law-enforceme nt =
bungling.=20
>The
>military-style raid by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and=20
>Firearms,
>which set off the disaster, has never been justified. Sexual abuse of
>children is a crime that does not come under the jurisdiction of the=20
>A.T.F.;
>that issue ha d already been investigated by the proper Texas authorities.=

>Even if the A.T.F. had probable cause to serve warrants for illegal=20
>firearms,
>there was never any reason to do so in the form of an assault on a =
compound
>filled with women and children, risking an all-out firefight.
>
>Of course the Branch Davidians had no legal or moral justification for
>shooting federal agents. But the agents knew that the Branch Davidians
>believed that Judgment Day was at hand and that, as the Bible prophesied,=
=20
>the
>true bel ievers were to die in battle with the evil forces of government.=
=20
>In
>fact, David Koresh had taught them that they must die in battle so =
they=20
>could
>be resurrected in glory.
>
>During the day I sat in the hearing room, an A.T.F. agent wept as he =
gave=20
>his
>v ersion of the first day's events: that the agents were victims of a
>firefight in which the other side had bigger guns and shot first. He=20
>praised
>the gallantry of his fellow agents and said nothing about the recklessness=

>and overreaching of the law-enforce ment operation. None of the
>Representatives challenged his version of what happened.
>
>The F.B.I. agents who later took over at Waco and who planned the =
final=20
>tank
>and C.S. gas (as tear gas is known) attack on the Branch Davidian =
compound
>also testifie d that day. Like the A.T.F. agent, they came with lawyers =
and
>handlers. But they had no need to consult them; they were easily able to
>evade the occasional sticky question. I had spoken with these agents when =
I
>was preparing my report in 1993, and now I w atched as they closed =
ranks=20
>and
>put the best face on everything. None of the Representatives noticed =
when=20
>the
>serious disagreements between tactical forces and negotiators, previously
>acknowledged, were papered over. The crucial question of whether the F.
>B.I.'s aggressive siege tactics had pushed the Branch Davidians to mass
>suicide was never really addressed.
>
>My own panel finally testified late in the day and long into the =
evening.=20
>It
>included experts addressing Janet Reno's decision to use C.S. gas for
>forty-eight hours despite the presence of babies, who cannot be =
protected=20
>by
>gas masks. The Attorney General maintained that she had been assured that
>C.S. gas would not cause permanent harm to babies, but the available=20
>medical
>literature contained c onvincing evidence of life-threatening risk. The
>experts on both sides made statements that could and should have been
>challenged, but the committee never got to the bottom of this or any =
other
>difficult question.
>
>I was not present when Attorney Gene ral Reno testified, taking full
>responsibility for the tragedy. Unfortunately, the vexing questions about
>Waco have little to do with such political accountability. We still need =
to
>know what went wrong so that we can make sure it will not happen again. =
F=20
>or
>example, does law enforcement need special rules of engagement for =
dealing
>with unconventional groups like the Branch Davidians? Does it make sense =
to
>treat religious zealots like regular criminals? Will law enforcement=20
>continue
>to use C.S. gas in encl osed spaces where children are present? The =
hearing
>process, instead of being a careful inquiry into such questions, was
>political theater of the absurd. If right-wing extremists find it =
difficult
>to believe that Waco was the result of ineptitude, incompe tence and
>grandstanding by government officials, they need only study the tapes =
of=20
>the
>Waco hearings.
>
>
>
>
>Alan Stone, professor of law and psychiatry at Harvard Law School, was a
>member of the Justice Department's behavior science pan el evaluating
>government action at Waco.
>
>
>Copyright (c) 1995, The Nation Company, L.P. All rights reserved.=20
>Electronic
>redistribution for non-profit purposes is permitted, provided this =
notice=20
>is
>attached in its entirety. Unaut horized, for-profit redistribution is
>prohibited. For further information regarding reprinting and syndication,
>please call The Nation at [phone], ext. 213 or send e-mail to
>[e-mail].
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: History Channel Pol - Should the Second Amendment be
Date: 03 Sep 1999 16:06:58 -0600


>From: "Nancy" <[e-mail]>
>To: <[e-mail]>
>Subject:  History Channel Pol - Should the Second Amendment be repealed?
>Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:26:45 -0400
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
>
>
>Hi All,                      www.historychannel.com  , It's running a poll
>(Should the right to bear arms be repealed)  as of 9/3 ________
>Yes 20.8%
>No 79.2%
>
>The history Channel is pretty much pro Gun. Maybe we'll get lucky and they
>use this poll. Go Vote!
>
>Nancy


-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: LPU: FW: GOUtah! Opposes Teachers as Cops Proposal by USSC
Date: 03 Sep 1999 17:14:59 -0600

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

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

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

UtahÆs Uncompromising, Independent Gun Rights Network. No Compromise. No
Retreat. No Surrender. Not Now. Not Ever.

Information Release to All Media- 2 September 1999

GOUtah! Rejects Recent USSC Proposal to Deputize Utah School Teachers or
Hold Utah Mental Health Providers Personally Responsible for Behavior of
their Patients

As a broad-based network of responsible firearms owners in Utah, we at
GOUtah! are concerned that the recent public policy proposals by
leadership
of the Utah Shooting Sports Council may not be in the best interests of
either the individual Utah firearm owner, public school educators and
students or the public at large.

According to recently published media reports, Mr. Elwood Powell,
Chairman
of the Board of Trustees of the Utah Shooting Sports Council and
President
of the Utah State Rifle and Pistol Association, the Utah state NRA
affiliate
organization, apparently proposed at a lunch-hour debate before the Salt
Lake Rotary Club that 25% of Utah public school teachers be armed,
trained
as POST-certified law enforcement officers, and duly sworn with full
powers
of arrest, in order to provide a enhanced security presence in public
schools. Powell reportedly also called for holding professional mental
health providers personally liable if patients under their care do not
take
their medication or are not properly adjudicated as mentally ill by a
court
of law.

GOUtah! does not support the proposed concept of forcing Utah school
teachers to serve double duty as sworn law enforcement officers in the
public schools. We believe educators should focus their professional
efforts
on the legitimate educational needs of their students, and duly-sworn law
enforcement officers should deal with issues of investigation of criminal
behavior and apprehension of violent criminals.

GOUtah! recognizes the long-established legal precedent that those
private
citizens who have been issued a concealed firearms permit do not hold any
greater authority for the use of deadly force than that held by any other
private citizen. The concealed firearms permit only provides
authorization
to the licensee to have a concealed firearm, for lawful self-defense,
concealed on or about their person as the go about their normal daily
activities. Individually and as a group, those who have received a
concealed
firearms permit have and continue to exhibit exemplary personal behavior,
and are not a threat to themselves or the public at large.

GOUtah! also takes exception to published comments attributed to Ms.
Susan
Kuziak, Executive Director of the Utah Education Association, the stateÆs
largest teacherÆs labor union. Ms. Kuziak was quoted as stating
ô...teachers
should educate children, not execute them." GOUtah! believes inflammatory
statements of this nature are both demeaning to the character, reputation
and integrity of UtahÆs dedicated professional educators, law enforcement
officers and responsible firearms owners, and such comments add nothing
to
help clarify the issues of this admittedly emotional public policy
debate.
GOUtah! believes that UtahÆs concealed firearms permit holders, which
most
certainly include some of UtahÆs professional educators, administrators
and
support staff, are responsible, safe and prudent citizens, and should not
be
discriminated against, publicly demeaned or treated as second-class
citizens
because they choose to take responsibility for their personal security
and
do so in compliance with the law.

Finally, Mr. PowellÆs proposal to modify the basic nature of the
doctor-patient relationship by making a health care provider personally
responsible and legally liable for the behavior of a patient or the
patientÆs compliance with a suggested course of therapy or prescribed
course
of medication, is a dangerous and ill-advised step down a very slippery
slope, thus shifting responsibility for personal behavior or clinical
outcome from the individual patient to a health care provider.

-end-

Release prepared by Scott Engen, Legislative and Public Policy
Director, GOUtah!

For comment or for more information on GOUtah! please phone (801)
943-2523,
E-mail to   [e-mail]    or visit our website at
www.slpsa.org/goutah!


________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail you don't need Web access to use --
Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web!
Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: CCW stuff
Date: 03 Sep 1999 22:23:00 -0700


-----

FYI

Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification CCW web site:
http://www.bci.state.ut.us/cfdefault.html

Time Magazine Gun Poll Results:
http://www.pathfinder.com/time/polls/gunpoll.html

These are some great poll results to dump at Susan Kubiak and the Gov.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Opposes Teachers as Cops Proposal by USSC
Date: 04 Sep 1999 17:22:00 -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- 2 September 1999

GOUtah! Rejects Recent USSC Proposal to Deputize Utah School Teachers
or Hold Utah Mental Health Providers Personally Responsible for
Behavior of their Patients

As a broad-based network of responsible firearms owners in Utah, we
at GOUtah! are concerned that the recent public policy proposals by
leadership of the Utah Shooting Sports Council may not be in the best
interests of either the individual Utah firearm owner, public school
educators and students or the public at large.

According to recently published media reports, Mr. Elwood Powell,
Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Utah Shooting Sports Council
and President of the Utah State Rifle and Pistol Association, the Utah
state NRA affiliate organization, apparently proposed at a lunch-hour
debate before the Salt Lake Rotary Club that 25% of Utah public school
teachers be armed, trained as POST-certified law enforcement officers,
and duly sworn with full powers of arrest, in order to provide a
enhanced security presence in public schools. Powell reportedly also
called for holding professional mental health providers personally
liable if patients under their care do not take their medication or
are not properly adjudicated as mentally ill by a court of law.

GOUtah! does not support the proposed concept of forcing Utah school
teachers to serve double duty as sworn law enforcement officers in
the public schools. We believe educators should focus their
professional efforts on the legitimate educational needs of their
students, and duly-sworn law enforcement officers should deal with
issues of investigation of criminal behavior and apprehension of
violent criminals.

GOUtah! recognizes the long-established legal precedent that those
private citizens who have been issued a concealed firearms permit do
not hold any greater authority for the use of deadly force than that
held by any other private citizen. The concealed firearms permit only
provides authorization to the licensee to have a concealed firearm,
for lawful self-defense, concealed on or about their person as the
go about their normal daily activities. Individually and as a group,
those who have received a concealed firearms permit have and continue
to exhibit exemplary personal behavior, and are not a threat to
themselves or the public at large.

GOUtah! also takes exception to published comments attributed to Ms.
Susan Kuziak, Executive Director of the Utah Education Association,
the state's largest teacher's labor union. Ms. Kuziak was quoted as
stating "...teachers should educate children, not execute them."
GOUtah! believes inflammatory statements of this nature are both
demeaning to the character, reputation and integrity of Utah's
dedicated professional educators, law enforcement officers and
responsible firearms owners, and such comments add nothing to help
clarify the issues of this admittedly emotional public policy debate.
GOUtah! believes that Utah's concealed firearms permit holders,
which most certainly include some of Utah's professional educators,
administrators and support staff, are responsible, safe and prudent
citizens, and should not be discriminated against, publicly demeaned
or treated as second-class citizens because they choose to take
responsibility for their personal security and do so in compliance
with the law.

Finally, Mr. Powell's proposal to modify the basic nature of the
doctor-patient relationship by making a health care provider
personally responsible and legally liable for the behavior of a
patient or the patient's compliance with a suggested course of
therapy or prescribed course of medication, is a dangerous and
ill-advised step down a very slippery slope, thus shifting
responsibility for personal behavior or clinical outcome from
the individual patient to a health care provider.

-end-

Release prepared by Scott Engen, Legislative and Public Policy
Director, GOUtah!

For comment or for more information on GOUtah! please phone
[phone], E-mail to [e-mail] or visit our website
at http://www.slpsa.org/goutah!


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Repeal the second amendment?
Date: 05 Sep 1999 13:25:00 -0700


-----

Take the Poll, quickly before they take it down.

http://www.historychannel.com/



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #30 - 13 September 1999 1/2
Date: 14 Sep 1999 07:15:00 -0700


GOUtah! Alert #30 - 13 September 1999

Today's Voice of Liberty:

"Do not be afraid of your enemies-in the worst case they can kill you;
Do not be afraid of your friends-in the worst case they can betray you;
Be afraid of the indifferent ones: It is from their silent blessings that
all the evil is happening in the world!

-- Bruno Yasensky, a Russian writer.

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.
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 Government Offers $15,000,000 of Your Tax Dollars as Grants for
Local Gun Buyback and Firearm Destruction Programs Nationwide

The Clinton administration has announced a tax-funded federal grant program
to give $15,000,000.00 (Yes...Fifteen Million Dollars) to fund local gun
buyback programs in cities throughout the country. The grants will be
administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, from
tax funds already appropriated by Congress. Up to $500,000.00 (Yes...a Half
Million Dollars) will be available in each local grant.

According to published media reports, the program is NOT intended to get
guns out of the hands of criminals. Instead, the intended target audience
is average urban citizens living in or near public housing projects, and
all guns so collected will be destroyed. Only those guns proven and
documented to be stolen may be returned to their rightful owners, and all
guns will allegedly be tested to see if they have been used in crimes.

"While you are working on reducing the sale of guns to people..., you also
need to do something about reducing the number of guns that are currently
in circulation." said HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, a Clinton appointee and
the son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, as quoted in an L.A. Times
story, reprinted in the Salt Lake Tribune, 9 September, 1999

GOUtah! believes that by focusing on those individuals living in or near
public housing projects, a disproportionate percentage will be the poor,
the elderly and members of minority groups. Clearly this 'public housing
focus' again demonstrates the economic and racial bias that underscores the
basic premise of virtually all such gun control efforts. In other words,
the Washington political and media elite clearly don't think 'those people'
should be trusted with gun ownership. Yet 'those people' are the ones who
also make up a disproportionate percentage of victims of violent street
crime, and clearly if anyone needs a firearm as their means of lawful self
defense, it's 'those people.' GOUtah! believes that our good and peaceable
citizens have a basic right to self defense and to private firearms
ownership for any lawful purpose, regardless of race, social class or
economic status.

The Clinton administration, by implementing this program, apparently
believes that a 60 year old Puerto Rican widow of modest income living in
public housing, who has a .38 in her bedroom dresser drawer for self
defense, is a much greater threat to the safety and security of our society
that the 16 convicted Puerto Rican revolutionary terrorists this same
President recently pardoned from long felony sentences and released from
federal prison. The scores of terrorist bombings and vicious campaign of
violence attributed to these revolutionary extremists resulted in the
deaths of a half dozen innocent people, serious injury to scores of others
and millions of dollars in property damage over the span of nearly a decade.

GOUtah! suggests that you contact each of your U.S Senators and Congressmen
from Utah today and DEMAND that they defund next year's U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development budget by a full $15,000.000.00, and then by
a further $30,000,000.00 as a budget penalty for deliberately wasting
taxpayer dollars to help undermine gun rights, for a total budget defunding
of $45,000,000.00 (Yes...Forty-Five Million Dollars.)

Hopefully the loss of almost $50,000,000.00 dollars of their annual budget
might get the attention of the HUD bureaucrats and cool their enthusiasm
for this monumental waste of tax funds and deliberate assault on gun rights
of American citizens.

Utah State Board of Education Admits Statutory Defeat, Votes to Join
Anti-Gun Initiative Petition Driver.

The Utah State Board of Education voted unanimously to join the anti-gun
coalition of the UEA, the state's largest teacher's labor union, the PTA,
the Utah System of Higher Education and a variety of church groups, to
gather signatures for a ballot initiative banning firearms, including those
otherwise legally possessed and those legally carried by Utah CCW holders
from churches, schools, college campuses, and some other settings.

The Board of Education has tacitly admitted, by their lack of adoption of a
gun policy banning CCW holders, that the language of the Utah State
Constitution and the current state statute establishing the Utah CCW permit
as 'valid without restriction' is superior to the authority of any lesser
political body or political subdivision to limit the validity of the permit
or establish gun law or policy.

The Utah Hospitals and Health Systems Association has suddenly withdrawn
their support for the anti-gun petition drive, further demonstrating the
deep division that seems to be developing within the coalition before the
final petition drive even begins. The anti-gun initiative petition, after a
number of unexplained delays, is now scheduled to be launched at a news
conference at the State Capitol on Monday, 27 Sept. Reports have reached
GOUtah! that the staff attorneys of the Utah Attorney General's Office,
under the leadership of Jan Graham, the state's highest ranking elected
Democrat and a leading voice in the anti-gun chorus in Utah, were also
instrumental in drafting of the specific language of the anti-gun
initiative petition. Several sources are also reporting that Utah lawmakers
may retaliate against any public or tax-exempt entities for improperly
politicizing the gun issue with a ballot initiative drive with budget cuts
or other measures.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #30 - 13 September 1999 2/2
Date: 14 Sep 1999 07:15:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Salt Lake City Mayoral Candidates Nearly Unanimous in Support of Strident,
Abusive Gun Control Agenda as Primary Vote Approaches.

All of the leading candidates, and most of the rest of the pack now vying
for the Mayoral office in Salt Lake City spoke in favor of strident gun
control measures they would like to see implemented should they become the
next mayor of Utah's capitol city.

Current front runners in the pre-primary race include Democrats Dave Jones,
Rocky Anderson, Jim Bradley and Stuart Reid, who all apparently spoke in
favor of tighter gun control at a debate at the Hinkley Institute of
Politics at the University of Utah on 9 Sept. 1999.

In a story in the 10 Sept. 1999 issue of the Salt Lake Tribune, very few of
the candidates present at the debate own firearms, and none has a concealed
firearms permit. Anderson and Harmsen, a Republican, said a citizen
referendum was the only way to allow cities to pass their own set of
stricter gun laws. All were quoted as agreeing that private property
owners, churches and schools should be able to prohibit otherwise lawful
firearms possession on their property and that the mentally ill, convicted
criminals and juveniles should not have access to guns.

The only candidate in the SLC Mayor's race who has clearly spoken out in
favor of gun rights is Ken Larsen, a relatively unknown third party
offering who has run for a number of local and state elected offices in
recent years. Larsen unfortunately has limited name recognition and his
current polling numbers are in low single digits among potential Salt Lake
City voters.

GOUtah! to Debate Gun Rights on Campus at Hinkley Institute of Politics at
University of Utah on 23 Sept.

N. W. Clayton of GOUtah! will represent the pro-gun viewpoint in a debate
on Thursday, Sept. 23, beginning at 10:45 AM, in the Hinckley Institute of
Politics, 255 Orson Spencer Hall, (the classroom building just south of the
Olpin Student Union Building, near the center of campus) The subject will
be "Guns on Campus: Does RKBA Extend to the Classroom?" Another pro-gun
voice scheduled to appear is Mitch Vilos, a local attorney and author. The
opposition debaters are Doug Bates, an attorney with the Utah State
Department of Education, and Bill Nash, chair of Utahns Against Gun
Violence. There is no charge to attend and the event is open to the public.
Plan to get there a few minutes early, and bring all your friends and
family to help provide a strong pro-gun audience.

Salt Lake Tribune Article Blasts CCW Training in Utah

The Salt Lake Tribune devoted plenty of text to bashing CCW training in
Utah in their 12 September 1999 issue. The Tribune sent several reporters
to 7 CCW training courses supposedly selected at random, and them reported
on their findings. 5 of the 7 courses were rated as 'good or excellent,'
while 2 were rated as 'poor.' The 'poor' pair, in the Tribune's judgment,
allegedly did not provide the training needed to meet the state legal
requirements for CCW issuance, or followed the lesson plans the instructor
had submitted to DPS/BCI for CCW training course approval.

GOUtah! has always supported the current Utah CCW training requirements for
'demonstrated familiarity' with safe firearms operation and knowledge of
the laws regarding firearms and use of force by private citizens. GOUtah!
believes that Utah's CCW permit holders, as a group, are adequately trained
to be safe and responsible in public with their firearms, as has been
clearly demonstrated over the past several years.

However, GOUtah! also realizes, as should every Utah gun owner and CCW
permit holder, that the actions of a careless or indifferent few may create
problems for the responsible and safe many. We strongly encourage all CCW
permit holders to be VERY, VERY safe and comply fully with the laws
regarding carrying and using their firearms. GOUtah! recommends that all
Utah CCW instructors teach all of the legally required subject matter, in
each and every class, to each and every student, and to give full and
honest value for the student's training dollar.

GOUtah! also suggest that all of Utah's CCW trainers make an concerted
effort to come together as soon as possible, to help improve the quality
and availability of CCW training in Utah, without any attempt to place
further restrictions, roadblocks or requirements on Utah's CCW permit
applicants in the form of additional class time, costs or other training
requirements, or to use the legislative or regulatory process to 'build
kingdoms or monopolies for themselves' at the expense of Utah's gun owners
and CCW permit applicants. An earlier attempt to organize Utah's CCW
instructors several years ago collapsed when the effort devolved into a
'kingdom building exercise' by those involved.

If Utah's CCW instructors take some immediate affirmative steps to help
police themselves, outside oversight will not be required. If Utah's CCW
permit instructors do not aggressively address these issues, an external
solution may well be imposed on them, and then everyone gets the short end
of the stick.

GOUtah! believes that Utah's dedicated, responsible and capable CCW
instructors can use this opportunity today to build an effective and
powerful coalition organization which will be an asset both for themselves
and their students, and also a powerful voice in legislative, public policy
and mass media matters as they relate to issues of gun ownership and
self-defense.


GOUtah! Gun Rights (and Wrongs) QuoteWatch.

"We should get solidly in front of the (anti-gun) initiative effort. As the
State Board of Education, we are opposed to guns in schools.""

-- John Watson, Chairman of the Utah State Board of Education, supporting
the anti-gun initiative petition of the UEA, PTA and others, from the Salt
Lake Tribune, 11 Sept. 1999.

"Are we or are we not the ultimate authority on public education in the
state of Utah? Why don't we vote to ban guns in schools?"

-- Boyd F. Jensen, member of the State Board of Education, as quoted in the
Salt lake Tribune, 11 Sept. 1999.

"We're going to take every action short of cutting our own throats to get
this (the anti-gun petition) done.

-- Grant Hurst, member of the State Board of Education, as quoted in the
Deseret News.

"This is an emotionally driven issue."

-- Doug Bates, lawyer for the State Board of Education, as quoted in the
Salt lake Tribune, 11 Sept. 1999.

"Six years has been too long to wait for the truth."

-- Rep. Henry Hyde, (R-Ill.) Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary
Committee, regarding recent allegations of FBI lying and suppression of
evidence of incendiary devices being used in the Waco incident, as quoted
in the Salt Lake Tribune, 9 Sept. 1999.

"I'm beginning to think [Reno] should resign."

-- Sen. Trent Lott, (R-Miss.) U.S. Senate Majority Leader, as quoted in the
Salt Lake Tribune, 9 September 1999. (Sen. Lott is also now beginning to
publicly refer to the Waco incident as the "Waco Bombing.")

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 #30 - 13
September 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: Jews for Genocide
Date: 15 Sep 1999 14:32:19 -0600

Please distribute this widely!

If you're Jewish, please let the American Jewish Congress know that they do
not speak for you, and that you don't appreciate their support for
disarming innocent Jews and others so they can be murdered.

If you're not Jewish, ask them why a Jewish organization would want to
promote genocide, and whether they realize that their un-American policies
are likely to increase anti-Semitism.

Write to: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail].  A complete list of contacts is
available at the AJC website, www.ajcongress.org.

AJC needs to hear from a million people who OPPOSE gun control!

Thanks!

Sarah



http://www.ajcongress.org/ros_stop.htm


Remarks Delivered by American Jewish Congress President Jack Rosen at Press
Conference to Announce AJCongress Gun Control Petition Drive, September 14,
1999


----------

Good afternoon. I am Jack Rosen, President of the American Jewish Congress.

      We are here today to launch a grass roots initiative that is long
overdue. We are here today to address gun violence in our nation. We are
here today with proposals that will enhance, not restrict, freedom in our
society. We are here today with concrete proposals that can help slow down
a gun culture that is spiraling out of control and save lives. Most of all
we are here today to protect our children both from the threats that exist
today and those that could exist tomorrow if action is not taken.

      Of course, the American Jewish Congress has for many years been
active in the support of gun control legislation. We are proud of that stand.

      Recent events, however, have underscored just how urgent the
situation has become. The shootings this summer in Chicago in which
citizens of our country were killed for no other reason than their race and
religion were the first wake-up call. Then, the outrage in California at a
Jewish day care center occurred. These events have galvanized the Jewish
community. We are committed to leading a campaign to end this violence and
to asserting the rights that all Americans share. The right to live their
lives free of fear, to practice their religion openly and joyfully and to
raise their children in security and safety.

      And the movement we launch today transcends race and ethnic heritage.
Not just Jews, but blacks, Latinos, Asians and whites suffer under the
burden of gun violence. It is pervasive in every corner of our society.

      Less than 14 months ago, this very Capitol, the symbol of all we as
Americans hold most dear, was the scene of a senseless shooting that left
two Capitol Hill policemen dead. When Americans cannot feel safe here, in
the very cradle of their republic, the time for action has arrived.

      So today, AJCongress is proud to lead an effort to quantify the depth
of feeling that we know exists among our fellow citizens in support of
reasonable gun control laws. Here in Washington, and in New York, New
Jersey, Boston, Philadelphia, Florida, Chicago, Dallas, and San Francisco,
we are issuing a call for action. We are joined by our friends in the
Reform, Conservative and Orthodox Jewish movements who have joined together
to endorse this campaign. We intend to collect one million signatures on a
petition demanding that the U.S. Congress pass legislation requiring
licensing and registration of guns. The name of this campaign STOP THE
GUNS: PROTECT OUR KIDS! underscores its importance.

      It is time our public officials in Washington understand that
America's parents cannot tolerate what has happened in school after school
in state after state.

      Everyone agrees that there must never be another Columbine, another
North Hills Community Center. Yet what have we, collectively, as a nation
of parents, done to prevent the possibility? As a generation, we must stand
up to protect our children and succeeding generations from this scourge.

      We began this event with the blowing of the Shofar, which, throughout
Jewish history, has been a call to action. This ceremony marks the Jewish
High Holy Days, which began with the Jewish New Year last weekend. Next
week is Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the holiest and most sacred day
on the Jewish calendar. So this is a time of reflection for Jews. It is a
time to take stock, a time to identify shortcomings. And a time to take
corrective action and to begin solving problems.

      So let me suggest it is also an appropriate time for all of us as
Americans and parents to reflect upon what gun violence has wrought this
past year.

      As we close in on the year 2000, surely it is time to stop the
insanity that has brought automatic weapons into our day care centers and
schools.

      What message do we as a generation send if we do not speak out and
act now when our children are so clearly and frequently in danger?

      What we are proposing is simple, straightforward and reasonable. We
want laws that:

      One, require all gun buyers to pass a federal background check before
taking possession of any firearm from any gun dealer.

      Two, require all gun buyers to be licensed by an appropriate law
enforcement agency.

      Three, require all gun dealers to register firearms with appropriate
law enforcement agencies.

      And four, require gun makers to install safety devices that prevent
accidental or inadvertent firing.

      Let me end by urging all parents to seek this petition out and sign
it. Write your Congressmen and Senators, and tell them how important this
issue is to you. You can obtain a petition by calling AJCongress at (212)
879-4500 or on the Internet at www.ajcongress.org. Join us as we react to
the horrific events of the past year and work to prevent their
reoccurrence. Help us take the weapons out of the hands of the hate groups.
Work with us to foster a freer society for all our citizens. And most of
all, support our efforts to protect our children.

      We are very fortunate to have with us today a number of public
officials who are leaders on the issue of gun violence. We thank them for
their courage and conviction and are proud to stand with them today. They
will be instrumental in the success of our campaign for Congressional action.





-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Barberi changes mind on concealed weapons
Date: 16 Sep 1999 18:35:00 -0700


-----

"The KALL Voice of Reason" who has ridiculed anyone who advocates the right
to carry concealed weapons in churches, schools, etc. said this morning that
he is reconsidering his position after the slaughter in the Ft. Worth church
yesterday.  He now seems to agree that maybe a person with a concealed
weapon might have stopped the carnage.  He said "It seems that if there are
so many guns out there that maybe the good guys ought to have them too. It's
impossible to have a cop in every public place all the time."

B.S.



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boycott list
Date: 17 Sep 1999 16:31:22 -0600

Does anyone know of a comprehensive site for listings of corporations that
have anti-gun policies and/or contribute to anti-gun causes?  (Yes, I KNOW
it would be a very long list!)  Or to try to be more positive, is there a
list of pro-gun entities that we should support?

If you know of any good resources, please let me know.

Thanks!
Sarah

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: [2ndamendmentnews] Anti-Gun Hysteria, Go on the Offensive Part 2 1/2
Date: 18 Sep 1999 15:03:00 -0700


-----

By Russ Howard - For me, deja vu is a good way to describe
the climate since the Columbine massacre.

After the 1989 Stockton schoolyard massacre, many firearms rights
activists were horrified to see that NRA and the gun industry - to
the extent that they were not missing in action - were engaged in
active appeasement and pre-emptive surrender. Bill Ruger, for example
- now an official NRA "hero" - proposed magazine size limits and cut
special deals to get his "sporting" guns exempted from the Roos-Roberti
"assault weapon" ban. 2nd Amendment supporters had to endure the TV
spectacle of NRA's lobbyist testifying that NRA couldn't support the
ban because it included too many "legitimate sporting and hunting
guns." The anti-gunners heard him, reduced their opposition by removing
some guns from the ban, and passed it by one vote. Chess anyone?

Given the JFK, RFK, & MLK assassinations, the Texas Tower shootings,
the McDonalds Massacre, etc., pro-freedom activists have known for
decades that the anti-self-defense crowd intended to use high-profile
gun crimes as pretenses to gradually disarm all decent citizens in
America. As an NRA member since 1979, I was astonished that NRA -
an organization that raises and spends 150 million dollars a year -
seemed so unprepared, defensive, and even apologetic after such crimes.
They acted as if each massacre was unique, as if there would never be
another one. At best, the people who were so handsomely paid to be our
best professional public speakers were like deer in the headlights,
as if no good arguments had ever been written against gun control.
Why couldn't they be prepared?

Into that vacuum in 1989, dozens of grassroots groups sprang up
nationwide. I was involved in one of them, Californians Against
Corruption, the goal of which was to oust one-by-one the politicians
who violated their oath to defend the Constitution and passed laws
that left victims disarmed and vulnerable to crime and mass public
shootings. CAC ended the political careers of both Roos and Roberti,
and the "pain" message dried up California's anti-gun torrent for
several years. Ultimately I was nominated to run for the Board of
Directors of the NRA, on which I served for over two years with the
goal of doing my part to help reform NRA and build up grassroots.

Reform proposals were fought tooth & nail by staff and either killed
or "implemented" in a such a way as to guarantee their failure. For
example, I developed a modest board policy resolution to put an end
to NRA's "thing" for giving "A" ratings and awards to anti-gun
politicians. Even though NRA would still have been able to give them
B ratings, money, and endorsements, NRA's "Winning Team" fought the
reform as if it would've been the end of the world. It would not have
been the end of the world, but it would've been the end of the gravy
train for sellout Republicans who didn't want to ever have to take a
stand and earn their grades. Staff, as usual, revealed contempt for
membership, arguing that if NRA couldn't give phony grades, members
were too unsophisticated to volunteer for lesser-of-two-evil Republicans.

As other reform-minded directors discovered, and as many of you now know,
NRA's ruling junta has no intention to allow itself to be reformed.
The reformers were purged in an illegal coup d'etat led by staff; by
self-dealing, feather bedding directors; by "moderate" country club &
Hollywood sport shooters; by Republican Party operatives; and by the
vendors who make millions of dollars a year bleeding the membership
white. Local "activists" who had cozied up to NRA staff were put up
to lying about reform-minded NRA board members in a smear campaign
through the national "conservative" media. In at least one case one of
the smearers, known in activist circles as a "thug", was immediately
hired by NRA as an apparent reward for his dirty work.

One of the much-vaunted changes that staff did supposedly accept was
a quick response team that would be prepared to deal with situations
like Columbine. Well, here we are 10 years after Stockton. "Going
Postal" has entered the lexicon, and massacres have gone from a
once-a-decade tragedy to annual, quarterly, weekly. Yet NRA and the
gun industry are still, seemingly, unable or unwilling to deal with it.

If the "Quick Response" to Columbine had been any better it would've
been pathetic. Rather than taking the offensive and explaining how gun
control facilitates public shootings, the annual meeting was curtailed
as if we had something to be ashamed of. Worse yet, Charlton Heston
and Wayne LaPierre both issued high-profile public endorsements of gun
control, including the very same unconstitutional "gun free" school
zones laws that help enable such massacres. LaPierre also reiterated
his support for instacheck, effectively gun owner registration, flouting
standing board policy that requires him to look for an alternative
that doesn't involve trusting the Waco Killers not to keep the records
illegally. And, of course, he again endorsed "Project Exile," the
anti-gunners' dream come true of a Federal Gun Gulag System. NRA's
lobbyist, Steve Helsley, said that California's latest landmark gun
confiscation bills "weren't serious gun control" and we shouldn't
bother fighting them.

With exceptions, the gun rights community seems at best stuck in
perpetual defensive mode. The anti-gunners - the very people whose
anti-self-defense policies, media & video game violence, and
permissive parenting theories facilitate massacres like Columbine
- are allowed to accuse us of being responsible for them. Suppose
you knew a man was planning to murder people and frame you for the
crime. Would you go to the police first and accuse him of murder?
Or would you let him go to the police first? Would you content
yourself with trying to prove that you didn't do it? Or would you
finally accuse him of murder and prove it? Would you let him frame
you over and over and over again, defending yourself but never
accusing? Or would you finally wake up, start going to the police
first, warning them, and saying, "I told you so" after each murder?
If you answered no, yes, yes, no, yes, no, then You're The NRA.

Whatever the reason, NRA effectively functions as a sterile bee queen,
leading the hive into oblivion. Millions of gun owners trust and look
to NRA for policy guidance, giving NRA the power to gradually redefine
what it means to be pro-gun, and which gun controls are "reasonable"
and tolerable. If Wayne LaPierre and Charlton Heston say we need to
help build the new American police state, most gun owners will learn
to accept it.

So what do we do? I for one will not donate to NRA until the entire
current Board and top Staff is ousted and fired respectively. But
what about in the meantime? Join and support other organizations
that aren't selling us out. For example, I recently rejoined JPFO.

Once again, as in 1989, new groups are being formed to fill the vacuum.
As before, a common theme of these startups is not only preparedness,
but also preparedness to go on the offensive. There are many advantages
to being on the offensive. One is that it puts OUR assertions, facts,
and allegations under discussion, as opposed to the enemy's:
Make the enemies of freedom refute OUR accusations for a change.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: [2ndamendmentnews] Anti-Gun Hysteria, Go on the Offensive Part 2 2/2
Date: 18 Sep 1999 15:03:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
One of these new groups is called Citizens of America.

A couple of weeks ago I attended a small presentation for Citizens of
America, founded largely by leaders of the Lawyers Second Amendment
Society along with a seasoned, successful, creative, pro-gun advertising
writer named Jim Houck. Houck was the one who came up with a highly
successful guerrilla ad campaign, which had gun activists chalking
outlines of crime scene bodies on sidewalks. Inside the body is chalked
"another unarmed victim" with a phone number to join or donate. COA's
goal is to do hard-hitting, below-the-belt radio, TV, and guerrilla
advertising designed to make people think twice about giving up their
right to effective self-defense; to associate gun control with racism,
genocide, and victimization; and to make supporting gun control as
socially unacceptable as joining the Ku Klux Klan. From what I've seen
of the ads that've already been developed, it will work, and may very
likely be quickly self-funding.

But it's going to need some serious seed money to get off the
ground. Do yourself a favor and send them a check, even if it's
only $5 or $10. I'm sending in $100 now, but I'm also issuing
a "100-squared match" to raise $10,000: When 99 people on this
list e-mail me back with a pledge to send in $100, I'll forward
the e-mails to COA and send in another $100 too.

My e-mail address is [e-mail]

COA's address is:

PMB 447
2118 WILSHIRE BLVD.
SANTA MONICA, CA 90403

Please give generously.

Russ Howard

P.S. Please note that the opinions expressed above are my own and do
not reflect the views of COA. I'm including an e-mail from COA below.
***********************

Citizens of America "We're In Charge"

Dear armed Americans,

Advertising Creative Director, Jim Houck, working with the Lawyers
Second Amendment Society (LSAS, www.rightguide.com/Links/lsas.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.

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

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, Mitsubishi,
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.

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

Please make copies and forward to all concerned parties. Send
your checks (NO CASH, WE'RE PLAYING BY THE BOOK AND EXPECT
AUDITS AND CLAIMS OF THEFT FROM THE RIGHTS KILLERS) immediately...

[Write your check to Citizens of America.]

Going to war,

Jim Houck

Creative Director, Los Angeles
[e-mail]

****************************
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.

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) 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: [2ndamendmentnews] Legal Defenses Against Gun Confiscation Part 1 1/2
Date: 19 Sep 1999 23:09:00 -0700


-----

We are offering methods besides writing your Congressman. You may
want to save this as reference material. The following is applicable
to California and other People's Republic states such as Connecticut,
New Jersey, and Maryland. Coming will be other articles on the "how
to" defend yourself against the tyranny that is coming: Running
Campaigns, Unregistering Your Gun, and Effective Lobbying.

Just Say, "Go Away."

Rights are like muscles, you must exercise them or they gradually
weaken. The following information is provided as a public service
by The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc.

Disclaimer: The following is not legal advice but is for informational
purposes only. You should use your own judgment and/or consult an
attorney before deciding what to do.

August 20, 1999 The Attorney General of the State of California ("AG")
is embarking on a massive effort to confiscate firearms (so-called
"assault weapons") in the possession of United States citizens
residing in the State of California. You may see evidence of this at
http://www.sksbuyback.org. The Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, plans
to have his agents attempt to trick the citizens into voluntarily
handing over these firearms to them. Luckily for the citizens, they
have protections from such trickery. You need to know how to assert
your rights if you want to defeat this trickery, whether in this
instance or in the future as the government becomes even more depraved
as it tries to take away more and more of our inalienable rights.
Following is some information about your rights that the government
hopes you don't know.

Our right to keep and bear arms is one of those inalienable rights
"endowed by [our] Creator," as set forth in the Declaration of
Independence. The GunTruths.com web site (http://www.GunTruths.com)
provides ample evidence that our right to keep and bear arms is an
inalienable, individual right retained by the people and protected
and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. We must use the Bill of Rights
to preserve and protect our rights. We must not voluntarily cede our
inalienable rights to the government. Inalienable rights, by their
nature, cannot be given, or taken, away.

The AG hopes that the good citizens residing in California will
voluntarily cede their right to keep and bear arms. The government
of California is embarking on a test of the citizens residing in
California to see whether they will voluntarily turn in their SKS
Sporters and register their "assault weapons." If the good citizens
residing in California voluntarily turn in their SKS Sporters, and
register these other weapons voluntarily, the AG will have achieved
its goal at relatively little cost, and will have learned that even
the gun-owning citizens are weak and ignorant of their rights. The
ultimate goal of the current government of the State of California is
to slowly, incrementally, confiscate all firearms of military pattern
so that the citizens will no longer have the means to be the "well
regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free State,"
referenced in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The AG hopes that the good citizens residing in California will not
know, and assert, the rights their forefathers fought and died for.
The AG hopes it will be able to intimidate the good people into
voluntarily turning in, or registering, their weapons by threatening
them with felony prosecutions, and jail sentences. These threats are
being communicated on the internet, in letters to selected individuals
and through advertisements on the radio and through other media.

What The Government Hopes Won't Happen

What if the good citizens did the following upon receiving a knock on
their doors?

The citizen calls through the door, "Who is it?"

The reply is, "I'm police officer/deputy sheriff/special agent Smith."

The citizen replies, "Go away. I'm not interested in spending any of
my time talking to you. Get off my property."

That should do it. The agent of the government might be a little more
persistent, but if the good citizen understands, and asserts, his
rights against the government, the above scenario is all that should
happen.

Why? Because no citizen is required to talk to anyone from the
government unless he wants to. You have the right to be left alone.
Unless the government has probable cause to suspect you of a crime,
you are free to be left alone. You do not even have to produce
"identity papers." Yet. The Fifth Amendment protects the citizen's
right to be free from incriminating himself in a criminal case.

What The Government Hopes Will Happen

Upon knocking on your door, and you opening it, the police
officer/deputy sheriff/special agent will say, "I'm Officer Smith and
this is my partner Officer Jones. We understand you are in possession
of an illegal assault weapon and we're here to retrieve it." They may
wave papers in your face, such as a record of sale.

You say, "Oh, well in that case, come on in. I'll show you where it is.
I figured you'd find me."

Then they will confiscate your firearm and arrest you. Later, when
your attorney files a motion to suppress the evidence before your
trial, the judge will deny the motion on the grounds that you
volunteered the evidence to the police. You will then be convicted
of being in possession of an "illegal" firearm.

Other Things You May Want To Think About

If you are in possession of a so-called "illegal" SKS Sporter or
"assault weapon," you should consider purchasing an inexpensive
dictation tape recorder and an inexpensive video camera, and keeping
it near your front door. When the agents from the government (and
they will come in pairs, as they are cowardly) come to your door,
you should be in a position to gather evidence of their trickeries.
They will try to trick you.

For example, they may say, "We know you have an illegal firearm in
your house. We want it. It is illegal for you to have it. You must let
us in, pursuant to the new law." And, as mentioned above, they may say
they have "evidence" that a certain weapon was sold to you.

One response would be the same as above, "Go away. I'm not interested
in spending any of my time talking to you. Get off my property. I'm
recording this."

Tell them you are recording this event. That will get their attention.
You may want to set up a system whereby you can speed dial your phone to
a neighbor who can also be videotaping the officers outside your door.

Another alternative response could by, "Slide your search warrant
under my door." The government agents will almost certainly not have a
search warrant, provided you have been very circumspect in the recent
past about what firearms you own. Why, then, would it be almost
certain that the government agents will not have a search warrant?
Because, according to the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Did you
know that Article 1 of the California Constitution is a Declaration of
Rights, and that section 13 of the Declaration of Rights says: "The
[ Continued In Next Message... ]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Legal Defenses Against Gun Confiscation Part 1 2/2
Date: 19 Sep 1999 23:09:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated;
and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons and things to be seized?" (The full text of the California
Constitution can be found at http://www.ca.gov/s/govt/govcode.html.

You must ask yourself this question, "What judge is going to issue a
search warrant to search my home for an allegedly illegal firearm, if
I haven't had anyone in my home recently who might be a snitch, who
would be able to say under oath, 'I saw this man in possession of an
illegal firearm of a certain type, and it was stored in this location
in his house and I saw it this morning?'" If the only "evidence" the
government has is that months earlier you purchased a certain weapon,
that in itself would only tell a judge that on that date you may have
been in possession of that firearm. In the meantime, you could have
disposed of it (you could have thrown it away in your trash), you
might have dismantled it, thrown it in a lake, taken it out of state,
etc., etc.

If you have not advertised to anyone your possession of your "illegal"
firearms, it is highly unlikely that the government will have
sufficient evidence that probable cause exists that you are in
possession of illegal contraband (that is, that you are in possession
of an "illegal" firearm). Thus, you must ask yourself whether you are
able to take the small risk that you are wrong.

Even if the government agent has obtained a search warrant, after
complying with the search, you may challenge the legal sufficiency of
the search warrant. The government will have to sustain its burden of
proof that the required showing of probable cause was actually based
on credible, recent evidence. This will be a heavy burden, because in
every case the eyewitness claiming that you were in possession of the
"illegal" firearm would have to make a showing that your possession
was close in time to the issuance of the warrant and that the
eyewitness was in a position to "particularly describ[e] the place to
be searched and the persons and things to be seized" according to the
dictates of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
section 13 of the Declaration of Rights of the California Constitution.
In every case, the government will only have reason to suspect that you
are in possession of the "illegal" firearm based upon some information
they received many months ago. It is just as likely that you are no
longer in possession of the "illegal" firearm as it is that it is still
in your possession; therefore, without more, there is no probable cause
to believe you are currently violating the law. Since you may not be
required to answer any of the government's questions about whether you
are in possession of an "illegal" firearm, the government has no way
of finding out whether its suspicions are correct.

If you really want to have some fun, and burn up some of the government
agents' time (taking away time they might otherwise use to try to trick
other citizens of their firearms), you may want to do the following:

When they identify themselves outside your door, slide a Public Servant
Questionnaire under the door to each of them, and tell them you'd be
happy to talk to them if they will answer each of the questions set
forth on the form. You may get a copy of the Public Servant
Questionnaire at http://www.GunTruths.com (click on the cartridge
above "I Believe In Self Defense" and then scroll down to the "Get
Involved" heading). If you do this, it is doubtful they will continue
to talk to you. Probably, they will have been told not to waste their
time on citizens who seem to understand their rights and they will
leave and go to the next name and address on their list.

Assuming they do fill out the form completely, you may want to then
ask them whether they are armed with loaded firearms. If they say yes,
you should tell them that you will let them into your house to talk
with them only if they will return without their firearms. Then you
should also tell them that you'd like to first obtain some witnesses
to eyewitness the meeting in your home, and further explain that you'd
like to have them sit in front of your pre-positioned video camera and
near your tape recorder. If they tell you that you don't have the right
to audiotape and videotape them, they will be lying. Remember, these
are your public servants. Then let them come into your house, unarmed,
to ask your permission to answer some questions. Let them ask whatever
questions they choose. In response to each, simply say, "I choose not
to answer that question." Or you might ask them, in response to every
question they ask, whether you are required to answer the question.
Again, you'll have this all on audio tape and videotape and have at
least one witness. When they are finished, politely show them the door.

Use your imagination.

Another Right We Have At Our Disposal That The Government Fears

Under Article VI of the United States Constitution, and Sections 15
and 16 of the Declaration of Rights in the California Constitution,
all defendants in criminal prosecutions shall enjoy the right to a
speedy trial, by an impartial jury of twelve jurors. The AG does not
want to be faced with overcoming the foregoing hurdles, plus having
to convince all twelve jurors on a jury that you ought to go to jail
just because you were in possession of what just a few months earlier
had been perfectly legal to own. The AG fears fully informed jurors
who know that they have the power to judge both the law and the facts,
and who will be willing to acquit you of the victimless crime of
possessing an "illegal" firearm that was formerly perfectly legal to
own. You should learn more about the Fully Informed Jury Association
(FIJA), which is on the Links page at The Lawyer's Second Amendment
Society, Inc. web site, http://www.thelsas.org.

The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is short, to
the point and written in English. The Fourth Amendment is easy to
understand. The Attorney General hopes you don't understand any of
your rights. Don't let them trick you. If the first one hundred
attempts at trickery fail, the government will give up. Don't be
fooled. Learn your rights and exercise them!

Disclaimer: The foregoing is not legal advice but is for informational
purposes only. You should use your own judgment or consult an attorney
before deciding what to do.

****************************
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 Colorado 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) and Steve Cicero.
---



-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shameless request for campaign help--Sandy City Council Race.
Date: 21 Sep 1999 14:27:19 -0600

Hello All,

As you may know, I'm running for an at-large council seat in Sandy.  I've
got a pretty tight budget, but have got some flyers to pass out and am
hoping to get at least some moderate coverage before my primary in two
weeks and am looking for anyone willing and able to pass out some flyers
in Sandy.  This is probably most easy for residents of Sandy as they
could simply cover their neighborhoods, but if any non Sandy residents
want to help out, I'll certainly take whatever help they can offer.

If you are able and willing to help please contact me here or via phone
(523-3817 evenings or leave a message) with how many flyers you can place
and where you live.  I'll make arrangements to get the flyers to you this
week.  If you have friends or family in Sandy who are not likely to get
this email, please pass my contact info along to them.

Thank you.

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

________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail you don't need Web access to use --
Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web!
Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Strong Odor from NRA
Date: 24 Sep 1999 13:26:00 -0700


Provided by "Chris BeHanna" <[e-mail]>

The following is by former NRA director:
David M. Gross             September 21, 1999
8323 W. Franklin Ave.
St. Louis Park, MN 55426-1914
612-545-1091 phone
612-546-5314 fax
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

There was a strong rumor going around the Sept. 17-19 GRPC in St. Louis,
this weekend. The long-maintained separation between NRA and the firearms
industry is about to be dissolved by the hiring of NRA's public relations
and lobbying firm, Mercury Group, by the new governmental affairs unit of
the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- which includes most of
the major arms manufacturers and distributors. I am concerned about this
for reasons of substance and appearance.

An ABC Television crew videotaped much of the conference and interviewed
many of the speakers and audience. ABC Television is supposedly preparing
an hour-long "special" on NRA that will *reveal* the long-claimed (by
gun-grabbers) and long-denied (by NRA) linkage between NRA and the gun
makers. Why the creation of such a linkage would be undertaken, now,
is difficult to understand, if not totally beyond comprehension.

Industry representatives at the conference either avoided questions
about the new relationship or pleaded ignorance. However, several,
including Lt. Gen. James Chambers, USAF (ret.), Executive Director of
SAAMI, mentioned in their speeches that they were in the process of
hiring or retaining a "Washington" lobbying firm for greatly expanded
representation on Capitol Hill. General Chambers stated, unequivocally,
that the Industry would not behave like Big Tobacco and settle and
compromise; rather, Industry was going to fight. That great news
is certainly greatly tempered by the fact that they may be creating
additional problems that will detract from the effort. For almost 5
years before this, SAAMI had been represented by James J. Baker,
former and current Executive Director of NRA-ILA. Another "linkage?"
Surely, Jim Baker understands the problem presented here.

Mercury Group, which has described itself as a "wholly owned subsidiary"
of Ackerman & McQueen, NRA's advertising and public relations firm for
20 years, was formed about three years ago from the same key people who
had been representing NRA under the Ack-Mac banner. Rumors, at the time,
were that Ack-Mac was either required, or chose, to spin off the NRA
account (as part of "spin control?") when they began handling public
relations for the Dallas Cowboys and set up a large operation near the
team's home stadium in Irving.

Tony Makris, President of the subsidiary, has long served as the
political consultant for actor Charlton Heston, brought him to NRA as
a spokesman, then engineered Heston's election to the NRA Board of
Directors and -- two days later -- as first Vice President of NRA, and
then to President. The effort to "mainstream" NRA (Many say "sell it
down the river;" you decide; you've seen what has happened.) came out
of Mercury Group. If NSSF fights the way NRA is fighting under Makris'
direction, our problems will be only just beginning. Even the pro-gun
Republicans have complained about NRA's "going soft."

For NSSF to hire NRA's public relations firm is incredibly stupid.
Both gun makers and consumers will lose politically by being overtly
joined at the hip with each other.

You see, while industry opposes most gun laws, as does NRA, they're
not always the same laws. If a gun bill will benefit industry's bottom
line, even if it reduces its customers' freedom, industry supports it.
This happened in 1968 and later with GCA '68. The law of unintended
consequences (short-sightedness) strikes, again, causing damage to
both Industry and to gun owners' freedoms.

In 1968, the leading gun manufacturers came out in support of the Dodd
Bill, the Gun Control Act of 1968, while gun owners, even much more than
NRA, and despite protestations to the contrary (*words*, not actions)
were doing their best to protect the Second Amendment. The gun industry
thought it would benefit by eliminating much foreign competition and by
"cleaning up their distribution chain" by the law's prohibition on
interstate sales to private citizens.

In the middle 1970's the big handgun manufacturers developed a
"Saturday Night Special" bill, and Colt Firearms convinced the
Ford White House to support it in the belief that it would reduce
competition from their smaller competitors. That bill was changed
slightly and reintroduced by Rep. John Conyers.

In the late 1980's, when the "assault rifle" was first being condemned,
gun maker Bill Ruger, often hailed as "a great defender of the Second
Amendment," tried to convince Congress to limit magazines to 15 rounds.
That just happened to be the maximum capacity of the Ruger pistols, and
less than the 17 and 19-round capacity of the foreign-made Glock, which
was so popular with police. Until Bill Ruger's efforts, even Sen.
Metzenbaum hadn't thought of such a limit and had proposed to limit
magazine capacity to 20 rounds.

Clearly dual representation by Mercury Group is a huge conflict of
interest. When a gun bill is about to become law, and gun rights are
in conflict with commercial interests, how can Mercury Group serve
both clients? Or will one get sold down the river? The gun makers, and
particularly dealers who belong to NSSF, hate gun shows. What would
Mercury Group do with a gun show bill that dealers and distributors
love and NRA members hate?

The NRA Board of Directors will be meeting this weekend at the
Key Bridge Marriot in Rosslyn, VA [phone]. Hopefully, those
directors will convince their P.R. firm that they must CHOOSE
whether they want to represent the gun industry, or continue to
represent the NRA. They must not be allowed to represent both.

Should you get to talk to any directors you know, point out that it
is not only politically stupid, but also a huge conflict of interest:
*your* interests, *your* rights, *your* freedom.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: Gun 'n' Ballots
Date: 25 Sep 1999 13:38:00 -0700


From the Wall St. Journal:

September 24, 1999
Review & Outlook

Guns N' Ballots

High at the top of media orthodoxy is the idea that opposition to gun
control is a loser at the ballot box, especially in wake of high-profile
killings like Columbine. But a special House election in California should
help pop this liberal balloon.

The race was between Marta Macias Brown and State Senator Joe Baca. Both
sought the Democratic nomination for the seat held by Mrs. Brown's husband,
liberal icon Rep. George Brown, until he died in July. Though Mr. Baca was
well known, Ms. Brown had going for her the longest winning streak in
American politics: 35 out of the last 36 widows who've run to succeed their
husbands in office have won. She also brought her own qualifications to the
job, having worked as a close aide to her late husband for a decade.

It soon became clear, moreover, that the two candidates agreed on almost
every issue except one: gun control. But Mrs. Brown's constant mailers
attacking Mr. Baca as "the radical gun lobby's favorite Democrat" quickly
transformed her into a media darling. According to her campaign manager,
Bobi Johnson, the "No. 1" point in her platform was "reducing gun violence."
Though Mr. Baca muted his staunch support for gun rights slightly, and
sensibly voted to ban unaccompanied minors from gun shows, the National
Rifle Association stood by him.

National reporters touted the race as a leading indicator of how the gun
issue would affect the 2000 election. "After Columbine, the political
dynamics of the gun control issue have shifted," claimed the Washington
Post's Juan Williams. The liberal PAC Emily's List chimed in with $250,000
in donations and a poll showing Mrs. Brown beating Mr. Baca by 32% to 15% if
voters were aware of how the candidates stood on gun control. With history,
sympathy and cash on her side, Mrs. Brown not only outspent Mr. Baca but
secured the endorsement of two newspapers. Even the White House helped by
taking the unusual step of asking Mr. Baca to stop using a standard-issue
photograph of him posing with President Clinton in his literature.

As it turned out, the anti-gun frenzy was all for naught. Even though the
Tuesday election came within a week of the senseless shooting of churchgoers
in Fort Worth and a day after voters received a Brown brochure with
photographs of assault rifles and a school crossing sign shot up with
bullets, Mr. Baca prevailed. He will face Republican Elia Pirozzi in a
November runoff.

But you won't see many headlines about Mr. Baca's victory, because it goes
against the liberal belief that gun control is a winning issue. And the
media buys into the myth because polls consistently provide incomplete data.

In 1994, for example, just before the stunning GOP takeover of Congress,
polls found 89% of Americans backing the Brady Bill's five-day waiting
period for gun sales. But a closer reading found that only 33% thought the
Brady Bill would reduce gun-related crimes. The point is that gun owners are
highly motivated voters, and when given the chance to make them, their
arguments are often persuasive. They cite studies such as those which have
found that states with concealed-carry laws show greater decreases in crime,
which helps explain why 31 states have passed them in the teeth of liberal
opposition.

Now, we are not Second Amendment absolutists, and a policy debate on how to
increase gun safety and better lock up criminals who use guns is appropriate.
Such a debate would find, for example, that gun buyback programs don't work,
because people mostly turn in junk, and registration of all firearms is
little better, because criminals typically arm themselves through theft.

It's probably too much to expect that the failure of Mrs. Brown's hysterical
anti-gun campaign will be taken into account by the media types intoning
about the 2000 campaign. But we take some confidence in a public which time
and again has demonstrated at the polls that it well understands the
difference between reasonable restrictions and political hype.

URL for this Article:
http://interactive.wsj.com/archive/retrieve.cgi?id=3DSB938126666353769802.djm

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

Printing, distribution, and use of this material is governed by your
Subscription Agreement and copyright laws.

For information about subscribing, go to http://wsj.com/


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: ALERT: Scuttle the Scam: A Slick New Way To Destroy "Gun Control"
Date: 25 Sep 1999 17:35:00 -0700


-------- Original Message --------
Reply-To: [e-mail]

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

September 23, 1999

Scuttle the Scam: A Slick New Way To Destroy "Gun Control"

"Gun control" survives as an idea because most
Americans believe one single myth:

"YOU DON'T NEED A GUN BECAUSE THE POLICE PROTECT YOU FROM CRIME."

If you don't know exactly why that statement is a lie,
then you cannot destroy "gun control."

If you can't effectively rebut that statement, then you
cannot make the strongest positive case for private firearms
ownership.

Anti-gun lobbyists get away with proposing to completely disarm
the citizens only because most citizens just assume the police
will protect them. That assumption is false. The police cannot
protect everyone -- IN FACT THE POLICE USUALLY HAVE NO LEGAL
DUTY TO PROTECT ANYONE.

Dial 911 and Die, the new book available now, proves
this fact. For nearly every American state and territory,
this book shows how the police owe no legal duty to protect
individuals from crime. THE POLICE IN MOST PLACES DO NOT
EVEN HAVE TO COME WHEN YOU CALL.

Gun prohibitionist lobbyists, politicians and media
have sold Americans the myth of police protection. Schools
teach youngsters to "Dial 911." There was a television
program with "911" in the title. That phone number is
perhaps the best known in the country. A generation of
Americans has come to trust a telephone number for self-
defense.

Government authorities and media pundits never told
Americans about the dark side of 911. Too many Americans
have dialed 911 and died because the police did not or could
not help them.

Dial 911 and Die kills the logical root of "gun
control" ideology. Erase Americans' blind faith in police
protection, and a rational person who faces a risk of
criminal attack on himself or his loved ones would never
voluntarily allow himself to be disarmed.

ERASE THE MYTH OF POLICE PROTECTION, AND "GUN CONTROL:
DIES AS AN IDEA ... PERMANENTLY.

How often do the gun prohibitionists use the recent
spate of murderous attacks on schools, businesses, community
centers and churches as reasons for "gun control"? When you
understand the concept in Dial 911 and Die, those reasons
evaporate. Each of those cases highlights that the police
were powerless and unable to prevent or stop those attacks.
Emergency 911 service is available almost everywhere in the
U.S. -- and it was worthless against those armed attackers.

The unarmed victims of criminal attack and their
families cannot get compensation from the city governments
that failed to protect them in these famous terrible cases.
The only people on location when the attackers came were the
victims themselves. At the same time, the prevailing laws
and anti-gun culture made sure those victims were unarmed.
Police help was too little, too late.

THOSE MURDEROUS EVENTS DO NOT PROVE THE NEED FOR "GUN
CONTROL" -- THEY PROVE THE UTTER INABILITY OF THE POLICE TO
PROTECT INDIVIDUALS FROM VIOLENT CRIME. Police typically
investigate crimes after the fact -- they don't prevent very
many crimes. And the laws in nearly every state say that
the police don't even owe a duty to protect individual
citizens. Citizens are on their own -- and the sooner they
know it, the better.

There are many excellent arguments against "gun
control." Only one argument destroys its logical root.
Master that argument. Get DIAL 911 AND DIE for yourself,
your local talk host, your local NRA leaders, your family,
your local libraries. Read the harrowing, gut-wrenching
stories of crime victims who tragically depended upon police
to help. See how the courts just dismiss the victims'
appeals out of hand. You'll never look at your telephone --
or your gun rights -- the same way again.

To Order:

One copy . . . . 11.95 postage paid
6 copies . . . . 44.95 postage paid
12 copies  . . . 79.95 postage paid
Case (58 books) 349.95 postage paid

These are USA prices. Foreign orders call for pricing.

On-line ordering: http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm

See the on-line ordering page for an image of the cover.

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]

Then respond to the confirmation message you will get back.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: FW: GOA: Doolittle Motion Passes, 337-73
Date: 25 Sep 1999 17:35:00 -0700


Shoot Out On Capitol Hill Results In Conflicting Messages
* but pro-gun leaders win key, though symbolic, victory

(Friday, September 24, 1999) -- Supporters of gun rights in the House of
Representatives charged the floor today with an arsenal of high-powered
arguments in defense of 2nd Amendment liberties.  Led by Rep. John
Doolittle (R-CA), pro-gun Republicans defied their leadership in presenting
an extremely cogent case in defense of our freedoms.

"It's not the right of the army," Doolittle roared.  "It's not the right of
the National Guard."  The Second Amendment "says 'the right of the
people'-- [it's] an individual right."

Doolittle cited constitutional authorities from James Madison to Laurence
Tribe in making his point that the Second Amendment protects an individual
right.  He also quoted the highly acclaimed Dr. John Lott in making the
simple point that "more guns equal less crime," as he waved a copy of
Lott's new book for the cameras.

GOA On The Front Lines
In anticipation of this floor fight, lobbyists from Gun Owners of America
yesterday provided pro-gun offices with dozens of self-defense incidents
from this year alone.  Pro-gun Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) took the list
and read self-defense example after example on the floor of the U.S. House
of Representatives.

"The stories go on and on," Mrs. Chenoweth concluded.  "In fact, a 1997
Clinton Justice Department study found that as many as 1.5 million people
use a gun in self-defense every year."

The anti-gun side could offer no rebuttal to this point.  Regardless, they
remained entrenched in opposing the motion made by Rep. Doolittle.  His
motion instructs House negotiators to drop any provision that infringes on
the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals-provisions like the ban on private
sales at gun shows, which can only be surmounted by the buyer's submitting
to a background registration check; a new gun ban for young adults; an
import ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds; etc.

The Doolittle motion passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 337-73.  Also, an
earlier motion instructing the conferees to work every day until they reach
an agreement on the crime bill was narrowly defeated.  However,
representatives then sent a "conflicting" message when they voted to
instruct the conference members (241-167) to include gun show registration
checks in the final version of the bill.  The latter motion, offered by Zoe
Lofgren of California, directly contradicts the Doolittle motion.  While
contradictory messages are not unique on Capitol Hill, one should realize
that all of the motions were non-binding. The conferees could report a gun
bill out of committee as early as next week, or not at all if sufficient
opposition from gun owners is heard.

GOP And Democratic Leaders United In Their Support For Gun Control
Republican leaders like Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL) took the floor to explain
that he and many other members of the House want to impose the instant
registration check at gun shows.  House Judiciary Chairman, Henry Hyde
(R-IL), also echoed similar opinions yesterday.

On the Democratic side, the anti-gunners were led by Rep. Lofgren (D-CA).
 She argued that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right,
and that the anti-gun crime bill which is currently in conference does not
conflict with the Second Amendment.

ACTION:  Please thank those members of Congress who spoke up so eloquently
in the defense of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  They are
Representatives Doolittle, Chenoweth, Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), and John
Hostettler (R-IN). BUT NOT MERRILL COOK, JIM HANSEN and CHRIS CANNON.

Contact Info:
House of Representatives
Ph: 888-449-3511 or 202-225-3121

Rep. John Doolittle (CA-4th)
Ph: 202-225-2511
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Rep. Helen Chenoweth (ID-1st)
Ph: 202-225-6611
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6th)
Ph: 202-225-2721
Fax: [phone]
No e-mail

Rep. John Hostettler (IN-8th)
Ph: 202-225-4636
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

**************
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: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: STROBE TALBOT'S VISION--TREASON
Date: 26 Sep 1999 18:52:48 -0700

I wonder how the Bill of Rights will fare under Talbott's vision of the
future?  Sounds like treason to me....  For those that believe this
article to be off-topic, it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

JW


XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1999 19:02:55 ET XXXXX

TALBOTT: NEXT CENTURY, AMERICA WILL NOT EXIST IN CURRENT FORM, 'ALL
STATES WILL RECOGNIZE A SINGLE, GLOBAL AUTHORITY'

Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott believes the United States may
not exist in its current form in the 21st Century -- because nationhood
throughout the world will become obsolete!

Talbott, who is profiled in the NEW YORK TIMES on Monday [for the second
time in six months], has defined, shaped and executed the Clinton
administration's foreign policy. He has served at the State Department
since the first day of the Clinton presidency.

Just before joining the administration, Talbott wrote in TIME magazine
-- in an essay titled "The Birth of the Global Nation" -- that he is
looking forward to government run by "one global authority."

"Here is one optimist's reason for believing unity will prevail ...
within the next hundred years ... nationhood as we know it will be
obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority," Talbott
declared in the July 20, 1992 issue of TIME.

"A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century -- 'citizen of the
world' -- will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st."

Talbott continued: "All countries are basically social arrangements,
accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and
even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all
artificial and temporary."

Talbott's belief that the United States of America and other nations are
"artificial and temporary" continues to cause a rift inside of the State
Department, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"I think we are losing sight that we work for the American taxpayer, not
Russia, not Asia," one State Department veteran told the DRUDGE REPORT
in Washington. "Mr. Talbott is completely consumed with world order and
has alienated many career employees here. [His] attitude borders on
obsession."

In recent months, Talbott has come under fire for his stand on Russia.
The policy of financial and political engagement with Russia as
revelations pour forth of massive money-laundering schemes has made
Talbott the target of critics, reports John Broder at the TIMES.

"We have to be calm and steady and have a clear sense of purpose,"
Talbott tells Monday's NEW YORK TIMES.

"One of my modest suggestions to the world is strategic patience. We
have to be calm and steady and have a clear sense of purpose when that
dynamic is discouraging, as it is today," Talbott tells the TIMES.

Global government has proven to be slightly more complicated than one
optimist dreamed.

*
* NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 <U.S.C.> Section 107, this material
is
* distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a
* prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research
and
* educational purposes only.

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: ALERT: Scuttle the Scam: A Slick New Way To Destroy
Date: 27 Sep 1999 13:35:49 -0600

I've read _Dial 911 and Die_ and recommend it without reservation.  My full
review wil be posted later this week.

Sarah

At 06:35 PM 09/25/1999 , you wrote:

>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: ALERT: Scuttle the Scam: A Slick New Way To Destroy "Gun Control"
>Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:31:38 -0700
>From: JPFO Alerts <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>To: [e-mail]
>
>ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
>America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
>
>September 23, 1999
>
>Scuttle the Scam: A Slick New Way To Destroy "Gun Control"
>
>"Gun control" survives as an idea because most
>Americans believe one single myth:
>
>"YOU DON'T NEED A GUN BECAUSE THE POLICE PROTECT YOU FROM CRIME."
>
>If you don't know exactly why that statement is a lie,
>then you cannot destroy "gun control."
>
>If you can't effectively rebut that statement, then you
>cannot make the strongest positive case for private firearms
>ownership.
>
>Anti-gun lobbyists get away with proposing to completely disarm
>the citizens only because most citizens just assume the police
>will protect them. That assumption is false. The police cannot
>protect everyone -- IN FACT THE POLICE USUALLY HAVE NO LEGAL
>DUTY TO PROTECT ANYONE.
>
>Dial 911 and Die, the new book available now, proves
>this fact. For nearly every American state and territory,
>this book shows how the police owe no legal duty to protect
>individuals from crime. THE POLICE IN MOST PLACES DO NOT
>EVEN HAVE TO COME WHEN YOU CALL.
>
>Gun prohibitionist lobbyists, politicians and media
>have sold Americans the myth of police protection. Schools
>teach youngsters to "Dial 911." There was a television
>program with "911" in the title. That phone number is
>perhaps the best known in the country. A generation of
>Americans has come to trust a telephone number for self-
>defense.
>
>Government authorities and media pundits never told
>Americans about the dark side of 911. Too many Americans
>have dialed 911 and died because the police did not or could
>not help them.
>
>Dial 911 and Die kills the logical root of "gun
>control" ideology. Erase Americans' blind faith in police
>protection, and a rational person who faces a risk of
>criminal attack on himself or his loved ones would never
>voluntarily allow himself to be disarmed.
>
>ERASE THE MYTH OF POLICE PROTECTION, AND "GUN CONTROL:
>DIES AS AN IDEA ... PERMANENTLY.
>
>How often do the gun prohibitionists use the recent
>spate of murderous attacks on schools, businesses, community
>centers and churches as reasons for "gun control"? When you
>understand the concept in Dial 911 and Die, those reasons
>evaporate. Each of those cases highlights that the police
>were powerless and unable to prevent or stop those attacks.
>Emergency 911 service is available almost everywhere in the
>U.S. -- and it was worthless against those armed attackers.
>
>The unarmed victims of criminal attack and their
>families cannot get compensation from the city governments
>that failed to protect them in these famous terrible cases.
>The only people on location when the attackers came were the
>victims themselves. At the same time, the prevailing laws
>and anti-gun culture made sure those victims were unarmed.
>Police help was too little, too late.
>
>THOSE MURDEROUS EVENTS DO NOT PROVE THE NEED FOR "GUN
>CONTROL" -- THEY PROVE THE UTTER INABILITY OF THE POLICE TO
>PROTECT INDIVIDUALS FROM VIOLENT CRIME. Police typically
>investigate crimes after the fact -- they don't prevent very
>many crimes. And the laws in nearly every state say that
>the police don't even owe a duty to protect individual
>citizens. Citizens are on their own -- and the sooner they
>know it, the better.
>
>There are many excellent arguments against "gun
>control." Only one argument destroys its logical root.
>Master that argument. Get DIAL 911 AND DIE for yourself,
>your local talk host, your local NRA leaders, your family,
>your local libraries. Read the harrowing, gut-wrenching
>stories of crime victims who tragically depended upon police
>to help. See how the courts just dismiss the victims'
>appeals out of hand. You'll never look at your telephone --
>or your gun rights -- the same way again.
>
>To Order:
>
>One copy . . . . 11.95 postage paid
>6 copies . . . . 44.95 postage paid
>12 copies  . . . 79.95 postage paid
>Case (58 books) 349.95 postage paid
>
>These are USA prices. Foreign orders call for pricing.
>
>On-line ordering: http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm
>
>See the on-line ordering page for an image of the cover.
>
>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]
>
>Then respond to the confirmation message you will get back.
>
>
>
>-


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: NEA gun poll
Date: 28 Sep 1999 01:02:08 -0600


>X-Sender: [e-mail] (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
>Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:24:25 -0600
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>From: Gunmoll <[e-mail]>
>Subject: NEA gun poll
>
>This is too good to miss!  The NEA wants to know "Would stronger gun
>control make schools safer?"
>
>Vote now!  http://www.nea.org/neatoday/
>
>As of now the vote is 95% no, and 5% yes.  I wonder if they really WILL
>print the results in the December issue....
>


-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun Owners about to get the shaft?
Date: 28 Sep 1999 13:19:05 -0600

From today's DesNews.  Looks like Stephens is ready to sell us down the
river by standing our CCW law on its head and requiring permitees to ask
permission rather than requiring churches to post.  What is it going to
take convince "leadership" that guns are not a fringe issue they can deal
away like chips on a poker table?

dc

Coalition has guns in its sights

               Petition targets weapons in schools and churches

               By Jennifer Toomer-Cook and Bob Bernick Jr.
               Deseret News staff writers

                     While much work remains to be done, House Speaker
Marty Stephens said Tuesday there is a possibility that lawmakers and
citizens pushing a gun-control initiative can reach
               agreement ù and the initiative won't be needed after all.
                     Backers of the Utah Safe to Learn ù Safe to Worship
Coalition unveiled their long-awaited petition drive Monday.
                     The initiative is supported by Utah Children, Utah
PTA, State Board of Regents, State Board of Education, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, Salt Lake City Police Department and
               others.
                     "We are here today to make schools safe to learn and
churches safe to worship . . . to give voice to Utah citizens who in poll
after poll indicate they don't want guns in schools or places
               of worship," said former Salt Lake Mayor Ted Wilson, who
says he backs the initiative as a University of Utah faculty member.
                     Local religious leaders also spoke in favor of the
petition drive, calling current laws an "embarrassment."
                     But Tuesday, Stephens, R-Farr West, said he believes
the guns-in-churches issue can be solved relatively easily.
                     "I've met with leaders of all denominations,"
Stephens said, and an informal agreement has been reached whereby the
concealed weapons permit holders need permission from church
               officials to carry a gun on church grounds.
                     That gets around the sticky issue of churches having
to post signs saying "No Guns Allowed."
                     Concealed weapons in schools is a harder issue,
Stephens agreed.
                     Basically, if wording can be found that will allow
permit holders to carry their weapons on to school grounds to attend
"approved" school functions and to take and drop off their
               children, Stephens said that, in concept, is something
acceptable to him and perhaps to other members of the Utah House and
Senate Republican caucuses.
                     The coalition does support exemptions that would
include concealed weapons permit holders bringing students to and from
school and permit holders who secure firearms and place
               them out of sight in a locked, unoccupied vehicle.
                     Coalition leaders say the Legislature's reluctance
to deal with the politically charged issue of restricting legally
concealed weapons in schools and churches galvanized residents to take
               the matter in their own hands.
                     The aim, leaders said in a Monday press conference,
is to let voters decide whether to ban all firearms, with some
exceptions, on campus and in church.
                     Stephens said he wants Utahns to clearly understand
that lawmakers banned all guns from schools in 1993, except for legally
permitted concealed weapons and guns carried by law
               enforcement officers.
                     The question now is not whether kids can bring guns
to school. They can't. The question is only what to do with legally
permitted concealed weapons carried by law-abiding citizens,
               Stephens said.
                     Doug Bates, an attorney for the State Office of
Education, said the intent of the petition's language is to allow
concealed weapon permit holders to come on to school grounds for a short
               period of time to pick up or deliver children and so on.
It's not the intent of the petition to allow someone to attend a high
school football game, for example, and carry a concealed weapon.
               It's not the intent to allow school volunteers or teachers
to carry their concealed weapons on school grounds all day, Bates added.
                     Stephens said as the coalition has moved from the
extreme "to a more reasonable position," chances increase for an
agreed-upon solution in the 2000 Legislature.
                     Guns in schools is a hot topic nationwide following
a rash of school shooting across the country and at Colorado's Columbine
High School, which alone left 15 dead, including the two
               student gunmen.
                     In Utah, the issue has two sides. Gun rights
advocates say schools are sitting ducks without protection offered by
lawfully gun-toting citizens. Some have suggested Utah teachers
               receive firearms training.
                     Elwood Powell, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports
Council, a guns right group, calls the petition drive an agenda to disarm
residents and deny constitutional rights.
                     "The only people they are targeting are the most
law-abiding citizens who have fulfilled all the requirements for a
concealed weapons permit," Powell said. "I hope it has no success . . .
               from the response I hear from town meetings, citizens
themselves don't think much of it."
                     Educators contend guns have no place in class. They
fear concealed weapons holders brandishing weapons in a crisis and
confusing police or accidentally shooting an innocent
               bystander or child.
                     Utah lawmakers have discussed the issue since they
loosened the state's weapons laws to make it easier to obtain a concealed
weapons permit. The debate heightened this past summer
               when three months of interim committee meetings were
dedicated to the issue of guns, but lawmakers could not reach the
consensus Gov. Mike Leavitt requested for a special session.
               Lawmakers said they needed the 45-day session to fully
debate the issue.
                     The state's concealed weapons law, which allows a
permit holder to carry a gun without restriction, was updated last
legislative session to let churches and private property owners
               decide whether weapons are welcome on their properties.
                     But posting gun ban signs on places of worship is a
black eye to the community, said the Right Rev. Carolyn Tanner Irish,
Episcopal bishop of Utah.
                     "I think it is embarrassing to the state of Utah,
and I look forward to the time we can take those signs down," she said to
applause from about 50 supporters gathered at a state Capitol
               press conference. "(Churches) are sanctuaries where people
go in expecting to be . . . unprotected and available to the holy spirit
of God."
                     The proposed Utah Safe to Learn ù Safe to Worship
Act, which would be put to a public vote next year if the petition drive
generates enough signatures of support, would ban firearms
               in churches and their grounds and schools unless
administrators say otherwise under school policy or the weapons are
carried by law enforcement officers.
                     The act would apply to public and private schools,
pre-schools and child-care facilities; applied technology centers and
public and private higher education institutions; but not public
               sidewalks or streets adjacent to such facilities.
                     Violation of the act would be a class A misdemeanor
for firearms holders, a class B misdemeanor for those carrying other
dangerous materials.
                     The proposed act incorporates provisions from a 1993
state law that bans firearms from public schools.
                     Granite School District has banned all firearms on
school property under the 1980s law, which district officials believe
prevails over the vague concealed carry law. The Utah Board of
               Regents also has banned weapons on campuses of the state's
nine colleges and universities.
                     While those entities believe their policies are
sound, the petition drive is necessary to relieve doubt once and for all,
said Bates, state director of school law and legislation.
                     The citizen drive must gather 67,188 signatures in
20 of Utah's 29 counties. Signatures collected must equal at least 10
percent of the county's voter turnout in the 1996 election.
                     Listed among the groups supporting the petition in
hand-outs given Monday by coalition leaders is the League of Cities and
Towns. But league executive director Ken Bullock said the
               league does not support the petition. "Our board was never
asked to support it, it doesn't and I don't anticipate that it will"
support the petition, Bullock said.

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

________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail you don't need Web access to use --
Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web!
Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh.

-



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

From:
Subject: Re: Gun Owners about to get the shaft?
Date: 28 Sep 1999 15:32:52 -0400

There is an asnwer to this.  Get the  GO-Utah and the USSC together and
organize a counter petition.  Get petition signatures from downtown and
everywhere.  Name the petition:

Keeping Utah Schools and Churches Safe

Explain that disarming victims only makes it more likely something will
happen.  Do it on the streets in a petition.

Chad
from NH though he goes to SLC on average once a month now

--On Tuesday, September 28, 1999, 1:19 PM -0600 charles hardy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> From today's DesNews.  Looks like Stephens is ready to sell us down the
> river by standing our CCW law on its head and requiring permitees to ask
> permission rather than requiring churches to post.  What is it going to
> take convince "leadership" that guns are not a fringe issue they can =
deal
> away like chips on a poker table?
>
> dc
>
> Coalition has guns in its sights
>
>                Petition targets weapons in schools and churches
>
>                By Jennifer Toomer-Cook and Bob Bernick Jr.
>                Deseret News staff writers
>
>                      While much work remains to be done, House Speaker
> Marty Stephens said Tuesday there is a possibility that lawmakers and
> citizens pushing a gun-control initiative can reach
>                agreement =97 and the initiative won't be needed after =
all.
>                      Backers of the Utah Safe to Learn =97 Safe to =
Worship
> Coalition unveiled their long-awaited petition drive Monday.
>                      The initiative is supported by Utah Children, Utah
> PTA, State Board of Regents, State Board of Education, the American
> Academy of Pediatrics, Salt Lake City Police Department and
>                others.
>                      "We are here today to make schools safe to learn =
and
> churches safe to worship . . . to give voice to Utah citizens who in =
poll
> after poll indicate they don't want guns in schools or places
>                of worship," said former Salt Lake Mayor Ted Wilson, who
> says he backs the initiative as a University of Utah faculty member.
>                      Local religious leaders also spoke in favor of the
> petition drive, calling current laws an "embarrassment."
>                      But Tuesday, Stephens, R-Farr West, said he =
believes
> the guns-in-churches issue can be solved relatively easily.
>                      "I've met with leaders of all denominations,"
> Stephens said, and an informal agreement has bee

Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC
Web and Macintosh Consulting -- full service web hosting
Chad Leigh
[e-mail]            [e-mail]


-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mail from the NRA
Date: 28 Sep 1999 21:22:00 -0600

I received a credit card application from the NRA saying they wanted me
back as a member and would give me a free one year membership in the NRA
if I simply applied for, received, and then used the visa card they were
offering.

I don't think it will make a bit of difference, but it is on their dime
(postage paid return envelope) so this is what I am sending back to
them--and all I am sending.

Dear NRA Mail Solicitor

Please consider this letter as your official notice to remove the above
name and address from your mailing list for any and all credit
applications.  Cease and desist from all future credit solicitations by
mail.

Furthermore, until such time as the NRA takes an unequivocal stand in
defense of my absolute right to peaceably own and carry firearms do not
bother with ANY mail solicitations.

When the NRA quits appeasing  gun grabbers by supporting bad legislation,
when they file and win suits to overturn gun control laws based on the
2nd amendment, when they oppose background checks as infringements on my
right to own and carry a gun, when they quit supporting the "lesser of
two evils" by endorsing back-stabbing Republicans and Democrats over
pro-gun Independants or Libertarians, when they start a full court press
for "Vermont Carry" in my or any other State of this great Union, please
let me know.

Until that time, my support, both financial and otherwise, goes to Gun
Owners of America (GOA) and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership (JPFO) and not to the NRA (National Republican Apologists).

Thank you,



Charles C. Hardy


==================================================================
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.

-