ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9607

Internet Message Format | 1996-07-29 | 48KB

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: ALERT:  AFL-CIO spending $35 million to re-elect Clinton]
Date: 19 Jul 1996 14:39:36 -0600


Any of you who either belong to a union or know someone who does, may
find the following of interest.  I don't belong to any unions and so
don't know where any of the local ones stand on issues or candidates
that may impact our RKBA.  For those of you who do, it sounds like it
may be worthwhile to find out where your dues money is going and maybe
get a little of it back.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

ALERT:  AFL-CIO spending $35 million to re-elect Clinton and Oust Freshmen
Republicans

    While I am not a fan of *everything* the freshman class has done, I
must say they have been better for our gun rights.

    AFL-CIO has committed to spending $35 million of its members' dues to
re-electing Clinton and to ousting freshmen Republicans.  By federal
regulation, members who disagree with this stance are entitled to a refund of
the portion of their dues that goes to the PAC.

    I have transcribed and put onto my web site materials that will help
to do this.  If you print the five pages indexed here in order from your WWW
browser to a laser printer, you'll get camera-ready copy.  Please spread this
material as widely as possible (NRA-ILA and GOA have already been contacted).

    See http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/aflcio.html

Chris BeHanna            Director, New Jersey Self Defense Coalition
NJ-RKBA List Maintainer               P.O. Box 239
[e-mail] (W)         Milford, NJ  08848-0239
kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen.    [e-mail]
Lon Horiuchi:  Will Murder Women for Food    PGP 2.6.1 public key available

Only in America can a homeless veteran sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
dodger sleeps in the White House.

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]>  | If my employer has an opinion on these
                                   | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he
                                   | would have express it.


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: CCW "reforms"
Date: 20 Jul 1996 16:53:16 -0600


I've just arrived back in State after my extended stay in the
PRofMass.  I seem to have arrived just in time to hear a little in the
media about proposed "reforms" to the CCW law which would prohibit CCW
in schools, churches and businesses.  I also keep hearing talk about
some statment made by the LDS church regarding guns and churches.

Can anyone on the list update me?

Specifically, would the proposes ban CCW in all churches and
businesses or simply allow those churches and businesses that wanted
to prohibit CCW to do so?

How did the hearing turn out?

I'm guessing the UTEA is all in favor of banning CCW in schools and
we're probably screwed on that unless a large number of teachers,
administrators (right?!?!?), others who work in schols, or parents can
be found to speak out.  Is a CCW holder going to be in violation every
time they drop off or pick up Susie at school?

Thanks for any info.

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]>  | If my employer has an opinion on these
                                   | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he
                                   | would have express it.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: CCW "reforms"
Date: 20 Jul 1996 17:15:21 -0600


I also meant to ask if anyone had the actual text of the LDS statement
on guns and churches.

thanks

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]>  | If my employer has an opinion on these
                                   | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he
                                   | would have express it.

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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: LSAS Files 2nd Amendment case: Please read
Date: 20 Jul 1996 17:21:56 -0600 (MDT)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Associated Conservatives of Texas <[e-mail]>,
    Johnson Mike <[e-mail]>


The Ninth Circuit Attacks Another Personal Freedom

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit recently held in Hickman v. Sherman
Block, et al. (96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3934) that the Second Amendment is an
anachronism intended only to protect states' "right" to maintain militias.
This means that, despite what you think, and what the Second Amendment says,
you really do not have a right to own firearms.

The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society has contacted many of the most notable
constitutional scholars. Although there is a "down side" to appealing this
decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, there appears to be a general consensus
that now is the time, and this is the case.

I. Why Hickman should be appealed.

Over the years, many in the gun-owning community have debated the wisdom of
bringing a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. The concern has
been that the Court may rule once and for all that the Second Amendment
guarantees a state's right, rather than a right which may be exercised by
individual Americans.

This is a justified concern. The Court has had several opportunities to
consider whether the Amendment guarantees a personal right, but it has
failed to do so. Most notably, in Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove (1982),
the Supreme Court refused to hear a case in which the trial and appellate
courts both upheld a township's ban on handgun ownership. The result: the
ban remained law.

However, we must know where the Court stands. If it rules against us, then
we will have to let the Court know we do not recognize its authority to
eliminate an enumerated right. It will then be incumbent upon us to champion
yet another of our essential civil rights. This may call for nonviolent
civil disobedience. It may require all of us to face the personal risks of
speaking out.

On the other hand, while we have been waiting for the "right case" to bring
before the Supreme Court, anti-gunners rammed the so-called "assault weapon"
ban and 10-round magazine limit through Congress, they enacted the Brady
law, and countless new and onerous state and local anti-gun laws are on the
books. It will not end until, and if, the Supreme Court finally acknowledges
the Second Amendment means what it says; namely, that individual Americans
have a right to keep and bear arms.

The longer we wait, the more difficult it will become to prevail.

The LSAS thinks the Hickman case is the "right" case to bring before the
Court. As explained below, the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in the case is
dubious at best, and the case is fraught with factual mistakes. This will
make it all the more difficult for the Supreme Court to uphold the decision.

Hickman directly confronts the personal right issue -- the Ninth Circuit
said there isn't one. But with gun control looming as one of the primary
issues of the 1990s, the LSAS believes the Supreme Court cannot run from
this issue forever. it will eventually have to confront it head on.

II. The Hickman case.

In Hickman, Douglas Hickman brought an action against various Southern
California cities after his applications for a permit to carry a concealed
weapon were denied. Hickman argued the denials of his applications were a
violation of his right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second
Amendment.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for the
defendants on the grounds Hickman did not have "standing" under the Second
Amendment. The Court held, "...the Second Amendment is a right held by the
states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private
citizen."

On a superficial level, this seems to make sense because the Amendment
refers to a "well regulated Militia." But after further consideration, which
is obviously necessary when Americans' rights hang in the balance, it
becomes clear the decision is wrong.

III. State's don't have "rights." People do.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."

Note the Amendment does not say states may keep and bear arms. Rather, it
refers to "people." In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court recently
held the term "people" used in the Bill of Rights means that "class of
persons who are part of the national community...."

Since the "class of persons who are part of the national community" simply
means American citizens, the Second Amendment can be clarified as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of American citizens to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

This simple exercise makes it abundantly clear individual American citizens
-- and not the states -- have the right to keep and bear arms.

States are not living beings. They cannot enjoy life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. Under Article I of U.S. Constitution, and the 10th
Amendment, states merely exercise "powers."

By contrast, only individuals can exercise the fundamental qualities of life
called "rights."

Thus, a "collective" or "state's" right is not a right, but a "power." Since
the Second Amendment guarantees a "right," by definition, that right may be
exercised only by individuals.

The 10th Amendment also tells us the Framers said "state" when they meant
"state," and "people" when they meant "people." It is ludicrous to suggest
the Framers had such poor command of the English language they could not
distinguish between "people" and "states."

If true, the Court's suggestion in Hickman that the Second Amendment was
intended only to provide for state militias is a well-kept secret, because
not a single shred of evidence from the Constitutional Convention betrays
this intent.

By contrast, there is a plethora of evidence which makes it abundantly clear
the Framers intended a personal right. Indeed, a ruling such as Hickman
would have been unthinkable, almost treasonous, in the 1780s.

Indeed, the Framers were themselves armed with state-of-the-art military
weapons. And we know what happened to the British on their way to Concord to
seize the American colonialists' weapons and powder: the British confronted
the local militia in Lexington and touched off the Revolution.

Virtually all academic research regarding the Second Amendment has concluded
the Amendment was intended to recognize an individual right. Even the
American Bar Association acknowledged in its 1965 article, "The Lost
Amendment," that the Amendment guaranteed an individual right (although,
bowing to political pressure, the ABA now espouses the "states' right"
theory).

Nonetheless, the Court in Hickman suggested a "plain reading" of the Second
Amendment somehow reveals the Framer's true intent that states, and not the
people, have the right to own arms. It certainly requires some questionable
mental gymnastics and dubious logic to reach this conclusion.

One wonders if the courts would have such a difficult time understanding the
syntax of the Second Amendment, if the First Amendment read as follows:

"A well informed Congress, being necessary to a free country, the right of
the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

It is also curious that, despite the simple language in the Second
Amendment, courts refuse to acknowledge it guarantees an individual right,
while they have no trouble finding a "fundamental," yet unwritten, right of
privacy floating around somewhere in the nebulous "penumbra" of the
Constitution.

IV. How has the Supreme Court read the Amendment?

In Cruikshank v. U.S. (1875) and Presser v. Illinois (1885), the Supreme
Court stated the Second Amendment did not create a right. Rather, it
concluded the Amendment recognized the people's pre-existing right to keep
and bear arms.

This distinction is critical. The right of the people to keep and bear arms
existed before the Bill of Rights was ratified, it exists now, it will
always exist, and it is inalienable.

It is also significant that in Cruikshank and Presser, the Court noted the
Second Amendment precluded Congress, but not the states, from enacting gun
control laws. This superficially appears to give states the green light to
enact gun control. It also seems to support the Hickman decision.

However, Cruikshank and Presser were decided prior to the advent of the
"Selective Incorporation Doctrine" in 1897 (in Chicago V. & Q.R. Co. v.
Chicago), whereby the Court began applying the Bill of Rights to the states
via the 14th Amendment.

There is also a curiously revealing error in Footnote 10 in Hickman. The
Court stated: "... the Second Amendment is not incorporated into the Bill of
Rights. (citation)" [emphasis added] To the contrary, the Second Amendment
is undeniably an integral part of the Bill of Rights. Presumably, the Court
meant the Amendment has not yet been incorporated to the states, but this
"Freudian slip" speaks volumes about the true political agenda behind the
Hickman decision.

V. What about the reference to the Militia?


In concluding the Second Amendment only guarantees a state's right to
maintain a militia, the Court in Hickman relied primarily upon U.S. v.
Miller (1939). In Miller, the defendant was charged with violating the 1934
National Firearms Act's ban on "sawed off" shotguns. Miller defended on the
grounds the Act violated his Second Amendment right. The trial court rightly
threw out the statute, and the U.S. appealed to the Supreme Court. Miller
apparently died shortly thereafter. (It appears the Court in Hickman did not
carefully read Miller because it erroneously stated Miller had been
convicted at trial, rather than acquitted, and that Miller, rather than the
U.S., was the appellant.)

Thus, when the matter was heard before the Supreme Court, only the U.S., the
appellant, was present to offer evidence. The Supreme Court therefore had no
alternative but to rule in accordance with the government's evidence. The
Court ultimately held that, without evidence indicating a sawed off shotgun
"has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The Court in Hickman latched
onto this passage from Miller. However, this
passage does not establish a state's "right." It simply means Americans have
the right to own military weapons to insure the existence of a pool of armed
citizens from which a militia can be drawn.



This makes good sense because during the Revolutionary era, every city and
township maintained its own militia consisting of all able bodied males
between 18 and 45. A militia could exist only if all the citizens were armed.

Moreover, in the context of the 1770's, the term "well regulated" meant
"well disciplined" or "well drilled." The term did not mean regulated by the
state.

Similarly, the Court's suggestion in Hickman that the National Guard is the
modern day equivalent of the militia is incorrect. Were the National Guard
synonymous with militias, then every state is in violation of Art. I,
Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the states from
maintaining armies in peace time.

Under the Ninth Circuit's interpretation, the portion of the Amendment which
actually recognizes the right is rendered meaningless surplusage. This is an
absurd result.

VII. Have any gun control laws been invalidated?

The Court in Hickman noted no individual has ever established a personal
right under the Second Amendment. If true, are we then to ignore the
Amendment's plain meaning because no court has acknowledged that meaning?

Courts make mistakes all the time. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1897), the Supreme
Court held the "separate but equal" doctrine was consistent with the 14th
Amendment. Fifty years later, in Brown v. Board of Education it reached the
opposite conclusion. As evidenced by the infamous Dred Scott decision, the
Court even accepted slavery for nearly 100 years.

The point is, our rights exist independent of the very government against
which the Bill of Rights is asserted. That's why they are called "rights."
If government has the power to take away rights, are they really rights?

To be sure, the Supreme Court may properly determine if restrictions on a
right are reasonable, since no right is absolute. But no governmental body,
including the judiciary, has the authority to repeal rights. Otherwise,
could we not repeal the 13th Amendment and reinstate slavery?

It would have been more logical and consistent with the Constitution, had
the Court in Hickman acknowledged the Second Amendment guarantees a personal
right. Then, it would be a comparatively simple matter to determine which
"reasonable limitations" apply, yet still let us achieve the purpose of he
Second Amendment.

If the Supreme Court allows Hickman to stand, it will be a prescription for
disaster. It will be perhaps the only time in history in which the courts
abrogated an enumerated right. Americans will not take kindly to such an
overt, aggressive and blatantly illegal governmental attack on their
freedoms.

VIII. What you can do to help.

The experts with whom the LSAS conferred estimate the cost of appealing the
Hickman case to be approximately $50,000. Unfortunately, with fires already
burning on the social, political and other legal fronts, the large pro-gun
organizations are already spread to thinly to foot this bill. For this
reason, the LSAS has established a trust fund to pay the costs associated
with bringing this case before the Supreme Court.

Well-known pro-gun attorney Don Kates, who wrote the "amicus brief" in the
Hickman case, has agreed to write the appellate brief. The LSAS is asking
every gunowner in America to contribute at least $5, and
businesses to contribute at least $100, to defray these costs. Contributors
of $30 or more will receive a membership in The Lawyer's Second Amendment
Society, which includes a subscription to its newsletter, The Liberty Pole.
Any surplus funds generated will go to the LSAS, which is a non-profit
corporation [501(c)(4)], to be used to fund other pro-gun legal challenges.
Contributions are not tax deductible.

We actually have little to lose. As it is, Congress, the courts, and most
legislatures are already proceeding on the assumption that the Second
Amendment protects only a "state's right." This is why we have some 20,000
gun control laws nationwide, including the Brady law and the "assault
weapon" ban.

If we lose, then we are merely back where we started; namely, in the
political arena where such national groups as the NRA have proven so
effective. But, the problem with the political arena is, gunowners must
constantly spend money to try to influence politicians, just to protect what
should be recognized as an inalienable right. What happens if Clinton gets
re-elected and the Republicans lose control of Congress?

On the other hand, if we win, the benefits are myriad. In a nutshell, a win
would cut off gun control at the knees. The debate would change from whether
we have a right, to what limitations on that right are "reasonable."

Everyone can afford a nominal $5 contribution; look at it as a "small price
to pay" to protect one of our most cherished and important freedoms.

Please make checks payable to "The LSAS Trust Fund," and mail them to:

The LSAS
18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329
Encino, CA 91316.
Telephone: [phone].

Tim Casey, [e-mail], http://www.clark.net/pub/tcasey/firearms.html

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government." --Thomas Jefferson

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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Second-amendment arguments
Date: 20 Jul 1996 17:23:39 -0600 (MDT)

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

Posted to texas-gun-owners by [e-mail] (Hanka, Greg)

Greets --

    In the whole silly debate over whether or not "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" really means "the right of the people to keep and
bear arms", let's not forget three important acts of congress...

 * The Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 176-77, 1866), which
   passed with more than a 2/3 majority and provides:

      "the right ... to have full and equal benefit of all laws and
      proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the
      acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal,
      including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to
      and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without
      respect to race or color or previous condition of slavery."

   The same two-thirds of Congress adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, which
   provides: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
   privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
   State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
   process of law ..."  Senator Jacob Howard, when introducing the
   amendment, explained that its purpose was to protect "personal rights,"
   such as "the right to keep and bear arms," from State infringement.
   (quoted from Cong. Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session 2764-65, 1866)

 * The Property Requisition Act of 1941 (55 Stat. 742, 1941) authorized the
   President to requisition property from the private sector on payment of
   fair compensation.  The Act included the following:

      Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed --
         (1) to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of
             any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal
             protection or sport (and the possession of which is not
             prohibited or the registration of which is not required by
             existing law), ... [or]
         (2) to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual
             to keep and bear arms ...

   Explaining the Property Requisition Act, the House Committee on Military
   Affairs provided the following statement:

      "In view of the fact that certain totalitarian and dictatorial nations
      are now engaged in the willful and wholesale destruction of personal
      rights and liberties, our committee deems it appropriate for the
      Congress to expressly state that the proposed legislation shall not be
      contrued to impair or infringe the constitutional right of the people
      to bear arms ...  There is no disposition on the part of this
      Government to depart from the concepts and principles of personal
      rights and liberties expressed in our Constitution."
      (quoted from H.R. Rep. No. 1120, 77th Congress, 1st Session 2, 1941)

 * The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. s921 et seq.).
   That legislation provides:

      CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS -- The Congress finds that --
      (1) the rights of citizens --
          (A) to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United
              States Constitution;
          (B) to security against illegal and unreasonable searches and
              seizures under the fourth amendment;
          (C) against uncompensated taking of property, double jeopardy, and
              assurance of due process of law under the fifth amendment; and
          (D) against unconstitutional exercise of authority under the ninth
              and tenth amendments;
      require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes
      and enforcement policies; and
      (2) additional legislation is required to reaffirm the intent of the
          Congress, as expressed in section 101 of the Gun Control Act of
          1968, that "it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue
          or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding
          citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of
          firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trap shooting,
          target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful
          activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or
          eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding
          citizens for lawful purposes."

(All from "Congress Interprets the Second Amendment: Declarations by a
Co-Equal Branch on the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms", by Dr.
Stephen P. Halbrook, Tennessee Law Review, Spring 1995, Volume 62 Number 3)

    So, it would seem that there are real laws already on the books that
reaffirm the Second Amendment's obvious intent...not unlike the two bills
that our stalwart supporter Rep. Stockman is trying to pass as we speak.
Though I don't like to see my inalienable rights alienated and then granted
back as priveleges, such laws are (if nothing else) bricks in our house.

    One other thing: the next time some zeeb tries to tell you that a
handgun is "a very poor method of self-defense", ask him:

    - why statistics show guns used for defense result in the lowest victim
      injury rates of _any_ method of self-defense (*),

    - why every policeman in the country carries and uses a handgun as his
      or her first line of defense, and

    - what alternate method of self-defense he therefore proposes.

    Unfortunately for us, a mound of emotion can obscure a mountain of fact.

Eternally,
Greg Hanka
<[e-mail]>
http://www.bindview.com/~ghanka

 * I have these statistics in an excel chart with nice graphs at
   http://www.bindview.com/~ghanka/firearms/crimes.xls.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Utah Gun laws
Date: 29 Jul 1996 17:24:43 -0600

Hello again!

A while ago, you asked about the CCW problems going on in Utah and about the
results of the meeting.  I finally caught up with all this.  The meeting was
flooded with pro-gun people.  No final recommendation was agreed upon.

A bill is being introduced to ban guns from schools, churches, and to allow
private businesses to ban guns if they so choose.  Further, there will be
immunity from civil suits should a patron be killed or injured as a result
of being disarmed.

If you'd like full details, send me a fax number or snail mail address.

I'm attempting to organize for a law similar to the one in AZ (I believe) which
requires those who post "no guns" to provide safe storage for their patron's
weapons and which makes businesses responsible and liable for the safety of
their clients/customers who check guns.  If you'd like to help, let me know.

Also, if you have a copy of this bill or similar ones, please let me know how
I can obtain a copy.

Thanks!

Sarah

Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties
The Righter                The Demo-Cans have betrayed us!
PO Box 271231                Vote Libertarian!
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Harry Browne for President
801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail
[e-mail]
http://www/aros.net/~righter/welcome.html


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Utah Gun laws
Date: 29 Jul 1996 17:34:40 -0600


On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, [e-mail] posted:

>Hello again!
>
>A while ago, you asked about the CCW problems going on in Utah and about the
>results of the meeting.  I finally caught up with all this.  The meeting was
>flooded with pro-gun people.  No final recommendation was agreed upon.
>
>A bill is being introduced to ban guns from schools, churches, and to allow
>private businesses to ban guns if they so choose.  Further, there will be
>immunity from civil suits should a patron be killed or injured as a result
>of being disarmed.
>
>If you'd like full details, send me a fax number or snail mail address.
>
>I'm attempting to organize for a law similar to the one in AZ (I believe) which
>requires those who post "no guns" to provide safe storage for their patron's
>weapons and which makes businesses responsible and liable for the safety of
>their clients/customers who check guns.  If you'd like to help, let me know.
>
>Also, if you have a copy of this bill or similar ones, please let me know how
>I can obtain a copy.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Sarah

Thank you.  My snail mail address is:

Charles Hardy
1338 Foothill #184
SLC, UT  84108

I'd love to help in any way possible.  I spent 6 months living in
Arizona last summer and fall.  Their open carry law is really nice. :)
I never ahd a single business ask me to surrender my openly carried
.45 or to leave.  The usual reaction from clerks and such ranged from
mild interest to positive support.  Only people who ever showed open
displeasure or concern at the presence of my weapon were the police.

Their law does appear to require any public "business" whether
privately owned or government run, to offer to take possession of a
weapon (check it) while the owner is on their premises if they don't
want the owner to carry the weapon.  In practice, this has not been
enforced on private businesses.  However, due to the gutsy actions of
a few individuals, many government buildings now routinely will check
a weapon without too much hassle.  If you'd like, I can put you in
touch with some of these people or even dig up copies of their posts
to AZRKBA and repost to this list as examples of what is possible.

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]>  | If my employer has an opinion on these
                                   | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he
                                   | would have express it.

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

From: Larry Larsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Utah Gun laws
Date: 29 Jul 1996 20:28:36 -0600

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> Hello again!
>
> A while ago, you asked about the CCW problems going on in Utah and about the
> results of the meeting.  I finally caught up with all this.  The meeting was
> flooded with pro-gun people.  No final recommendation was agreed upon.
>
> A bill is being introduced to ban guns from schools, churches, and to allow
> private businesses to ban guns if they so choose.  Further, there will be
> immunity from civil suits should a patron be killed or injured as a result
> of being disarmed.
>
> If you'd like full details, send me a fax number or snail mail address.
>
> I'm attempting to organize for a law similar to the one in AZ (I believe) which
> requires those who post "no guns" to provide safe storage for their patron's
> weapons and which makes businesses responsible and liable for the safety of
> their clients/customers who check guns.  If you'd like to help, let me know.
>
> Also, if you have a copy of this bill or similar ones, please let me know how
> I can obtain a copy.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sarah
>
> Sarah Thompson, M.D.                    Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties
> The Righter                             The Demo-Cans have betrayed us!
> PO Box 271231                           Vote Libertarian!
> Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231           Harry Browne for President
> 801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail
> [e-mail]
> http://www/aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
I would like a copy please, and thanks.
--
Larry S. Larsen
P.O. Box 417
Santa Clara, Ut. 84765
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Column, July 24 (fwd)]
Date: 30 Jul 1996 10:08:36 -0600


For your reading enjoyment

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 24, 1996
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Sean Gabb for president

    Let us compare two position statements which recently crossed my desk
on a single issue: gun control.
  Bob Dole, the big-government boot-licker and until lately chief tax
collector for the police-welfare state, spoke at the Virginia State Police
Academy in Richmond on July the ninth.
  He took the occasion to renounce, revoke and slink cravenly away from
previous Republican promises to repeal Sen. Dianne Feinstein's unnatural
sexual assault on the spirit and substance of the Second Amendment, the
so-called "assault weapons ban."
  "We've had a ban on so-called assault weapons," the former senator droned
to the assembled cadets, "but let's be realistic. Of the 17 weapons that
were specifically outlawed, 11 are already back on the market in some other
form. So what I say, let's move, that we've moved beyond the debate, in my
view, over banning assault weapons. ... We've got to move beyond banning
assault weapons. And instead of endlessly debating which guns to ban, we
ought to be emphasizing what works and what's been tried in the great
state, the Commonwealth of Virginia and other states. And we've seen here
what works (is) an instant check on handguns, shotguns, rifles, all guns,
period. All guns, period."
  "We're very happy that Citizen Bob Dole now supports the assault weapons
ban," preened Bob Walker, legislative director of Handgun Control Inc. "But
where was Sen. Bob Dole when we really needed him?"
  Still evolving, apparently.
  Meantime, Sean Gabb, one of Britain's few firearms rights activists
([e-mail]), writes from London that he was approached by Simon
Wells, a producer for the appropriately-named (as it turns out) Chameleon
Television in Leeds, about appearing for five minutes on a program about
gun control.
 "A similar piece would be filmed with a Mr. Bernstein of an anti-gun
group. Both pieces would then be shown on the 17th of July and be followed
by a studio debate," Mr. Gabb reports.
  "Rather looking forward to this, I wrote a draft script and faxed it off
to Mr. Wells. He went quiet for a few days, and then came back to me to
cancel my appearance."
  What was it that Mr. Gabb proposed to say in only five minutes, that
apparently can't be allowed even on an independent TV station in Leeds?
  This:
  "Let me begin by saying that I believe in the right of adults to be able
to walk into a gun shop and, without showing any licence or proof of
identity, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they can afford. I
also believe that adults should be free to keep guns at home and carry them
about in public, and use them in defence of their life, liberty and
property.
  "I am not saying this because I am a gun owner: I am not nor ever have
been. I say it because I believe that the right to self-defence is a
fundamental human right, comparable to freedom of speech and association.
Anyone who is denied this right - to keep and bear arms - is to some extent
enslaved. That person has lost control over his life. He is dependent on
the State for protection.
  "Of course, most people watching me will say that I am mad. Do I want a
society where every criminal has an gun, and where every domestic argument
ends in a gun battle?
  "The short answer is no. The longer answer is to say that more guns do
not inevitably mean more killings. ... Great Britain had no gun controls
before 1920, and very low rates of armed crime. Today, Switzerland has few
controls, and little armed crime. Those parts of the U.S. where guns are
most common are generally the least dangerous. ...
  "Focusing on professional crime, gun control is plainly a waste of
effort. Criminals will always get hold of guns if they want them. At most,
it needs a knowledge of the right pubs to visit. All control really does it
to disarm the honest public, and let the armed criminals roam through them
like a fox through chickens. ...
  "But let us move away from armed burglars and rapists and the occasional
lone psychopath. We need guns to protect us from the State. Far from
protecting us, the State is the main aggressor. A low estimate puts the
number of civilians murdered by states this century at 56 million - and
millions of these were children. In all cases, genocide was preceded by gun
control. How far would the Holocaust have got if the Jews in Nazi Germany
had been able to shoot back? How about the Armenians? The Kulaks? The
Chinese bourgeoisie? The Bosnians? In all previous societies, guns and
freedom have gone together. I doubt if our society is any different.
  "Laugh at me. Call me mad. Call me evil. But just remember me when your
loved ones are being raped, or mugged, or dragged off never to be seen
again - and you, as an obedient, disarmed little citizen, can do nothing
about it."
  Don't feel so bad, Sean. I don't think they would have aired it on
American TV, either.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail].
The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at
http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/.

***

Vin Suprynowicz          [e-mail]

"Next year in Galt's Gulch!"

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]>  | If my employer has an opinion on these
                                   | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he
                                   | would have express it.


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Republicans Turn Tail -- Again]
Date: 30 Jul 1996 10:24:41 -0600


Wonder if our own Senators and Rep should see this as well?

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

NEWT GINGRICH <[e-mail]>
TAKES A RIDE ON THE VON KLINTON EXPRESS

By L. Neil Smith <[e-mail]>

Special to _The Libertarian Enterprise_

    I saw House Speaker Newt Gingrich <[e-mail]> on TV
this afternoon, declaring that, in the light of the recent event in
Atlanta, he, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, and Republican
Narcolepsy Poster Boy Bob Dole had changed the useless lumps of tissue
they use for minds, with regard to certain unconstitutional provisions
they had previously managed to keep out of Bill Clinton's so-called
terrorism legislation.

    One of those provisions calls for "roving wiretaps":  if someone
they can credibly claim to believe _might_ be a terrorist happens to
visit you for one reason or another -- perhaps because _they_ sent him
-- they can tap your phone.

    Another calls for "propellant taggants", chemical additives to
black and smokeless gunpowder which, in certain loads might cause your
weapon to hangfire or blow up, but what the hell, they don't want you
to have guns anyway, and after all, as Julia Child or Mussolini or
somebody put it, you can't make an omelette without breaking _heads_.

    There were other provisions, but a haze of outrage seems to have
erased them from my memory.

    It's the oldest political scam in the book, and (with the apparent
commendable exception of movie star and Tennessee Senator Fred Dalton
Thompson) these spineless cretins in the GOP fell for it. Pick some
handy enemy scapegoat (Libya or Iraq) or _create_ one (Libertarians or
the militia), then goad them until they assassinate someone or blow
something up.  If you're really impatient, assassinate someone or blow
something up _yourself_.  Then tell everyone across the fruited plain
and from sea to shining sea that -- for their own safety -- the whole
country is now in protective custody.

    You can find it in the Bible, Machiavelli, or the doctrines of the
Red Brigades.  (Which is why I always thought that any voyages Young
Bubba may have made to _Italy_ back in the 1960s might be far more
significant than his infamous pilgrimage to Moscow). And still that
trio of whimpering dribblers Newt Gingrich <[e-mail]>,
Lott, and Dole fell for it.

    I gotta say, it never fails to amaze me how few brains or guts
Republicans always turn out to possess.  The craven idiots had a good
thing going -- the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 -- yet they acted
every minute afterward as if they were still in the minority. They let
the whorish left-leaning mass media determine the level of discourse,
the topics to be discussed, and the context they'd be discussed in.
They let traitors in their own ranks screw up their agenda. They let
themselves get caught up in trivial pseudo-issues and forgot the
greater principles that were the reason voters had elected them.

    In short, as the revised saying goes, the Republicans "snatched
defeat from the jaws of victory" and left everyone who supported them
_exposed_ to the tin-pot two-for-a-penny fascist bully-ragging of
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

    Or, as Sinclair Lewis referred to him in _It Can't happen Here_,
"Buzz Windrip".  (Didn't think we'd recognize you, did you, Bill?)

    The first ten Amendments to the Constitution obviously don't mean
much to Newt Gingrich <[e-mail]>.  (I seem to recall that
he tried to have them suspended a few years ago, "for the duration" of
the War on Drugs.) If they did, he'd never have tried to substitute
what Rush Limbaugh (if Rush ever used _both_ halves of his brain)
would call the "phoney-baloney plastic banana good-time rock'n'roll"
Republican Contract with America for them. Deriving his "core beliefs"
from polls and focus groups exactly the same way Clinton does, Newt
Gingrich <[e-mail]> has forgotten -- if he ever knew --
certain basic facts ...

    What's right doesn't change overnight, even in Atlanta.

    What's right _never_ changes.

    Back when this was a free country, America worked.

    Now that it's a police state, it doesn't.

    There is no known instance in history in which a dangerous mess
was made any better by "emergency measures" like hiring more thugs,
passing more laws, or curtailing people's freedoms.  There's a reason
for that: peace, progress, and prosperity in _any_ civilization arise
solely from individual human action.

    And humans must be _free_ to act.

    It ain't brain surgery, Mister Newt <[e-mail]>, or
rocket science.  When people are no longer free to act -- when they
have no real investment in maintaining civilization -- civilization
collapses.  See the former Soviet Empire. Or the Reconstruction South.
Or the South Bronx.

    If Newt Gingrich <[e-mail]> can't comprehend that, if
he can't _keep_ the solemn oath he once took "to uphold and defend the
Constitution against _all_ enemies, foreign and domestic", if he can't
stand up to round-heeled propagandists masquerading as journalists, to
white trash in the White House, or their goose-stepping orcs in black
Kevlar, he should do the honorable thing:  declare an end to the
hollow sham his "Republican Revolution" has become, resign from the
office he holds under false pretenses, slink back to Georgia, and
start shoving soft-boiled eggs and milk-toast into his toothless,
empty head like the harmless old grannie he increasingly resembles.

    I'll say it once again for the benefit of any Republicans in the
audience. Maybe they can find somebody to read it for them, or at
least explain the big words.

    What's right doesn't change overnight.

    What's right _never_ changes.

    Back when this was a free country, America worked.

    Now that it's a police state, it doesn't.

===================================

L. Neil Smith's award-winning first novel, _The Probability Broach_,
which has long been out of print, will be republished by TOR Books
this October.  Permission to redistribute this article is herewith
granted by the author, provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its
entirety, and appropriate credit given. Readers are especially urged
to forward this article to Newt Gingrich <[e-mail]>, who
desperately needs to read it.


------------------- Chairman ------------------------------------------
Mike Dugger                                 When in doubt, vote 'em out
Armed and SAFE!                   Legalize Freedom - ELECT Libertarians
----------- Arizona Libertarian Party ---------------------------------

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]>  | If my employer has an opinion on these
                                   | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he
                                   | would have express it.


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Harry Browne blasts Dole]
Date: 30 Jul 1996 10:56:27 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

FYI

NEWS RELEASE
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100             =====  HARRY BROWNE =====
Washington, DC  20037                           Libertarian for President

For immediate release:  July 16 1996

for information call:  [phone]
Bill Winter, Director of Communications

             RADIO ADS ON OLIVER NORTH SHOW BLAST BOB DOLE
               FOR BACKPEDALING ON ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
 Libertarian candidate Harry Browne sets sights on "betrayed" gun owners

WASHINGTON, DC --  Fans of the Oliver North radio program in 116 cities
across the USA will hear Bob Dole blasted this week for flip-flopping
on the assault weapons ban.

The attacks are the opening salvo of a nationwide advertising campaign
from Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne.

"We want to reach conservatives who feel betrayed by Bob Dole's
abandonment of the Second Amendment," explained Browne campaign director
Sharon Ayres.  "Dole figured he could sell out gun owners because they
had nowhere else to go.  Well, in 1996, they have somewhere to go:  They
can vote for Harry Browne."

The advertisements stake out Browne's position as a fervent defender of
the Second Amendment, and sharply criticize Dole for backpedaling on his
promise to repeal the so-called assault weapons ban.  They will run on
the popular, syndicated right-wing talk show host's program during the
week of July 15th to 19th.

In one of the advertisements, Browne says: "Repeal the assault weapons
ban now.  Repeal the Brady Bill now.  I'm Harry Browne, Libertarian
candidate for President, saying government doesn't work and government
gun control doesn't work.

"Gun control disarms honest Americans while leaving guns in the hands of
violent criminals.  Bill Clinton is proud of the assault weapons ban,
and Bob Dole refuses to repeal it.  Bill Clinton is proud of the Brady
Bill, and Bob Dole refuses to repeal it.  If the right to keep and bear
arms matters to you, Harry Browne is your candidate for President."

The advertisements also give a toll-free number for more information
about the Browne campaign and the Libertarian Party [phone].

Explaining his no-compromise position on gun issues, Browne said,
"Gun control laws don't reduce crime, but passing them gives politicians
another soap-box opportunity to pose as crime-fighters.  Conservative
politicians act tough by repealing the Bill of Rights, while liberal
politicians act tough by outlawing weapons.  Neither action reduces
the crime rate.  But both allow politicians to feel self-righteous,
and both undermine our freedoms."

------------------- Chairman ------------------------------------------
Mike Dugger                                 When in doubt, vote 'em out
Armed and SAFE!                   Legalize Freedom - ELECT Libertarians
----------- Arizona Libertarian Party ---------------------------------

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]>  | If my employer has an opinion on these
                                   | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he
                                   | would have express it.