ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9609

Internet Message Format | 1996-09-29 | 299KB

From: [e-mail] (Gavin Wallace)
Subject: Dole Campaign Stop
Date: 01 Sep 1996 11:25:40 -0600 (MDT)

Republican Presidential Candidate Bob Dole will be making a campaign stop in
Salt Lake City on Monday, September 2nd at 3:30PM at the Executive Terminal
of the Salt Lake Airport.  Free tickets are available by calling [phone].

Gavin Wallace([e-mail])

The Utah Shooting Sports Council
PO Box 711819 - Salt Lake City, Utah  84171-1819
Phone(801)575-USSC FAX [phone] Internet E-Mail: [e-mail]
Internet Web Site: http://members.aol.com/USSCINFO


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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dole Campaign Stop -Reply
Date: 01 Sep 1996 11:45:17 -0600

Hi Gavin,

I haven't bumped into you in a long while.  I believe the last time
was at a Salt Palace gun show (where else?), you were with Scott
Engin.  I was very sorry that Scott found it necessary to resign his
position with the USSC, he did one heck of a job for the RKBA
cause in Utah.  Are you still getting up to the Holladay Gun Club
on a regular basis to squeeze off a few?  I'm usually up there on
most Sundays.

It's good to see that you're still around.  Say hello to Scott for me
next time you see him.

Mike Thompson
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Dole Campaign Stop
Date: 02 Sep 1996 01:09:08 -0600 (MDT)



On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, [e-mail] (Gavin Wallace) wrote:
>Republican Presidential Candidate Bob Dole will be making a campaign stop in
>Salt Lake City on Monday, September 2nd at 3:30PM at the Executive Terminal
>of the Salt Lake Airport.  Free tickets are available by calling [phone].
>
>Gavin Wallace([e-mail])
>
>The Utah Shooting Sports Council
>PO Box 711819 - Salt Lake City, Utah  84171-1819
>Phone(801)575-USSC FAX [phone] Internet E-Mail: [e-mail]
>Internet Web Site: http://members.aol.com/USSCINFO


Uh, I'm confused.....
Is this an endorsement of the turncoat who now says repealing Brady is
irrelevant?
Or is this an invitation to "take a shot" at Dole before he sells out any
more of our rights?
There IS a candidate who fully supports our right to keep and bear arms.
For more information, check out http://www.rahul.net/browne/

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: Your enemy: California Wellness Foundation/Health Net 2/2
Date: 03 Sep 1996 03:43:31 -0600 (MDT)

This is part 2/2.
Sarah

<---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
Return-Path: [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail] (nobanlist), [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], S...


The obsession with guns explains CWF's mission completely, and it also says a
great deal about modern-day liberalism. CWF and politicians like President
Clinton focus on issues like gun control and cigarettes because they do not
have the answers to the broader problems afflicting society. Thirty years
ago, liberals thought they had the answer: massive government spending and
regulation. But that didn't work; as the president said in his State of the
Union Address earlier this year, 'the era of trig government is over."
Intellectually exhausted and unable to win popular support for big new
statist schemes, those seeking to score political points have found that guns
and tobacco companies provide easy targets. It is no surprise that the
president has tried to make so much of his opponent's assertion that
cigarettes are not necessarily addictive for everyone. Likewise, CWF and
other foundation have no solutions to the social issues confounding America.
So they rail against guns and cigarettes.


The Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention Initiative


While the lion's share of CWF activity to date has focused on the gun
"epidemic," it appears that the foundation has even bigger plans for its
teenage pregnancy initiativethat is if money allocation is any indication of
intent.

Until this year the Initiative received comparatively little funding but that
has suddenly changed. CWF plans to award .860 million over ten years. Only
two grants were listed in the 1995 annual report, though they were sizable:

* $570,000 to the California Public Health Foundation to support the
organizing and implementation of planning and advisory groups meetings.

* $3.5 million to the Public Media Center "to design and implement the first
phase of a public education campaign."

More recently, the April 18 Chronicle of Philanthropy listed nine newly
awarded grants totaling $6.14 million for this Initiative. Of that, $5
million is to be paid over four years to the California Family Planning
Council based in Los Angeles, "to implement a clinical-services and
prevention model I or pregnant teenagers at family planning organizations in
high-risk areas." Also listed in the Chronicle  as a spectral grant on
Reproductive Health and not as part of the Initiative, is $50,000 to the
Washington- based National Advisory Board 011 Ethics in Reproduction for
"administrative support and . . . ethical review and analysis of
reproductive-policy issues."

The VPI is a cover for promoting public acceptance of gun-control. Is the
teenage pregnancy initiative just camouflage for pushing abortion as a public
health measure'? While the word abortion is never mentioned in CWF
literature, the original title-"Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention
Initiative"- presents unclear euphemisms that make one wonder what the
program envisions. The 1994 annual report admits part of the program will
include finding out what has been learned about preventing pregnancies and
births among teenagers." Sex education and family planning. we're told, "are
not enough" (emphasis in original). CWF seems to be planning programs far
beyond condom distribution and birth control pills.

The rationale for doing something. anything, about teenage pregnancy is
presented in terms sure to appeal to overburdened taxpayers. Most teenage
girls who have babies are poor and go on welfare, and they and their children
are caught in a descending spiral of poverty and welfare dependence which
costs tax dollars. Perhaps it's just an oversight, but CWF does not seem at
all concerned about illegitimacy and focuses attention on teenage pregnancy
per se- which could include young married couples. That is, as CWF presents
the issue, the problem is not so much girls having babies out of wedlock, but
girls having babies.

One can appreciate concern about welfare and other costs to the taxpayer. But
is there another, more pressing consideration? A lull- term birth in a
hospital runs anywhere from $2,000 to over $5,000-plus prenatal and
post-delivery care. However, an elective abortion costs only a couple of
hundred dollars.

Health Net, CWF's parent, is in stiff competition with other HMOs for MediCal
(California's Medicaid program) contracts. Under capitation, the government
pays an HMO so much per member. The more MediCal members are assigned to it,
is it more cost efficient to "educate" teenagers and their families to agree
to abortion when there's an "unplanned" pregnancy, rather than giving birth,
keeping the child or placing it for adoption'? A cynical observation'?
Perhaps. But Health Net has the reputation among health care professionals as
being the most cost-conscious of all the HMOs. And one of the biggest
criticisms of managed care in general is that too much attention is paid to
costs at the expense of care.



A Tragic Allocation of Funds

With its vast resources and connection to a major HMO, CWF could do truly
wonderful things in the field of biomedical research. In a January 22
article, Time detailed how HMOs are swelling their coffers through increased
memberships, only to renege when IL comes to paying for expected medical
care. Time reported several cases of women being denied hone-marrow
transplant therapy for breast cancer-a last-ditch, though not extraordinary
procedure which might have saved their lives, or at least relieved their
suffering.

Time explained that Health Net won't cover any treatment it deems
experimental or investigative, and considers bone marrow transplants such,
yet like other HMOs, "it spends nothing on research to hunt for new
treatments for disease.. .[I]t feels bound by law and competition to avoid
such research." According to Time, Health Net recently rejected a proposal to
allocate money to research ovarian cancer, fearing that under the Americans
with Disabilities Act the company would be held liable for discrimination
against people with other forms of cancer and other diseases.

But if an HMO itself can't or won't pay for research, would it not be a true
benefit to humanity for its foundation to do so'' Rather than orchestrating
propaganda campaigns against unapproved behaviors and attempting to strip us
of our right to self-defense, why doesn't CWF underwrite the research
necessary to discover the cause and cure of cancer, AIDS, stroke, and other
diseases to which humans are prone?

The tendency of foundations such as the California Wellness Foundation to
support strategies for social and political control on individual behavior in
the name of "prevention" is one of the oddities of contemporary liberalism -
Once defenders of individual freedom, they have become prim overseers of
personal deportment.



<----  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: Your enemy: California Wellness Foundation/Health Net 1/2
Date: 03 Sep 1996 03:45:03 -0600 (MDT)

This is part 1/2
Sarah

<---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
Return-Path: [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail] (nobanlist), [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail] (gunnutesq'slist),
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail] (charleseichhorn), [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail] (--h.taylorbuckner), [e-mail]
(amybern)

Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR) has focused on how public
money -- _your_ money -- has been used to subvert your inherent, irrevocable
rights through the use of politicized "science."  Virtually every level of
government uses your tax money to propagandize restrictive gun laws and other
fundamental tenets of authoritarian control, of collectivism, of socialism
(sometimes eumphemistically "liberalism").  Increasingly it has become
apparent to us that consumers' money -- _your_ money -- has also been used to
subvert your inherent, irrevocable rights.  Your health care dollars, whether
being paid directly by you or indirectly by you through your employer or
union, are being funneled into health care insurance companies that are
increasingly funding "non-profit educational foundations" that propagandize
for the end of our constitutional republic.  Currently, with resources
approaching $1 BILLION,  California Wellness Foundation is the deepest of
these "pockets," but increasing numbers of health insurance companies are
becoming so involved. [We expect to report on the activities of Kaiser
Foundation/Permanente Medical Group in the future].  Ms. Sarah Foster
conducted an extensive investigation of California Wellness Foundation and
has written the following article.  If you read this article and are angered
or frightened by the activities of California Wellness Foundation, recall
that Health Net fathered this bastard child.  If you have Health Net
insurance coverage, let your views be known -- to your insurance agent, your
employer, your union, _and_ the executives of Health Net and California
Wellness Foundation.  Do not let your money be used against you and your
family for generations to come.  Let your legislators know that, despite its
pleasing sounding name and mission, California Wellness Foundation is an
enemy of our rights and of our constitutional republic.  Ms. Foster's report
refers to issues other than gun bans in which California Wellness Foundation
is active.  Please distribute her report to people, organizations, and
newsgroups with interest in those other issues.  Please support Capital
Research Center that has made this and other important reports available.

Edgar A. Suter MD
National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
********************************************

Organization Trends

New Health Foundation Writes
Prescription for Big Government
California Group Advances Liberalism
in the Name of Wellness

The author, Sarah Foster, is a researcher and writer residing in Sacramento,
California.

Editor
Robert V. Pambianco

Publisher
Terrence Scanlon
Copyright 1996 Capital Research Center
727 15th Street NW/Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
[phone]
Permission to distribute granted providing full attribution is given.

Liberals no longer call themselves liberals: they prefer to be known as
"moderates." Now a recently established California foundation has come Up
with a fresh way to market discredited liberal ideas of munificent
government. The California Wellness Foundation (CWF) is using the expansive
concept of "wellness" to advance a broad-based policy agenda that is hostile
to individual liberty and responsibility.

Created by the privatization of a major nonprofit Health Maintenance
Organization (HMO), the foundation is emerging as a grantmaking behemoth.
With a multi-million dollar budget and nearly a billion dollars in assets, it
has already become a major player in the nation's largest state

CWF has taken on a cornucopia of concerns: gun ownership. smoking,
consumption of alcoholic beverages, teenage pregnancy, to name a few. In FY
1994-95 CWF awarded 129 grants totaling nearly $40 million to institutions.
organizations and individuals to tackle these and other issues that
constitute what CWF has defined as "prevention" and "wellness."

Wellness is the latest buzz-phrase among hip grantmakers Sufficiently vague,
this all- encompassing term appeals to foundation professionals who believe
that specific missions and mandates hinder their creative grantmaking
talents. Like the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, wellness
provides the imaginative foundation officer with limitless possibilities.

CWF's stated goal is "to improve the health of the residents of California"
and "foster healthful lifestyles, behaviors, and values.'` To CWF, health or
illness is defined not as the absence or presence of disease. "but by a
complex web of conditions in [the] physical and social environment," and CWF'
has determined its grantmaking must address 'the multiple barriers to
healthful living-from personal behavior to social and economic influences
such as poverty, unemployment, inadequate schools and racism." In other
words, wellness means whatever CWF wants it to mean. Sound familiar? Such a
program is simply an updated version of the root-causes rationale used to
justify the 1960s War on Poverty.

Grants are awarded in five program areas: Community Health: Population
Health; Worksite Health Improvement; Violence Prevention: and Teenage
Pregnancy and Birth Prevention. Each of these creates a theater of operation
for government intervention. CWF's first project, the Violence Prevention
Initiative, is fully developed and being expanded. The ominous-sounding
Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention Initiative is still in the formative
state.

Although a grantmaking foundation obligated to foster a public charitable
interest, CWF is a recent offspring of a commercial enterprise. CWF's
"parent" is Health Net, the second largest health maintenance organization
(HMO) in California, with 1.3 million commercial and Medicare HMO members,
many of them subscribers with CalPERS (the state Public Employees Retirement
System). CWF benefits from the considerable cachet associated with its
parent's former status as a nonprofit insurer.

In 1990 the previously nonprofit Health Net became a for-profit corporation.
Because California law requires nonprofits that privatize to leave their
assets in the non- profit sector, Health Net created CWF in 1991, funding it
in 1992 to the tune of $300 million ($75 million cash, $225 million in a long
term, interest-bearing note), plus 25.7 million shares of Class B nonvoting
stock, which convert to Class A voting shares when sold. ILs most recent
Annual Report (1995) posts assets of $851.8 million.

In January 1994. Health NcL merged with QualMed. a Colorado-based HMO, to
form Health Systems International, which has been actively acquiring smaller
HMOs. mostly in the Northeast. Health Net-today a subsidiary of HSI-is
actively pursuing the Medicare and small-group market, moves that have
interesting implications for CWF and its work.

As a new foundation, CWF's Board of Directors (then headed by Roger Greaves,
founder, president and CEO of Health Net) was free to set priorities
"unencumbered by past funding commitments" (as the 1993 annual report put it)
or, for that matter, unencumbered by earlier ideological baggage. Unlike such
organizations as the Pew Charitable Trusts or the Ford Foundation, which had
left-wing agendas thrust upon them, CWF has been "progressive" from the
start.


Education for Regulation

CWF's central organizing concept is "prevention." In today's political
lexicon, that means far more than immunization programs for kids, X-ray
screening for TB or breast cancer, or providing physical exams and dental
work for the poor. The new "prevention" includes these, but also much more:
it aims for total elimination of "risk behaviors" and anything "bad" in that
"complex web of conditions." A report funded by CWF- for the Washington-based
Partnership for Prevention (of which Health Net is a member) puts it this
way:

"Imagine a new drug that would cure an epidemic... a new surgery that would
correct . . . heart disease... a new prenatal therapy that would help over
100,000 low-birth- weight babies survive.... Let's go one step further.
Imagine a way to prevent the epidemic; to prevent the heart disease: to
prevent the low birth weight" (emphasis in original text).

Desirable as that may sound, full realization of such goals would require
constant government intervention in people's lives, with every behavior added
to the lists of targets for modification. CWF gives few details on how this
is to be accomplished. What is clear, however, is that CWF's prevention
paradigm is a model for a major expansion of the nanny state.

CWF is not a membership organization. and as a nonprofit with an IRS
501(c)(3) status it is not permitted to lobby on specific legislation. But it
does engage in "effecting policy change through public education." In
practice, this means convincing the public to accept and demand the laws,
ordinances, and regulations CWF believes are necessary for public health and
"wellness."

Like other foundations, CWF is a money machine; it funnels grants to
community- based nonprofits and individuals eager to make demands for
government action, and sponsors university research to bolster "progressive"
policy initiatives. But more importantly, CWF is a modern, high-tech
foundation that recognizes the value of getting out the message-especially in
California, a big state with expensive media- driven politics and a tradition
of creating policy by means of ballot initiative. Thus, CWF recruits
experienced consulting firms that develop and implement campaigns even to the
point of serious involvement in state ballot measures and national
legislation. Examples listed in the 1995 annual report include:

* $500,000 to Public Media Center "to support a public education project on
health impacts of proposed federal budget cuts on children and families in
California." "The campaign joined advocates from a wide range of
organizations, bringing a unified voice to the debate."

Public Media Center is a nonprofit, public interest advertising firm based in
San Francisco, which-as the Wall Street Journal/ puts it "Goes for l the I
Jugular to Push Causes." The 20-year-old PMC places more than $1 million in
newspaper ads a year in major papers on behalf of clients such as Planned
Parenthood, Sierra Club, and Handgun Control Inc., according to the Journal.
Last year, it placed fear-inducing ads opposing the Contract With America.
The Contract "guarantees drastic losses for children," warned one such
hyperbolic ad. which delineated a parade of horribles that would plague the
nation if the Republican agenda were enacted, e.g., "neglected and brutalized
children will not be protected. '

* $363,000 to the Marin Institute, "to build the capacity of live target
California cities to effectively address the role of alcohol marketing and
availability in the economic development of these communities." This
nonprofit research firm in the North San Francisco Bay Area is hostile to
both tobacco and alcohol consumption, and explores ways of "empowering" local
communities to restrict access to them through ordinances limiting or banning
advertising, sales, and consumption. The Institute grew out of the famous
Buck Trust controversy and was established with funds from the Trust.

* $4 million to Public Media Center "to develop and implement a campaign to
increase [public] awareness about... Proposition 188." This was a 1994
California ballot initiative, sponsored by tobacco companies. that sought to
curb the ability of local communities to enact anti-smoking ordinances that
were more stringent than slate law. PMC "used print, radio and television ads
to inform Californians about the threat to the public's health." CWF reports
that surveys at the start showed Californians in support of the proposition.
After the emotionally charged propaganda blitz by PMC, voters rejected it (
1995 annual report).



Currying Favor with the State?

Organization Trends has previously documented how foundations establish a
financial relationship with state and local governments as a shortcut to
achieving their policy goals, e.g., a new health care plan or education
reform. Often these programs have little public support-hence, lawmakers are
unlikely to provide funding-so the foundation gives the state money to run a
pilot program. The state legislators are often hardly aware that state
agencies are relying on outside grantmakers for policy direction. Yet the
program becomes entrenched. Eventually the government takes over the funding
-and the public gets stuck with something it never wanted. It's an easy way
to avoid the sticky problems associated with democratic self government.

Like other large philanthropies. CWF gives money to selected government
institutions and agencies, local and state, for start-up costs of
scholarships, fellowships? and research projects. Some examples:

* $775,000 to UC Berkeley in 1995 to support the Schools Wellness Project,
"a...model aimed at transforming 11 K-12 Bay Area schools into centers of
community health promotion."

* $30,000 to the L.A. Unified School District in 1995 "to create a program to
identify, track, and assist pregnant teens."

* $15,()()(:) to UC Berkeley, School of Public Health, in 1994 "to conduct
research on the politics of prevention in health care reform and to assess
the influence of the work supported by [CWF]."

Commenting on this connection to government, former CWF president and CEO
Howard Kahn wrote: "Recognizing the central role of government in the lives
of all Californians, we have not shied away from involvement with government
and public policy issues. Instead. we have embraced opportunities to affect
public policy and leverage public funds." (Leverage is the key word; the
foundation provides $100, and soon the government is spending $10 million on
a statewide prevention program.)

This means, Kahn explained, "evaluation of government-sponsored social and
health service programs," and "partnering" with government "to attempt to
influence the shape of new or existing public programs" and to ensure that
"prevention assumes a central role . . . in . . . efforts [of health care
reform| within California."

To those who would raise an eyebrow over a possible conflict of interest
between a foundation established by a major HMO that is aggressively pursuing
Medicare and other government contracts et the same time that it gives money
to government agencies and attempts to "influence . . . public health
programs": Be advised that such activity is not only condoned, it's applauded
as a fine example of "partnering."



The Violence Prevention Initiative

Although millions of dollars have been awarded for projects in all five
program areas (cited above), CWF's top priority has been the Violence
Prevention Initiative (VPI). In just four short years CWF has positioned
itself in the vanguard of the gun control crusade. IL has committed $30
million to this project, with other foundations kicking in an additional $10
million.

Basically this is a gun-control campaign. It has drawn nationwide public
attention and has endeared the fledgling foundation to a sympathetic media.
Consistent with its organizing principles, CWF claims to have been the first
organization to make gun control a public health issue. "The Initiative
breaks with tradition by putting the issue . . . in a public health
perspective that centers on prevention." says CWF literature.

Yes, prevention. What good is it, asks CWF, for a man to receive a clean bill
of health at the local clinic, if he is killed by gunshot on his way home'?
The solution)' Get rid of firearms. After all, if a public health department
can order the capping of a contaminated water source to stem cholera or order
restaurants to stop selling tainted hamburgers, it can surely halt an
"epidemic" of gun-related in juries and deaths.

Not surprisingly, many challenge this view. Edgar Suter, M.D., of Doctors for
Integrity in Policy Research, a nonprofit organization in San Ramon, Calif.,
has analyzed such allegations. In a report titled Targeting Deceit, Suter
observes that "The chief strategists of the gun ban lobby have attempted to
reframe the debate as a 'public health' issue rather than a crime issue
precisely because they have recognized . . . that two decades of
criminological research has shown the bankruptcy of the claim that gun
control reduces crime or violence."

By using FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Suter points out that drug
dealers and drug users are "overwhelmingly and disproportionately the
perpetrators and victims of  violence....[F]ar from being 'innocent
children,' an alarming two-thirds of gun homicides are of teens and young
adults in the drug trade."

Such facts make little if any impression on the anti-gun advocates, and they
are confident of ultimate success. "This is the beginning of a long journey,"
Dr. Michael Rodriguez, Research Director of the CWF-funded Pacific Center for
Violence Prevention, told a Sacramento anti-gun group last June. As reported
by the Sacramento Bee Rodriguez warned his audience that they would face "i
formidable obstacles, much like the pioneers of the anti-smoking crusade."

"Twenty years ago, people were able to light up wherever they wanted,"
Rodriguez is quoted as saying. Indeed. And CWF is determined that just as the
public was eventually conditioned to demand local ordinances and state laws
to ban smoking in restaurants, work sites, and  government buildings,
"education" by CWF will provide the changes in public opinion and policy that
will cause citizens to surrender their guns. Here's how some of CWF's grant
money is being spent on its anti-gun initiatives.

* $650,000 every other year to fund two- year fellowships for ten community
activists scattered throughout the state. Also three annual $25,000 "Peace
Awards" to selected community leaders.

* $400,000 each to 17 community organizations "to implement violence
prevention projects."

* $200,000 to the Center for Investigative Reporting in San Francisco to
produce and distribute a national televised documentary on the firearms
industry.

* $40,000 to the San Francisco-based Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV)
for a resource manual, Addressing GUn Violence e through Local Ordinances a
how-to book for anti-gun activists and attorneys. It explains how to enact
municipal ordinances that outlaw "Saturday night specials" and banish dealers
from residential and other "sensitive" areas. It offers advice on how
activists can build public support for so-called "rational gun regulation,"
and how to resist legal challenges to already enacted anti-gun ordinances and
regulations.

In 1992 a major grant of $1.3 million (part of an eventual total of $7.5
million) was allocated to establish Rodriguez's Pacific Center for Violence
Prevention. The money went to the Trauma Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy
group based in San Francisco's General Hospital. The Trauma Foundation has
long assaulted gun ownership going so far as to run full-page ads in major
newspapers to promote anti-gun legislation.

CWF's 1993 Annual Report detailed the work of the new Center: ''[L]inking
several leading activist organizations, the Pacific Center is helping train
those involved with the [Violence Prevention] Initiative in order to create a
statewide network of advocates who can educate the media, public officials
and other leaders on the public health perspective for violence prevention."

One such "linking" was with LCAV to produce the resource manual on passing
local ordinances. Pacific Center provided staff assistance, while Policy
Director David Farrar contributed his expertise. The LCAV project also
borrowed anti-smoking activist Mark Pertschuk, son of former FTC Chairman
Michael Pertschuk, of the California Preemption Education Project (a joint
project of Western Consortium for Public Health and Americans for Nonsmokers
Rights), which receives funding from CWF.



Playing the Child Card

Of all CWF activities, the one generating the most publicity has been the
Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence Against Kids. Begun in 1993, it uses TV
ads, public service announcements and direct mailings "to mobilize citizen
action." CWF shamelessly plays the child card. This tried-and-true tactic
originated with Marian Wright Edelman and her Children's Defense Fund. It
entails a three- step process: First, define an issue (e.g., health care, gun
control, poverty) as a children's problem. Second, propose a government
solution. Third, attack those who disagree with the specific policy as anti-
children. Thus, "There are too many handguns, too many gun dealers and too
many kids losing their lives to this epidemic, and it needs to stop,"
foundation President Gary Yates told the L.A. Times in April.

The TV ads, narrated by veteran Hollywood leftist Ed Asner, told Californians
the "number one killer of kids . . . is handguns." A second ad shows guns on
an assembly line, with a voice-over: "Business is booming, a handgun is
produced every 20 seconds and they're put to use on our kids. Ten kids are
killed every day. A kid commits suicide with a handgun every X hours. It's an
epidemic." Suter notes that a "kid" includes anyone up to age 18-even young
thugs involved in drug trafficking.

Viewers could call a toll-free number and receive a Citizen involvement Kit,
a brochure containing the names of community organizations to contact (most
of them funded by CWF), names and addresses of elected officials, and a list
of meaningless 'facts" with which to confront officials, e.g., "There are l 8
times more gun dealers than McDonald's in California." The kit also contained
three postcards to send to legislators asking: What are you doing to prevent
handgun violence against California kids'?

Behind the scenes of this endeavor has been the private political consulting
firm of Martin & Glantz. Based in Marin County, it lists among its clients
The Nature Conservancy, and the Ford Foundation. Partners Angie Martin and
Gina Glantz (no relation to anti- tobacco enthusiast Stanton Glantz) have
earned a reputation for the skill with which they manage advocacy campaigns.
They received over $2 million through 1994, and in 1995 were awarded an
additional $6 million over three years "to continue and expand the multimedia
public education campaign."

A highlight of this campaign to date was a statewide, 90-minute
teleconference titled "First Aid for What's Killing Our Kids: A Prescription
for Prevention," which "joined the public and policy makers in Washington,
D.C. and 18 conference sites in an unprecedented discussion of specific
policy options for reducing violence." The teleconference, held in February
1995. featured pre-recorded appearances by Donna Shalala, secretary of Health
and Human Services, and U.S. Senators Bill Bradley (D- NJ) and Barbara Boxer
(D-CA). The 1,6()() participants made the following predictable policy
recommendations:

* Banning so-called Saturday night specials

* "Home rule" for handgun regulation (the preemption tactic)

* Regulation of handguns as a consumer product

* Increasing the penalty on carrying a concealed handgun

The 1995 annual report describes "the groundbreaking video-conference" in
glowing terms as "an important tool for |CWF's ] policy goal of developing
long term public awareness and support for preventive solutions to handgun
violence." Ironically, these recommendations would result in greater
violence. Since criminals ignore gun laws, disarming innocent citizens is a
policy that costs snore, not fewer, lives.

[continued]



<----  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] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: tobacco and guns
Date: 03 Sep 1996 16:26:23 -0600


On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, [e-mail] posted:

>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!),

What exactly is the difference between being declared an addictive
substance and a controlled substance?  Medical or just legal?

Thanks.

BTW, off topic, are you aware of any petition gathering for the Stop
the Browne Out campaign here in Utah?

PS.  I presume from the nicotine withdrawl that you are attempting to
quit smoking.  Good luck.  If you are into herbal remedies, friends
who have quit smoking have suggested a particular, legal herb that
seemed to help.  I'll forward details privately if you are interested.

--

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.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and
 military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of
 democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
 Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of
 our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among
 the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey "The Right to Arms" [New York, 1979]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: (fwd) A phone call from the police]
Date: 03 Sep 1996 16:28:08 -0600


Forwarded from AZRKBA, just to demonstrate what happens to those who
register their guns or themselves as gun owners.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
Lines: 28
Sender: [e-mail]
Approved: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <502sgl$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: xring.cs.umd.edu

        This afternoon I got a call from the San Diego police, it
seems they were looking for people who have the little Grendel autos.
The detective politely told me that they were investigating a murder
and that ballistics had confirmed  a Grendel as being the murder
weapon.
        So now they are rounding up all the Grendels from people like
me who have legally purchased and  registered them.  Somehow, I rather
doubt the real shooter is going to say "Sure I've still got it.  Come
on over and pick it up for testing."
        Ok, what distinguishes Grendel from other .380 autos that will
identify this manufacturer with only a bullet?  I can only think of
perhaps  a different style of rifling.  How about the rest of you?
Anyone know of brand identification via rifling?


BTW My Grendel hasn't been shot in more then 6 months so I'm not
worried about  myself.   They can drop by tomorrow and pick it up to
try it out.  It is not a house gun nor a primary defense weapon for
anyone in my family.

                                   Best Regards

                               Ron in San Diego

http://www.electriciti.com/~rfuller
(Diving in San Diego)
[e-mail]

----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.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and
 military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of
 democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
 Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of
 our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among
 the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey "The Right to Arms" [New York, 1979]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: CONCEALED CARRY - REAL TRUTH!!]
Date: 03 Sep 1996 16:17:53 -0600


Forwarded from AZRKBA

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

At the request of a friend who follows this group regularly, I have
transcribed the article Chris Stark referred to.  After you've had a
chance to read it, go buy the magazine--there are other articles worth
reading in it, and I feel badly enough about posting their copyrighted
material.  However, I believe they would want their message spread and
discussed, and I think this is an appropriate forum for that.  It's not
that long, but as Chris noted, it's worth reading the entire article.

+++===+++===+++===+++===+++

Transcribed from the column "2nd Amendment" in the October, 1996, issue
of Guns & Ammo

Concealed-Carry Laws are Not the Answer (Some Gun Owners Believe that
Permit Systems Play into the Hands of the Antis).  by Ed Moats

"The most effective means of fighting crime in the United states is to
outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace."


So said Janet Reno at a 1991 B'nai B'rith meeting in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.  Reno was then the chief prosecutor of Dade County, Florida.
Today she is the attorney general of the United States and her doctrine
of civilian disarmament is official federal crime control policy.  For
the United States government, fighting crime means rendering civilians
completely defenseless.  And federal constitutional doctrine is that
there is no constitutional right to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding
whatever the Constitution itself might have to say on the subject.

Why then has the United States Justice Department remained silent as
state after state has passed statutes allowing concealed-carry permits
(CCPs)? Today 31 states have "shall issue" concealed-carry laws,
requiring the issuance of a CCP to any citizen who pays the fee and is
not disqualified (felon, mental health, drug or alcohol commitment,
etc.).

We can understand this federal silence as a clever application of the
technique for cooking frogs.  Question:  How do you cook a frog?
Answer: Very slowly.  If you toss a frog into a pot of boiling water
the frog will leap out.  But if you gently place the frog in a pan of
cool water and slowly raise the temperature, the frog will be too
cooked to leap by the time he realizes he's in trouble.  Question:
"How do you steal the liberties of a free people?"  Answer:  "The same
way you cook a frog: very slowly."  This is the socialist doctrine of
gradualism, employed successfully by socialists since World War II to
erode the liberties of America s citizens.

The feds tolerate the explosion of state concealed-carry laws because
they know these concealed-carry laws are gradually creating a culture
that will facilitate the confiscation of all firearms.

"A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his
steps," says the Scripture, accurately describing the simple among us
who imprudently celebrate the liberalization of concealed-carry laws.
As ignorant as lambs bleating their way to slaughter is the pitiful
glee of gun owners rejoicing that their state is going to allow permits
for concealed carry.

Concealed-carry permits are the deadly enemy not the friend of the
right to keep and bear arms.  Everyone who purchases a permit plays
into the hands of the gun confiscators, who are patiently biding their
time until the moment is ripe.

A gun owner who buys a concealed-weapon permit steps into six traps:

Confusing the distinction between "Concealed Carry" and "Carry."
In many states the CCP is required to carry a handgun at all, concealed
or not.  And some require the CCP to carry any firearm, even long guns,
except to the hunt or the firing range.  Soon a CCP will be required to
take your grandfather's .22 to the dump to shoot rats.  Ultimately in
my opinion, a CCP will be required to possess any firearm anywhere
outside your own home.

Paying for a Constitutional Right.
Every gun owner who buys a CCP helps establish the principle that the
government may charge a fee for constitutional rights.  If a CCP is
$50, what shall it be for a free speech permit, or a permit granting
protection from unreasonable searches and seizures?  We all long ago
acquiesced to buying government permission to build a house or operate
a motor vehicle. Shall we now place constitutional rights in the same
category?

Turning a Right into a Privilege.
Similarly, everyone who obtains a CCP assents to the proposition that
bearing arms is a privilege, not a right.  There is an infinite gulf
between these two concepts.  A privilege is granted at the state s
discretion, revocable at its will (or whim).  A right is vested in an
individual, not subject to the grace of the state.  What is done by
state license is a privilege, not a right.  A CCP law is itself an
infringement of the constitutional right to bear arms.

Camouflaged Registration.
Everyone buying a CCP registers himself as a gun owner.  Registration
is the necessary antecedent to confiscation.  Confiscators don t need
to have the firearms registered.  What they really need is to have the
owners registered.  Concealed-weapon permits do exactly that.  When the
time comes, confiscators will know whose house to search.  Ominously,
the March 1996 issue of Guns & Ammo reports a secret federal gun
registration scheme in Pittsburgh that uses a computer program to
generate a map of the city with the homes of legal firearm owners
circled.  The data for this map will come partly from concealed-carry
permits.

Any data source that identifies gun owners will serve the confiscators
purpose.  On a recent visit to a gun store in Seattle, I was told by
the owner that he had recently received a call from the BATF inquiring
whether he kept records on his sales of gun safes. To the storekeeper's
"why?" the BATFman replied "Well, we figure where there's gun safes,
there's guns."

This should be no surprise.  Gun owners  enthusiasm for concealed-carry
laws has been misplaced from the beginning.  CCP laws are camouflaged
registration laws, registering owners, which is even worse than
registering guns.  This is the reason some states require a CCP to
carry a handgun at all, even if not concealed.  The purpose is not to
liberalize firearms possession for the law-abiding, but rather to get
owners of firearms registered for the day of confiscation. [Editor's
Note:  In point of fact, "registration" already exists on the federal
level whenever a gun buyer completes a Form 4473.]

Misplaced Faith in Lawmakers.
The fifth trap is thinking that lawmakers who create the concealed-
carry laws are motivated by support for the constitutional right to
bear arms. If they were, they would not create the complex
concealed-carry machinery, complete with application forms, fees,
waiting periods, record checks, required concealment, mandatory
training, renewal fees, etc.  That complex machinery is irrelevant to
any legitimate purpose.  All that is needed to support the
constitutional right to bear arms and protect the public is a
simple statute making it a crime for the disqualified (felons, drug
addicts, alcoholics, etc.) to carry a firearm.  Nothing further is
required or helpful.

Proponents may claim concealed-carry laws allow the law-abiding to pack
heat while restricting firearms from the disqualified.  No thinking
person can be fooled by this patent canard.  Denying criminals
concealed-weapon permits does not deny them concealed weapons.  Such
laws only affect the law-abiding.  Concealed-carry laws only restrict
weapons from those law-abiding citizens who are unable or unwilling to
pay the fee.  The criminals are unaffected.  No law can keep guns from
gremlins.

Hence this vital question:  What is the difference between a
concealed-carry statute and a statute declaring it a felony for a felon
to possess a firearm?  To the felon there is no difference at all.  But
the law-abiding person must register and pay a fee.

Thus, the net practical effect of a concealed-carry statute is to 1)
compile a registration list of gun owners, 2) establish that bearing
arms is a privilege, not a right, and 3) extract a fee for this
privilege.

Solidifying Bias against Open Carry.
Most concealed-carry laws permit only concealed carry.  That is, they
disallow open carry.  These laws thus further cement the current
cultural bias against open carry.  Yet open carry is the direction we
must move if we're going to actually stop the crime wave in this
country.

It has been noted that "An armed society is a polite society."  True,
but incompletely stated.  An armed society will be a polite one only if
everyone knows it is armed.  Concealed weapons won t induce politeness.


Someone rejoins "Under concealed-carry laws, you'll be polite to
everyone, because you won't know who is armed."  I reply: You don't
know now who is armed!

All the infamous public massacres of recent times the Long Island
Railroad, the Killeen, Texas, Luby s Cafeteria are characterized by one
critical fact:  The killer believed that he would be the only one there
armed.  Concealed carry won t change that.  Open carry will.

Gun Owners Come Out of the Closet.
Consider this:  If you carry a weapon concealed, just who are you
concealing it from?  Not the vermin:  You want them to know you're
armed. Then you're less likely to have to use your weapon.  You are
concealing the weapon from the police and from the public who might
call the police. In our unfortunate mindset, it is socially
unacceptable for the peaceable to be armed.  Because of this attitude
armed crime is ubiquitous.  But let the citizen carry his arms openly,
and this mindset and the crime it promotes will rapidly reverse.

If our lawmakers were truly interested in curbing crime they would
mandate that every qualified adult man and woman carry a firearm, long
or short, concealed or open.  Instead, lawmakers are creating
camouflaged registration laws, while mouthing fidelity to the Second
Amendment.

To counter this, gun owners should come out of the closet.  In every
jurisdiction where it is still legal, gun owners should carry their
weapons openly.  The public will at first be shocked, but will soon
applaud it as violent crime skids to a halt.

----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.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and
 military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of
 democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
 Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of
 our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among
 the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey "The Right to Arms" [New York, 1979]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Second letter to SLPD.
Date: 03 Sep 1996 16:36:19 -0600


Below is a copy of my second letter to the SLPD concerning Officer
Bell's editorial.  It is in response to their letter to me which I
posted here on the 24th of last month.  Much of it is not terrribly
original as I have stolen freely from some posts that were sent to me.

---begin letter--

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

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

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in regard to Asst. Chief Chapman's letter of August 14
which was in reference to my letter dated August 3 (not August 2 as
Asst. Chief Chapman wrote in his letter).

You neglected to include in your letter to me the requested written
policy and training guidelines concerning appropriate officer conduct
when interacting with a non-violent individual who may be in
possession of a concealed weapon.  You have also made no mention of
the hearing I requested.  I hereby renew both these requests.  Please
provide either the information requested or else written refusal to do
so.

With regard to what you did send me, I am deeply troubled by the
obvious contradictions and out-of-hand dismissals I see evident.

You claim that Officer Bell "did editorialize as a private citizen,
and not as a police officer" and that "[h]e did not speak for the Salt
Lake City Police Department in any way".  I will accept that he did
not speak as an official spokesman of the Department.  However, he
went to great lengths in his letter to identify himself as a long-time
police officer.  He also spoke not on his own behalf as a private
citizen, but on behalf of every law enforcement officer in the State.
Further, he promised to carry out certain actions not on his own time
as a private citizen, but while acting in his capacity as a sworn
officer.  It is those promised actions, and now your complacency in
dismissing them out-of-hand, that are at the heart of my concern.
Also, I have not seen any public statements from the department or any
other officers to counter Officer Bell's pronouncement of how he and
his fellow officers will treat law-abiding citizens.  Is your
collective silence to be read as acceptance of Bell's position?

You assure me that you do not "put citizens on the ground 'face down'
as a matter of policy".  However, in neglecting to provide me a copy
of those policies I am left to assume that either a) There is some
reason you do not wish the pubic to review your policy; or b) You do
not have clear policy and training in this area and my concerns that
such situations are left too much to the discretion of Officers such
as Bell who have already decided that citizens' civil rights will take
a back seat to their own fears and political agendas are, in fact,
completely justified.

You say you know officer Bell and that he would not put a "citizen
face down on the ground without the probable cause to justify that
course of action".  Where in his signed, published letter did you read
the words "probable cause"?  Officer Bell has made a public
declaration that EVERY citizen he encounters in possession of a gun is
going to be treated as if they were a dangerous criminal and placed
"face down in hand cuffs".  Only at that point, he says, will he
inquire as to the legal status of the concealed weapon.  This is in
direct conflict with State law which recognizes that the vast majority
of citizens are not dangerous criminals and allows them the statutory
privilege of carrying a concealed weapon.

I have friends and relatives serving as peace officers.  I appreciate
the dangerous circumstances under which you work.  But any officer who
chooses to deal with those circumstances by initiating force against
peaceful citizens who are in full compliance with the law has no
business walking the streets with a badge and gun.  Officer Bell has
proclaimed he will do just that.  He is a walking personal injury and
civil rights law suit waiting to happen.  I want to know what action
has and will be taken to insure the safety of Salt Lake and Utah's
citizens from Officer Bell and others in the Department who share his
low regard for the rights of private citizens.

Let me restate a point I made in my previous letter.  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 reply to my specific concerns is most appreciated.  Please
include the requested documentation or written refusal to do so.

Thank you



Charles Hardy


--

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.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and
 military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of
 democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
 Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of
 our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among
 the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey "The Right to Arms" [New York, 1979]

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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: mr hardys leters
Date: 04 Sep 1996 09:57:56 -0600

Below, my response.



Larry Larsen
P.O. Box 417
Santa Clara, Utay 84765

September 4, 1996


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

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

Dear Sirs,
    I have been following Mr. Hardys comments, and officer BellÆs remarks
concerning those who carry concealed firearms legally.  I too request an
explanation, in the same regard as Mr Hardy,  just to let you know that
this is not an isolated request, and that I support it also.

Larry Larsen



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: News on Australia Gun Ban
Date: 04 Sep 1996 14:31:00 -0700


*****Forward*****

Hi folks, I hear a rumor about US Marines going door to door in Australia
confiscated weapons.  I contacted some folks to ask them about it and this
is the press release they sent me back. Lots of similarities. (Reighstag
Australia)

Paula

Subj: Re: searches
Dear Paula,

If there is Paula we have had no news yet, but because of the interest
we have issued a statement to help clear up things as we can see them.
This statement is not copyrighted as long as it is copied entirely and
source acknowleged.

bye Wendy Beuster
============================================

3rd. September, 1996

Despatch Statement...re "The Gun Issue"

Here in Australia New gun laws from the Federal government have made the
retaining of Semi-Automatic & Automatic type weapons illegal. This was
a kick started by the massacre in Tasmania, where approx. 36 people
were gunned down by a `madman' at or near the Port Arthur tourist cafe.
Hysteria was stirred up across Austalia and many citizens joined in the
cry to take personally owned guns away. Street marches for and against
resulted, with suggestions that guns could be crimped where possible,
not removed from our citizens...Prime Minister Howard vetoed this, and
put tremendous pressure on the States to all agree to ban guns by
legislation. This was achieved.

Victoria was the first to hand over the guns; a 12 months amnesty is
being allowed; the government is offering a buy back system which of
course does not adequately recompense the gun owners...there has been a
huge bonfire of collected guns since all this began.

During all this two federal parliamentarians Downer and Fisher, went to
the USA to confer with Warren Christopher ...is this a co-incidence?

USA marines have been in Australia since the 31st. of July 1995. As far
as we can ascertain, 7,000 odd are stationed here with supposedly 30,000
coming and going for supposed training exercises. We know of these
troops in Ipswich, Queensland, as far south as Victoria, and as far
north as Townsville. There has been no information in newspapers,
Television or by word of mouth re the USA rumour of these troops using
any standover tactics out here.  But of course it is convenient that
they are here in case we do object to Gun removal eh!

Before the States capitulated to Howard's demand for legislation re the
Guns; the Gun Lobby people became so irate in demonstrations that the
Television showed pictures of John Howard wearing what could be nothing
other than a bullet proof vest under his suit. He copped quite a bit of
flack over it!

Many people want the guns taken away, but it appears to us that many,
many more are objecting, even with threats of anarchy and violence...
stirred on by the `rambos'. They are saying our `inherited' Bill of
Rights from England gives us, (mainly those in Queensland are saying
this) the right to bear arms etc. But the Politicians are maintaining
that our Constitution over-rides the English Bill of Rights, which was
brought in round Magna Carta time.

The riots out here in Australia have been occurring concurrently with
the above gun lobby, but about the supposed Budget blow out of 8
billion dollars inherited from the Labour Government of Paul Keating,
and John Howard's [Liberal] apparently drastic cut-back program to
spending, prior to his announcement of his new budget. The new budget
has quieted things down a little.

The unions have caused violent riots at Parliament house in Queensland
over ensuing loss of jobs for, State school cleaners and the State
University's Austudy cut backs. But Federally, they have rioted over
loss of jobs for public servants, health workers changes to the
unemployed benefits etc

The Aboriginals also have rioted at both Parliament Houses in Canberra
[the old and the new] over large cut-backs in Federal Assistance and the
Mabo legislation infringements etc....injuries resulting in blood being
spilt on the parliamentary floor...unheard of, such madness in Australia.

Wendy Beuster...Publications Dept. for W.b. Howard.

   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{@>

W.B. Howard...Director & Editor of Despatch Magazine
Endtime Ministries/Christian Resource Center [pub.Q'rtly.Despatch mag.],
 which exposes the Infiltration of the N.A.N.W.O.
  in our Churches and Society in General.
=============================================================
Visit our Aussie site: http://www.closer.brisnet.org.au/~despatch/
=============================================================
 Jesus said: " I am the way, the truth and the life;
 no man cometh unto the father but by me." Jn.14:6

<#}}}><   <#}}}><   <#}}}><   <#}}}><   <#}}}><   <@}}}><


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: National Parks and RKBA
Date: 04 Sep 1996 16:29:38 -0600


Below is a draft of a letter intended for my Congressional Delegation
(Utah) as well as the delegation from Wyoming.  Comments are welcome.

--begin letter--

Charles Hardy
xxx
xxx

Sept. 4, 1996


Dear Utah or Wyoming Congressional Delegate

Over this last Labor Day weekend I had the pleasure of spending three
nights camping in the the Grand Teton National Park and visiting
Yellowstone for the first time in many years.  While there, I read
numerous signs warning of the danger of bear attacks.  It was clear
that some number of people are seriously injured or killed by bear in
the area each season.  Ironically (both because of the signs and
because I was in Wyoming), I also saw numerous notices that firearms,
even State permitted concealed weapons, were not allowed within the
park.

Why are the tools which provide the highest chance of human survival
in the event of a bear attack prohibited in bear country?  Why are the
tools which provide the greatest chance of victim survival in the
event of human attack prohibited in the very areas where peace
officers have the least chance of preventing or responding to such
attacks?  It is highly immoral to make the good citizens of this
country choose between their own safety and obeying federal law just
to enjoy the great outdoors.

It doesn't seem to do any good for States such as Wyoming or Utah to
protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from
predatory attacks--animal or human--if those rights are violated in
the huge areas of the States controlled by Washington D.C.  Certainly,
the Second Article of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should bind
the federal government on lands it controls.

That Amendment guarantees, in the words of Utah Senator Orrin Hatch,
"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."

I fully agree that National Parks are no place for hunting or target
shooting.  However, a law against discharging a weapon except in an
emergency would accomplish the same thing without stripping
law-abiding citizens of their ability to defend themselves.

Will you please sponsor and vigorously support legislation requiring
the Federal Government to honor on all public lands it controls my
right to self defense by peaceably carrying firearms?  Please explain
to me why or why not.

Your comments are most appreciated.

Thank you for your time and efforts in this matter.

Sincerely



Charles Hardy


CC:Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Robert Bennett, Sen. Alan Simpson,
Sen. Craig Thomas, Rep. Barbara Cubin, Rep. Enid Greene, Rep. James
Hansen, Rep. Bill Orton,





--

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.

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an
 unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear
 arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with
 army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and
 gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
 -- WILSON v. STATE, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Jefferson Conservativism E-Zine columnist goes Libertarian!
Date: 06 Sep 1996 18:29:00 -0700


--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
libernet#listserv.rmii.com,[e-mail]

Read his essay here:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1783/trott.html

BTW, STBO'ers.  Maybe we can pursuade these folks to put up an STBO link??

--Gary

The homepage is at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1783/index.html
It's a great site!

Thanks Dale, your support is greatly appreciated.

Text follows:


        Decision '96: More Choices Than You Might Think

         by

    Dale R. Trott

They have finally convinced me. Although I've been quite sympathetic
to their cause for a number of years, I was always reluctant to take
them completely seriously come Election Day. Given the sorry state of
this republic that has developed over the past few decades, I suppose
it was inevitable that I would finally take them seriously and realize
that a vote for a Libertarian candidate wasn't simply a wasted vote
for a candidate that had no chance of winning.

I'll be the first to admit that the Libertarian candidate for president
has virtually no chance of winning the election. As someone who is
registered as an Independent, and who usually votes for the Republican
candidates whose positions and ideas most closely align with my own,
I was in violent agreement with those who have said that a vote for a
Libertarian candidate is a wasted vote. I do not feel that way any longer.

As recently as a month ago I was planning to vote for Bob Dole this
coming November. But that wasn't because I think Dole would make a good
president. Frankly, I think someone like Bob Dole -- a died-in-the-wool
Washington politician and 28-year veteran of the U.S. Senate -- is not
the kind of person we need sitting in the White House. Bob Dole and his
Washington buddies are major contributors to the mess we now find
ourselves in the midst of.

I'm sure this will come as no surprise to anyone, but the reason I had
planned to vote for Bob Dole was simply to help prevent Bill Clinton from
winning a second term. Until recently, I was a strong believer in the ABC
principle, which promotes the concept of "Anyone But Clinton." Although I
still believe that the election of Bill Clinton is one of the most damaging
and disgraceful events that this nation has ever had to endure, I no longer
believe that just "anyone" is capable of guiding us on the long journey
back towards what the founders of this nation had originally intended.

It wasn't Bob Dole's lackluster campaign or advanced years that changed my
mind about his candidacy. It wasn't his lack of charisma or inability to
play to the TV cameras. Although many people believe that the majority of
our elected representatives are little more than liars who will say or do
almost anything in order to get elected or stay in office, it often takes
a particular act of deception to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt
that this is so.

After passage of the much-publicized "assault weapons" ban in 1994,
Senator Dole pledged to make the repeal of the ban one of his legislative
priorities. He said everything that the National Rifle Association wanted
to hear. He could have easily been mistaken for an NRA spokesman as he
attempted to convince his Senate colleagues that the ban was a bad idea.

Senator Dole pulled off a damn fine impression of a politician who was a
true friend to America's gun owners. Many gun owners were convinced that a
Dole presidency and Republican majority in both houses of Congress would
almost surely result in the repeal of the ban. Until a few weeks ago that is.

During a campaign stop at a law enforcement facility in Virginia, Dole
extolled the virtues of that state's instant check system for people
purchasing firearms. When he was asked about his promise to work towards
the repeal of the "assault weapons" ban, he revealed his true intentions.

"Let's be realistic," Dole said. "Of the 17 weapons that were specifically
outlawed, 11 are already back on the market in some form. We've moved beyond
the debate over banning assault weapons."

There you have it. According to the Republican Presidential Candidate,
we've officially "moved beyond" the debate over banning "assault weapons".
I guess we can all just forget about it now and go on with our lives,
right? No need to concern ourselves with such a blatant infringement on
our rights by the passage of legislation that drives yet another stake
into the heart of the Second Amendment, right?

Wrong! Watching Bob Dole utter those words on television that evening, I
finally realized that President Bob Dole wouldn't differ all that much
from President Bill Clinton. Either one of them will say whatever they
think they need to say in order to win an election. They are both willing
to change their positions on key issues in exchange for a few percentage
points on the next public opinion poll. Truth, integrity and core beliefs
be damned!

Although I had always suspected it, Dole's comments with regard to the
'assault weapons" ban confirmed that a Dole Presidency would simply mean
four more years of political deal-making, flip-flopping and further
erosion of our liberties.

Granted, the erosion of liberty may be slowed a bit, but frankly, I'm not
sure that's in our best interest. Maybe it will take four more years of
Clinton's socialist accomplishments before people wake up and realize what
is really going on.

Bob Dole probably feels pretty confident about his decision to abandon his
efforts to repeal the "assault weapons" ban. After all, where else can gun
owners and other freedom-loving Americans go? Bill Clinton has proven
himself to be the most anti-gun president in our nation's history. Dole
knows that gun owners won't be voting for Clinton in November. Dole's
mistake is believing that gun owners don't have anywhere else to go.

Apparently, Dole doesn't think he needs the gun owner vote anymore. This
despite the fact that Bill Clinton himself blamed gun owners for the defeat
of 21 anti-gun incumbent congressional representatives in 1994. I cannot
begin to imagine what Bob Dole thinks has changed since that election.

More and more gun owners I am acquainted with are beginning to realize that
voters are not limited to a choice between the Democrats and Republicans.
Dole's recent comments on the "assault weapons" ban was the final straw for
many gun owners I have been hearing from. It's a shame it has taken such a
blatant disregard for individual liberty on the part of Bob Dole to awaken
them to the fact that there is a very worthy alternative to the Republicans
for voters who would like to vote their conscience for a change.

I'm as guilty as anyone. It was Dole's recent comments about the gun ban
that sent me zipping over the Internet at the speed of light to the
Libertarian home page. As the Libertarians are quick to point out, it is
unlikely that their candidate for president will even come close to winning
the election. Even so, a significant percentage of votes -- say 15% or so
would send a powerful message to all of our friends inside the beltway. It
might convince them that Americans are finally starting to pay attention
to what's going on down there. A shocking concept, I agree, but it is
conceivable.

Besides sending a strong message to the power brokers in D.C., it would
also be a nice change for many voters to support a candidate that believes
the Constitution is still a relevant document. Among other things, the
Libertarians also want to dramatically shrink government, end the "war"
on drugs and stop the U.S. from meddling in the internal affairs of other
countries. Ideas that surely must give the inside-the-beltway crowd a
serious case of the jitters.

The Libertarians are the only major party I am aware of that actually
understands the reasons this nation is in the condition it is in today.
They also have some very good ideas about what must be done in order to
bring it back to what the founders had originally intended. Personally,
I find myself feeling somewhat embarrassed for not hopping on their
bandwagon a lot sooner.

I am not generally accustomed to such open and obvious campaigning for any
political party or candidate. Perhaps that is because I have never realized
that there was a real, honest-to-goodness political party that embraces so
many of the same principles and core beliefs that I hold dear. Some of their
ideas and intentions surely seem shocking in these days of ever-increasing
government encroachment, but that is only because so many of us have allowed
our values and beliefs to be defined for us by those that pretend to know
what is best for us.

As Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne is so quick to point
out, the Federal Government has proven that it is no longer capable of
doing anything right. The "war" on drugs is an utter failure, unless you
believe that the further erosion of individual liberty is a good thing.
Constant meddling in the affairs of others has the world's various
terrorist groups competing to see who can give us the bloodiest bloody
nose. And efforts to control crime consist of legislation intended to
disarm law-abiding citizens and deny them the right to protect themselves
in an era when big city police departments admit that they simply don't
have the resources to protect everyone.

If you can't find anything wrong with this picture, I encourage you to
cast your vote for Bob Dole or Bill Clinton this November. I have come
to the conclusion that the result will be essentially the same no matter
which of the two major parties wins the election.

On the other hand, if you agree that this country is has essentially
gone to Hell in a hand basket, you should at least consider taking the
Libertarian Party more seriously. After all, the two major parties have
been working diligently to destroy this country for decades and I don't
see any sign that they have even started to turn things around. I think
it's high time we give someone else a shot at it.

It is not my intent to provide every conceivable reason to support the
Libertarians or provide every detail of their party platform. If I have
prompted a few readers to at least consider the possibility of supporting
a Libertarian candidate, I feel I have accomplished what I set out to ac-
complish when I began writing this column. If the Libertarians accomplish
even half as much as they promise they will, we might actually have a shot
at keeping this republic in business for another couple of centuries.


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Dr. Nancy Lord Threatened
Date: 07 Sep 1996 09:05:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Robed Criminals
Organization: Florida 77th Reg. Militia
Reply-To: [e-mail]

FOR MASS DISTRIBUTION

A terrible miss-justice has happened in Macon, Ga. today that will shock
every Red Bloodied American. The Department of Injustice has seen to it,
that Dr. Nancy Lord, Attorney at law and 1992 Libertarian Vice-president
candidate, was removed from the Bob Starr Case in Federal Court of the
middle district of Georgia. Early in the case Dr. Lord and the defense
went to Jimmie McCranie's house to recover some vital evidence pertaining
to the case. Now the Judge is claiming that there were explosive residue,
and she is being threatened by the Department of Injustice by being
subpoenaed to testify against her own client Bob Starr. Dr. Lord has
stated that she will reserve her attorney client privilege, and her 5th
Amendment right. Even risking the possibility of going to jail.

Is any American safe from being railroaded into false injustice, and used
as a political stepping stone to glorify those who would want to rule over
us and enslave us? How long will you ignore the abuses of a totalitarian
government when they are imprisoning innocent people? Will you wait until
they come from you, and will there be any American Citizen to defend you?

Bob Starr, Jimmie McCraine and Troy Spain need your help, or they may
spend the next twenty to fifty years in prison! They need $20,000
dollars to continue their defense. No DONATION IS TO SMALL. These men
are in desperate need of a good Constitutional defense attorney for
their trial, which starts October 16, 1996.

Please make all check, money orders payable to Robert Starr, and send
them ASAP to:

Robert Starr Defense Fund
C/O Don Beauregard
PO Box 16161
St. Petersburg, Fl. 33734-16161

For more information about this important case, please read on and/or
call 813-588-3072.

Thank you,
Concerned American citizen of the Robert Starr Defense Fund

<earlier internet posting of Robert Starr Case by JJ Johnson>

On April 26, 1996, Robert Starr and James McCranie were arrested
and charged by federal agents with conspiracy and possession of an
unregistered explosive device (pipe bombs). According to the
government's own testimony (and the press), the pipe bombs of the
accused are similar in construction to the one used at the Olympic
Park in Atlanta on July 27th.

The U.S. government's witness (BATF Agent Steve Gills) also testified
under oath that Starr had no knowledge of such evidence being placed
on his property, and that McCranie stated that he wanted nothing to do
with making pipe bombs. The government has also stated in their response
to the defense attorney's motions that the confidential informants had
"participated" in the burying of evidence on Starr's property.

We were concerned that the illegal activities of these informants were
not over.  During the first week after the arrests, we provided the FBI,
at their request, information about them, including photographs.

Starr, McCranie, and now Troy Spain, are now being held without bond
until their trial which begins on Sep 3. Against the written protests of
the defense, Starr and McCranie were relocated to the U.S. Penitentiary
in Atlanta, GA shortly before the Olympics, at the request of the U.S.
Marshall Service for "security reasons". No further details were given.

Upon learning of the tragedy at the Olympic Park at about 2 a.m. July 27th,
we immediately began going over evidence from our investigation concerning
the Robert Starr case. 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 of whom we learned through our investigation on the Macon case
who fit this profile.

The U.S. District Court gag order issued at 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
approximately 7 hours before the bombing, prohibits us from
disclosing more about these suspects.

At about 12:30 p.m. on Saturday, July 27, we telephoned the FBI in
Atlanta, the Atlanta police, and the federal security agency called
SOLEC, and told them that we were aware of suspects who know about
and have made pipe bombs.  We also offered to listen to the 911
tape and compare it with voice recordings of the individuals, and
show our pictures of these men to any eyewitnesses.  The FBI
official told us they were "too busy" to speak with us and would
not give us any more information.

On Saturday, we began to observe footage of our Bob's arrest, and
heard that a "militia connection" was suspected.

Robert Starr gave a taped statement from the federal penitentiary.
Mr. Starr stated that the perpetrators should be hung.  His analysis
of news clips suggested that the perpetrator had to be familiar with
security measures, and that it might have been done by informants who
are known to have instigated illegal activity in Georgia in the past.
If he listened to the 911 tape, he might recognize the voice, he said,
and he offered to assist the government in any way possible to find
the culprit.

On Sunday morning at 10:00 EST we held a press conference at the
federal building in Macon, played Mr. Starr's statement for the
news media, and told them (within the limits of the gag order) of
our suspicions and that our calls had not been returned.

Several reporters questioned ACOG officials during their 5:00 p.m.
press conference as to why the lead provided by the Georgia militia
had not been followed.  They claimed that all leads were being
investigated, but looked rather uncomfortable throughout the
conference, which was peppered with questions from reporters
concerning the Fourth Amendment and constitutional rights.

As of 8:00 a.m. on Monday morning, law enforcement agencies have
still failed to returned our phone calls.

However, we have spoken with and have given the same information
to news media from all over the world since 6 p.m. Saturday:

WMAZ, Macon Georgia
Macon Telegraph
Associated Press
Dallas Morning News
Orlando Sentinel
Toronto Sun
Sacramento Bee
Fox 23 TV, Macon
CNN, Atlanta
RTL television, Germany
Atlanta Journal & Constitution
KLM television, Germany
Inside Edition
The Wall Street Journal
French television
Newsday
Australian TV
Focus TV
WABC, AM 770 New York
WMAZ, AM 940 Macon
ITN British Television
CBS News

Several additional radio shows, including KRLD 1080 AM of Dallas,
are scheduled.

However, the feds are hitting back.  We are told from patriots
outside of the Macon area that the network feed started hitting
Bobby and Jimmy hard after 11:00 p.m. Sunday.

If anyone might have been in Centennial Park on Friday night, or
has any other information that might help in solving this terrible
crime, please contact us using the informtion below.

When conducting and investigation, one usually asks the question,
"Who benefits ?". The pipe bombming in Atlanta has the potential
of damaging the Starr McCrannie and Spain defense although they
have the perfect alibi (held for trial without bond in a U.S. Pen.).

 Also, the results of the bombing has led to military personnel on
every major street corner of Atlanta while government officials
call for more money, manpower, international co-operation, and yes,
authority over our lives. The freedom movement (Militia, Patriots,
etc.) have spoken out against this policy for years. Nor would any
Georgia militiaman wish to jepardize the upcoming Macon trial.

We belive that since only one of three manufactured pipe bombs
exploded, the idiot who committed this crime wanted even more death
and destruction than what was received. It is for this reason, we
fear that before the Atlanta Olympics are over, these criminals may
strike again... somewhere in Georgia.


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: The latest from Sean Gabb.   (Long)]
Date: 07 Sep 1996 15:47:13 -0600


Forwarded from fap.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
He makes a lot of sense.  I had to keep reminding myself that he was
talking about the UK, not the US and the NRA (although most of what he
says certainly applies).  We are indeed not very far behind the UK down
the road to Hell.

Rich Benedict       |"Those who beat their swords into plowshares
[e-mail]  |       will plow for those who don't"


                 A SECOND OPEN LETTER
        TO THE GUNOWNERS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
                     by Sean Gabb


Tuesday, 3 September 1996, 11:16am


INTRODUCTION

I have just finished reading the latest replies to my first Open Letter, sent
out the Monday before last.  Most are rather flattering.  Some are
abusive.  These first I have acknowledged privately.  The second
I have ignored.  There is, however, a third class of reply - from people
who broadly share my belief in the free ownership of guns, but who still
misunderstand what I am trying to do.  I am writing this second Open
Letter with those people in mind.

I have been told that, if I want to be taken seriously, I must moderate my
position.  I must stop talking about other libertarian issues, like drugs and
porn and kinky sex, and I must accept the principle of licensing.

The reasoning behind this, I suppose, is that a deal has already been
made behind the scenes between the Home Office and the "gun lobby".
The gungrabbers have been claiming this for weeks; and for once, it
looks as if they are telling the truth.  The talk since Dunblane of a ban on
handguns will not be enacted into law.  There are still too many important
people who like shooting, still too many ordinary shooters who will carry
on lobbying after mainstream public opinion has lost interest in the issue,
still too many administrative problems in imposing a gun ban as opposed
to the unpopularity of not imposing one.  There will be more restrictions,
more regulations on the home storage of guns and ammunition.  But most
people who really want to have a gun at home will be able to carry on
having one.  This being so, I may seem to have put myself far outside the
present debate, and kept myself from having any influence on its
outcome.

Such reasoning, however, is false.  It takes no account of the dynamics
of gun control, and it is absolutely blind to the power of ideas.  Let me
explain.


THE DYNAMICS OF GUNS CONTROL

The Dunblane shootings happened almost half a year ago.  The moral
panic they occasioned has already been punctuated by the mad cow
scare; and it may have been entirely replaced by the campaign against
child pornography on the Internet.  But, sooner or later, there will be
another massacre - in this country or somewhere else.  And as soon as
that happens, whatever deal has been made after Dunblane will expire.
There will be fresh calls for a ban on guns, and the
Government will show willing, and a fresh compromise will have to be
negotiated.

Now, this will be further in the direction of a gun ban - because it is the
gungrabbers who are currently the most active campaigners, and they
who are allowed to choose the times and places of argument most
favourable to their cause; and because it is they who can use the fact of
numbers in support of their claims.  Be aware that every instalment of
gun control reduces the number of people who hold firearms certificates,
and therefore reduces the number of people who have a direct interest
in opposing the next instalment.  I have seen this happening with tobacco
since the 1970s.  I can see it happening with guns when I compare the
reactions to Hungerford and Dunblane.  It will continue to happen after
some other maniac opens fire on a crowd.

It is easy to call me utopian when I call for the abolition of gun control.
But I can apply that word, with far greater justification, to anyone who
thinks that whatever revised licensing scheme emerges from Dunblane
will last more than a few years.


THE POWER OF IDEAS

I received a message last week from someone who told me I knew
nothing of public relations, but was just a political ideologue.  Well,
I am both.  As well as from lecturing and writing, I make significant
amounts of money from public relations, and some of my best friends are
even more closely involved in that area.  Our considered opinion is that
much of what passes for public relations in this country is a waste of
time and money.  I have seen companies pour millions into
PR campaigns based on the assumption that people are stupid and far
more likely to be swayed by images and verbal tricks than by principled
argument.

Certainly, public debate has little in common with a Platonic dialogue.
It is far cruder and dirtier.  Even so, ideas are important.  They rule the
world more absolutely than any set of material interests.  Anyone who
saw the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe must know the
feebleness of armed force against an idea that has become the general
but as yet unestablished consensus.  Men like Stalin, who ruled the
Soviet media with a rod or iron, and who had people shot for the most
trifling thoughtcrime, were monsters, to be sure.  But they were not
stupid.  They respected ideas enough to be afraid of them.  Unlike
Gorbachev and the other reformers, they knew how flimsy their power
structure would be in contest with a people free to read and say what
they pleased.

It is ideas that give the gungrabbers all their power.  You, the gunowners
of this country, can pose as often and as long as you like with your
children or at your charity dinners.  You can hand out various kinds of
bribe to the politicians.  You can dig up tons of dirt on people like "Dr
Bernstein".  But that is nothing against the central idea of the
gungrabbers - that your right to have guns is what led to the Hungerford
and Dunblane massacres.  It may be a false idea, but it has been
accepted by the British public.  And it has been endorsed by you.  I have
seen your representatives on television, arguing - with plain success -
that the legal availability of handguns and levels of armed crime are not
related.  I have then seen them ruin the force of this argument by
accepting the need for gun control, only haggling over the details.  But if
control is needed, and if it can be made to work, the fact that it did not
prevent Thomas Hamilton from shooting those poor children is surely an
argument at least for tightening it in future.  Certainly, it is no foundation
for arguing that the present system of control should be made more
liberal.

Still worse, your representatives come across as liars.  As they switch
back and forth from muttering what they really believe and asserting
what they know to be absurdities, they look shifty in spite of their suits.
They succeed only in looking like the quiescent maniacs the gungrabbers
are calling you.


THE FOLLY OF PERMANENT MODERATION

I am told that I need to be more moderate before I can be acceptable.
I disagree.  It is rather like hearing an estate agent say "If you ask
L80,000 for this house, you may not find a buyer.  Better far to ask
L40,000 and try to gazump any buyer upwards sometime before
exchange of contracts."  Not only is this dishonest, it is also fanciful.
In politics, as in general, the best way to get what you want is to ask for
it - or to ask for rather more and then be willing to compromise.

Look at the British socialists who spent half a century of arguing and
publishing before 1945.  Did they spend that time talking about the need
for a National Coal Board and a National Health Service that would leave
the consultants free to keep on their private patients?  If they had, it is
unlikely that the Labour Party would have got anyone into Parliament, let
alone won the battle of ideas in the 1930s and
40s.  Instead, they spoke about what they really wanted - their "New
Jerusalem" of universal brotherhood and plenty.  This is what attracted
people of intellectual and organising ability into their movement, and
helped beat down an opposition that was right but had almost no one
able or willing to say so.  The actual institutions set up by the Attlee
Government were compromises, and were never intended to last much
beyond the next big ratchet to the left in British politics.  That these
institutions lasted so long is testimony not to their durability - they were
and are crap - but to the weight of the intellectual pressure behind them
even after the 1940s high point of
British socialism.

I know that my vision of a world without gun control is unacceptable at
the moment.  But that is no reason for my keeping quiet.  After all, it is not
unacceptable because it is wrong - because it is based on a false view
of human nature and how trustworthy ordinary people are.
It is unacceptable because it is strange - because it has not been really
stated in this country since before the Great War.  I know that my vision
will not be realised in a few years, or perhaps even a few generations.
But if not stated, it will never be realised.

Of course, there will be a licensing system for guns into the foreseeable
future.  There must be compromise in the short term, accepting whatever
can be had.  I have only contempt for those who sabotage a fine
compromise for the sake of something that cannot yet be achieved, but
may be achievable after a few years of the compromise - see, for
example, the opposition of some gay groups to lowering the age of
consent to 18 rather than 16.  But compromise must not be something
that is reached as it currently is.  Just like the gungrabbers, we must get
into the habit of saying what we really want, and then settling until the
next convenient moment for what we can get.

Regarding the other libertarian issues that I like to mix into the debate on
guns, these also are defensible in terms of public relations.  Some of you
may wear blazers and tweed caps, and think that breeding and
moderate wealth make you part of the Establishment.  You are mistaken.
The modern British Establishment is composed largely of politically
correct Guardian readers.  You gunowners are among their plainest
enemies.  Your possession of weapons gives you at least the potential
for breaking out of the cages they are building for humanity.
In the short term, you remain numerous enough to be worth dealing with.
But the basis of that relationship is diminishing all the time.

Nor can you rely on any automatic support from public opinion.
Your talk about the joys of clay pigeon shooting is comparable in its
effect to a paedophile talking about the spiritual aspect of the love
between men and boys.  You are increasingly a feared and hated
minority.

If you want allies in your battle to save your guns, you must appeal to
general arguments of freedom and independence.  You must make a
case that attaches your right to go out shooting to someone else's right
to watch smutty videos or smoke funny cigarettes.  The tobacco
companies are still big enough to continue their stupid refusal to argue
properly about freedom of choice.  You are not.  If you cut yourselves
off from allies whose chances of unaided success are nearly always
greater than your own, you will save yourselves the trouble of mixing
with people whose opinions and lifestyles you - perhaps rightly - abhor.
At the same time, you will be lost.


CONCLUSION

In calling for a principled stand in favour of guns, I am not promising
instant success.  I leave that to the air-heads in pretty suits who call
themselves PR consultants.  You are facing a struggle that will involve
years at the very least without any obvious benefit.  They will be years
of growing public and official disgust.  They will be measured by the
increasing weight of new controls on the right to keep and bear arms.

But what is new about that?  Since the 1968 Act, there have been 28
years of moderation.  These have got you nowhere.  By abasing
yourselves before the gungrabbers every time they find it useful to
restart their clamours, you have been reduced from a potentially large
and effective movement to an inconsiderable rump.  And you have
nothing to look forward to but eventual confiscation of your guns.
Take my advice, and you may not win - but there is always a chance
that, one day in a freer world, you will teach your grandchildren how to
shoot straight and not be afraid of the dark.


Sean Gabb
The Libertarian Alliance
London
September 1996
Web Page:  http://www.gold.ac.uk/~cea01sig/




----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.

"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: [[e-mail]: ]
Date: 07 Sep 1996 17:12:47 -0600


Forwarded from azrkba.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

My 86 year old father mailed this article to me that appeared in the "Quincy
Patriot Ledger" (Ten miles south of Boston) earlier this week. ( About 9/3/96)
I scanned it in just now and want to share it with the group. It is a treat
to talk with my father because he remembers the "old country" that we once
had. He has not smoked for over sixty years but does not give a hoot if you
do in his house. Etc. etc. etc. Just give the man freedom and get out of the
way!

I let him know about a few things that were mentioned on the list and he
thinks we should all go to Mesa armed and smoking 50 cent cigars. Sounds
good to me. Maybe time for a bit of civil disobedience.

If you would like to respond to the publishing newspaper;
[e-mail]

Here is the article;


Ireland lets be and do what you like
By Barbara Anderson

The rear bumper of my car is dressed for fall:
Congressman Peter-Torkildsen; Weld U.S.
Senate; Annoy the IRS, support the flat tax;
Preserve & Protect Prop 21/2;   Ireland.
Ireland?!

As much as I love faraway places, I've never had travel
stickers on my car because of the shortage of space for
needed political statements -- until now, when I realize
that the Republic of Ireland is a political statement itself.
I have just survived a vacation in a country that didn't
bother protecting me from all kinds of danger: cigarette
smoke, fats, sugar, caffeine, outmoded electrical wiring,
narrow roads, unleashed dogs, organized religion.
My travel companion, a poster child for political
incorrectness, had a foretaste of his idea of heaven. He
could smoke in the pubs, hotels and restaurants: one little
cafe instead of "no smoking" signs everywhere, had a
special corner with a sign that said "Smokers welcome
here." No one scolded him or gave him the "anti-tobacco
look" even once.
Every morning he was served his favorite breakfast:
ham, sausages, eggs, toast with real butter. We saw no
de-caffeinated coffee, no Nutrasweet; his coffee was strong
and flavored with real cream and grainy white or brown
sugar. I ate mostly porridge with yogurt and said nothing.
I gave up the day his doctor asked, "Is he a runner?" be-
ruse his blood pressure is so low. His idea of exercise is
walking to the coffee pot from his computer. This type-A
personality eats what he wants, sleeps a few hours
whenever he's sleepy, smokes when he's awake, seethes
with frustration whenever he has to stand in line or sitting
in traffic, and probably will outlive us all -- unless he's
executed by U.S. anti-tobacco zealots.

An Irish-American friend recommended a "charming"
hotel that would, she promised, make us smile forever
every time we thought of it. Two weeks later, we are still
laughing. The carpets were musty, the tiles loose, the
mattresses lumpy. There was a second-floor reading room
with plastic palm trees. Ancient wiring hung from
ceramic insulators; more wires knotted and stuffed in a
cardboard box, ran outside to the floodlights.

 In the United States, we could have called to report a
fire code violation; in Ireland we considered knotting
sheets and draperies just in case we needed to get out
through the window.

 Downstairs in the recreation room there was a "Blind
Date" night. People of all ages gathered to watch an
obscene version of "The Dating Game" in which a local
boy questioned three girls, sitting on the other side of a
curtain, to determine which he would choose. In the
adjoining pub a giant speaker, mounted on a quivering
tripod that was leveled with coasters from the bar,
swayed over the heads of three senior citizens who
seemed impervious to the danger -- and unoffended by a
skit that would have resulted in calls to the vice squad if it
played in a small town in Massachusetts. Children were
running in and out of the pub 'til long after midnight, and
DSS wasn't t called either.

 We saw very few traffic lights as we drove back and
forth across the country. Secondary roads were just wide
enough for two cars; there were no breakdown lanes.
Dogs, unhampered by leash laws, ran out and tried to
herd our tires. When we made our way to the head of the
Dingle Peninsula, it was marked by a large white crucifix
and statues of saints; no one apologized for the merging of
church and view.

 I have loved Ireland for its extraordinary beauty, its
friendly people, its music and its legends. This trip I
noticed the sense of life that allows its citizens and
visitors to breathe without the government and busybod-
ies breathing down their necks. We had it here once;
where did it go?

 America was the land of the free and the home of the
brave; it is fast becoming the land of the protected and
the home of the fearful. My traveling companion expects
the "freedom is a felony" act to be passed any day now,
leading to his death by suffocation. Just this week the
Democratic conventioneers pledged to protect all of us
from everything, at any cost.

 I don't want their protection; I want to be left alone.
That's why my bumper stickers don't say "vote Demo-
crat," and why one of them says "Ireland." The land of
my ancestors has a better attitude than my land, and I
want to recapture it every time I walk to my car.

 Barbara Anderson is executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation.

----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.

 LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL - This phrase, denoting the whole thing, the
 entirety of it all, is an old expression, used as early as the American
 Revolutionary War. It comes from the three principle parts of a [muzzle
 loading] firearm: the barrel, "the pipe down which the bullets are
 fired," the lock, "the firing mechanism," and the stock, "the wooden
 handle to which the other parts are attached." Together, lock, stock and
 barrel referred to the entire gun and the phrase are now used to suggest
 the whole of anything. -- M.T. Wyllyamz; 1992; published by Price,
 Stern, Sloan, Los Angeles.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Tribune Article
Date: 09 Sep 1996 13:25:31 -0600


Wonder if the half dozen or so letters to the editor they printed
(wonder how many more they didn't) slamming Officer Bell had anything
to do with this article.  I'm thinking they need a few more letters on
the topic.  Also, seeing as how this attitude seems to be pretty
widespread, out legislators ought to know how law abiding citizens are
being treated.

From today's (9/9/96) SL Tribune Online

--begin article--

                                   [Image]
                         Monday, September 9, 1996
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                     POLICE NERVOUS ABOUT CONCEALED GUNS

 [Image]
        BY MIKE CARTER                                              [Image]
        THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
         [Image]  Some lawmen want to offer a little friendly
        advice to Utahns who see the need to carry a concealed gun:
        It's a good idea to wear old clothes while packing heat.

         [Image]  Because there is a chance -- a good chance, in
        fact -- that if a police officer sees the gun, its carrier
        will end up face down in the dirt and handcuffed,
        regardless of any permit.

         [Image]  ``All any of us want to do is go home at night to
        our home and families,'' said Salt Lake County sheriff's
        Lt. Lloyd Prescott, who heads the agency's training
        division. ``I guess that means that if we err, we err on
        the side of caution and offer any apologies later.''

         [Image]  So if a concealed weapon makes some public debut,
        whether by accident or intentionally, even the most
        law-abiding carrier will get a brusque response from police
        until the situation is sorted out.

         [Image]  ``As a police officer, you simply have to treat
        every contact with a weapon as hostile,'' said K.D.
        Simpson, director of the state Division of Law Enforcement
        and Technology, which issues concealed-carry permits.

         [Image]  Gun advocates find that attitude disturbing,
        saying it's unfair and politically suspect to lump lawful
        gun-carrying citizens with the criminals they're trying to
        protect themselves against.

         [Image]  ``Trying to treat both of these two very
        different classes identically because they carry a firearm,
        that's real shaky,'' said Scott Engen, former executive
        director of the Utah Shooting Sports Council and the moving
        force behind the concealed-carry statute passed by the 1995
        Legislature.

         [Image]  ``It could very easily backfire, both from a
        legal standpoint and a public perception standpoint,'' he
        said. ``And I don't think law enforcement needs to foster
        any more negative stereotypes.''

         [Image]  Since Utah relaxed restrictions on
        concealed-carry firearm permits in May of 1995, some 13,000
        permits have been issued and more than 700 applications are
        pending. With all of those weapons out there, run-ins
        between the pistol-packing public and police are
        inevitable.

         [Image]  Some misunderstandings already have occurred.

         [Image]  About six weeks ago, Utah Highway Patrol Sgt.
        Tony Garcia came within a heartbeat of shooting a stranded
        motorist who had a gun tucked in the back of his pants and
        who ignored Garcia's repeated orders to keep his hands away
        from it. It turned out the man, who put his hands up at the
        last moment, was going for his wallet to show the trooper
        his permit.

         [Image]  ``It was that close,'' Garcia said. ``I had
        pretty much made up my mind I was going to have to shoot
        him.''

         [Image]  Training guidelines for permit holders suggest
        that, if they are stopped by police and are carrying a
        weapon, they should immediately tell the officer of the gun
        and then do exactly as they're told.

         [Image]  During casual contacts, no notification is
        recommended. And the key, according to the statute, is that
        the weapon be absolutely concealed. What people can't see
        won't cause consternation.

         [Image]  West Valley City police Sgt. Chuck Illsley said
        that, in 15 years of undercover drug work, he'd been held
        at gunpoint four times by various police officers.

         [Image]  Once, in 1985, then-sheriff's Deputy Lloyd
        Prescott held a .357 magnum to Illsley's head in a Valley
        Fair Mall store after Illsley's greasy sweatshirt pulled up
        to reveal a handgun. Illsley was buying a pair of slippers
        for his wife at the time.

         [Image]  ``I was scared to death,'' he recalled. ``The
        fortunate thing is that I was dealing with a pro and we
        both knew what to do. There are people out there who don't,
        and the outcome could have been very different.''

         [Image]  Today, Illsley is a crime scene specialist who
        fingerprints dozens of applicants for concealed weapons'
        permits. He predicts bad things if the number of permits
        continue to spiral.

         [Image]  ``The people who are applying for these are not
        your upper-middle class citizens wanting to feel safe,''
        Illsley said. ``Most of them look like hoods.

         [Image]  ``If I saw someone who looked like that with a
        gun, it would be go-to-guns for me and sort it all out
        later. And if people find that offensive, well that's
        tough.''

            [Front Page] [| World/Nation ] [| Utah ] [| Sports ]
         [| Opinion ] [| Money ] [| Classified Ads ] [| Archives ]
                            [| Links ] [| Help]

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

        ⌐ 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.



--

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.

 LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL - This phrase, denoting the whole thing, the
 entirety of it all, is an old expression, used as early as the American
 Revolutionary War. It comes from the three principle parts of a [muzzle
 loading] firearm: the barrel, "the pipe down which the bullets are
 fired," the lock, "the firing mechanism," and the stock, "the wooden
 handle to which the other parts are attached." Together, lock, stock and
 barrel referred to the entire gun and the phrase are now used to suggest
 the whole of anything. -- M.T. Wyllyamz; 1992; published by Price,
 Stern, Sloan, Los Angeles.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Re: CONCEALED CARRY - REAL TRUTH!!]
Date: 09 Sep 1996 16:28:28 -0600


Forwarded from azrkba.  Maybe this will offer useful ideas for letters
to local businesses who post "no gun" signs.  I think the part about
"outvoting" the hoplophopes in the first part is an important thing to
consider.  If stores think they are going to lose 20 customers if they
allow guns and only 1 or 2 if they prohibit them, we can't hardly
blame them for trying to cater to their customers.  Especially if
there is no increased liability for prohibiting guns.  If there were
any way to "outvote" the antis proactively before a store even posted
signs I think we would be even better off.  Maybe a letter to those
businesses you frequent letting them know you choose to patronize them
because they respect your right to self defense would be a good place
to start.

I also know of a fellow in arizona who had a bunch of business cards
printed up which said something to the effect, "Dear Business, You are
receiving this card because:"

It then had 2 differect sections, one of which he would "check"
depending on the store.  The first one was checked in the event a
store did not prohibit CCW.  It said something like, "I chose to give
you my business today because you respected my rights, thank you, keep
up the good work, etc, etc."

The next one was checked in the event a store was posted no guns.  It
was along the lines of, "I was here with my gun.  Nothing bad
happened.  No one even knew.  But due to your policy, I will not
return with my business again."

The back of the card reproduced the relevant sections of State code
and constitutions (State and federal 2nd amend).

He would either sign it or leave it anonymous as occasion warranted
and then ask the cashier to give it the manager as he left.  Food for
thought.  Anyone think they would go over at a gun show?

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

I had quite a long dialogue with Home Depot here and in Atlanta when the
Thomas/75th Ave (Phoenix) store was posted, and it was their contention that
their choice to post signs against carrrying was a result of "many"
complaints from folks who were supposedly afraid to see people carrying openly.

We simply have to "outvote" the complainers when a business posts, imo.

Along those lines, here's a sample letter that the Texas state association
came up with for use when their folks encountered signs:


Mr. Jim Nicholson, President
Letter was drafted by Robert Montserrat,
Texas State Rifle Association,  Dallas, Attorney and Legal Counsel for the TSRA
7305 Arbor Oaks Drive
Dallas, Texas 75248-2203

Dear Jim:

Here is a standard letter that can be sent out to businesses that prohibit CHL
persons from carrying a handgun while on their business premises. It is
designed so that persons can send only portions or the entire document. Some
people may not want to send out law.

[CEO, Public Relations Director, President, etc.]
Blockbusters, Inc.
Any Town USA


Dear Mr. __________________:

I have learned that your store is considering barring concealed handgun
licensees (CHL) from carrying handguns on or about their persons while on your
business premises. I would ask you to take the following factors into
consideration before finalizing your decision. Carrying a concealed handgun
onto private property is legal and authorized by the Texas Legislature so that
CHLs may protect themselves from danger. If you prohibit CHLs from carrying a
handgun while on your business premises, you will be rendering useless a lawful
act on the part of such persons. Additionally,you will render them unable to
protect themselves when the legislature has provided a means for their own self
protection.

Common sense indicates that you are assuming the risk of providing for the
personal protection of such persons while on your property. An example of
reasonable steps that you might take to provide for the personal protection of
CHLs who are disarmed while on your premises is to hire round the clock
security guards to provide armed protection in your place of business and in
the parking area.

It is reasonably foreseeable that posting signs indicating that CHLs may not
carry a handgun on or about their person while on your premises, would indicate
to the criminal element that the persons inside the store are disarmed and
thereby make your business premises a target for violent criminal activity.
Certainly, it would make it more of a target than the business who posts no
sign at all, leaving the criminal element uncertain as to whether or not CHLs
are armed on the premises. This was the intent of the legislature as the
handgun is required to be concealed. The purpose of the statute is to create a
tremendous deterrent effect throughout society in that the criminal element
will not know who has chosen to exercise their lawful right of self-defense,and
who has not. By creating a zone where you advertise that patrons on your
premises are not armed, you are holding yourself out to the public as a place
where the public safety desires as expressed by the legislature are void and
prohibited, and you give the criminal element a reason to believe that your
premises are vulnerable to crime.

Recently, Taco Bell was assessed eight million dollars in damages for a violent
assault that took place on its property for failing to protect the persons at
the Taco Bell. The law is fairly clear on this subject in Texas. "Generally, an
ordinary business
owner or operator, as opposed to a proprietor of a restaurant,inn, or similar
establishment, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of
his or her invitees. Garner v. McGinty,771 S.W.2d 242, 246(Tex. Civ.
App.--Austin 1989, no writ). "A business invitor owes a duty to his business
invitees to take reasonable steps to protect them from intentional injuries
caused by third parties if he knows or has reason to know, from what he has
observed or from past experience, that criminal acts are likely to occur,
either generally or at some particular time." Id. at 246: Castillo v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co.,663 S.W.2d 60,66 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1983, writ ref'd
n.r.e.)("there is no duty upon the owner of operators of a shopping center...or
upon merchants and shopkeepers generally, whose mode of operation of their
premises does not attract or provide a climate for crime,to guard against
criminal acts of a third party, unless they know...that acts are occurring or
are about to occur on the premises that pose imminent probability of harm to an
invitee: whereupon a duty of reasonable care to protect against such act
arises.").  Thus, a plaintiff in a case against an ordinary business owner or
operator will have to demonstrate that the business owner or operator knew or
had
reason to know that criminal acts were likely to occur in order to establish
that the business owner or operator had a duty to take reasonable steps to
protect invitees from injuries caused by third parties. By contrast, the duty
of a proprietor of a restaurant, inn, or similar establishment generally
includes the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect patrons from assaults
of third persons while on the premises. Eastep v. Jack-in-the-Box, Inc., 546
S.W.2d 116(Tex.Civ.App.--Houston{14th Dist.} 1977, writ reft n.r.e).

Then attorney General's office of Texas has noted the following on this issue:
"Once a duty to protect patrons from the intentional acts of third parties is
established, whether a business owner or operator will be held liable for
injuries to customers inflictedby third person appears to depend in great part
upon the foreseeabilityof the assault and whether the business owner or
operator took reasonable measures to prevent the assault."

I personally will not shop at your business premises if it prohibits CHLs from
carrying their handguns concealed on their persons while on your premises for
three reasons:  (1) You discriminate against individuals who merely take
advantage of a lawful means of protecting themselves;  (2) You have created a
place where there is a higher likelihood of criminal activity; and (3) The
absence of state certified and qualified citizens who lawfully carry a handgun
means that I will be less safe than if I were in a similarly situated place of
business that did not prohibit CHLs from being personally armed on the
premises;

If you persist in this policy, I will advise the members of my family and all
of my friends not to patronize your place of business and we will take our
business to a competitor. Even a small price increase for the same goods is
worth the personal safety of myself and my family in these troubled times.

Many businesses have considered putting up signs prohibiting otherwise lawfully
carried handguns to be prohibited from the premises and have changed their
policy to allowing CHLs to be armed on the premises. These premises include:
Walmart, J.C. Penneys [insert others as they change their mind].

Moreover, I understand that the attorneys for the Texas Restaurant Association
have concluded after a thoughtful and extensive review of all the factors
involved that allowing CHLs on the premises armed does not increase liability
in any way for a restaurantas it is a legislatively authorized and protected
activity. This is so because the individuals involved have had a background
check,careful screening, state qualification and certification of knowledge of
the penal code, safety procedures and, have passed a handgun proficiency
examination, both in writing and in physical demonstration.  Several other
association general counsel have concluded that allowing such an individuals
onto the premises of their businesses does not raise the threshold for
liability.

I hope that you will consider the above factors carefully, and in the end, come
to the right decision and allow CHLs to patronize your business while
exercising their legislatively authorized right to their own self-protection.
Alternatively if you choose to deny me the legislatively granted right to
persons to protect themselves while on your premises, you have legally assumed
the risk of providing for the safety of your patrons and have made a decision
to ban lawful carrying of handguns on your business premises after
understanding all of the factors involved.


Yours truly,

Texas Gun Owner

----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: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tribune Article
Date: 09 Sep 1996 16:51:15 -0600

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> >From today's (9/9/96) SL Tribune Online
>
> --begin article--
                          Monday, September 9, 1996
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                      POLICE NERVOUS ABOUT CONCEALED GUNS
>
>  [Image]
>         BY MIKE CARTER                                              [Image]
>         THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>          [Image]  Some lawmen want to offer a little friendly
>         advice to Utahns who see the need to carry a concealed gun:
>         It's a good idea to wear old clothes while packing heat.
>
>          [Image]  Because there is a chance -- a good chance, in
>         fact -- that if a police officer sees the gun, its carrier
>         will end up face down in the dirt and handcuffed,
>         regardless of any permit.
>
>          [Image]  ``All any of us want to do is go home at night to
>         our home and families,'' said Salt Lake County sheriff's
>         Lt. Lloyd Prescott, who heads the agency's training
>         division. ``I guess that means that if we err, we err on
>         the side of caution and offer any apologies later.''
>
Ahhh...Lloyd....my old buddy.  Spent many a night being
harassed by Lloyd.

>          [Image]  West Valley City police Sgt. Chuck Illsley said
>         that, in 15 years of undercover drug work, he'd been held
>         at gunpoint four times by various police officers.
>
>          [Image]  Once, in 1985, then-sheriff's Deputy Lloyd
>         Prescott held a .357 magnum to Illsley's head in a Valley
>         Fair Mall store after Illsley's greasy sweatshirt pulled up
>         to reveal a handgun. Illsley was buying a pair of slippers
>         for his wife at the time.
Sounds like something Lloyd would do.  He was ready to
deck me one time because I asked him why he pulled me
over.  Instead, he just opened the door to his car
real fast and then nut-slapped me while he was frisking
me.  Didn't like it a bit when I told him I hoped he
enjoyed groping me as much as I did...

Judge ended up throwing out 7 tickets and said that the
officers (Lloyd and Watson(?) lied like rugs and that
it was obvious to him that "controlling youth" by making
them "fear" police was highest on their adjendas.
>
>          [Image]  ``I was scared to death,'' he recalled. ``The
>         fortunate thing is that I was dealing with a pro and we
>         both knew what to do. There are people out there who don't,
>         and the outcome could have been very different.''
>
>          [Image]  ``The people who are applying for these are not
>         your upper-middle class citizens wanting to feel safe,''
>         Illsley said. ``Most of them look like hoods.
>
>          [Image]  ``If I saw someone who looked like that with a
>         gun, it would be go-to-guns for me and sort it all out
>         later. And if people find that offensive, well that's
>         tough.''
Thanks for the compliment, PIG.

Gawd, didn't he just talk about himself?  Wearing a
greasy sweatshirt?
>
>
--
Will Thompson
Alpha Engineering
Philips BTS
Phone [phone]   Fax [phone]  [e-mail]

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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tribune Article
Date: 09 Sep 1996 17:14:22 -0600

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Wonder if the half dozen or so letters to the editor they printed

Just called West Valley City Police Chief who, conveniently, is
out of town.  Asked for the Asst. Chief, Terry Keefe, who was
"in a meeting".  Called Mayor Jerry Wright's office...explained
to the secretary that I would try to remain civil, but that I
had a complaint about being referred to as "looking like a
hood" when I probably make half again as much as Sgt. Illsley.

She got a bit upset when I read the rest of the quote to her.
She wanted to know which officer Illsley said this...Turns
out that Mayor Wright is NOT in chage of police matters,
that's handled by City Admin. Patterson....who also just
happens to be out of town.  I asked for a return call,
she thanked me for being calm and assured me that she
would contact Patterson and Asst. Chief Keefe.

Turn on the heat!

>          [Image]  West Valley City police Sgt. Chuck Illsley said
>         that, in 15 years of undercover drug work, he'd been held
>         at gunpoint four times by various police officers.
>
>          [Image]  Once, in 1985, then-sheriff's Deputy Lloyd
>         Prescott held a .357 magnum to Illsley's head in a Valley
>         Fair Mall store after Illsley's greasy sweatshirt pulled up
>         to reveal a handgun. Illsley was buying a pair of slippers
>         for his wife at the time.
>
>          [Image]  ``I was scared to death,'' he recalled. ``The
>         fortunate thing is that I was dealing with a pro and we
>         both knew what to do. There are people out there who don't,
>         and the outcome could have been very different.''
>
>          [Image]  Today, Illsley is a crime scene specialist who
>         fingerprints dozens of applicants for concealed weapons'
>         permits. He predicts bad things if the number of permits
>         continue to spiral.
>
>          [Image]  ``The people who are applying for these are not
>         your upper-middle class citizens wanting to feel safe,''
>         Illsley said. ``Most of them look like hoods.
>
>          [Image]  ``If I saw someone who looked like that with a
>         gun, it would be go-to-guns for me and sort it all out
>         later. And if people find that offensive, well that's
>         tough.''
>
>
--
Will Thompson
Alpha Engineering
Philips BTS
Phone [phone]   Fax [phone]  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Tribune Article
Date: 09 Sep 1996 17:42:33 -0600


On Mon, 09 Sep 1996, WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]> posted:

>Just called West Valley City Police Chief who, conveniently, is
>out of town.  Asked for the Asst. Chief, Terry Keefe, who was
>"in a meeting".  Called Mayor Jerry Wright's office...explained
>to the secretary that I would try to remain civil, but that I
>had a complaint about being referred to as "looking like a
>hood" when I probably make half again as much as Sgt. Illsley.
>
>She got a bit upset when I read the rest of the quote to her.
>She wanted to know which officer Illsley said this...Turns
>out that Mayor Wright is NOT in chage of police matters,
>that's handled by City Admin. Patterson....who also just
>happens to be out of town.  I asked for a return call,
>she thanked me for being calm and assured me that she
>would contact Patterson and Asst. Chief Keefe.
>
>Turn on the heat!

With pleasure!  BTW, I can (and have) look up the number for West
Valley city offices as easy as you can post it.  However, (and I hate
to admit this, but someone might as well) I find I am much more likely
to make a call or even zip off a quick letter if the phone
number/address of the person in need of contacting is sitting right in
front of me on my screen in the message.  Otherwise it is too easy to
put it in the "to do later" list which somehow doesn't quite seem to
get done.  I figure I can't be *that* unusual so others probably
exhibit similar behavior.

FWIW here is the contact info:

West Valley {Mayor Jerry Wright's/City Manager Patterson/Chief of Police's}
    Office
3600 Constitution Blvd
West Valley City, Utah 84119

Mayor's and Manger's office: 963-3220
Police Chief's office:  063-3255



--

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.

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect
 the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate,
 which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law
 that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but
 not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their
 wills."
    -- Thomas Jefferson- October 1776

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Tribune Article
Date: 09 Sep 1996 18:24:28 -0600


On Mon, 09 Sep 1996, WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]> posted:
>
>Turn on the heat!
>

I've just sent the following to the SL Tribune <[e-mail]>.  I
don't expect them to publish another letter from me so soon so please
feel free to use as much of the following as you like and send it to
them.  Be sure to include physical address and phone number if you
email it.

September 9, 1996


Dear Editor;

I'm saddened to see attitudes of disrespect, bigotry, and contempt for
law-abiding citizens being expressed by the very officials who are
suppose to be serving them.

In "POLICE NERVOUS ABOUT CONCEALED GUNS" (9/9/96), Sgt. Chuck Illsley
is quoted as saying, "The people who are applying for these are not
your upper-middle class citizens wanting to feel safe.  Most of them
look like hoods."  Such attitudes are the very reason over 34 State
legislatures including our own have removed from local police the
power to arbitrarily decide who may carry a concealed weapon.

A person's right to defend themselves is not dependent on income
level, race, or taste in clothing.  "The Racist Roots of Gun Control"
_Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy_, [Winter, 1995]
<http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/cramer.racism.html> by Clayton
Cramer documents the original intent of gun control in this country
was to keep blacks, immigrants, catholics and other "hoods" from being
able to defend themselves.  It's a shame such attitudes continue to
exist in our own valley.

Sincerely

Charles Hardy


--

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.

"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect
 the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate,
 which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law
 that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but
 not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their
 wills."
    -- Thomas Jefferson- October 1776

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: WHERE DO THE FEDS AIM THEIR FIRE?
Date: 10 Sep 1996 19:20:00 -0700


 ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Organization: LIPS SINK SHIPS!  http://ic.net/~celano

NOW AVAILABLE ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB

 ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS -- WHERE DO THE FEDS AIM THEIR FIRE?

        Syracuse, September 7 -- Americans living in selected rural
areas are far more likely to be the target of criminal investigations by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) than the residents of
many major cities,  according to internal administrative data obtained
by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

        The data show,  for example,  that the 1995 rate of  ATF
criminal referrals in Montana (Billings) was 20 times higher than it was
in Central California (Los Angeles) while the agency's referral rate in
the Western District of North Carolina (Asheville) was ten times that in
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).

        The enforcement data, available on TRAC's unique new World Wide
Web site about the ATF, also show that the agency's criminal referrals,
after surging during most of the 1980s and early 1990s, have steadily
declined since 1992.

        Other key findings:

        * Almost all ATF referrals -- about 90 percent of the total --
involve firearms.  The remaining 10 percent are scattered among a small
number of explosives, arson and other kinds of matters.  ATF data
indicate the agency's heavy emphasis on guns goes back for many years.

        * In terms of the percent of criminal referrals that the U.S.
Attorneys accept for prosecution, the percent that result in
convictions, and the percent that are sentenced to prison, the ATF
record is considerably better than the combined average of all other
federal investigative agencies.

        * In recent years, prison terms received as a result of ATF
referrals have substantially increased, from a median sentence of 30
months in fiscal year 1992 to 52 months in fiscal year 1995.


                        ATF CRIMINAL REFERRALS :1995
                        SELECTED DISTRICT RANKINGS

                        (Number per million population)

Rank                    District                   Per Capita

 1              Montana (Billings)                      146
 2              N.  Car, W (Asheville)                  91
 3              Fla, N (Pensacola                       90
 4              Wash, E (Spokane)                       84
 5              N.  Car, E (Raleigh)                    78
 6              W.  Virg, S (Charleston)                78
 7              Okl, N (Tulsa)                          75
...
 78              Okla, W (Oklahoma City)                13
 79              Ill, N (Chicago)                       12
 80              Wash, W (Seattle)                      11
 81              Cal, S (San Diego)                     10
 86              Cal, N (San Francisco)                  8
 87              Cal, C (Los Angeles)                    7
 88              N.J.  (Newark)                          7

         TRAC's Web site on the ATF, which includes maps, graphs and
tabular material, is based on detailed information the Justice
Department records about all matters referred to it for prosecution and
staffing data from the Office of Personnel Management. Other sources
include reports by the ATF, the General Accounting Office and the
federal courts, Congressional hearings and population figures from the
Census Bureau.

        TRAC's data site allow the public, news organizations, defense
lawyers, public interest groups, government agencies, and the academic
community to compare the ATF enforcement effort in their community with
that of 89 other districts and for the nation as a whole.  In addition
to district-by-district referral rates, the new TRAC site provides
information about the percentage of ATF referrals that each of the
United States attorneys decides to prosecute, the percentage of ATF
matters resulting in conviction, and the average and median sentences
imposed in different parts of the country.  Covering the four-year
period from fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 1995, the site also includes
breakdowns on the number of ATF agents working in each district

        The address of TRAC's Web site about the ATF is:

                http://trac.syr.edu/tracatf/

SPECIAL NOTICE ABOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The national and
district-by-district information available on the TRAC's Web site about
the ATF is largely based on individual records the Justice Department
has developed about each of the 33,981 instances from fiscal year 1992
through fiscal year 1995 when the agency recommended that an individual
be prosecuted at the federal level.  For those interested in downloading
this referral-by-referral information --up to 80 fields -- to conduct
their own data analysis, contact us at (315-443-3563) for pricing and
shipping information.  The Justice Department data available about each
referral are considerable -- when the referral was made, the lead
charge, whether it was declined, the reason declined, the initials of
the assistant U.S. Attorney handling the matter and the outcome of
those matters that were prosecuted. The names of those involved in each
ATF referral have been deleted by the government for privacy reasons.

About TRAC:  The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a non-
partisan data gathering, research and data distribution organization
asssociated with Syracuse University.  It was established in 1989 to
provide users with comprehensive and reliable information about the
activities of federal enforcement and regulatory agencies such as the
Justice Department, the IRS, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  The
co-directors of TRAC are David Burnham, the author of investigative books
about the IRS and the Justice Department and a former investigative
reporter with the New York Times, and Susan Long, a professor at Syracuse
University's School of Management and statistician who has specialized in
federal enforcement issues for more than 25 years.  The Web Site on the
ATF is similar to an IRS Web Site that TRAC established in April.
To subscribe, email [e-mail] with the
message "subscribe ignition-point".
http://ic.net/~celano/ip/


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: despatch gun update
Date: 10 Sep 1996 19:20:00 -0700


 ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subj: despatch gun update

Dear Friends...

NEW...UPDATED... REPORT FROM DESPATCH MAGAZINE -


9th.  September,  1996.

MORE INFORMATION ON GUNS, US TROOPS.

JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER, ON THE TODAY SHOW:
John Howard, the Prime Minister, Liberal, commented to Steve Leibman on
the Today Show that all semi-automatic weapons would be totally
outlawed, even 22 calibre rifles.

The Australian newspaper said there would be a six month only amnesty,
with a new tax levy to fund the buy back of guns. Heavy fines and even
jail terms would be given to any person who failed to hand in their
weapons. Howard wants a mandatory sentence for possessing a weapon. You
will not have to commit a crime to go to jail, just keep a weapon. Said
the Australian: "if you think shot guns are not next, then all bolt
action 22's - you delude yourself. This is the start of the total ban
the Federal Government passed into law a few years ago."

THE LEGISLATION STATES:
"The importation of all firearms, except those listed below - pistols,
rifles, shotguns, tear gas launchers and specialist equipment that are
to be used by defense and law enforcement...."
This would mean total disarmament forever!

In the Adelaide Advertiser of August 9,1996, there was an estimate given
of 50,000 military firearms that would disappear in SA(South Australia)
alone because the Federal Government will not even pay any compensation
to the owners of firearms that are unregistered.

This interesting piece of news appeared in South East Christian Witness:
"...it is almost impossible at present to purchase large diameter
irrigation style poly pipe in the South East. Virtually every stockist
of this, and similiar type pipe, has sold out. It does not take a
college education to realise where it has gone. It is underground! But I
would hazard a guess the pipes are not filled with water!"

All states, it appears at this stage, will pay compensation to gun
owners, except SA. The police minister there has said that they are "not
prepared to pay people to break the law. They should hand in those
firearms now without compensation. They are breaking the law." Police,
the gun lobby and politicians have condemned the move.

It is feared that not compensating gun owners might lead to an illegal
trade in firearms, with SA (South Aust.) owners wanting money and
selling unregistered weapons in blackmarket deals.

After four months in the amnesty, owners who still retained their guns
will face fines of up to $20,000, or a four year jail term. Victoria,
Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia have
registration which requires all newly banned weapons to be registered.
The first three states will offer compensation to those who own
unregistered guns, they will not be prosecuted for handing in those
guns, if they have not been used in a crime or have been stolen. The
Victorian Government, Herald-Sun, Sunday August 11, 1996, said that the
Victorian Government will have vans  which will be used as mobile units
to collect surrendered guns. The vans will have power saws  to cut the
weapons up, and the vices to crush them. The owners will get a
government cheque on the spot.

THE USA TROOPS HERE:
It is reported [by soldiers] that 30,000 marines are in Perth.(but we
had heard via news services, these marines are coming and going, not
stationed here.)  7,000 are also in other parts of Australia. People
have reported them as being in Victoria, Queensland - as far north as
Townsville.

"The top-secret spy satellite base at Pine Gap will be upgraded as part
of proposals to strengthen the US-Australia alliance.

For the first time, the US will be sending what one diplomat described
as a trifecta of top officials for the meeting: Secretary of State
Warren Christopher, Defense Secretary William Perry and Joint chiefs of
Staff chairman General John Shalikashvilli." SECW, August, 1996. [note
here the Despatch Vol.8:3 report of Downer & Fisher's meeting with
Christopher in the US, during the height of the Gun debate.]

A FEW DISTURBING DEVELOPMENTS:

The disarming of the population is occurring  here in conjunction with
the basing of US peacekeeping troops, who could be used if massive
unrest happens and law and order breaks down. It appears to us that
there may be things about to go on which we will not like, and so it
appears we are having our weapons removed so that we can be made to
submit.

In Brisbane, September 6th 1996, Dr, Norman Myers [from the UK] spoke in
our Town Hall. He said he was on his way to speak to the Federal
Government re. the `population explosion', and the need to protect the
environment. Myers advocates the issuing of licenses to have children,
he is part of the plan to reduce the population of the globe from 6
billion to 2 billion! Myers composed the environmental side of `Gaia
Atlas of Future Worlds'[which is in all our Australian Schools], he is
an advisor to the World Bank, the World Resources Institute and various
UN agencies. The International Peace Research Association [IPRA] met in
Brisbane recently, Nobel prize Laureates were there, Gen. Sec, of UNESCO
also. All these matters may be unrelated, but one wonders?

Wendy B. Howard...Editor of Despatch...
--
   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{#>   ><{{{@>

W.B. Howard...Director & Editor of Despatch Magazine
Endtime Ministries/Christian Resource Center [pub.Q'rtly.Despatch mag.],
 which exposes the Infiltration of the N.A.N.W.O.
  in our Churches and Society in General.
=============================================================
Visit our Aussie site: http://www.closer.brisnet.org.au/~despatch/
=============================================================
 Jesus said: " I am the way, the truth and the life;
 no man cometh unto the father but by me." Jn.14:6

<#}}}><   <#}}}><   <#}}}><   <#}}}><   <#}}}><   <@}}}><


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: How your guns will be confiscated
Date: 11 Sep 1996 10:46:00 -0700


 ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
cc: Patriot Information Mailing List <[e-mail]>

From http://www.jetlink.net/~mystery
---------- Forwarded message ----------

   POLICE STATE, U.S.A.

HOW YOUR GUNS WILL BE CONFISCATED!!!

(Transcribed from Guns and Ammo / November 1995)


     Many readers of this magazine expect that a total gun ban will
eventually be enacted on a nationa level, followed by confiscation raids
and arrests of law-abiding gun owners.

    Let us be honest: The Stage has long been set; California and New Jersey
have already passed draconian laws restricting "assault weapons." The New
Jersey law calls for the disabling or surrender of legally owned weapons.
The infamous Feinstein-Schumer Act, passed last year as part of the Crime
bill, is now law and is merely the first step toward confiscation on a
national level.

    But exactly how would confiscation on a national level, a huge
undertaking, take place? Few Americans realize that Congress might not even
have to enact laws that ban private ownership of firearms and order
surrender and confiscation. All that is required is a decree, such as a
Presidential Directive or Executive Order. While many Americans would decry
such congressional or presidential actions unconstitutional, how many would
have the courage to oppose it?

    The late Mel Tappan related in his book Tappan on Survival, "Since 14
November 1979, we have been under a state of national emergency pursuant to
the International Emergency Powers Act of 1977." Tappan relates that with
this act, along with executive order 11490, the president of the United
States is "granted sweeping dictatorial powers, which virtually suspends all
constitutional safeguards, allows disbanding of Congress, the freezing of
all bank accounts and persoal assets, the collection and rationing of all
vital commodities including food, the suspension of passports, full control
of the media and private means of communication including amateur and CB
radios, and the banning of all travel, public assembly and protest. This
total police state can be established by the mere stroke of a pen, and is
subject to the approval of no other authority except congressional review
every six months."

    To initiate a total gun ban, an "incident" would more than likely first
occur, perhaps a violent act of terrorism. The president will declare a
"national crisis" with full media support. The American people will be told
that the only way this crisis can be resolved will be the total ban on
private ownership of any type of firearm. Anyone who owns a firearm after
the ban takes effect will be considered a criminal, terrorist, or drug dealer.

    Unlikely, you say? Consider the February 5, 1995, edition of CBS's 60
Minutes when Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said, "if I could have gotten
another 51 votes in the senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of
them, Mr. and Mrs. Amercia, turn them all in, I would have done that. But I
could not do that; the votes were not there." Obviously not for lack of
effort on Senator Feinsteins's part.

    When a total gun ban becomes reality, a short amnesty period will occur
when you will be able to surrender any and all firearms with no questions
asked. After that, the velvet glove will come off of the iron fist.

    Rounding up all of the privately owned firearms in America will be an
impossible task, but they will be able to confiscate a huge number of
firearms, mainly from law-abiding and patriotic citizens.

    How will they determine who owns a firearm? Not a very difficult task
among the law-abiding, who obligingly fill out any form placed in front of
them. It will simply be a matter of rounding up some paperwork, for example:

    Federal form 4473, the one you fill out whenever you purchase a
    firearm from a licensed gun dealer. - Hunting and fishing License
    records.

    List of holders of concealed weapons permits.

    Membership lists from hunting and gun clubs and ranges.

    Membership lists of pro-gun organizations.

    Lists of those who have already surrendered weapons
    (just in case they forgot to turn one in).

    Information provided by paid informants.

   A pending congressional bill, HR666 (strange choice of numbers)
apparently will allow warrantless searches by law enforcement officers.

   Units involved in confiscation will include the BATF, other law enforcement
agencies (another piece of pending legislation authorizes and establishes a
2,500 man FBI rapid-deployment force) and local country and state law enforce-
ment officers, along with the National Guard and perhaps even federal troops.

    In the March 1995 issue of Soldier of Fortune Magazine, James Pate
reported that he was trying to confirm a story that a symposium was held at
Fort Bragg, North Carolia, to "study the potential uses of Army and Air
Force assets to aid civilian law enforcement agencies in the suppression of
domestic civil unrest."

    Pate also points out that a large part of the function of U.S. troops in
Panama, Northern Iraq, Somalia and Haiti included "disarming large local
populations through wholesale gun confiscation, warrrantless search and
seizure sweeps, and weapons buy-back programs."

    In the American gun confiscation program, raids would be a rapid,
coordinated effort to seize as many weapons as possible before word gets out
and citizens who have not already done so had a chance to bury or otherwise
conceal any weapons remaining in thier homes or to form resistance."

    After a brief period of surveillance to determine your habits, your home
will most likely be raided in the early morning hours, 2 a.m. to 5 a.m.,
when most people are in their deepest sleep and at their lowest ebb, both
physically and psychologically, when the level of logical thinking and
ability to rapidly respond to a threat is naturally handicapped.

    The first element in the assault element, which will use brute force to
gain entrance to your home utilizing battering rams, sledge hammers, and
sometimes even explosives, should they be required. Tear gas might be used
if the situation calls for it. The assault element will be wearing hoods to
disguise their identity, gas masks, kevlar helmets and bullet resistant
vests. They will be heavily armed, and they will shoot to kill if any
resistance is offered. After you and your family are located, handcuffed and
held at gunpoint, the search team will then make a sweep of your house using
electronic and fiber optical equipment.]

    If they encounter an area where they believe weapons are hidden and you
refuse to cooperate and give access, they will use whatever means necessary to
gain entrance. Another element of the search team will use metal detectors to
search your property for buried arms. While this is happening, an interrogation
team will be tasked to question each family member, including your children.
You and your wife will be threatened with long prison terms and your children
with foster homes, unless you cooperate. Based on past experience, family
pets might be shot "accidentally" as a means of further intimidation.

    You will then be turned over to an arrest/detention squad for processing.
Even if no weapons are found you might be taken and held for an indeterminate
peiod for "investigation" and as a means of frightening others.

    What will be seized? All firearms, including pistols, revolvers,
shotguns and rifles, modern or antique, including black powder and replica
arms, regardless of caliber, magazine capacity and action types. Also
subject to seizure will be anything else that might be considered a weapon,
including bows, arrows, air rifles and hunting knives.

    Ammunition, reloading gear and components are naturally subject to confis-
cation. Magazines, stripperclips, targets and camouflage clothing will also go.

    The First Amendment will also be violated as your library is searched, book
including firearms instructions, repair and reloading will also be confiscated.

    Finally, your home itself will be forfeited under civil statutes for
government sale since it contained banned items.

    Just imagine what a wonderful lead story it will make on the evening news,
with a grim-faced talking head reporting: "Another group of gun criminals was
arrested by authorities today..." (A tape is then run showing you and your
family being loaded into a police van.) "... and their arsenal was seized."
(Cut to tape showing your 12-gauge, double-barrel shotgun, bolt action .22
with telescopic sight, cleaning kit, hunting knife and camouflage jacket.)
"Authorities want to remind everyone that possesion of all firearms,
ammunition, and related paramilitary equipment has been prohibited under the
Federal Prevention of Crime and Terrorism Act."

    Frightening, isn't it? Many Americans believe that this nightmare vision
of our nation is not far away from becoming a terrible reality.

    The entire point of this article is that we must not only fight to
maintain our sacred rights as Americans under the second ammendment, but we
must preserve the entire Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Once one right
is abridged, destroyed or revoked, all will soon follow. There has been a
dangerous trend over the years to ignore the ever increasing encroachment of
those rights, which so many Americans fought and died to keep!

    Editors Note: When the gun confiscations begin, that is not the time "to
bury or otherwise conceal any weapons remaining..." That is the time for all
Americans to take their weapons off the gun racks and use them as our founding
fathers did!

    Mystery's Note: How about the Viper Militia? Or how about Waco, Texas?
Were not these people branded terrorists? Yet somehow they were Aquitted or
burned respectively......

Copy and distribute this article widely!!! All rights and copyrights have
been released!


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

From: Mike Sawyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tribune article
Date: 11 Sep 1996 16:29:37 -0600

[quoting:]
``If I saw someone who looked like that with a gun, it would be
go-to-guns for me and sort it all out later. And if people find that
offensive, well that's tough.''

Isn't that just a variation on the theme, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!"?

And isn't his implication that CCW holders are guilty until proven
innocent?

Is it just me, or is his statement one of the most immoral and legally
tenuous gems I've ever heard?

Mike Sawyer
Technical Writer
CallWare Technologies, Inc.

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

From: Carl Payne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tribune article
Date: 11 Sep 1996 17:12:54 -0600

> [quoting:]
> ``If I saw someone who looked like that with a gun, it would be
> go-to-guns for me and sort it all out later. And if people find that
> offensive, well that's tough.''
>=20
> Isn't that just a variation on the theme, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em =
out!"?
>=20
> And isn't his implication that CCW holders are guilty until proven
> innocent?
>=20
> Is it just me, or is his statement one of the most immoral and legally
> tenuous gems I've ever heard?

It's not just you.

If I was about to be pulled over and assumed every cop was about to beat me =
senseless like Rodney King (isn't that what ALL cops do?  And, if people =
call me paranoid for thinking that, well tough.) and floored it, and the =
cops popped my tires and dragged me to the street and cuffed me, the news =
would look upon me like some kind of crazed idiot with "something to hide =
(gasp!  The Prudes!  They're coming!)."

However, the cops can suggest a law-abiding citizen with a CCW forfeits =
their right regarding search and seizure, eliminates the need for, "probable =
cause," and basically lives their lives to suffer at the whim of a policeman =
who would rather 'err on the side of caution?'

Uh...

Here's a story to share with you.  I worked for Chrysler for 8 years, mostly =
in Southern California, and my assignments varied from city to city, so =
sometimes I had long commutes (2 hours--1 way--was not uncommon) from my new =
home in Reche Canyon.  Quickly I learned shortcuts on sidestreets that would =
bypass such clogged arteries as the 134, the 5, the 101, or even the 91 =
(limited to 4 lanes and literally the only road for a stretch of about 10 =
miles).

I drove on a frontage road in Yorba Linda aside the 91 for the few weeks I =
needed to use it, and the city had taken great pains to make sure people =
like me didn't cause traffic problems.  There were permanent cones erected =
along lane lines to keep "line cutters" from screwing up traffic both ways, =
as well as other neat-o gadgetry.

On the side of the road, on every other light pole was a sign that warned =
you that you'd get a ticket for the slightest infraction.  The text reads, =
"STRICT ENFORCEMENT ZONE," and the little stickman on the yellow diamond was =
a cop with one foot up on a car's front bumper, writing a ticket.

In the days that followed, I studied that sign at length.  How did I know he =
was a cop?  He had no badge, but the city of Yorba Linda made damn sure you =
could see the stick man's gun, it was Barbie-breastian in its =
disproportionateness.

But no badge.

Wonder if they could find a law-abiding citizen in a crowd of people--all =
with a bulge under their armpit--if you paid them.

Wait a minute.  We do.


Carl

Dammit, I have to credit that psycho Manson for the phrase: "Used to be, the =
cops watched over the people.  Now, they're watching the people."



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

From: Sagers  Neil  <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Tribune Editorial
Date: 12 Sep 1996 07:38:02 -0600

I had a discussion with Ms. Whitworth, assistant Chief of Police regarding D.B. Bell's editorial.
D. B. Bell's abuse of his authority is so serious that I feel the SLC police must respond and
end their tacit approval of this type of behavior.  Please feel free to copy as you like.


Salt Lake Police Department
Assistant Chief Whitworth
315 East 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT  84111

September 10, 1996


On September 11, 1996 we discussed an editorial by officer D. B. Bell which appeared in the
Salt Lake Tribune on August 2, 1996.  Attached is a copy of that editorial taken from the
Tribune internet site.

I would like to follow up on the policy of the Salt Lake Police.  From our conversation, you
said that there is no written policy as to what an officer should if he encounters a person
legally carrying a concealed weapon.  I would like to know if officer Bell's editorial or threats
he made as to his intended conduct as an on-duty police officer are in accordance with the
policies of the Salt Lake Police.

D. B. Bell suggests, in the fourth paragraph, that a person who is legally authorized to carry a
concealed weapon should wear old clothing as they could expect to "be lying face down in
the dirt having handcuffs placed on you".  D. B. Bell makes this threat as a law enforcement
officer and not as a private citizen or even an off-duty officer.

Officer Bell implies that anyone who legally carries a gun is not a "good" citizen and in the
final paragraph reiterates his threat.

Officer Bell's editorial is a threat of violent treatment if a citizen wishes to exercise his or her
legal right to protect themself by obtaining a license and carrying a concealed weapon.
Officer Bell is certainly entitled to his political opinion, but he should not be allowed to use
official threats and intimidation to force his political opinions on others.

For officer Bell to make threats of violence in his capacity as an on-duty police officer is an
egregious abuse of his authority.  The Salt Lake Police must either publicly state their
policies or their silence will give tacit approval to D. B. Bell and others of a like mind.  Such
tacit approval or failure to act to prevent abuse of power could incur liability for the police
department as a whole.

Please respond to me at the address above as to whether D. B. Bell's comments and
threatened actions are in harmony with your procedures and, if not, what will be done.

Thank you


Neil Sagers


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Anti-gun letter to editor
Date: 12 Sep 1996 09:42:33 -0600


For those of you who may have missed yesterday's SL Tribune, here is a
letter to the editor.  Looks like I annoyed an anti-gunner and got
myself labeled a "militia wannabee".  It was a great day all around.
:) :)

--begin letter--

                                   [Image]
                       Wednesday, September 11, 1996
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                          CAN'T TELL BY APPEARANCES

 [Image]
                                                                    [Image]
         [Image]  I applaud Officer D.B. Bell's letter (Forum, Aug.
        2), which informed Tribune readers as to the realities of
        carrying permitted weapons. I differ with Charles Hardy's
        criticism (Forum, Aug. 25) of the officer's letter in which
        he rails against the possibility that a person with a carry
        permit might be detained for questioning by police officers
        seeking to establish why he is carrying a gun.

         [Image]  Hardy clearly does not understand the dangers
        that police officers face every day when on patrol from
        gun-toting criminals and from wannabe-militia members like
        himself. Contrary to Hardy's beliefs, Bell does not have
        some sort of X-ray vision which allows him to know that one
        person is carrying a firearm legally and another is not. I
        for one do not want to see anyone shot, even killed,
        because Bell stopped to wonder, ``Maybe this guy has a
        carry permit.''

         [Image]  All Utahns who make the unfortunate decision to
        carry a firearm on their person while out in public should
        be aware that our police officers will (and should) detain
        you, possibly with handcuffs, until the legality of your
        concealed firearm is established.

         [Image]  We do not live in a world where bad intentions
        are evident in our appearance.

        E. JASON SETTLE
        Salt Lake City

            [Front Page] [| World/Nation ] [| Utah ] [| Sports ]
          [| Opinion ] [| Business ] [| Food ] [| Classified Ads ]
                     [| Archives ] [| Links ] [| Help]

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

        ⌐ 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.



--

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.

"We preserve our freedoms using four boxes: soap, ballot, jury, and
 cartridge.  Try to use them in that order." -- Anonymous

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Brady award
Date: 12 Sep 1996 15:41:21 -0600


Just in case you aren't already disgusted at something today.  Just to
refresh my memory, didn't the NRA lobby in FAVOR of the Brady bill?
:( :(

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

From the NRA

CLINTON AWARDS MEDAL OF FREEDOM TO JIM BRADY: Yesterday,
President Clinton awarded the nation's highest civilian honor,
the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to anti-gun activist Jim
Brady.  The president praised Brady for raising "the practice of
freedom to new heights."  In his remarks to a White House
audience, the president implied that if the Brady Act had been in
effect in 1981, John Hinckley, the man who shot Mr. Brady, would
not have been able to purchase his handgun.  Of course, a Yale
law graduate like the president must know that because Hinckley
bought his handgun nearly six months before he shot Mr. Brady and
had no felony convictions or record of mental illness, his
purchase would not have been blocked by the Brady Act.

----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: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Letter to the Salt Lake Tribune
Date: 13 Sep 1996 01:53:39 -0600

--=====================_842622819==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

This is the second letter I've sent to the Tribune regarding the armed
citizens vs.
law enforcement officers furor.


--=====================_842622819==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

                            4379 King Arthur Drive
                            Salt Lake City, UT 84119
[phone] - voice
[phone] - fax
[e-mail]




Public Forum
The Salt Lake Tribune

    The recent furor over armed citizens and law enforcement officers (Concealed Guns, Cops Don't Mix, Sept. 9) confuses several very different issues.
    If a citizen is behaving unlawfully, suspiciously, or fails to keep his or her concealed weapon properly concealed, the police certainly are correct to be wary and to take whatever lawful measures are necessary to deal with the individual situation.
    However, if a citizen is behaving lawfully, minding his or her own business and not interfering with police activities, there is no justification for an officer to assault, harass, or even shoot such a person just because the officer suspects the person of carrying a concealed weapon.  The fact is that citizens have both a legal and a constitutional right to bear arms.  Recent research shows that armed citizens have a positive effect on decreasing violent crime and thus are actually assisting the police in their difficult and dangerous job.  The police may not like citizens carrying firearms, and they may not see them as an asset despite this research, but reality is that citizens are going to carry concealed weapons.  Thus armed citizens and police must learn to cooperate with each other.  Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the law, not to make laws or interfere with laws.  They are also sworn to protect the public, not to endanger it.  Likewise armed citizens must!
 rea
lize that it is the police who have the primary duty to enforce the law, and refrain from interfering in police activities.  The purpose of bearing arms is self defense and defense of others, property, and the state, not wholesale vigilantism.
    Finally there is the issue of unarmed citizens who are mistakenly believed to be armed.  The citizens of this state should not have to live in fear of being "put face down in the dirt", "drawn down on", or even shot because they choose to carry cell phones on their hips, or wear fanny packs.
    Tempers and emotional reactions need to cool down.  Armed citizens and police need to stop viewing each other as "the enemy".  We all share the goal of decreasing violent crime and making this a safer community, and to do so we must learn to cooperate with mutual respect.



Sarah Thompson, M.D.


--=====================_842622819==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Vote Libertarian!
PO Box 271231                Harry Browne in '96
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Don't trust Demopublicans!
801-966-0257 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

--=====================_842622819==_--


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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: In today's Salt Lake Tribune
Date: 13 Sep 1996 14:51:07 -0600


As I understand it, the Supremes have said they won't hear
the case if Sheriff Mack isn't a active Sheriff.  Is that
so?

>From today's on-line Salt Lake Tribune:

_____________________included article____________________


                         Friday, September 13, 1996
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

            VOTERS BOOT SHERIFF WHO GAINED FAME BUCKING BRADY LAW


        THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

           SAFFORD, Ariz. -- He gained a national following
        for challenging the Brady gun-control law, but Sheriff
        Richard Mack forgot to watch his back at home.

           Graham County voters rejected Mack in Tuesday's
        primary, favoring one of his former deputies, Officer Frank
        Hughes of the Thatcher police, with nearly 70 percent of
        the 4,500 votes cast.

           Mack, who contended Congress couldn't require his
        office to conduct background checks on would-be purchasers
        of guns, had become a popular speaker on the militia
        circuit around the country. He often appeared on national
        news programs and has written books on the necessity of the
        constitutional right to bear arms.

           A federal court had agreed with Mack's states'
        rights argument that the Brady law was unconstitutional,
        but an appeals court overturned that ruling and a similar
        one in Montana. The U.S. Supreme Court is to hear the issue
        this fall.

           Hughes' campaign stressed that because of the
        anti-Brady law campaign the past two years, Mack spent more
        time on the road than he did fighting crime at home.

           Mack retaliated with a newspaper advertisement
        listing all the time he had worked in his office since 1993
        and offering a $5,000 reward to anyone who could provide
        evidence to the contrary.

           ``He never cared about any of us,'' said Billie
        Horner, whose granddaughter was slain two years ago in a
        crime that remains unsolved. ``He just wanted his pretty
        face on TV all the time. Obviously, the people were fed up
        with it.''

           Mack did not return calls Wednesday or Thursday.



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

        ⌐ 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.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: NEA policy?
Date: 13 Sep 1996 15:10:13 -0600


A while back I saw a post that included the NEA policy on gun control.
A teacher friend of mine insists that some of the western States
delegates made the NEA drop their policy on guns (and gays) this year.
I checked the NEA home page but didn't find their official policies
anywhere.

Does anyone out there happen to have or know how to get a copy of this
year's NEA policies?

Thanks

--

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.

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We
 hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of
 the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of
 America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by
 exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the
 consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by
 denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ... to forget it."
 -- James Madison

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NBC News Flash Australia
Date: 14 Sep 1996 19:57:00 -0700


Scary that the Australian regime asked the US to war against the
Australian people. Anyone have more on this?

Forward from [e-mail]

NBC news in our local area tonight, [snip]

Other News:  A US Air Force LTC revealed that Austrialia has asked
the United States to send "Troops" to Austrialia to help remove
"GUNS" from the hands of its people.  Also, the LTC confirmed that
"FOREIGN TROOPS" are being stationed on US Soil for the first time
ever, to help control the people, whom are believed to be pushing for
an internal civil war, which the government believes will soon take place.

As always, I leave these things in GOD's capable hands,
Your Brother in Christ,

Thom Slape
[e-mail]  or  [e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Bob Knauer on the Constitutional Militia
Date: 14 Sep 1996 18:27:00 -0700


Forwarded from [e-mail]. I think he wrote in
response to Tom Paine, [e-mail]

        [e-mail]

>>The FF wrote the Constitution based on certain assumptions, one of the most
>>important of which is the presence of the Constitutional Militia. It says
>>it right there: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
>>of a free State,...". The operative word here is "necessary", not
>>"elective" , not "maybe", not "only if the citizens feel like it".

>*assumptions* O.K.; What basis did the FF's use to come to these assumptions?

If the FF made a statement like: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State,...", then does it not follow that they were
counting on the Constitutional Militia to preserve liberty? They didn't say
that the Militia would be a nice thing to have around, but if some Tyrant
dissolved it thru superior force of arms, well that's the way it goes.

Quite the contrary, they "assumed" that the Constitutional Militia would be
functional at all times. That assumption, on their part, however, did not
take into account tyrants like Lincoln, or the emasculated wimp society of
gutless citizens who whine all the time that *GUNZ*R*BAD* today.

Now to your question. I will turn it around and ask you a question: If we
did indeed have the well regulated Constitutional Militia in America that
the FF assumed, do you think for one minute the JBGTs would have perpetrated
Waco or Ruby Ridge or countless other atrocities?

If these tyrants knew that they would have to answer to the Constitutional
Militia if they dared encroach on the rights of citizens, would they not
have thought twice? If our elected representatives had to answer to the well
regulated Constitutional Militia also, don't you think that these
representatives would have hanged all of the JBGTs and their cowardly
supporters in public for all to see? Would the Constitutional Militia have
ever permitted the fed govt to amass a "standing army" of JBGTs in the first
place? I think not, and neither did the FF or they would not have made such
a big deal over it, Second Amendment and all.

They recognized that it's the deterent effect of having to stare into the
face of a fully armed citizenry that would keep any JBGTs in place.  The
last time it was tried it led to the War Of Federal Aggression.
Unfortunately the Constitutional Militia of that time, the Confederacy, got
wiped out by the Criminals of the North. (The FF did not envision that
happening, did they?)

And ever since, the Constitution has been a just piece of toilet paper for
the tyrants to wipe their filthy ass with and smear it in our face.

>>It says "necessary" - that was what the FF assumed when they constructed the
>>Constitution. And what do have we today to defend the Constitution: A
>>nation of emasculated wimps and a handful of paramilitary groups running
>>around the woods in their underwear on weekends with hunting rifles. Some
>>defense of the Constitution, huh!. And we wonder why we are in the mess we
>>are today. I am amazed we aren't in a deeper mess than we are.

>I thought you were an ardent supporter of not assuming anything?! I surely
>believe the FF's didn't assume anything either. Again, go back to the top
>and answer assumptions.

You are a difficult person to deal with :-(. I never said anything about
being an ardent supporter of not assuming anything - you are making that up.

It is true that the FF saw the vital importance of the Constitutional
Militia, but they made fatal assumptions about it, primarily that it would
not only be in existence but be of sufficient strength to withstand any
threat to the Constitution if called on to do so. They didn't figure that
the Criminals in the North would conquer and enslave the Constitutional
Militia in the South. That was a fatal assumption for generations to come.

>>I firmy believe that America would be just like the NWO countries right now
>>if it weren't for RKBA - and the NRA. Yeah, I know, that is a very sweeping
>>statement, but I believe it nonetheless.

>I agree, but your statement IS NOT sweeping! You can easily prove your
>statement by showing all the reasons why you believe what you stated.
>Hint: You can also use all the RKBA facts throughout history to back
>your beliefs, plus whatever else you can come up with. There are plenty.

Amazing! We are in agreement! But to the Hoplophobes who depend on a "standing
army" of JBGTs to "keep the peace", it is a very sweeping statement indeed.
These so-called "citizens of democracy" would never trust other armed
citzens to preserve the Constitution and perhaps for good reason - look how
the Constitutional Militia lost the War Of Northern Aggression.

Anything else we might agree on?, like freedom does not belong to those who
shirk their duty to preserve the Constitution by being active members of the
Constitutional Militia thru firearms ownership and practice (and membership
in the NRA for ten cents a day)?

NB: Now maybe some people can see why an ammo ban (thru excessive taxation)
is so damaging.  Well regulated means well practiced. If ammo is out of
reach for Constitutional Militia members, they will not be well practiced.
The damn stuff costs enough now, much less letting tyrants like Moynihan,
Bradly and algore tax it into oblivion.

Let's get these rotten Criminals out of our face once and for all - come
Election day - and get back to the business of Constitutional Rule!

In the meantime buy a gun, practice a lot, and join the NRA.

Bob Knauer

--

**************************************************
    A I M N E T       Advanced Internet Marketing
    Corporation        World Wide Web Publishing

 <[e-mail]>   http://www.aimtec.com/
**************************************************


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Senate Repubs Betray RKBA A
Date: 16 Sep 1996 12:07:40 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Johann Opitz wrote:
>
> Senate Repubs Betray RKBA Again!!!
>
> Last week, by a vote of 72 to 27 the Senate refused to table the "Gun-Free
> School
> Zones Act" and made it a federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet
> of a school if the gun has moved in interstate commerce.  The anti-gun
> language was added to HR-3756, a $23B fiscal appropriation bill for the
> Treasure Department and other agencies.

Folks, get a map of your city.  Find ALL schools.  Now draw 1000 ft
parimiters (no, I can't spell) from the extremes of the school
property.  Now, see if you can drive ANYWHERE without crossing one of
those school zones.

This is FAR more than a no guns on school grounds bill, this is a
total ban on carry, and probably even transport, in a city, and many
counties.

>
> Squish, Squish, Squish goes the Republican Party!!!

Indeed.  And we are to reward these folks?  Wake-up, the Reps steal our
rights worse than the Dems.  The Dems are just more obvious at it.

>
> VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!!
>

For FOR someone, anyone, not against!

Jim

----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.

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment
 protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it
 does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms... The
 phrase "the people" meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it
 did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments -- that is, each
 and every free person. A select militia defined as only the privileged
 class entitled to keep and bear arms was considered an anathema to a
 free society, in the same way that Americans denounced select spokesmen
 approved by the government as the only class entitled to the freedom of
 the press." -- Stephen P. Holbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed: The
 Evolution of a Constitutional Right", University of New Mexico Press,
 1984, pp. 83-84.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Bad news: Gingrich on Meet the Press]
Date: 16 Sep 1996 12:08:37 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
This is for the people on the list that think the Repubs. are going to
treat our 2nd Amend. rights differently than the Dems.  Right.

Ed

----- Begin Included Message -----

Today's Boston Globe has an AP story about Gingrich's appearance
on NBC's Meet the Press show yesterday.

A question about Sen Lautenberg's (D-NJ) amendment that
would make gun possession illegal for those convicted of
misdemeanor domestic violence was asked.

Gingrich said, "I'm very much in favor of stopping people
who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns.
I think that's a very reasonable position."

I say that if the situation is such that it warrants a felony
conviction then the person should be charged with a felony.
If the infraction is of the nature of a misdemeanor, then
their should not be a lifetime restriction on the person.


//------------------------------------------------------
// Joe R. -- Badges?  We don't need no steenkin' badges!


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


----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.

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment
 protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it
 does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms... The
 phrase "the people" meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it
 did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments -- that is, each
 and every free person. A select militia defined as only the privileged
 class entitled to keep and bear arms was considered an anathema to a
 free society, in the same way that Americans denounced select spokesmen
 approved by the government as the only class entitled to the freedom of
 the press." -- Stephen P. Holbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed: The
 Evolution of a Constitutional Right", University of New Mexico Press,
 1984, pp. 83-84.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: United Way
Date: 16 Sep 1996 16:31:59 -0600


It's that time of year at work again--United Way drive.  I'm wondering
if anyone here can offer any insights on whether my contributions to
"Promoting Health and Healing" or "Preventing Crime and Gang Violence"
are likely to be used to infringe my RKBA.  I don't see any obvious
anti-RKBA organizations listed in the literature, but thought I'd
double check here.

If nothing else there is a place on the form to donate to any
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.  My company matches $.50 to ecery $1
I contribute.  Wonder if JPFO could use a little help these days.  ;)


--

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 government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic,
 and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it,
 without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." --
 James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46).

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

From: [e-mail] (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop)
Subject: Re: United Way
Date: 16 Sep 1996 19:52:12 -0600

>It's that time of year at work again--United Way drive.  I'm wondering
>if anyone here can offer any insights on whether my contributions to
>"Promoting Health and Healing" or "Preventing Crime and Gang Violence"
>are likely to be used to infringe my RKBA.  I don't see any obvious
>anti-RKBA organizations listed in the literature, but thought I'd
>double check here.
>
>If nothing else there is a place on the form to donate to any
>501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.  My company matches $.50 to ecery $1
>I contribute.  Wonder if JPFO could use a little help these days.  ;)
>
>

Or maybe the DIPR (_Doctors_for_Integrity_in_Policy_and_Research_ or
something like that) guys... (Dr Suter and company)

best regards
Chad

------------------------- 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: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: United Way
Date: 16 Sep 1996 23:45:54 -0600

At 04:31 PM 9/16/96 -0600, Charles Hardy wrote:
>
>It's that time of year at work again--United Way drive.  I'm wondering
>if anyone here can offer any insights on whether my contributions to
>"Promoting Health and Healing" or "Preventing Crime and Gang Violence"
>are likely to be used to infringe my RKBA.  I don't see any obvious
>anti-RKBA organizations listed in the literature, but thought I'd
>double check here.
        I suspect both of the above would be interested in infringing your
RKBA.  However, the United Way does much good work, so I don't want to badmouth
them without accurate information.
        You can check their list of affiliated agencies at
http://www.xmission.com/~uw/agencies.htm  The home page also gives contact
information so you can ask them directly.
        My own personal preference is to donate money individually to the
charities I support - a rather eclectic collection.

>If nothing else there is a place on the form to donate to any
>501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.  My company matches $.50 to ecery $1
>I contribute.  Wonder if JPFO could use a little help these days.  ;)
        I'm sure JPFO would appreciate the help.  So would Doctors for
Integrity in Policy Research, Doctors for Responsible Gun Research,
the Independence Institute, and probably a host of others.  I'm not sure
if the Lawyer's Second Amendment Society is 501(c)3 or not.
        Since you seem to have some libertarian leanings, you might also
check out some of the Internet freedom organizations such as EFF, CPSR,
etc.
        Links to many of these can be found on my (very incomplete) home
page, http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html
        Please keep us posted on what you find out.

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Vote Libertarian!
PO Box 271231                Harry Browne in '96
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Don't trust Demopublicans!
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Sep 1996 00:19:01 -0600

Hi all!

Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate for President, will be on Lowell
Ponte's program (KTKK-630 AM) this evening.  He is the only candidate on the
ballot in
all 50 states who unconditionally guarantees your RKBA without restriction.
He's
also an intelligent and entertaining speaker, so be sure to listen (or call in)
if you can.

Tuesday, September 17, 1996 - national radio
Lowell Ponte at Large on American Entertainment Network
Time: 10:00-11:00pm Mountain
Call-in: 1-800-852-1956

People can also hear the entire show anywhere in the world via
http://www.AENNET.com on Internet Audio; they can download free software from
this site.

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Vote Libertarian!
PO Box 271231                Harry Browne in '96
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Don't trust Demopublicans!
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATTN: Women gunowners!
Date: 17 Sep 1996 02:17:27 -0600

Check THIS one out!

Lifetime TV is running an election WEB page along with the rest of the world.
One of their current features is an interview with Sarah Brady, and a poll
on gun control.  (Very objective reporting, this!)

These people are in need of some SERIOUS re-education.  They encourage comments,
so go to it!

http://www.women.com/news/govote/index.html

Sarah




Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Vote Libertarian!
PO Box 271231                Harry Browne in '96
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Don't trust Demopublicans!
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html


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

From: Sagers  Neil  <[e-mail]>
Subject:  United Way - Reply
Date: 17 Sep 1996 07:45:59 -0600

In response to those who are concerned about anti--RKBA Untied Way agencies, perhaps
you would like to give to your favorite pro--RKBA fund through United Way.  Below are two of
my favorite foundations to give to:

Gun Owners Foundation (Gun Owners of America)
United Way # 1054
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA  22151

Telephone [phone]



NRA Foundation
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA  22030

Jennifer Hale  800 672-3888  ext. 1115

You will have to ask United Way if they allow write--in's for the NRA foundation as they do not
have a United Way number.  The people at United Way can call the telephone numbers
above to obtain papers on the non--profit status of each foundation.  I would like to hear if
there are other pro--RKBA groups which can receive funds through United Way.


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Latest example of police "protection"
Date: 17 Sep 1996 13:13:37 -0600


From today's Deseret News, Salt Lake City Utah.

 [Deseret News Web Edition]

 Boyfriend kills N.Y. teen despite police protection

 Assailant takes own life after breaking into home and wounding 3
 others.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------

 Associated Press

 NEW YORK -- Police tried to protect 17-year-old Danielle Dimedici
 from her boyfriend, who was accused of beating her with a baseball
 bat, abducting her at gunpoint and threatening to kill her family.

 But in the end, the protection wasn't enough.

 Dimedici, who was about six months pregnant, was given a beeper to
 wear around her neck to alert authorities in case of more trouble,
 and patrols were posted around-the-clock outside her Brooklyn home.
 But when she was abducted last month, she never activated the
 alarm.

 By Monday, the patrols had been cut down to hourly checks, and
 James Parker -- a small-time drug dealer with a lengthy rap sheet
 -- was able to force his way inside the row house where Dimedici
 lived with her grandmother.

 Parker took Dimedici and her family hostage for two hours before
 shooting the teenager to death, wounding three other people and
 killing himself.

 ''This is a tragedy that never should have happened,'' said Eda
 McNally, a family friend. She said police knew that Parker had
 vowed, ''I'll be back and kill the whole family.''

 Parker arrived at the apartment at 7:50 a.m., between police
 checks, and began terrorizing Dimedici and her family. Police were
 called and heard shots and screams.

 By phone, officers tried to persuade Parker to surrender, but
 police said he was ''completely irrational.''

 After police heard a woman scream ''Please send an ambulance! He's
 shooting everyone!'' they launched stun grenades into the apartment
 while heavily armed officers rushed up the stairs to the apartment
 and began breaking down the door, which was barricaded with a
 dresser.

 They heard a final volley that they believe left the couple dead.

 Dimedici's grandmother was shot in the head, her uncle in the
 chest. Both were in critical condition. The uncle's girlfriend was
 shot in the leg.

 Six other people in the apartment, including four children, escaped
 serious injury.

 Authorities said Dimedici was given adequate police protection.

 ''No matter what kind of coverage we had at that location, if this
 person is so bent on committing this kind of violence, he would
 have just waited for an opportune moment to do it,'' First Deputy
 Commissioner Tosano Simonetti said.

 Authorities said they tried to protect Dimedici from Parker but
 found her uncooperative.

[Image]

Published 17 September, ⌐ 1996 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Return to front page


--

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.

"...diplomacy is not a synonym for capitulation, but rather a just and
graceful outgrowth of fundamental powers. [Clinton] does not know
this, this alone is enough to justify his replacement, and it is to
the nation's benefit and very convenient as well that an election
approaches."
    -Mark Helprin, "Mr. Clinton's Foreign Policy", WSJ, Aug 12, 96

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: IT'S TIME - SOUND THE ALARM
Date: 17 Sep 1996 18:11:41 -0600


>>---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>>
>>From:    "Collar, Brian", INTERNET:[e-mail]
>>TO:    (unknown), INTERNET:[e-mail]
>>DATE:    9/17/96 1:28 AM
>>
>>RE:    IT'S TIME - SOUND THE ALARM
>>
>>***************************
>>          SPREAD THE WORD
>>        to EVERYONE YOU KNOW,
>>      FORWARD THIS TO YOUR
>>         ENTIRE E-MAIL LIST,
>>     POST ON EVERY BULLETN BOARD
>>         ALERT THE MEDIA,
>>        SOUND THE TRUMPET:
>>      The Libertarians are coming !
>>      The Libertarians are coming !
>>      ******************************
>>
>>Dear Friends Of Liberty;
>>
>>This is a call to all Libertarians.
>>
>>We have an opportunity to make history -
>>To advance the Libertarian message -
>>To demonstrate to all those who would have us silenced,
>>that we are silent NO MORE.
>>
>>In St. Petersburg, Florida -
>>on October 8th through the 10th -
>>the time has come.
>>
>>During the second Presidential Debate,
>>from through out the nation, hundreds of Libertarians
>>will gather together for the <<Browne Out Rally>>.
>>Should Mr. Browne be included in the debates,
>>the Rally will be a huge celebration - and
>>Should Mr. Browne NOT be included in the debates,
>>the Rally MUST be the largest demonstration of this political season.
>>Either way - YOU MUST FIND A WAY TO ATTEND !
>>
>>Are we asking you to drop everything and run to St. Petersburg ?
>>Yes, this will require a sacrifice of time, of other obligations and of
>>funds.
>>
>>But, if not us - who ?  If not now - when ?
>>
>>We will not have this chance again for another four years.
>>
>>YOU are needed at the Browne Out Rally !
>>All Libertarians MUST take up themselves this personal responsibility
>>to attend what will be the largest Rally in the history of our party.
>>
>>Details have been provided at the Rally's Web Site.  Please go
>>immediately to;
>>                      http://gate.net/~bdcollar/bbe/rally.htm
>>All arrangements have been made for you through my company (BBE, Inc.)
>>
>>You are called.  Please rise up and serve.
>>
>>~ Brian L. Collar, [e-mail]
>>
>> If you don't have Internet access, please reply
>>     with "MORE INFO" as the Subject.


Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Vote Libertarian!
PO Box 271231                Harry Browne in '96
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Don't trust Demopublicans!
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Guns, the Jewish People,
Date: 17 Sep 1996 22:00:00 -0700


 ---------- Forwarded Message ----------

C O N S E R V A T I V E   C O N S E N S U S (tm)
*****************************************************************
 Events * Analysis * Forecasts * Commentary * Readers' Opinions
*****************************************************************
S E C U R I T Y   :::                  World, National, Regional
                                             Distribution: World
                                                   Editor's Desk

COPYRIGHT 1996 by Conservative Consensus, ISSN 1074-245X.

QUOTATION and redistribution are encouraged, for private,
non-commercial use, provided nothing is changed and
our headers and trailers remain intact. V2XC56


GUNS, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, AND PROTECTION

by Dr. Paul Gallant

              "My God, you have guns in your house?  Are you
crazy?"  This exclamation of horror greeted me recently from a
Jewish-American woman about my age.  And it summarizes one of the
most frustrating and utterly incomprehensible attitudes I have
come across in recent years, namely, that Jewish-Americans and
firearms somehow don't mix.

              Yet, let that same Jewish-American travel to Israel,
where the vast majority of households are armed and fully
automatic weapons, real "machine guns," are commonplace, and this
same person will very likely not even bat an eye.

              In fact, were a poll taken, it would surprise me if,
overwhelmingly, such travelers did not claim to feel far safer in
the midst of such an openly armed citizenry than were it not.  In
a country where roughly one in ten citizens have firearms, it is
relevant that Israel's homicide rate in 1991 was only one-fifth
that of the United States.

              Do guns and Jews mix?  Am I a "bad" Jewish-American
because I own firearms and I am passionately and steadfastly
committed to preserving the only clause in our Bill of Rights that
gives teeth to all the rest, namely the Second Amendment?  Or
because I and my loved ones refuse to wear the badge of
victimhood, deciding, instead, to take responsibility for our own
personal protection?

              What does Jewish law, the Talmud, have to say about
guns?  Could it possibly  say anything at all on the subject,
since the Talmud is thousands of years older than the invention of
firearms themselves?

              The sanctity of innocent human life, and the
absolute need to protect it from harm, is one of the most common
and fundamental elements of virtually all organized religions.
While I lay no claim to Judaic scholarship, it is evident that
self-defense, and the defense of innocent victims, according to
Jewish law, is not just permissible, it is required.  As every
copy of the Torah (the Old Testament) will show, the Sixth
Commandment is correctly interpreted as "Thou shalt not murder,"
not "Thou shalt not kill."  The respective Talmudic mandates for
attack on oneself, and on an innocent third party, are "He who
comes to kill you, arise and kill him first," and "Thou shall not
stand idly by the blood of your brother."

              So, if Jews are required to defend themselves, and
innocent third parties as well, it is only logical that they must
also have the tools to do so.  That means firearms, and "gun-
control" therefore becomes a concept anathema to Jewish law
because it impairs, or eliminates, defense against evil-doers.

              George Santayana said it best: "Those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  A Milwaukee-based
group breathes life into those words and studies the lessons of
history in deadly earnest.  Jews for the Preservation of Firearm
Ownership, which bills itself as "America's aggressive civil-
rights organization," is a group committed to burying gun control.
It would seem that the JPFO has been busy doing its homework, for
its extensive research, published in "Lethal Laws" (JPFO Press
1994), documents some rather grisly and chilling findings:

    * There have been at least seven major genocides in
      this century, conservatively involving 50-60 million
      victims: Ottoman Turkey, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany,
      China, Guatemala, Uganda and Cambodia.  The targets
      of Nazi Germany account for 13 million of these
      victims.

    * Gun control preceded all of the above genocides.
      In every case, gun control laws were in force before
      the genocide began, and, in five cases, were already
      in force before the "genocide regime" took control
      of the government.

              Lethal Laws provides a prescription for saving human
lives and a compelling argument against restrictive firearm laws.
Genocide can be prevented only if gun control is destroyed.  That
equates to a society in which honest citizens have free access to
firearms, especially military-style firearms, the very kind
protected by our own Constitution.  And the very kind banned by
the Crime Bill of 1994.

              One might think that Jewish-Americans, above all
others, being endowed with a legacy of constitutional guarantees
to draw on, would have learned the lessons about guns and liberty
from the ashes and horrors of the Holocaust, for was not Adolf
Hitler the quintessential gun control proponent of modern times?
Yet, Santayana's immortal words are apparently lost on another
group of Jewish-Americans, typified by Charles Schumer, Diane
Feinstein and Howard Metzenbaum.  These people, and their lesser
counterparts, would willingly, even eagerly, condemn all of us,
Jews and non-Jews alike, to repeat some of the horrors visited
upon mankind by the Holocaust.  People like these trade on their
Jewish "identity" for the votes of their constituents and yet are
at the vanguard of gun control advocacy.

              But it takes far more than a circumcision or a bar
or bat mitzvah to make one truly "Jewish."  In the words of a
well-known contemporary talk-radio host, "words mean something,"
but the words "Never again!" ring hollow when the means to back
them up are lacking.  It is people like those at JPFO who bring
back meaning to this simple solemn promise.
                               ###
Dr. Paul Gallant is chairman of the Committee for Law-Abiding Gun-
Owners, POB 354, Thiells NY 10984-0354.
=========================
UNLIMITED ACCESS:  Be sure to visit our Website and read the next
issue of our serialized book review -- Unlimited Access:  An FBI
Agent Inside the Clinton White House, by Gary Aldrich.

              http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html
__________________________________________________________________

   Advertising Rates, news tips, editorial and other questions
Conservative Consensus * [e-mail] * [e-mail]
__________________________________________________________________


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: My New NRA Religion (fwd)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 09:26:00 -0700


 ---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Folks, I want to tell you about my new religion. Read on...

      WSJ reports:

>>>Under Religious Freedom Restoration Act, every
>>>government agency must accommodate every religious
>>>practice unless the government can prove it has a
>>>compelling interest in regulating it and that the
>>>regulation chosen is the least restrictive means
>>>possible. It applies to every action taken by government
>>>and to every sphere of regulation, from local zoning
>>>laws to road safety to prisons.

>>>Schools: Sikh elementary school students in
>>>California argued that RFRA means they are exempt
>>>from a schoolwide policy against carrying weapons.
>>>Their religion requires them to carry a kirpan, a curved
>>>metal blade worn in a sheath fastened to the body
>>>by a leather strap. Even though the trial court found
>>>that the knives were dangerous, citing RFRA the
>>>district court ordered the school district to permit the
>>>children to carry the knives. In short, RFRA requires
>>>school districts to permit young children to carry
>>>concealed weapons.

So here's my new religion:

Luke 22:36 - [Jesus] said to them. "But if you have a
purse. take it, and also a bag, and if you don't have a
sword, sell your cloak and buy one..."

Members of this new religious sect need to go through
their closets and sell their extra "cloaks" (clothes) and buy a
"sword" - by direct implication a personal military weapon of
contemporary technological sophistication, i.e., a pistol or
semiautomatic rifle.

Of course one must have a dependable supply of ammunition
for this weapon, and so one must sell those old leisure suits
and get that too.

Therefore, to regulate the practice of my new religion,
government at all levels must show a compelling interest
served by regulation of my RTKABA (which of course they can -
public safety).

But it must also show that any regulation that inhibits in any
way the practice of my new religion is the least restrictive means
possible for accomplishing the service of the compelling public
interest in safety.

This manifestly cannot be shown - widespread gun registration
and regulation of demonstrably law-abiding citizens is neither the
least restrictive, nor most effective, means of promoting public
safety with respect to the private ownership of firearms - at least
by members of my new religion.

Anyone interested, drop me a line, and let's get this new religion
off the ground!

Dave in Seattle


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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My New NRA Religion (fwd)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 13:05:35 -0600

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
>  ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 96 11:59:00 -0700
> From: 00000 <[e-mail]>
> Subject: My New NRA Religion
>
[...]
> >>>Schools: Sikh elementary school students in
> >>>California argued that RFRA means they are exempt
> >>>from a schoolwide policy against carrying weapons.
> >>>Their religion requires them to carry a kirpan, a curved
> >>>metal blade worn in a sheath fastened to the body
> >>>by a leather strap. Even though the trial court found
> >>>that the knives were dangerous, citing RFRA the
> >>>district court ordered the school district to permit the
> >>>children to carry the knives. In short, RFRA requires
> >>>school districts to permit young children to carry
> >>>concealed weapons.
>
> So here's my new religion:
>
> Luke 22:36 - [Jesus] said to them. "But if you have a
> purse. take it, and also a bag, and if you don't have a
> sword, sell your cloak and buy one..."

Good.....

Thought you might want to know that there is a Church like
that here in Salt Lake.  I'm "praying" they ban guns in
churches completely, since I hold the church position
of Armourer to the Holy Knights of Cromlech.  We're
required to bear appropriate arms (Currently, Glock 22)
at all times.
--
Will Thompson
Alpha Engineering
Philips BTS
Phone [phone]   Fax [phone]  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chad Leigh)
Subject: Re: My New NRA Religion (fwd)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 13:30:18 -0600

>Good.....
>
>Thought you might want to know that there is a Church like
>that here in Salt Lake.  I'm "praying" they ban guns in
>churches completely, since I hold the church position
>of Armourer to the Holy Knights of Cromlech.  We're
>required to bear appropriate arms (Currently, Glock 22)
>at all times.
>--


You mean the Church *makes* you bear a *Glock*?  Hmmm, a church for ME to
stay away from... :-) :-) :-)

Chad



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: My New NRA Religion (fwd)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 13:32:44 -0600


On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]> posted:

>Good.....
>
>Thought you might want to know that there is a Church like
>that here in Salt Lake.  I'm "praying" they ban guns in
>churches completely, since I hold the church position
>of Armourer to the Holy Knights of Cromlech.  We're
>required to bear appropriate arms (Currently, Glock 22)
>at all times.
>--
>Will Thompson

I'm no lawyer, but the thought just occured to me that you may have
better standing to challange the law, should our legislature and
governor decide to pass it, if the church had a regular meeting
place-- some property that was clearly "church property".  If guns are
banned from churches, I figure the only way to legislate it is to ban
guns from church property or buildings or something similar.

In any case, it shouldn't be too tough to find someone who has a
commercial office somewhere and is willing to rent or lease part of it
to the church for meetings during specific hours.  (The mormon church
still meets in rented pool halls and bars in some places.)  A history
of meetings in that location prior to the law being passed might also
be a good idea.  (Did you say you meet every 2nd Monday evening and
services may include watching a ballgame or discussing re-loading
while partaking the sacrament of beer/soda and chips?  Maybe I'd like
to attend and investigate whether this religion is for me.)

Like I said, I'm no lawyer and I may be up in the night, but it just
seems logical that any suit would be strengthened by some legitimate
paperwork and some parisheners or "investigators" being able to
testify as to actual services being held in some specific property on
some regular basis for some time prior to the law.

--

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.

"The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should
 encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes,
 as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus,
 and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the
 world... The first step -- in the direction of preparation to avert war
 if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come -- is to teach men
 to shoot!" -- President Theodore Roosevelt's last message to Congress.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Pro-gun letter to editor
Date: 20 Sep 1996 10:14:26 -0600


There is a great pro-gun letter to the SLtribune editor in today's
edition from a Chip Higgins.  Point browsers to
<http://www.sltrib.com/96/sep/20/tlt/index.htm>.  If anyone doesn't
have web access and would like a copy, I'll download and post it later
this afternoon if you'd like.

--

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.

"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military
 conservators still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature,
 and have been carried to so great lengths, as must serve fully to evince
 that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide
 themselves with arms for their defence, was a measure as it was legal
 natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by
 the Bill of Rights, (the post-Cromwellian English bill of rights) to
 keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is
 to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found
 insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." -- "A Journal of
 the Times" (1768-1769) colonial Boston newspaper article.



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

From: Glenn Clapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My New NRA Religion (fwd)
Date: 20 Sep 1996 10:15:41 -0600

Ooooh, how do I join! :-)

WILL THOMPSON wrote:
>
>
> Good.....
>
> Thought you might want to know that there is a Church like
> that here in Salt Lake.  I'm "praying" they ban guns in
> churches completely, since I hold the church position
> of Armourer to the Holy Knights of Cromlech.  We're
> required to bear appropriate arms (Currently, Glock 22)
> at all times.
> --
> Will Thompson
> Alpha Engineering
> Philips BTS
> Phone [phone]   Fax [phone]  [e-mail]

--
Glenn Clapp                    |  Pinky: Gee Brain, what are we going to
Texscan/MSI                    |         do tonight?
124 N. Charles Lindbergh Drive |  Brain: The same thing we do every
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84094    |         night.  Try to take over the
801.359.0077                   |         world!
http://www.xmission.com/~glenn |  Sarah Brady Math:  7 == 100,000

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: NBC Gun Program
Date: 20 Sep 1996 11:08:26 -0600


>>From: [e-mail]
>
>>Subject: Fwd: NBC Gun Program
>>
>>Hello!
>>
>>This is a little scary! Thought I'd pass this info along--just in time for a
>>little pre-Halloween scare!  Let's be ready with a treat for their trick!
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Janalee Tobias, Women Against Gun Control ([e-mail])
>
>>Date: 96-09-20 10:33:38 EDT
>>
>>The NRA e-mail system reports that NBC News contacted a New York city gun
>>shop requesting various guns etc to be used as props. Included in the
>>request were: starter pistol, glock, 9mm standard, 38, Saturday Night
>>Special, 45 automatic, 25 caliber semi-automatic, sawed off shotgun, 357
>>magnum and rifles...and replicas if possible.
>>
>>Also requested was ammunition, including "cop-killer" bullets.
>>
>>I called NBC for info. (number in NRA's e-mail is for channel 4) NBC's
>>Dara at 212-664-4691 claims to know nothing about it..."but I'll check
>>into it and you can call me back."
>>
>>NBC may be creating a story to make Clinton look good just before the
>>election...
>>
>>If you see anything on TV try to record it or at least make a list of the
>>show's sponsors.
>>
>>Please advise if you have any hard info on this.
>>
>>--
>>John H. Josselyn, Legislative V.P.
>>Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
>>P.O. Box 20102
>>Towson, MD 21284-0102
>>[phone] (phone & fax)
>
>
>If anyone knows anything about this, please post!
>Thanks!
>
>Sarah
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Vote Libertarian!
PO Box 271231                Harry Browne in '96
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Don't trust Demopublicans!
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: JPFO document
Date: 20 Sep 1996 10:24:00 -0700


 ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
        "'act#efn.org'" <act#efn.org>,
        "'roc#xmission.com'"
  <[e-mail]>,
        "'[e-mail]'"
  <[e-mail]>,
        "'snetnews#alterzone.com'"
  <[e-mail]>

The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) puts out some
of the most potent anti-gun control literature that exist. Their studies
on 7 major episodes of genocide in the 20th century illustrate how in each
case the genocide was preceded by gun control laws that set the stage.

This is a spiral bound document with pages about of 8 x 11 size. Buy some
copies of this study and send them to legislators and let them chew on it.

This booklet reprints the original text and English translations of the
gun control laws that made possible these episodes of genocide.

JPFO has also done extensive research which documents that the US
federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (which redefined our right to possess
firearms to be only for sporting purposes - contrary to the Second
Amendment of the Constitution) was directly based off of the text of the
1938 Nazi Weapons Law (which similarly redefined lawful ownership of
firearms by German civilian citizens to only be for hunting). Thirty
years after being instituted in Hitler's Nazi Germany essentially the
very same gun control law was enacted in the USA.

Face it, the gun banning that took place in the 1994 Crime Bill was based
entirely on the edifice erected by the prior 1968 GCA. Firearms or con-
figurations there of that were deemed to not be of legitimate sporting
purposes were made contraband to own or manufacture by American citizens.
The GCA in 1968 effectively already repealed the Second Amendment. [snip]


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NBC Shops for "Cop Killer Bullets"
Date: 21 Sep 1996 00:35:12 -0600

>Subject: NBC Shops for "Cop Killer Bullets"
>
>http://www.amfire.com/afinews/nbc.html
>
>>                   NBC Shops for "Cop Killer Bullets"
>>
>> The following was provided to us by one of our members:
>>
>> (On NBC Letterhead)
>>
>> John Jovino Gun Shop
>> 5 Centre Market Place
>> New York, NY
>>
>> Dear Charles,
>>
>> The graphics department of NBC News requests the John Jovino Gun Shop
>> to provide us with guns to be used as props.
>>
>> Please bring an assortment of guns. This may include: starter pistol,
>> glock, 9mm standard, .38, Saturday Night Special, .45 automatic, .25
>> caliber semi-automatic, sawed-off shotgun, .357 magnum and rifles.
>>
>> Also, please bring ammunition including cop killer bullets.
>>
>> Arrange to be here at 11:30 am on Friday, September 20.
>>
>> The camera work will take place in room 967E at 30 Rockefeller Plaza
>> (between 49th & 50th streets, between 5th & 6th avenues.) Use the
>> studio elevators in fornt of the NBC Store, ask the security guard to
>> call extension 4777 and I will come down to meet you.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> (signed)
>>
>> Maggie Bennett
>> Broadcast Creative Services
>> Tel: [phone]
>> Fax: [phone]
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Here is the the letter our member sent us along with this:
>>
>> Dear Andy,
>>
>> Please take a look at this request we received from NBC News, for us
>> to provide a sample "sawed off shotgun", "cop-killer bullets" and a
>> Saturday Night Special. I called her and told her that if you want a
>> Saturday Night Special, why don't you call David Letterman. I also
>> told her we were offended by her request, and that this letter shows
>> how biased the media is.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony Imperato
>> John Jovino Comapny, Inc.
>> 5 Centre Market Place
>> New York, NY
>
Sarah

Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Vote Libertarian!
PO Box 271231                Harry Browne in '96
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Don't trust Demopublicans!
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: "others"]
Date: 21 Sep 1996 09:10:00 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

I found this on the www dole96.com site.



"Keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Bob Dole will establish a National
Instant Check system to keep criminals and others from purchasing firearms,
and will instruct his Attorney General to prosecute and punish vigorously
those who use guns in criminal activity."


Who are the "others" in his statement "criminals and others"

Josh Brown


----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.

"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military
 conservators still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature,
 and have been carried to so great lengths, as must serve fully to evince
 that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide
 themselves with arms for their defence, was a measure as it was legal
 natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by
 the Bill of Rights, (the post-Cromwellian English bill of rights) to
 keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is
 to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found
 insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." -- "A Journal of
 the Times" (1768-1769) colonial Boston newspaper article.

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: What's NBC news cooking?
Date: 21 Sep 1996 23:35:00 -0700


Anyone know what this is leading or led up to?
---------- Forwarded message ----------

September 19, 1996

What's new?  Can't talk about it.

That's the official word from an NBC News producer when NRA asked if
we could be of help in the production of ... what?

What is NBC news cooking up?

Whatever it is, the NBC News production involves fake guns and
non-existent ammo, and cameras roll tomorrow.

On Thursday, September 19, a gun store in New York City sent us a fax
they received from NBC News.  NBC's letter was a bizarre shopping list
of guns and ammo -- some real, some fake and some downright illegal.

NBC News intended the guns "To be used as props.... please bring an
assortment of guns," the NBC letter implored.  "This may include:
starter pistol, glock, 9 MM standard, 38, Saturday night special, 45
automatic, 25 caliber semi-automatic, sawed-off shotgun, 357 magnum
and rifles.... and replicas if possible."

Saturday night special?  Sawed-off shotgun?  Is this news or is it
nonsense?

We called the gun shop to confirm legitimacy.  The letter was indeed
sent to the store by NBC's "Broadcast Creative Services" on September
18, 1996, on behalf of an NBC News producer.

"We turned them down," the shop told us.  "'Saturday night special?'"
the dealer said.  "That's a term of fiction!"

And it gets worse.

"Also," the NBC News letter continues, "Please bring ammunition
including cop-killer bullets."  NBC News was looking for props, but
asking for propaganda.

We telephoned the NBC News producer about the firearms and ammunition
request.  The producer said the items were obtained from another source.

Thinking it was safe to presume that NBC was doing a story on firearms,
we asked whether NRA might be of assistance.  The producer said no.

When asked what sort of production was in the works, he said flatly,
"Whether I agree with you or not, we are a news division.  We don't
discuss that."

There are a few things we'd like to see discussed.

We'd like to discuss what a news division is doing requesting nothing
more than a term of fiction ("Saturday night special").  Do they mean
affordable, self-defense firearms?

We'd like to discuss why a news division expects a legitimate dealer
to carry an illegal gun.  Do they realize that sawed-off shotguns are
worth years in prison?

Above all, we'd like to discuss what a news division expects to see
when it requests ammunition that exists only in the minds of Clinton
campaign strategists.  Do they understand that the real cop-killers
are the two-legged variety?  According to the FBI, 73% of all those
who kill law enforcement officers have prior criminal histories.

You may wish to discuss those same issues with NBC News.

You might also ask why a major network news operation adopts, as facts,
propagandistic terms -- terms that have found a place in the network's
routine correspondence and possibly on to the airwaves themselves.

Members may call NBC News at 212-664-4444.

=+=+=+=+
This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle
Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA.

This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is
available at: http://WWW.NRA.Org



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: They Just Don't Get It]
Date: 23 Sep 1996 12:07:55 -0600


Forwarded from AZRKBA.  Note the comments from the orignal poster
regarding the NRA actively _*OPPOSING*_ efforts by grass roots gun
activists and groups in Arizona to move towards Vermont style carry.

For those who may be unaware, it has always been legal to carry openly
(loaded or unloaded) in Arizona without any permits with the exception
of the usual locations such as prisons, bars, etc.  Until a couple of
years ago, no one, including off-duty or retired LEOs, I believe,
could carry concealed anywhere except their own property.  A couple of
years ago, an NRA backed non-discrectonary CCW permit system with the
usual fingerprint and training requirements was passed into law.
Open, permitless, carry remains legal.

Because of the extremely strong RKBA provision of the Arizona State
Constitution, as well as the ratification debates of the same, there
seems to be some very good footing to suggest that Vermont style carry
is the Constitutional law in Arizona.  Individuals and groups in
Arizona have and are attempting to move this direction.
Unfortunately, the NRA is more concerned, it seems, with getting their
State to State reciprocity CCW permits than in achieving the greatest
level of RKBA possible in each area.  As a result, pro-RKBA efforts
have had to fight not only the antis but also the NRA.

This issue was the straw that broke my back and I decided my dollars
would no longer go to the NRA.



----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

AP 22-Sep-1996 11:57 EDT
By RICHARD KEIL Associated Press Writer

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- In signs of continuing financial trouble, the
National Rifle Association has laid off 30 workers and suspended
production of its weekly cable television program, according to NRA
officials.
   Two NRA board members said the gun lobby has furloughed almost 10
percent of its roughly 400-employee work force in recent weeks.
   The group also is relocating staff in its headquarters building to free
space to rent to other companies, one board member said. The goal: to
generate enough rental revenue to help cover payrolls in coming months.
   "There is no other reason for this than money problems," said one of
the board members. The members spoke on condition their names not be used.
   NRA spokesman Bill Powers would not comment on layoffs beyond an Aug.
26 press release that said the NRA was putting renewed emphasis on
grass-roots initiatives.
   "To meet the growing demand for the many programs of NRA, we must
continue to empower our members ... in the communities where our members
live, rather than from a building near Washington's beltway," the release
quoted Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president.
   That same day, LaPierre sent a letter to NRA board members notifying
them f the group's "ongoing efforts to streamline headquarters
operations."
   In that memo, he announced the association's restructuring into seven
divisions, with the popular Hunter Services division slated for
elimination. And in an accompanying document, he said the changes mean
"less of a demand for staff at NRA headquarters."  "Just as other major
organizations and companies seek to improve efficiency, so too should the
NRA," LaPierre wrote.
   Cancellation of the television show, which cost the NRA at least
$310,000 in 1995, is another sign of financial problems at the lobbying
group, which has depleted most of its cash reserves and run deficits
during much of the 1990s.
   "Our contract was up in July, and right now they're showing reruns,"
said NRA spokesman Chip Walker. "We're exploring our options right now,
and we'll have to wait and see what happens."
   Since December 1994, the NRA has aired the hour-long public affairs
show on the populist, conservative-oriented National Empowerment
Television cable network, which reaches 12 million homes nationwide.
Reruns have been running since July 30, when the old contract expired.
   The key reason the contract was not renewed, NRA officials said, is
that NET requested a significant rate increase.
   "What they want to do, we would have real trouble paying for," one NRA
official said.
   While production of new shows has been suspended, NET general manager
Bob Swanner said both groups "are exploring future options" in hopes of a
new deal.
   Swanner acknowledged the program's cost was one item under negotiation
but said many others were as well, including the program's content and its
broadcast schedule.
   The NRA's financial woes stem from a multimillion-dollar campaign aimed
at boosting membership. The plan, which cut into cash reserves, backfired
amid negative publicity. Last year, as membership reached 3.5 million,
former President Bush quit the NRA after a fund-raising letter referred to
federal agents as "jack-booted government thugs."  Since then, membership
has dropped to about 2.8 million. At the end of 1995, according to NRA
financial records, the group's liabilities exceeded its assets by $44
million.


   ( MY COMMENT: Do they think that just maybe the lack of support from
the people that really want to protect the Second Amendment and in the
past blindly sent them there money has dried up because they roll over and
sell the Second out every time it seems to be politically expedient. I
think they would get their support back if they spent more time calling
jackboots, jackboots!! But doing so makes you a target for the Big
Government bullies like the IRS a hole class of Jackboots in themself. But
no one said the road of freedom would be easy or the price cheap.  I think
as long as the NRA plays the Gun Control game and keeps fighting real Pro
Rights efforts like the Vermont carry here in Arizona they are doomed.
They just can't fool the people that count, the ones that will dig deep
and send when they really can't because they love their freedom and don't
just want a cool hat!
 END COMMENT )

     It reported it had about $49 million in cash and investments on hand
at the end of 1995. But the bank holding the mortgage on its new
headquarters in Fairfax, Va., requires the NRA to keep $36 million in
cash, an arrangement that means the NRA can spend none of that reserve for
day-to-day operations.
   NRA officials said the now-expired arrangement with NET cost about
$150,000 per year, while production costs amounted to at least $160,000 in
1995 alone.
   NRA officials said NET initially asked the gun lobby to boost its
payments to $1 million per year, then dropped the asking price to
$750,000.

----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.

"The great object is that every man be armed, everyone who is able might
 have a gun." -- Patrick Henry (3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: utah code online
Date: 24 Sep 1996 12:47:58 -0600


I decided to look up the exact wording of Utah State law on carrying
of weapons either openly or concealed and the Code-Co server which has
the entire code on line is now a subscribtion service.

Does anyone know of any free online sites that contain the full Utah
code?

Or, alternatively, Code-co has a $10.00 a month rate for individuals
and non-profit groups who do not use paid lobbyists.  I do not know if
this only applies to IRS non profits or if an informal group could use
it as well.  I'm thinking about $10.00 or $20.00 a year would be
resonable to get at Utah law from my own computer, but $120.00 is a
bit out of reach.  If I can get a least 6 or more responses who would
be willing to chip in equally to get a password for a year, I'll
pursue it with Code co and see what can be done.

Even better if someone is a member of some group that already has
access and would be willing to let me join and use their access.  Does
USSC have access?

Thanks.

--

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.

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most
 governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within
 the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to
 keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever,
 prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of
 destruction." -- St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court
 and U.S. District Court of Virginia in, I Blackstone COMMENTARIES St.
 George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: idea for letter to ed or police department.
Date: 24 Sep 1996 13:40:43 -0600


The following was sent to me by someone who wishes to remain
anonymous.  Both the author and myself seem to have reached our limit
on letters to the editor for the current time so this is offered in
hope of generating more letters from different people.  It is in
response to the article in the Tribune a while back about LEO types
being nervous about guns.

Let's keep this issue alive.  You can submit letters to the SL tribune
editor by email at <[e-mail]>.  Be sure to include a snail
mail address and phone number.

---begin message---

If anyone wants to use this idea and send letters to the papers, West
Valley Council, Mayor, City Manager or Police Chief, please do, the
sooner the better!

"If appearances are so important for CCW permit holders, perhaps we
should all don the Ted Bundy or Decoriso (sp) clean cut look.

Apparently officer Illsley can easily be fooled by looks."

---end 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.

"Three millions of People, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in
 such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force
 which our enemy can send against us. Beside, Sir, we shall not fight our
 battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of
 Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." --
 Patrick Henry (1736-1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech,
 March, 1775

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Moral Turpitude
Date: 24 Sep 1996 16:58:11 -0600


I received an introductory one day trial password to Code-Co.  Just to
illistrate that the "devil is the detail" I present a quick summary of
one of the requirements to obtain a CCW.

First is Section 53-5-704 which outlines who may receive a CCW.

>53-5-704 Division duties - Permit to carry concealed firearm -
>Requirements for issuance - Violation - Appeal procedure.
>
>(1) The division or its designated agent shall issue a permit to carry
>a concealed firearm for lawful self defense to an applicant who is 21
>years of age or older within 60 days after receiving an application
>and upon proof that the person applying is of good character. The
>permit is valid throughout the state, without restriction, for two
>years.
>
>(2) An applicant satisfactorily demonstrates good character if he:
>
>(a) has not been convicted of a felony;
>
>[snip]
>
>(e) has not been convicted of any offenses involving moral turpitude;
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[snip]


Next we go to regulation R724 for the DPS's interpretation of moral
turpitude.
>
>(R724. Public Safety, Law Enforcement and Technical Services,
>Regulatory Licensing. )
>
>R724-4-3 Definitions.
>
>M. "Moral Turpitude" means a conviction for criminal conduct under the
>statutes of this state or any other jurisdiction of any of the
>following offenses:
>
>[snip]
>
>19. crimes involving unlawful sexual conduct as described in Title 76,
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^
>Chapter 5, Part 4, Chapter 5a, Chapter 7, Part 1, and Chapter 10, Part
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>13; and

Finaly we go to Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 4 to determine what heinous
acts a person must avoid in order to qualify for a CCW.
>
>76-5-403 Sodomy - Forcible sodomy.
>
>**********
>(1) A person commits sodomy when the actor engages in any sexual act
>with a person who is 14 years of age or older involving the genitals
>of one person and mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the
>sex of either participant.
>******
>
>(2) A person commits forcible sodomy when the actor commits sodomy
>upon another without the other's consent.
>
>(3) Sodomy is a class B misdemeanor. Forcible sodomy is a felony of
>the first degree.
>    1983


That's right.  The private, consenual acts between two adults may be a
class B misdemeanor in this State and conviction of same would render
one ineligible to obtain a CCW.  Read that definition carefully, we
are NOT just talking about gays here.  And even if we were, so what?

I wonder how many other completely harmless acts would render one a
criminal.  My almu mater seemed to have the theory "outlaw everything,
enforce as needed."  This was particularly true in the area of
housing.  Refridgerators, cooktop, microwaves, window AC units,
protable heaters, etc, etc were all against the rules in dorm rooms.
We were ALL in violation.  Makes it real easy to keep people in line
though if they can be expelled and lose years of effort just by
choosing to enforce a rule.  This nation and even our own State seem
to be using the same theory of peasant control

Back to your regular program...

--

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.

"The great object is that every man be armed, everyone who is able might
 have a gun." -- Patrick Henry (3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Addemdum
Date: 24 Sep 1996 17:27:22 -0600


Just found this.
>
>76-5-407 Applicability of part - "Penetration" or "touching"
>sufficient to constitute offense.
>
>(1) The provisions of this part do not apply to consensual conduct
>between persons married to each other.
>

Looks like sodomy is only a crime if it is engaged in by individuals
not married to each other.

One needs a full time lawyer to keep track of what one can and cannot
do these days.  Hmmm, that couldn't be by design could it?

--

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.

"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: Fwd: H. Con. 206
Date: 25 Sep 1996 01:11:03 -0600


>Attached please find a copy of the subject resolution. The sponsor list
>is a who's who of liberal anti-gun legislators.
>
>The "whereas" section is most revealing in that not only does it contain
>a number of blatant lies, misrepresentations and falsehoods; it make it
>very plain that the sponsors even denounce the right of free speech.
>
>If your congressman is a sponsor you should call them on the carpet for
>this one! You might even want to send them a copy of the Constitution
>for it is rather obvious that they have never read it.
>
>For more info contact Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet
>
>http://thomas.loc.gov/
>--
>John H. Josselyn, Legislative V.P.
>Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
>P.O. Box 20102
>Towson, MD 21284-0102
>[phone] (phone & fax)
>
>--------------AD11E757C88
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="HC206_IH.TXT"
>
>FILE hc206.ih
>          HCON 206 IH
>          104th CONGRESS
>          2d Session
>          H. CON. RES. 206
>          Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the threat to the
>          security of American citizens and the United States Government
>          posed by armed militia and other paramilitary groups and
>          organizations.
>                             IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>                                     August 1, 1996
>          Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. NORTON, Mr.
>              FRAZER, Mr. FLAKE, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. HASTINGS of
>              Florida, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr.
>              HILLIARD, Mr. WYNN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. PAYNE of New
>              Jersey, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. OWENS, Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana, Mr.
>              CUMMINGS, Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. SCOTT, Mr.
>              PASTOR, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms.
>              MCKINNEY, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Mr. RICHARDSON, Mr. COLEMAN, Ms. EDDIE
>              BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mrs. COLLINS
>              of Illinois, Mr. ENGEL, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms.
>              VELAZQUEZ, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. BECERRA,
>              Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. NADLER, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. CLAY,
>              and Ms. LOFGREN) submitted the following concurrent resolution;
>              which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
>                                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
>          Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the threat to the
>          security of American citizens and the United States Government
>          posed by armed militia and other paramilitary groups and
>          organizations.
>          Whereas the Government of the United States and its agencies are
>          democratic institutions, created by and for the people of the
>          United States;
>          Whereas the various agencies of the United States Government derive
>          their purpose and their character from the expressed will of the
>          American people, and may be altered from time to time by peaceful
>          means;
>          Whereas 168 American men, women and children were killed in the
>          terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in April
>          1995;
>          Whereas Federal law enforcement officials were threatened and held
>          at bay for 81 days in a Montana town by a group of so-called
>          `Freemen' while trying to exercise their duty to uphold the law, at
>          a cost of millions of dollars to American taxpayers;
>          Whereas various spokespersons for self-described militia and
>          paramilitary organizations and groups have repeatedly denounced the
>          legitimacy of the United States Government;
>          Whereas several members of an Arizona militia group were recently
>          arrested in possession of heavy armaments, deadly bombs and
>          explosive devices, and charged with conspiring to use explosives to
>          destroy buildings housing Federal agencies;
>          Whereas experts have estimated that extremist anti-Government
>          militia groups and organizations in the United States may number as
>          many as 800, existing in more than 40 States;
>          Whereas the democratic institutions of the United States and the
>          American people are protected from both foreign and domestic
>          enemies by a well trained military and multiple layers of
>          legitimate State and local police organizations; and
>          Whereas the actions of some militia and paramilitary groups and
>          organizations specifically promoting violence constitute a grave
>          danger to American citizens and the institutions of American
>          democracy, and threaten the very foundation of freedom and
>          democracy in America: Now, therefore, be it
>           [Italic->]   Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
>          concurring),  [<-Italic] That it is the sense of Congress that--
>                (1) armed conspiracies against the Government of the United
>              States or any of its agencies and personnel should be
>              aggressively identified, dissolved, and their perpetrators
>              brought to justice by the federal authorities of law
>              enforcement with the greatest dispatch possible;
>                (2) the illegal possession of firearms, explosives, or any
>              substances or devices of destruction by any individual or group
>              should be prosecuted to the full extent of all applicable laws
>              by the Department of Justice; and
>                (3) those legally possessing firearms, explosives, or any
>              substance or device of destruction, and involved in any
>              conspiracy to harm or destroy any agency or property of the
>              United States Government, or any official of the United States
>              Government, or any person, should be promptly prosecuted to the
>              full extent of all applicable laws by the Department of
>              Justice, including those designed to protect the United States
>              Government against treason and subversion.

Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Vote Libertarian!
PO Box 271231                Harry Browne in '96
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Don't trust Demopublicans!
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Reply #2 from SLCPD
Date: 25 Sep 1996 10:22:06 -0600


Just checked my mail and there was a reply from the SLCPD regarding my
second letter.  It is below, typos mine except as noted.  Below is my
letter which they are answering just for context.

It looks like they still haven't sent me the full policy on use of
force.  Looks like I get to work up another letter.

Anyone else on the list demanding that SLPD do something about Bell
and his threats of violence towards peaceful CCW holders?

---include letter---


September 16, 1996

Dear Mr. Hardy

The law is clear that our officers may separate a person from their
gun while taking official police action.  The articles in the paper
express the extreme side of what can occur, depending upon
circumstances.

Our reason why any applicant for a concealed weapon permit must show
familiarity with the gun law, is to reduce the problems that can occur
when our officer must take action.  The citizen must be aware of the
officers [sic] powers and concerns.

I am attaching a copy of our _Use of Force Policy, 3-06-01.00._

Sincerely

[sig]

Stehpen Chapman
Assistant Chief of Police

SC/nw

cc: Admin File


_3-06-00.00  USE OF FORCE_

_3-06-01.00 DEPARTMENT POLICY_

It is imperative that officers act within the boundries of legal
guidelines and ethics, good judgement, and accepted practices whenever
using force in the course of duty.

Department policies concerning the use of force and firearms are
intended to to offer general guidelines so that officers can be
confident in their lawful exercise of such force.  The rules specified
by department policy do not cover every possible situation, but offer
a foundation on which to base critical decisions regarding the use of
force.

Department guidelines may be viewed as an administrative guide to
decision making and review, but are not intended to serve as a
standard for external judgements in any civil or criminal litigation
that may arise from such action.

This policy shall be obeyed by all officers of this Department when
they are in the State of Utah or acting in an official capacity.
Refer to the Intra-Jurisdictional Authority Act and the Uniform Act on
Fresh Pursuit (77-9-1; 77-9-2; & 77-9-3 UCA) for further state
guidelines.



---begin my letter which they are answerin---

Charles Hardy
xxxx
xxx

August 3, 1996

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

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

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in regard to Asst. Chief Chapman's letter of August 14
which was in reference to my letter dated August 3 (not August 2 as
Asst. Chief Chapman wrote in his letter).

You neglected to include in your letter to me the requested written
policy and training guidelines concerning appropriate officer conduct
when interacting with a non-violent individual who may be in
possession of a concealed weapon.  You have also made no mention of
the hearing I requested.  I hereby renew both these requests.  Please
provide either the information requested or else written refusal to do
so.

With regard to what you did send me, I am deeply troubled by the
obvious contradictions and out-of-hand dismissals I see evident.

You claim that Officer Bell "did editorialize as a private citizen,
and not as a police officer" and that "[h]e did not speak for the Salt
Lake City Police Department in any way".  I will accept that he did
not speak as an official spokesman of the Department.  However, he
went to great lengths in his letter to identify himself as a long-time
police officer.  He also spoke not on his own behalf as a private
citizen, but on behalf of every law enforcement officer in the State.
Further, he promised to carry out certain actions not on his own time
as a private citizen, but while acting in his capacity as a sworn
officer.  It is those promised actions, and now your complacency in
dismissing them out-of-hand, that are at the heart of my concern.
Also, I have not seen any public statements from the department or any
other officers to counter Officer Bell's pronouncement of how he and
his fellow officers will treat law-abiding citizens.  Is your
collective silence to be read as acceptance of Bell's position?

You assure me that you do not "put citizens on the ground 'face down'
as a matter of policy".  However, in neglecting to provide me a copy
of those policies I am left to assume that either a) There is some
reason you do not wish the pubic to review your policy; or b) You do
not have clear policy and training in this area and my concerns that
such situations are left too much to the discretion of Officers such
as Bell who have already decided that citizens' civil rights will take
a back seat to their own fears and political agendas are, in fact,
completely justified.

You say you know officer Bell and that he would not put a "citizen
face down on the ground without the probable cause to justify that
course of action".  Where in his signed, published letter did you read
the words "probable cause"?  Officer Bell has made a public
declaration that EVERY citizen he encounters in possession of a gun is
going to be treated as if they were a dangerous criminal and placed
"face down in hand cuffs".  Only at that point, he says, will he
inquire as to the legal status of the concealed weapon.  This is in
direct conflict with State law which recognizes that the vast majority
of citizens are not dangerous criminals and allows them the statutory
privilege of carrying a concealed weapon.

I have friends and relatives serving as peace officers.  I appreciate
the dangerous circumstances under which you work.  But any officer who
chooses to deal with those circumstances by initiating force against
peaceful citizens who are in full compliance with the law has no
business walking the streets with a badge and gun.  Officer Bell has
proclaimed he will do just that.  He is a walking personal injury and
civil rights law suit waiting to happen.  I want to know what action
has and will be taken to insure the safety of Salt Lake and Utah's
citizens from Officer Bell and others in the Department who share his
low regard for the rights of private citizens.

Let me restate a point I made in my previous letter.  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 reply to my specific concerns is most appreciated.  Please
include the requested documentation or written refusal to do so.

Thank you



Charles Hardy



--

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.

"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: Reply #2 from SLCPD
Date: 25 Sep 1996 11:54:27 -0600

At 10:22 AM 9/25/96 -0600, Charles Hardy wrote:
>
>Just checked my mail and there was a reply from the SLCPD regarding my
>second letter.  It is below, typos mine except as noted.  Below is my
>letter which they are answering just for context.
>
>It looks like they still haven't sent me the full policy on use of
>force.  Looks like I get to work up another letter.
>
>Anyone else on the list demanding that SLPD do something about Bell
>and his threats of violence towards peaceful CCW holders?
>
>---include letter---
>
>
>September 16, 1996
>
>Dear Mr. Hardy
>
>The law is clear that our officers may separate a person from their
>gun while taking official police action.  The articles in the paper
>express the extreme side of what can occur, depending upon
>circumstances.
>
>Our reason why any applicant for a concealed weapon permit must show
>familiarity with the gun law, is to reduce the problems that can occur
>when our officer must take action.  The citizen must be aware of the
>officers [sic] powers and concerns.
>
>I am attaching a copy of our _Use of Force Policy, 3-06-01.00._
>
>Sincerely
>
>[sig]
>
>Stehpen Chapman
>Assistant Chief of Police
>
>SC/nw
>
>cc: Admin File
>
>
>_3-06-00.00  USE OF FORCE_
>
>_3-06-01.00 DEPARTMENT POLICY_
>
>It is imperative that officers act within the boundries of legal
>guidelines and ethics, good judgement, and accepted practices whenever
>using force in the course of duty.
>
>Department policies concerning the use of force and firearms are
>intended to to offer general guidelines so that officers can be
>confident in their lawful exercise of such force.  The rules specified
>by department policy do not cover every possible situation, but offer
>a foundation on which to base critical decisions regarding the use of
>force.
>
>Department guidelines may be viewed as an administrative guide to
>decision making and review, but are not intended to serve as a
>standard for external judgements in any civil or criminal litigation
>that may arise from such action.
>
>This policy shall be obeyed by all officers of this Department when
>they are in the State of Utah or acting in an official capacity.
>Refer to the Intra-Jurisdictional Authority Act and the Uniform Act on
>Fresh Pursuit (77-9-1; 77-9-2; & 77-9-3 UCA) for further state
>guidelines.

Charles,
        Well I'll be goll-darned!  Yet ANOTHER form letter!  I received the
same one a few days ago.
        Also, if you look up the referenced sections of the UCA, they have
absolutely NOTHING to do with concealed carry, but outline the procedures for
pursuing a suspect into another state or allowing another state's officers to
pursue into Utah.
        The truth is, they don't HAVE a policy and obviously don't WANT one.
        Clearly they are playing games.  For a REAL synopsis of their policies,
see the editorial cartoon in today's Trib.
        I'm not quite sure I know what all the fuss about the police review
board I've been reading is about, but maybe it's time to jump on the bandwagon.
Any and all other ideas are welcome.  I'm frustrated, but I don't know where to
go from here.

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Vote Libertarian!
PO Box 271231                Harry Browne in '96
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Don't trust Demopublicans!
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Action in US House (fwd)
Date: 26 Sep 1996 15:09:21 -0600


>Subject: Action in US House
>
>    I've been notified that Congmn. Bob Barr and NRA have written an
>alternative to the Lautenberg Amendment (which provides a LIFETIME gun ban
>w/o relief for a poorly defined class of MISDEAMONER domestic abuse
>perpertrators) which supposedly resolves the problems of overbreath in the
>Lautenberg version.  A vote could come as early as FRIDAY and Congress is
>expected to work through the weekend.
>
>    PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE and urge him/her to VOTE FOR the
>Barr amendment known as "The Domestic Abusers Firearms Prohibition Act
>(DAFPA)."

>    * * *  Please repost widely, ASAP * * *

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.            Vote Libertarian!
PO Box 271231                Harry Browne in '96
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231        Don't trust Demopublicans!
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Action in US House (fwd)
Date: 26 Sep 1996 15:30:57 -0600


On Thu, 26 Sep 1996,  Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>
>>Subject: Action in US House
>>
>>    I've been notified that Congmn. Bob Barr and NRA have written an
>>alternative to the Lautenberg Amendment (which provides a LIFETIME gun ban
>>w/o relief for a poorly defined class of MISDEAMONER domestic abuse
>>perpertrators) which supposedly resolves the problems of overbreath in the
>>Lautenberg version.  A vote could come as early as FRIDAY and Congress is
>>expected to work through the weekend.
>>
>>    PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE and urge him/her to VOTE FOR the
>>Barr amendment known as "The Domestic Abusers Firearms Prohibition Act
>>(DAFPA)."
>
>>    * * *  Please repost widely, ASAP * * *

With all due respect, after all the %#%%#&@ the NRA has written over
the years, I'd want to see a copy of the proposed bill before
supporting it.  It may be "better" than what is currently on the
table, but I'm tired of cutting of my left arm to save my right leg.

--

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.

"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in
 their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of
 arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of
 taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. Therefore, the heads of
 provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all the
 weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government." --
 Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 29, 1558, Japan.

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

From: Sagers  Neil  <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Action in US House (fwd) - Reply
Date: 27 Sep 1996 10:31:28 -0600

After reading a review of an outline of the House language for the Domestic Abusers
Firearms Prohibition Act (DFPA) which the NRA supports.  The language would prohibit
anyone from owning a firearm who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence, similar to the Lautenberg Amendment.

Misdemeanor crimes for which one could lose his or her Second Amendment rights include
use of, or attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, or the threatened use of a
deadly weapon against an intimate partner of the offender.  DFPA expressly includes
government entities (?) and law enforcement personnel where a conviction occurs.  All those
convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, as defined,  regardless of
occupation, will be forever barred.

Above is a brief description of legislation which the NRA has asked members to support.
The summary was provided by the NRA.

I called the NRA and told them that I would not support any legislation which takes away a
person's Second Amendment rights for ANY misdemeanor offense.  Civil rights are much too
valuable to be forever barred because of a misdemeanor offence.  If a crime is a felony, then
a person should be charged with a felony.  The Gun Control Act of  1968 requires a felony
conviction before a person is denied his civil rights.

I urge everyone to first call the NRA (800 392 8683) and tell them that you do not appreciate
their compromise of your civil rights.  Then call your Representative and Senators (202 224
3121) and ask them to remove any language which would deny civil rights for a
misdemeanor offense.

Current laws are sufficient, if enforced, to prevent violent criminals from possessing firearms.
There will always be madmen who will kill tourists in Australia or school children in Scotland,
but this is no reason to deny the right of self defense to the world.


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Libertarian Psychiatrist on Guns and Crime and NIH Funding
Date: 27 Sep 1996 17:38:36 -0600


>From: Sarah Thompson
>Subject: Re: National Institute of Health (NIH) Increases Funding of
>  Behavioral and Social Science Research
>
>At 07:52 PM 9/17/96 -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
>>From: Neil Johnson <[e-mail]>
>>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 16:09:25 EDT
>>To: [e-mail]
>>Subject: Youch, the CDC picks up more (gun grabber) social/behavior scientists
>>
>>
>>Well, its time to brace for more gun grabber nonsense from the CDC. The CDC
>>just got a big boost in funding for social/behavioral science.
>>
>>Sincerely, Neil Johnson
>
>Matt,
>       May I offer a respectful rebuttal to Mr. Johnson's post?
>
>       One caveat:  As a libertarian, I do not believe research
>should be publicly funded.  Government should not have control over
>research, nor set its agenda.  Let the private sector fund the research
>it finds useful, interesting, or profitable.  However, since the NIH does
>exist, and does fund research, an assessment is appropriate.
>
>        As someone who falls into the category of "social/behavioral scientist"
>(I'm an M.D. trained in psychiatry), I disagree with Neil Johnson's assessment
>that increased study of social/behavioral science automatically means
>"more gun grabber nonsense".
>
>        First of all, the NIH and the CDC are not synonymous.  Further, the
>National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) is only a small
>division of the CDC.  It is this latter organization (the NCIPC) which has
>gained notoriety for their indisputably fraudulent, biased and politically-
>motivated research.  Following testimony before the House Appropriations
>Committee, the NCIPC's money for gun-related research was terminated.
>Nowhere in the list of funding did I see anything that I could manage to
>twist into funding for anti-gun research, though perhaps I lack imagination.
>
>        The social and behavioral scientists have a lot to offer to society in
>general and to gun rights issues in particular.  The people who first brought
>the fraudulent research to public attention are primarily criminologists.
>And guess what?  Criminologists are social scientists!
>
>        We all seem to be in agreement that the problem is crime and criminals,
>not guns.  But who studies why people grow up to be criminals?  Who is trying
>to understand and learn to treat antisocial personality disorder?  The social
>and behavioral scientists!
>
>        The greatest predictor of violent behavior is NOT presence of a
gun, but
>rather misuse of drugs and alcohol.  (Yup, the dread S&B people came up with
>this one too!)
>
>        If we can significantly decrease or treat severe mental illnesses,
>antisocial personality disorder, drug and alcohol abuse, and prevent people
>from choosing crime in the first place, crime rates will plummet.  If that
>happens, I might not feel like I HAVE to carry a gun with me everywhere I go,
>though of course I will NEVER give up my RIGHT to do so.  People might start
>seeing people with guns as "good guys" instead of "criminals".
>
>        Finally, I feel obligated to speak for my patients and friends who
>suffer the agonies of mental illness.  Mental illness is a series of REAL
>diseases, diseases of the brain and brain chemistry.  It is not a choice, a
>moral weakness, possession by demons, or anything other than a brain ILLNESS.
>And mental illness is often exacerbated by the violent society in which we
>live.  The mentally ill are victimized by criminals far more often than they
>commit criminal acts.
>
>        I can certainly understand the hostility much of the gun culture feels
>towards academia.  Our Universities and academic centers have been the bastions
>of liberal thought for at least the past 25 years.  Far too many intelligent
>people have fallen prey to the twin evils of "political correctness" and
>fraudulent research in support of either "the government", their own perception
>of the "public good", or most often, their own greed for publication and grant
>money.
>
>        However, rejection of all intellectual thought is NOT the answer.
>There are many good and responsible researchers out there - even in the
>"social and
>behavioral sciences".  Academics for the Second Amendment, Doctors for
Integrity
>in Policy Research, The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Doctors for
>Responsible Gun Ownership are just a few that come to mind.  We will never
>solve the
>problems that confront us, or guarantee our gun rights by having
>"shootouts" at the NIH.
>Rather we must support the academics who buck the tide of "conventional
wisdom",
>academic pressure, government pressure, and lack of funding to produce good
>research such as the recent studies by Lott and Mustard, and Kleck and Gertz,
>that show that guns provide a net benefit to society.
>
>Sarah Thompson, M.D.
>
>Standard Disclaimer:  The opinions here are mine and mine alone.  Since I'm
self
>employed, I do speak for my employer.  But I do NOT speak for any of the
>organizations with which I'm affiliated.  And a special "phbtttt!!!" to my alma
>mater, Johns Hopkins University, for its abhorrent Gun Violence Policy Center!
>
>Sarah Thompson, M.D.                    Vote Libertarian!
>PO Box 271231                           Harry Browne in '96
>Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231           Don't trust Demopublicans!
>801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
>http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html
>
>
>****************************************************************************
>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
>****************************************************************************
>
>
>


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun Control Emergency !!!
Date: 29 Sep 1996 11:34:00 -0700


This arrived a little late. Did H.R. 3756 as described below pass?
We may have to deal with this at the State level.

 --------- Begin forwarded message ----------


I received a fax today from a state level grass roots organization that
is something that effects Gun Owners nationwide, so I am retyping it in
it's entirety, If they pass this you could lose your right to own a
firearm if you spank your child.
Al
############################################################

Gun Control Emergency: Final Vote Coming Soon !
Late Session Push is Major Step in Federal Anti-Gun Program

                     DOMESTIC CONFISCATION &
                 GUN ROADBLOCKS PASS SENATE

Gingrich Moving Measures Through House in Gun Rights Sellout

Georgia gun owners were shocked to learn the U. S. Senate approved Gun
Roadblock & Domestic Confiscation legislation in a surprise move on
Thursday, September 12. The measures were added as riders to the Treasury
Appropriations Bill, H.R. 3756. These provisions are major steps in the
long term program to eliminate private firearms ownership. Georgia
Senators Sam Nunn & Paul Coverdell voted for both amendments.

The action now shifts to the U. S. House of Representatives where last
week a stunning sellout occured: House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA_6)
called Domestic Confistication "very reasonable," and DECLARED HE
WOULD PUSH IT THROUGH THE HOUSE. This puts the lie to his promise
last year that he would "prevent gun control legislation from coming to
the floor" on his watch. Here are the facts about this surprise last-
minute anti-gun drive in Congress.

DOMESTIC CONFISCATION
########################

*  The largest wholesale firearms confiscation effort in decades, this
   provision bans hundreds of thousands of Americans from owning firearms
   for life, and orders their guns seized. Persons convicted of a
   misdemeanor would be added to the list of "prohibited persons" barred
   from purchasing, or possessing firearms under federal law. For now this
   only applies to domestic dispute misdemeanors, but it sets a very bad
   precedent, since previously only felons have been stripped of their
   rights to own firearms.
*  The judicial process for misdemeanors has many fewer safeguards than
   the process for major crime. Many persons have pled guilty to a
   misdemeanor, and paid a small fine, simply to avoid the legal expense
   of fighting it.
*  Also known as the Lautenberg-Kennedy amendment, the Domestic
   Confiscation provision passed the Senate 97-2. Originally introduced
   as a separate bill, S.1632, it failed to advance earlier this year. A
   misinformation campaign suggesting it would only ban handgun sales to
   "wifebeaters" led to it's resurgance. Actually, the measure prevents
   many victims of Domestic abuse from keeping a gun in their home.
*  The BATF is ordered to draft REGULATIONS FOR THE SEIZURE OF FIREARMS
   under the new law. Confiscation also applies to persons convicted of
   local ordinances purporting to deal with "family violence." Some
   areas use such laws to prosecute parents for spanking their children.

GUN ROADBLOCKS
##################
*  Sets up thousands of gun ban zones across roads statewide where local
   police or the BATF can arrest unsuspecting drivers who have a firearm
   in the car. This federal law overides all state-level legal protections
   of your gun rights. Victims will face 5 YEARS IN PRISON.
*  Also known as the Kohl amendment, it passed the senate 72-27. Reenacts
   the School Zone Gun Ban Law ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme
   Court last year. The provision creates GUN BAN ZONES NEARLY ONE HALF
   MILE in diameter around every school.
*  Anyone without a Georgia pistol carry license driving through a zone
   with a loaded firearm not in a locked container or rack faces 5 years
   in prison. Many Georgians, who were previously able to drive freely
   with guns (loaded with no round in the chamber) in their car, either
   in plain view or in the glove compartment, will be "VICTIMIZED IN GUN
   TRAPS" manned by anti-gun local police and/or BATF agents

             WHAT YOUR CONGRESSMAN DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW
             #######################################################

In exchange for Clinton signing the Welfare Reform bill, Newt Gingrich
and the Republicans are selling out your gun rights. In August, every
Representative in Georgia voted for H.R.3953 taggant safety study bill
to register gun owners through ammunition sales (except for Sanford
Bishop, D-Ga-2, who didn't vote at all). But with elections around the
corner, most of the reps. should come to their senses and vote against
Gun Roadblocks and Domestic Confiscation----if you "educate" them. You
need to get on your Representatives now----the battle will be over when
congress adjourns in 10 days. Call the voter regristration office in
your county if you need to get the name of your Rep.

                               HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO
                               #########################
(1) Call Washington toll-free on the Congressional Hotline at (800)-962-3524
ask for your Representatives office. Tell them you oppose the Gun Roadblock
and Domestic Confiscation provisions passed by the Senate and which are now
before the House.
(2) Post or Distribute copies of this fact sheet.
(3) Be sure to vote this fall. Hold incumbents accountable. False friends
are the most damaging enemy. Don't worry to much about who's elected this
time---there'll be more elections. A revolution is taking place at the
polls---throw out the phony politicians to clear the way.

ACT NOW TO STOP GUN ROADBLOCKS & DOMESTIC CONFISCATION

This voter information fact sheet @1996 Citizens for Safe Government, Inc.
P.O. Box 7245, Atlanta, Ga. 30357 [phone], Founded in 1989, CSG is
a 501(c)(4) non-profit single issue state-level grass-roots citizens group
working against the long-term program to eliminate private firearms
ownership. CSG is not affiliated with any political party.


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Browne v Dole]
Date: 30 Sep 1996 11:13:41 -0600


A quick thought from fap worth sharing.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

I have been reading some of the Dole V Browne stuff, and I am not sure how I
will vote yet, but I do have THIS to add.

If you don't vote for Dole, be CERTAIN to send a letter to the Repub chair
telling him WHY you didn't vote for Dole.  Otherwise, they won't know that
it was the RKBA issue that cost them the White House.  They're not that
bright, you know...

No matter who you vote for for Presidente, be certain to vote for
Congresscritter!  We have GOT to keep the Congress pro-gun no matter who
sits in the Ofal Office.



----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.

"...while the legislature has power in the most comprehensive manner to
 regulate the carrying and use firearms, that body has no power to
 constitute it a crime for a person, alien or citizen, to possess a
 revolver for the legitimate defense of himself and his property. The
 provisions in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear
 arms is a limitation upon the power of the legislature to enact any law
 to the contrary." PEOPLE v. ZERILLO 219 Mich 635

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: The Ten Truths of Tyranny
Date: 30 Sep 1996 11:24:46 -0600


Thought you might find this interesting.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

                The Ten Truths of Tyranny
                        by
                Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <9/30

1)  Any law the electorate sees as being open to being perverted from its
original intent will be perverted in a manner that exceeds the manner of
perversion seen at the time.

2)   Any law that is so difficult to pass it requires the citizens be
assured it will not be a stepping stone to worse laws will in fact be a
stepping stone to worse laws.

3)   Any law that requires the citizens be assured the law does not mean
what the citizens fear, means exactly what the citizens fear.

4)   Any law passed in a good cause will be interpreted to apply to
causes against the wishes of the people.

5)   Any law enacted to help any one group will be applied to harm people
not in that group.

6)   Everything the government says will never happen will happen.

7)   What the government says it could not foresee, the government has
planned for.

8)   When there is a budget shortfall to cover non-essential government
services the citizens will be given the choice between higher taxes or
the loss of essential government services.

9)   Should the citizens mount a successful effort to stop a piece of
legislation the same legislation will be passed under a different name.

10)  All deprivations of freedom and choice will be increased rather than
reversed.
                        # # #
     A government is a tyranny when it sets itself above the will and
judgement of the people and refuses to comply with the wishes of the
people.

     A government is a tyranny when it lies to the people to get what it
wants.

     A government is a tyranny when the traditional rights of the people
are treated as obstacles to the objectives of government.

     A government is a tyranny when it creates animosities among the
people.

     A government is a tyranny when it blames the people for not stopping
it from acting against the wishes of the people.


----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.

"...while the legislature has power in the most comprehensive manner to
 regulate the carrying and use firearms, that body has no power to
 constitute it a crime for a person, alien or citizen, to possess a
 revolver for the legitimate defense of himself and his property. The
 provisions in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear
 arms is a limitation upon the power of the legislature to enact any law
 to the contrary." PEOPLE v. ZERILLO 219 Mich 635

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: FWD:  "There _Is_ No 'Allow' by L. Neil Smith]
Date: 30 Sep 1996 16:18:24 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
THERE _IS_ NO "ALLOW"

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

Exclusive to _The Libertarian Enterprise_ [See below]


    Recently we've heard astonishing fallout from an impressive study
of the achievements, so far, of a growing effort -- almost amounting
to a movement -- to make it easier for ordinary folks to legally
carry concealed weapons. In states where this effort has been
successful, crime rates (in terms of violent confrontation) have
fallen so dramatically even the media can no longer deny it.

    Advocates of the right to own and carry weapons rendered cynical
by years of watching media act as a fourth branch of government,
rather than its adversaries as Jefferson intended, are inclined to
wonder why the hairsprayheads have decided, unprecedentedly, to tell
the truth. I suspect an answer lies in a troubling aspect of
concealed carry I've attempted to warn gunfolk about previously.

    When I entered the argument three and a half decades ago, _the_
issue where both sides were concerned was registration and licensing.
Antigunners wanted every firearm in the country listed in government
directories, every user required to obtain written permission to
exercise his Second Amendment rights -- rights to be converted into
privileges, revocable upon the whim of politicians and bureaucrats.

    Antigunners were unsuccessful until 1968, when, grotesquely
stampeded by the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and
Martin Luther King (I don't recall any similar outrage on the part of
the media over the shooting of George Wallace), government began
enforcing the registration of weapons, new and used, at the point of
retail sale, under Lyndon Johnson's Omnibus Crime Control Act.

    Over the next quarter-century, we managed to "live with" this
law, which, with the collaboration of a criminal justice system so
putrescently corrupt it shines in the dark, blatantly violated the
letter and intent of the Second Amendment. It helped that guns in
private hands or traded among individuals didn't enter the retail
stream and remained unregistered. It also helped that, thanks to
Ronald Reagan, the outlaw BATF (what else do you call an out-of-
control agency that coldbloodedly murders 81 individuals -- 22 of
them kids -- and whose very existence is forbidden by the
Constitution?) was prohibited from computerizing forms generated
under the 1968 Gun Control Act. And there was still no provision for
licensing owners.

    Now, the danger of a _national_ Sullivan Act has raised its
stealthy head again, brought on by well-intended but misguided
efforts to issue concealed carry permits. The danger is exacerbated
by the fact that this extremely circumscribed return of a fundamental
liberty has produced such remarkably beneficial results. It reminds
us of the way, in the Soviet Union, that the 5% of farmland privately
owned produced 80% of the crops. Even from our own side, we hear how
crime is falling in states that generously _allow_ 1% of the people
to carry weapons. But there can _be_ no "allow" where an unalienable
individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right is concerned.

    One more time, just to get it straight:  there _is_ no "allow".
The word applies only to slaves, collared dogs, maybe children, and
government. It does _not_ apply to free adults. We've forgotten that,
in America, unlike any other nation on Earth, "We the People" _allow_
government to do things (too many, as we're belatedly starting to
realize), not the other way around. That's the point of the 9th and
10th Amendments. Second-highest on the list of things we _don't_
allow is interference with our right to own and carry weapons.

    It's undeniable that crime has decreased wherever the right to
own and carry weapons, previously suppressed, has been converted into
a _privilege_, granted or denied by the state. Overlooked, however,
is the fact that, in 1994, _Vermont_ was named (_Crime State Rankings
1994_) the safest state in America. It's the _only_ state without
laws of any kind forbidding -- or allowing -- concealed weapons.
Hence the term, "Vermont Carry", which I coined years ago to describe
the proper way to observe the Second Amendment.

    Where licensing proponents tip their hand is that, in many
states, in many versions of concealed carry legislation, failure to
comply with their illegal requirements becomes -- without explanation
or justification -- a _felony_ rather than the misdemeanor it was
before.  In other instances, the applicant -- make that, "supplicant"
-- must name the weapon he or she will be _allowed_ to carry, along
with its serial number. Thus we've come, the long way around, by our
own clumsy doing, to the registration and licensing we once opposed.

    An _unalienable_ right is one that can't be taken away by anyone
for any reason. All rights are _individual_ rights; no group has
rights beyond those possessed individually by its members. My
dictionary says a _civil_ right is one guaranteed (not "given" or
"granted") to the individual by law. A _Constitutional_ right is no
right at all, but a limit on the power of government. A _human_ right
is one you possess inherently, by virtue of being alive; it's what we
mean when we say "natural" right.

    The right to own and carry weapons is all of these things, not
one -- not even civil rights; that's why we busted big fat
segregationist sheriffs in Smokey Bear hats and mirrored sunglasses
in the 1960s -- subject to government approval.

    Anti-gunners are striking back, suing to expose permits lists,
violate privacy, endanger lives. The law is with them:  permits are a
matter of public record and _must_ be disclosed. Elsewhere, we hear
of discriminatory licensing based on income or race. In terms of
potential abuses, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

    The Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus, SAFE (Second Amendment
is For Everyone), and GOLF (Gun Owners' Liberation Front) were the
first to demand nothing less than Vermont Carry -- _repeal_ of any
law having anything to do with how people carry weapons. We're
gratified that SWARM (Safety for Women And Responsible Motherhood)
and GOA (Gun Owners of America) have followed suit.

    It's time for the National Rifle Association to join us in
calling for a national _non-system_ of Vermont Carry. No
prerequisites, no records, no nothing.

    _Then_ watch the crime rate start to fall.

---

L. Neil Smith's award-winning first novel, _The Probability Broach_,
which has long been out of print, will be republished by TOR Books
this October. A complete list of his novels and collection of his
essays and other data may be reached on the World Wide Web through
http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/lneil.html. Permission to
redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author,
provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and
appropriate credit given.

###

    _The Libertarian Enterprise_ is a biweekly publication, and should
usually get to you by the end of the first and third week of the
month. Please email [e-mail] if you are not receiving
yours regularly. Our mailer still has bugs in it. Large, unfriendly
bugs.

    _The Libertarian Enterprise_ is available by email.  Please email
[e-mail], and specify whether you would like one issue
or a free subscription. If you do not specifically ask for a
subscription, you may only get whatever issues you ask for. Please
keep in mind that our issues are all very large, so if you request
all back issues, your mailbox may explode.

    _The Libertarian Enterprise_ is available by ftp. Visit our site
at ftp://ftp.dimensional.com/users/boardman/enterprise/ and download
any of the back issues.

    _The Libertarian Enterprise_ is available through the World Wide
Web at various addresses. The most permanent of these looks like
it's somewhere in http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/libemain.html
and very nice it is, too.

----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.

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
 reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
 the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
 independence." -- Charles A. Beard