ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9608

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-31 | 145KB

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Zychik Chronicle 07/29/96 Part 2 (fwd)]
Date: 01 Aug 1996 09:53:35 -0600


It is well worth the time to look up the following URL and read the
letter.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

>---------------All Rights Are Individual
>
>(ZC) Steve Silver, Founding Member of the Lawyers'
>Second Amendment Society (LSAS) will be on KOGO radio in
>San Diego today 7/29 at 5:00 PM, PST. Mr. Silver will be
>discussing the Hickman case. Essentially, the 9th District Court
>ruled that Mr. Hickman could not bring suit for his right to bear
>arms on Second Amendment grounds. The Court reasoned the
>right to bear arms is reserved for the States, not individuals.
>
>The NRA, of course, is *not* appealing the case to the
>Supreme Court.
>
>So, Mr. Silver and Mr. Dan Schultz also of the LSAS closed
>down their law practices for 10 days and worked their butts off
>to meet the filing deadline for an appeal to the Supreme Clown
>Convention.
>
>Mr. Hickman will be on the show also. Hopefully, everyone
>understands that if the Second Amendment means that only
>States have the right to bear arms, then only States have the
>right to freedom of religion and press. Or is that too logical for
>some of my anti-gun readers to grasp?
>
>---------------Enthusiastic Corrections:
>
>(ZC) Last week I mentioned a fantastic document which
>explains how capitalism really works. Unfortunately I typo-ed
>the location - which resulted in a wonderful surprise. Many
>readers figured out the typo, found the location and wrote back
>with rave reviews about the document which was written by TJ
>Rodgers of Cypress Semiconductor. Here's the correct
>location:
>
>http://www.cypress.com/cypress/cyp_news/gormley.htm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>If you're the least bit curious about what Capitalism truly is,
>fire up your browser and take a look.
>
>--
[major snip]

Rick Tompkins

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
                                         THOMAS JEFFERSON

----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.

"Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for "stricter
 gun control" cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds. I have
 nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom
 I have come in contact over the past years. They are, for the most part,
 sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to
 reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized
 person must share. I have, however, come to be convinced that they are
 barking up the wrong tree." -- James Wright (scholarly research who
 collaborates with Peter Rossi)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Study: Weapons laws deter crime
Date: 02 Aug 1996 19:32:17 -0600


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nds1.htm

> [Keep an eye on your competitors | www.personal.infoseek.com]
>
> 08/02/96 - 11:18 AM ET - Click reload often for latest version
>
> Study: Weapons laws deter crime
>
> In a comprehensive study that may reshape the gun control debate,
> researchers have found that letting people carry concealed guns
> appears to sharply reduce killings, rapes and other violent crimes.
>
> The nationwide study found that violent crime fell after states made
> it legal to carry concealed handguns:
>
>    * Homicide, down 8.5%.
>    * Rape, down 5%.
>    * Aggravated assault, down 7%.
>
> The University of Chicago study, obtained by USA TODAY, is set to be
> released next Thursday. But its impending release has already sent
> shock waves through the gun-control debate because of the effect it
> may have on one of the most controversial areas of gun law.
>
> Since 1986, the number of states making it legal to carry concealed
> weapons has grown from nine to 31.
>
> The National Rifle Association has led this fight in state
> legislatures, arguing that concealed weapons deter crime.
>
> Gun control supporters counter that these laws cost lives by
> increasing accidental deaths and impulsive killings.
>
> The study analyzed FBI crime statistics in the nation's 3,054 counties
> from 1977 to 1992 to see if the introduction of concealed-weapons laws
> had any effect on crime.
>
> The results overwhelmingly supported the idea that these laws deter
> violent crime.
>
> The drop isn't primarily caused by people defending themselves with
> guns, says John Lott, the study's author. Rather, criminals seem to
> alter their behavior to avoid coming into contact with a person who
> might have a gun.
>
> Concealed-weapons laws have drawbacks, too, the study found. Auto
> theft and larceny increased. Criminals shifted to property offenses,
> in which contact with a victim is rare, says Lott.
>
> "The policy implications are undeniable: If you're interested in
> reducing murder and rape, then letting law-abiding, mentally competent
> citizens carry concealed weapons has a positive impact," says Lott.
>
> Gun control backer Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center blasted
> the study: "Anyone who argues that these laws reduce crime either
> doesn't understand the nature of crime or has a preset agenda."
>
> Lott, who spent two years on the study, says he sent his research to
> scholars who might disagree with him and made changes to satisfy the
> critics.
>
> David Kopel, a gun control scholar who did a smaller study on the same
> issue, says, "Lott's study is so far ahead of all previous studies
> that it makes them all worthless."
>
> By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY



<----  End Forwarded Message  ---->

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]
Subject: DEADLY THREAT
Date: 03 Aug 1996 01:06:35 -0600

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune Friday.  It
looks like we may now have to defend ourselves from the police!  Personally, I
think Officer Bell is a "rogue cop" and HE should be seeking other employment
since he's obviously a danger to the people he's supposed to protect.  Since
when do police officers publicly threaten the citizens they "serve" with
violence?

If you agree, I'd suggest writing to the following:

    Chief Ruben Ortega
    Salt Lake City Police Dept.
    315 E. 200 South
    Salt Lake City, UT 84102

    Mayor Deedee Corradini
    451 S. State Street
    Salt Lake City, UT 84111

    Superintendent Douglas Bordrero
    Utah Dept. of Public Safety
    4501 S. 2700 West
    West Valley City, UT 84119

Thanks!

Sarah
(At least I'VE taken an oath never to INITIATE violence.  Shouldn't the police
do the same?)


http://www.sltrib.com/96/AUG/02/tlt/22521918.htm

>                   The Salt Lake Tribune Public Forum
>                         Friday, August 2, 1996
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                              DEADLY THREAT
>
>
>          [Image]  Dave Servatius (Forum, July 14) he wrote
>         that he has discussed the issue of citizens carrying
>         (concealed) firearms with ``numerous'' law
>         enforcement officers. He further indicated that these
>         officers, in private, support and even encourage
>         citizens to carry firearms. He then identified two
>         members of the Salt Lake City Police Department as
>         having told him that it was their belief that the
>         police `` . . . cannot insure the safety of the
>         citizens.''
>
>          [Image]  If these two officers actually made such a
>         statement, I would recommend that they find new
>         employment. I am familiar with both identified
>         officers and therefore somewhat suspect their
>         motivation for making such a statement, if in fact
>         they made such a statement. I believe both have a
>         personal agenda regarding anything that resembles
>         ``gun control.'' This might have influenced their
>         thought on this matter.
>
>          [Image]  I have worked for the Salt Lake City Police
>         Department longer than either of the two officers
>         mentioned by Servatius and I have never felt that we
>         (police) cannot insure the safety of our citizens. I
>         know for certain that carrying a Combat Colt under
>         your jacket is not going to protect your house from
>         being burglarized while you're away. However, joining
>         or establishing a Neighborhood Watch could save it.
>         Taking your Glock 9mm to the library will not stop
>         the next gang-related shooting, but becoming involved
>         in the Mobile Watch might.
>
>          [Image]  I would like to inform Servatius and any
>         others who believe that simply tucking that gun under
>         their shirt will be beneficial to always wear old
>         clothing. If I or any other law enforcement officer
>         observes your ``hidden'' weapon, you will be lying
>         face down in the dirt having handcuffs placed on you.
>         I and others involved in law enforcement cannot
>         afford to get into the mind set that a person
>         carrying a hidden handgun is just a ``good'' citizen.
>         What you become is a potential deadly threat to me,
>         and I have to treat you as such.
>
>          [Image]  So remember, the questions as to who you
>         are and why you are carrying the gun will come after
>         you are face down and handcuffed.
>
>         D.B. BELL
>         Salt Lake City

>         ------------------------------------------------------
>
>         ⌐ Copyright 1996, The Salt Lake Tribune
>
>         All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The
>         Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No
>         material may be reproduced or reused without explicit
>         permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.


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: Officer Bell
Date: 03 Aug 1996 17:09:20 -0600


Below is my letter to the SLC police department and mayor's office
submitted for your critique.  Please join suite and let the big
brother know that this is unacceptable behaviour.

Charles Hardy
xxxxxx
xxxxx

August 3, 1996

Chief Ruben Ortega
Salt Lake City Police Dept.
315 E. 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84102

Mayor Deedee Corradini
451 S. State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111


Dear Mayor Corradini and Chief Ortega

I have just read a letter to the editor in the Salt Lake Tribune from
an officer D.B. Bell.  That letter is transcribed below for your
convenience.  In this public letter, officer Bell informs the 12,160
law-abiding citizens of this State who have received the requisite
training and submitted to fingerprinting, photographs, and background
checks and have been issued permits by the State to carry a concealed
weapons that "[i]f [he] or any other law enforcement officer observes
[their] ``hidden'' weapon, [they] will be lying face down in the dirt
having handcuffs placed on [them]."  He also states "the questions as
to who [they] are and why [they] are carrying the gun will come after
[they] are face down and handcuffed."

He justifies this course of action by writing, "I and others involved
in law enforcement cannot afford to get into the mind set that a
person carrying a hidden handgun is just a ``good'' citizen."  I must
strenuously disagree.  Given that Utah law specifically provides for
adults to carry a "hidden" weapon, those in law enforcement appear to
have no choice but to "get into the mind set" that at least some, if
not many or most, non-threating adults carrying "hidden" guns are, in
fact "just 'good' citizens."

In light of current State law, officer Bell's statement appears to be
a threat of unnecessary and inappropriate force.  I am concerned we may
have an insecure and hot-headed officer who seems prone to violence
taking it upon himself to pronounce police department policy with
regard to appropriate officer reaction upon suspecting or discovering
a concealed firearm on an individual offering neither threats nor
violence.  I am even more concerned at the possibility that throwing
non-threating, law-abiding adults to the ground at the first hint of a
bulge under their clothes may, in fact, be police department policy.
Or that the department has no clear policy in this area and leaves the
handling of such situations too much to the individual officer's
discretion -- officers such as D.B. Bell who have already decided
that gestapo-like police-state tactics are appropriate courses of
action to take with their employers, the tax-paying public.




It appears to me that officer Bell is opposed to citizens carrying
firearms for self defense.  That is his right.  However, if he wishes
to outlaw the carrying of concealed firearms he should employ the
legislative process as law-abiding citizens are expected.
Unfortunately, he seems bent on abusing his office of public trust and
taking the law into his own hands to prevent the carrying of concealed
weapons through harassment, intimidation, and violence.  Such action
would appear to border on "Infringement of Civil Rights under color of
law" -- a federal offense if I'm not mistaken.

I hereby formally request that a hearing be convened to determine it
officer Bell's comments and promised course of action are in harmony
with departmental policy and State and Federal laws.  I also request
to be informed of the outcome of said hearing.

I further request that a copy of official Salt Lake City Police
Department policy on officer handling of situations in which a
non-violent, non-threating individual is suspected of, or is found to
be, in possession of a concealed weapon, along with training standards
in this area be sent to me at my address above.  If either such policy
or training standards do not exist, I request a written statement to
that effect on departmental letter head and bearing the signature of
an official legally empowered to speak for the department.

The citizens of this State, particularly those who have fulfilled the
full requirements of the law and choose to exercise their rights to
self-defense, are under no obligation to be subjected to State
sponsored violence just to allay the concerns of police officers who,
it seems, are too ill-trained to insure their own safety through
legal, appropriate, and less intrusive, demeaning means.

Your prompt attention in this most serious matter of public safety and
potential civil rights abuse, as well as your written response
including the requested documentation of departmental policy and
training is most appreciated.

Sincerely



Charles Hardy









Transcribed from the August 2, 1996 Salt Lke Tribune.


                               DEADLY THREAT

        Dave Servatius (Forum, July 14) he wrote that he has discussed
the issue of citizens carrying (concealed) firearms with ``numerous''
law enforcement officers. He further indicated that these officers, in
private, support and even encourage citizens to carry firearms. He
then identified two members of the Salt Lake City Police Department as
having told him that it was their belief that the police ``
. . . cannot insure the safety of the citizens.''

        If these two officers actually made such a statement, I would
recommend that they find new employment. I am familiar with both
identified officers and therefore somewhat suspect their motivation
for making such a statement, if in fact they made such a statement. I
believe both have a personal agenda regarding anything that resembles
``gun control.'' This might have influenced their thought on this
matter.

        I have worked for the Salt Lake City Police Department longer
than either of the two officers mentioned by Servatius and I have
never felt that we (police) cannot insure the safety of our citizens.
I know for certain that carrying a Combat Colt under your jacket is
not going to protect your house from being burglarized while you're
away. However, joining or establishing a Neighborhood Watch could save
it. Taking your Glock 9mm to the library will not stop the next
gang-related shooting, but becoming involved in the Mobile Watch
might.

        I would like to inform Servatius and any others who believe
that simply tucking that gun under their shirt will be beneficial to
always wear old clothing. If I or any other law enforcement officer
observes your ``hidden'' weapon, you will be lying face down in the
dirt having handcuffs placed on you. I and others involved in law
enforcement cannot afford to get into the mind set that a person
carrying a hidden handgun is just a ``good'' citizen. What you become
is a potential deadly threat to me, and I have to treat you as such.

        So remember, the questions as to who you are and why you are
carrying the gun will come after you are face down and handcuffed.

     D.B. BELL
     Salt Lake City



--

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.

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine.
 Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
 -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: CCW letter to editor
Date: 03 Aug 1996 17:15:04 -0600


Finally, a letter to the editor (don't know which one yet since I wrote it
before reading aobut officer Bell and am sending a reply to his letter to
the tribune--probably the Deseret News and Daily Spectrum.)  Feel free
to critique or, on the outside chance you see something usefull, to
steal from, the following:

Charles Hardy
xxxx
xxx


Dear Editor

I am a bit confused by the irony of the arguments put forth by those
opposed to the carrying of concealed weapons.  On the one hand, these
individuals do not trust upstanding citizens to make it through the
day without loosing such control of their faculties as to begin
shooting people at random.  On the other hand, they think that the
criminal element in our society is going to honor their notion of
"no-crime" zones.

As of July 1, there were approximately 12,160 Utah citizens holding
State issued permits to carry a concealed weapon (CCW).  To date not a
single permit holder has illegally shot another person.  Not one!
There is a higher risk of being shot under questionable circumstances
by a police officer than by a private citizen legally carrying a
concealed weapon.

Now consider the folly of thinking "no-crime" zone exists.  Some have
expressed the opinion that libraries are not a place for violence.  I
whole-heartedly agree.  But then neither are churches, schools,
hospitals, parks, streets, nor homes.  However, even a cursory look
through our own papers will indicate that criminal violence does occur
in all these places.  The fact that criminals often employ a firearm
against defenseless victims only underscores the need for law-abiding
citizens to have firearms available for their self-defense.

I do not, nor have I ever held a State issued permit to carry a
concealed weapon.  My reasons are, I suspect, as personal and varied
as the reasons of those who do.  However, we all owe a debt of
gratitude to those who do decide to carry weapons.  As reported in the
August 2nd USA Today, a new study by John Lott at the University of
Chicago indicates that nationwide, violent crime fell by roughly 7% in
areas where citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons.  It seems
rapists, murderers, and thugs prefer unarmed victims and the potential
of a concealed weapon makes it tough to single out the safe targets.
Neither the 90 pound jogger nor the 90 year old grandmother are such
easy prey if they are trained and armed.

Sincerely


Charles Hardy


--

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.

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine.
 Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
 -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Office Bell--letter to editor
Date: 03 Aug 1996 17:26:12 -0600


Below is my letter to the editor of the SLT.  Fire up your assault
word processors...

Charles Hardy
xxxx
xxx


Dear Editor

I am deeply troubled by Officer D.B. Bell's August 2nd letter to the
Salt Lake Tribune editor entitled "Deadly Treat" wherein he informs
the 12,160 law-abiding citizens of this State who have received the
requisite training and submitted to fingerprinting, photographs, and
background checks and have been issued permits by the State to carry a
concealed weapons that "[i]f [he] or any other law enforcement officer
observes [their] ``hidden'' weapon, [they] will be lying face down in
the dirt having handcuffs placed on [them]."  He also states "the
questions as to who [they] are and why [they] are carrying the gun
will come after [they] are face down and handcuffed."

He justifies this course of action by writing, "I and others involved
in law enforcement cannot afford to get into the mind set that a
person carrying a hidden handgun is just a ``good'' citizen."  I must
strenuously disagree.  Given that Utah law specifically provides for
adults to carry a "hidden" weapon, those in law enforcement appear to
have no choice but to "get into the mind set" that at least some, if
not many or most, non-threating adults carrying "hidden" guns are, in
fact "just 'good' citizens" and treat them with due respect.

It appears to me that officer Bell is opposed to citizens carrying
firearms for self defense.  That is his right.  However, if he wishes
to outlaw the carrying of concealed firearms he should employ the
legislative process as law-abiding citizens are expected.
Unfortunately, he seems bent on abusing his office of public trust and
taking the law into his own hands to prevent the carrying of concealed
weapons through threats of harassment, intimidation, and violence.
Such action would appear to border on "Infringement of Civil Rights
under color of law" -- a federal offense if I'm not mistaken.

I encourage all those concerned about their safety and civil
liberties to contact the Salt Lake City Police Department and Mayor's
Office and demand that this rogue cop be reined in.

Sincerely



Charles Hardy


--

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.

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine.
 Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
 -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister



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

From: [e-mail] (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop)
Subject: Utah Health Dept. warning -- from -- Non-member submission from
Date: 05 Aug 1996 20:20:48 -0600

Scott - the list only accepts posts from the email address you are
subscribed through...

>Date: Mon,  5 Aug 96 20:06:00 -0700
>To: [e-mail]
>Organization: State of Utah (UTAHNET) 801-538-3383
>Subject: Health Dept Firearms Poll
>
>Subject: Utah Health Dept Polls about Firearms in Homes
>
>Today I received a call from Cecilia of Gallup Opinion Poll in
>Lincoln, Nebraska conducting a poll on behalf of the Utah State
>Health Department. Along with numerous questions about health,
>demographics, accidents, diet, medical insurance, etc., was a
>question about whether there were any firearms in the home.
>Although I declined to answer, this question is troubling since it
>appears that the Utah State Health Department may be attempting to
>make firearms a public health issue and make consequent regulatory
>recommendations to the Legislature.
>
>The point of contact is Lois Hagert (sp?), 538-9455. Her secretary
>is Kim Bangerter. Please inform me or the Utah-Firearms list of
>any developments.
>

------------------------- Live Free or Die ! ---------------------------
Chad Leigh              |  When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win!
Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of          The Electronic GunShop (sm)
http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop     mailto:[e-mail]
http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html  for text interface
Ask me about it!  Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and
Activism Info
--------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!--------------------



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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Utah Health Dept Polls about Firearms in Homes
Date: 05 Aug 1996 21:32:44 -0600 (MDT)

Today I received a call from Cecilia of Gallup Opinion Poll in
Lincoln, Nebraska conducting a poll on behalf of the Utah State
Health Department. Along with numerous questions about health,
demographics, accidents, diet, medical insurance, etc., was a
question about whether there were any firearms in the home.
Although I declined to answer, this question is troubling since it
appears that the Utah State Health Department may be attempting to
make firearms a public health issue and make consequent regulatory
recommendations to the Legislature.

The point of contact is Lois Hagert (sp?), 538-9455. Her secretary
is Kim Bangerter. Please inform me or the Utah-Firearms list of
any developments.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: 2nd Amendment to Supremes?]
Date: 06 Aug 1996 11:04:06 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

I previously posted this message. However, I am reposting it because we
we need to line up amicus briefs (at the Petition for Writ of Cert
level).  If you know of an organization which would like to submit a
brief, or sign on to one, please call us at [phone].  Briefs are
due on Monday, August 19!!!


Hickman v. Block: A Second Amendment Case Goes to the Supreme Court (Or
Does It)
    May You Defend Yourself?
    Although the answer to this question seems obvious, some
self-proclaimed "experts" claim you do not have this right. They
suggest the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution only
guarantees a state's right to maintain a militia.
    What's more, these same "experts" suggest the Second Amendment
does not prohibit gun control, not even total confiscation.
    Scholars Agree: A Personal Right -- Of the 45 law review articles

analyzing the Second Amendment since 1980, 40 concluded it guarantees a

personal right. Four of the others were written by "researchers" paid
by anti-gun groups, and one was by a politician!
    Indeed, all evidence from the Constitutional Convention shows the

Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to be a personal right.
Just ask the British: on April 19, 1775, they marched to Concord to
confiscate the Americans' firearms, and touched off the Revolutionary
War.
    The Ninth Circuit Weighs In -- The U.S. Supreme Court has never
addressed the question of whether the Amendment protects an individual
right. However, on April 5, 1996, the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit held
in Hickman v. Block that the Second Amendment did not guarantee your
right to own a firearm. Rather, the Ninth Circuit held the Amendment
only guarantees a "state's right" to maintain a militia.
    That's when The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society (LSAS) went
into action. On July 5, 1996, the LSAS filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari (a request for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of
the Ninth Circuit's decision) on behalf of the plaintiff, Ray Hickman.
    It is anybody's guess what the Court will do. However, if the
Court agrees to hear Hickman, we intend to win.
    $5 for Freedom -- To be successful, we need your help. We are
asking every gun owner to contribute at least $5 to the cause. With a
well-funded war chest, we will hire the best legal minds in the country
to write the brief and argue the case. Is your freedom worth $5?
    Surplus funds will be used to underwrite other worthwhile
pro-firearms litigation. Everyone is invited to join the LSAS; dues are

$35 for lawyers, $25 for all others, and include a subscription to our
acclaimed newsletter, "The Liberty Pole."

Thank you for your support.

Dan Schultz, President
Steve Silver, Vice President
The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society
18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329, Encino, CA 91316 [phone]
web site: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/law_pole.html
(The LSAS is a non-profit 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization; Donations
are *not* tax-deductible.)







----- End Included Message -----


----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.

"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not
 to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." -- Dwight
"Travels in New-England"

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Letter to Legislators
Date: 06 Aug 1996 16:36:20 -0600


Below is my first swipe at a letter to my legislators on the CCW
changes swirling around the media.  It is a little over 700 words and
I am concerned about the length.  I can't decide whether to send it as
is, try to shorten it but hit all the same points (private property,
businesses, churches, schools) or to break it into two shorter letters
one dealing with perhaps churches and schools and one dealing with
businesses and private property.  Suggestions would be appreciated.

Charles Hardy
xxxx
xxx

August 6, 1996

Hon. Senator David Buhler
1844 E. Hollywood Ave.
SLC, UT  84108

Dear Senator Buhler

I am writing in regard to the proposed changes to Utah's concealed
weapon permit laws I have heard about in the media.  Particularly
those that would allow private businesses to ban weapons on their
property and completely prohibit weapons in churches and schools.  I
am very concerned about potential restrictions on not only my ability
to exercise my right to self defense through the carrying of a
defensive weapon, but also the erosion of private property rights.

I believe that restricting the public places a person may legally
carried a concealed weapon will generally result in more, not less,
crime.  Consider that much crime involving guns is committed with
stolen weapons.  There is certainly much less chance of a weapon being
stolen while in the physical possession of the owner than from an
unattended vehicle; and those vehicles are exactly where guns will be
left if they cannot be carried into a given area.  Beyond that,
criminals will surely ignore "no-gun" zones just as they ignore the
laws against rape, robbery, and murder.  Individuals legally carrying
a firearms are no more likely to commit crimes in one building than in
another.

However, I do believe that private property owners do have the right
to restrict access to their property.  If a private property owner
does not want firearms on his property, he should be free to prohibit
them just as he might prohibit any individual for any other reason.
But, if we suggest that a public establishment may bar entrance to, or
otherwise discriminate against, anyone exercising their rights to
self-defense by legally being in possession of a firearm, it seems we
must also be willing to accept that same establishment may
discriminate against someone based on race, religion, or any other
reason.  I do not think the citizens of this State are prepared to do
that.  Private property owners must also be free to allow or encourage the
presense of firearms on their property.

Churches, in order to maintain true religious freedom, must have the
greatest possible discretion over their holdings.  Thus, if some
churches wish to prohibit firearms on some or all of their property,
they must be free to do so.  But other churches must remain free to
allow or even encourage the presense of firearms on their properties.
A legislative prohibition on weapons in churches would infringe on
churches' rights to use their property as they see fit.  It would also
leave what recent events in the South prove to be popular targets for
crime completely dependent on the state for defense--a defense the
state is not legally obligated to provide.

Schools are the great red-herring of this entire end-run around
self-defense rights.  Inasmuch as no one under 21 years of age may
obtain a permit to carry a weapon concealed in this State, it is
already illegal for students to have guns in school.  However,
teachers, administrators, parents, and other law-abiding adults who
may have business at public schools have as much right to self defense
while in transit to or from or actually at the school as they do
anywhere else in the State.  Adult students attending colleges and
universities have the same rights and may be particularly vulnerable to
crime because of the hours they must keep.

Further, if permit holders are not "specifically authorized to possess
firearms" then even leaving their firearm in a car on or near school
grounds may very well put them in violation of federal laws, forcing
them to leave the gun at home or to park excessive distances from
school grounds.  Both options leave law-abiding adults needlessly
unarmed and defenseless for prolonged periods.  Publicly owned
property should not be allowed to prohibit weapons unless facilities
for storing patrons guns are provided and substantive security is
maintained to ensure that criminals may not simply ignore the signs
and prey like wolves on so many sheep.

Finally, I believe it is important to protect the rights of
individuals.  Anyplace concealed weapon permits are invalid should be
required to be clearly posted at all entrances.  This will allow
holders of CCWs to remain informed and to decide ahead of time whether
or not to enter the posted property and to take whatever action is
necessary to remain within the bounds of the law.  Such posting should
be required regardless of whether such property is privately or
publicly owned.  Neither criminal nor civil penalties should be
allowed for an infraction anyplace not properly posted.

Thank you for your attention in these matters.  I would very much
appreciate your comments on this topic.

Sincerely


Charles Hardy

--

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.

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but
 with tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will
 be certainly be lost." -- William Lloyd Garrison

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: school zone maps
Date: 06 Aug 1996 18:43:41 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----


Last year in Arizona, someone took a large map and highlighted where
every school in the city was located.  This included pre-schools,
private schools, church schools, universities, university hospitals,
anything that be intreprted under the State definition of a school.
He then highlighted outward from every "school" boundry the maps scale
of 1000 feet.

This showed which areas in the city a person carry a concealed weapon
would be guilty of crime if they entered given the State's (current
and potential) definition of a school and the fed's 1000 ft gun free
zone.  Apparently it made quite a visual presentation for legislators
who were of the opinion that prohibiting weapons at schools didn't
really affect anyone.

Might be worth having at the next hearing on the topic of ccw permits.

Anyone know how to go about getting a list of all the licsensed
schools in SLC?

--

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.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from
 falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
 government from falling into error." -- Justice Robert H. Jackson
----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.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from
 falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
 government from falling into error." -- Justice Robert H. Jackson

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Letter to Legislators
Date: 07 Aug 1996 07:18:15 -0600



On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, [e-mail] (Charles Hardy) wrote:
>
>Below is my first swipe at a letter to my legislators on the CCW
>changes swirling around the media.  It is a little over 700 words and
>I am concerned about the length.  I can't decide whether to send it as
>is, try to shorten it but hit all the same points (private property,
>businesses, churches, schools) or to break it into two shorter letters
>one dealing with perhaps churches and schools and one dealing with
>businesses and private property.  Suggestions would be appreciated.
>
>Charles Hardy

Charles,
    While your letter makes excellent points, it is WAY too long!
A general rule of thumb when writing to legislators is that the letter should
never be more than one typewritten page - and not single spaced!  (This is
true for letters to the editor of newspapers as well.)
    Also, it's important to be very clear as to what you want your
legislator to actually DO, what legislation you'd like to see enacted or
opposed.
    If you'd like me to edit this, let me know, but it may take me a
couple of days.  This is a busy week!
    Thanks again for your enthusiasm and support.

Best wishes,
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]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Letter to Legislators
Date: 07 Aug 1996 12:14:12 -0600


On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, [e-mail] posted:

>Charles,
>    While your letter makes excellent points, it is WAY too long!
>A general rule of thumb when writing to legislators is that the letter should
>never be more than one typewritten page - and not single spaced!  (This is
>true for letters to the editor of newspapers as well.)
>    Also, it's important to be very clear as to what you want your
>legislator to actually DO, what legislation you'd like to see enacted or
>opposed.
>    If you'd like me to edit this, let me know, but it may take me a
>couple of days.  This is a busy week!
>    Thanks again for your enthusiasm and support.
>
>Best wishes,
>Sarah

It seems even the brightest of individuals lose the ability to read
more than 100 words at a sitting as soon as they are elected to
office.  ;) I'm open to any and all suggestions as to the best way to
persuade my elected officials to vote for freedom.

I'm especially interested in what specific course of action to suggest
when there is no specific bill in question yet.  While I'm guessing
that most any bill modifying the CCW statute will be so full of
statist garbage that it should be oppossed, it's just that, a guess.

But as you can see from my letter, there are a few changes that I
think should be made wrt the rights of propety owners and the
responsibilities of property owners and government to clearly post and
of government to provide storage for weapons that cannont be carried
into an area.  (Totally truthfully, I think the permit system should
be scrapped and we should go to a Vermont style law.  But I know that
is way to radical to fly at this point.  Freedom can be scary.)  At
the suggestion of other list members, the letter has been broken into
two letters--one dealing with schools and other governmetn owned
property and the other dealing with churches and businesses.  At their
suggetion I have also added a bit to one letter dealing with
government assuming responsibility for my safety when they disarm me
and maing sure civil recourse is available.


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.

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against
 arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now
 appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be
 always possible." -- Senator Hubert Humphrey

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: FOX to air story on Lott paper
Date: 08 Aug 1996 13:22:59 -0600

FOX-13 news in Salt Lake City will be covering the presentation of the
Lott-Mustard paper (on the benefits of CCW) at the Cato Institute today.
Reporter Robin McLean will be interviewing Sarah Thompson, M.D. of DIPR about
the paper and its implications for CCW policy.  Be sure to watch, and also to
call and thank FOX and Ms. McLean for their willingness to cover this issue.

The paper itself can be found at: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guncont.html
or in other formats and including tables at
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html

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]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html


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

From: [e-mail] (Chad Leigh)
Subject: Action! Lott CCW stufi to the legislature, gov, and mayors
Date: 13 Aug 1996 11:42:17 -0600

Hi All

I would like to organize an action to collect money and to use that money
to purchase nice official bound copies of the Chicago/Lott CCW study that
just came out and to present them to each Utah senator and legislator at
the State House as well as the governor and some of the mayors.

What do you all think?

regards
Chad



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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: LPU: Browne on KALL
Date: 15 Aug 1996 03:39:41 -0600 (MDT)




Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate will be on Kevin
Stanfield's program on KALL-910 AM from 5:30 to 6:00 PM on Wednesday, August
28th. Mark your calendar.
Tune in and call in.

Remember that Harry Browne is the ONLY presidential candidate who will guarantee
our Second Amendment rights, without restriction!  He's also got a lot of other
good ideas and is an engaging speaker.  This should be good!

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]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Director of Communications, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: CCW discussion on KTKK
Date: 17 Aug 1996 17:16:58 -0600 (MDT)

Sarah Thompson, M.D. and attorney Elwood Powell will be appearing on the
Robyn Bowers show on KTKK (K-TALK) radio, 630 AM, from noon to 1 PM on
Monday, Aug. 19.  Our topic will be concealed carry permits.

Please listen, and please call in with support, comments, questions, etc.
The call-in numbers are 254-5855 (SLC), 670-5855 (Ogden) and 470-5855 (Provo).
We don't want to talk to ourselves!

If you like the show, please call KTKK or Robyn and thank them.  253-4883

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]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: CCW discussion on KTKK
Date: 19 Aug 1996 17:16:38 -0600


On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, [e-mail] posted:

>Sarah Thompson, M.D. and attorney Elwood Powell will be appearing on the
>Robyn Bowers show on KTKK (K-TALK) radio, 630 AM, from noon to 1 PM on
>Monday, Aug. 19.  Our topic will be concealed carry permits.
>
>Please listen, and please call in with support, comments, questions, etc.
>The call-in numbers are 254-5855 (SLC), 670-5855 (Ogden) and 470-5855 (Provo).
>We don't want to talk to ourselves!
>
>If you like the show, please call KTKK or Robyn and thank them.  253-4883

I don't have a radio at work yet and so missed the show.  Anyone care
to summarize it for me?

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.

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It
 is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds,
 death, and destruction in the minimum amount of time." -- General George
 S. Patton

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Off-topic: Banks
Date: 20 Aug 1996 17:59:57 -0600


This is mostly off-topic but I figured someone here might have a good
suggestion.

I have been banking with First Interstate for 10 years but three
things have happened recently that suggest it is time for me to take
my business elsewhere.

1.  First Interstate decided that every customer holding an ATM card
would be issued a new ATM card which doubles as a debit card.  Since
this card may be used just like a credit card at certain businesses,
it now provides access to your funds without knowing the pin number.
There is no option to maintain an ATM without the Debit "feature".

2.  First Interstate declined to allow a legal defense fund account to
be opened in one of their Arizona branches for the accused members of
Team Viper (known in the media as Viper Militia).  It seems First
Interstate cares more for political correctness than assisting those
interested in justice help the accused receive decent representation.

And the straw that has broken the camel's back:

3.  I just noticed that First Interstate is now requiring a finger
print from all non First Interstate costomers to cash checks drawn on
First Interstate.  I frankly don't care to have my business associates
treated as common criminals.

So my question is, does anyone know of a good institution here in the
valley that:

1:  Does not fingerprint to cash checks.

2:  Has ATM cards without a Debit "feature".

3:  No or very low fee checking/savings.

4:  Convenient location.

It would also be nice if they had on-line banking services free or
inexpensive and even better if they were openly pro-gun rights.  I
suppose that is too much to hope for so I'll settle for one that is
neutral on the topic.

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.

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"It is in vain, Sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace,
 Peace! -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next
 gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of
 resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we
 here idle? What is it that Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life
 so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains
 and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may
 take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry
 (1736-1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: LPU: Browne Wins "Election"
Date: 20 Aug 1996 23:38:59 -0600 (MDT)

Whether or not you support Harry Browne's campaign, he DOES deserve to be heard
in the debates.  Please sign the petition and pass it on!

Thanks!
Sarah


Harry Brown, Libertarian Party Candidate, * wins * CNN TIME/Warner
internet Virtual Pesidential Election (you may have heard this
already but here are the exact final vote tolls):

 CNN TIME Virtual Election Results (total votes: 16553)
 one vote per person

 Candidate   Votes  Percentage

 Harry Browne  5004   30.23 %
 Bob Dole      3952   23.87 %
 Bill Clinton  3029   18.30 %
 Pat Buchanan  1375    8.31 %
 Ross Perot     470    2.84 %


See for yourself:

http://pathfinder.com/cgi-bin/GDML/report/AllPolitics?AllPolitics/virtualele
ctionresults.html

CNN Time is supposedly going to host a presidential debate.
Harry Brown will not be invited. Hell, winning isn't everything,
it's certainly not grounds for receiving any attention.

It stands to reason that the most intelligent people are those
that have staked a claim on the computer internet. It therefore
follows that the intelligent presidential choice is Harry Browne.

What to do next (from Hugh Butler)

There's an on-line petitioning drive to get Harry Browne into the debates. If
you go to http://www.twr.com/stbo  you'll find a place to sign, and get other
info concerning the drive. If you're interested, please do so, and pass the
message along to anyone else you feel may wish to help. Thanks!


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]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 48 HOURS
Date: 20 Aug 1996 23:39:40 -0600 (MDT)

THEY'RE ARMED!
THEY'RE READY TO PULL THE TRIGGER!
"I'm ready to kill somebody in a heartbeat." (innocent looking blonde woman)

Teaser for "48 HOURS", thursday on CBS.


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]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: SHOOT DOWN JUNK SCIENCE
Date: 20 Aug 1996 23:45:11 -0600 (MDT)

> THIS IS A MESSAGE IN 'MIME' FORMAT.  Your mail reader does not support MIME.
> Please read the first section, which is plain text, and ignore the rest.
> This message was composed with SPRY Mail. Contact SPRY at 1-800-777-9638.

--XXCGW-1838713197XX
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit





http://www.sltrib.com/96/aug/20/tlt/21555816.htm

>                        Tuesday, August 20, 1996
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                         SHOOT DOWN JUNK SCIENCE
>
>
>
>           The headline ``NRA Effort Works: Funds For
>         Gun Research Sliced'' (Tribune, July 14) is
>         misleading and inflammatory, and the accompanying
>         article contains many factual errors which require
>         clarification.
>
>           No one in the pro-gun movement opposes
>         legitimate firearms research, not even the much
>         maligned and allegedly ``evil'' NRA. However, it is
>         reasonable to expect that our tax dollars be used for
>         legitimate, scientifically accurate research, not
>         junk science and propaganda designed to support the
>         administration's anti-gun policies.
>
>            Research must always be neutral, yet the
>         National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
>         (NCIPC) has consistently published poorly designed
>         and statistically invalid studies. Its
>         ``researchers'' start with the premise that guns must
>         be eliminated and then design the studies to prove
>         this premise. They have refused to acknowledge or
>         consider studies by criminologists showing that
>         firearms have a net benefit to society. This is the
>         reason their funding came up for review.
>
>           The House Appropriations subcommittee
>         responded not to ``lobbying'' by the NRA, but rather
>         scientific evidence presented by a coalition of
>         highly educated professionals. Those who testified
>         before the committee were: Bill Waters, M.D., of
>         Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research; Timothy
>         Wheeler, M.D., president of Doctors for Responsible
>         Gun Ownership; Miguel Faria, M.D., former editor of
>         the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia,
>         and Don Kates, a widely respected and often cited
>         lawyer and criminologist.
>
>            These experts may or may not be members of
>         the NRA, but they are not spokespersons for the NRA,
>         nor are they officers of that organization. The House
>         Subcommittee is to be commended for both protecting
>         the public from false research and for saving
>         millions of dollars needlessly wasted on this
>         propaganda.
>
>            The Tribune owes an apology to the House
>         subcommittee, the NRA, the experts who took time out
>         of their busy schedules to testify, and especially
>         the readers who depend on you for accurate, unbiased
>         information.
>
>         SARAH THOMPSON, M.D.
>         Salt Lake City

>         ------------------------------------------------------
>
>         ⌐ Copyright 1996, The Salt Lake Tribune
>
>         All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The
>         Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No
>         material may be reproduced or reused without explicit
>         permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.


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]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.
--XXCGW-1838713197XX
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="21555816.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="21555816.htm"
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==
--XXCGW-1838713197XX--


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

From: Fred Orrell <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Off-topic: Banks
Date: 21 Aug 1996 10:32:39 -0600 (MDT)

I believe that the fingerprint requirement was approved by the state,
possibly was some kind of law. I remember talking to my bank, Zion's,
and they have the same thing.

I would suggest a credit union. They generally are more economical, but
pick a well know one. I use the University of Utah for business accounts
and have considered switching all my banking to those folks.

Fred Orrell


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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Off-topic: Banks
Date: 21 Aug 1996 13:08:36 -0600

Fred Orrell wrote:
>
> I believe that the fingerprint requirement was approved by the state,
> possibly was some kind of law. I remember talking to my bank, Zion's,
> and they have the same thing.
>
> I would suggest a credit union. They generally are more economical, but
> pick a well know one. I use the University of Utah for business accounts
> and have considered switching all my banking to those folks.
>
> Fred Orrell
The decision to use fingerprints, as reported on KCNR 860, was a Utah
Bankers Assoc. decision to allow it.  As I understand it, not all banks
are required to do it.  I believe Key Bank is not.

I would agree with the credit union deal.  I use America First and they
have always been happy to do what I ask and While I'm not sure about
On-Line, they do have Touch Tone Banking, no charge on ATM, free
checking,
etc.

Re KCNR....one of the hosts spent a week or so ranting about
fingerprints
and ATM charges.  After speaking to Bank 1's regional manager, who told
him that his account wasn't of sufficient size to concern her, he moved
his accounts to Mounain West Credit Union.  ( I think those "facts" are
correct.)

G'Day

Will
--
Will Thompson
Alpha Engineering
Philips BTS
Phone [phone]   Fax [phone]  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: PT Press Release
Date: 23 Aug 1996 22:13:57 -0600 (MDT)




The following went out as a press release to the news media yesterday.

JH

NEWS  RELEASE
Peaceable Texans For Firearms Rights

Contact:  Paul Velte, 512-476-2299        Release:  August, 20, 1996

     ATF PROVES GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH GUN REGISTRATION

    Thomas A. Busey, then Chief of the National Firearms Act Branch of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms in October of 1995 made the startling
revelation that officials under his supervision routinely perjure themselves
when testifying in court about the accuracy of the federal database that the
government uses to register and tax machine guns (the National Firearms
Registration and Transfer Record or NFR&TR).  The NFR&TR is mandated by the
1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), and Chief Busey is the official custodian
of this governmental record.
    Every prosecution brought by the federal government involving an
allegedly
unregistered machine gun requires testimony under oath by a duly-authorized
custodian of the NFR&TR that, after a diligent search of the official
records, no record of the registration of the firearm in question was found
(or was found but showed a different registrant than the person being
prosecuted).  An alternative method of proving the same facts is by
admission into evidence of a certified copy under official Treasury
Department seal of a similar written declaration by the custodian.  This is
a critical element of the government's proof and, according to Busey,
occurred 880 times in 1995 alone.
    In a video taped training session, Chief Busey stated that, "when we
testify in court, we testify that the data base is 100 percent accurate.
That's what we testify to, and we will always testify to that.  As you
probably well know, that may not be 100 percent true."  Later in the same
video tape, Busy goes on to state, "when I first came in a year ago, our
error rate was between 49 and 50 percent, so you can imagine what the
accuracy of the NFRTR could be, if your error rate's 49 to 50 percent."
    When the existence of this video tape was leaked to defense attorney
James
H. Jeffries, III, he initiated a FOIA request.  Eventually the Justice
Department responded by sending a transcript of the video tape to Jeffries
in February, 1996 (they have thus far refused to release the tape itself).
Justice has now begun advising every NFA defendant in the country of the
situation.  It did this with a recent mass mailing by United States
Attorneys to defense lawyers and defendants of relevant BATF documents,
including the Busey tape transcript.
    It is too early to predict how many new trials, appeals, and habeas
corpus
actions will result from this affair.  Also unknown is the number of
innocent convicted felons presently serving time in federal prison from
flawed weapons convictions and what effect the Busey disclosures will have
on their situation.
    "What we have here is a prime example of why we cannot trust government
firearm registration schemes," said Paul Velte, founder of Peaceable Texans
for Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group based in Austin.
"If we are going to put people in jail for failing to register their
firearms, then we must have government agents who we can trust to keep
accurate registration records and honest enough to admit it when they do
not," said Velte.  "We want to know if anyone in BATF is going to pay any
price for this 'institutional perjury.'  What they have done is criminal."




<----  End Forwarded Message  ---->

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]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: All About Guns in the UK
Date: 23 Aug 1996 22:14:09 -0600 (MDT)






Sean Gabb Internet Release

Re:  The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Last Sunday the 18th August, I took part in a one hour discussion
on Radio Viva (963 Kh, London area only).  I argued for the
unfettered right to keep and bear arms.  Opposing me were
Tobias Bernstein of Society Against Guns in Europe (SAGE) and
Jacqueline Walsh of the Snowdrop Campaign.  Sort of opposing
me was Graham Downing of the British Shooting Sports Council.

Here follows a transcript of the first ten minutes of the
programme.  Since I have a living to earn doing other things, I
haven't transcribed the whole - which is a shame, bearing in mind
all that was said.  However, what there is should be interesting,
especially to those Americans who may not share Mr Bernstein's
view of the Second Amendment to their Constitution.

S T A R T S
=======================

Sunday 18th August 1996, 10:13am.  Jasmine Birtles (Presenter),
Sean Gabb (Libertarian Alliance), Tobias Bernstein (Society
Against Guns in Europe).


JB  Last week, we heard the official outcome of an all party
    [Parliamentary] committee on guns.  The committee
    members were utterly split - in fact, it was six Conservative
    Members who voted to keep handguns, and five Labour
    Members who voted against.  But they finally decided not to
    recommend the banning of handguns but simply a tightening
    of the licensing laws.  Of course, we are still awaiting the
    result of the official Inquiry into the Dunblane Massacre, but
    for the moment is seems that handguns at least, as well as
    some shotguns, are here to stay.

    In today's debate, we have Tobias Bernstein from the anti-
    gun group SAGE [Society Against Guns in Europe], who's
    on the phone.  In the studio at the moment we have Sean
    Gabb from the Libertarian Alliance.  Later in the hour,
    we'll be speaking to Graham Downing, who's the
    spokesman for the British Shooting Sports Council, and also
    to Jacqueline Walsh, who's the organiser of the Snowdrop
    Petition, which, obviously enough, is against guns.

    If we could just start with you, Sean, as you're in the
    studio, could you just explain a little about the philosophy
    behind the Libertarian Alliance?

SIG The Libertarian Alliance believes in Life, Liberty and
    Property.  We believe in free enterprise, in privatisation, in
    low taxes - indeed, in many cases in no taxes at all.  We are
    rather like what's called the right wing of the Tory Party -
    except that we take our principles to their logical conclusion,
    and say that if people are to have the right to make money
    in the way of their choice, they should also have the right to
    spend it in the way of their choice.  Therefore, we're
    against any controls on drugs, pornography, and
    prostitution; we're against immigration controls; and - just
    a side issue, we're against gun controls as well.

JB  Do you have any difficulty with the idea that maniacs could
    have guns?  Do you feel that there should controls on that -
     that there should be a toughening of the licensing laws at
    least?

SIG No I don't.  Let me give you my position very clearly.  I
    believe that any adult should have the right to go into a gun
    shop and, without producing any licence or any form of
    identification, should have the right to buy as many guns
    and as much ammunition as he or she can take away; and
    should have the right to use all this for the defence of his or
    her life, liberty and property.

JB  For the defence?

SIG For the defence.  Now, if that means that, once every
    decade or so, some maniac runs amok, freedom has its
    costs.  But the thing that the gungrabbers don't take into
    account - what they leave to one side - is that there's a
    downside to gun control.  If guns are banned, it means that
    respectable people do not have any means of defending
    themselves; and it means that criminals - who will always
    get hold of guns if they want them - will be able to wander
    among us like a fox through chickens.  Another point that
    the gungrabbers often overlook is that the State is the
    biggest violator of life, liberty and property in the 20th
    century.  It is states that have murdered something like 250
    million people this century.  I don't hear any calls to disarm
    the policemen you see at Heathrow Airport with their
    Heckler and Koch submachine guns.  I don't see any panic
    about the policeman who stands outside the offices of El Al
    in Regent street with his submachine gun.  Supposing they
    were to run amok?  People think "No, of course not!  These
    are the State.  They are trained.  Well, as a matter of plain
    fact, state servants do run amok.  They have uniforms put
    on their backs.  They get sent out to kill people.

JB  Tobias Bernstein, you are from SAGE, which is against
    guns of any sort.  Sean Gabb has said quite a lot about guns
    and why anybody should have the right to own them.  What
    is your response?  What do you think?

TB  I am surprised to hear what I've just heard.  The libertarian
    view is perhaps much too liberal for some people in this
    society.  The idea that as a free thinking and caring society
    we shouldn't try to protect ourselves from things which are
    clearly dangerous - like for example drugs, like for example
    guns - is, I think, ridiculous.  Of course we know that many
    people enjoy taking drugs, and we know that they perhaps
    claim not an addiction, but that they are enjoying
    themselves.  But that is illegal at present.  And likewise
    guns should be unlawful - because the vast majority of
    people may use them in safety, but the minority kill people.
    The reality is that, although the slogan is constantly used by
    the gun lobby - "Guns don't kill people:  people kill people"
    - it is both true and untrue.  The reality is that, although
    guns don't kill people, people with guns do.

JB  What do you feel about this issue of civil rights - which is
    very strong in America - according to which everyone
    should be able to have guns for self-defence?

TB  There is a misconception here.  Let me make it plain that
    the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
    does not provide for every citizen to be able to posses a gun
    as people believe.  It's a common misconception.  The
    Second Amendment deals with the State rights to arrange a
    militia and to have possession of guns.  In 1972 the Supreme
    Court ruled in the United States that there was no inherent
    right to the ownership of a gun, that it was a State right
    which they conferred on the people in the form of a
    privilege.  It is a farce to carry on thinking that in America
    everyone has a right to bear arms.  That's not necessarily
    true.

JB  I've noticed in one of your recent advertising campaigns,
    you've put: "Five months on, the gun lobby can breathe a
    sigh of relief.  Emma can't".  And we have a picture of
    Emma Crozier, one of the little girls killed in the Dunblane
    Massacre.

TB  She was murdered.

JB  There is this issue of freedom of adults to carry guns and
    the freedom of children to live.  That's obviously putting it
    in a very emotive way, but....

TB  We'd like to say that there is no liberty where fear exists.
    Regardless of your circumstances, if you live in fear, if you
    wonder whether or not you'll be shot in a public gathering -
     in your own home in fact, as happened to a Tory activist
    shot with a sporting shot gun at his home - you have no
    liberty at all.

JB  Sean, do you genuinely think it is worth the occasional
    sacrifice of children and adults for the sake of the right to
    bear arms?

SIG The short answer is yes.  But a slightly longer answer is to
    say that there is no contradiction between those rights.
    Thomas Hamilton ran amok in Dunblane.  He killed some
    children.  There's no doubt of that.  It was a disaster.  But
    I am saying that gun control does not work in the overall
    picture.  There is....

TB  [Interjection]

SIG No, let me finish.  I've let you finish.  There is no
    contradiction between my right to own a gun and someone
    else's right to stay alive.  Let me give you a clear
    illustration of this.  In 1933, Hitler came to power in
    Germany.  He immediately moved to disarm Jews and
    Communists and anyone else thought undesirable by his
    regime.  Because they had been disarmed, they were not
    able to prevent themselves from being herded into those
    concentration camps like cattle.

JB  That's selective, though.

SIG It's not selective.

TB  This is propagating paranoia.  I read this every day on the
    Internet, from American patriots who send me e-mail,
    propagating this paranoid fear of government.  If you don't
    trust your government and you don't trust your police can
    you trust yourself?  It's a disservice to the listeners of this
    programme to carry on propagating paranoia.

SIG It isn't paranoia.  We are talking about hundreds of millions
    murdered by states this century.  For heaven's sake, do you
    really trust the State?  If you do, why bother having a
    constitution and laws to restrain it?

TB  Do you trust your State?

SIG No, I don't trust the State.

TB  You're paranoid of the people who you've elected into
    government.  I think that that's a very sad state of affairs.
    I don't honestly think that this gentleman should be on the
    programme.

SIG Are you calling for censorship?

[No answer.  Programme continues until the hour with much,
much more of SIG]

E N D S
=============================
=======

Curious about a man who could talk about free thought and
caring in one breath and call for my banning from the airwaves
in another, I decided to look into Mr Bernstein and SAGE.  What
I found surprised me.

According to a publicity leaflet now before me, SAGE is "an
international pressure group with clear and concise aims".  These
are worth quoting in full:

    We seek to obtain the abolition of private ownership of
    all guns throughout the UK and Europe.

    We are actively targeting National Governments, the
    European Commission and law enforcement agencies
    throughout Europe to effect an immediate change to the
    current legislation on all private gun ownership.

    We are campaigning for the introduction of mandatory
    prison sentences for the illegal possession of any
    firearm.

If we do not wish to become a member of SAGE, we are invited
to join SAGE Community and Charitable Services, a registered
charity (No. 1056753) with a very similar logo.  We are invited
to do this because the charity

    is in place to allow sympathetic people and
    organisations to help fund our activities and promote
    our cause to a wider audience.

Now, while somewhat indulgent in other matters, the English law
of charities does not allow charities to register for tax exemption
while they engage in partisan political campaigning.  I do not
accuse SAGE the charity of doing this.  I have not enough
evidence to form any certain view.  I do not who is in charge of
each SAGE organisation, nor how the charitable wing is spending
its money.  However, the natural, grammatically correct, meaning
of the words quoted above is that SAGE the charity is soliciting
funds for SAGE the pressure group.  In an appeal to join SAGE
the pressure group, after all, to whom else could the possessive
adjective "our" refer?

It could be that Mr Bernstein is as incoherent on paper as he was
on air last Sunday, and that the two SAGEs are not joined in any
unlawful or disreputable way.  But, lacking the means to find this
out for myself, I invited the media to do the work for me in the
following press release, sent out on Monday the 19th August
1996:


S T A R T S
=============================
=======


Release Date:  Immediate, 20th August 1996

Free Market Think Tank
Calls for Investigation of "Sinister" Anti-Gun Group.

Britain's leading radical pro-free market and pro-civil liberties think
tank, the Libertarian Alliance, called today for an investigation into
the sinister political agenda of the campaigning anti-gun pressure
group, Society Against Guns in Europe (SAGE).

Appearing on a radio programme against Sean Gabb of the
Libertarian Alliance, a spokesman from SAGE made it clear that, in
his opinion, opponents of gun control should not be allowed on air to
put their views.

*   He expressed hostility to other liberal and civil libertarian
    positions, apart from the right to keep and bear arms for
    self-defence.

*   He claimed that it was "paranoid" to distrust politicians and
    government.  When it was pointed out that governments have
    murdered several hundred million people this century alone -
    and that gun confiscation had always preceded oppression and
    genocide - he replied:

    "If you don't trust your government, and you don't trust your
    police, can you trust yourself?"

Sean Gabb, Editor of the Libertarian Alliance journal Free Life, and
author of many papers on guns and other civil liberties issues, says:

    "It is high time that the press should look very closely at the
    broader and sinister political agenda of this pressure group.  It
    is campaigning for the abolition of the private ownership of all
    guns.  Leaving aside the dangers of confining gun ownership to
    criminals and the State, SAGE is closely connected with a
    registered charity (SAGE Community and Charitable Services)
    that is seeking donations from the public of up to Pounds 500.
    The Libertarian Alliance has today written to the Charities
    Commission, to raise the issue of whether such political
    campaigning is really within the law.  And if it is within the
    law, then it is high time the law was changed."

For further comment contact Sean Gabb on 0181 858 0841 (e-mail:
[e-mail])

E N D S
===============================


So far, I have had no enquiries from any media organisation.
However, my readers might care to ask a few questions of their own.
SAGE can be contacted at the following:

         Society Against Guns in Europe
         FREEPOST
         ANG2146
         PO Box 330
         Danbury
         Chelmsford
         Essex CM3 4YY

         FREEPHONE 0800 317938

Since any letters and calls from within the United
Kingdom will be paid for By SAGE, correspondents are advised to be
sparing in what they send through the post, and so far as possible to
call during off-peak hours.

SAGE also has a Web Page:

         http://www.sage.org.uk

As soon as I have it, I will send Mr Bernstein's e-mail address.


Sean Gabb


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]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Letter from SLC PD
Date: 24 Aug 1996 19:07:05 -0600


Here is the response I received from The SLC PD from a letter I sent
them regarding Oficer Bell's editorial in the SL Tribune.  My letter
to the department is first followed by their response.  I won't
prejudice anyone's reading of the letter by offering any comments at
this point, but I am open to suggestions as to where to go from here.



August 3, 1996

Chief Ruben Ortega
Salt Lake City Police Dept.
315 E. 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84102

Mayor Deedee Corradini
451 S. State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111


Dear Mayor Corradini and Chief Ortega

I have just read a letter to the editor in the Salt Lake Tribune from
an officer D.B. Bell.  That letter is transcribed below for your
convenience.  In this public letter, officer Bell informs the 12,160
law-abiding citizens of this State who have received the requisite
training and submitted to fingerprinting, photographs, and background
checks and have been issued permits by the State to carry a concealed
weapons that "[i]f [he] or any other law enforcement officer observes
[their] ``hidden'' weapon, [they] will be lying face down in the dirt
having handcuffs placed on [them]."  He also states "the questions as
to who [they] are and why [they] are carrying the gun will come after
[they] are face down and handcuffed."

He justifies this course of action by writing, "I and others involved
in law enforcement cannot afford to get into the mind set that a
person carrying a hidden handgun is just a ``good'' citizen."  I must
strenuously disagree.  Given that Utah law specifically provides for
adults to carry a "hidden" weapon, those in law enforcement appear to
have no choice but to "get into the mind set" that at least some, if
not many or most, non-threating adults carrying "hidden" guns are, in
fact "just 'good' citizens" and treat them with all due respect.

In light of current State law, officer Bell's statement appears to be
a threat of unnecessary and inappropriate force.  I am concerned we may
have an insecure and hot-headed officer who seems prone to violence
taking it upon himself to pronounce police department policy with
regard to appropriate officer reaction upon suspecting or discovering
a concealed firearm on an individual offering neither threats nor
violence.  I am even more concerned at the possibility that throwing
non-threating, law-abiding adults to the ground at the first hint of a
bulge under their clothes may, in fact, be police department policy.
Or that the department has no clear policy in this area and leaves the
handling of such situations too much to the individual officer's
discretion -- officers such as D.B. Bell who have already decided
that gestapo-like police-state tactics are appropriate courses of
action to take with their employers, the tax-paying public.

It appears to me that officer Bell is opposed to citizens carrying
firearms for self defense.  That is his right.  However, if he wishes
to outlaw the carrying of concealed firearms he should employ the
legislative process as law-abiding citizens are expected.
Unfortunately, he seems bent on abusing his office of public trust and
taking the law into his own hands to prevent the carrying of concealed
weapons through harassment, intimidation, and violence.  Such action
would appear to border on "Infringement of Civil Rights under color of
law" -- a federal offense if I'm not mistaken.

I hereby formally request that a hearing be convened to determine it
officer Bell's comments and promised course of action are in harmony
with departmental policy and State and Federal laws.  I also request
to be informed of the outcome of said hearing.

I further request that a copy of official Salt Lake City Police
Department policy on officer handling of situations in which a
non-violent, non-threating individual is suspected of, or is found to
be, in possession of a concealed weapon, along with training standards
in this area be sent to me at my address above.  If either such policy
or training standards do not exist, I request a written statement to
that effect on departmental letter head and bearing the signature of
an official legally empowered to speak for the department.

The citizens of this State, particularly those who have fulfilled the
full requirements of the law and choose to exercise their rights to
self-defense, are under no obligation to be subjected to State
sponsored violence just to allay the concerns of police officers who,
it seems, are too ill-trained to insure their own safety through
legal, appropriate, and less intrusive, demeaning means.

Your prompt attention in this most serious matter of public safety and
potential civil rights abuse, as well as your written response
including the requested documentation of departmental policy and
training is most appreciated.

Sincerely



Charles Hardy

------SLC PD letter follows----------

typos mine

August 14, 1996

Dear Mr. Hardy

In response to your letter dated August 2, 1996, I would like to
respond to your concerns.  First of all , I would like to state that
this officer did editorialize as a private citizan, and not as a
police officer.  He did not speak for the Salt Lake City Police
Department in any way.

Secondly, I would like to put your mind at ease as to the policy of
this Department.  We do not, as stated in the article, put citizens on
the ground "face down" as a matter of policy.  Our policy is to use
that force which is necessary to effect an arrest.  This, of course,
does not allow an officer to simply put a citizen face down or arrest
that person becasue he or she is carrying a concealed weapon.

We, in law enforcement, realize that there are those citizens who are
allowed by law to carry concealed weapons.  I'm sure that you realize
being a law enforcement officer today is very difficult, and it's not
always easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys.  Therefore, we
must also do what is necessary and within the perimeters of the law to
make sure our law enforcement officers are safe.

Officers, such as Officer Bell, are faced so frequently with the fact
that this may be someone who means him harm, and may kill or maim him.
He, of course, doesn't know that you Charles Hardy, and are a
law-abiding citizen.  He only knows that you have a gun.  He,
therefore, wants to take those precautions which will put him out of
harms way.  I know Officer Bell and know that he would take the
appropriate action according to the circumstances, and that would not
be placing a citizen face down on the ground without the probable
cause to justify that course of action.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your concern
and writing us about those concerns.  If I can at all help in further
clarification as to the Department's policy and procedure in this
matter, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely

Stephen Chapman
Assistant Chief of Police

--

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.

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the
 minds of those who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace
 the 'arms,' an acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their
 protection against the usurpation of illegal power - such as rifles,
 muskets, shotguns, swords and pistols. These are now but little used in
 war; still they are such weapons that they or their like can still be
 considered as 'arms' which the [the people] have aright to bear." STATE
 v. KERNER; 181 NC 574, 107 SE 222, 224-25 (North Carolina Supreme Court,
 1921.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject:  Fwd: NEA and guns
Date: 26 Aug 1996 10:57:39 -0600


If anyone has any doubts on where the NEA stands wrt to RKBA, let this
dispel them.  Or, in other words, teachers' union dues at work.  The
second paragraph contains the meat.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----


 The National Education Association has published their 1996-97 Resolutions.
 Here is their position on guns:
 ------------------
 I-29. Gun-Free Schools and the Regulation of Deadly Weapons

      The National Education Association believes that all students and
 educational employees must be allowed to learn and work in an environment
 free of unathourized guns and other deadly weapons.  Severe penalties should
 be enacted and strenuously enforced for criminal actions involving guns and
 other deadly weapons, especially in school settings, and for those who
 profit from the illegal sale, importation, and distribution of these
weapons.

      The Association also believes that strict prescriptive regulations are
 necessary for the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale and resale of
 handguns and ammunition magazines.  The possession by the private sector of
 automatic weapons and military-style semiautomatic assault weapons should be
 illegal, except for historical and collection purposes which must be
 strictly regulated.  A mandatory waiting period for a background check
 should occur prior to the sale of all firearms.

      The Association further believes that gun owners should participate in
 educational programs that stress responsible ownership, including safe use
 and storage of guns. (82, 96)

 ----------------------
 Contrast the above with last (school) year's resolution (1995-96):

 I-29.  CONTROL OF GUNS AND OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS

      The National Educataion Association believes that stricter legislation
 is needed to control guns and other deadly weapons.  The Association
 supports legislation that provides for prescriptive controls on the
 manufacture, distribution, and sale of handguns, with particular efforts to
 eliminate easily obtained, low-cost handguns -- commonly described as
 Saturday Night Specials.

      The Association further believes that the sale and possession by the
 private sector of automatic and semiautomatic paramilitary weapons, such as
 UZI submachine guns and AK-47 assault rifles, should be illegal.

      The Association believes that severe penalties should be enacted and
 strenuously enforced for criminal actions involving guns and other deadly
 weapons, especially in school settings, and for those who profit from the
 illegal sale and distribution of these weapons.

 -------------------------
 To contact the National Education Association:

 mail:  NEA Today
        1201 16th St., N.W.
        Washington, DC  20036
 --------
 FAX:  [phone]
 --------
 phone:  [phone]
 --------
 Online (AOL): Keyword: NEA Today
 --------
 E-mail:  [e-mail]
 ------------------------------------- >>

--

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.

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation,
 that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the
 difference between having our arms in possession and under our
 direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our
 defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they
 be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own
 hands?" -- Patrick Henry, Philadelphia, 1836.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Republican RKBA Plank]
Date: 26 Aug 1996 16:25:44 -0600


Don't remeber if I passed this along or not.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----


1996 Republican platform plank on RKBA:
================================================================================
"We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  We will promote
training in the safe usage of firearms, especially in programs for women and
the elderly.  We strongly support Bob Dole's National Instant Check Initiative,
which will keep all guns out of the hands of convicted felons.  The
point-of-purchase instant check has worked well in many states and now it is
time to extend this system all across America.  We applaud Bob Dole's
commitment to have the national instant check system operational by the end of
1997.  In one of the strangest actions of his tenure, Bill Clinton abolished
Operation Triggerlock, the Republican initiative to jail any felon caught with
a gun.  We will restore that effort and will set by law minimum mandatory
penalties for the use of guns in committing a crime: 5 years for possession, 10
years for brandishing, and 20 for discharge."
================================================================================
The plank is reported by RP RKBA activists as "much watered down" from the one
that was originally submitted -- which would not be too surprising, given that
Henry Hyde was Platform Committee Chairman. The entire platform may be found at

http://www.rnc.org/hq/platform96/



----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.

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and
 long lost - proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was
 intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and
 carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family,
 and his freedoms." -- Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the
 Constitution - Preface, "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms"

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [[e-mail]: Republican RKBA Plank]
Date: 27 Aug 1996 07:04:26 -0600 (MDT)

At 04:25 PM 8/26/96 -0600, you wrote:
>1996 Republican platform plank on RKBA:
>===========================================================================
=====
>"We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  We will promote
>training in the safe usage of firearms, especially in programs for women and
>the elderly.  We strongly support Bob Dole's National Instant Check Initiative,
>which will keep all guns out of the hands of convicted felons.  The
>point-of-purchase instant check has worked well in many states and now it is
>time to extend this system all across America.  We applaud Bob Dole's
>commitment to have the national instant check system operational by the end of
>1997.  In one of the strangest actions of his tenure, Bill Clinton abolished
>Operation Triggerlock, the Republican initiative to jail any felon caught with
>a gun.  We will restore that effort and will set by law minimum mandatory
>penalties for the use of guns in committing a crime: 5 years for possession, 10
>years for brandishing, and 20 for discharge."
>===========================================================================
=====
>The plank is reported by RP RKBA activists as "much watered down" from the one
>that was originally submitted -- which would not be too surprising, given that
>Henry Hyde was Platform Committee Chairman. The entire platform may be found at
>
>http://www.rnc.org/hq/platform96/
>
>
>
>----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

Oh how utterly sickening!
How can an insta-check system keep ALL guns out of the hands of criminals
when only
7% obtain them from legal sources??

And those added penalties for "using a gun" in committing a crime are
obscene!  Just
what defines "using a gun in the commission of a crime"?  If I'm speeding
and carrying a gun will that get me 5-10 years of hard time?  If I bend over
and my T-shirt slides
up and my gun becomes partly visible, I'm brandishing.  Do I visit the Big
House for
that too?  And if someone murders me, I'm DEAD.  I'm no more dead or less
dead whether
I'm murdered with a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or poison, or a
drunk driver.
So on what grounds is this penalty just - or justified?

This sounds suspiciously like a watered down version of HCI's RKBA bill.

Any gun owner who supports Dole is probably mentally incompetent and
deserves to have
his/her gun taken away!  There is only ONE candidate who will assure our Second
Amendment rights - Harry Browne.  (Admittedly I'm talking single-issue
politics here,
which is not something I especially approve of, and people may have
legitimate reasons
for voting for other candidates - but this IS a firearms list!)

I think I need more coffee.....

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.                    Harry Browne in '96!
PO Box 271231                        Vote Libertarian!
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-2731                Take back America!
[e-mail]
801-966-7278 voice mail/fax
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Sign of the Times (fwd)]
Date: 27 Aug 1996 10:11:47 -0600


Maybe we should send a copy to blockbuster and some other businesses
around the valley?

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    A sign recently spotted in a restaurant in the square in Burnsville.

"Concealed Weapons License Holders Welcome. We all have them."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would bet this restaurant doesn't get held up or have some crazy come in
shooting!

    We couldn't stop grinning from this one.


--

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.

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who
 approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
 downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." --
 Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the ratification
 of the constitution on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: [[e-mail]: Republican RKBA Plank]
Date: 27 Aug 1996 10:40:39 -0600


On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>
>And those added penalties for "using a gun" in committing a crime are
>obscene!  Just
>what defines "using a gun in the commission of a crime"?  If I'm speeding
>and carrying a gun will that get me 5-10 years of hard time?  If I bend over
>and my T-shirt slides
>up and my gun becomes partly visible, I'm brandishing.  Do I visit the Big
>House for
>that too?  And if someone murders me, I'm DEAD.  I'm no more dead or less
>dead whether
>I'm murdered with a gun, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or poison, or a
>drunk driver.
>So on what grounds is this penalty just - or justified?

Let us not forget that anytime there is a "real" crime committed with
a gun the first things to get plea bargained away are the gun charges.
but if the only "crime" is the one resulting in the gun charge you are
stuck.  The result is that real criminals rarely ever serve any time
for gun crimes while decent citizens who are guilty only of honest
mistakes get hit with 5, 10, 0r 20 year mandatory sentences.

An article in one of the Phoenix or Tucson papers last year discussed
this very problem.  A housewife was facing a mandatory charge because
the anti-gun DA decided her brandishing of gun (no shots fired) to
defend her car was not legally justified.  The same DA was apparantly
plea bargaining away gun charges on violent, repeat offenders in order
to secure quick convictions.  Of course since we don't have any
anti-gun public officials here in Utah, we should have no problem.  ;)

>
>This sounds suspiciously like a watered down version of HCI's RKBA bill.

Either that or NRA's RKBA bill.  I just love it when the "premier gun
rights organization" in this country lobbies for instant-checks (prior
restraint) and gun and bullet bans.  I wonder what they will bargain
away when the only thing we're left with are bolt action, low power
sporting rifles and single shot shotguns--all of which are kept in
shooting club lockers.  Quick hint, look at our friends across the
pond.

>
>Any gun owner who supports Dole is probably mentally incompetent and
>deserves to have
>his/her gun taken away!

>There is only ONE candidate who will assure our Second
>Amendment rights - Harry Browne.  (Admittedly I'm talking single-issue
>politics here,
>which is not something I especially approve of, and people may have
>legitimate reasons
>for voting for other candidates - but this IS a firearms list!)

I don't agree with everything the Libertarians stand for, but I agree
with enough that I'll vote for them.  They don't even have to win to
be a significant influence.  Even if they did win, they would at least
get the course of the country changed to be more inline with were it
should be.  I maybe wouldn't want them at the wheel forever, but for
the next 4 or 8 years, I think would be a real improvment.

--

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.

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who
 approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
 downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." --
 Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the ratification
 of the constitution on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Lott Editorial in today's (8/28) WSJ
Date: 28 Aug 1996 13:36:35 -0600


Prof Lott has an editorial in today's issue of the WSJ (at least in
the online version) discussing his study that shows shall-issue laws
prevent violent crime.

Copyright agreements keep me from posting the article, but it may be
worth picking up a copy of the paper.

--

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.

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"Tell General Howard I know my heart. What he told me before, I have in
 my heart. I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass
 is dead. Toohoolhoolzote is dead. The old men are all killed. It is the
 young men who say yes or no. He who led the young men [Ollokot; his
 brother] is dead. It is cold and we have no blankets. The little
 children are freezing to death. I want time to look for my children, and
 see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead.
 Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the
 sun now stands, I will fight no more forever." -- Chief Joseph; Wallowa
 Nez Perc tribe; October 5, 1877; Montana, near the Canadian border.

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Highlights from Clinton's Columbus,OH Police Training Academy
Date: 29 Aug 1996 01:45:02 -0600 (MDT)

>To: [e-mail] (Matthew Gaylor)
>From: [e-mail] (Matthew Gaylor)
>Subject: Highlights from Clinton's Columbus,OH Police Training Academy
Speech Aug 26
>
>[Note from Matthew Gaylor: Clinton's Aug 26th speech in Columbus has raised
>an interesting point- He want's to expand the Brady Bill by adding those
>convicted of domestic violence to those who can't purchase handguns. Not
>mentioning that the 1994 crime act already addresses this issue, Clinton
>should have mentioned that Police, as a group, have one of the highest
>percentages of restraining orders for spousal abuse of any occupation.]
>
>From: "Michael Conners" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: Clinton to speak at Columbus Police Training Academy
>
>Clinton's speech - gun control...
>
>His main thrust is that hunters still have their guns.
>
>The new stuff - he thinks the Brady bill works. He wants to expand the
>denial to domestic violence cases (misdemeanors), so that if you've been
>convicted of domestic violence, you can't get a handgun.
>
>Wants to ban "cop killer" bullets.
>
>Wants to ban guns anywhere near schools - (this was overturned earlier this
>year and they're still hot about it...). He wants a federal law.
>
>Tougher penalties for people dealing drugs that possess a gun.
>
>A cute quote..."I've never seen a deer with a Kevlar vest."
>
>---
>
>No mention of new gun bans, but now he wants to get the "bad" ammunition.
>There were numerous allusions to hunters having their guns. I'll say it for
>everyone - the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting.
>
>CPD recruit class was on the podium, no real mention of the regular
>uniformed officers. I find that interesting. I don't think that CPD can
>order officers to go to a political event.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   Monday August 26 12:05 PM EDT
>
>Clinton Stokes Train Trip with Anti-Crime Initiative
>
>   COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuter) - President Clinton Monday launched a
>   Democratic Convention-linked barrage of policy initiatives by calling
>   for a ban on the sale of handguns to people convicted of domestic
>   violence.
>
>   Clinton unveiled the anti-crime proposal, which was designed to widen
>   the issue-driven gender gap which gives him an edge over Republican
>   Bob Dole among women voters, as he started the second leg of 559-mile
>   train trip to Chicago, where party activists were gathered to
>   renominate him.
>
>   Using the Columbus Police Academy as a backdrop, Clinton said public
>   safety should not be a partisan issue but ``an American issue.''
>
>   ``Under the current law, thousands of people who are wife- beaters or
>   child abusers...can still buy handguns with potentially deadly
>   consequences,'' Clinton said. ``I believe strongly in the right of
>   Americans to own guns. I have used them with great joy myself.
>
>   ``But make no mistake: those who threaten the safety of others do not
>   deserve our trust,'' he said.
>
>   A White House fact sheet said there were 88,500 incidents of domestic
>   violence in which a firearm was present in 1994, and that over a
>   10-year period ending the same year, 65 law enforcement officers were
>   killed when they responded to family quarrels.
>
>   Many spousal abusers are not now affected by a ban on the sale of
>   firearms to convicted felons because many domestic violence cases are
>   treated as misdemeanors.
>
>   Clinton's proposal would require expansion of the Brady Bill, which
>   requires a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases. He also
>   called for a ban on cop-killer bullets, saying every law enforcement
>   group backs it and Congress should as well.
>
>   ``If a bullet can slice through a bulletproof vest like a hot knife
>   through butter, it should be against the law,'' he said.
>
>   Clinton, whistlestopping through small town America with his daughter
>   Chelsea, 16, while his wife Hillary conducted a separate schedule in
>   her old hometown, intended to grab headlines with a new proposal every
>   day of his trip. Tuesday's will concern education, Wednesday's the
>   environment.
>
>   His focus on crime was designed to tie into the opening session of the
>   convention, which featured a speech by Sarah Brady, wife of former
>   White House spokesman James Brady, who inspired the eponymous gun law.
>
>   Brady is wheelchair-bound because of the gunshot wounds he suffered
>   when John Hinckley, Jr. tried to kill then-President Ronald Reagan in
>   front of the Washington HIlton Hotel in 1981.
>
>   Clinton, campaigning through five states with 64 of the 270 electoral
>   votes needed to win the presidency on his way to Chicago, is on the
>   559-mile trip to energize grassroots support for his re-election bid.
>
>   He boarded his ``21st Century Express'' for the four-day whistlestop
>   in Huntington, W.Va., on Sunday and rolled through parts of Kentucky
>   before reaching Ohio. His train will also roll through Michigan and
>   Indiana.
>
>   As he has at every previous stop, Clinton slammed the tax cut proposal
>   at the heart of Dole's campaign. ``We cannot afford to blow a hole in
>   the deficit again,'' he said.
>
>   Clinton was heckled at the start of his speech by a small group of
>   demonstrators, but he silenced them by saying they did not want the
>   American people to know of his record.
>
>   If the public learns the truth, Clinton said, his opponents ``won't
>   have a chance.''
>     _________________________________________________________________
>
>
>****************************************************************************
>Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
>Send a blank message to: [e-mail] with the words subscribe FA
>on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
>Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH  43229
>****************************************************************************
Sarah Thompson, M.D.                    Harry Browne in '96!
PO Box 271231                        Vote Libertarian!
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-2731                Take back America!
[e-mail]
801-966-7278 voice mail/fax
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties


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

From: [e-mail] (Chad Leigh)
Subject: Re: Action! Lott CCW stufi to the legislature, gov, and mayors
Date: 29 Aug 1996 10:16:56 -0600


A couple of weeks ago I posted on an idea to collect money and with that
money present copies of the Lott CCW study to the legislature, gov, and
some mayors.

Several people emailed me in support.

I have since learned , thanks to an email from a utah-firearms reader
(whose mail I have misplaced and cannot remember his name), that the
official printed version is not available until January.

I propose that we find out if we can print our own copies for presentation
right after the Nov election and then in January get real copies to
present.

Someone also had the idea to have a pizza party with some of the friendlier
legislators and tell them how "we common folk" feel.

Feedback?
Chad



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Action! Lott CCW stufi to the legislature, gov, and mayors
Date: 29 Aug 1996 11:21:59 -0600


On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, [e-mail] (Chad Leigh) posted:

>
>I propose that we find out if we can print our own copies for presentation
>right after the Nov election and then in January get real copies to
>present.
>
>Someone also had the idea to have a pizza party with some of the friendlier
>legislators and tell them how "we common folk" feel.
>
>Feedback?
>Chad

I think this is a great idea--on both counts.  What can I do to help?


--

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.

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation,
 that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the
 difference between having our arms in possession and under our
 direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our
 defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they
 be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own
 hands?" -- Patrick Henry, Philadelphia, 1836.

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Re: piml] Letter to ACLU
Date: 29 Aug 1996 10:07:00 -0700


*****Forward*****

This is a copy of a letter I emailed the ACLU this evening (8-28-96)
in response to their statement that the Unorganized Militia is their
next target.


Ohio ACLU Exec. Director Christine Link commented on WTVN 610 AM radio
(Columbus, OH), on Tuesday August 27th that the ACLU's target group next
year will be the Unorganized Militia.  Ms. Link commented that the ACLU
plans to expose the militia as a "hate group".

If this is true, I respectfully request an explanation of just what is
going on.  I am a militia supporter, and activist, and also a dues paying
member of the ACLU.  The Unorganized militia stands for the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights.  We do not tolerate racists or expouse hate.  We
do demand that the government obey the Constitution and all amendments,
including the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 9th Amendment, and
the 10th Amendment, as well as all the other Amendments.

The ACLUs announced campaign against the Unorganized Militia would appear
to be in direct opposition to their stated mission of protecting the
citizen's Constitutional Rights.  Or does the ACLU feel it should decide
which Constitutional Rights should be defended, and which should be ignored?

As a supporter of the ACLU, I hope that this is not the case.  If it is
the case I ask that my name be removed from your list of members.  Further,
if this is really the case I will do everything in my power to get other
ACLU members to withdraw from your organization, and advise anyone
considering joining the ACLU to save their money to contribute to an
organization that doesn't practice a hypocritical approach to the
Constitution of the United States, and The Bill of Rights.  As I write
articles for my local paper, and am also the controller of the Government
House conferences on our local community BBS I am not without a
substantial audience.

Yours,


--
Robert Ireland
[e-mail]

"Liberty is not free, it must be fought for every day."

You may contact Ms. Link at:

ACLU Ohio Executive Director: Christine Link
1266 West 6th Street, 2nd Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: [phone]


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: STBO SPECIAL MESSAGE!]
Date: 29 Aug 1996 15:32:53 -0600


Forwarded for your information

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

              CONTACTING THE COMMISSION

The Commission on Presidential Debates will be making its
decision in the next few weeks, and it is up to us to make
sure that they know how many of us want to see Harry Browne
included in the 1996 debates.

While compiling signatures is a good way show our support,and
is the main emphasis of the STBO campaign, letters, FAXes, and
phone calls from individual people are also very important.

Please take a moment to write a brief letter to the
Commission, and send it as soon as you can.  Some sample
letters are included below, but letters in your own words
(particularly handwritten ones) will have the greatest
impact.  One or two paragraphs is all it takes.

To reach the Commission, send your letter to:


  The Commission on Presidential Debates
  601 Thirteenth St., NW Suite 310S
  Washington, DC 20005


Also send your letter to their email addresses:
[ Please do not send JUST email -- Actual letters really
  are important! ]

  [e-mail]
  [e-mail]


If you're feeling personable, you can also call them at:
[ The receptionist is friendly, and will only ask you for
  your name and city.  It takes under a minute. ]

  202-872-1020


Once you've sent a letter to the Commission, and called them,
another thing you can do is contact each member of the
Commission individually by US mail, FAX, and email as follows:

  Professor Diana Carlin
  DebateWatch '96
  P.O. Box 3467
  Lawrence, KS 66046-0467
  (Note: Carlin is especially important, as she is on the committee
  which makes recomendations to the Commissuion)

  Sen. Paul Coverdell
  200 Russell Senate Office Building
  Washington, D.C.  20510-1004
  FAX: [phone]
  email: [e-mail]

  John C. Danforth
  249 Russell Senate Office Building
  Washington, D.C.  20510

  Antonia Hernandez
  President, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
  634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
  Los Angeles, CA  90014
  FAX: [phone]

  Rep. John Lewis
  229 Cannon House Office Building
  Washington, DC  20515-1005

  Newton N. Minow
  The Annenberg Washington Program in Communications Policy Studies
  1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
  Washington, DC  20004-1008

  Rep. Barbara Vucanovich
  414 Cannon House Office Building
  Washington, DC  20515


SAMPLE LETTER #1:


Dear Commission:

I'm writing to urge the Commission to seize this opportunity to
include
a Libertarian perspective in the 1996 Presidential debates.

Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne is an accomplished
writer, and is a skilled speaker and debater.  His strongly
pro-liberty
stance on all issues often stands in stark contrast to those of the
other candidates, and would make an ideal catalyst for interesting
debate.  His presence would give the other candidates an excellent
opportunity to stand their ground, and clearly state their beliefs
before the American public.

Though the Libertarian Party is actually larger than Perot's Reform
Party,
Harry Browne and running-mate Jo Jorgensen do not have huge personal
fortunes at their disposal, and cannot simply spend millions on
television advertising to raise their numbers in the polls.  Also,
they
have turned down the offer of hundreds of thousands of dollars in
federal campaign funds because, as a matter of principle, they do not
believe political campaigns should be funded at taxpayer expense.

However, even though their message has not been thoroughly publicized
their ideas have proved interesting enough to draw the attention of
many
prominent members of the print, radio, and television media.  Among
those who now openly support the inclusion of Harry Browne and Jo
Jorgensen in the 1996 debates are such figures as David Broder, Hugh
Downs, Gil Gross, Coleman McCarthy, Bill Press, Mary Matalin, Rush
Limbaugh, and even Ross Perot.

Again, I urge you to seize this opportunity to bring a different
point
of view to the American public, and make the 1996 Presidential
Debates
something worth watching.

Thanks for your time,



SAMPLE LETTER #2:


Dear Commission:

I'm writing to urge the Commission to seize the opportunity to
include a
vibrant female perspective in the Vice-Presidential debates.

Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen is a woman of
many
accomplishments.  She is a mother, an entrepreneur, a small business
owner, a compelling speaker, and an excellent role model for American
women.  Americans deserve this opportunity to hear her point of view
on
the issues.  ( For more information about Jo, see her web page at
<
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/jo/
>. )

Though the Libertarian Party is actually larger than Perot's Reform
Party,
Jo Jorgensen and running-mate Harry Browne do not have huge personal
fortunes at their disposal, and cannot simply spend millions on
television advertising to raise their numbers in the polls.  Also,
they
have turned down the offer of hundreds of thousands of dollars in
federal
campaign funds because, as a matter of principle, they do not believe
political campaigns should be funded at taxpayer expense.

However, even though their message has not been thoroughly publicized
their ideas have proved interesting enough to draw the attention of
many
prominent members of the print, radio, and television media.  Among
those who now openly support the inclusion of Harry Browne and Jo
Jorgensen in the 1996 debates are such figures as David Broder, Hugh
Downs, Gil Gross, Coleman McCarthy, Bill Press, Mary Matalin, Rush
Limbaugh, and even Ross Perot.

Again, I urge you to seize this opportunity to bring a new
perspective
to the American public, and make the 1996 debates something worth
watching.


SAMPLE LETTER #3 (suggestion by Erin Donelle)


Dear Commission:

I truly hope that you will be including Harry Browne in the
publicly held Presidential Debates this year.  Without this
established and highly viable candidate's participation, the
'debates' would simply be redundant.  Indeed, there would be
no debate.

I am sure that President Clinton and Bob Dole are uneasy at
the thought of debating someone like Harry Browne, but I
think it healthy and only fair to the voters that they do so.

Harry Browne has garnered tremendous support by all groups
able to hear him voice his principles and his stand on the
issues facing voters.  The American public deserves to hear
his point of view.

The purpose of the debates is to provide a forum where the
public can easily contrast candidates views on the issues.
But is it really a debate if certain credible candidates
are excluded?  Please don't miss out on this opportunity
to present a legitimate debate to the public.

Also, without Harry Browne the debates would look just the
same as they did in 1992, with two of the three players
exactly as before.  If the debates are dull, people will
not hesitate to change the channel.





----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"If a gun bill will pass because of the politics of the situation, you
 must see to it that its burdens are imposed upon a man because of a
 criminal background and not because he is an ordinary citizen and
 perhaps poor." -- Gen. James H. Doolittle

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: FWD: ACLU siding with gun-trader]
Date: 30 Aug 1996 08:51:59 -0600


This may be of interest to those of you who are contenplating getting
a State issued CCW permit.  Last time I looked at the application
there was a space on it for your SS#.  I questioned the DPS about this
and they acknowledged that they could not legally require your SS#
because a gun permit has nothing to do with social security.  They
said they would not deny an application if the SS# was left blank, but
they would "just get the number from elsewhere."  Perhaps someone
thinking of applying for a permit in the near future should contact
the local ACLU and see if they would like to follow suite.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Like I say: If you're going to give up your right to privacy to get
permission to exercise your right to keep and bear arms, you might as
well give them your weapons too.

Forwarded with credit to the ACLU Newsfeed:

------Forwarded Text Begins ------

ACLU of Arkansas Challenge Ordinance Requiring Social Security Numbers of Gun
Traders and Others

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, August 28, 1996

LITTLE ROCK -- The ACLU of Arkansas filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District
Court of Western District of Arkansas on behalf of Anthony Zuckert, a man who
enjoys gun-trading.

Mr. Zuckert and his wife, Jeanne, object to a Harrison ordinance requiring
that "itinerate" salespeople wishing to participate in trade shows provide to
the show-operator their social security numbers.

Federal law already requires that regular gun-traders obtain a federal
firearms license that lasts for three years.  In order to obtain such a
license, social security numbers and other information is provided by the
applicant so that a criminal background check can be performed by
authorities:  Mr. Zuckert already has a current license.

The ACLU claims that the Harrison ordinance unduly burdens Mr. Zuckert's
right to engage in commercial speech by demanding he provide his social
security number, because no legitimate government interest can be
demonstrated for making such a request: this, we claim, violates the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, we believe that the ordinance is "impermissibly vague," by providing
"no ascertainable standards for determining whether any salesperson is
'itinerate' [sic] or any location is 'transitory,'" and is also vague
regarding the supposed exceptions for "farm products" "garage sales" and
"trade shows."

We further believe the plaintiff's right to due process has been violated for
all the above reasons.  Lastly, we believe that the ordinance violates the
federal Privacy Act by requiring the use of social security numbers.

"Once upon a time, social security numbers were supposed to be used only for
the management of social security benefits," says ACLU Executive Director
Rita Spillenger.  "These days, everyone from your doctor to your mechanic
thinks they have the right to get and use that number.

"People who object to this common practice of using the number for
identification are within their rights, but they fight an increasingly uphill
battle with every request," Spillenger added.

"Most people are unaware that you can refuse to provide your social security
number in many situations, like obtaining a driver's license," Spillenger
said. "We are happy to help the Zuckerts stand up for their right not to hand
over their number to every government official that asks for it."

The ACLU attorney who is representing the Zuckerts, Charles Kester of Rogers,
added, "The City of Harrison placed Mr. Zuckert in the unfortunate position
of having to choose whether to give up his right to privacy and his social
security number or give up his right to engage in commercial speech.
 Fortunately, the Constitution and the federal Privacy Act forbid such a
Hobson's choice."

The suit asks for the ordinance to be found unconstitutional and to be not
enforced.  A gun show is scheduled in Harrison for Labor Day, and the
Zuckerts would like to participate.  They did not participate in the last
show because of this ordinance.

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"No man is competent unless he can stalk alone and armed in the
 wilderness." -- Townsend Whelen

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: tobacco and guns
Date: 30 Aug 1996 09:39:11 -0600


I've seen the question of nicotine and guns on some of the other lists
and thought I would pass it along here just out of curiosity.  Has
nicotine been declared a controlled substance?  Or just addictive?
Medical difference?  What if caffiene is ever declared addictive?

---BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE---

The form 4473 you fill out when buying a firearm from a gun dealer
asks the question:

    Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana,
    or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any
    other controlled substance ?

If you answer Yes you cannot buy any firearm.

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

Would YOU be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it
meant never paying another dime in federal income taxes?  Check out
<http://www.harrybrowne96.org> or call 800-682-1776.

"A cardinal rule of bureaucracy is that it is better to extend an error
 than to admit a mistake." -- Colin Greenwood

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: tobacco and guns
Date: 31 Aug 1996 09:59:03 -0600 (MDT)



On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, [e-mail] (Charles Hardy) wrote:
>
>I've seen the question of nicotine and guns on some of the other lists
>and thought I would pass it along here just out of curiosity.  Has
>nicotine been declared a controlled substance?  Or just addictive?
>Medical difference?  What if caffiene is ever declared addictive?
>
>---BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE---
>
>The form 4473 you fill out when buying a firearm from a gun dealer
>asks the question:
>
>    Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana,
>    or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any
>    other controlled substance ?
>
>If you answer Yes you cannot buy any firearm.

Charles,

You're quite correct that this is hopelessly vague in its wording.
"Unlawful user of" is clear enough.  If you're using an illegal substance, or
using a legal substance illegally, then you cannot buy a firearm.

Lawful user is also fairly clear.  You're using a substance lawfully whether
it's tobacco which is legal (until they make it a controlled substance anyway!),
or narcotics prescribed by a physician.  (I do NOT however advocate actually
going shooting while under the short-term influence of a narcotic!)

The problem is with the term addiction.  It's a vague term with pejorative
connotations.  For example a war vet may be dependent on narcotics to control
the pain from a war injury, but that's not the same as an addiction, although
the words are used synonymously by most people.  Likewise a person with
attention deficit disorder may be dependent on stimulants, but not be an addict.

To further confuse things, I suppose I should go turn in my gun since I'm
suffering (and that IS the correct word!) from "acute nicotine withdrawal"
which is an official and diagnosable mental disorder, and definitely am
addicted! <g>

The law needs to be rewritten by someone who understands substance abuse and
mental disorders.  I'm not holding my breath though.... I'm addicted to
oxygen!<g>

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]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: A HOPE FOR JUSTICE?
Date: 31 Aug 1996 18:29:19 -0600 (MDT)




>>From: Harvey Wysong <[e-mail]>
>>Subject: A HOPE FOR JUSTICE?
>>
>>MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS
>>
>>Dear M R,
>>        Hope springs eternal. Just a few weeks ago I was installed as a
>>"Member in Good Standing" of the Society of Intransigent Cynics (SIC). Then
>>the article below appeared in the Atlanta newspaper. I wavered,
>>reconsidering all my unkind remarks about the Atlanta Newspapers, Inc.
>>        Then I recalled how they served as the shill for the FBI & BATF in
>>the Richard Jewell case. Remember him? -- the security guard who went from
>>"Hero" to "Villain" faster than you can eat a hot dog? He discovered sack of
>>bombs and began clearing the area. He was a hero. But the feds were in a
>>pressure cooker; they had to solve the crime NOW. They had over 30,000 "law
>>enforcement" agents in Atlanta. The entire region was under martial law.
>>Even then, a bomb went off in the most heavily populated spot in town:
>>Centennial Olympic Park. They had to furnish a villain to halt the clamor.
>>So they furnished Richard Jewell -- "Unabubba."
>>        The Atlanta newspapers -- in cooperation with the FBI & BATF -- ran
>>an Extra! to announce that the suspect was Richard Jewell. ("We'll put the
>>heat on the boy.")
>>        Well, no one with a three-digit IQ suspects him of being a bomber
>>any more. But they do suspect that he'll soon be a plaintiff. I wonder what
>>kind of bass boat the ol' boy wants.
>>        Well, when an article such as the one below appears in a
>>government-front newspaper, you know that the government's case is
>>micron-thin. This is good news for the militia guys.
>>
>>-- Harvey
>>
>>
>>
>>The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>>Tuesday, August 20, 1996
>>
>>Dave Kindred
>>At Large
>>
>>Taking a 2nd look at Georgia Militia
>>
>>        It makes no sense.
>>        But the questions ought to be asked.
>>        What if the Georgia Republic Militia is even a little bit right?
>>        What if the boys playing soldier in the Crawford County woods were
>>not arming themselves, building bombs and otherwise preparing to go to war
>>against the federal government?
>>        What if they were just good ol' boys playing soldier in the woods
>>and cussin' out Uncle Sam between beers?
>>        We know that agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
>>arrested leaders of the militia in April on evidence produced by two
>>informants who had infiltrated the organization.
>>        But what if the informants were rogues who took their act further
>>than they should have? What if the informants planted the evidence that was
>>then used to have the militiamen arrested?
>>        Informants are not sworn police officers. They're mercenaries used
>>by the police to do dirty work. So they're hired hands looking to please the
>>boss, in this case the ATF. Not only is there no guarantee these mercenaries
>>will be honest, upright, law-abiding citizens, chances are they like the
>>thrill of the chase as much as the honor of the law.
>>        So the question ought to be asked; What if the Georgia Republic
>>Militia is even a little bit right when it claims the informants didn't just
>>report what they saw but invented something to report?
>>        That question comes up because a federal agent has testified in open
>>court, under oath, that the founder of the Georgia Republic Militia was not
>>present when pipe bomb components were buried on his property by an informant.
>>        The agent also testified that a second militia member had said, "I
>>don't want to know anything about it," and walked away when the government's
>>informant talked about building bombs.
>>        Yet both men were arrested. Robert Edward Starr III and William
>>James McCranie now await a Sept. 3 trial date on charges of conspiring to
>>possess unregistered explosive devices.
>>        Their lawyer, Nancy Lord, said at a preliminary hearing, "This is
>>beyond entrapment. It is manufactured evidence." She called the informants
>>"agent provocateurs."
>>        No one wants to believe that. We don't want to believe our
>>government works that way. Whether or not it does, we may find out soon.
>>        And we certainly don't want to believe the militiamen when they take
>>their argument another step forward. They move from citing sworn testimony
>>to speculating a theory of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing that could
>>pass for a first draft of an Oliver Stone exercise in paranoia.
>>        They suggest this because the park bomb was similar in construction
>>to the components buried in Macon.
>>        The first week of May, the militiamen say, they answered an FBI
>>request for information about the ATF informants, including photographs.
>>        Two days after the park bombing on July 27, militia spokesman J.J.
>>Johnson issued a written statement saying the organization had called the
>>FBI, Atlanta police and Olympic federal security agency "and told them that
>>we were aware of suspects who know about and have made pipe bombs."
>>        He also wrote, "Based on news reports concerning a pipe bomb made of
>>galvanized steel with nails attached and a white male with a soft Southern
>>accent, we became concerned that the tragedy might be linked to individuals
>>who we learned of through our investigation on the Macon case..."
>>        Meanwhile, an Alabama militia group, the Gadsden Minutemen, has
>>named the two ATF informants and distributed photographs of them. Neither
>>man, it might be noted, bears a resemblance to Richard Jewell.
>>    ****************************************************
>>"...It is a matter of common observation, that judges and lawyers, even the
>>most upright, able and learned, are sometimes too much influenced by
>>technical rules; and that those judges who are...occupied in the
>>administration of criminal justice are apt, not only to grow severe in their
>>sentences, but to decide questions of law too unfavorably to the accused."
>>--Justice Gray (Sparf v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51 @ 174 in 1894)
>>    ****************************************************
>>    Harvey Wysong, National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Assn.
>>    701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A.
>>    [e-mail]        [phone]

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]
Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party
http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html
PGP key available on request.