ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.200006

Internet Message Format | 2000-06-29 | 89KB

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Trib Poll on guns in unSafe to Learn/unSafe to Worship
Date: 06 Jun 2000 23:02:25 -0600

Dave sez:
-----

To All:

I just wanted to let you know that the Trib has fired
up a poll concerning the just recently failed ballot
initiative. At this time, the good guys are losing
with only 20%. However, there have only been 25 voters
so we can still make some good headway. Please send
out a notice to invite everyone to vote. The poll is
located on the front page of the Trib:

http://www.sltrib.com/

and center right.

Thanks to Dana for the notice

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: WW in DN--pro gun article
Date: 07 Jun 2000 15:09:07 -0600

From today's DesNews <http://www.desnews.com> editorial page:

Gun control's costs exceed benefits

            By Walter Williams

                            More than anything else, economics is a way
of thinking. At the heart of economics are several simple and easily
observable characteristics of humans and the world in
                      which we live.
                            The first is that people prefer more of those
things that give them satisfaction and fewer of those things that give
them dissatisfaction. Second, when the cost of
                      something goes down, people tend to take or do more
of it, and when the cost of something increases, people tend to take or
do less of it. Finally, having more of one thing
                      requires less of something else. Or, as my
colleague Professor Milton Friedman puts it, "There's no free lunch."
Let's apply these simple postulates to public-policy issues.
                            With any public policy, there's a benefit and
there's a cost. Intelligent public-policy discussion requires an
examination to determine whether benefits outweigh costs.
                            For example, there'd be a clear benefit to
mandating a national speed limit of 5 mph. The enormous benefit from
doing so would be the virtual elimination of the tens of
            thousands of highway fatalities and injuries each year. But
the costs of a 5 mph speed limit would be enormous. We sensibly conclude,
without saying so, that a 5 mph speed limit and the
            lives it would save wouldn't be worth the hassle. The lesson
here is that we can't simply look at the benefits. If we only look at
benefits, we'd do just about anything because everything has
            a benefit.
                  Our nation is in a frenzy about child victims of gun
homicides and accidents. Many people are becoming increasingly shrill in
demands for all manner of supposed gun-safety
            measures. First, let's put the magnitude of accidental gun
deaths in perspective. The following are Centers for Disease Control 1997
statistics for types of accidental deaths of children from
            birth to age 14: drowning (1,010), auto (2,608), bicycle
(201), pedestrian (675) and gun accidents (142). gun homicide in the same
age group totaled 346.
                  It turns out that among all the causes of accidental
deaths of children, the chances of death by a gun accident are the
remotest. That means the benefit of child safety locks might be
            142 fewer accidental deaths in 1997.
                  Reported in John R. Lott's book "More guns, Less
Crime," 15 national polls, by groups such as the Los Angeles Times,
Gallup and Peter Hart Research Associates, have found there are
            an estimated 760,000 defensive handgun uses to 3.6 million
defensive uses of any kind of gun per year. Crimes that have been
prevented included robbery, car-jacking, burglary, assault
            and murder.
                  I doubt whether these crimes would have been as
effectively prevented if a gun owner, awakened by a burglar in the dead
of night or approached by a carjacker, had to first worry
            about scrounging around for the key to unlock the safety
lock.
                  But you might say whatever it takes to prevent the
accidental death of our children is worth it. Then I suggest that you
prioritize things a bit. The number of children killed accidentally
            by guns is 142. We'd save more child lives (1,010) by closing
swimming pools, save 201 lives by banning cycling and 675 by banning
pedestrian activities. Again, if we only look to the
            benefit (saving lives), we might outlaw these activities, but
what would be the cost? Our children would lose all the joy and
entertainment from swimming, bicycling and playing in the
            streets.
                  Economics gives no clue about the motivation of people
who push for one public policy or another. So I'm going to go out on the
limb regarding the motivation of gun-safety-lock
            advocates: These people want ultimate gun confiscation, and
gun locks are just another nuisance factor toward that end.



            Creators Syndicate Inc.
==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: KABA Liberty Advocate 6-9-2000
Date: 09 Jun 2000 09:12:00 -0600

KABA LIBERTY ADVOCATE

June 9, 2000 -- Today is Liberty Day.

Welcome all new subscribers.  Thanks for your time.

Please report any problems with our web site to
[e-mail].  Thank you.

A note about server speed is below the items in
today's report.  A note follows for our subscribers
who do not have full internet access or prefer to
receive text over links to our website.


IN TODAY'S REPORT...

http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com

Today's Cartoon: JUST SAY NO TO GUNS

Today's KABA Features:

An Open Letter to Law Enforcement
by "Henry Bowman"

Hungary cracks down on gun ownership
(But industry strikes back)

I'm Not Even a Gun Nut
by Tsun

The MMM-Richmond Integrity Deficit
by Jim in Virginia

Linked from KABA to Other Sites...

"Carry a Gun Without a License, you'll do time"
says a judge in Pittsburgh.

City of Chicago Suing ATF to try to force them to
turn over records to bolster their treasonous lawsuits
against the manufacturers of self-defense devices.
(Wouldn't be surprised if this were nothing more than
a smokescreen to make it look like the ATF isn't bending
over backwards to bodyslam the gun industry.)

50 Million Round March Considerations (Consider why to get
involved for Father's Day, and then to to the 50MRM site.)

Reality vs. Rosie: What Every Woman Must Know
by Richard Stevens, JPFO

4 Ex-Governors Back Gun Control Initiative
(Trying to remain relevant and see how they can still
screw America.)

New Technology Streamlines Trapshooting for Competition
Voice activate pull.  (When are they going to have
heat-seeking commie bullets?)


And, as always, on the left side of our home
page in our Daily Shots section, we have our

PARTING SHOT:

Bill & Hillary & Puppies

http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com


KABA SERVER SPEED

If you are experiencing some slower-than-desirable
access to our site, please read this message.

We have received our long-awaited new server.  It
is a dual Pentium III 650Mhz system with redundant
backup and three hard drives operating simultaneously.
It will be installed at a new internet farm that has
five internet backbones coming into the building.  The
512 Megs of RAM and the above are expected to dramatically
improve load time on the site.  The server has RAID
controllers (for you techie types) and is capable of
taking 100,000 hits in any given SECOND.  This should
do us okay for at least the next 90-180 days, at which
point a second server located on the other side of the
country will be installed (funds permitting).

We expect to have the new server fully loaded and
operational in 10 days.  Your patience and understanding
are appreciated.  (or at least keep the flames to under
two paragraphs!)  :-)

Thanks.


FOR PEOPLE WITHOUT FULL INTERNET ACCESS
FOR PEOPLE WHO PREFER TEXT EMAILS TO WEBSITE

Much juggling is still afoot with KABA getting settled
in to our new home at .com.  We are exploring the best
way to offer some of our information, by popular request,
in a text format that doesn't necessitate a trip over
to our site.  It's coming; please be patient or, if you
don't have internet access and want to unsubscribe for
the moment, ask one of your internet friends to give
you a heads up when we announce that feature of our site.

Double Thanks.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Lawful people being criminalized for choosing
the means and ability to defend our own lives
are tired of being demonized for refusing to
be victimizable.  If you want to be easy
prey, suit yourself, but Don't Tread On Me!"
~~ Angel Shamaya, Director
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subscribe or unsubscribe at our web site.
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: LPU: FW: SB72 chickens come home to roost.
Date: 12 Jun 2000 22:04:18 -0600

-----

The Libertarian Party owns RKBA as an issue in Utah!

Thank you, Rob Bishop. :-)

----------

Well, well, the proof regarding Sen. Terry Spencer, USSC and Rob Bishop
selling us out at the Utah legislature is in this article.  Wait a minute I
though USSC was supposed to be preserving our gun rights.  (YEA RIGHT!)

This is the same ROB BISHOP that called the Republican platform and bylaws
∞technicalitiesε and refused to make the Governor adhere to them.

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

Terry Spencer's SB72 comes back to haunt Utahns convicted of offences 30 or
40 years ago (including non-violent felonies)--now they cannot even own a
bow and arrow, cross-bow, blow-gun, pellet gun, or, if it is used as a
weapon, a knife.

"The people who are going to be caught unaware are those folks who may have
had some criminal problems when they were 18 or 19 years old and they're 40
now and have never had any trouble with the law since," aid Capt. Stuart
Smith of the Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Identification
(BCI).


Thank you Terry Spencer for sponsoring this bill. Thank you, Utah Shooting
Sports Council for pushing it through in the last 2 minutes of the
legislative session. I feel sooooo safe now.


Felons to Be Denied Hunting Licenses

BY CHRISTOPHER SMITH THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

A new regulation prohibiting convicted felons from purchasing Utah hunting
licenses is being drawn up, part of a crackdown triggered by a gun-control
law passed minutes before the gavel fell on the 2000 Legislature.

The law also may prompt an increase in requests to the state Department of
Public Safety for criminal record "expungments" -- a legal process of
erasing a past conviction -- for people with nonviolent felony convictions
who now find themselves barred from hunting.

Senate Bill 72, the final measure passed by legislators before adjourning
March 1, closed a bizarre loophole in state law that allowed violent felons
-- banned from possessing firearms under federal law -- to hunt with guns in
Utah.

"We were increasingly encountering people with violent felony convictions,
people that you wouldn't want to see with a dangerous weapon, who, when they
were stopped by law enforcement, would say they were on a hunting trip or
going target shooting," said Bob Elswood, chief of law enforcement for the
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

"These people could just say they were going hunting jackrabbits, an
uncontrolled animal that can be hunted year-round, even at night. And we had
a law on the books that allowed them to have a gun for that, even though
federal law doesn't." SB72 closed that discrepancy by eliminating the
state's so-called "hunting exception," which had permitted those convicted
of violent felonies, such as aggravated assault, to legally possess a
firearm if they were going hunting or target practicing. But the law, which
was primarily aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill,
went farther in limiting who can legally possess weapons and hunt in Utah.
Among the changes that went into effect with Gov. Mike Leavitt's signature
on March 16:

-- A person convicted of any felony -- not just a violent felony -- is now a
"restricted person" under state law and cannot possess any "dangerous
weapon," and therefore is prohibited from hunting or target shooting.
Authorities say substituting the term "dangerous weapon" for "firearm" in
the law now means that restricted persons cannot legally possess bows and
arrows, cross-bows, blow-guns, pellet guns and even a knife if it is used as
a weapon. Penalties range from second-degree felony to class A misdemeanor
charges, depending on the nature of the weapon and the seriousness of the
previous felony conviction.

-- A person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance -- regardless
of any previous convictions -- is now considered a restricted person under
state gun-control law and is prohibited from possessing, purchasing, owning
or transferring any dangerous weapon. Violators face third-degree felony or
class A misdemeanor charges, depending whether the weapon is a firearm.

-- A person in possession of a weapon and knowingly and intentionally in
unlawful possession of a "Schedule 1" controlled substance, such as
marijuana, peyote or hallucinogenic mushrooms, is now classified as a
restricted person under state law and banned from possessing dangerous
weapons or hunting, regardless of any previous convictions.

"I can think of an actual case where one of our officers on the opening day
of the deer hunt saw a man slumped over the wheel of his pickup truck and
when the officer investigated, this hunter was bending down to snort lines
of cocaine," said Elswood. "Under the old law, he was arrested for the drug
possession. Under the new law, he could also be charged with a felony count
of having a firearm while possessing a controlled substance, even if he was
not previously a felon."

The changes to the state's gun-control laws affecting hunting came too late
to be included in this year's printed booklet of state hunting regulations.
The changes won't prohibit restricted persons from fishing, trapping or
handling pursuit hounds, although restricted persons won't be allowed to
carry any "dangerous weapon" as defined by the new state law while engaging
in such activities.

While next year's hunting proclamation will explain the changes, DWR
officials are planning to ask the Utah Wildlife Board to consider passage of
a new regulation that would prohibit people convicted of any felony from
purchasing a state hunting license.

"Right now, a convicted felon can buy a license but they can't hunt because
they can't possess a dangerous weapon," said Elswood. "We want to fix that
so people with felonies in their past don't get the impression they can
hunt. We feel that's the intention of the Legislature and the public." At
the same time, authorities suspect there may be many hunters with nonviolent
felony convictions in their past that may be surprised this fall when they
are arrested by a game warden for possessing a dangerous weapon while
hunting.

"The people who are going to be caught unaware are those folks who may have
had some criminal problems when they were 18 or 19 years old and they're 40
now and have never had any trouble with the law since," said Capt. Stuart
Smith of the Department of Public Safety Bureau of Criminal Identification
(BCI). "It is hard to have a whole lot of sympathy for someone who did the
crime, but the reality is people make mistakes and they do have a way of
fixing things through our expungment law."

Requests for expunging Utah convictions are processed by the BCI, which
conducts an exhaustive search of all criminal justice databases across the
country before certifying a report to the court that determines whether the
applicant meets standards outlined in state law for having the conviction
wiped away. Although the final determination is up to a judge, the cost for
the search is minimal and applicants do not need an attorney. (Details of
the expungment process and application forms are available online at
www.bci.state.ut.us <http://www.bci.state.ut.us/> or by calling the
division's expungment clerk at 801-965-4966.)

"We are predicting that this change in not allowing any felons to hunt and
certainly enforcing it to a much higher level is going to get a lot more
people out there wanting their records expunged," said Smith. "How many
people is very tough to measure. We may have already processed the more
responsible ones because the biggest thing driving expungment requests
lately has been employers, more of whom are demanding proof of a clean
criminal record before hiring." Elswood said DWR conservation officers have
been trained on the intricacies of the new gun-control law and, while more
criminal background checks may be made during future hunting seasons,
officers will continue to primarily focus on wildlife resource enforcement.

"We don't just run people's criminal histories when we're out in the field
doing regular checks unless they may be associated with an offense," said
the state's chief game warden. "If a person is involved in an offense, it's
part of the drill to run their record. So a person who is now restricted
from weapons possession under the new law may be found out if they commit
another violation."

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Federal Firearm alert
Date: 13 Jun 2000 23:06:49 -0600


==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

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

Important Gun Vote Could Occur In The House Tomorrow
  -- Good news for grassroots activists on "secret searches"
     provision

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org
This alert posted on the web at:
http://www.gunowners.org/a061300.htm



(Tuesday, June 13, 2000) -- The moment of truth has arrived.
Clinton's illegitimate grab of power will go on trial as early as
tomorrow in the House of Representatives.

Pro-gun Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) is taking aim at gun control
policies imposed by President Clinton this past March when his
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) agreed to back
door gun control with firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson.

The Clinton & Wesson pact regulates and restricts the sales of ALL
firearms sold by dealers carrying S&W products -- including Glocks,
Berettas, Brownings, etc.  Moreover, no gun can be sold by an S&W
dealer until the FBI gives a definitive "yes" or "no."  Thus, if the
FBI's computers go down (like they did just a few weeks ago) no S&W
dealer can transfer a firearm until the government's computers go
back online and the FBI gives its verdict.

Per the terms of the agreement, government bureaucrats will sit on
an Oversight Commission, helping to enforce the Clinton & Wesson
accord.  Most notably, the commission will include BATF agents -- a
fact that should concern gun owners everywhere.

Rep. Hostettler plans to offer two amendments to the VA-HUD funding
bill this week.  One amendment will defund HUD's ability to enforce
the agreement.  The other will stop HUD's ability to "organize,
implement, manage, promote, coordinate, or administrate" any gun
control coalition efforts in which they are currently involved.
(HUD has been helping to organize state and local officials in an
anti-gun "Communities for Safer Guns Coalition.")

ACTION:  Please contact your Representative and urge him to SUPPORT
the Hostettler amendments to the VA-HUD appropriations bill.  (The
bill is scheduled for debate tomorrow, even though it still does not
have a bill number.)

Tell your Congressman it's outrageous for the President to bypass
Congress and impose gun control upon the people of this nation.
Moreover, it's outrageous that your tax dollars are helping organize
anti-gun coalitions around the country.  No more!  Tell him you
support Hostettler's amendments 100 percent.  The GOA Legislative
Action Center is available at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
so you can locate and contact your Representative. The Capitol
switchboard may be called toll-free at 1-888-449-3511, or at
202-225-3121.


Secret Searches Provision Pulled From The Bankruptcy Bill

GOA would like to thank activists for all their hard work in
contacting their legislators during the last two weeks.  Last month,
GOA informed you about the "sneak and peek" provisions that could
adversely affect your rights.

Well, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) told GOA last week that the secret
searches provision has been pulled from the bankruptcy bill.  This
means that, to the best of our knowledge, the provision only remains
in the Methamphetamine bill (H.R. 2987).

Gun owners should continue urging their Representatives to oppose
this provision in ANY bill that should come to the floor of the
House.


Finally, just one more piece of evidence that grassroots gun owners
should NOT be ignored:

  "Smith & Wesson plans to shut down two of its manufacturing plants
  for a month partly because of the fallout from its landmark
  gun-safety deal with the government."
                                  -- Associated Press, June 13, 2000


----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Representative:

When the VA-HUD appropriations bill comes up for debate, please
support two amendments expected to be offered by Rep. John
Hostettler that will benefit gun owners.

It is outrageous that President Clinton did an end run around
Congress and imposed more gun control on the citizens of this
nation.  The gun control agreement between the Clinton
administration and firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson regulates
ALL FIREARMS SOLD by retailers who stock even a single Smith &
Wesson model.

Moreover, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is
encouraging state and local officials to become more aggressive in
attacking the rights of gun owners.

Rep. Hostettler's amendments will reign in HUD's gun control
agenda.  The Clinton administration has no business bypassing the
legislative branch in this arena.

Please let me know what you intend to do.

Sincerely,





________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

-



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

From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: gunfight at the Canadian Corral
Date: 14 Jun 2000 09:35:54 -0600

A friend's nephew sent this to me.  He felt we might be interested.  He
doesn't know the source.

Gunfight at the Canadian Corral
Dr. Michael S. Brown
June 5, 2000

  Americans breathed a sigh of relief this week as our national gun rights
debate took a break from the overheated rhetoric of recent months. Much
needed comic relief was provided by Rosie O'Donnell. The gun-hating talk
show host admitted that she is protected by bodyguards armed with guns.

  Unfortunately, things are not going as well for our Canadian cousins. A
poorly crafted and mean spirited law called the Firearms Act (C-68) was
forced through Parliament in 1994 by the ruling Liberal Party. In an ugly
example of cultural warfare, the Liberals used falsified statistics to
convince members of Parliament that Canada was suffering from an epidemic of
gun violence. The result was a strict new law with Draconian penalties on
gun owners.

  The law passed despite the Justice Minister's inability to show that
Canada's previous sixty years of handgun registration had prevented any
crimes.

  The law has two major parts, which are very similar to proposals by the
American anti-gun lobby. The first phase requires all gun owners to obtain a
license. They must comply by the end of this year or face up to ten years in
prison. The second phase is the registration of all firearms, which must be
complete by January, 2003. Again, the penalty for violations is up to ten
years in prison.

  As a final insult to honest citizens, the type of handguns most suitable
for self defense are banned outright by C-68. Confiscation of these guns
from law abiding owners will be easy due to the existing registration
system, but criminals have never registered their guns and will not be
affected. Apparently, Canadian criminals have a more effective lobby than
the gun owners.

  The Liberal sponsors of the law estimated start-up costs for the new
system would be under 85 million dollars. So far, it has consumed over $300
million and massive annual operating costs are being predicted. Over 1,400
government workers have been assigned to the project. Despite this
commitment of resources, the system is plagued by long delays and error
rates as high as 90% have been reported by outside analysts.

  Even if Canadian gun owners were planning to cooperate, the size and
complexity of the task would be overwhelming. The gun owners, however, are
not cooperating. Only 10% have turned in the lengthy application forms and
many have announced that they will never comply with such an unfair law.

  The Law-abiding Unregistered Firearms Association (www.lufa.ca) is
planning organized civil disobedience. This new organization has grown from
nothing to 16,000 members since it was founded in November of 1998. Their
plan is to wait until the first gun owner is charged with failing to obey
the new law. Then, tens of thousands of gun owners will present themselves
at RCMP stations across Canada and announce that they are in violation of
C-68.

  Perhaps the Liberal politicians will send them all off to prison, but
harsh action would harm the warm fuzzy image the party wants to project.
There is a good chance the whole licensing scheme will collapse as firearms
cases clog the courts and cost the Liberals their majority in Parliament.
This is not certain, as they are masters at generating public support.

  One Clintonesque tactic takes advantage of the fact that many license
applications are rejected due to errors. The Liberals claim this represents
the number of "potential criminals" who have been denied access to firearms
as a result of the wonderful new law. They are obviously borrowing this
tactic from the U.S. administration which has made similar false claims for
the Brady bill.

  Another useful gambit takes advantage of any change in the crime rate. If
crime decreases, the Liberals will say that this proves the effectiveness of
gun control and ask for even stricter anti-gun laws. If crime increases,
they can say that the current law is inadequate and will still have a reason
to ask for stricter laws. They probably think they can't lose.

  The Canadian Supreme Court may invalidate the law. If not, a moment of
reckoning will occur sometime after January 1, 2001. Americans could learn a
lot from this episode, but our media has historically ignored both Canadian
affairs and anything that shows the failure of gun control. A priceless
lesson is likely to be wasted.


-



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

From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Thought: Democracy vs Liberty
Date: 14 Jun 2000 09:36:40 -0600

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
 --Benjamin Franklin, 1759








-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: US vs Emerson, first day
Date: 14 Jun 2000 12:57:21 -0600

5:30 p.m. June 13 Neal Knox Report -- "The Court really beat up
on the government" Linda Thomas of Houston ecstatically told me
a few minutes ago.

She was on a cell phone, standing on the steps of Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals in New Orleans. A three-judge panel had just
heard oral argument in the Emerson case, in which Lubbock, Texas,
Federal Judge Sam Cummings struck down part of the 1996 Lautenberg
Amendment prohibiting persons under a restraining order from
possessing firearms.

The government prosecutor said the Second Amendment only applied
to arms issued to militia members, in Dr. Timothy Emerson's case
either the Texas National Guard or Texas State Guard. Judge Harold
R. DeMoss, Jr., a George Bush appointee, told him he was misreading
the 1939 Miller case.

The court held in Miller that there had been no evidence that
Miller's sawed-off shotgun was a militia-type arm. Nothing was
said about the gun having to have been issued.

Judge DeMoss asked the prosecutor if Dr. Emerson's Beretta 92
9mm pistol isn't the type used by armies. Of course, it's the
standard U.S. sidearm.

Judge DeMoss also raised a critical question that addresses the
Tenth Amendment. "I have a 12 gauge and 16 gauge shotgun, and
a .30 caliber deer rifle in my closet at home. Can you tell me
how those affect interstate commerce?"

All Federal gun laws are based on the power of the Congress
to regulate interstate commerce. The present Supreme Court has
struck down several laws in a series of narrow decisions based
on the Tenth Amendment's stipulation that powers not specifically
delegated to Congress "are reserved to the states and the people,
respectively."

Judge Robert M. Parker, appointed by President Carter, and to
the appellate court by President Clinton, told the government:
"I don't want you to lose any sleep over this, but Judge Garwood
(the senior judge) and I between us have enough guns to start a
revolution in most South American countries."

Linda, a gun rights activist who has just finished law school
and is preparing for the bar exam, said the folks on our side
of the aisle "are all smiles."

Unlike most firearms-related court cases, there was no reluctance
to discuss the Second Amendment, and, Linda said, the judges had
done their homework. "It was like sitting in on a Gun Rights
Policy Conference legal seminar."

One thing about it, Timothy Emerson's case is going to have
a full and fair hearing. And so will the Second Amendment.

If the Fifth Circuit concurs with the trial judge that the
Second Amendment protects gun ownership as an individual right
-- which now seems quite possible -- there would be a conflict
between the circuit courts, almost guaranteeing a Supreme Court
hearing after the next election.

That's just one more reason to make certain that Al Gore isn't
in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices.

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: UnSafe to Learn UnSafe to Worship Not Giving Up!
Date: 14 Jun 2000 17:40:13 -0600

Dave Hansen informs:

-----

UnSafe to Learn, UnSafe to Worship isn't giving up!

http://www.safeutah.org/notdead.html

We didn't make the June 1 deadline for 70,000
signatures required to put the initiative on the
November 2000 ballot. But our central office did
turn in petitions with over 37,000 signatures. More
petitions were turned in by volunteers to their
county clerks throughout Utah. The verification of
signatures will take time, but we are confident we
met the 10% requirement in many counties,
including Salt Lake, Cache, Tooele, Grand,
Summit, and Rich.

It only takes 5% of voters in each county and
34,000 total signatures to require the legislature to
take up the initiative in the next legislative session.
We need to just be sure we have the sufficient
number of signatures in at least 20 of the 29
counties to have that happen. Since we have
already exceeded the 10% requirement in a
number of counties, we know we are close. So we
will continue to collect signatures and we will need
volunteers to help. We have until November to
collect the additional signatures, but we want to get
it done now, well before the elections in
November.

Ask the candidates running for election in your
district how they intend to vote on guns in schools
and churches in January. And depending on their
response, tell them how you are going to vote in
November.

We can continue to collect signatures for another
year to place the initiative on the next general
election ballot in 2002. All of the signatures already
collected will still be counted. If the Legislature
refuses to pass the initiative, we will continue and
we will win at the ballot box.

Please help to keep this issue moving forward. If
you can volunteer to help the effort, send an email
message to [e-mail]

To all of you who worked so hard - you were
great! The signature drive started out originally
with just a few organizations taking the lead. But
then in the last two months volunteers sprang up
everywhere, and a true grassroots effort really
turned out the signatures. We know how to do it
now - and it's you who make it possible.

-



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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: who is david hansen
Date: 16 Jun 2000 06:33:27 -0600

If anybody knows D Hansen and would like to tell him about the Utah firearms
list, he whats to know.  I get an e mail forwared from Charles Hardy once in
a while from D Hansen.

Larry



-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: URGENT -- Hostettler Amendment On House Floor!!
Date: 23 Jun 2000 12:23:48 -0600

You might want to try the following toll free numbers when calling
Congress.  I just tried the first two and they work.  I haven't tried the
last two yet.

Charles

US Congressional Switchboard Toll-free Numbers (Keep these numbers for
future use)


1-888-449-3511

1-800-241-7109

1-877-778-9001

1-800-648-3516


                    Experience shows that most of these 800 numbers will
work for a while then disappear.   So use them as long as they are
available - but do not be surprised when they are no long valid numbers.

 And it sometimes takes a long time for someone to answer - so be
patient.

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:38:18 -0600 "Jim Dexter" <[e-mail]>
writes:
>
> URGENT -- Hostettler Amendment On House Floor!!
> Date: Thursday, June 22, 2000 7:04 PM by Neal Knox
>
> The Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations Bill is now
> being debated and will continue until at least midnight tonight.
>
> Rep. Hostettler's amendment to prevent the Justice
> Department from suing gun companies to enforce the S&W
> agreement, or to take similar actions, will be voted on either
> late tonight or early tomorrow -- as Neal Knox discusses
> below.
>
> Your Congressman will be there, call him tonight!
>
> June 22 Neal Knox Report -- According to which newspapers
> you read, what is now called "President Clinton's gun-safety
> deal with Smith & Wesson" either suffered a defeat or won a
> victory in last night's votes on Rep. John Hostettler's (R-Ind.)
> amendments to the Housing and Urban Development
> appropriations bill.
>
> Mr. Hostettler is going to take another shot either tonight or
> tomorrow, with an amendment to be offered on the
> Commerce, Justice & State appropriations bill.
>
> There were two votes last night, the first, to prohibit HUD
> from continuing its efforts to get cities and public housing
> authorities to give preferential treatment to Smith & Wesson,
> passed by 218-207.
>
> The second, and more important amendment, which would
> have prohibited HUD from being involved in enforcing the
> S&W agreement, failed 219-206.
>
> The agreement S&W signed, and is now attempting to back
> away from, calls for an extra-legal oversight body to assure
> that all the many provisions in the agreement are enforced.  It
> is to be composed of government agencies and anti-gun
> groups, and most assuredly will cause all sorts of mischief if it
> is ever put into play.
>
> Though the press has talked about the S&W agreement's
> trigger lock and "smart gun" provisions, it also goes into gun
> design, sales and distribution areas that affect all products
> sold by S&W dealers, regardless who made the guns.  The
> oversight body would be in the position of writing law as well
> as regulations, and is unquestionably the most dangerous
> provision of the agreement.
>
> NRA stayed out of last night's fight, reportedly trying to avoid
> making Speaker Dennis Hastert unhappy by legislating on
> appropriations bills -- which is routinely done by both sides of
> the gun debate.
>
> The appropriations bill coming up tonight, which will provide
> funding for the Justice Department, would prohibit DOJ from
> spending any of its money to sue S&W or any other other
> signer for failure to comply with the agreement.
>
> CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN.  Ask him or her to support
> Mr. Hostettler's amendment.  Even Congressmen who aren't
> strong on gun rights should vote to stop the Administration's
> effort to take law-making powers away from the Congress.
>
> Last night, opponents kept claiming Mr. Hostettler was trying
> to destroy S&W.  Tonight's amendment makes it clear that
> the Indiana lawmaker is trying to help S&W and the rest of
> the gun industry -- and NRA members and other consumers.
>
> NRA shouldn't be sitting out this fight -- even if they might
> make the Speaker unhappy.  They should remember that
> he's the one who has been pushing to get the Juvenile
> Justice bill, and its package of gun provisions, out of the
> House-Senate conference committee.
> ---------------
>
> Yesterday, President Clinton again demanded passage of his
> package of gun laws in the Juvenile bill while touting a new
> BATF report on "illegal gun trafficking."   BATF says that from
> 1996 to 1998 about 84,000 guns were "diverted" into illegal
> sales by crooked gun dealers, many through gun shows,
>
> BATF's self-serving study is based on their investigations,
> which too often consist of trying to examine the records of all
> dealers while searching for illegal sales, instead of tracking
> guns misused in crime back to their source.
>
> To begin receiving Neal Knox's bi-monthly newsletter, send a
> contribution of $25 or more to The Firearms Coalition, 7771
> Sudley Rd. No. 44, Manassas, VA 20109. For current news,
> call 1-900-225-3006 (89 cents per minute) or visit
> http://www.NealKnox.com (free).
>
>
> >>From The 2ndAmendmentNews Team
>
> If you received this as a forward and wish to join please send:
> E-Mail to [e-mail] with the following text in the
> message body:    SUBSCRIBE 2nd-Amendment-News
>
> We have had a computer error.  If you want to be removed
> send a message to the list administrator, send E-mail to
> [e-mail]
>
> If you know anyone who would appreciate these alerts,
> please let us know and we'll enroll them on a trial basis.
>
> Also, feel free to forward our alerts.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LPUtah
> LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "[e-mail]"
> LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender.
> LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: [e-mail]
> LPUtah
>

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: GOUtah! Alert #64
Date: 24 Jun 2000 11:46:47 -0600

If your polling place is a public school, you may prefer
to vote absentee on Monday at your county election clerk's
office so as not to waive your right to self-defense while
exercising your right to vote. Also, Derek Smith has refused
to provide his position on RKBA both to GOUtah! and to me,
whereas Merrill Cook has affirmed his support for RKBA in
both his campaign literature and his response to GOUtah!'s
poll. For me this issue trumps all others in deciding how
to vote.

Scott

Great opening quote from Mencken!
___________________________

GOUtah! Alert #64 - 23 June 2000

TodayÆs Voice of Liberty:

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is
nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense,
justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he
is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely.
Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It
is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable
minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a
special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty -
and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."

-- H.L. Mencken, February 12, 1923, Baltimore Evening Sun.

_________________________________

UTAH PRIMARY ELECTION UPON US! VOTE PRO-LIBERTY ON JUNE 27TH!

Please look on your voter registration card for the address
of your precinctÆs polling place, or look it up on the web at:

http://governor.state.ut.us/lt_gover/Elections/elections.html

Please go to your polling place this Tuesday, June 27th,
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to vote in this very
important election.

While GOUtah! is not explicitly endorsing specific
candidates, we do think there is at least one obvious
ôno-brainerö in this primary election: Governor Mike Leavitt
must be defeated. His Republican opponent in the primary,
Glen Davis, is an ardent supporter of the right to keep and
bear arms, as is DavisÆ running mate, Greg Hawkins. Please
note that the turnout at primary elections is usually light,
so you and your pro-liberty friends, relatives, and neighbors
can actually make a difference by all showing up to vote.

Utah Gun OwnersÆ Alliance (UTGOA), one of our allies in the
fight to protect liberty, has sent out surveys to candidates
who are running in this primary election, in an attempt to
ascertain their views on the right to keep and bear arms.
The candidatesÆ responses (or non-responses, in some cases)
are posted on the UTGOA website at:

http://www.utgoa.org/pages/candsurvey.html


GOOD NEWS REGARDING NACÆS POLICY ON GUN ADVERTISEMENTS IN SALT LAKE NEWSPAPERS!

In our last Alert, we told you that the Newspaper Agency
Corporation (NAC), which handles all advertising business
for the Salt Lake Tribune and The Deseret News, was
considering a permanent ban on all gun advertisements in
both newspapers. This ban would have covered classified ads
and regular retail ads. The proposal was scheduled to be
considered at an NAC management meeting on Wednesday, June
21. We spoke on the telephone with Mr. Ed McCaffrey, the
director of advertising at NAC, on Friday, June 23, to find
out whether the proposed ban had been adopted. He told us
that it had been overwhelmingly rejected. Furthermore, he
informed us that the NAC will revert to its old policy of
allowing gun ads in the ôThriftyö section of the classifieds,
provided that such ads meet the standard requirements set
forth for all advertisements submitted to the ôThriftyö
section. In recent weeks, NAC has not been allowing any gun
ads to be placed in the ôThriftyö section. The change back
to the old policy is scheduled to occur next Wednesday,
June 27, assuming that the necessary reformatting and so
forth can be completed before then. If not, the change will
take place shortly after that, according to Mr. McCaffrey.
Mr. McCaffrey declined to send us a statement in writing,
so we will watch carefully to make sure the new policy is
implemented as outlined by him over the phone. If there is
any deviation from his verbal promises, we will alert you.

Some individuals who contacted the NAC in response to our
previous GOUtah! Alert were reportedly told that there was no
proposal to ban gun ads, and that no such proposal had been
submitted for consideration. However, Mr. McCaffrey reaffirmed
in our phone conversation on Friday that a complete ban on
gun ads was, in fact, one of the three proposals submitted for
consideration by NAC management, just as we reported previously.
The fact that it was rejected can be attributed, we believe,
to the efforts of all you activists out there who bombarded
the NAC with phone calls, faxes, letters, and e-mails. Thanks
for your work! Thanks also to Mr. James Johnston, who first
brought this to our attention.


GUN SALES BANNED IN BRAZIL

According to yesterdayÆs edition of The Washington Post, the
President of Brazil has issued an executive decree which
immediately suspends the issuing of gun permits in that
country for a period of six months. Previously, firearms
could be legally purchased by civilians who obtained a
permit from the government. Since a separate permit had to
be issued for each purchase, the new policy essentially
prohibits future purchases of firearms by civilians,
although currently licensed owners can keep their old guns
for the time being. That might not last for long, however,
because a bill currently being considered by the Brazilian
Congress would simply ban most civilian gun ownership and
would require licensed owners to turn in their weapons.
Exceptions would be granted for members of shooting clubs,
people living in ôrural areasö, and private security guards.

According to The Post, Brazilian President Fernando Henrique
Cardoso acted unilaterally without waiting for the Brazilian
Congress to pass its bill. "Society is demanding from all of
us a quicker response,ö he is quoted as saying. "We could ask,
who among us has not suffered because of violence?" The article
states that the executive order ôalso includes hiring 2,000
new federal agents, providing better training and equipment
for police forces and building new prisons.ö Does any of this
sound familiar?

Brazilian officials estimate that of the approximately 8
million gun owned by civilians in Brazil, 6 million are
owned by criminals who purchased them on the black market
without a permit. Brazilian criminologists interviewed by
The Post expressed the opinion that the PresidentÆs
executive order would not reduce BrazilÆs sky-high crime
rate, because nearly all of the violent crimes committed
with guns in that country are committed by criminals with
unlicensed guns. Only law-abiding people with gun permits
will be affected by the new policy, and, according to one
crime expert, this might actually cause the crime rate to
increase, because criminals will know for sure that their
intended victims are unarmed. No kidding.

BrazilÆs experience is consistent with what has happened and
is happening in other countries (Britain, Canada, Australia,
California, etc.) where licensing and registration are
mandatory. When people ask you why you donÆt support
licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, you
need merely point out that the ôslippery slopeö is indeed
very slippery. A thing that can be licensed is a thing that
can be banned.
___________________________________________

GOUTAH! GUN RIGHTS INFORMATION OUTLETS

If you wish to receive GOUtah! Alerts via e-mail, you may
subscribe by sending a blank e-mail message to
[e-mail]. To unsubscribe, send a blank
message to [e-mail].

If you have a dedicated fax machine located in Salt Lake
County or Davis County and you wish to receive a fax version
of the GOUtah! Alerts, or if you are already receiving the
Alerts and wish to stop receiving them, you may fax your
request to [phone].

You may also be added to or taken off the GOUtah! Alerts list
by logging onto our website at http://www.slpsa.org/goutah!
or at http://www.home.fiberia.com/goutah, or by submitting
your request via e-mail to [e-mail]. There are no
charges for receiving GOUtah! Alerts.

You may also telephone the GOUtah! Information Hotline at
(801) 296-GUNS for the very latest information on issues
surrounding your gun rights. The call is toll free in the
Salt Lake County/Davis County area, while normal long
distance charges apply for the rest of the state.

We strongly encourage you to forward, copy and share this
information with others, 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.
_____________________________
This concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert
#64 -23 June 2000.

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 2000 by GOUtah! All rights reserved.

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: The Lessons of History
Date: 24 Jun 2000 13:00:17 -0600

Dear Representatives:

I expect your support of my and my fellow Citizens' right to
keep and bear arms, including repeal of all restrictions and
disabilities, if you expect my support in your holding
political office.

Scott Bergeson

-----
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 8:49 PM

PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT -- June 2000 (Part 2)

The Lessons of History

The chief reason America has remained a free country is the widespread
private ownership of firearms. Individual ownership of guns made the
American Revolution possible. The principal purpose of the Second
Amendment was to maintain our freedom from government. It is an insult
to our heritage to imply that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second
Amendment just to protect deer hunters.

My good friend, the late Reverend Stephen Dunker, C.M., was a missionary
in China who was imprisoned by the Communists during the early 1950s. I
heard him tell of his experiences many times. When the Communists first
took over the area where he lived, they appeared to be good rulers. They
established law and order and cleaned up the traffic in drugs and pros-
titutes. Then one day the Communist bosses announced, "You can see that
we have established a good society and you have no need for your guns.
Everyone must come in the night and dump all guns in the town square."
The people believed and obeyed. The next day, the reign of terror began,
with public executions and cruel imprisonments. Everyone accused of being
a "landlord" was dragged through the streets and executed; a "landlord"
was anyone who farmed his little plot of ground with two water buffalo
instead of one.

Gun confiscation leads to a loss of freedom, increased crime, and the
government moving to the left. This has already happened in England and
Australia. After Great Britain banned most guns in 1997, making armed
self-defense punishable as murder, violence skyrocketed because criminals
knew that law abiding citizens had been disarmed. Armed crime rose 10%
in 1998. The Sunday Times of London reported on the new black market in
guns: "Up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain,
leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style execution."
There has been such a heavy increase in the use of knives for violent
attacks that new laws have been passed giving police the power to search
anyone for knives in designated areas.

In 1996 Australia banned 60% of all firearms and required registration
of all guns and the licensing of gun owners. Police confiscated 640,381
firearms, going door to door without search warrants. Two years later,
the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that all crime had risen
and armed robberies were up 44%.

Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., described his first-hand experience in Cuba.
Before 1958, Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista had all citizens register
their firearms. After the revolution, Raul and Fidel Castro had their
Communist thugs go door to door and, using the registration lists,
confiscate all firearms. As soon as the Cubans were disarmed, that was
the end of their freedom.

Tyrannical governments kill far more people than private criminals. The
Nazis conducted a massive search-and-seizure operation in 1933 to disarm
their political opponents, in 1938 to disarm the Jews, and when they
occupied Europe in 1939-41 they proclaimed the death penalty for anyone
who failed to surrender all guns within 24 hours.

The first line of safety has to be an ability to defend yourself. In
some areas, a woman who is being stalked by her ex-husband must wait
10 days to buy a gun, even if her life has been threatened. Some cities
criminalize carrying guns for self-defense but make exceptions for
people carrying money or jewels. Are money and jewels more important
to protect than people's lives?

History teaches us that registration leads to the confiscation of guns
and that is the goal of many gun control advocates. Pete Shields, founder
of Handgun Control Inc., told The New Yorker: "The first problem is to
slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.
The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is
to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except
for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting
clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."

Atlanta public-safety commissioner George Napper told U.S News, "If I
had my druthers, the only people who would have guns would be those who
enforce the law." Like those who "enforced the law" at Waco? or at Ruby
Ridge? or invading a Miami home to grab Elißn Gonzalez?

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Polls show that up to 80% of the public believe citizens have a
constitutional right to own guns.

If the First Amendment read "A free press being necessary to the security
of a free state, Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the freedom
of speech, or of the press," nobody would argue that free speech belongs
only to newspapers. Likewise, they should not argue that the right to
keep and bear arms belongs only to government agents.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in U.S. v.
Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), stated that the term "the people" has the same
meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All
those five amendments in the Bill of Rights use the term "the people"
to guarantee a right for individual citizens, not just some collective
right of the state as a whole. There is no reason to believe that the
Second Amendment uses the term "the people" differently from the other
four amendments.

The claim that "militia" just refers to the National Guard is ridiculous.
The same Congress that passed the Second Amendment also passed the
Militia Act of 1792 which defined militia as "each and every able-bodied
male citizen" from age 18 to 45 (with some exceptions) and stated that
each one shall "provide himself" with a gun, ammunition, and a bayonet.

The currently effective Militia Act substantially keeps the same language
("all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45"), and
further defines militia as: "(1) the organized militia, which consists of
the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia,
which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the
National Guard or the Naval Militia." (10 U.S.C. 311)

In recent years, a scholarly consensus has emerged across the political
spectrum that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Between
1980 and 1995, of 39 law review articles, 35 noted the Supreme Court's
prior acknowledgement of the individual right of the Second Amendment
and only four claimed the right is a collective right of the states (and
3 of those 4 were authored or co-authored by persons connected with the
gun-control lobby).


The Founding Fathers on the Right to Own Guns:

James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike
the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to
trust the people with arms."

* Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . .
  Everyone who is able may have a gun."

* George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual
  way to enslave them."

* Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to
  prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
  from keeping their own arms."

* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at
  large is that they be properly armed."

* Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole
  body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially
  when young, how to use them."

For more information: John Lott Jr., More Guns, Less Crime (2nd edition,
2000). Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., articles on England and Australia in
the Medical Sentinel, May/June 2000, and letter on Cuba to the editor of
the Wall Street Journal, December 28, 1999. Professor Sanford Levinson,
"The Embarrassing Second Amendment," Yale Law Journal, 1989. Professor
James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts about Gun Control," The Public Interest,
Spring 1988. Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, Independent
Institute, 1994, and the Wall Street Journal, June 4, 1999. Daniel D.
Polsby, Firearms and Crime, Independent Institute, 1997. Joyce Lee
Malcolm, lecture at the Independent Institute, September 21, 1999,
http://www.independent.org/ For law review articles, gun court cases,
and the 1982 Senate report, see http://www.2ndlawlib.org/.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Read this report online:
http://eagleforum.org/psr/2000/june00/psrjune2000.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JOIN OUR MESSAGE BOARD!

Join our moderated Message Board and discuss Gun Ownership with others!
http://eagleforum.org/cgi_bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subscribe to the Phyllis Schlafly Report for only $20 per year.
Send check or money order to:

Eagle Forum        http://www.eagleforum.org
PO Box 618        [e-mail]
Alton, IL  62002    Phone: [phone]
            Fax: [phone]

or visit our on-line store at:
http://www.eagleforum.org/order
http://www.eagleforum.org
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
To subscribe to Eagle E-mail
please e-mail [e-mail]
with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Guns Under the Bed
Date: 26 Jun 2000 07:22:12 -0600

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

The article "Guns Under the Bed" of Sat. June 24, ill serves the credibility
of the writer or your newspaper. It is an obvious disinformation piece.

In a country with a large population one can always find anecdotal evidence of
the tragic misuse of anything, including firearms. The author does ask a good
question, "Which is more likely to happen with guns in homes -- successful
self-defense against law-breakers, or accidental woundings and killings of
children?", but offers a demonstrably false answer. The scholarly research
of Gary Kleck and John Lott make it clear that self-defense is far, far more
likely. The problem is that it is far, far less likely to be reported in the
mainstream press. Such selective reporting is a poor guide to public policy.

But the article also fails, as do many advocates of firearm safety for
children, to examine the real way to avoid such tragedies. It is not to keep
firearms away from children, but to train them in the safe and effective use
of firearms, beginning as soon as they can hold them. We can't keep children
safe by trying to keep them away from something. All that does is make it
forbidden fruit. I was taught to shoot from the age of 5, received a rifle on
my 6th birthday, and a handgun on my 8th. I became an expert in the use of
firearms from that early age. As a result, there was no chance I would ever
misuse one.

--Jon Roland

================================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM      Date: 06/25/00  Time: 08:56:19
http://www.constitution.org/  mailto:[e-mail]
================================================================

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: UTAH : Candidate Endorsement and Update (GOA-PVF)
Date: 26 Jun 2000 10:30:58 -0600


Everyone--regardless of political affiliattion since Utah has open
primaries and no one but the GOP has any major primaries this year of
which I am aware--please make sure to get to the polls tomorrow (Tuesday)
and--whomever else you may be supporting or opposing either in this
primary or in the general election--vote against Mike "Gun Grabber"
Leavitt in the Republican Primary.  (Yes, this infers that you cast a
vote for Glen Davis in this primary.)

Ideally, spend a few minutes today or tonight contacting, either in
person or by phone, several of your pro-self-defense friends, neighbors,
and family members and encourage them to do likewise.  If any of them are
likely to have difficulty getting to the polls (ie, have young children
who need babysitting, have difficulty driving, etc) offer whatever
assistance you can to help them get to the polls and vote.

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

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


-----Original Message-----
<[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]>


>Candidate Endorsement/Update
>
>Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund
>8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
>Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
>http://www.gunowners.org
>This alert posted on the web at:
>http://www.gunowners.org/sut1200.htm
>
>June 23, 2000
>
>
>Dear Utah Gun Owner:
>
>Please vote for strong pro-gun candidates Glen Davis for Governor
>and Frank Mylar for Attorney General in the upcoming primary on
>June 27, 2000.
>
>Glen Davis has answered the GOA survey 100%.  Incumbent Mike Leavitt
>has blatantly refused to go on record, although his mountain of
>anti-gun actions speak for themselves.
>
>Glen Davis and Frank Mylar have pledged opposition to the so-called
>"Semi-Auto" ban, the Brady Registration scheme, and
>government-mandated "No-Safety Zones," all aspects of the anti-gun
>Clinton/Brady agenda of which Governor "Gun Control" Leavitt seems
>to be such a strong supporter.
>
>Attorney General candidate Frank Mylar also pledged to stand fast
>and oppose frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry.  Anti-gun
>States' Attorneys are already using such suits as a weapon against
>your rights.  Frank Mylar is strongly opposed to these baseless
>attacks and will fight to protect the honest gun owners and
>businessmen of Utah.
>
>Please vote for Glen Davis and Frank Mylar on Tuesday, June 27, 2000
>in the Republican primary.  Thank you.
>
>Larry Pratt
>Executive Director
>
>
>Not paid for by any candidate or candidate's committee. Authorized
>and paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund.
>
>**************
>Do not reply directly to this message.
>
>To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
>http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web.
>
>To unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail]
>with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
>Change of e-mail address: unsubscribe the old address and
>subscribe the new using the above instructions.
>
>Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
>[e-mail] is at your disposal. Please do not add that
>address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per
>week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.
>
>


-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "He's a leader and a problem solver"
Date: 26 Jun 2000 13:09:13 -0600

Thanks for the information. However, both Dr. Sarah Thompson
and I have attempted to ascertain candidate Derek Smith's
position on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. To date he has
refused to provide it. Congressman Merrill Cook scored 100%
on GOUtah!'s questionnaire, so I support him in the Primary.

Scott Bergeson
---
Trust no candidate who doesn't trust Citizens with firearms.

-----

Dear fellow citizen:

I've known Derek Smith professionally for more than ten years.  I've seen
Derek run his businesses and through my dealings with him, I think I have
good insight into his character.  When I think of Derek, the first words that
come to mind are: passion, perseverance and complete integrity.

Derek's success has not come easily or instantly.  Derek has devoted years of
hard work and incredible energy into making his businesses successful.  Now
we have the opportunity to put Derek's passion and perseverance to work for
us.

Derek is a leader.  I've seen him effectively manage and motivate his
employees.  Derek is a problem solver.  Derek has thrived in difficult
circumstances and has never given up.  When he sets his mind to something he
does it.  Derek is a loyal and honest person.  I've seen Derek stand up for
what he believes in and never seen him behave in a way that would make me
question his integrity.  I can look anyone in the eye and tell them without a
moment of hesitation that Derek will never embarrass us as our representative
in Washington.

Utah has the opportunity to send someone to Washington who can make a real
difference.  Derek has the experience and character to represent us well.
Please join me in voting for Derek on Tuesday June 27th.

Sincerely,


Taft Edward Price
Chief Executive Officer
Alta Capital Management

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Derek Smith on Gun Control
Date: 26 Jun 2000 18:22:40 -0600

Thank you for the clarification. I'm copying this as before
for list subscribers' information.

Scott Bergeson

-----

I am an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment.  I believe the
Constitution is clear about the right to keep and bear arms.

I think the proposed ballot initiative to ban concealed weapons in churches
and schools was flawed, and would have opposed it.  First of all, it didnÆt
address the problem, doing nothing to deter criminal activity.  Rather, it
was aimed at lawful permit holders, when not a single permit holder has
committed a crime with a gun in a school or a church. Ever.  Also, churches
already have private property rights that protect their rights to prohibit
concealed weapons.

I would only support background checks at gun shows if they are
instantaneous, as they are at gun stores.  We shouldnÆt disadvantage gun
show merchants when we have the technology to make instant background
checks.  That's common sense.

And while I recommend trigger locks and gun safes, I oppose the government
dictating to gun owners what safety precautions are taken in the home.

Having been P.O.S.T. trained as a deputy sheriff, IÆve seen the problem with
violent crime firsthand.  From that background, I can tell you that more gun
laws are not the answer.  Rather, we should have strict and harsh sentencing
for violent crimes, and we should stop plea-bargaining away gun charges to
get a conviction on other charges.

In Congress, I will be a consistent and reliable defender of the 2nd
Amendment.  I can promise you that Jim Matheson won't.  I would appreciate
your support.

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: GOUtah! Alert #64
Date: 27 Jun 2000 23:08:19 -0600

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:46:47 -0600 Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
writes:
> If your polling place is a public school, you may prefer
> to vote absentee on Monday at your county election clerk's
> office so as not to waive your right to self-defense while
> exercising your right to vote.

Now that the election is over and it is a moot point, I have to ask:  Why
does the location of the polling place matter?  Unless you have a State
issued CCW permit, the only way to carry a sidearm while not running
afoul of curren (IMHO, unconstitutional) statutes is to carry the weapon
openly in plain sight and not "loaded."  I doubt very many people
consider doing so a realistic option even if you weren't likely to be
shot dead by some trigger happy SLC cop which I suspect you are if you
actually try to carry a gun in such a fashion.  OTOH, if you do have a
State issued CCW permit, it is as valid at public schools as anywhere
else in the State.  I will add that I haven't looked specifically at Utah
law so I am left to wonder if firearms are specifically prohibited in
polling places--a quant anacronism on the books in some places held over
from the days when you could carry a gun almost anywhere, at almost
anytime, at will, without asking for the governor's permission.

Of course, so long as you are worried about complying with the strict
letter of current statute, what does it say about absentee voting?  Don't
you have to certify that you intend to be outside your voting district
AND thus unable to cast a regular ballot, or be physically unable to make
it to the polling place, on the day of the election in order to vote
absentee?

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

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: GOUtah! Alert #64
Date: 27 Jun 2000 23:49:32 -0600

charles hardy wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:46:47 -0600 Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
> writes:
> > If your polling place is a public school, you may prefer
> > to vote absentee on Monday at your county election clerk's
> > office so as not to waive your right to self-defense while
> > exercising your right to vote.

> Now that the election is over and it is a moot point, I have to ask:  Why
> does the location of the polling place matter?  Unless you have a State
> issued CCW permit, the only way to carry a sidearm while not running
> afoul of curren (IMHO, unconstitutional) statutes is to carry the weapon
> openly in plain sight and not "loaded."  I doubt very many people
> consider doing so a realistic option even if you weren't likely to be
> shot dead by some trigger happy SLC cop which I suspect you are if you
> actually try to carry a gun in such a fashion.  OTOH, if you do have a
> State issued CCW permit, it is as valid at public schools as anywhere
> else in the State.  I will add that I haven't looked specifically at Utah
> law so I am left to wonder if firearms are specifically prohibited in
> polling places--a quant anacronism on the books in some places held over
> from the days when you could carry a gun almost anywhere, at almost
> anytime, at will, without asking for the governor's permission.

> Of course, so long as you are worried about complying with the strict
> letter of current statute, what does it say about absentee voting?  Don't
> you have to certify that you intend to be outside your voting district
> AND thus unable to cast a regular ballot, or be physically unable to make
> it to the polling place, on the day of the election in order to vote
> absentee?

I don't claim to have researched this exhaustively, and suspect a CCW
permit meets the requirements of section (2)(b) (but wouldn't want to
bet on it). However, seeing how the Granite School District (where
my assigned polling place is) police prosecute even CCW holders for
having a pocket knife, I don't want to be defenseless or have
potential assailants thinking I and other voters might be while
exercising my franchise. To the best of my knowledge, such restrictions
don't apply to voting absentee in the county clerk's office. You
are welcome to research this further and post your findings.

Scott

P.S. The RKBA supporters appear to have fared rather poorly
in the GOP Primary.

53A-3-502.   Dangerous materials in the public schools
-- Class B misdemeanor -- Exceptions.

(1) A person who possesses a weapon, explosive, flammable material, or other
material dangerous to persons or property in a public or private elementary
or secondary school, on the grounds of the school, or in those parts of a
building, park, or stadium which are being used for an activity sponsored
by or through the school is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, unless a higher
penalty is prescribed in Title 76, Criminal Code, in which case the penalty
provisions of that title control.
  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply under the following circumstances:
     (a) possession is approved by the responsible school administrator; or
     (b) the item or material is present or to be used in connection with a
     lawful, approved activity and is in the possession or under the control
     of the person responsible for its possession or use.

Enacted by Chapter 2, 1988 General Session

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: WorldNetDaily.com article - guns in school
Date: 28 Jun 2000 12:56:01 -0600

Of local interest.  There may yet be hope for our youth.  :)

==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

--------- Forwarded message ----------
South Jordan makes the big time!!!!!!

To view the entire article, visit
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/20000628_xnbre_5th_grader.
sht
ml

Wednesday, June 28, 2000
5th-graders vote for guns in school
Mock trial's unanimous verdict: Kids safer with armed teachers
by David M. Bresnahan

SOUTH JORDAN, Utah -- A group of fifth-grade students here held
a mock trial and delivered a unanimous decision -- that adults
with concealed firearm permits should be permitted to have guns
in schools.

Students at the South Jordan Elementary School have conducted
mock court trials for the past seven years. Teacher Laurie
Erickson explained that the students selected the topic from a
list of several presented to them. The students asked members
of the community to participate in the trial and to offer their
testimony on the subject of gun control in schools.

Students took part as attorneys, judge and bailiff, while the
rest of the class members served as the jury.

Erickson said the students spent the past two weeks preparing
arguments and contacting witnesses to testify on both sides of
the issue.

Rep. Merrill Cook, R-Utah, was the star of the show. He told the
young jurors that he did not personally want teachers to have
firearms in school, but he also did not want to deny them their
right to carry a firearm if that is their choice and if they
have a concealed firearm permit.

Janalee Tobias, the founder of Women Against Gun Control, also
testified at the "trial." Tobias spoke as a mother, and said
she was concerned about violence in schools, telling the
students, "I want my kids to be protected."

She complained that gun-control advocates often use "their
children as props for gun control." She said she was happy the
students chose such an important topic and asked such good
questions on their own.

Three gun control advocates who want all guns banned from
schools testified. The students invited their own principal,
Richard Allred, to speak on behalf of banning guns in school.
Jeremy DeWall, a sophomore at Bingham High School, also
testified against allowing in-school firearm possession.

PTA President KaRynn Christensen, spoke in direct opposition to
the pro-gun Tobias. She told the students that as a mother, she
was concerned that a teacher with a gun might suddenly use it
on a student. She told them that she is also against using
violent means to stop a violent person.

In the end, the student jurors declared Cook and Tobias the
winners in a unanimous decision.

Court is still in session. Before the week is over the
fifth-graders will decide on whether to drain Lake Powell, and
whether to do chemical testing on animals.


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





________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

-



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

From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: GOUtah! Alert #64
Date: 28 Jun 2000 16:26:42 -0600

So, could I be considered a felon because I [may have been] armed while
voting?

Karl L. Pearson
[e-mail]

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Scott
Bergeson
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2000 11:47 AM


If your polling place is a public school, you may prefer
to vote absentee on Monday at your county election clerk's
office so as not to waive your right to self-defense while
exercising your right to vote. Also, Derek Smith has refused
to provide his position on RKBA both to GOUtah! and to me,
whereas Merrill Cook has affirmed his support for RKBA in
both his campaign literature and his response to GOUtah!'s
poll. For me this issue trumps all others in deciding how
to vote.

Scott

Great opening quote from Mencken!
___________________________

GOUtah! Alert #64 - 23 June 2000

Today=92s Voice of Liberty:

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is
nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense,
justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he
is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely.
Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It
is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable
minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a
special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty -
and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies."

-- H.L. Mencken, February 12, 1923, Baltimore Evening Sun.

_________________________________

UTAH PRIMARY ELECTION UPON US! VOTE PRO-LIBERTY ON JUNE 27TH!

Please look on your voter registration card for the address
of your precinct=92s polling place, or look it up on the web at:

http://governor.state.ut.us/lt_gover/Elections/elections.html

Please go to your polling place this Tuesday, June 27th,
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to vote in this very
important election.

While GOUtah! is not explicitly endorsing specific
candidates, we do think there is at least one obvious
=93no-brainer=94 in this primary election: Governor Mike Leavitt
must be defeated. His Republican opponent in the primary,
Glen Davis, is an ardent supporter of the right to keep and
bear arms, as is Davis=92 running mate, Greg Hawkins. Please
note that the turnout at primary elections is usually light,
so you and your pro-liberty friends, relatives, and neighbors
can actually make a difference by all showing up to vote.

Utah Gun Owners=92 Alliance (UTGOA), one of our allies in the
fight to protect liberty, has sent out surveys to candidates
who are running in this primary election, in an attempt to
ascertain their views on the right to keep and bear arms.
The candidates=92 responses (or non-responses, in some cases)
are posted on the UTGOA website at:

http://www.utgoa.org/pages/candsurvey.html


GOOD NEWS REGARDING NAC=92S POLICY ON GUN ADVERTISEMENTS IN SALT LAKE
NEWSPAPERS!

In our last Alert, we told you that the Newspaper Agency
Corporation (NAC), which handles all advertising business
for the Salt Lake Tribune and The Deseret News, was
considering a permanent ban on all gun advertisements in
both newspapers. This ban would have covered classified ads
and regular retail ads. The proposal was scheduled to be
considered at an NAC management meeting on Wednesday, June
21. We spoke on the telephone with Mr. Ed McCaffrey, the
director of advertising at NAC, on Friday, June 23, to find
out whether the proposed ban had been adopted. He told us
that it had been overwhelmingly rejected. Furthermore, he
informed us that the NAC will revert to its old policy of
allowing gun ads in the =93Thrifty=94 section of the classifieds,
provided that such ads meet the standard requirements set
forth for all advertisements submitted to the =93Thrifty=94
section. In recent weeks, NAC has not been allowing any gun
ads to be placed in the =93Thrifty=94 section. The change back
to the old policy is scheduled to occur next Wednesday,
June 27, assuming that the necessary reformatting and so
forth can be completed before then. If not, the change will
take place shortly after that, according to Mr. McCaffrey.
Mr. McCaffrey declined to send us a statement in writing,
so we will watch carefully to make sure the new policy is
implemented as outlined by him over the phone. If there is
any deviation from his verbal promises, we will alert you.

Some individuals who contacted the NAC in response to our
previous GOUtah! Alert were reportedly told that there was no
proposal to ban gun ads, and that no such proposal had been
submitted for consideration. However, Mr. McCaffrey reaffirmed
in our phone conversation on Friday that a complete ban on
gun ads was, in fact, one of the three proposals submitted for
consideration by NAC management, just as we reported previously.
The fact that it was rejected can be attributed, we believe,
to the efforts of all you activists out there who bombarded
the NAC with phone calls, faxes, letters, and e-mails. Thanks
for your work! Thanks also to Mr. James Johnston, who first
brought this to our attention.


GUN SALES BANNED IN BRAZIL

According to yesterday=92s edition of The Washington Post, the
President of Brazil has issued an executive decree which
immediately suspends the issuing of gun permits in that
country for a period of six months. Previously, firearms
could be legally purchased by civilians who obtained a
permit from the government. Since a separate permit had to
be issued for each purchase, the new policy essentially
prohibits future purchases of firearms by civilians,
although currently licensed owners can keep their old guns
for the time being. That might not last for long, however,
because a bill currently being considered by the Brazilian
Congress would simply ban most civilian gun ownership and
would require licensed owners to turn in their weapons.
Exceptions would be granted for members of shooting clubs,
people living in =93rural areas=94, and private security guards.

According to The Post, Brazilian President Fernando Henrique
Cardoso acted unilaterally without waiting for the Brazilian
Congress to pass its bill. "Society is demanding from all of
us a quicker response,=94 he is quoted as saying. "We could ask,
who among us has not suffered because of violence?" The article
states that the executive order =93also includes hiring 2,000
new federal agents, providing better training and equipment
for police forces and building new prisons.=94 Does any of this
sound familiar?

Brazilian officials estimate that of the approximately 8
million gun owned by civilians in Brazil, 6 million are
owned by criminals who purchased them on the black market
without a permit. Brazilian criminologists interviewed by
The Post expressed the opinion that the President=92s
executive order would not reduce Brazil=92s sky-high crime
rate, because nearly all of the violent crimes committed
with guns in that country are committed by criminals with
unlicensed guns. Only law-abiding people with gun permits
will be affected by the new policy, and, according to one
crime expert, this might actually cause the crime rate to
increase, because criminals will know for sure that their
intended victims are unarmed. No kidding.

Brazil=92s experience is consistent with what has happened and
is happening in other countries (Britain, Canada, Australia,
California, etc.) where licensing and registration are
mandatory. When people ask you why you don=92t support
licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, you
need merely point out that the =93slippery slope=94 is indeed
very slippery. A thing that can be licensed is a thing that
can be banned.
___________________________________________

GOUTAH! GUN RIGHTS INFORMATION OUTLETS

If you wish to receive GOUtah! Alerts via e-mail, you may
subscribe by sending a blank e-mail message to
[e-mail]. To unsubscribe, send a blank
message to [e-mail].

If you have a dedicated fax machine located in Salt Lake
County or Davis County and you wish to receive a fax version
of the GOUtah! Alerts, or if you are already receiving the
Alerts and wish to stop receiving them, you may fax your
request to [phone].

You may also be added to or taken off the GOUtah! Alerts list
by logging onto our website at http://www.slpsa.org/goutah!
or at http://www.home.fiberia.com/goutah, or by submitting
your request via e-mail to [e-mail]. There are no
charges for receiving GOUtah! Alerts.

You may also telephone the GOUtah! Information Hotline at
(801) 296-GUNS for the very latest information on issues
surrounding your gun rights. The call is toll free in the
Salt Lake County/Davis County area, while normal long
distance charges apply for the rest of the state.

We strongly encourage you to forward, copy and share this
information with others, 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.
_____________________________
This concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert
#64 -23 June 2000.

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 2000 by GOUtah! All rights reserved.

-


-



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

From: Karl Pearson <[e-mail]>
Subject: From: InfoBeat News - Afternoon Edition @  06/30/2000 (fwd)
Date: 30 Jun 2000 14:12:03 -0600 (Mountain Daylight Time)

Bad news in CA.

Karl Pearson

*** Calif. upholds assault weapons ban

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The state Supreme Court has upheld a key provision of
California's 1989 assault weapons ban, clearing the way for the attorney
general to expand the list of prohibited guns. The court Thursday
overturned a lower court ruling that a provision allowing the attorney
general to seek a judge's approval to add weapons improperly gave judges
legislative authority. Attorney General Bill Lockyer called the decision a
"major victory for gun safety and public safety in California." He said
120 additional weapons, including the "AK" series, will likely be added to
the list of outlawed guns as a result of the decision. The law bans the
sale, manufacture, distribution and, in most cases, possession of more
than 50 military-style semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. See
http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2567758783-eba



-