ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.200110

Internet Message Format | 2001-10-25 | 80KB

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Gun Rights: Time for Federal Action, Not Just Words
Date: 01 Oct 2001 08:45:01 -0600

Gun Rights: Time for Federal Action, Not Just Words

Join this Demand for Enforcement of the Second Amendment!
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Petition

A Petition for Enforcement of the Second Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States -- This project applies
to all 50 states and is something you can easily do as you
go about your daily life. Please do your part, starting
today. It's quite simple.

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: PSA -- Reminder to vote Tuesday
Date: 01 Oct 2001 16:29:07 -0600

Everyone,
Just a public service announcement reminding you that Tuesday, Oct. 2nd
(tomorrow) is the date of non-partisan, municipal elections here in Utah.
Most communities are holding non-partisan, primary elections for some or
all of the following offices: Mayor, City Council, and school board
members. Some cities (most notably, SLC) are not electing some offices
like mayor this year. In many cities, there will be some races that are
not heavily contested enough to require a primary. (Generally speaking, a
primary is only held if 3 or more candidates have filed for the same,
single seat office. The primary eliminates all but the top two candidates
who then advance to the general election next month.)
Polls should be open from 7:00 am until 8:00 pm. Please note that your
polling place for this municipal election *MAY* be different that your
polling place for State/Federal Partisan races. If in doubt about the
location, your County Clerk can provide the proper location. Contact info
for County Clerks is at
http://www.governor.state.ut.us/lt_gover/97Clerks.htm .
You must already be registered to vote in order to vote in this primary.
If you have not moved since you last voted, you should be registered to
vote already.
If you are not registered to vote, you can register online at
http://www.utah.gov/ovr and you will then be able to vote in the
municipal general elections to be held next month.
Charles
PS, This non-partisan, municipal primary is NOT effected by the recent
decision by the GOP to disallow Democrats and Independant voters from
voting in Republican Primaries. ALL Registered voters, regarldess of any
or no official party affiliation are eligible to vote in the primary
tomorrow.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Project: Safe Skies official launch
Date: 02 Oct 2001 20:19:35 -0600

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

Hello all,

We finally have the basic skeleton up for Project: Safe Skies, at
http://www.ProjectSafeSkies.org/. It's far from complete, but we have
the activism stuff--sample letters, addresses of airline execs, media
types, and politicians--and rebuttals to objections regarding civilian
carry of firearms on commercial flights. Please wander by at your
convenience, and let us know what you think.

More important, please help us spread the word. Our official launch
date is October 11, and we're planning to launch with a bang. If you're
a writer, please write a piece about our project, include a link to our
site, and publish it. If you're on lots of discussion lists, please post
a PSA on our behalf. If you run a news service, discussion list, or
somesuch, please include a mention of our project for your readers.
Email editors of print publications, requesting they cover the movement.
Write a paragraph in support of our cause and link to us from your web
site. Put our URL in your sig line for that day. We've invited lots of
friends--L Neil, J Neil, Claire Wolfe, Vin Suprynowicz, Aaron Zelman,
etc.--to participate, so you'll be among great company.

I am available for interviews--email preferred, phone tolerated--to
anyone who's interested in supporting Project: Safe Skies. If you'd like
to help with the project, plase email me or The Hunter mailto:[e-mail]
about it. We really need graphics help, for example.

Thanks for your help!

Sunni

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Never Again Unarmed... Let Freedom Fight!

http://www.ProjectSafeSkies.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.LibertyRoundTable.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: FW: Project: Safe Skies official launch
Date: 02 Oct 2001 22:54:10 -0600

FWIW...

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

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

Hello all,

We finally have the basic skeleton up for Project: Safe Skies, at
http://www.ProjectSafeSkies.org/. It's far from complete, but we have
the activism stuff--sample letters, addresses of airline execs, media
types, and politicians--and rebuttals to objections regarding civilian
carry of firearms on commercial flights. Please wander by at your
convenience, and let us know what you think.

More important, please help us spread the word. Our official launch
date is October 11, and we're planning to launch with a bang. If you're
a writer, please write a piece about our project, include a link to our
site, and publish it. If you're on lots of discussion lists, please post
a PSA on our behalf. If you run a news service, discussion list, or
somesuch, please include a mention of our project for your readers.
Email editors of print publications, requesting they cover the movement.
Write a paragraph in support of our cause and link to us from your web
site. Put our URL in your sig line for that day. We've invited lots of
friends--L Neil, J Neil, Claire Wolfe, Vin Suprynowicz, Aaron Zelman,
etc.--to participate, so you'll be among great company.

I am available for interviews--email preferred, phone tolerated--to
anyone who's interested in supporting Project: Safe Skies. If you'd like
to help with the project, plase email me or The Hunter
mailto:[e-mail]
about it. We really need graphics help, for example.

Thanks for your help!

Sunni

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Never Again Unarmed... Let Freedom Fight!

http://www.ProjectSafeSkies.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Oregon Firearms Federation
Date: 04 Oct 2001 17:31:29 -0600

Do Utah gun groups concur? LP release to follow.

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

Of potential interest is _Oregon Firearms Federation_, which bills
itself as "Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Lobby". I sent them a
pointer to http://www.projectsafeskies.org/. They're at:

    mailto:[e-mail]
    http://oregonfirearms.org/

Their alerts page includes:


OREGON FIREARMS FEDERATION CALLS FOR AN END TO
PASSENGER DISARMAMENT

OFF ALERT 9/17/01

Dear Friends,

The events of last Tuesday have forever changed the face of America. Many
of us know people who died in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Our
prayers are with the victims, their families and the countless heroes
who are working around the clock in rescue and recovery efforts.

No doubt our country will respond. But let us not allow this act of
barbarism to become an excuse for an attack on freedom. To do so would be
to hand a victory to the perpetrators of this vicious act of mass murder.

Already Congress has started to pass laws that would restrict the
privacy of American civilians. As tempting as it may be to accept this,
(the illusion of security in exchange for liberty) it simply won't make
us any safer.

Now more than ever we must stand up for our rights and demand back the
rights we have lost.

There is now no question that the loss of our right to defend ourselves
while traveling led directly to the success of the murderous missions
in New York and Washington.

O.F.F. has issued a press release, the text of which follows. After that
is contact information for our Senators, Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith.

Contact information for other Senators can be obtained at
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Please contact your Representatives in Congress and remind them that
there is security in liberty.

In freedom,
Kevin Starrett


For Immediate Release: 9/17/01

OREGON FIREARMS FEDERATION CALLS FOR AN END TO PASSENGER DISARMAMENT.

The tragic events of last Tuesday have proven beyond doubt that rendering
American travelers defenseless is a deadly strategy. Our prayers are
with the victims and their loved ones.

On Tuesday September 11, untold thousands of Americans died at the
hands of a small group of foreign nationals armed with nothing more
sophisticated than common warehouse equipment.

Sadly, the response of many in government and the media has been to call
for even more attacks on American's liberties. But there can be no denying
that the one plane that did not destroy its intended target was the plane
that was carrying people willing to fight and die against terrorists.

"What a shame that the brave men and women aboard that plane were
stripped of their right to protect themselves by the very government
that's now demanding they give up more freedom" said Kevin Starrett,
executive director of Oregon Firearms Federation. "The members of the
anti-self defense lobby have these deaths as the fruit of their labors."

The Oregon Firearms Federation calls on Congress to reverse the insane
policy of requiring Americans to travel unarmed while simultaneously
demanding that Americans give up more liberty, privacy and security. The
events of last Tuesday, says O.F.F., were the result of a calamitous
failure of our intelligence agencies after years of emasculation by the
Clinton administration, not a failure of American civilians.

Starrett said "Had one or two people on that plane, be they crew or
passengers, been permitted to exercise their God given right to self
protection, this horrible event would have ended very differently."

O.F.F. believes that calling for the erosion of rights is the exact
strategy the suicide pilots would have applauded. Liberty is security.



NEVER AGAIN UNARMED....    LET FREEDOM FIGHT!

---

>=  PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org
>=
>=  PROJECT: SAFE SKIES MAILING LIST (http://www.vader.com/safesky/)
>=
>= TO POST TO THE LIST:       send mail to [e-mail]
>= TO SUBSCRIBE TO LIST:      send mail to [e-mail]
>= TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM LIST:  send mail to [e-mail]

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: LP RELEASE: Bus Hijacking
Date: 04 Oct 2001 17:34:00 -0600

The LP has the right idea! Permitted CCW doesn't cut it.

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================

Tennessee bus hijacking shows need for
for 50-state concealed-carry gun laws

WASHINGTON, DC -- In the wake of the Tennessee bus hijacking yesterday that
left six people dead, every state should immediately pass Vermont-style
concealed-carry gun laws so Americans can defend themselves against
terrorists or deranged murderers, the Libertarian Party said today.

"Let's put the Second Amendment to work to protect Americans," said the
party's national director, Steve Dasbach. "The best defense against
hijackers -- or run-of-the-mill copycat madmen -- is to give every American
the legal right to own a gun and carry it everywhere."

Early Wednesday, a Croatian man used a box cutter to slash the throat of a
Greyhound bus driver just outside Manchester, Tennessee.

The man then grabbed the steering wheel and attempted to drive the bus into
oncoming traffic. The bus tipped over, killing at least six people including
the hijacker, and injuring 34 others.

Greyhound temporarily suspended bus service following the attack, but the
U.S. Justice Department said the hijacking was probably not related to the
September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Police speculated that the hijacker was a mentally unbalanced copycat
criminal.

Whatever the man's motivation, the attack points out that no form of
transportation is safe from potential attack, said Dasbach -- which is why
every law-abiding American needs the right to carry a concealed weapon.

"After terrorists hijacked four airliners on September 11, the consensus was
that greater airport security could stymie such attacks," he said. "That may
be true, but a similar solution won't protect Americans who use buses,
trains, taxicabs, or other forms of travel. There are simply too many modes
of public transportation.

"The only way to keep Americans safe is to decentralize protection: Give
every law-abiding citizen the right to carry a weapon at all times.

"No, that won't stop every attempted hijacking -- and may not even have
stopped the tragedy in Tennessee -- but criminals and terrorists will be far
less likely to attack if they know they'll be staring down the business end
of a dozen American guns."

Currently, 31 states have "shall-issue" concealed-carry laws, which require
the state government to issue a gun permit to any resident who is not
disqualified by a felony conviction, mental illness, or similar objection.

Tennessee has a "shall-issue" law, but its permit is reciprocally honored in
only 12 other states, and Tennessee honors only nine other states' permits.

That's a problem, said Dasbach, because the bus that was hijacked in
Tennessee originated in Chicago, Illinois and was heading for Atlanta,
Georgia. Only one of those states (Georgia) had a reciprocal permit
agreement with Tennessee -- making it impossible for passengers to legally
carry a weapon for the duration of the trip.

"America needs 50-state reciprocity," he said. "A gun permit valid in one
state should be equally valid in all 50 states. That's the only way to
protect people on interstate trips."

To make that protection as easy as possible to acquire, every state should
pass gun permit legislation modeled after Vermont's gun law, said Dasbach.

In Vermont, any citizen can carry a firearm without getting a permit,
without paying a fee, and without any government-mandated waiting period.

Despite the ease with which people can acquire guns -- or perhaps because of
it -- Vermont enjoys the 49th lowest crime rate in America, noted Dasbach.

"The conventional wisdom is that more guns equal more crime," he said. "But
Vermont is stark proof that more guns, and easier access to guns, are the
best possible deterrent to crime."

However, evidence of the "More Guns/Less Crime" principle extends beyond
Vermont, said Dasbach.

In October 2000, the FBI released a report showing that gunshot wounds
inflicted during crimes decreased by 40% from 1992 and 1997 -- falling from
64,100 to 39,400 nationwide.

During the same five years, the number of guns in America increased by 12%
-- surging from 205 million to 230 million, according to the National
Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers.

Also, according to a study by John Lott and David Mustard at the University
of Chicago, concealed-carry handgun laws reduced murder rates by 8.5% in
those states that passed such laws, compared to states which make gun
ownership difficult or impossible. Had such right-to-carry laws been in
effect all 50 states, there would be 1,600 fewer murders every year, they
reported.

Given all this evidence, Job #1 in the war against terrorism should be to
give Americans the right to own and carry a firearm, said Dasbach.

"In memory of the victims of the Tennessee bus hijacking, every state should
immediately pass a Vermont-style gun law, and make it reciprocal with every
other state," he said.

"Politicians need to make it as easy for every American to buy and carry a
gun as it is to buy a bus ticket. By doing so, they'll make it easier for
the next would-be terrorist to buy a one-way ticket to an early grave."

#       #       #

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Murray Sabrin - September 11th
Date: 05 Oct 2001 11:09:36 -0600

-----

The first draft of the essay below was written on September 23th.
As I finished it I received a call from my father's attending
physician informing me of his death.  I dedicate this essay to my
father, World War II partisan commander, freedom fighter, and NRA
member. The essay is a slightly revised version of the one I
submitted to The Record (Hackensack) early last week.  Feel free
to share it with anyone.

National defense begins with self-defense

On September 11th four coordinated hijackings within minutes of
each other caused the greatest loss of life in American history
and the destruction of billions of dollars of property.  The
terrorist attacks on America soil were committed by a dedicated
group of zealots using one of the oldest tools known to man.
They commandeered four planes using knives and its ôhigh-techö
cousin, box cutters.  The hijackers did not takeover the flights
with ceramic or plastic guns bypassing several airport security
checkpoints, nor did they have help from co-conspirators who
planted guns on the airplanes.

The federal governmentÆs response was predictable.  Airline
passengers are now banned from carrying penknives and other sharp
instruments.  In effect, the Federal Aviation AdminitrationÆs new
policy will render pilots and their crews and passengers even
more defenseless against any future hijackings.

The death and destruction that occurred on September 11th never
should have happened.  Despite spending more than $350 billion
on ônational defenseö and ôintelligenceö, 19 terrorists armed
only with knives escaped detection at three major airports and
were able to cause untold death and destruction.  This was the
greatest national security failure in the history of the world.

How could America be so wantonly attacked?  What did government
officials know about suspected terrorist activity and when did
they know it?  We need answers from government officials, and
we should demand that they respond quickly, putting all the
information they had about potential attacks prior to September
11th before us so we can judge their competence.

The crews and passengers of the three planes that crashed into
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon died needlessly.  The
hijackers were determined to take the lives of as many Americans
as possible, and in three instances they inflicted horrific
damage, because they knew the crews and the passengers were
disarmed by our own government.

In other words, we witnessed the tragic result of gun control
right before our eyes on television.  Armed individuals - pilots
and trained civilians - would have had the means to stop the
hijackers in their tracks.  Instead, the political eliteÆs
policy of unilateral disarmament of pilots and qualified
passengers contributed to the worst attack on the American people.

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 21) an American
Airlines pilot makes his case for arming pilots:  ôWe need a last
line of defense to keep hijackers out of the cockpit.  Federal
agents from even the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Department
of Agriculture, Department of Education and the Smithsonian
Institution are allowed to carry guns on commercial airlines.
Why not the pilots who are responsible for the aircraft?  Many of
us already have better firearms training than that provided to
those agencies ù and weÆre willing to get more at our own expense.ö

The tragedy of 9/11 reveals that a strong national defense must be
based on self-defense.  As long as the political Θlites continue
to distrust the American people to exercise their natural right
to self-defense, unspeakable tragedies will continue to happen to
innocent Americans.  Despite President BushÆs stirring address to
the nation on September 20th, why should we have faith and
confidence that the federal governmentÆs $300 billion national
defense establishment, which was unable to thwart the September
11th attack against America, will protect us from foreign attacks
in the future?

Maybe now is the time to reassess our foreign policy that has
placed U.S. troops in 100 countries, leaving us vulnerable at
home.  In other words, we need a real national defense to protect
the American people.  The cost of being the worldÆs policeman was
the horrific loss of life right here in the U.S.A.

The American people are sitting ducks for the zealots who have no
regard for our lives and property.  Why donÆt the political Θlites
allow us to defend ourselves?  Because they do not trust the
people to take care of themselves.  On September 11th we witnessed
the result of several decades of welfare-state policies.  One of
the greatest myths was shattered on September 11th: ôWeÆre from
the government and weÆre going to protect you.ö  Now that we are
united as a nation as never before, let the people as well as the
U.S. military defend the homeland.  LetÆs bring our troops home and
have a real national defense.  We certainly do not need another
federal bureaucracy.

Murray Sabrin is Professor of Finance at Ramapo College.  He is
currently writing a book on the policies of AmericaÆs political
elites.

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bellesiles asked to defend controversial anti-gun claims
Date: 05 Oct 2001 11:33:41 -0600

Boston Globe
   Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author
   of a book on gun ownership in early America, has been
   asked by his department to write a detailed defense
   of his research. Historians have found a pattern of false
   claims and fraudulent research in the anti-gun book.
   (10/04/01)
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/276/living/University_asks_historian_to_defend_his_research_on_gun_ownership_book+.shtml

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun Control Supporters Quietly Gathering Signatures
Date: 06 Oct 2001 11:19:48 -0600

Re: http://www.sltrib.com/10062001/saturday/137911.htm

DAWN HOUSE, secret writer for THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, alleges you,
Gary Sackett mailto:[e-mail], board member of Utahns
Against Gun Violence, said "No one with a concealed weapons
permit could have prevented what took place". I am sure you are
well aware your statement is both false and disingenuous. An
ordinary citizen with a CCP could not have done so because the
airlines and the FAA do not allow such to CCW in airports or
onboard commercial airliners, so in that sense your statement
is only true by what it conceals. OTOH, someone with a federal
carry license could well have stopped the skyjackers had s/he
been present physically and mentally, armed and disposed to do
so. I expect a retraction and apology in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Scott Bergeson
mailto:[e-mail]

NEVER AGAIN UNARMED....    LET FREEDOM FIGHT!
>= PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org/

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun Control Supporters Quietly Gathering Signatures - Corrected
Date: 06 Oct 2001 11:52:49 -0600

Corrected: the http://www.uagv.org/netinfo.html Website
lists an invalid contact address.

Re: http://www.sltrib.com/10062001/saturday/137911.htm

DAWN HOUSE, secret writer for THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, alleges
you, Gary Sackett mailto:[e-mail], board member
of Utahns Against Gun Violence, said "No one with a concealed
weapons permit could have prevented what took place". I am sure
you are well aware your statement is both false and disingenuous.
An ordinary citizen with a CCP could not have done so because
the airlines and the FAA do not allow such to CCW in airports or
onboard commercial airliners, so in that sense your statement
is only true by what it conceals. OTOH, someone with a federal
carry license could well have stopped the skyjackers had s/he
been present physically and mentally, armed and disposed to do
so. I expect a retraction and apology in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Scott Bergeson
mailto:[e-mail]

NEVER AGAIN UNARMED....    LET FREEDOM FIGHT!
>= PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org/

-



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

From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Great letter to the editor on armed passengers
Date: 08 Oct 2001 10:00:12 -0600

Terrorists target defenseless

Hijacking would cease instantly with one simple and secure change
- every pilot and passenger who elects to arm themselves should be
allowed to do so. Terrorists would immediately look elsewhere for
their victims. Terrorists target the defenseless. One air marshal
will not do the job - they will be quickly overcome by multiple
hijackers. The strongest cockpit door can, and will be opened.
Armed citizens on an airliner who are willing to defend themselves
would outnumber the terrorists every time. Hijackings would be
reduced to zero - beginning with the first armed flight.

In contrast, consider the present government logic: They demand
the exclusive right to offer armed resistance to terrorists and
other criminals. However, if they fail (as they will), their
reaction to their own failure is to kill the disarmed innocents
they failed to protect - to shoot down the entire airplane! Now
we not only have to worry about foreign terrorists - we have to
worry about F-16s "just following orders." And they have the
audacity to urge us to overcome "fear" and start filling airplanes
again. No thanks. When passengers and pilots are allowed to defend
themselves, let me know.

What if the government is as successful in the "war on terrorism"
as it has been in the "war against poverty" and the "war against
drugs"? What we need to increase our security is not less liberty
- it is more liberty. An armed people is a secure people. We have
a right to self defense. Even those who don't agree will be made
more secure by the rest of us. Sept. 11 (should have) ended the
debate on whether security can be obtained by disarming those who
would be secure. With a dozen or two shoulder holsters on each of
those fateful flights, the twin towers would still be standing high.

Tim Ogle
Ex-fighter pilot
Retired B757 captain

http://www.wnd.com/letters.asp

NEVER AGAIN UNARMED....    LET FREEDOM FIGHT!

>=  PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Anti-gun Senator John McCain is up to his Old Tricks
Date: 08 Oct 2001 21:11:08 -0600

Found on another list. For whatever reason, these guys don't yet
seem to be linked to http://www.ProjectSafeSkies.org/ .

Scott

-------- Original Message --------
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Anti-gun Senator John McCain is up to his Old Tricks

-- Calls needed to stop McCain's "Dead Pilots" amendment

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

ACTION: Please contact your senators and demand that they oppose the
anti-gun amendment that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will offer to the
Aviation Security Act as early as Tuesday. Ask them instead to support
Bob Smith's "Passenger Safety" amendment that will arm pilots, thus
protecting the lives of airline passengers and crewmembers.

(Friday, September 5, 2001) -- Anti-gun zealot Senator John McCain
is, once again, preparing to offer an amendment to disarm Americans.

This particular "Dead Pilots" amendment, proposed for the Aviation
Security Act, would prohibit guns for airline pilots and instead arm
them with "stun guns."

Thus, if a ground crew in a U.S. or foreign airport smuggled a gun
aboard an aircraft and planted it under a seat, THE HIJACKER WOULD
HAVE A REAL GUN. BUT THE PILOTS WOULD ONLY HAVE A TOY GUN BY
COMPARISON.

This same result would occur if a terrorist smuggled a firearm
through a metal detector, as Charles Hildreth, 63, unwittingly
did at Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport on September 25, 2001.

THIS WOULD PUT THE PILOTS AND THE PLANE AT GREATER RISK THAN IF
THEY HAD NO GUN AT ALL.

Let's look at the types of stun guns:

* THE STUN GUN THAT WORKS ONLY WHILE THE PILOT'S THROAT IS BEING
CUT: First, there is the hand-held stun gun which works only when
the pilot makes physical contact with the attacker. On its web
site, D&D Security Products, which sells this stun gun, states:
"They should not be used to defend yourself against an attacker
with a firearm or knife." IN OTHER WORDS, STUN GUNS ARE DESIGNED
SPECIFICALLY FOR UNARMED ATTACKERS. THEY WOULD BE USELESS AGAINST
ARMED TERRORISTS.

* THE STUN GUN THAT WORKS ONLY IF PEOPLE FLY NAKED: Second, there
is the type of stun gun (a taser) that "launches remote probes up
to 15 feet." This type of stun gun can be thwarted by heavy clothing.
And, if the pilot misses on the first shot at a distance of 15 feet,
the pilot is dead. Either way, McCain's "stun gun" approach would do
very little to enhance pilot or passenger safety against a terrorist.
Even worse, the McCain amendment would leave pilots defenseless by
supplanting the Smith amendment, which will take real strides
towards stopping future skyjackings.

So please urge your Senators to oppose the anti-gun McCain amendment,
and be sure to reinforce your support for the Smith "Passenger Safety"
amendment.

CONTACT INFORMATION: Please use the pre-written text below to help
direct your comments to the U.S. Senate. You can call your Senators
at 202-224-3121. To identify your Senators, as well as to send a
message via e-mail, plug in your zipcode under Elected Officials at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm in the GOA Legislative Action
Center.

----- Pre-written message -----
Dear Senator:

When the Aviation Security Act comes to the floor for a vote, there
will be competing ideas as to what will deter terrorists from
hijacking aircraft. I want to make it unmistakably clear that stun
guns and tasers are NOT the way to deter hijackers.

One seller who advertises these items on the web says that stun guns
"should not be used to defend yourself against an attacker with a
firearm or knife." Well, no kidding. Stun guns require the attacker
to be right on top of you before you can use them. And tasers, which
launch a remote probe up to 15 feet, can be thwarted by heavy clothing.
Moreover, if the pilot misses on the first shot at a distance of 15
feet, the pilot is dead.

Please do not support any such "Dead Pilots" amendment - whether
it is sponsored by Senator John McCain or anyone else - as a defense
against terrorists. If stun guns and tasers were so effective, then
why don't cops around the country trade in their guns for these items?

There are plenty of aviation engineers who have made the point
that bullet holes will not cause a massive depressurization in
a plane. If depressurization were truly a concern, then why are
we even considering putting air marshals on planes? Their bullets
will be no different from those being used by the pilots. But
more to the point, there is no way we can get an air marshal on
all 35,000 daily flights.

So the only way to deter these terrorists is to make sure that
our last line of defense - the pilots - can protect the plane.
Reinforcing the cockpit doors is also a good idea, but it's not
a panacea. Are we to assume that on a long trip the door will
NEVER be opened? That pilots will NEVER take a bathroom break?
That there is no one among the flight crew who will ever have
the keys or security codes to open the door?

Reinforcing the cockpit doors can help. But the only way to stop
terrorism on board aircraft is to let these villains know in
advance that, if they ever try to invade the cockpit, they'll
get a bullet in the skull.

Please support the Bob Smith amendment that will allow pilots
to be armed, and thus, will enable them to protect the lives
of their crewmembers and passengers.

Thank you.

*************************

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS
Many of your Representatives and Senators are giving you
feedback in opposition to arming pilots. Basically, their
opposition falls into one of five categories:

Bullet holes can lead to a massive depressurization of the plane
Pilots should fly planes, not fight terrorists
Making cockpits impenetrable is all that is needed
Only sky marshals should have guns on planes
Innocent bystanders might get shot
Gun Owners of America has prepared a fact sheet to answer these
objections. Please go to http://www.gunowners.org/fs0104.htm on
the GOA web page and feel free to use the provided material to
answer your legislators.

**************************

ATTENTION PILOTS!
ALPA is not using an alerts list to communicate with its members
on this issue. So, please pass this GOA alert to as many pilots
as you can. Pilots need to call their Senators AS PILOTS and
answer all the objections that might be brought up.

Petitions Available:
If you are a pilot, or have constant contact with pilots, please
go to http://www.gunowners.org/pilotspetition.htm to download and
circulate a petition designed to convince Congress that arming
pilots is a good, common-sense first step towards ensuring airline
safety. Feel free to circulate the petition among communications
networks frequented by pilots.

And if you are not a pilot, there are other petitions you can sign
to show your support. Some of these are:

Safer Skies. The non-profit Rights Watch International has an open
letter to Congress at http://www.rightswatch.org/ regarding armed
pilots that will also be placed in major newspapers.
The Federal Observer. At
http://www.federalobserver.com/petition/index.php?src=fo is a
citizen's petition urging the arming of pilots.
3. KABA. KeepAndBearArms.com is urging enforcement of the Second
Amendment, with a petition at https://www.keepandbeararms.com/petition/
directed at U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another victory in gun lawsuits
Date: 09 Oct 2001 16:05:30 -0600

I can't find any articles in the papers on this, but here is a press
release that is good news.

http://www.nssf.org/releases/100901.htm


The National Shooting Sports Foundation ò 11 Mile Hill Road ò Newtown, CT
06470-2359
                       Tel: [phone] ò Fax: [phone]
  TO: NATIONAL NEWS MEDIA
  For Immediate Release

  October 9, 2001
                                                  For additional
information contact:
                                                            Lawrence G.
Keane
                                                               (203)
426-1320


                      U.S. Supreme Court Declines
                         to Revive Firearms Suit

                  Brady Center Misleads Media on Status of
                  Lawsuits Against Firearms Manufacturers

                     17 of 18 suits are fully or partially dismissed
                     All appellate decisions favor manufacturers

  NEWTOWN, Conn., Oct. 9-Commenting on todayÆs U.S. Supreme Court
decision declining to revive
  a lawsuit by the City of New Orleans against firearms manufacturers,
Dennis Henigan, director of the
  Brady Center to Prevent Handgun ViolenceÆs Legal Action Project
seriously misled the American
  media and public with his overview of municipal lawsuits against the
firearms industry.

  According to press accounts, Mr. Henigan stated, ôYou have cases going
both ways. ItÆs pretty
  much split down the middle.ö But, Robert T. Delfay, president and chief
executive officer of the
  National Shooting Sports Foundation took sharp exception to Mr.
HeniganÆs assessment. ôThese
  comments by Mr. Henigan totally misrepresent the true status of the
municipal litigation against the
  firearms industry. There have been 18 suits decided so far and 17 have
been fully or partially
  dismissed in favor of firearms manufacturers. ThatÆs not pretty much
split down the middle.

  ôFurther, what Mr. Henigan failed to tell reporters was that every
appellate decision so far rendered in
  these cases, including decisions by the supreme courts of Louisiana and
Connecticut and now the
  United States Supreme Court, has ruled in favor of the firearms
industry. In addition, the highest
  courts in New York and California both recently ruled in favor of
firearms manufacturers in private
  lawsuits that sought to hold firearms manufacturers responsible for
criminal violence committed with
  firearms.

  ôBy far, the consensus by judges reviewing these cases is that there is
no basis in law to hold the
  manufacturer of a legally sold, non-defective product responsible for
the criminal misuse of that
  product. The attempt by nearly 30 municipalities to do so is totally
political and distasteful, as is Mr.
  HeniganÆs misrepresentation of the status of these lawsuits,ö Delfay
said.

  ôWe can understand Mr. HeniganÆs extreme disappointment at the
resounding rejection of his
  politically motivated and harassing lawsuits against the firearms
industry but that disappointment is
  no excuse for his misleading statements regarding the status of these
lawsuits. Mr. Henigan owes
  an apology to the nationÆs news media as well as to those citizens
whose tax dollars have been
  wasted in the pursuit of this frivolous and ill-conceived litigation,ö
Delfay concluded.



                                     -30-



  Note to Editors: Below is a factual summary of the municipal firearms
litigation against firearms
  manufacturers prepared by the National Shooting Sports Foundation on
October 9, 2001.
                     MUNICIPAL FIREARMS LITIGATION

  I. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Was Granted In Whole or In Part

       1. New Orleans - upheld on appeal by Louisiana Supreme Court and
now by U.S.
       Supreme Court
       2. Chicago - on appeal
       3. Atlanta - on appeal
       4. Bridgeport - dismissal upheld by Connecticut Supreme Court
       5. Miami-Dade County - dismissal upheld by appellate court
       6. Detroit - on appeal
       7. Wayne County - on appeal
       8. Cincinnati - dismissal upheld by appellate court
       9. City of Los Angles
       10. San Francisco
       11. Boston
       12. Camden County, NJ - on appeal
       13. Los Angles County
       14. Gary, IN - on appeal
       15. Wilmington, DE
       16. Philadelphia - on appeal
       17. New York State - on appeal

  II. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Was Denied

       1. Cleveland

  III. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Is Pending

       1. St. Louis
       2. Newark, NJ
       3. Camden City, NJ
       4. Washington, DC

  IV. Cases In Which A Motion To Dismiss Has Not Yet Been Filed

       1. New York City

  Summary prepared by Lawrence G. Keane, vice-president and general
counsel, National Shooting
  Sports Foundation, 11 Mile Hill Road, Newtown, CT 06470 ò 203-426-1320
ò www.nssf.org
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Are Box Cutters Covered by the Second Amendment? ;-)
Date: 09 Oct 2001 23:11:10 -0600

-------- Original Message --------
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 2:53 PM

Box Cutter Safety

Dear Sirs,
     In light of recent events, including the bus attack in Tennessee, I
would like to ask one simple question; how many people have to die before
the American people demand that their congressmen pass meaningful, common
sense Box Cutter Safety laws? Background checks, waiting periods, monthly
limits on box cutter purchases, and the banning of all box cutters with the
capacity to hold more than 5 replacement blades are all simple, logical
solutions that we have been suggesting for years. I urge all Americans to
write their legislators today and tell them, 'Enough is enough!'. Thank you.

~ Bruce Schneider, "Americans for the Prevention of Box Cutter Violence"

GwG Comment - Wow! You are so right! I feel so strongly in this, that I am
now the proud owner of "BoxCutterControl.org"! <--- Website Coming Soon!
              The Million Mom March will want to be a part of this too.
                                          Backed by the UN.

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw:  Our fine Senators: no statement on DoD Gun Confiscation Law
Date: 12 Oct 2001 17:26:09 -0600

It looks like we'd better let our Representatives know we don't like this
bill...

And let our Senators know you are not happy with undercover, back door
gun control.  This let's the DoD seize ANY weapon, including M1 rifles
and 1911 pistols that it ever owned and subsequently sold.

--------- Forwarded message ----------
Folks,

In a show of "unity" the Senate, including our two Senators who are
alleged "supporters of the 2nd ammendment", have voted on and passed a
GUN BAN buried in the 2002 Defense Appropriations Bill.

It allows the US Sec of Defense to create a list, modifyable by him at
anytime, of guns (which must have been formerly owned by the DoD) and
provide that list to the US Attorney General who may then request that
you send them in or may confiscate them.

How does that NOT sound like a gun ban?  Read the ACTUAL TEXT of the
Section below and follow the link if you would like to see it for
yourself.

What kind of shady deal were our Senators involved in such that:
a) they raised no concerns
b) didnt tell us about it
c) didnt even try to get that section deleted.  (I called Sen. Hatch's
office today and one of his staffers on his Judiciary section - which
also handle defense - said: "The Senator has made no comment on this
bill."

Don't believe the lies either.  Many Senators have come out and said
that "it is not meant for your Garand, M1 or 1911, it is meant for
"significant military equipment".

Yes, that IS a LIE, because IT IS **NOT** WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

IT SAYS:
Significant military equipment is [whatever is] DESIGNATED BY THE
SECRETARY of Defense under the regulations prescribed under subsection
(e) as being equipment that it is necessary in the INTEREST OF PUBLIC
SAFETY to demilitarize before disposal by the United States.

So, one more time, one more gun control law, in the name of "public
safety" [sometimes called "compelling state interest", but that sounds
worse, text usually reserved for executive orders] with ZERO review,
subject to the whim of the Secretary of Defense WHO MAY DELEGATE
responsibility to it to an undersecretary or further.

"Neat.  Stoke of the pen - law of the Land" - Clinton Aide

According to the new law, the Secretary may create a list, and place
whatever he/she wants on it, private property of US citizens, to be
CONFISCATED if not voluntarily given up.

The text of the law is there in black and white for you to see.  There
is no obfuscation or equivocation that your Sens and Reps can provide
that can dispute the words in front of your own eyes.

Please go to http://www.house.gov and look up the DC number of your Rep
to implore that they not vote on the Defense Authorization Bill unless
they first strike what was Sec. 1062 in the Senate version.

Then go to http://www.senate.gov, look up the DC number of your Senator
and express your displeasure at the FARCE of "UNITY" in the vote, when
there is a clear GUN BAN that they knew about buried in the bill.

Thanks again to our representatives for their honesty.

=========================
(taken from thomas.loc.gov
query S 1426
text version, section 1062


S.1416  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002

Sec. 1062  SEC. 1062. AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILITARIZATION OF
"SIGNIFICANT" MILITARY EQUIPMENT FORMERLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.

(a) PROHIBITION- It is unlawful for any person to possess significant
military equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense unless--

(1) the military equipment has been demilitarized in accordance with
standards prescribed by the Secretary of Defense;

(2) the person is in possession of the military equipment for the
purpose of demilitarizing the equipment pursuant to a Federal
Government contract; or

(3) the person is specifically authorized by law or regulation to
possess the military equipment.

(b) REFERRAL TO ATTORNEY GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense shall notify
the Attorney General of any potential violation of subsection (a) of
which the Secretary becomes aware.

.....

(d) DEMILITARIZATION OF EQUIPMENT- (1) The Attorney General shall
transfer any military equipment returned to the Federal Government or
seized pursuant to subsection (c) to the Department of Defense for
demilitarization.

(e) ESTABLISHMENT OF DEMILITARIZATION STANDARDS- (1) The Secretary of
Defense shall prescribe regulations regarding the demilitarization of
military equipment.
....
(3) The regulations shall, at a minimum, define--
(A) the classes of significant military equipment requiring
demilitarization before disposal; and
(B) what constitutes demilitarization for each class of significant
military equipment.


(f) DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY EQUIPMENT- In this section, the
term `significant military equipment' means equipment that has a
capability described in clause (i) or (ii) of subsection (e)(2) and--

(1) ... or
(2) is designated by the Secretary of Defense under the regulations
prescribed under subsection (e) as being equipment that it is necessary
in the interest of public safety to demilitarize before disposal by the
United States.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Ricochet from GOA: Smith Amendment To Arm Airline Pilots Adopted In The U.S. Sen
Date: 12 Oct 2001 18:12:38 -0600


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

> Smith Amendment To Arm Airline Pilots Adopted In The U.S. Senate
>
> Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
> 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
> Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
> http://www.gunowners.org
>
> October 11, 2001
>
>
> Congratulations!
>
> Earlier today, the Senate, via a unanimous consent vote, adopted
> the Bob Smith (R-NH)/Frank Murkowski (R-AK) amendment to allow
> airline pilots to carry firearms.  The amendment was also
> cosponsored by Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Conrad Burns (R-MT).
>
> The bill now goes to the House.  After that, it will probably go to
> a House-Senate conference to work out the details.
>
> This is an enormous victory for GOA members who lobbied relentlessly
> to sway reluctant senators.
>
> BUT THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER!
>
> Next week, the House will take up its version of the Aviation
> Security Bill.  A number of congressmen are considering offering
> amendments to arm pilots, but they must first secure the approval of
> the House leadership and the House Rules Committee in order to offer
> any amendment.
>
> ACTION:  Please contact House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House
> Republican Leader Dick Armey, and House Republican Whip Tom DeLay
> and demand that they allow the House to vote on the armed pilots
> amendment in connection with the Aviation Security Bill.
>
> Contact Info:
>
> Rep. Dennis Hastert
> E-mail: [e-mail]
> Phone:  [phone]
> Fax:    [phone]
>
> Rep. Dick Armey
> No Public E-mail
> Phone:  [phone]
> Fax:    [phone]
>
> Rep. Tom DeLay
> No Public E-mail
> Phone:  [phone]
> Fax:    [phone]
>
>
> ----- Pre-written message -----
>
> Dear Representative __________:
>
> When the Aviation Security Act comes before the House, I hope you
> will use your leadership position to allow amendments to the bill
> that would let pilots be armed.
>
> There are plenty of aviation engineers who agree that bullet holes
> will not cause a massive depressurization in a plane.  If
> depressurization was truly a concern, then why are we even
> considering putting air marshals on planes?  Their bullets will be
> no different from the ones being used by the pilots.  But more to
> the point, there is no way we can get an air marshal on all 35,000
> daily flights.
>
> So the only way to deter these terrorists is to make sure that our
> last line of defense -- the pilots -- can protect the plane.
> Reinforcing the cockpit doors is also a good idea, but it's not a
> panacea.  Are we to assume that on a long trip the door will NEVER
> be opened?  That pilots will NEVER take a bathroom break?  That
> there is no one among the flight crew who will ever have the keys
> or security codes to open the door?
>
> Reinforcing the cockpit doors can help.  But the only way to stop
> terrorism on board aircraft is to let these villains know in
> advance that, if they ever try to invade the cockpit, they'll be
> sorry.
>
> Please support language that will allow pilots to be armed, and
> thus, will enable them to protect the lives of their crewmembers and
> passengers.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: A HOAX!  ---- Fw: Brazil Parliament Votes to Allow Air Passengers to Carry Firearms
Date: 15 Oct 2001 14:20:55 -0600

A bit dated, but I try to pass along corrections whenever possible.


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

Charles ,
from one of our WAGC Brazil Members........
This story has  turned out to be a hoax......

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



> Nancy,
>
>
> Unfortunately, this is not true.
> We have more rules and now it┤s prohibited to carry knives in the
airplanes.
> Is not so easy to walk equipped with a gun, we have to make some tests
and
> pay a lot of taxes to get a licence to each handgun.
> In JB┤s site I don┤t find anything about this.
>
>
> Hope to hear from you soon,
> Sylvia
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Re: Hero in the cockpit - Pistol served pilot well in '54
Date: 15 Oct 2001 22:30:18 -0600


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

--------- Forwarded message ----------
HoustonChronicle.com
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1087467


Oct. 14, 2001, 1:07AM
Hero in the cockpit
Pistol served pilot well in '54
By EVAN MOORE
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle

FORT WORTH -- Until now it was largely forgotten, a brief, tragic
incident that lay buried in fading newspaper accounts and the memories
of only a few, but the shooting of a hijacker by an airline pilot almost
50 years ago has taken on a new significance today.

It occurred shortly before noon on July 6, 1954, when a strapping
teen-ager armed with a pistol commandeered an American Airlines DC-6 at
the Cleveland Airport, only to be shot and fatally wounded by the
captain.

The shooting ended the life of Raymond Kuchenmeister, 15. It made a
reluctant hero of the late Capt. William "Bill" Bonnell of Fort Worth
and left an indelible mark on Bonnell's psyche that he could never
successfully erase.

Moreover, in light of the recent terrorist attacks and the ensuing
debates over whether pilots should be armed, the 1954 incident
illustrates a forgotten time when pilots not only routinely carried
pistols, but were required to carry them.

On that Tuesday, 47 years ago, Bonnell was carrying his, a small,
.380-caliber Colt semiautomatic, holstered in his flight bag.

Bonnell, a tall, quiet man, was a former Army Air Corps pilot who had
served three stints in the service, two of those flying transport planes
over China and Burma during World War II.
He also was ambidextrous.

"Bill could use either hand equally well," Jean
Bonnell, his widow, recalled. "He used to play jokes on the shooting
instructors in the military.
There'd be a line of officers, all in the same stance, shooting at
targets. One time, the instructor would walk down the line and Bill
would be shooting right-handed. The next time, he'd be shooting with his
left. He shot the same score with both hands."

Bill Bonnell joined American Airlines in 1936, and that airline, like
others, transported U.S. mail.

"Back in those days, the pilot or co-pilot had to hand-carry the mail
from the plane to the terminal," recalled George Patten, 85, a retired
American pilot and a friend of Bonnell's. "Postal regulations required
that you be armed. We all had to have guns, and American had us buy
little .380s."

Bonnell's pistol remained in his flight bag. His widow recalled that he
had not removed the weapon in years before the day of the hijacking.

On that day, Bonnell had flown from Fort Worth to Cleveland in the
morning and was preparing for the return flight. The plane was carrying
almost a full load, 58 passengers, and all had been seated.

Bonnell stopped and spoke to a young mother with two small children
seated at the front. He then entered the cockpit and had already locked
himself, his co-pilot and the engineer inside when Kuchenmeister
approached the airplane ramp.

Police said Kuchenmeister, the oldest of seven children, was a troubled
youth who had stolen a pistol and persuaded his 12-year-old brother to
run away from home with him. He hatched his plan to hijack a plane
earlier in the day, but once at the airport, the 12-year-old declined to
accompany him.

So, alone, clad in dirty denim pants and a leather jacket, Kuchenmeister
left his little brother in the terminal and walked out on the tarmac.
There he pushed past an airline agent and was headed up the stairs to
the plane when the agent demanded his ticket.

"This is my ticket," the burly youth reportedly said, and pointed the
pistol at the agent.

The agent retreated, and at the entrance to the plane, Kuchenmeister
told a stewardess he needed to see the pilot. Thinking he was part of
the ground crew, she opened the cockpit, where Kuchenmeister, unnoticed
by the passengers, stepped into the cramped quarters, closed the door
and turned the gun on Bonnell.

"I want to go to Mexico," Kuchenmeister told Bonnell and his crew. "No
stops."

Bonnell and the co-pilot attempted to explain to Kuchenmeister that the
plane did not have enough fuel to reach Mexico, but the youth would not
be deterred.

Finally, flight engineer Bob Young told Kuchenmeister they would take
off but that it was necessary to throw a switch behind Kuchenmeister
before the plane could taxi.

As the hijacker turned to look for the switch, Bonnell reached into his
flight bag with his left hand, removed the pistol, swung around to his
right and shot Kuchenmeister. The wounded hijacker then attempted to
shoot Bonnell, but his pistol misfired and Bonnell shot him again.
"I shot him in the hip," Bonnell later recalled. "He sagged a bit. I let
him have it again, a little higher.

"I had a maniac on my plane. We had women and children. What the hell
could a guy do?"
Kuchenmeister was taken to a hospital, and
Bonnell, the only qualified American pilot in Cleveland at the time,
flew the plane back to Fort Worth. In midflight, he received word from
Cleveland that the hijacker was only 15 and that he had died.

When Bonnell stepped from the plane, reporters described him as ashen
and shaking.

"Bill told me later that the first thing he thought about when he was
reaching for the gun was that woman and her two children at the front of
the plane," Jean Bonnell said. "I said, `Why didn┤t you shoot him in
the head with the second shot?┤

"Bill said, `Because I didn┤t want to kill him.┤ "
Bill Bonnell returned to Cleveland the following day. "He wanted to go
out and talk to the boy's family, to pay for the funeral," Jean Bonnell
said, "but the police talked him out of it."
Bonnell received hundreds of letters from the passengers on that flight
and their relatives, commending him for his actions.

"But Bill was never proud of what he'd done," Jean Bonnell said. "He'd
been in the service, and he'd had to fight, but this was different. He
told me it took him a day to convince himself that hijacker was really
15. He told me, `My God, Jean, we have a 13-year-old son.┤

"After the first few weeks, he stopped talking about it and would never
talk about it again. I don't think he ever completely got over it.
"But what if he hadn't had that gun? What if he hadn't shot? What would
have happened to all those passengers?"

The event was front-page news for two days, then faded away, and for 47
years the Bonnell family refused to discuss it publicly. Jean
Bonnell said she agreed to speak about her husband now only because of
the recent terrorist attacks and requests by pilots associations to be
armed.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Airline Pilots Association and the
Allied Pilots Association proposed allowing pilots to carry handguns
loaded with lightweight projectiles. The first group modified its
proposal to include only stun guns, but the Allied association has not
altered its stance.

President Bush has opposed the idea, as have the Airports Council
International and the Association of Flight Attendants, though a number
of legislators from both parties have supported the pilots' groups. The
Senate passed an aviation security bill Thursday that would allow pilots
to carry handguns. A similar bill is pending in the House.

In the meantime, congressional action on the proposal could be
unnecessary, according to the Code of Federal Regulations governing
aviation. That document, Chapter 11, Part 108, provides that no person
can carry a weapon onto a plane unless that person is "authorized to
have the weapon by the certificate holder (airline) and has completed a
course of training in the use of firearms acceptable to the
Administrator (FAA)."

That regulation was adopted in 1981 and has not been changed. Federal
Aviation Administration officials acknowledged that the regulation is
"on the books" and that it provides for armed pilots, but refused to
answer more questions about it.

Bill Bonnell quit carrying his weapon July 7, 1954.

"He never carried it again," Jean Bonnell said.
"Bill retired (in 1970). We moved, and we burned all the letters he'd
received and any news clippings. We didn't want to remember it, but he
could never really put it behind him.

"He died in 1991, and I'm afraid his later years were not very happy
ones.

"A lot of people thought he was a hero, but Bill never considered
himself one."
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: charles hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: OFF TOPIC--JUNO SLC access numbers
Date: 15 Oct 2001 23:01:17 -0600

Forgive another off-topic post, please.

If you live in SLC area and use Juno, you probably have noticed that the
SLC local dial access numbers were taken off line last week.  It appears
to have been a temporary problem and there are now three access numbers
that are local calls for the SLC area.

I do not know if these are the same numbers that were in use prior to
them being taken down.  So, it is possible you will need to select one of
the long distance numbers (bear in mind that out-of-State long distance
may be a cheaper call than in-State long distance) and then go to the
"Connection" menu.  From there select "Access number selection and
setup."  Step through the process until you get to screen with the option
to get an updated access number list.  Select that option, and you should
get the new list, with local numbers to select.

You may also get an updated list automatically if you simply connect to
send/receive mail.

----------------
Charles Hardy
<[e-mail]>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Sunni Maravillosa on WTBQ Wednesday
Date: 16 Oct 2001 04:58:50 -0600

Sunni Maravillosa, co-founder of Project: Safe Skies, will appear
on the WTBQ Roundtable Discussion show guest-hosted by Joe Eldred
on Albany, NY radio station WTBQ 1110 AM Wednesday, October 17
starting at 11 AM Eastern time. WTBQ's call-in line is 845-651-1110.
The show is also webcast at http://www.wtbq.com/ .

Project: Safe Skies was founded in response to the horrific
events of September 11, and seeks to promote the repeal of the
laws prohibiting citizens aboard aircraft being armed to defend
themselves. Sunni will present the case being developed by the
Project team showing why this is the only way to achieve true
safety in the skies.

In addition to her key role in Project: Safe Skies, Sunni is a
psychology professor, a noted freedom writer, the web mistress
for the Liberty Round Table, editor of the online journal Doing
Freedom!, and the mother of two.

To arrange a media appearance, please contact us:

Project: Safe Skies
614 Nashua St. #121
Milford, NH 03055-4917

Phone or Fax [phone] (24 hour)

mailto:[e-mail] or mailto:[e-mail]

NEVER AGAIN UNARMED....    LET FREEDOM FIGHT!
PROJECT: SAFE SKIES WEBSITE http://www.projectsafeskies.org

TO POST TO THE LIST:      send mail to [e-mail]
TO SUBSCRIBE TO LIST:     send mail to [e-mail]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM LIST: send mail to [e-mail]

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: CATO Institute on gun laws featuring John Lott
Date: 16 Oct 2001 11:18:03 -0600

I have not yet personnally listened to this.  But, FYI...
----- Forwarded Message -----
This you must listen to, it's a presentation given by the CATO Institute,
featured speaker is John Lott. You will need realaudio program. the
program lasts 1hr. 41 minutes. It's definitely a must see and listen to.
Sorry but you'll have to cut and paste the url address.

http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-06-16-00.ram
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Emerson is a win for the good guys
Date: 16 Oct 2001 17:22:03 -0600

Film at 11

http://www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [LPUtah] FW: Emerson is a win for the good guys
Date: 16 Oct 2001 18:01:55 -0600

Actually, it looks like almost a total loss.

The court ruled against Emerson on 5th Amd Due process grounds finding
that the wording on form 4473 he filled out for a gun a year before the
court order was issued was adequate notice that any court order may
prevent him from lawfully owning a gun.

It also rejected his Commerce Clause claim finding that restricting guns
that had ever moved in interstate commerce was within the power of the
fed.

Emmerson did not brief his previous 10th Amd claims so the court had no
choice but reject them as well.

Finally, while the court did hold that the second Amd protects an
individual right, it held that guns not useful for individual defense or
military service WERE subject to restrictions and accpeted the guns
covered under the NFA as cited in Miller as being properly restricted.
Further, it held that even with an individual right, that right could be
restricted by due process and that the current federal law banning guns
possession for anyone under any generic protective order was actually due
process even though there was no specific finding on the part of the
issuing court that gun possession should be restricted.

IOW, there is a silver lining, but generally a dark cloud.

For years we've battled the "collective right so we can take your guns
away" mantra.  Now we'll just get to battle the "ok, it's an individual
right, but we can still strip it from you in 1001 ways."

Charles

On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:22:03 -0600 "Scott Bergeson"
<[e-mail]> writes:
> Film at 11
>
> http://www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Waco attorney on Emerson ruling
Date: 17 Oct 2001 10:08:45 -0600

Waco attorney on Emerson ruling
----------
KeepAndBearArms.com
by David Hardy
   "Emerson clearly holds that the second amendment is an individual
   right, and rejects the 'collective rights' nonsense. It is the
   most detailed circuit court opinion I have ever seen, on any issue
   whatsoever. The court went back and did its own original research,
   rather than citing to law reviews, which is astonishing ... "
   (10/16/01)
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2064

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: unSafe to learn/worship group
Date: 23 Oct 2001 16:52:26 -0600

From the unSafe to learn/worship group's FAQ at
http://www.safeutah.org/faq.html is this:

"This site would not be possible without the generous support of Internet
Connect, Inc. "

Anyone with any connections to or influence with Internet Connect may
want to let them know of the lies and damage being propagated due to
their generous support.

Charles
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Web page photos
Date: 23 Oct 2001 16:50:16 -0600

Dear Sir or Madam;

I've recently visited your web page at http://www.safeutah.org/ and was
surprised to see a photo of LDS Temple Square. Yet you do not list the
LDS Church as being a member of your coalition.  The picture of such an
easily recognized LDS landmark suggest some type of official endorsement
of your position.

Has the LDS church endorsed your position and/or specifically allowed the
use of a photo of Temple Square to be used in advancing your position?  I
thought the LDS Church maintained political neutrality on most issues and
had not heard they had taken any official position on this issue.

Also, does the photo imply that all religious property, including outdoor
areas like Temple Square, or a church cemetary or park, would be off
limits to legally carried concealed weapons should your petition pass?

Thank you.

Charles
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Web page photos
Date: 23 Oct 2001 16:24:53 -0700



Charles C Hardy wrote:
>
> Dear Sir or Madam;
>
> I've recently visited your web page at http://www.safeutah.org/ and was
> surprised to see a photo of LDS Temple Square. Yet you do not list the
> LDS Church as being a member of your coalition.  The picture of such an
> easily recognized LDS landmark suggest some type of official endorsement
> of your position.
>
> Has the LDS church endorsed your position and/or specifically allowed the
> use of a photo of Temple Square to be used in advancing your position?  I
> thought the LDS Church maintained political neutrality on most issues and
> had not heard they had taken any official position on this issue.



If they deny Church affiliation or endorsement (the photo may be
considered public domain), then try using the same or a similar photo in
a counter ad or flyer or some such.  See how quickly the Church comes
down on you... if it does.  That will give you your answer.  Or it may
force the Church to deny use to BOTH sides of the issue.

Joe W


-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Web page photos
Date: 23 Oct 2001 18:09:37 -0600


On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:24:53 -0700 Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
writes:
>
> If they deny Church affiliation or endorsement (the photo may be
> considered public domain), then try using the same or a similar
> photo in a counter ad or flyer or some such.  See how quickly the
Church
> comes down on you... if it does.  That will give you your answer.  Or
it
> may force the Church to deny use to BOTH sides of the issue.
>
> Joe W


Maybe not a bad idea.  But, as an active member of the LDS Church, I feel
honor and duty bound to never do anything that would even hint at church
endorsement where there is none.  Thus, I could never use such a photo in
such a manner.  I'd just like to expose one of the underhanded tactics
being used by the anti-self-defense crowd.

My hope is that enough people will call them on it and/or inquire of the
LDS church as to endorsements that such use of temple photos and anything
else that might hint of LDS involvement will end.

Charles
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: Joe Waldron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Web page photos
Date: 23 Oct 2001 17:19:14 -0700



Charles C Hardy wrote:
>
> Maybe not a bad idea.  But, as an active member of the LDS Church, I feel
> honor and duty bound to never do anything that would even hint at church
> endorsement where there is none.  Thus, I could never use such a photo in
> such a manner.  I'd just like to expose one of the underhanded tactics
> being used by the anti-self-defense crowd.
>
> My hope is that enough people will call them on it and/or inquire of the
> LDS church as to endorsements that such use of temple photos and anything
> else that might hint of LDS involvement will end.
>


Charles, I don't know how the Church hierarchy works there, but you may
want to prepare a draft flyer opposing the petition, using the photo,
and ask the appropriate Church official if that is all right to use.  If
he says no, ask why the other side is using a photo.  That way you
haven't stepped on Church toes or offended anyone by inappropriate
use... you simply asked for guidance.

Or maybe build a "no on petition" flyer that uses a portion of the other
side's flyer (with photo portion) for "identification purposes."
Something like the upper part of their petition, with a large title
below, "HAVE YOU SEEN THIS PETITION" followed by "JUST SAY NO" with
explanatory text below.  Again, run that past Church leadership to get
their reaction.

JW

-



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

From: "Scott Bergeson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Victim disarmament groups fund gun 'study'
Date: 24 Oct 2001 09:29:06 -0600

Looks like we'll have to continue the HP boycott.

Victim disarmament groups fund gun 'study'
----------
NewsMax
   Groups that oppose Second Amendment rights are financing
   a government anti-gun "study" that was put in motion by the
   Clinton administration. The venture is being undertaken by
   the National Research Council, and has been accused of
   pre-determining some of its conclusions. (10/23/01)
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/10/22/205136

-



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

From: Charles C Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: UEA or?
Date: 24 Oct 2001 15:47:18 -0600

This message is in MIME format.  Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

----__JNP_000_5a77.5b27.2b02
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This may be of interest to anyone with kids in public schools.
----- Forwarded Message -----

While going over my 5 year old grandsons kindergarten homework I came
across two pledge cards with the following wording:

PLEDGE AGAINST VIOLENCE 20001
I pledge to SAVE today and stop America's violence everywhere.
I will strive to do my part to help end this crisis that threatens
the health of all people of the United States of America.


--------
SIGNED

Did anyone else get these today? I interpret the pledge to mean
undermining President Bush! Is the UEA pushing leftist doctrine in our
kindergartens?
I will know tomorrow, I plan on spending some time with the
administration of that elementary school.

----__JNP_000_5a77.5b27.2b02
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3315.2869" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>This may be of interest to anyone with kids in public schools.</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: none transparent scroll repeat 0% 0%" #cccccc\?>-=
----=20
Forwarded Message -----</DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>While=20
going over my 5 year old grandsons kindergarten homework I came across two=
=20
pledge cards with the following wording:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>PLEDGE=20
AGAINST VIOLENCE 20001</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>I=20
pledge to SAVE today and stop America's violence everywhere.</SPAN></FONT><=
/DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>I will=20
strive to do my part to help end this crisis that threatens</SPAN></FONT></=
DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>the=20
health of all people of the United States of America.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001>------------------------------------------------=
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001>SIGNED</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>Did=20
anyone else get these today? I interpret the pledge to mean undermining=20
President Bush! Is the UEA pushing leftist doctrine in our=20
kindergartens?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D383131121-=
24102001>I will=20
know tomorrow, I plan on spending some time with the administration of that=
=20
elementary school.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D383131121-24102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

----__JNP_000_5a77.5b27.2b02--

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

-



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-gun literature sent out with CCW notices
Date: 26 Oct 2001 13:01:10 -0600

Anti-gun literature sent out with CCW notices
----------
The Flint Journal
   Jeanne Kidle, mother of four and among a flood of women arming
   themselves for self-protection, was taken aback when she
   received a notice to pick up her new concealed weapon permit.
   The State of Michigan had included anti-gun literature and
   requests for money from a private organization. (10/24/01)
http://fl.mlive.com/news/index.ssf?/news/stories/20011024f24a1gunpropaganda.frm

A right of the people
----------
National Review
by Dave Kopel
   "What Emerson does in some federal courts for federal laws
   -- as the state constitutions of all but a few states already
   do, in state courts, for state laws -- is make it clear that
   ordinary, law-abiding people cannot be prohibited from owning
   ordinary rifles, shotguns, and handguns." (10/26/01)
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel102501.shtml

-