ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.200007

Internet Message Format | 2000-07-28 | 50KB

From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: PoliHumor: How to be a good Democrat
Date: 05 Jul 2000 15:33:00 -0600

I hope not to get flamed for posting an off topic email, and please don't
respond to the list regarding the following post.  Thanks, KLP


How to be a good Democrat

  1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal
funding.
  2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders
how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about morals and
sex.
  3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans,
are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology, in the hands of
Chinese communists.
  4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
  5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by
yuppies driving SUVs.
  6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
homosexual is natural.
  7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on
demand.
  8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.
  9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists who've never been outside of Seattle do.
 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.
 11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.
 12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts
of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain
parts of the Constitution.
 13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
 14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more
important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee
or Thomas Edison.
 15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides aren't.
 16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady.
 17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in
charge.
 18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but
a sex offender who lies belongs in the White House.
 19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger
scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
 20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by the
Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.


-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: URGENT Hostettler Pushing BATF Amendment
Date: 07 Jul 2000 10:40:52 -0600

-----

Thursday, July 06, 2000 9:38 PM

July 6 Neal Knox Report -- Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) is
talking to members of the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee
about preventing BATF from being involved in enforcing the
Smith & Wesson/Clinton Administration agreement.

The subcommittee hasn't yet completed action on the
Treasury Appropriations bill, and will probably hold a
committee markup next week, "as soon as Congress gets back."

On April 7 Rep. Hostettler and 61 other Congressmen wrote
Subcommittee Chairman Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) asking that the
committee prevent BATF from participating in the "Oversight
Commission" created by the S&W agreement.

Similar restrictions, offered as amendments to the Justice
Department and Housing Urban Development funding bills,
failed last month, but would probably survive attacks by
the gun control crowd if incorporated in the committee bill.

NRA hasn't supported the earlier Hostettler amendments
arguing they wouldn't apply to later agreements with other
manufacturers. Rep. Hostettler submitted NRA's broader
language to the House parliamentarian, who said it would
be out of order because it would be legislating on an
appropriations bill, which is forbidden by House rules.

However, broader language might be possible if proposed in
the subcommittee bill, though that might require approval
of the Rules Committee.

The House sometimes winks at the rule against legislating
on appropriations bills, but not when the Speaker opposes
an amendment. The Wall Street Journal has reported NRA
has left Hostettler to fight alone in deference to Speaker
Hastert, who doesn't want any hard gun votes.

Other Treasury, Postal Appropriations Subcommittee members
are Republicans Frank Wolfe (Va.), Anne Northrup (Ky.), Jo
Anne Emerson (Mo.), John Sununu (N.H.) and John Peterson (Pa.).

Democrats are Steny Hoyer (Md.), Carrie Meek (Fla.), David
Price (N.C.) and Lucille Roybal-Allard (Calif.).

Gun rights stalwart Virgil Goode (Va.), an Independent, is
also a member and a signer of the letter to Chairman Kolbe.

*****************************************
Editor's Note by Weldon Clark û You need to contact your
Congressman NOW. You can call your Representative at
[phone] and your two Senators at [phone] at
the Capitol Switchboard. Here is the URL for Congressional
Telephone Directory:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/106/mbrcmtee/members/teledir/members/cdframe.htm
Here's an e-mail link to Congress. http://in-search-of.org/
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://www.gunowners.org/mailerx.html
Write your CONGRESSMAN OR STATE LEGISLATORS can
now be accomplished at the speed of light, thanks to
WorldNetDaily's new Legislative Action Center.
http://congress.nw.dc.us/wnd/
*****************************
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).
************************************************************
What To Do If The Police Come To Confiscate Your Militia
Weapons see http://www.2ndamendment.net
For legislative updates contact www.nealknox.com and go to
"Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line"
***************************************************
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

Feel free to forward our alerts.

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: "Patriot" for 10-year olds
Date: 11 Jul 2000 14:33:51 -0600

Edited for legibility

-----

Someone on an email list for antique firearms posed a question about
the suitability of "The Patriot" for viewing by his 10-year old son.
Of course the answers were all positive, with most suggesting he might
go see it himself first, and then decide for sure. Apparently, someone
forwarded his question to Vin Suprynowicz. Here's Vin's response.

Jim H
===================================================

Vin Suprynowicz comments:

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

> ikipniss wrote:

>> My ten year old son would like to see the movie... He enjoys history
>> and historical fiction.
>> He is standing here as I type, because I don't believe it is
>> appropriate to let a ten year old see an R rated movie.

>> I would Love to take him but feel it is my duty to raise him properly,
>> and just because his friends are able to see doesn't mean it is
>> appropriate for his age group.

>> What are the opinions of you guys/gals who have seen it already....
>> would  you let your ten year old see this movie.

>> Thanks for your guidance

>> Ivan

Hi --

The more substantive response to ikipniss (if you'd be willing to forward
this -- you didn't include his address) would be to point out that the film
rating board ADMITS the only reason they rated this film "R" was because a
10-year-old boy is shown being instructed by his father to shoot and kill
British officers. The film has no frontal nudity or sex scenes or foul talk
or any of the stuff one might SUSPECT would be indicated by an "R" rating
... some of which stuff actually shows up pretty regularly in PG films,
these days.

Yes, there are a few "bloody" or "gory" combat scenes, but the camera
doesn't zoom in or linger long on any such images -- in fact, combat here
doesn't look nearly as realistically gruesome as in the first half-hour of
"Saving Private Ryan."

(One critic complained that, in a crucial scene, Gibson gratuitously goes
to work with a hatchet on a "British soldier who was already dead." I
reply: 1) Gibson's Benjamin Martin  had channeled his anger into direct,
purposeful action after seeing one of his own sons killed only a short time
before -- I think his character showed admirable restraint, and this kind
of letting-out of his anger was very understandable and in character, while
the critic shows an inexperienced person's common foolish misunderstanding
that someone in an adrenaline rush, fighting for his life, is likely to be
able to determine and use "only the measured amount of force necessary";
2) the camera never points down to show the body of the British soldier
sustaining the hatchet wounds; it's always discreetly off camera to spare
us the real gore; 3) the critic is nuts, and demonstrates that his
knowledge of life-and-death situations most likely comes from watching
Hopalong Cassidy, the Cisco Kid, or the Lone Ranger. If you throw a hatchet
at a fleeing soldier and it sticks in a man's shoulder muscles and he falls
down, you'd BETTER not assume he's "already dead;" you'd BETTER run up and
follow through with some really mortal blows, or that guy is going to sit
up, point his flintlock or his belt pistol at you, and show you just how
"dead" he really is.)

Obviously, each parent has to make a case-by-case judgment for each kid.
But I thought the "R' rating was very bizarre. Who is MORE open to (and
also in need of) an understanding of what our ancestors sacrificed -- what
patriotism really means -- than young teens, most of whom are about to be
subjected to four to six years of relentless feminist, pacifist, socialist
propaganda and chemical castration in the government high schools?

-- V.

p.s. --  After the movie, of course, everyone in the family WILL want to go
out and buy a flintlock. I don't happen to think this is a bad thing, either.

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

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FEWER GUNS = MORE CRIME
Date: 11 Jul 2000 18:20:22 -0600

Attempts at victim disarmament indicate enmity of the public
servants towards the Citizenry. Respect and encourage the right
of the People to keep and bear arms to prevent handgun violence.

Scott

Vanguard of the Revolution
http://www.theVanguard.org

FEWER GUNS = MORE CRIME
by Rod D. Martin, 11 July 2000


Four years into the British and Australian gun bans, the verdict on gun
control is in: disaster.

Those who argue for the right of self-defense have always said that banning
guns would disarm the law-abiding while encouraging the criminals. Yet even
by the standards of most pro-gun arguments, the actual results of total gun
control have been startling, leaving anti-gunners and government officials
at a loss to explain the debacle.

Take Australia. Just over one year ago, the Australian government spent
more than $500 million to confiscate 640,381 privately-owned firearms, even
using deadly force. This followed a partial ban of over 60 percent of the
country╣s private weapons in 1996. The promise: a dramatic reduction in
crime, in exchange for the right of common citizens to defend themselves.

The results: utter mayhem, showing yet again that, as in most things,
government cannot take care of you as well as you can.

In the first year of the ban, Australian homicides increased 3.2 percent,
and in the state of Victoria, gun homicides shot up 300 percent. Assaults
increased 8.6 percent. Armed robberies rose a whopping 44 percent, after
having dropped for 25 straight years before the ban. Since then, homicides
have jumped 29 percent, kidnappings have risen 38 percent, assaults have
increased 17 percent, and armed robberies have skyrocketed an additional 73
percent.

In Australia today, police can go house to house, enter your home without a
warrant, search for guns, copy your hard drive, seize your records, and take
you to jail. What they cannot do is protect you.

It╣s worse in Britain, where virtually all guns were banned in 1996
following the Dunblane massacre. Americans tend to believe Britain a
peaceful place with little crime. Post-confiscation, quite the opposite
proves true: the crime rate in England and Wales is now 60 percent higher
than in the United States. Indeed, it is higher than in every one of the 50
states.

As in Australia, British police are incapable of stopping this growing
anarchy. Despite having more policemen per capita than the U.S., despite
installing more electronic surveillance equipment than any other Western
country, robbery and sex crimes have shot ahead of U.S. numbers, property
crime is now twice as high, and assaults and muggings are now between twice
and three times as high as in America.

Perhaps the most telling statistic is the "hot burglary" rate; i.e., those
burglaries which are committed while the homeowner is present. In the
United States, these burglaries account for just over 10 percent of the
total: criminals fear getting shot. In post-gun-ban Britain, however, "hot
burglaries" account for more than half of the total, meaning that vastly
more Britons face an armed intruder each year, with absolutely no way to
defend themselves either from the burglary itself or from whatever other
assaults, rapes or murders the criminal may choose to commit.

The contrast between this horror story and the American experience is vast.
The U.S. crime rate has fallen precipitously throughout the 1990s, largely
driven downward by those states which have enacted concealed-carry laws. And
in fact, gun ownership has been shown in survey after survey to be one of
the single most important factors in preventing violent crime.

Of particular note, Janet Reno╣s Department of Justice commissioned a survey
in 1994 by the openly anti-gun Police Foundation. That exhaustive study,
"Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,"
was completed in 1997, and its conclusion was clear: "Guns are used far more
often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime."

In the year studied, 1.5 million Americans used guns to defend their homes,
families or property. In the words of the study, literally "millions of
attempted assaults, thefts and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens
during the 12-month period." And as the study itself admits, its conclusions
are "directly comparable" to other similar studies: the Police Foundation's
work was the fifteenth national survey to reach this same conclusion in the
past twenty-two years, every one of them having found results in the same
range.

The common sense of gun ownership is inescapable: a family, or a single
mother, alone at home, facing an armed intruder in the middle of the night,
does not have time to call 911. By the time the police arrive, no matter how
competent they are, no matter how quickly they respond, she and her children
will be dead. It's that simple. She can defend herself and her children, or
she can face her merciless predator, alone.

The fact is simple: guns save lives. Lots of lives. Every day. Criminals
would far rather prey on the weak than on someone who can fight back.
Private gun ownership means people can help protect their families and keep
the peace; it also makes certain that crime does not pay.

And if you don╣t believe it, just visit our British and Australian cousins.


Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 11 July 2000.


-- Rod D. Martin is National Chairman of The Vanguard, an organization
dedicated to the promotion of conservative causes. He is a Fellow of
the Kuyper Institute for Political Studies, an elder of Covenant
Baptist Church, and an attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas.

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Doctors promoting the anti-gun agenda?
Date: 12 Jul 2000 14:20:46 -0600

My apologies to any who regularly read Dear Abbey and have already read
this article from today's Deseret News.  But for those who don't, there
is a tid-bit of information in this one that is worth seeing.

For the last couple of years I've seen varous internet/email reports
warning that medical groups were pushing for doctors to begin including
ownership/use of guns in their questions about family medical history and
offering advice against the private ownership of guns--especially in
homes with children.  The last sentence of this letter would seem to
confirm that this is actually happening, at least in some places.

In a letter encouraging a parent to take her teenage daughter, who has a
mustache, to the doctor to rule out serious medical problems that may
cause excess body hair, an MD writes (emphasis added):

"The visit also gives the pediatricians (or family practioners) an
opportunity to touch base with a population notorious for avoiding
doctors -- adolescents.  Not only are they underimmunized, they are also
the group most in need of anticipatory guidance on issues such as
abstinence, safe sex, birth control, STDs, drugs, alcohol, smoking,
__GUNS__, nutrition, school perfomance, sports, and safe driving."

Complete letter online at
<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,175018713,00.html?>.

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

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Crime in Britian
Date: 13 Jul 2000 11:14:40 -0600

Holy smokes Batman, looks like the night janitor took some time and wrote
the lead editorial in today's SLTrib.  Heaven knows the usual bunch of
editorialists isn't responsible for this one.  :)

While it would be a bit of stretch to call this a pro-gun piece, at least
it looks to be factually accurate and ackowledges that the lack of
private guns and the resulting inability to put up a fight is a
contributing factor in home invasions in England.

On the web at <http://www.sltrib.com/07132000/opinion/opinion.htm>

Apologies to any who have already read this, but it is too good to not
pass along for any who don't regularly read the editorial page of the
SLTrib.

Crime in Britain




                    When CBS newsman Dan Rather recently
                reported that Britain is "one of the most violent
                urban societies in the Western world," the British
                uprose in vociferous wrath, to borrow a
                Churchillian phrase. Well they should.
                    Not because Rather is wrong, not because for
                years the British have liked to imagine the United
                States to be much more violent and crime-ridden
                than their own society, but because violent crime
                is rising in Britain.
                    For many years, Americans and the British
                have basked in the firm belief that crime is a
                definite problem in the United States while Britain
                is peaceful and relatively crime-free. Popular
                thinking has attributed this difference to the fact
                that the American citizenry can own firearms,
                while in Britain this prerogative is severely
                restricted.
                    It is illegal for a private person to own a
                handgun in Britain. Automatic and semi-automatic
                weapons are banned. All legal firearms sales must
                be registered with the police. Private possession
                of rifles and shotguns is strictly regulated, and
                usually is permitted only in conjunction with
                membership in a government-approved shooting
                club.
                    No doubt, part of the British reaction to the
                CBS report is due to the fact that it is inimical to
                this long-held notion that firearms restrictions
                prevent violent crime. The fact is, crime is rising in
                Britain and some of it is quite violent.
                    Home invasion robberies, for instance, are on
                the rise in Britain. This is due to a variety of
                factors, chiefly that the pickings are easy and
                residents tend to lack the means and will to put up
                much of a fight. One recently did, a farmer in
                Norfolk who killed an assailant who forcibly
                entered his home. The government's reaction was
                to jail him. Such action does not encourage others
                to defend themselves against intruders.
                    Instead of whining about the effrontery of CBS
                for suggesting that Britain is not as peaceful and
                glorious as a Georgian evening on the Thames in
                the royal barge with Handel in charge of the
                music, the British should be more worried about
                finding solutions to their own crime problems.

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

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Appeals Court Rules FBI Can Keep Gun Records
Date: 14 Jul 2000 10:10:26 -0600

-----

Like I'm really surprised.

Appeals Court Rules FBI Can Keep Gun Records

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26048-2000Jul12.html

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 12, 2000; Page A21


A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the FBI can hold on to gun
purchase records for six months to ensure that a federal computer system
that conducts millions of instant criminal background checks is working
properly.

The 2 to 1 ruling was a defeat for the National Rifle Association, which
argued that the practice amounted to an "illegal national registration of
gun owners." The NRA contended that the law requires the FBI to destroy
records of approved purchases immediately.

The instant background checks of potential gun purchasers began in
November 1998, fulfilling requirements under the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act and putting an end to checks conducted under a five-day
federal waiting period.

Gun dealers are required to submit information about prospective buyers to
the computer system in an effort to prevent sales to convicted felons,
fugitives and other disqualified buyers.

The information includes the customer's name, sex, race, date of birth and
state of residence. The computer is supposed to immediately generate a
response for gun dealers that approves, rejects or postpones the sale for
further investigation.

Since the system was put into place, roughly 14 million checks have been
performed, Justice Department officials said. About 280,000 purchases have
been rejected.

The NRA filed suit to challenge a Justice Department regulation that
allows the FBI to keep all purchase records for six months for auditing
purposes only.

The Justice Department contended that it needs the time to spot-check
results for quality control, ensure that gun buyers and dealers are not
using false identities or other means to thwart the system and determine
that the huge database is not being used by anyone to gain confidential
information for unauthorized purposes.

While the NRA did not object to preserving--indefinitely--the records of
buyers who are rejected, it argued that the FBI was required to
immediately destroy personal data about those who were approved. The NRA's
lawyers pointed to language in the Brady law that called for officials to
"destroy" records of approved transactions. The law also warned against
using the checks "to establish any system for the registration of
firearms."

U.S. District Judge James Robertson dismissed the NRA's lawsuit last year,
concluding that the Justice Department acted reasonably in establishing
auditing standards. The NRA asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to
overturn Robertson's ruling.

Appellate Judges David S. Tatel and Merrick B. Garland, both Clinton
appointees, rejected the NRA's argument. David B. Sentelle, a Reagan
appointee, dissented.

Tatel wrote that the "audit log" is not a firearms registry. The Brady law
contained no timetable for purging records, he said, adding that common
sense indicates that Congress wanted to ensure that the system functions
properly.

Sentelle wrote that the law's instruction to destroy records meant exactly
that, prohibiting even temporary preservation.

The NRA was among the strongest supporters of instant background checks.
James Baker, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said the organization may seek
further appellate review.

"When you have words in the law like 'destroy,' 'don't record' and 'no
system of registration,' it seems fairly obvious to us," Baker said.

Attorney General Janet Reno called the ruling "a win for the safety of all
Americans," saying it "will allow us to continue to conduct audits that
protect individual privacy, ensure system accuracy and deter fraud by
corrupt gun dealers."
⌐ 2000 The Washington Post Company


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


A.K. Pritchard
http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/
http://rosie.acmecity.com/songfest/189/

To subscribe to  "The Republican"  email list - just ask!
[e-mail]


"Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those
who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears,
hear not, the things which so nearly concern
their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever
anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know
the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide
for it.

Patrick Henry - Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
March 23, 1775

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Federal judges created unequal?
Date: 17 Jul 2000 15:22:56 -0600

Excerpted

Cato Daily Dispatch
July 17, 2000
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/07-17-00d.html

WHAT'S GOOD FOR JUDGES IS GOOD FOR ALL AMERICANS

Washington Post columnist Al Kamen writes today about a proposal to
allow federal judges to carry concealed weapons nationwide, regardless
of state laws. The plan is part of the Federal Courts Improvement Act
which passed the House recently on a voice vote.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54652-2000Jul16.html

The idea was pushed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the policymaking
body of the federal judiciary and would allow about 2,000 federal judges
and magistrates to conceal and carry any type of gun they wished. The
conference states the law is needed because three federal judges have
been killed this century.

"[I]f a judge is in danger, the fact that he or she is in one state
or the other does not eliminate the danger," said Judge Harvey E.
Schlesinger, a supporter of the bill.

Congress may also decide that what is true for federal judges is true
for the population at large. In "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and
the Right to Carry a Handgun," http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html
an analysis of a 1987 Florida law that allowed citizens to carry
concealed firearms in public, Jeffrey R. Snyder found that there was a
decrease in violent crime, not the increase many people had predicted.
Recently, the Cato Institute hosted the book forum featuring legal
scholar John R. Lott, Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime." His
updated book presents the most comprehensive analysis ever done on
crime statistics and the right-to-carry laws. Video of the forum is
available on the Cato Web site. http://www.cato.org/events/000616bf.html


To unsubscribe or change your e-mail address, visit
http://www.free-market.net/partners/c/cato.html#dailydispatch

-



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

From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAF SUES OHIO AG AND OTHERS OVER CONCEALED CARRY
Date: 17 Jul 2000 17:56:13 -0700

Ohio Gun Law Challenged in Court - Hearing Tuesday

CINCINNATI, OHIO (Monday, July 17, 2000) - The Second Amendment
Foundation, along with Ohio citizens, filed a Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the law prohibiting the
carrying of concealed firearms.  The suit alleges that current
law violates numerous federal and state constitutional
protections.

"It is blatantly unfair to have a law where nobody knows whether
he or she is complying with the law, or in violation of the law,"
stated Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder.  "There are no standards,
guidelines or common sense under the current statute."

The legal action specifically seeks to prevent enforcement of
R.C. 2923.12 until a court reviews whether it is constitutional.
The complaint calls the current scheme a violation of both the
U.S. Constitution (Second Amendment [keep & bear arms], Ninth
Amendment [self-defense], and Fourteenth Amendment [Equal
Protection, Incorporation of Bill of Rights to the States]) as
well as the Ohio Constitution, which reads:

Article 1, Section 1: All men are, by nature, free and
independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are
those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,
possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining
happiness and safety.

Article 1, Section 4: The people have the right to bear arms for
their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of
peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and
the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

The Ohio law in question, R.C. 2923.12, bans all concealed carry
of firearms with felony penalties for any violations.  It is only
after a person caught carrying a concealed firearm is incurring
the costs and stresses of a criminal trial that the current law
allows the possibility of an "affirmative defense" to be made.
Such an unjust system must be replaced with reasonable and
prudent legislation.

In a recent case against a pizza delivery driver, both the
prosecutor and the judge stated that the law should be changed or
repealed.  The defendant was Pat Feely, who was known to carry
large sums of cash in bad neighborhoods as part of his
employment.  He was acquitted at trial, but could face the same
charges if found carrying a concealed firearm again.  The threat
and costs of repeated prosecutions is another reason for
declaring the current law unconstitutional.

"Even after a defendant wins his or her case based on
'affirmative defense' showing need for carrying a firearm
concealed, this does not prohibit dragging the same person into a
courtroom again for the very same charge," warned Timothy A.
Smith, attorney for Mr. Feely and lead counsel for the pending
legal action.  "Such unfairness motivated Mr. Feely's employer,
James H. Cohen, to step forward as one of the plaintiffs seeking
relief from courts against the current law."

In addition to SAF and Mr. Cohen, the other plaintiffs include
Chuck Klein, Vernon Ferrier and Lea Anne Driscoll.  A hearing
will take place at 10:00 AM in the Judge Robert Ruehlman's
Courtroom this Tuesday, July 18, 2000 with a ruling on the
restraining order expected at the end of the hearing.  A full
hearing on the constitutionality of the law is expected in August
2000.

Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest
tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group
focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately
own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has
grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts
many programs designed to better inform the public about the gun
control debate and its consequences. SAF previously has funded
successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los
Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf of American
gun owners.  Current projects include a damage action lawsuit
against the cities suing gun makers, an amicus brief in support
of the Emerson case holding that the Second Amendment is an
individual right and a lawsuit against the Clinton gun and
magazine ban.

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Live like sheep, die like cows.
Date: 17 Jul 2000 21:33:55 -0600

Dave Hansen elaborates:

-----

Excerpt:

"[I]f a judge is in danger, the fact that he or she is in one state
or the other does not eliminate the danger," said Judge Harvey E.
Schlesinger, a supporter of the bill.

Well, duh! Of course "some are more equal than others", and this
clearly seems to apply to Federal judges.

Read below also about the Siren Song of the Anti-gunners. Or,
"How to live like sheep and die like cows."

Dave

Cato Daily Dispatch
July 17, 2000
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/07-17-00d.html

WHAT'S GOOD FOR JUDGES IS GOOD FOR ALL AMERICANS

Washington Post columnist Al Kamen writes today about a proposal to
allow federal judges to carry concealed weapons nationwide, regardless
of state laws. The plan is part of the Federal Courts Improvement Act
which passed the House recently on a voice vote.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54652-2000Jul16.html

The idea was pushed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the policymaking
body of the federal judiciary and would allow about 2,000 federal judges
and magistrates to conceal and carry any type of gun they wished. The
conference states the law is needed because three federal judges have
been killed this century.

"[I]f a judge is in danger, the fact that he or she is in one state
or the other does not eliminate the danger," said Judge Harvey E.
Schlesinger, a supporter of the bill.

Congress may also decide that what is true for federal judges is true
for the population at large. In "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and
the Right to Carry a Handgun," http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html
an analysis of a 1987 Florida law that allowed citizens to carry
concealed firearms in public, Jeffrey R. Snyder found that there was a
decrease in violent crime, not the increase many people had predicted.
Recently, the Cato Institute hosted the book forum featuring legal
scholar John R. Lott, Jr., author of "More Guns, Less Crime." His
updated book presents the most comprehensive analysis ever done on
crime statistics and the right-to-carry laws. Video of the forum is
available on the Cato Web site. http://www.cato.org/events/000616bf.html



Siren Song of the Anti-gunners:


Written By: Robert Waters
The Siren Song of Gun Control
by Robert Waters

http://keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=304

(In Greek mythology, the Sirens had such sweet voices that mariners
who heard their songs were lured upon the rocks from which they sang.)


On May 24, 2000, it was closing time at Wendy's. As employees worked
to finish their chores so they could go home, John Taylor and Greg
Godineaux are alleged by police to have entered the restaurant on Main
Street in Queens, New York. One of the men pulled a gun on the workers,
tied and gagged them, then systematically executed the entire crew.
Five employees died, while two survived.

In New York City, you see, only the cops and robbers have guns--
employees of Wendy's aren't allowed. Decades of strictly enforced gun laws have
bullied most law-abiding citizens into abandoning their best
means of self-defense.

But, as the Wendy's shootings show, gun control laws don't prevent
violence. In fact, statistics have shown that such laws often breed
crime. The combined research of Dr. Gary Kleck, Dr. John Lott, Jr.,
and others make powerful arguments against restrictive firearms
legislation.

Gun control, however, is an enticing mistress.

She promises security, safety, and insulation from those brutal thugs
whose faces you see each night on the six o'clock news. She whispers
that if you give her your gun, the cops will protect you. In her heart
of hearts, she can't stand the thought that a single citizen might be
armed.

Like the Siren that is, though, her lying lips don't tell you that the
Wendy's victims might have been saved.

Almost exactly a month after the New York shooting, the McDonald's
restaurant at 5301 East Freeway in Houston was getting ready to close.
Three robbers burst in wearing masks and brandishing rifles. Threatening
employees and customers, they didn't notice Willis Lee. The janitor
pulled out a revolver and shot two of the thugs. Because he carried a
gun, the maintenance man stopped an armed robbery and possibly a mass
murder similar to the one at Wendy's.

In New York City, employees are sitting ducks.

But in Texas, concealed carry laws give citizens the opportunity to
defend themselves.

One of the common songs the gun control Siren sings is that if you give
robbers your money, you probably won't get hurt. That lie has lured many
onto the rocks of gun control.

But what the Siren won't tell you is that robbery victims are often
successful in fighting off their attackers.

On September 3, 1998, Joe Montgomery, an Indianapolis gun shop owner,
refused the demands of two robbers who held a gun to his head and
ordered him to lie on the floor. During a brutal struggle in which the
robbers beat Montgomery, slashed him with a knife, and attempted to
shoot him twice, the businessman was able to retrieve a gun he'd hidden.
The gun shop owner then shot and killed both robbers.

In a recent interview, Montgomery related his reasons for choosing to
fight back. "I had seen too many horrible video clips," he said, "of
robbers who, after they push somebody to the floor, start shooting
while [the victim is] lying face-down. I figured at this point I'm
already dead, so why should I lay down and let them shoot me in the
back of the head?"

The gun control Siren won't mention Joe Montgomery.

Nor will she tell you about other intended victims who saved their own
lives and the lives of others.

She won't tell you about Joel Myrick, the assistant principal of Pearl
High School who used his handgun to end a school shooting, probably
saving the lives of dozens of schoolchildren.

She won't tell you about Jan Hartford, the Philadelphia baker who shot
and killed an armed robber. Or the Tucson jogger who shot one of two
armed robbers. Or the Charleston, South Carolina woman who shot a
burglar after he tore the steel bars off her window in order to break
into her house. She won't tell you about the Atlanta housewife who shot
and killed a masked intruder in her apartment.

Each year, thousands of armed victims fight back and survive.

In Jacksonville, Florida, 77-year-old Claude Allen and his daughter,
Shirla Menendez, were relaxing at home one Sunday evening. Suddenly
a stranger kicked in the the door. Holding the two at gunpoint, he
forced Menendez to tie up her father, a World War II veteran. Then
the robber looted the house. As he was leaving, he placed his gun to
Menendez's head and threatened to pull the trigger. Allen, desperately
wrenching at his bonds, finally broke free, The veteran then retrieved
his 9 mm semiautomatic pistol and shot the intruder dead.

In spite of the evidence, the Siren continues to lure innocents onto
the rocks of gun control. Her song causes them to lose their reason,
to surrender their senses, and to believe her lies.

Under her influence, they learn to live like sheep and die like cows.

-



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

From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: SAF OHIO LAWSUIT--RESTRAINING ORDER GRANTED
Date: 18 Jul 2000 12:39:33 -0700

Ohio Gun Law Blocked By Restraining Order

CINCINNATI, OHIO (Tuesday, July 18, 2000) - Judge Robert Ruehlman
today issued a restraining order against enforcement of Ohio's
law banning concealed carry of firearms as well as the law
banning loaded firearms in a motor vehicle.  The order affects
the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County.  Backers of the legal
action are very pleased.

"These laws are in clear violation of both Ohio and U.S.
Constitutions and were ripe for challenges after the Pat Feely
decision," proclaimed Alan Gottlieb, Founder of the Second
Amendment Foundation (SAF).  "We saw a huge opportunity to
advance the rights of self-defense and took advantage of it."

In addition to blocking enforcement of R.C. 2923.12 (banning
concealed carry) the Judge included R.C. 2923.16, (loaded gun in
a motor vehicle).  The restraining order will be in place until
after the preliminary injunction hearing beginning August 11,
2000.

Until that time, law-abiding adult residents of Cincinnati and
Hamilton County can legally carry a loaded firearm on their
person or in their car without risk of arrest or prosecution
PROVIDED that they do not violate other laws prohibiting
possession in bars, schools, or other specified places.  The law
preventing felons and other disqualified from possessing guns,
R.C. 2923.13, is also still in effect.

The restraining order makes Hamilton County unique.  The only
state with a similar carry law is Vermont, where any law-abiding
adult can carry a gun if they have a driver's license or some
other form of photo identification.  Including Vermont, 43 states
allow the lawful concealed carry of firearms.  Only 7 states,
including Ohio, deny the individual's right of self-defense
outside one's home or fixed place of business.

The complaint called the current scheme a violation of both the
Ohio Constitutions (Article 1, Section 1 [inalienable rights to
defending life, liberty and property] & Article 1, Section 4
[bear arms for defense and security]) and the U.S. Constitution
(Second Amendment [keep & bear arms], Ninth Amendment
[self-defense], and Fourteenth Amendment [Equal Protection,
Incorporation of Bill of Rights to the States]).  But Judge
Robert Ruehlman found yet another problem under current law.

"The judge made it clear that the current law treats people as
guilty until proven innocent," said attorney William Gustavson.
"If this order is upheld, the burden of proof will switch to the
Government to show why the person should not be allowed to carry
a firearm for self-defense."

In a recent case against a pizza delivery driver, both the
prosecutor and the judge stated that the law should be changed or
repealed.  The defendant, Pat Feely, was known to carry large
sums of cash in bad neighborhoods as part of his employment.  He
was acquitted at trial, but could have faced the same charges if
found carrying a concealed firearm again unless the restraining
order was issued.  Such unfairness opened the door for throwing
the unconstitutional law out.

"For years, Gov. Bob Taft and the anti-self-defense crowd have
blocked reasonable standards for issuing concealed carry
licenses," stated Dave LaCourse, SAF Public Affairs Director.
"Now they have their wish, and Hamilton County allows law-abiding
people to carry of firearms without a license.  I hope this
decision sends a message to them that the Ohio and U.S.
Constitutions are still valid and binding."

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and
largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal
action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to
privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The
Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters
and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public
about the gun control debate and its consequences. SAF previously
has funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities
of Los Angeles, New Haven, CT, and San Francisco on behalf of
American gun owners.  Current projects include a damage action
lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers, an amicus brief in
support of the Emerson case holding that the Second Amendment is
an individual right and a lawsuit against the Clinton gun and
magazine ban.

SAF's web site is at http://www.saf.org/

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Federal agent kills his dog?
Date: 19 Jul 2000 10:51:53 -0600

Assumming this "report" is substantially accurate, it will be interesting
to see how it is handled.  Joe Citizen would almost certainly be charged
with animal neglect or even cruelty to animals for such a callous and
stupid act as leaving a dog in a car during the summer months.  And after
all the talk we heard from government "experts" during this last session
about how certain misdemeanors--including cruelty to animals--needed to
be added to the list of disqualifications for owning a gun because
cruelty to animals was a very strong indicator of a likelyhood of future
violence against people, should we take bets on whether or not the agent
will be stripped of his badge and gun?

Well, just try to remember that some people (government agents in
particular) are created more equal than others.


From today's Rolly & Wells in the SLTrib
<http://www.sltrib.com/07192000/utah/4586.htm>

 A narcotics-trained canine working for the Metro Narcotics Task
     Force in Salt Lake County died Friday after a federal Drug
Enforcement
     Administration investigator left it in his car for several hours
during
     100-degree-plus temperatures.
         Don Mendrala, agent in charge of the Utah office of the DEA,
     confirmed he is investigating the death of Lady, a beagle trained to
sniff
     out illicit drugs.
         The DEA is a member of the Metro Narcotics Unit, which consists
of
     specially trained investigators from 14 federal, state and local law
     enforcement agencies.
         Because of the undercover nature of the agent's work, his
identity is
     being kept confidential.
        o
==================================================================
Charles C. Hardy
Utah Email Coordinator--Women Against Gun Control
<[e-mail]>

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: MILLION MOM MARCH organizer uses GUN to attempt murder
Date: 19 Jul 2000 22:34:23 -0600

These articles didn't load well for me.

-----

She'll probably claim that the gun made her do it.

Maybe she and Candy Leightner can share a cell and a pint.

Barbara Lipscomb, an organizer of the Million Mom March, was charged
with assault with intent to kill for shooting a teen who she
believed
to have caused her son's death. It was later determined (second
story)
that she had probably shot the wrong person.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40501-2000Jul13.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45741-2000Jul14.html

Please circulate this far and wide.

BTW, for those who do not remember: The Rocky Mountain News reported
shortly after the Columbine massacre that Mark Manes, the man who
sold the Tec-9 assault pistol used in the Columbine shootings, was
the son of two strong members of Handgun Control, the nation's largest
gun control lobbying group.

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

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: BATF and SSC?
Date: 28 Jul 2000 09:33:03 -0600

Last night I turned on the 10:00 channel 4 news a few minutes late and
just in time to catch the tail end of the last sentence of some report.
All I caught was "...BATF and Shooting Sports Council."

Can anyone shed anymore light on this?

Thanks.

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

-



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

From: "Karl Pearson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Petition To G.W.Bush
Date: 29 Jul 2000 12:04:30 -0600

Freedoms of one group lost create a footpath where all freedom will be
trodden under the foot of the elite who are exempt. KLP

http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html



-



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

From: Kelly & Miriam Phelps <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Petition To G.W.Bush
Date: 29 Jul 2000 13:25:39 -0600

I signed earlier, Karl, even though I don't trust GW.
Thanks for forwarding this.
Kelly Phelps



Karl Pearson wrote:
>=20
> Freedoms of one group lost create a footpath where all freedom will be
> trodden under the foot of the elite who are exempt. KLP
>=20
> http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html
>=20
> -

--=20
MZ=90



-