ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9610

Internet Message Format | 1996-10-30 | 174KB

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Release: gun law tawdry gimmick
Date: 01 Oct 1996 11:39:44 -0600


>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>HARRY BROWNE, LIBERTARIAN FOR PRESIDENT
>2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
>Washington DC 20037
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>For additional information:
>Bill Winter, Director of Communications
>Phone: [phone] Ext. 226
>Internet: [e-mail]
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>CAMPAIGN NEWS
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 1, 1996
>
>
>New domestic violence gun-control law
>is "tawdry gimmick," says Harry Browne
>
>
>        WASHINGTON, DC -- Legislation to expand federal
>gun-control laws to cover individuals convicted of
>misdemeanor domestic violence is an attempt to rescind
>the Second Amendment "one tawdry gimmick" at a time,
>charged Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne
>today.
>
>        "This legislation proves that there is no gimmick
>-- no matter how tasteless or tawdry -- that Republicans
>and Democrats won't exploit as an excuse to restrict
>Second Amendment rights," said Browne.
>
>        The bill, part of an omnibus budget package agreed
>on by Congressional and White House negotiators over the
>weekend, would extend the federal ban on gun ownership to
>people convicted of misdemeanors involving domestic
>violence.
>
>        After supporters of the bill breathlessly charged
>that failure to pass it would "jeopardize the lives of
>thousands of battered women and children," the
>legislation sailed through the U.S. Senate by a vote of
>97-2. The bill has also been endorsed by President Bill
>Clinton.
>
>        Browne, who has vowed to protect the Second
>Amendment as an "absolute right" when elected president,
>said he isn't surprised that the bill met so little
>opposition in Congress.
>
>        "Republican and Democratic politicians will do
>anything -- violate your rights, ignore the Constitution,
>pass useless legislation -- to protect themselves from
>being labeled as soft on domestic violence," he said.
>
>        "And that's why our rights are vanishing day by
>day, hot-button issue by hot-button issue, gimmick by
>tawdry gimmick. But this bill is a new low, since
>politicians now apparently claim that anyone who supports
>the Second Amendment must also support wife-beaters
>with guns."
>
>        But Browne said the bill's sponsors ignore one
>important fact.
>
>        "If the individuals covered by this new law are
>so dangerous that they deserve to be deprived of basic
>civil liberties, then they should be in prison," said
>Browne. "If they are not dangerous, then the government
>has no more right to take away their Second Amendment
>right to keep and bear arms than it does to deprive them
>of their First Amendment rights to free speech or freedom
>of religion.
>
>        "After all, the Second Amendment is a basic civil
>right -- not a privilege doled out by politicians for
>good behavior," said Browne.
>
>--
>Harry Browne for President                        [e-mail]
>http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/                            voice: 202-333-0008
>2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037      fax: [phone]
>
>
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

"The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted."
                Justice Louis Brandeis


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Date: 04 Oct 1996 08:29:23 -0700

On 30 September, the President signed into law the following two
sections of the omnibus appropriation bill.  There has been a lot of
ranting and screaming, and very little hard information presented,
along with a lot of conjecture.  While all legislation is subject to
interpretation (AND to Supreme Court review), the basic text follows
(extracted from the Congressional Record, 28 September 1996).  The
next step will be to watch for the BATF's regulatory interpretation of
these sections.

(The Gun Free School Zone Act is nothing more than the earlier Federal
GFSZ Act, overturned by the Supreme Court in US v Liopez.  They just
inserted a lot of "commerce clause" cites to justify addressing the
issue at the federal level.

The Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun Ban revokes a fundamental
constitutional for commission of a misdemeanor.  This is a nominal
first -- nominal because GCA 68 disqualifies anyone "convicted of a
crime that carries a sentence of more than one year; in some states,
certain misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors can carry a sentence longer
than one year -- and should make for an interesting Supreme Court
challenge.)


TEXT OF THE GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE AND
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MISDEMEANOR GUN BAN
AS SIGNED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON 30 SEP 96


Sec 657:  GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES

    SEC 657.  Section 922(a) of title 18, United States code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a)(1)  The Congress finds and declares that--
(A)  crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a
pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B)  crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate
movement of drugs, guns and criminal gangs;
(C)  firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and
have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools as
documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the
Judiciary, the House of Representatives and in the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate;
(D)  in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its
component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are
made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E)  while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary
citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain
parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun
violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for
the same reason;
(F)  the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in
a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G)  this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact
on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H)  States, localities and school systems find it almost impossible
to handle gun-related crime by themselves--even States, localities and
school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and
punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to
the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong
measures; and
(I)  the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause
and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure
the integrity and safety of the Nations schools by enactment of this
subsection.
(2)(A)  It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess
a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or
foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has
reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B)  Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm--
(i)  on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii)  if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so
by the State in which the school zone is located or a political
subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political
subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a
license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to
receive the license;
(iii)  that is--
(I)  not loaded; and
(II)  in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a
motor vehicle;
(iv)  by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in
the school zone;
(v)  by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or the employer
of the individual;
(vi)  by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity; or
(vii)  that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public
or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is
authorized by school authorities.
(3)(A)  Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful
for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of
another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved
in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place
that the person knows is a school zone.
(B)  Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm--
(i)  on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii)  as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone,
by an individual who is participating in this program;
(iii)  by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of
the individual; or
(iv)  by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity.
(4)  Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or
preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute
establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.


Sec. 658  GUN BAN FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR
            CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

(a) DEFINITION--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
(33)(A)  Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence means an offense that--
(i)  is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and,
(ii)  has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force,
or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or
former spouse, parent or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom
the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting
with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or
guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or
guardian of the victim.
  (B)(i)  A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of
such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless--
  (I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly
and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
  (II)  in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this
paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the
jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
  (aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
  (bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have
the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise,
  (ii)  A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of
such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has
been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has
been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the
applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under
such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of
civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship,
transport, possess, or receive firearms.
  (b)  PROHIBITIONS.--
  (1)  Section 922(d) of such title is amended--
  (A)  by striking or at the end of paragraph (7);
  (B)  by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting ;or; and
  (C)  by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
  (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence.
  (2)  Section 922(g) of such title is amended--
  (A)  by striking or at the end of paragraph (7);
  (B)  by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting
; or; and
  (C)  by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
  (9)  who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence,
  (3)  Section 922(s)(3)(B)(i) of such title is amended by inserting
, and has not been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence before this semicolon.
  (d) GOVERNMENT ENTITIES NOT EXCEPTED--Section 922(a)(1) of such
title is amended by inserting Sections 922(d)(9) and 922(g)(9) and
after except for



Semper fi

Joe Waldron
Special Activities Director
Second Amendment Foundation


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: (fwd) GOA alert 2 Oct 1996
Date: 04 Oct 1996 09:18:00 -0700


Typos in original. (e.g. "GDG" for CDC)

The Second Amendment Takes Another Hit -- Domestic confiscation bill,
road-block gun ban passes Congress Special GOA Fax Alert, [phone],
http://www.gunowners.org

(Wednesday, October 2) -- The Congress sent President Clinton several gun
control provisions as part of the omnibus spending bill. The President
signed the bill late Monday night after both houses had overwhelming passed
the bill (House: 370-37; Senate: 84-15).

The anti-gunners in Congress succeeded in passing several amendments in the
name of defending women and children. Despite the rhetoric, the provisions
will not accomplish what was claimed and blow even more holes in our Second
Amendment freedoms. Here's the "cliff notes" you will need to hold your
legislators accountable. What follows is a brief summary of what passed, the
practical problems with those provisions, and a listing of who voted right:

Road-block Gun Ban (sec. 657 of the Treasury-Postal portion of H.R. 3610)

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.
Victims will face 5 years in arisen.

Also known as the Kohl amendment, this provision reenacts the School Zone
Gun Ban law ruled unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court last year
(U.S. v. Lopez, 1995). The provision creates gun ban zones nearly one-half
mile in diameter around every school in the country.

Anyone without a pistol carry license driving through a zone with an
unloaded firearm, that is not in a locked container or rack, faces 5 years
in prison. (This would apply even to off-duty police officers, despite
ineptly crafted exceptions in the Kohl language.) Many who were previously
able to drive freely with guns, either in plain view or in the glove
compartment, can now be victimized by anti-gun local police and/or BATF
agents.'

And finally, just a couple of other quirks that result from the law: a)
Because of the way "school" is defined in the Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the
school zone gun ban could outlaw the possession of firearms by parents who
home school their kids; and b) For a person who lives within 1,000 feet of a
school, any hunting trip would constitute a legal labyrinth. He or she could
not early the gun to a car parked on the street unless he determined that
such action was approved by school officials.

Domestic Confiscation (sec. 658 or the Treasury-Postal portion of H.R. 3610)

Frank Lautenberg, who has an "F-" rating from GOA, originally cosponsored
the so-called domestic confiscation provision with anti-gun Senators Dianne
Feinstein and Edward Kennedy as S. 1632. The largest wholesale firearms
confiscation effort in decades, this provision bans thousands upon thousands
of Americans from owning firearms for life, and orders their guns seized.
For now this gun ban only applies to domestic dispute misdemeanors, but it
sets a very bad precedent, since previously only felons have been stripped
of their rights. (Note: This provision could strip many law-enforcement
officers, previously convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, of their
ability to carry firearms.)

Rep. Bob Barr introduced an NRA-supported amendment as a compromise. But
even Barr's language was altered after protests from Clinton and Senate
Democrats. The Barr provision -- perhaps best termed as the " Lautenberg
Lite" provision -- would have reduced some of the problems with the original
version, but it still extended the gun ban into the area of misdemeanors (a
bad precedent).

The Lautenberg-Barr provision which passed the Congress threatens to disarm
the very women that it is supposed to help. The provision would impose a
lifetime gun ban on anyone who has been convicted of "us[ing] or attempt[ing
to] use . . . physical force" in a domestic situation. Of course, this "use
of force" language can cover anyone (both men and women) who gets involved
in a little spat between spouses, roommates, lovers, etc.

The "use or attempted use of force" language will not only affect women who
might throw a lamp at their spouse (like the First Lady), it will also
endanger parents who spank their children. (Parents convicted of a domestic
misdemeanor for spanking will now have to forfeit their guns or else become
felons -- for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.) This
provision federalizes a state issue and is clearly unconstitutional (under
the 2nd and 1Oth Amendments for starters).

What is the answer? If an act of domestic violence is serious enough to lose
your civil right to own guns, then it should be a felony, which persons
already were prohibited from owning firearms. If it is not serious, it
should be treated as a misdemeanor -- a penalty which historically has not
forced one to forfeit his or her rights.

GOA opposed the Lautenberg-Barr "compromise." Gun Owners of America lobbied
against every version of the Lautenberg provision that surfaced. Each time,
GOA reminded Congressmen that a vote for expanding a gun ban is a vote for
gun control. But rather than take a "no compromise" position, most
Congressmen opted to just "limit the damage." It would be like a victim
telling a mugger who wants $100 that "if you only take $50 we'll just call
it even." Whether it's $50 or $100, the victim has still been robbed.

Likewise, gun owners got robbed this past weekend. We were forced to give up
ground without getting anything in return. Gun owners should not excuse
those Congressmen who voted for this so-called compromise. In reality, there
was no compromise since our firearms rights were not advanced in any way. We
neither got a revocation of the semi-auto ban, nor did we get a repeal -- or
even some exceptions to -- the Brady registration law. (Rather, more people
will now be rejected after Brady checks.) We got nothing. So don't let your
Congressmen tell you he voted for a compromise. When two people compromise,
each side gets something. Ask him what we got in return. If he can't tell
you, suggest to him that what he did was abdicate his duty to defend the
Bill of Rights.

More than 300 Representatives join Schumer in trimming the Second Amendment.
Once again, many of the freshmen Republicans led the way in opposing the
assault on our liberties. The vote in the House was 370-37; the following
Reps. VOTED PRO-GUN by voting AGAINST H.R. 3610: Barcia (MI), Barton (TX),
Becerra (CA), Beilenson (CA), Burr (NC), Chabot (OH), Chenoweth (ID), Coble
(NC), Coburn (OK), Coleman (TX), Cooley (OR), Cox (CA), DeFazio (OR), Duncan
(TN), Hall (TX), Hefley (CO), Honest (MI), Hyde (II), Istook (OK), Jacobs
(IN), Kanjorski (PA), Kaptur (OH), Klink (PA), Klug (WI), Largent (OK),
Nadler (NY), Neumann (WI), Rohrabacher (CA), Roybal-Allard (CA), Salmon
(AZ). Sanford (SC). Scarborough (FL), Schroeder (CO), Sensitometer (WI),
Stearns (FL), Stockman (TX), and Tiahrt (KS). [Bold represents freshmen.]

Thank the above Reps. and hold the others accountable. (NOTE: the following
is a list of the 26 Reps. that missed the vote: Baker (LA). Berman (CA).
Blumenauer (OR). Boucher (VA). Cardin (MD). Collins (MI). Conyers (MI).
Dellums (CA). Dornan (CA). Durbin (IL). Filner (CA). Flake (NY). Fowler
(FL). Frank (MA). Green (TX), Hancock (MO). Hayes (LA). Heineman (NC).
LaFalce (NY). Lincoln (AR). Limpkins (IL). Menendez (NJ). Myers (IN).
Quillen (CT).Taylor (NC).Waters (CA), and Waxman (CA). If your Rep. is not
listed in either of the groups above, then he voted for the bill!)

Everything, including the kitchen sink, out into H.R. 3610

Besides the two gun bans mentioned above, legislators also threw in the
study on placing taggants in black and smokeless powders -- a provision
which had previously stalled in the Congress. (Source: Sec. 113(2) of the
general provisions of the Justice Department Title in H.R. 3610.)

The bill gives the BATF a PAY INCREASE of almost $100 million dollars for
next year --$16 million in the regular budget plus an additional $66 million
for anti-terrorism efforts. (Source: Titles I and VII of the Treasury-Postal
provisions.)

 H.R. 3610 continues the language included in the previous year's budget
prohibiting the BATF from "investigate[ing] or act[ing] upon applications
for relief from Federal firearms disabilities." This means that non-violent
offenders who lose their gun rights won't be getting them restored any time
soon. (Source: Title I of the Treasury-Postal provisions.)

The so-called digital telephony provision will threaten the privacy of gun
owners(Source: Sec. 110 of Commerce-State- Justice provisions). The funding
in this provision will be used to force telephone companies to retrofit
existing telephone equipment in order to facilitate the ability of
government officials to wiretap citizens. This would be similar to requiring
home builders to put microphones in walls of every home so that the FBI
could more easily eavesdrop on conversations. (Before spending the $60
million for these technological "improvements," the FBI must first submit an
"implementation plan.")

The "best" part of the bill was a provision in the Labor-HHS section
containing a prohibition on the GDG's ability to spend any funds "to
advocate or promote gun control." Despite this apparent victory, there are
still two problems with this and other language in the GDG budget. First,
the department which conducts the anti-gun studies did not receive a pay
cut. Second, the so-called prohibition in this provision prevents the GDG
from actually lobbying in favor of gun control. As long as the GDG does not
call for any gun bans, waiting periods, etc., the "prohibition" will not
prevent them from placing the same anti-gun studies in medical journals --
the very same studies which are always used by the media and HCI to impugn
our firearms rights. (Source: Title II of the Labor-HHS provisions.)

Conclusion: Use this special alert to confront the legislators who voted
wrong. Hold them accountable! If they never hear a peep from you, they'll
think they can get away with these kinds of votes in the future. Remember:
"eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Please distribute this alert!

1 The Washington Post (11/19/92) reported how a school teacher was arrested
in class after pedestrian reported seeing her handgun sitting in open view
on the seat of her car in the parking lot. This lady had no record and was -
except for school zone gun ban - complying with Virginia laws which allows
citizens to carry a firearm in their car without a permit as long as the gun
is left in plain view.


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Personal Protection for Women
Date: 07 Oct 1996 05:33:48 -0600


>Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 22:08:37 -0600
>From: Jan Teegardin <[e-mail]>

>
>I've scheduled a Personal Protection for Women course - FOR WOMEN ONLY!
>
>This is the 'official' NRA version (12 hours) which covers all the
>basics on handling of guns, learning to shoot, and the legalities of
>using your firearm for self defense.  Conceal Carry Weapons
>certification is available for those who want it.
>
>Course is Fri Oct 19th 6-10 pm
>          Sat Oct 20th 10-6  (lunch provided)
>Place:  Lee Kay Center - it will be closed both days for the deer
>opener.
>
>I'm asking $40.00.  This is well below what NRA suggest for the cost of
>the class, however, I need to teach it at least once a year or loose my
>NRA Instructor certification.
>
>Any intrested women should leave a message for me at: 535-4630.
>Advanced reservation is adviced.  If a nubmer of women are interested, I
>may have Marge Pruess teach with me.

>Jan
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

"The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted."
                Justice Louis Brandeis


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Assault Holsters
Date: 07 Oct 1996 05:50:26 -0600


>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: (fwd) Re: Pocket holsters are now illegal
>Newsgroups: rec.guns
>
>Bob wrote:
>#
># I was told yesterday afternoon by my holster maker that he couldn't
># make pocket holsters anymore. He received a certified letter from
># local LE that a recent BATF decision / interpretation now makes it
># illegal to make, possess, or own a pocket holster that allows the
># gun to fire while still in the holster unless they are registered.
># The letter further suggested that he remove / destroy any and all
># styles of pocket holster that are currently in his inventory to avoid
># confiscation and litigation.

***He will be contacted and expected to provide a client list showing all
persons 'other than LEO' that have purchased them from him.*** (emphasis ST)
                                           Bob

>Does the holsters in question have bayonet lugs?

>Darren Hyde

WHAT?  Is this for REAL?  The whole idea is idiotic - holsters can't shoot
anything without both a gun and a person!
But what's really scary is this client list thing.  Is the BATF going to go
door to door and confiscate HOLSTERS at gunpoint??  More retroactive laws.
More confiscation of formerly legal items.
Yeah, right.  From my cold dead fingers they will.

Sarah


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: What Happens There, Will Happen Here: Anyone Wanna Bet? 2/2
Date: 07 Oct 1996 16:20:00 -0700


·  [ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
Back benchers blindly obey ministers who invite a potential enemy in,
give them the Bush Tuckerman book and let them travel and spy?  This is
the truth.  These people in government are guilty of treason.  If you
want to let traitors disarm you then you deserve your fate, but don't
take me and my family with you.  These are the hard cold facts.  Indonesia
has close to 1,000,000 men under arms if one counts their regulars,
irregulars, police and associate groups.  They recently bought 1,000,000
AK56 rifles and 70,000,000 rounds of ammunition.  They are not going pig
shooting.  On Greg Cary's program an Australian soldier in this year's
war games reported that an Indonesian Colonel was bragging that they were
coming back to take Australia.  On their maps Australia is identified
as New Irian Jaya or South Irian, WHY?

The government, in one hit, gave the Indonesians $150,000,000 in aid.
With this Indonesia bought 39 invasion craft from the East German Navy
(Media figures, not mine).  Now, because of Keating's treaty, the
government intends to reduce our armed forces because potential invaders
can't use Indonesia as a path to invade.  They are the potential invaders
and the traitors in government are fully aware of the threat.  In the
USA, on 4BC, at 5.10 on 10/6/96, to interviewer Connie Lorne, Tim Fischer
stated that there would be zero guns in Australia by the year 2000. Why
has Tim advertised our vulnerability?  In Australia he says it is not the
government's intent to totally disarm us.  Why two stories?  To be the
only unarmed nation in Asia is tantamount to suicide.  The UN won't save
us.  They watched genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia and Cambodia.

Our elected back benchers have sat and watched these same ALP/LIB/NAT/
DEMOCRATS print, issue and create so much currency, from 1966 to 1996, in
direct contravention of our Constitution Para. 115 (READ; Commonwealth Year
Books, Currency: Notes & Coins), that the value of our dollar was eroded
by 97% taking 29/30ths of our savings, life assurance, superannuation etc.

These pollies let banks change existing loan contracts (in retrospect and
in direct contravention of Contract Law) to push bank interest up to 20%
and even 30% knowing the people would be unable to pay.  They couldn't.
The banks foreclosed.  Bank assets went from $87 billion to $382 billion
in five years, taking $295 billion ($85,000 per income earning family)
from the Australian people.  Still the banks cry poor and raise charges.
Pollies gave our oilfields worth $250 billion in proven reserves (AUST
7/9/88 AGE 9/9/88) to Indonesia.  They were all on our continental shelf
and there could have been no claim under international law.  That creamed
off another $80,000 per income earning family.

In the seventies the Liberals took the contents of the Age Pension Trust
Account to which my generation paid 7.5% of our income to give us all
the Age Pension (and we all still pay it).  They now take another 9% to
give us "superannuation".  They sold at least one super scheme to the
French and spent the money.  They propose to buy back the farm, pay off
the national debt, and still have money to keep us in retirement.

The politicians destroyed nearly all Australian industry by removing
tariff protection.  What was not destroyed was privatised (sold to
foreign interests).  Our minerals, timber, oil and fishing are foreign
owned. They sell our hospitals, roads, bridges, jails, railways,
resorts, electricity, public utilities, even some water supplies.

Now these same politicians disarm us completely just before they step
onto their jet planes to fly off to their villas in Europe, leaving us
to the Indonesians.  I want to remind readers.  This is your country.
If the Indonesians come, the girl won't be a dark lass from New Guinea
or Korea, she will be your wife, your daughter, your sister, or you.
A TV poll showed 97% in favour of the right to kill a dangerous home
invader.  Do they get a say?  Ignore the minority of fools and traitors.
On Channel 7 they said the way to get Tasmanian gun laws altered was to
have a massacre.  Paul Wilson 30/4/96 foreshadowed a copy cat massacre
for Queensland.  That is a possibility as mentally disturbed people are
given mind altering drugs like Prozac and turned loose in society.
Disarming sane people won't stop the fruitcakes.

My generation carried real guns to keep Australia safe.  The pollies
leave this generation of soldiers deliberately disadvantaged, armed
with toys that melt down after a few rounds are fired.  They will be
slaughtered leaving us as the front line. I am not afraid to fight an
invader but I object to Australian traitors and fools disarming us and
leaving us at the mercy of a primitive cruel enemy.

We don't have to lose.  It takes ten times as many regular soldiers to
control and subdue a force of guerrillas.  With 600,000 armed Australians
we would be safe.  No nation can muster 6,000,000 troops.  The enemy knows
this.  That is why they need traitors to disarm us.  If we allow these
traitorous or well meaning politicians to take the few remaining weapons,
that could provide the basis for guerrilla defence, then we deserve our fate.

I was fit to own a semi auto for about 50 years.  Don't blame me for what
some cuckoo did in Tasmania.  Blame
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: What Happens There, Will Happen Here: Anyone Wanna Bet? 1/2
Date: 07 Oct 1996 16:20:00 -0700


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

=====================================
A. R. (Tony) Pitt
79 Ferry Street,
MARYBOROUGH ... Q. 4650.
7/7/96.
Dear Friends,
I served in the RAAF for twenty years and retired with the rank of
Warrant Officer (Tech.)  In 1962 I spent time in Thailand protecting
the locals from insurgents.  I feel some comment is warranted on the
anti-gun issue that has grown from the Port Arthur tragedy.

From the mind boggling flow of anti-gun bull dust I can see that most
pollies can't grasp the significance of the gun issue.  How could one
explain to these pollies, who have never been under threat, that
private and national defence also warrants consideration.  A few
hundred miles north, there are a million soldiers who would gang rape
a girl, cut off her breasts, and chatter and laugh like monkeys as she
ran blindly in terror, pain and shock, past oppressed locals who were
too scared to help or even look at her, out of fear that they would
suffer similarly if they were to intervene.  This is a santized version
of a report on life in West New Guinea, a country subjugated by our
most serious potential threat, Indonesia.  The writer said that soldiers
lit a grass skirt under the girl before they released her.  Timor and
Cambodia are no better.  The Iranians marched children and oldies across
minefields to clear the way for tanks.  What would they do to you?

In  1946  the Australian government put into long term storage
500,000 rifles and Brens to be used if we were invaded?  Under the
ALP/LIB/NATS these were all sold or destroyed (The Australian
31/5/1991).  The ALP took 100,000 SLRs (Self Loading Rifle), the
L1A1, worth $4,000 each and melted them down at B.H.P. (The
Australian 14/12/1994).  How can politicians justify the complete
destruction of our emergency reserves?

This political intervention leaves the military with 37,000 Steyr
rifles and 3,100 riflemen.  The design of the Steyr uses plastic in
heat critical components such as triggers, hammers and sears.  A
weapons use directive Order No. 7196-94 has been issued to all army
and air force units not to fire more than 90 rounds, or more than nine
seconds of automatic fire because the plastic components will melt down.
We are undefended.  The only effective weapons left in Australia to
stop the occupation and rape of Australia now lie in private homes.
When they are gone we are at the mercy of invaders.  What use is there
telling pollies that the people who possess these weapons would defend
Australia?  Howard, Fischer, Beazley, Kernot and the like, are all
party to, or supportive of, the betrayal of our defence capability.

The Australian Constitution prohibits political control of the armed
forces because our forefathers knew the nature of politicians. These
people are well aware that a gun register is the greatest asset to any
invader.  When the Germans went into Poland they did so only after
careful preparation.  They had their Quislings, under the guise of
public safety, register all firearms.  When the invasion eventuated
a German officer and the Police Chief, with a copy of the "register",
visited every home.  They asked for the guns by model and serial
number. If the guns were not forthcoming, they shot the children
first, then the wife. If the guns still did not come out they then
shot the man and burnt the house.

Howard, Beazley, Fischer, Kernot & Co. know this.  We have told them
time and time again.  Why do they want a register? They would have you
believe they want to save lives.  This is rubbish.  They know full
well that any cuckoo, with a 44 gallon drum of petrol can kill more
innocents than the Port Arthur clown.

A few well meaning gullible people have advocated a Central Gun
Repository, where shooters can store their guns and, when they are not
upset with the wife and kids, go and draw the gun out for a couple of
hours.  The Germans pulled this one too.  They threw away the key the day
before the invasion.  The Russians were different.  They opened the
repositories, took the guns and shot the owners.

How would you explain that in the seventies our government replaced
key military personnel, who earned their rank and knew by painful
experience how to take an enemy occupied hill?  They were replaced by
academics straight from university armed only with defence diplomas
and defence degrees.

This is not a game we play.  The enemy engages in war.  The Japs were
smart enough to map and assess Australia's capability to defend itself
twenty years before World War II.  The Japanese spies reported that,
"The people are well armed and know how to use those arms.  They would
pose a serious threat to any occupying force."  They also said that the
natives (Aborigines) could not be enlisted or even used to get rid of
the Europeans.  They said the Aborigines were "...not even fit to be
used as slaves."  Readers should be made aware that the Japs were going
to shoot the Aborigines and enslave us.  The Japs used 27,000 Korean
girls as comfort girls (slave prostitutes) for their troops because they
were religious and clean.  They weren't clean long.  Do readers seriously
think the Indonesians are not just as ruthless, and just as territorially
ambitions?  Why do the Indonesians overfly WA, NT and QLD every day?
Why do the Japanese re-arm?

Perhaps the hardest nut to chew is the treason of our own government.
The Liberals signed an agreement to totally disarm all civilians, police
and military in 1981 (I have a copy).  The ALP ratified it in 1983.
Then they invited the Indonesians in to train at our jungle training
centre.  They brought Indonesian generals in to umpire our Kangaroo
Exercise where the U.S. and N.Z. staged an invasion from the north.
We lost the war games.  The Indonesians were the real winners because
they saw every truck and every tank, and every tactic we used to counter
the mock invasion from the north.
·  [ Continued In Next Message... ]


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: How your guns will be confiscated]
Date: 08 Oct 1996 08:46:00 -0600


>>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!

Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Snow! A "PR" Opportunity
Date: 08 Oct 1996 09:00:38 -0600


>Subject: Snow! A "PR" Opportunity
>
>During the snow storms last winter (such as they are here in Maryland)
>the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore organized a limited snow emergency
>tranportation operation for hospital and nursing home staff as well as
>kidney dialysis patients.
>
>It was great "PR", especially when some member of the medical profession
>(which tends to be anti-gun) climbs into your 4x4 to be met with an "I'm
>the NRA" sticker on the dashboard.
>
>If you live in the Baltimore area and would like to volunteer this winter
>please respond via e-mail.
>
>For those of you out of state, I offer this as a great way to get good
>air time. During an emergency, even anti-gun television and radio station
>will broadcast your announcements. I know, because it happened right here
>in what is perhaps the most anti-gun liberal state in the Union.
>
>--
>John H. Josselyn, Legislative V.P.
>Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc.
>P.O. Box 20102
>Towson, MD 21284-0102
>[phone] (phone & fax)

This sounds like a GREAT idea to me!  And I'd bet most gun owners have 4-WD
vehicles, which are particularly useful in these situations.
Perhaps our local gun organizations could form a coalition to provide such
services - not only during snow, but any other type of emergency or natural
disaster.

Comments?

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: 104th Congress
Date: 08 Oct 1996 10:25:00 -0700


 * Crossposted from: Wildnet(tm): Guns

                   NRA-ILA FAX ALERT
             11250 Waples Mill Road   Fairfax, VA  22030
  Vol. 3, No. 43                                            10/4/96
    Phone: [phone]    Fax: [phone]      [e-mail]

               GAVEL COMES DOWN ON 104TH CONGRESS

This week, the 104th Congress wrapped up virtually all of its major
business and adjourned to allow Members to return to their home for some
heavy campaigning.  The waning moments of this historic Congress,
however, closed with a flurry of activity on legislation that impacts
gun owners.  Included in a massive, omnibus spending bill to keep the
government open were measures dealing with domestic violence, gun free
school zones, and the NRA-supported federal law enforcement commission.
Although the final language was not perfect, the original language that
nearly passed was perfectly awful.  It was so broad that an individual
could lose gun ownership rights permanently -- with no way to restore
those rights -- without having committed ANY violent act whatsoever.
The final measure was narrowed considerably to specifically prohibit
firearms ownership by those convicted of offenses that actually involve
the use, attempted use or threatened use of violence.  The measure also
ensures due process, and restores Second Amendment rights should the
conviction be overturned, set aside or pardoned.  As for "gun free
school zones," Congress passed language prohibiting the possession of a
firearm within 1,000 feet of a school, but included numerous lawful
exemptions, including residents who live within the 1,000 foot buffer,
licensed carry permit holders, the legal transportation of firearms and
those legally accessing hunting lands to name just a few.  It is unclear
at this point whether the new language will pass constitutional muster
(you may recall the Gun Free Schools Zone Act of 1990 was struck down as
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1995.)  Finally, the long
sought after law enforcement commission to review and make
recommendations to end abuses by federal agencies was not funded.  The
President signed the bill into law on Monday, September 30th.  Stay
tuned!

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 104th CONGRESS: Thanks to a crop of new pro-gun
champions like Representatives Bob Barr (R-Ga.), Helen Chenoweth
(R-Idaho), Randy Tate (R-Wash.), Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.), and Todd Tiahrt
(R-Kan.), Congress helped to mend some of the damage Bill Clinton had
inflicted on our Second Amendment during his first two years in office,
and for the most part crippled the anti-gun agenda of Second Amendment
foes like Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer.  Here's a look at some
of the victories your hard work made possible during the 104th Congress:

GUN BAN REPEAL PASSED IN HOUSE: On a bi-partisan 239-173 vote, the House
of Representatives passed legislation repealing the 1994 Clinton gun and
magazine ban.  The historic vote marked the first time in more than a
decade that Congress had reaffirmed the rights of gun owners and the
value of the Second Amendment, and represented a promise kept on the
part of dozens of lawmakers who had vowed to support the Second
Amendment if elected during the 1994 campaign.

CIVILIAN MARKSMANSHIP PROGRAM SAVED: DCM survived an anti-gun assault
when Congress passed a defense appropriations bill creating a
nine-member board and a new non-profit corporation to take over the
program.  A last ditch effort led by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D- N.J.) to
scrap the new corporation was shot down by a 71-29 bi-partisan vote in
the Senate, ensuring that the National Matches at Camp Perry would
continue and that surplus government firearms would continue to be sold
to qualified shooters rather than being destroyed.

SPORTSMENS' ACCESS TO REFUGES GUARANTEED: Congress passed legislation
elevating wildlife-dependent recreation, such as hunting and fishing, to
a primary purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System.  The
legislation ensures that hunters will be treated as a primary, not a
secondary or subsidiary component of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and will be able to enjoy the benefits derived from the
investments they make through their tax dollars, Federal Duck Stamp
purchases, and entrance fees.

CLINTON GUN-CRUNCHING MACHINE HALTED: Countless perfectly serviceable
firearms, including many M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, Model 1911 Pistols,
and .22 caliber training rifles were spared when Senator Ted Stevens
(R-Alaska) led the fight to pass a Department of Defense appropriations
bill imposing a moratorium on the Clinton Administration's gun crunching
machines.

ANTI-GUN GOVERNMENT RESEARCH DEFUNDED: Congress voted to redirect $2.6
million of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control's
budget from firearms 'research' to traumatic brain injury research, and
specifically barred NCIPC from using any of its funds 'to advocate or
promote gun control.'

FREE SPEECH FOR GUN OWNERS PROTECTED: Congress rejected 'campaign
finance reform' legislation that would have prohibited NRA from
providing our members with information about the positions of candidates
on Second Amendment issues and ban many of NRA's election efforts on
behalf of pro-gun candidates.  The bill would have prohibited NRA from
distributing our Political Preference Charts and outlawed any effort by
NRA to advertise on behalf of pro-gun candidates.

RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE ASSURED FOR PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS: An amendment
to a public housing bill that would have outlawed self- defense in
public housing units was rejected in the House.  The discriminatory
amendment, offered by current U.S. Senate candidate Richard Durbin
(D-Ill.), would have criminalized any public housing resident who used a
firearm in self-defense, and was voted down by a veto-proof margin.

ON THE AGENDA FOR THE 105th CONGRESS: Next year, we'll continue our
efforts to repeal the Clinton gun ban, push for national right to carry
reciprocity, secure funding for a federal law enforcement review
commission, and bring attention to U.S. funding for the United Nations'
efforts at international 'gun control.'  And with the Brady Act's
waiting period set to sunset in 1998, we can expect debate on the
subject of waiting periods and instant background checks during the next
session.  Needless to say, these are only a few of the items on our
agenda for the 105th Congress.  We can make our job much easier by
electing a pro-gun majority to Congress this year -- so if you have not
already done so, please get involved with the campaign efforts of
pro-gun candidates in your area!  For more information on what you can
do today, please call NRA-PVF at 1-800-868-3672. =+=+=+=+ 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]
Subject: Re: CJUST-L Digest - 7 Oct 1996 to 8 Oct 1996
Date: 09 Oct 1996 03:35:18 -0400

All right ladies and gentlemen. Let us give this gentleman some assistance.

Godspeed,

J. R. Lynch

<<
 Date:    Tue, 8 Oct 1996 17:17:30 +0100
 From:    Culver Epps <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Re: new member

 My name is Abigail Quant, and I am a full time research student at
 Plymouth University England.  I intend to write a research paper on an
 aspect of comparative criminal justice, focusing on western europe with
 the help of Rob Mawby.  In the light of the Dunblane massacre I would
 like to write and hopefully publish a dissertation comparing the pros
 and cons of gun laws in different countries and the existence of, and
 impact of public consensus concerning present day laws.  Any thoughts,
 or information on how to go about such a research paper will be
 gratefully received.
 I hope that you will contact me with your thoughts through the list or
 at one of the following e-mail addresses; [e-mail] or
 [e-mail]
>>


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Libertarians and Gun Control
Date: 09 Oct 1996 09:51:00 -0700


 * Crosspost from "Libertarian Party of Utah" <[e-mail]>
   originally by Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
   on Tue, 08 Oct 1996 11:35:43 -0600

I heard a GREAT radio ad for Harry Browne on KALL 910 yesterday during the
drive-time show, around 6-6:30 PM, I think.

Harry introduces himself, and says "government doesn't work and gun control
doesn't work".  The rest of the ad focuses entirely on gun control, how Clinton
is proud of his gun control record (Brady, assault-weapons ban, etc.) and how
Dole refuses to repeal any of it, and how Libertarians promise to support gun
rights unconditionally because they know gun control doesn't work.  I'm not
doing it justice here, but it was great, targeted,(pun intended), and hard-
hitting.

If we can get a transcript from LPN, I think it would make great copy for Andy
and any other candidate in a position to influence gun control laws.

Reminder: AGR is sponsoring a Gun Rights Conference this Saturday from 9 AM to
6 PM at the Fairgrounds.  Other candidates will be there; we SHOULD be!  For
info, call Shirley Spain (a fellow member of LPUtah) at 266-0587.

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

"The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted."
                                Justice Louis Brandeis


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: CNN - Suicidal people may be renting guns to get around
Date: 10 Oct 1996 03:03:30 -0600

The latest in fine reportage, compliments of CNN.
Let them know what you think!!

Sarah

>http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/09/shooting.range/index.html
>
>=20
>>                      Suicidal people may be renting guns to get around
>>   [Pathfinder]       federal regulations
>>=20
>>                      October 9, 1996                           [range]
>>                      Web posted at: 10:45 p.m. EDT
>>=20
>>                      From Correspondent Greg Lefevre
>>=20
>>                      STOCKTON, California (CNN) -- For Javier Capuchin,
>>                      the end came easily; too easily, according to his
>>                      family. He rented a gun and shot himself.
>>=20
>>                      Although the federal Brady Law makes people wait
>>                      five days to buy a gun, there is no waiting period
>>                      to rent a gun from a shooting range. Grieving
>>                      relatives from Capuchin's family and others
>>                      complain the laws make suicide rentals a snap.
>>=20
>>                      "It's not right," said his sister, Anna Lopstrom.
>>                      "Anyone can come. If I have a bad day, I can come
>>                      in here and rent one."
>>=20
>>                       [capuchin] Since early last year, there have
>>                                  been seven gun range suicides in
>>                      California, a double suicide in Arizona, and
>>                      others in Oregon and Oklahoma. In Milpitas,
>>                      California, police say all six suicides in their
>>                      area used rented firearms -- two this year were at
>>                      the same Milpitas range.
>>=20
>>                      Firing range owners say they are victims, too.
>>                      They say they do check customers, make them read
>>                      the rules and sign a form. The tip-off: most
>>                      suicides are new customers who come in alone.
>>=20
>>                                     --------------------
>>=20
>>                           "Being alone and renting a    [heskett]
>>                           gun are the two things we
>>                           watch for very carefully"
>>=20
>>                                -- Joe Heskett, owner of
>>                           TargetMasters
>>=20
>>                                     --------------------
>>=20
>>                      Much of his business comes from beginners learning
>>                      to shoot, and from people who want to try out
>>                      different guns before buying one.
>>=20
>>                      "We ask if they had any mental history or trouble
>>                      with the law. We take their photo. We kind of
>>                      watch and size them up," he said. "If anybody
>>                      comes in alone we scrutinize them very
>>                      carefully... I have spotted one or two that way. I
>>                      have turned one or two away."
>>=20
>>                       [stats] Heskett said he asked police to
>>                               intervene with one would-be gun renter.
>>                      He believes he saved the person's life.
>>=20
>>                      Half of all handgun deaths in the United States
>>                      are suicides. With no waiting period to rent a
>>                      gun, trauma experts worry that a person too
>>                      unstable to buy one may rent instead.
>>=20
>>                      Shooting ranges shouldn't rent firearms at all,
>>                      said Eric Gorovitz of the Trauma Foundation at San
>>                      Francisco General Hospital.
>>=20
>>                      "It may be there's a reason that those  [waiting]
>>                      people can't purchase guns ... because
>>                      they would have a mental health history that would
>>                      come out in the background check," Gorovitz said.
>>=20
>>                      Although many gun control detractors claim that a
>>                      suicidal person will find a way, no matter what
>>                      the law says, some legislators are discussing
>>                      waiting periods on gun rentals. They say true gun
>>                      enthusiasts won't mind the inconvenience, and
>>                      those considering suicide may reconsider.
>>=20
>>                                           [rule]
>>=20
>>                      Related story:
>>=20
>>                         * Brady Law expansion -- smart politics, but
>>                           good policy? - August 28, 1996
>>=20
>>                      Related sites:
>>=20
>>                      Note: Pages will open in a new browser window
>>=20
>>                         * CDC Figures on Firearm Suicides
>>                         * American Civil Liberties Union view on Gun
>>                           Control
>>                         * North Carolina Study on Suicides
>>                         * Firearm Injuries and Death Statistics
>>                           compiled by National Center for Health
>>                           Statistics
>>                         *
>>                         * National Rifle Association Training And
>>                           Safety Programs
>>                         * The White House
>>=20
>>                            External sites are not endorsed by CNN
>>                                         Interactive.
>>=20
>>                                           [rule]
>>=20
>>                                        Tell us what you
>>                       [What You Think] think!            [Image]  =
 [Image]
>>                                        You said it...
>>                                              [rule]
>>=20
>>                                        [To the top]
>>=20
>>                               =A9 1996 Cable News Network, Inc.
>>                                     All Rights Reserved.


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with=20
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of=20
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of=20
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object=20
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and=20
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: Glenn Clapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CNN - Suicidal people may be renting guns to get around
Date: 10 Oct 1996 10:12:16 -0600

I had this same problem with rental guns.  I rented several at Pro Arms
and each one kept trying to point at my head and fire.  It was a real
struggle.  I'd take one back and rent another and the same thing would
happen.  Let's face it.  Rental guns cause suicide.

--
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: RIFLES FOR SALE
Date: 11 Oct 1996 03:55:07 -0600

By now all of you should have heard that the Second Amendment has been
nullified in CA by our Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court.
Robin's a good person and if any of you can help her out, she'd
appreciate it, I'd appreciate it, and you'd be helping to resist the
war against the gun culture.  Thanks!

Sarah

>Greetings from the People's Republik of Kalifornia
>
>The following rifles that I have for sale are all Curio & Relics.
>So, for California residents no waiting period is required.
>However, purchasers that are not California residents, I must
>ship to a fully licensed gun dealer and that dealer will be
>required to handle all applicable paperwork etc. required by your state.
>We are a fully licensed dealer, however, the following items
>that we have for sale are from our personal collection.
>Times are really bad and parting with these items is
>not easy for us to do. So I'm hoping to get fair prices for
>these rifles, but most of all, I want to make sure
>they all get a good home with someone that will take care
>and properly shoot them...call it a bit bizarre, but
>this is like losing some very close family members.
>
>So, with that out of the way, if you have any interest
>in these rifles, please email me at:
>[e-mail]
>and we will go from there.  We will give
>out of state purchasers a 5 to 7 day inspection
>timeframe to work with. All purchases we will require
>full payment, however, if arrangements need to
>be made, let's talk. And, to make this even a
>better deal, I will personally pay for the
>shipping/handling and insurance for
>out of state purchasers, ok?
>
>Last but not least, if any of you feel that I have
>presented these rifles incorrectly as far as description,
>spelling, etc. and if you feel our asking prices are
>out of line, please advise and let me know what you
>think.
>
>Thanks for your time.  Take Care.
>
>Robin Figone
>CUSTOM CASTING
>Alameda, CA
>
>
>                          RIFLES FOR SALE
>
>11mm Mauser  M7184  Spandau Mfg  issue date 1888
>blueing is excellent 99% grade overall.
>Asking $400
>
>30 Carbine US Postal Mfg  WWII   Stock has been varnished
>metal surface is 90%   no reimport markings
>all other parts etc on rifle are original
>Asking $450
>
>Winchester M63  22LR   early model
>has no scope slots 80% grade overall
>Asking $350
>
>M1911 Schmidt Rubin  7.55 x 55  short rifle
>no import markings  all parts are matching
>95% grade overall
>Asking $325
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: GUN BAN QUESTIONS
Date: 11 Oct 1996 13:52:17 -0600


>>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>>Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 10:41:12 -0400
>>To: [e-mail]
>>From: Harvey Wysong <[e-mail]>
>>Subject: GUN BAN QUESTIONS
>>
>>MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS
>>
>>Dear M R,
>>        Well, once again, read 'em & weep. Just got this from GOA.
>>
>>-- Harvey
>>                ==================================
>>
>>        How Do the New Gun Bans Affect Me?:
>>              Most Commonly Asked Questions
>>
>>       Special Gun Owners of America Alert (Part III)
>>          703-321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org
>>                  (Tuesday, October 8)
>>
>>
>>Does the "Gun Free Zones" provision allow for any exceptions?
>>
>>     This provision, introduced by Sen. Herb Kohl, establishes
>>gun free zones nearly 1/2 mi. in diameter around schools.  While
>>it does allow for exceptions, one must realize that granting such
>>exceptions treats the right to keep and bear arms, not as a right
>>but, as a privilege.  The gun ban does exempt (for now) CCW
>>holders who underwent a background check, or those traveling with
>>a firearm that is both UNLOADED and LOCKED AWAY.  It also exempts
>>private residences, although one must make sure that he doesn't
>>carry his firearm to his car parked on the street.  The bill does
>>exempt those who are gaining access to hunting lands, BUT ONLY if
>>one has prior approval from the "school authorities."  A law
>>enforcement officer is exempted IF he is "acting in his or her
>>official capacity."
>>
>>
>>Will the private residence exemption exempt home schoolers who
>>live within the gun-free zone?
>>
>>     No one can tell right now for sure.  There appears to be a
>>conflict in the law which the courts will have to settle.  The
>>private property exemption only applies to "private property not
>>part of school grounds."  The U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 921) defines
>>"school zone" to be any place "in or on the ground of a public,
>>parochial, or private school or within a distance of 1,000 feet
>>of a public, parochial, or private school . . . . "  This section
>>also defines a "school" as a place which "provides elementary or
>>secondary education as determined under state law."
>>
>>     Thus, there is at least some chance that the amendment would
>>outlaw the possession of firearms by parents who home school
>>their kids.  Home schools are arguably "private schools" within
>>the definition of "school zone," and most state laws do recognize
>>these as schools in some respect.  Presumably, the Kohl language
>>would allow parents to create a "school program" which involves
>>firearms instruction.  But, for young children or for uses apart
>>from that program, firearms may well be prohibited in those
>>homes.  This would certainly be consistent with efforts by gun
>>control advocates to remove firearms from homes with children.
>>
>>
>>Why does the Kohl amendment not mention anything about a "1,000
>>foot" school zone?
>>
>>     Many times when examining legislation by Congress, one must
>>also look at existing law (or practice) to understand the full
>>effect of the law.  In this case, while "school zone" is not
>>defined in the Kohl language, it is defined already in Title 18
>>of the U.S. Code.  See definition in the answer above.
>>
>>
>>Will the "Gun Free Zones" provision allow authorities to set-up
>>road-blocks and search for guns?
>>
>>     This is another instance where one must look to existing law
>>or practice to determine the full effect of the law.  The Fourth
>>Amendment does offer some hurdles to general "stop and frisk"
>>type gun sweeps.  But based on different court decisions -- and
>>based on several police department precedents from around the
>>country in places like Washington, D.C. -- local authorities
>>could do the following:  they could establish "safety check
>>points" in conjunction with the BATF within a 1,000 foot school
>>zone to give sobriety checks, to check for seat belts being worn,
>>and to visually inspect the passenger compartment for any
>>evidence of firearms.  Thus, the bill does not need to
>>specifically authorize the police to set-up check points, since
>>there is sufficient precedent for states and localities to
>>enforce the "Gun Free Zones" in this manner.
>>
>>
>>Is the Lautenberg "Domestic Gun Ban" retroactive,
>>and does it ban possession?
>>
>>     Yes and yes.  Sec. 658(b)(2) of the Lautenberg provision
>>amends the section of the U.S. Code that prohibits possession of
>>a firearm to certain individuals.  Now that the Lautenberg
>>provision is law, the U.S. Code will read as follows:
>>
>>          18 U.S.C. 922(g): "It shall be unlawful for any person
>>     . . . who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor
>>     crime of domestic violence . . . to ship or transport in
>>     interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting
>>     commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any
>>     firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported
>>     in interstate or foreign commerce."
>>
>>     To prevent this ban from being retroactive, there would need
>>to be a grandfather clause which is absent from the bill.
>>
>>
>>Does the Lautenberg gun ban ONLY apply to "violent" misdemeanors?
>>
>>     No.  A person can become subject to Lautenberg's
>>lifetime gun ban for "the use or attempted use of physical
>>force."  Quite often, domestic disputes will continue even after
>>the police have arrived.  Thus, a woman who slaps her husband in
>>anger -- in front of the police and in response to the abusive
>>threats of her spouse -- can be guilty of a "violent"
>>misdemeanor.  But has the wife truly been violent?  What if she
>>only "attempted" to slap him but misses?  Under the provision
>>which passed, she can be prohibited from possessing a firearm for
>>the "attempted use of physical force," and thus, will be just as
>>disarmed as the truly violent spouse who is convicted of a
>>felony.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    ****************************************************
>>    TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS
>>    ****************************************************
>>    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope
>>    that the evils of this world can be cured by legislation."
>>    -- Thomas B. Reed, American Lawyer
>>    ****************************************************
>>    Harvey Wysong
>>    National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association
>>    701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A.
>>    [e-mail]        [phone]
>>    ****************************************************
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Brady Bill vs US Constitution
Date: 13 Oct 1996 07:08:00 -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
*****************************************************************
R E G U L A R   C O L U M N S   :::    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. V2XC62

SECURITY.................

Brady vs US Constitution

by Jacob J. Rieper

You couldn't tell by listening to President Clinton's and Sarah Brady's
speeches at the Democratic convention, but the law which bears her name
is in serious trouble.  Five federal courts have ruled the Brady Law
unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will hear a lawsuit brought by
Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack this fall.

Sheriff Mack's suit makes two arguments.  First, that Congress exceeded
its Commerce Clause powers by ordering State officials to exercise their
police powers to affect interstate commerce.  While firearms may flow in
interstate commerce, Sheriff Mack is not a gun dealer and neither engages
in nor interferes with interstate commerce by refusing to supervise
Federal Firearms Licensees.  The second argument, a 10th Amendment
challenge, charges the US government usurps State powers by ordering
State officials directly to perform "reasonable" background checks.

Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), Doctors for Responsible
Gun Ownership (DRGO), and the Lawyers Second Amendment Society (LSAS)
have filed an amicus brief supporting the dismantling of Brady.  Their
brief seeks to prove no "compelling government interest" exists for
resuscitating Brady because private ownership of guns is an overwhelming
benefit to society.  Without exception, all 14 studies of defensive gun
use suggest that protective uses of guns far outnumber the lives taken
by guns.  The most comprehensive, Kleck & Gertz's National Self-Defense
Survey, suggests 2.5 million protective uses by adult Americans against
human attackers annually.  That conclusion was reinforced by Lott &
Mustard's study of 15 years' data showing that "1,570 murders; 4,177
rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly"
if states would allow law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns.

Brady supporters claim tens of thousands of felons have been prevented
from purchasing handguns because of the law.  Such claims arise from a
GAO survey of 7 state and 13 local law enforcement agencies.  With 22
states exempt from Brady in 1994, the results of GAO's study cannot be
projected to the universe of denials nationwide.  Of those who were
fingered by Brady checks, the survey shows that half of them are not
disqualified from gun ownership and of those actual criminals identified,
gun purchase was not prevented; criminals are merely displaced from the
legal retail market.

Ignoring these important caveats from their own data source, Sarah Brady
boldly declared "The Brady Bill was an overnight success" and prevented
"over 100,000 felons" from purchasing handguns.  Such farcical claims
are easily dispelled by the Brady Law's laughable prosecution record
- less than a dozen convictions nationwide since its inception.

When asked what he thought the lawsuit's outcome would be, Sheriff Mack's
lawyer David Hardy said: "The Court's last major 10th Amendment ruling
(on nuclear waste disposal) struck the federal statute by a 6-3 vote, and
this statute is an even worse infringement of that amendment.  Nothing is
certain in law, but I'd consider the probabilities strongly on our side."
Dr. Edgar Suter, DIPR chairman, cynically agreed: "I expect that the court
will pay perfunctory obeisance to the 10th and 2nd Amendments, but will
gut that acknowledgment of any meaningful protection of our rights."

              Sorry, Sarah, no "Brady II" for you.
                               ###
=========================
BRAND NEW: This report was extracted from the Oct. 1996 issue of
Conservative Consensus Journal.  Don't miss the other 100+ news reports
the mainline media won't tell you!  Use the form below and subscribe today.

Previous installments available at: http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html

GET THE full story!  Subscribe to Conservative Consensus Journal.
MAIL TO: Conservative Consensus, POB 17912, Seattle WA 98107.
=================================================================
  1-YEAR    NEW SUBSCRIBER PRODUCT
---------       SPECIAL    --------------------------------------
[X] 59.00      [X] 49.00   Journal Subscription [] Email [] Print
[ ] 89.00      [ ] 79.00   Above for 2 years    [] Email [] Print
[ ] 19.95      [ ]  9.95   Intelligence Briefings (per year)
[ ] 19.95      [ ]  9.95   Expanded Releases all topics (per year)
[ ] 19.95      [ ]  9.95   1995 Issues (circle IBM/MAC Floppy)
[ ] 77.00      [ ] 77.00   Print Edition 1-Year (INT'L AIR MAIL)
[ ] 125.00     [ ] 125.00  Print Edition 2-Year (INT'L AIR MAIL)
=================================================================
 $ ___.__       $ ___.__   ORDER TOTAL (U.S. Funds)

Send check or money-order, and delivery address to:
Conservative Consensus * POB 17912 * Seattle WA 98107 USA
     Subscribe/Unsubscribe to: [e-mail]
   Advertising Rates, News tips, Editorial and other questions
Conservative Consensus * ccnrs#eskimo.com * [e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: GUN ROAD BLOCKS AND BLACK MARIAS
Date: 13 Oct 1996 08:36:00 -0700


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

Forwarded from elsewhere...
----------------------------

     At first you think it's an accident.  The red and blue
lights, the flares, the line of cars.  Then you notice the
barricades, too late- because you're already in the corridor.
You have no choice but to comply.  Your seat belt is buckled,
you have a valid driver's license and insurance card; you're
sober, and you're pretty sure your car would pass a safety
muster.  You're not alarmed, because you think you have
nothing to fear.  You're not armed, because you think guns
should be outlawed.  You feel no sense of outrage, not
understanding this breach of Law.  You feel no real threat,
because you've got your ducks in a row, your ship is tight,
and it's just the cops doing their job.  You proceed.

     As your car is searched, you look around.  A few cars
have been detained.  You see heads bobbing in the back of a
paddy-wagon with a military paint job.  You become aware of
an animated conversation- in a foreign language.

     You open your trunk for the state trooper.  After a brief
inspection, you are free to continue your journey.  It's 1996.

                  I T 'S           1996   !!!!!!!

     People, it occurs to me that perhaps we ought to begin to
consider some options.  If you are one of the hapless heads in
the paddy wagon who happened to have a firearm in the car when
you hit the roadblock, you're going up for FIVE YEARS.
Interestingly enough, this is the same standard sentence
Solzhenitsyn said was routinely handed out for Anti-Soviet
agitation in the early days of the Communist Revolution.

     Another, more chilling parallel to that revolution is
emerging as well.  Prior to the implementation of these
roadblocks, rumours began to swell about the "RED LIST/BLUE
LIST" roundups.  These are the lists allegedly naming people
to be arrested and executed just prior to, and shortly after
martial law is declared.  It is reported that the arrest
warrants will be executed in true NKVD/NAZI fashion- in the
middle of the night.  A Chinook will land in a quiet corner
of your neighborhood to meet the teams who have rousted you
out of bed and hustled you in your nightclothes to the
staging area.  When your neighborhood wakes up in the
morning, your neighbors may whisper, but they will not shout.
And the next night, they will draw the shades tighter and
ignore the commotion more fiercely.

     I quote Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, from the Gulag
Archipelago, in a footnote on page 13 of chapter one: "Arrest."

     "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking:  What
would things have been like if every Security Operative, when
he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain
whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his
family?  Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example
in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city,
people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with
terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step
on the staircase, but had understood they had **nothing left to
lose** and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush
of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever
else was at hand?  After all, you knew ahead of time that those
bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose.  And you could
be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a
cutthroat.  Or what about the **Black Maria** sitting out there
on the street with one lonely chauffeur- what if it had been
driven off or its tires spiked?  The Organs would have very
quickly suffered a shortage of officers and transport and,
notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine
would have ground to a halt!

     If....if...We didn't love freedom enough.  And even
more - we had no awareness of the real situation.....We purely
and simply *deserved* everything that happened afterward."

     These roadblocks are the fore-runners to the Black
Marias.  The Black Maria of the New World Order is a Chinook
helicopter.  It requires two rotors, front and rear, to fly.

     What I dream about in my wistful dreams is a show of force.
A thousand, even five hundred, even one hundred- armed militia
men surrounding the roadblock, politely disarming the traitors,
and sending them packing.  How long would the roadblocks last then?

     What I know in my heart is that resistance will be slow
to manifest, even after the Black Marias.

     But if Americans move- MOVE!  FAST!  into action on the first
night that the first choppers land in their neighborhoods and execute
the first warrants- and if we hit them hard and fast and without fear,
the losses we could inflict may slow them down -as Solzhenitsyn
predicts- when officers and transport are in short supply.

     It's certain at least, that the specter of a few burned out choppers
in assorted American neighborhoods will send a powerful message to our
would-be conquerors- and raise the confidence of the resistance as well.

     So how DOES one take out a Chinook?  The best idea I can
come up with that is lo-tech and does not involve exotic
firepower, is a grappling hook and steel cable.

             PRAY FOR THE REPUBLIC AND JOIN A MILITIA.




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA Strikes Again!    1/2
Date: 15 Oct 1996 08:13:00 -0700


I do not endorse all contents of the letter forwarded below, but feel
those on this list deserve to be aware of its contents. Scott
 ---------- Forwarded Message ----------

I received this letter the other day and since our recent to-do with
the NRA over the HUNT endorsement, and my resignations, I thought this
might be of interest. You should know that the writer of this letter
has been publishing his newsletter now going on a couple of years and it
has in the past only been sent to the Presidents of State Associations.
The writer of this letter has been thrown out of the NRA for the things
he has been doing. Take his words for what they're worth. Some of his
statements may be at the edge but most of his basic statements are true.
The organization is called the State Association Coordinating Committee.

                                   Newsletter

                                 September 25, 1996

    WAYNE LaPIERRE TO LEAVE NRA...In his report to the Board of Directors
on September 14, Wayne LaPierre announced that NRA has critical financial
problems. After four years of denial that NRA has financial problems,
LaPierre finally admitted the seriousness of NRA's money problems. Although
no departure date was mentioned, those attending the meeting came away with
an almost universal consensus that LaPierre would leave before the end of
this year. For more than three years I, and one or two others, have told
anyone who would listen that NRA was in deep financial trouble.
    Since that announcement was made in executive session, those in
attendance cannot discuss those proceedings but much of what was discussed
in those meetings has been passed on to me by multiple sources. For the only
time in anyone's memory, about 60% of the meeting was in executive session.
Obviously they don't want you to know what's going on inside your NRA.
    In his report to the BOD, LaPierre took full responsibility for the
financial problem. BULL! LaPierre is merely the scapegoat. The decisions
he made had the approval of the BOD. The BOD will accept LaPierre's
statement that he is responsible because they believe that this lets them
off the hook. No doubt, the BOD will provide a big severance package to
LaPierre for his cooperation.
    The fact is that while the Executive Vice President (EVP) can execute
contracts etc., he cannot buy buildings. The EVP answers to and is guided
by the BOD. Wayne LaPierre did not, without the approval of the BOD, buy
the new building, spend $100 million on the useless membership promotion
campaign nor authorize unlimited spending by ILA. Since almost everything
that the EVP does has budget constraints and the BOD has to approve the
budget. Everything that LaPierre has done had the approval of the BOD. The
BOD simply cannot absolve themselves of blame by having LaPierre claim
responsibility!
    Mentioned by LaPierre as some of the items responsible for the
financial mess were:
. Purchase of the new building
. Purchase of all new furnishings for the new building
. Big raises for the top brass
. Issuing no-bid contracts
. Unlimited spending by ILA

    Although not mentioned specifically, the biggest boondoggle of all,
was the no-bid contract that resulted in the spending of over $100 million
to increase membership by 1 million members, only to see the policies of
the "NEW NRA" drive away more than a million members in just one year. The
hierarchy will deny the previous statement but the 2.8 million members they
are now claiming include hundreds of thousands of members from whom no
income was derived. "Family Members", "Trial Members", expired memberships
and any other conceivable name is added to the membership list to make it
appear that NRA is bigger than it is. In other words, a lie.

    The biggest no-bid contract that LaPierre signed went to Brad O'Leary,
a long time &friend of Wayne's. That contract was the one responsible for
the expenditure of the $100 million spent for membership solicitation.
LaPierre is apparently still taking care of his &friend. In anticipation of
his leaving, LaPierre reportedly gave O'Leary a five year contract for the
fund raising for ILA and the Political Victory Fund. A five year contract
when Wayne knew that he would be leaving? Either very dumb or unethical. Of
course, the bankruptcy court can, and undoubtedly would, cancel all such
contracts.
    One of the worst mistakes made by LaPierre was the purge of long-term
loyal, dedicated staffers. Those employees were replaced by "business people
who would make the NRA into a real business." LaPierre then brought in
people with absolutely no training, background or experience in the adminis-
tration of an association nor loyalty to NRA. The new people were brought
in at double the pay of the people they replaced. Most of those staffers
who were supposed to work miracles for NRA are now gone. Their inexperience
and lack of common sense led them to make just about every possible mistake.
Members' needs were sacrificed to bring in another dollar. The result of
their mismanagement (in addition to the loss of many legislative fights
in Congress) was the loss of about a million members. So LaPierre has his
share of blame for the failures at NRA but no way can he be the sole culprit.
    When a reporter contacted some NRA Directors to confirm the firings and
the dire financial condition of NRA, two of the directors said that they were
surprised to hear the financial news. WHAT? At each meeting of the BOD, each
director is given a copy of the NRA financial statements. It doesn't take a
genius to understand that when your debts exceed your assets by $44 million,
there is a problem! Too, most of the directors read my newsletters and the
publications of some of the state associations. For more than four years, we
have been telling the members of the truth of NRA's financial troubles. Many
of the directors were elected only after promising to vote on NRA policies as
Neal Knox directs. So there is no need for those people to read the financial
reports. Why clutter their minds when in the end, they will just vote the way
that Knox wants.

WATCH FOR ACKERMAN-McQUEEN (A-M), NRA's long time public relations firm,
to now handle membership promotion. A-M has no experience or background in
membership solicitation so they have hired a copywriter from O'Leary who has
experience working on NRA membership promotion, although this copywriter's
skills are suspect in light of the cost of recent years' "success" of NRA
membership promotion. I think that it is logical to assume that LaPierre has
given or will give a long-term contract to A-M, as he did with O'Leary.



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA Strikes Again!    2/2
Date: 15 Oct 1996 08:13:00 -0700


THE STAFF FIRINGS were much greater than has so-far been announced. The total
firings are in excess of 100, according to a letter written by one of the
laid-off staffers. Or August 26, a press  release was issued wherein LaPierre
said "To meet the growing demand for the many programs of NRA, we must
continue to empower our members to deliver safety and education programs..."
(emphasis added). Of course when you have fired 25% of your staff, where else
would you get the people to carry out your programs? But this is at a time
when the emphasis of the "NEW NRA" has been directed toward legislative
activity, resulting in dissatisfaction by the moderate and conservative
majority of members, so volunteerism has greatly diminished. Needless to say,
morale among the remaining staff is at an all time low.

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE is quoted as saying that confidence in
financial information from staff is very low. And there is probably good
reason. An unconfirmed story widely circulated is that prior to the meeting
of the BOD, a division manager was told to increase his division's income
report by $1 million. When he replied that he couldn't support that increase
if questioned, he was told "Don't worry about it." The question arises as to
who was to be fooled by this false report of income. Two possibilities come
to mind:
. The BOD. To mislead the BOD into thinking that the financial picture was
  not as bad as it is.
. The mortgage holder for the new building. A very large reserve was required
  to be maintained to assure protection to the lender. Maybe that reserve was
  dipped into and the required amount simply is no longer there.
Of course this can't be confirmed by NRA sources but the story is too wide-
spread not to have some credibility. Knowledge of NRA operations leads to
the conclusion that the Membership Division was the one directed to add the
$1 million to his income report. That is the only division with sufficient
income to provide any concealment of the additional dollars. Too, the 2.8
million members now claimed could be used to conceal the fact that the added
$1 million does not exist. The claimed 2.8 million members includes "Family
Members" from whom no income is derived. I am told that it also includes
thousands of "phantom" members. As I reported in an earlier letter, one man
and his wife have 5 NRA membership numbers between them and only two of those
numbers are valid. The "Trial Memberships" and other expired memberships may
still be on the member rolls. Another possibility is that they inflated the
numbers just as the income from that division was inflated.

NRA MEMBERSHIP NOW AT 2.8 MILLION? Isn't it interesting that until just a few
weeks ago NRA officials were still claiming that membership was 3 million.
Now, they are claiming that 2.8 million members represents growth. Can we
ever get the truth from the NRA leaders? It really takes some intelligence
(or at least consistency) to be successful at telling lies.

THE NRA TV SHOW IS TO BE CANCELED. The show is already in reruns since July
30. I announced the demise of that show in an earlier letter.

IS THE NEW NRA BUILDING FOR RENT? The "South Tower" of the NRA building is
to be (or has already been) vacated so that this space can be leased out.
It is hoped that the money from that lease will cover the payroll.

NRA'S COMPUTER PROCESSING will be farmed out to an outside vendor. We don't
know at this time the extent of that move. It could be membership, financial,
or other data processing tasks. One also has to wonder who will get the
contract for that processing. Is it another "sweetheart deal" contract given
to a "friend"  Or~, maybe the computer center was located in the south tower.
Remember when we were told that one reason for the purchase of the new
building was to have space to consolidate all the NRA functions? Publications
and Data Processing were then in leased spaces away from the old NRA
headquarters building. Did the NRA ever really need the new building?

HAS THE NEW NRA" HAS DONE ANYTHING RIGHT? Well, not much. Communications
through the Internet and FaxAlerts is a great improvement. The "Grass Roots"
program is good except it should have been developed through the state
associations, not as a virtual replacement for the state affiliates.

SO WHAT IS TO BECOME OF NRA? I believe that reorganization through replacing
incompetent leadership would take more time than is left to NRA. Bankruptcy
may be the only salvation. You may recall reading about, in older times,
when a barn or granary became so infested with rats that it was impossible
to rid the structure of them. Often, the barn was burned to get rid of the
rats. That's seems to be where NRA is now. The financial situation is so
bad that there probably is not time enough left to make the leadership and
policy changes that would attract enough members, and income, to save the
organization. Under bankruptcy, drastic changes could be made rapidly.
Competent officers and BOD members would be required if NRA is to survive.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP SAVE NRA? Although NRA is probably too far gone
to save through modification of the BOD, voting members must send in their
ballot. The controlling crowd has only about 5% of the voting membership but
since they all vote, they control. When you vote you must be very careful not
to vote for the reelection of those who have caused the troubles. Candidates
recommended by the Nominating Committee will, with the possible exception
of one or two candidates, be already committed to Knox and the continuation
of Knox's policies that got NRA into this mess in the first place.

WRITE TO ONE OR ALL THE NRA DIRECTORS (they are listed on page 4 of the
September, 1996 issue of your NRA magazine) and demand that the policies
of the "NEW NRA" that brought your association to the brink of disaster be
abandoned. Demand that policies of the NRA be in keeping with the wishes
of the majority of members not just the zealot minority. I can almost
guarantee that you will not receive an answer or even an acknowledgement,
but you can at least let them know how you feel.

REPRODUCE THIS LETTER AND PASS IT ON to every NRA member that you know. NRA
will survive if changes are made by the time of the next election.

I HAVE BEEN ASKED by several people why I changed the format of the news-
letter. In the beginning, these letters went only to the presidents of the
state associations. Each letter was personally addressed and signed. But as
word of the newsletter spread, more and more people wanted copies. Soon,
there were many more copies being sent than letters to the state association
presidents. So it is just quicker and easier to print a single newsletter
that goes to everyone. As to my name not appearing on the new format, I
guess that I just thought that everybody knew who was publishing the letter
and my name was not needed. I certainly was not trying to hide the source
of the letter. My name will be affixed to each letter in the future.
Dave Edmondson


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Letter to Salt Lake Tribune
Date: 16 Oct 1996 02:36:17 -0600


                            October 14, 1996



Public Forum
The Salt Lake Tribune

    I realize the purpose of the editorial page is to allow the Tribune's
editorial staff to express opinions.  But is it really too much to expect
informed opinions?
    Your editorial "Forty Thousand" (Oct. 4) is excellent emotional propaganda,
but it fails to present any factual information that would allow readers to
truly understand the issue.  Yes, it is true that roughly 40,000 Americans
die each year
of gunshot wounds.  But it is also true that roughly 400,000 Americans
probably save their life or that of someone else by the defensive use of
firearms each year.  That's right: for every life lost to a firearm, 9-10
lives are saved by firearms, not including police, military or security
officer use.  Isn't it your obligation to the public to present these facts
as well?
    What other "developed nations" refuse to see in their self-righteous
condemnation of the American gun culture, is that gun control is murder, and
gun control is genocide. Fifty-five million people were murdered in
cold-blooded acts of genocide during this century alone, and each genocidal
government preceded its actions by enacting strict gun control laws. If
that's any measure of what developed nations call "civilized behavior", I'll
keep my gun, thank you.
    As a woman and a physician, I can safely say that the Lautenberg bill is
bad legislation.  Since both partners are often charged in domestic violence
disputes, it effectively prevents battered women from obtaining the safest
and most reliable form of self defense, a gun.  It also deprives people of a
fundamental, enumerated, constitutional right for the commission of a mere
misdemeanor or even an attempted misdemeanor; trials and convictions are not
necessary.  President Clinton and Sen. Lautenberg should be thoroughly
ashamed of this blatant attempt to win votes at the cost of subverting
justice.  I certainly do not condone domestic, or any other, violent
behavior.  Anyone convicted of a felonious assault, domestic or otherwise,
should lose their right to own firearms.  And violent felonies should not be
allowed to be plea-bargained down to misdemeanors.  That would be true justice.
    Our president and legislators conveniently ignore the fact that the
majority of those forty thousand deaths were suicides.  Suicidal people who
have no access to a gun almost always choose another effective method.  Gun
control does not prevent suicide.  If our government put its energy into
educating the public and physicians about depression, and funded legitimate
research on mental illness instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on fraudulent
gun research, they would certainly save far more lives than they ever will
with gun control.
    As a proud member of America's law-abiding, safety-minded, and responsible
gun culture, I take great offense at your attempt to place the blame for
these tragic deaths at my feet.  The real culprits are our president, our
legislators, criminals, our failed criminal justice system, our failed
mental health system, our ostrich-like refusal to teach gun safety to our
youth, and the media which aid and abet this mindless, but deadly,
propaganda.  Gun control is murder, and those who support
it are murderers.

Sarah Thompson, M.D.




Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Thomas Jefferson - Atlantic Monthly's revisionism
Date: 17 Oct 1996 14:49:08 -0600

>Return-Path: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail]
>Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 15:26:27 -0400

>Subject: Thomas Jefferson - Atlantic Monthly's revisionism
>
>October 17, 1996
>
>Mr. William Whitworth
>Editor
>The Atlantic Monthly
>77 N. Washington Street
>Boston MA 02114
>["We don't give out our FAX number," says the secretary]
>
>Re: O'Brien CC. "Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist." October 1996
>
>Dear Mr. Whitworth,
>
>Judging from the apparent willingness of so many Americans to cast aside
>Liberty and individual responsibility for a velvet-manacled place at the
>trough, it hardly seems necessary for self-professed revisionists to
>disparage freedom-loving "radicals" like Thomas Jefferson to advance
>America's contemporary romance with the leviathan state.  By turning icons
>into clay do they hope to assuage their consciences or destroy America's
>troublesome collective memory of Freedom?  How convenient it would be if we
>would forget that, at the time of their revolt, the Colonists had much more
>Freedom and far lower taxes than we have today.
>
>Warrantless search and seizure, asset forfeiture without trial, censorship on
>the Internet that confines adults to fare suitable for children, secret
>trials, anonymous witnesses, random wiretaps, the "first strike" use of
>tanks, helicopter gunships, poison gas, and the illegal use of military
>SpecOps troops against 90 innocent men, women, and children, vanquished
>property rights, ballot fraud and managed political speech that makes
>elections increasingly irrelevant, Oklahoma City's Reichstag Fire,
>Presidential Directives that  rule by decree, the incremental disarmament of
>our conquered people to advance the other abominations of Caesar's latest
>campaign because certainly Caesar and his Praetorian Guard must be made safe
>from his plebian subjects -- these are not radical actions; these are the
>standard fare of rulers throughout history.  Over a third of a billion people
>have died at the hands of government in this century, 65 million of them
>murdered by their own governments after first being disarmed.
>
>Yes, indeed, Jefferson's love of Liberty and his insistence on a
>constitutional republic with a limited federal government was - and is today
>- a radical dream.  For over 50 years the Lamp of Liberty that He and the
>Framers lighted has been flickering and is now nearly extinguished, replaced
>by the flickering in vacant eyes of Monday Night Football on cable TV.  May
>we wake from this nightmare into Jefferson's dream, but it sadly appears that
>wishing will not be sufficient.  Unfortunately, our rapacious, capricious,
>and relentless rulers seem bent on ensuring that the Tree of Liberty is soon
>fertilized.  If so, then so be it -- for Liberty has a price worth paying.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Edgar A. Suter MD
>National Chair
>Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research Inc.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson - Atlantic Monthly's revisionism
Date: 17 Oct 1996 16:08:09 -0600

Sarah Thompson wrote:
>
> From: [e-mail]
> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 15:26:27 -0400
[...snip...]
> Unfortunately, our rapacious, capricious, and relentless rulers
> seem bent on ensuring that the Tree of Liberty is soon fertilized.
> If so, then so be it -- for Liberty has a price worth paying.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Edgar A. Suter MD
> National Chair
> Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research Inc.

This is comforting.  Thank you Ed.

Along this line of reasoning, I found this in today's paper.


                         Thursday, October 17, 1996
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                     LAWMAKERS HAVE TOUGH WORDS FOR BLM


        BY MIKE GORRELL
        THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

           Legislators were rebellious during a Wednesday
        briefing on a state lawsuit to stop the U.S. Bureau of Land
        Management (BLM) from doing a ``re-inventory'' of its Utah
        lands with wilderness potential.

           ``I'm almost ready to get the Boston Tea Party
        started again,'' said Rep. Evan Olsen, R-Young Ward, after
        being informed that Utah is the only state where the BLM is
        taking a second look at wilderness recommendations.

           Added Rep. Brad Johnson, R-Aurora: ``I'm ready to
        fix bayonets,'' whose points seemingly would be aimed at
        BLM officials.

[...snip...]

           ``Do you have anything to say in defense of your
        boss?'' Johnson asked of acting state BLM director Bill
        Lamb.

           After Lamb answered diplomatically, Stewart said,
        ``Bill's hands are clean.''

           To which Johnson replied: ``I think so, too. If
        it was anybody else, they'd hang him.''




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

        c 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] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: UK Bans Private Handguns
Date: 17 Oct 1996 17:03:00 -0700


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

   I didn't see any discussion of this on the list but it's being heavily
covered on our local news.  The English Home Secretary has announced that
private ownership of centre fire handgun will be banned.  The remaining .22
rimfire handguns must be kept at a gun club under stringent security.  There
will be no handguns allowed in private homes!  This is a result of the
inquiry into the Dunblane, Scotland school killings. It should be noted that
the recommendations of the inquiry were only for the central repository
storage conditions - it DID NOT recommend the total banning of centrefire
handguns.
   I can imagine what our Australian politicians are going to do with this
move.  Our handguns will be the next to go.  I was expecting such a move
after the Sydney Olympics but it may now come sooner.  I thought the list
membership should be aware of this move.  Discussion at our local pistol
club meeting last night revolved around our new gun laws (Australia wide).
We appear to have no recourse whatsoever.  The frightening thing is that the
government and media have managed to successfully isolate gun owners from
the general population so there is no support for us.  I add this point as a
warning.  From what I read on the list, the signs of it happening in the US
are there.  There can be no democracy if the voting public do NOT know the
facts about an issue.


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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: utah code question
Date: 18 Oct 1996 09:42:58 -0600


Hi all

I thought I remembered that sporting event/arenas were specifically
mentioned in the Utah code as being off limits to all firearms, even
CCW.  Does this ring any bells with anyone?  I can't find it which
is leading me to believe that I'm trying to prove a negative.

Will

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Economics of Crime
Date: 18 Oct 1996 11:16:12 -0600


>From: Hugh Bayless <[e-mail]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Economics of Crime
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>
>For those who may not have read David Friedman's latest book, "Hidden
Order: the
>Economics of Everyday Life," he has an extremely interesting chapter on The
>Economics of Crime.  While he does not appear to be a particular supporter of
>"gun rights," his arguments on the economics of crime certainly support such
>rights.
>
>Chapter 20 says, in part:  "The economic approach to crime starts from one
>simple assumption: Criminals are rational.  A burglar burgles for the same
>reason I teach economics -- because he finds it a more attractive profession
>than any other.  The obvious conclusion is that the way to reduce burglary --
>whether as a legislator or a homeowner -- is by raising the costs of the
>burglar's profession or reducing its benefits.
>     "... Opponents [to gun contrrol] argue that gun control, by disarming
>potential victims makes it more difficult for them to protect themselves.
>Supporters reply that since criminals are more experienced in violence than
>victims, the odds in an armed confrontation are with the criminal.  This is
>probably true, but it is almost entirelky irrelevant to the argument.
>     "Suppose one little old lady in ten carries a gun.  Suppose that one
in ten
>of these, if attacked by a mugger, succeeds in killing the mugger instead of
>being killed by him -- or shooting herself in the foot.  On average, the
mugger
>is much more likely to win the encounter than the little old lady.  But --
also
>on average -- every hundred muggings produce one dead mugger.  At those odds,
>mugging is an unprofitable business -- not many little old ladies carry enough
>money to justify one chance in a hundred of being killed getting it.  The
number
>of muggers declines drasticaly, not because they have all been killed but that
>because they have, rationally, sought safer professions."
>
>David Friedman is a professor of law and economics at Santa Clara
University and
>the son of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman.  While the rest of the book is
>devoted to non-firearms subjects, it is certainly well worth reading.
>
>Hugh
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAXALERT: 1996 Political Preference Charts On The Way
Date: 19 Oct 1996 18:42:47 -0600

FYI only.  The views expressed here are those of the NRA and not me, except
where
noted. - Sarah


>                        NRA-ILA FAX ALERT
>           11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA  22030
>    Phone: [phone] * Fax: [phone] * [e-mail]
>Vol. 3, No. 45                                           10/18/96

>BRADY STARS IN CLINTON COMMERCIALS:  Anti-gun activist James
>Brady will star in a new advertisement for Bill Clinton's re-
>election campaign touting the president's "integrity." In the
>commercial, Brady praises Clinton for helping to pass the Brady
>Bill, and cites the president's anti-Second Amendment activism as
>a sign of his character.  According to the Associated Press, the
>goal of the commercial is to insulate Clinton against the
>criticism of Republican candidate Bob Dole. Members: If you see
>any similar commercials in your area for Bill Clinton or any
>candidate for office, please contact NRA-ILA Grassroots 1-800-392-8683.
        With no offense intended to the very unfortunate Mr. Brady, can
one infer from this that Clinton could find no one mentally competent to
endorse him? -ST

>ATTENTION UTAH:  A*-rated Utah State Rep. David Bresnahan, an NRA
>member and Right-to-Carry permit holder -- displayed courage in
>pursuing fleeing criminals and helping facilitate an arrest near
>Salt Lake City October 4.  While the police praised him, an
>Assistant D.A. is pressing charges for illegal discharge of a
>firearm.  We think the charges are superfluous, politically
>motivated and just plain wrong.  Utahns are calling District
>Attorney Neal Gunnerson and urging him to instruct Asst. D.A. Bud
>Ellet to drop these charges.  If you would like to do the same,
>please call DA Gunnerson at 801-468-3422.
        This is a tough one.  Rep. Bresnahan is one of our most tireless
allies in the fight for gun rights.  Yet what he did does apparently
violate the law, as well as the rules of gun safety.  On the mitigating
side, what he did was effective at capturing real criminals.  BOTH of the
above need to be emphasized.  Perhaps now our legislators will realize
the endless legal dilemmas they've created for those who carry concealed,
and pass some appropriate legislation.  Maybe they could even get DPS to
make copies of the law available for a small fee to anyone applying for
or receiving a CCW.  All ideas and suggestions are welcome. -ST

>MAKE SURE YOUR VOTE COUNTS THIS ELECTION DAY: If you know you
>will not be able to make it to the polls on Election Day, you can
>make sure your vote is counted by casting an absentee ballot.
>Absentee voting is quick and easy - and it's the only way to get
>your ballot to the polls when you can't get there yourself!  For
>information on voting absentee in your state, please call 1-800-VOTE-NRA.
>
>CAMPAIGN EVENT SCHEDULE: Many races between strong pro-gun
>candidates and their anti-gun opponents are coming right down to
>the wire this year!  Attending a candidate meeting or fundraiser
>is a great way for you to support candidates who support our
>freedoms AND meet with leaders of the pro-Second Amendment
>community.
>
>Upcoming events include:

>Utah: Come meet the candidates on Monday and Tuesday, October 21
>and 22.  On Monday night, join us at the Hunter Library in West
>Valley City from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and on October 22 at the
>Weber State Student Service Center, Room 154, from 7:00 p.m. to
>8:30 p.m.  For information, please call 1-800-868-3672.
        Does anyone know WHICH candidates will be there? -ST

>=+=+=+=+
>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


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

"The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted."
                Justice Louis Brandeis


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Release: TWA Flight 800
Date: 21 Oct 1996 08:23:20 -0600

Just a reminder (and a shameless partisan plug) that there IS a candidate our
there who respects our rights.

Sarah


>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>HARRY BROWNE, LIBERTARIAN FOR PRESIDENT
>2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
>Washington DC 20037
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>For additional information:
>Bill Winter, Director of Communications
>Phone: [phone] Ext. 226
>Internet: [e-mail]
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>CAMPAIGN NEWS
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 18, 1996
>
>
>Clinton owes apology for using "terrorist" demagoguery
>about TWA Flight 800 to attack Bill of Rights, says Browne
>
>
>        WASHINGTON, DC -- Investigators have found "no
>evidence" that a terrorist bomb or missile destroyed TWA
>Flight 800 -- so President Clinton owes the American public
>an apology for having demagogued that tragic incident into
>an excuse to curtail civil liberties, says his Libertarian
>presidential challenger.
>
>        "President Clinton should admit that he was wrong,
>and should seek the immediate repeal of the unconstitutional
>laws he demanded to fight the fictitious terrorists he
>claimed destroyed Flight 800," said Harry Browne, the
>Libertarian candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.
>
>        "Clinton should also return to the taxpayers the $1
>billion Congress appropriated to fight this kind of
>non-terrorist incident. And he should apologize to the
>families of the people who died on Flight 800 -- and beg
>their forgiveness for using the innocent victims of a
>mechanical malfunction as human props in his effort to
>terrorize the Bill of Rights," said Browne.
>
>        After TWA Flight 800 exploded in a fireball off
>Long Island on June 17, Clinton suggested that terrorists
>were to blame and proposed new laws to fight what he called
>"the modern equivalent of the Soviet threat during the Cold
>War." He also demanded $1.1 billion in new spending to
>battle the fictitious terrorists, including $10 million
>to build a computer system to monitor airline passengers
>with "suspicious" travel patterns.
>
>        Congress responded to some of his demands, passing
>legislation giving the government the power to conduct
>secret hearings to deport foreigners, to arbitrarily
>designate groups as "terrorist," and to study expanded
>wiretapping technologies. Congress also appropriated $1
>billion to "fight terrorism."
>
>        However, air safety investigators yesterday said
>the evidence that terrorists destroyed the plane is "very,
>very small," and the tragedy was almost certainly caused
>by a mechanical malfunction and an explosion in the fuel
>tank.
>
>        "Despite all Clinton's demagoguery, this incident
>wasn't the work of terrorists -- the modern hobgoblins
>that politicians use to scare us into giving up our
>precious liberties. Instead, it was a tragic fluke
>accident," said Browne. "But Bill Clinton's irresponsible
>actions have turned Flight 800 from a personal tragedy into
>a political tragedy for America.
>
>        "The aftermath of any personal tragedy is that we
>mourn for our lost friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens.
>But the aftermath of a politically exploited tragedy is
>that we must mourn for our lost liberties, and mourn the
>Bill of Rights, which has become a punching bag for
>power-hungry politicians," he said.
>
>        "Bill Clinton shouldn't be allowed to get away
>with it this time. He was wrong -- wrong about the
>terrorists blowing up Flight 800, wrong about the civil
>liberties he repealed, and wrong about the tax dollars he's
>wasting. He owes America an apology," said Browne.
>
>        Browne was the only presidential candidate to
>consistently oppose every so-called "anti-terrorist"
>proposal from the White House and Congressional Republicans
>-- including roving wiretaps, no-warrant wiretaps, extending
>RICO laws to terrorists, Internet censorship, government-
>mandated taggants, and efforts to weaken computer privacy.
>
>--
>Harry Browne for President                        [e-mail]
>http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/                            voice: 202-333-0008
>2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037      fax: [phone]


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: FAXALERT: 1996 Political Preference Charts On The Way
Date: 21 Oct 1996 09:54:14 -0600


On Sat, 19 Oct 1996,  Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:


[snip Bresnahan story]

>        This is a tough one.  Rep. Bresnahan is one of our most tireless
>allies in the fight for gun rights.  Yet what he did does apparently
>violate the law, as well as the rules of gun safety.  On the mitigating
>side, what he did was effective at capturing real criminals.  BOTH of the
>above need to be emphasized.  Perhaps now our legislators will realize
>the endless legal dilemmas they've created for those who carry concealed,
>and pass some appropriate legislation.  Maybe they could even get DPS to
>make copies of the law available for a small fee to anyone applying for
>or receiving a CCW.  All ideas and suggestions are welcome. -ST

I'll leave it to someone else to argue about whether or not firing a
hangun into soft soil really violates gun safety rules.  Heaven knows
I've fired a lot of rounds into same without a problem.  On the legal
side of things, from my non-legal (IE not a lawyer) reading of things,
it does appear he broke the law in firing a "warning shot".  He may
also have broken the law by unconcealing his weapon when his life
wasn't in dire jeapordy.  Had he been carrying openly (unloaded) he
would not have had the problem with the second part.  This is but one
problem with our mother-may-I permit system.

The warning shot being illegal is quite troubling.  It forces people
into an all or nothing situation.  Either don't use the gun at all
(I'm guessing even threating to use it could be construed as assault)
or else shoot to kill.  It is not too tough to imagine where a warning
shot could be an effective and safe way to end a confrontation that
could potentially become life endangering before it got to point.  The
reps experience may be one example.  While living outside of Cedar
City, we would sometimes get dogs or other animals coming onto the
property at night and disturbing the cattle.  A loud gun fired into
soft dirt seemed to scare away any such animals and I could go back to
sleep.  Of course, if it had turned out to be a human prowler rather
than an animal, I'd probably be in violation of the law.  Go figure.

In any case, he should probably be tried, since I'm guessing you or
I would be.  It may give him reason to consider changing the law.
Fully informed jury, of course.  ;)

--

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.

"Never turn your back on a threatened danger and try to run away from
 it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it
 promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.
 Never run away from anything. Never!" -- Winston Churchill

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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FAXALERT: 1996 Political Preference Charts On The Way
Date: 21 Oct 1996 11:16:49 -0600

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Oct 1996,  Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:
>
> [snip Bresnahan story]
>
> >        This is a tough one.  Rep. Bresnahan is one of our most tireless
> >allies in the fight for gun rights.  Yet what he did does apparently
> >violate the law, as well as the rules of gun safety.  On the mitigating
> >side, what he did was effective at capturing real criminals.  BOTH of the
> >above need to be emphasized.  Perhaps now our legislators will realize
> >the endless legal dilemmas they've created for those who carry concealed,
> >and pass some appropriate legislation.  Maybe they could even get DPS to
> >make copies of the law available for a small fee to anyone applying for
> >or receiving a CCW.  All ideas and suggestions are welcome. -ST
>
> I'll leave it to someone else to argue about whether or not firing a
> hangun into soft soil really violates gun safety rules.  Heaven knows
> I've fired a lot of rounds into same without a problem.  On the legal
> side of things, from my non-legal (IE not a lawyer) reading of things,
> it does appear he broke the law in firing a "warning shot".  He may
> also have broken the law by unconcealing his weapon when his life
> wasn't in dire jeapordy.  Had he been carrying openly (unloaded) he
> would not have had the problem with the second part.  This is but one
> problem with our mother-may-I permit system.
>
> The warning shot being illegal is quite troubling.  It forces people
> into an all or nothing situation.  Either don't use the gun at all
> (I'm guessing even threating to use it could be construed as assault)
> or else shoot to kill.  It is not too tough to imagine where a warning
> shot could be an effective and safe way to end a confrontation that
> could potentially become life endangering before it got to point.  The
> reps experience may be one example.  While living outside of Cedar
> City, we would sometimes get dogs or other animals coming onto the
> property at night and disturbing the cattle.  A loud gun fired into
> soft dirt seemed to scare away any such animals and I could go back to
> sleep.  Of course, if it had turned out to be a human prowler rather
> than an animal, I'd probably be in violation of the law.  Go figure.
>
> In any case, he should probably be tried, since I'm guessing you or
> I would be.  It may give him reason to consider changing the law.
> Fully informed jury, of course.  ;)
>

The legality of the situation....

My argument would be to read the following from the Utah Const.
Of course, I know that reading a simple document and interpreting
it to mean what it says is somewhat out of favor in today's
climate, but...what can I say, I'm a relic, I guess.  :-\

                 ARTICLE I.  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Sec. 1. [Inherent and Inalienable Rights.]

All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and
defend their lives and liberties; to acquire,

possess and protect property;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to worship according to the dictates of their
consciences; to assemble peaceably, protest against wrongs, and
petition for redress of grievances; to communicate freely their
thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that
right.
                                                            1896
And Furthermore......

If it's noise theyre concerned about when they made the
"no discahrge of a firearm" law, why did they take away
the ability to buy a suppressor?  How many people are
deaf, or have seriously damaged hearing as a result of
our govt's murderous policies?  Rant...Rant....

--
Will Thompson
You know, there's this tree in my yard which is dying a slow
  death.  It is badly in need of some sort of fertilisation.
I've named it "the liberty tree".

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: FAXALERT: 1996 Political Preference Charts On The Way
Date: 21 Oct 1996 12:40:49 -0600


On Mon, 21 Oct 1996,  WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]> posted:

>The legality of the situation....
>
>My argument would be to read the following from the Utah Const.
>Of course, I know that reading a simple document and interpreting
>it to mean what it says is somewhat out of favor in today's
>climate, but...what can I say, I'm a relic, I guess.  :-\
>

Sure, quote the State Constitution on me.  ;)  If it were that
simple, we would even need a permit to CCW.  :)

--

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.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke

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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FAXALERT: 1996 Political Preference Charts On The Way
Date: 21 Oct 1996 14:54:40 -0600

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 1996,  WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]> posted:
>
> >The legality of the situation....
> >
> >My argument would be to read the following from the Utah Const.
>
> Sure, quote the State Constitution on me.  ;)

Pesky little piece of paper, that, isn't it?

Now - How do we "force" our elected officials to read and
understand it?  And....would that force violate Lib.
principles?
--
Will Thompson
Who is running long tests today and has too much opportunity
to waste time with quips.

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

From: Glenn Clapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FAXALERT: 1996 Political Preference Charts On The Way
Date: 21 Oct 1996 15:59:55 -0600

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Oct 1996,  Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:
>
> [snip Bresnahan story]
>
> >        This is a tough one.  Rep. Bresnahan is one of our most tireless
> >allies in the fight for gun rights.  Yet what he did does apparently
> >violate the law, as well as the rules of gun safety.  On the mitigating
> >side, what he did was effective at capturing real criminals.  BOTH of the
> >above need to be emphasized.  Perhaps now our legislators will realize
> >the endless legal dilemmas they've created for those who carry concealed,
> >and pass some appropriate legislation.  Maybe they could even get DPS to
> >make copies of the law available for a small fee to anyone applying for
> >or receiving a CCW.  All ideas and suggestions are welcome. -ST

>
> In any case, he should probably be tried, since I'm guessing you or
> I would be.  It may give him reason to consider changing the law.
> Fully informed jury, of course.  ;)
>

Yes, he broke the law.  Warning shots are not only illegal but a bad
idea.
If you are in a position where you need to employ deadly force, then you
shoot.  In the case of a fleeing felon, you are most certainly not in
danger, and your duty is to identify and testify.  In any CCW training
course, the instructor should clearly discuss these issues.

It is always a good idea to carry pepper-spray so you have a non-deadly
alternative.  For example, two muggers approach you (you are carrying).
They have no weapon.  If you draw down on them, your butt is in a sling
for brandishing and even assault with a deadly weapon.  If you don't,
and
they roll you and get your gun... well.  However, if you can hose 'em
down
with a dose of pepper and walk away, its all over.  Naturally you can
draw down if they have a weapon.  I find this rather interesting when
you
consider most victims killed are killed by hands and feet!

As far as the DA is concerned and pressing charges against Bresnahan, I
wonder
what kind of message the DA's office is trying to send.  I guess it is
OK
to run down a fleeing felon in a van and kill him, but it is not OK to
fire
a warning shot.  Gentlemen!  Start your engines.

Glenn

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: Deseret News Letter
Date: 21 Oct 1996 16:12:07 -0600

This is from today's Deseret News.  Does anyone know anything about this=20
survey or what questions were asked?  Was it published in the paper?
Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Sarah


>http://www.desnews.com/edt/$1sgfjna.htm
>
>>  [Deseret News Web Edition]
>>=20
>>  To the editor: Firearms survey was misleading
>>=20
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>=20
>>  I recently participated in a survey you distributed regarding
>>  carrying concealed firearms. The questions were very misleading,
>>  and I wonder if the person or people formulating them thought them
>>  out. The questions generally asked if the state should permit
>>  churches or private companies to prohibit persons carrying
>>  concealed firearms legally from entering their property.
>>=20
>>  You should be aware that the state has no authority to tell the
>>  owners of private property how to operate their business. If
>>  churches or private businesses decide to regulate how a person
>>  dresses or what they have in their pocket or under their clothes,
>>  when on their property, they would obviously incur the
>>  responsibility of installing detection equipment and also the
>>  responsibility on protection of all people on their property.
>>=20
>>  This question was raised by Doug Bodrero, commissioner of public
>>  safety, at a special legislative hearing that I attended, and it
>>  was considered inappropriate by the majority of those attending.
>>  The Deseret News then grabbed the ball and asked a number of
>>  organizations how they felt about it. The LDS Church said it didn't
>>  feel it was necessary for people to bring guns to church as that is
>>  not the reason people go there.
>>=20
>>  There are a few people who are determined that no one should have
>>  guns even though the right to protect one's self is a God-given
>>  right guaranteed by both the U.S. and Utah constitutions. I think
>>  you could do the community a great service if you protect the
>>  Constitution and the rights it guarantees and stop trying to
>>  whittle away those rights. You might serve the people well if you
>>  become a champion of their rights and a champion for the punishment
>>  of anyone who commits an act that hurts or infringes the right of
>>  someone else.
>>=20
>>  It is rather demeaning for an organization such as yours to engage
>>  in petty politics and support organizations that attempt to
>>  infringe our basic rights under such pretense as this survey is
>>  being accomplished. You should be aware that questions you want
>>  answered with yes or no do not provide an adequate response even
>>  though they may be used to satisfy your purpose. This practice is
>>  common today when organization conduct surveys using slanted
>>  questions that provide answers that can be used to further the
>>  objective of the organization conducting the survey. Your
>>  organization should be above this dishonest practice.
>>=20
>>  Kenneth Nessen
>>  Park City
>=20
>> Published 20 October, =A9 1996 Deseret News Publishing Co.

Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com/welcome.html

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with=20
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of=20
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of=20
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object=20
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and=20
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Supreme Court ruling?
Date: 23 Oct 1996 11:44:16 -0600


>From: [e-mail] (Vin Suprynowicz)
>Subject: Column, Oct. 16
>
>
>
>    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
>    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 16, 1996
>    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
>    What Supreme Court ruling?
>
>    Article I Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power "to
>regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states. ..."
>
>  Part of America's economic success is certainly attributable to the
>historic interstate "free trade zone" thus created.
>
>  But in this century, Congress has taken to pretending these few words
>grant it the power to circumvent virtually any restriction on its power.
>
>  One of the most onerous examples was the enactment by the 1990 Democratic
>congress of so-called federal "gun-free school zones," outlawing by federal
>statute the possession of firearms by otherwise law-abiding Americans
>within a fixed distance of a schoolhouse or school property.
>
>  In one of its finest decision of recent years, the United States Supreme
>Court, ruling in the 1995 case (start ital)U.S. vs. Lopez(end ital), said
>that is nonsense. The "commerce clause" does not permit Washington to
>regulate anything that's bought or sold, anywhere in the land, if the main
>thrust of their action does nothing to promote peaceful, duty-free
>interstate commerce.
>
>  Furious at this minor rebuff to his now-almost-limitless power, and
>demonstrating the scorn in which he holds his own oath to protect and
>defend the Constitution, President Clinton immediately ordered Attorney
>General Janet Reno to "find a way around" the Lopez ruling.
>
>  Now they think they have.
>
>  Wedged into omnibus spending bill HR 3610, signed into law by the
>president late on the night of Sept. 30, is a page called Treasury-Postal
>Section 657.
>
>  Once again, we read that "Before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its
>component parts, ammunition and the raw materials from which they are made
>have considerably moved in interstate commerce," blah blah blah.
>
>  Once again, citing the powers of the "interstate commerce clause," this
>section -- also known as the Kohl amendment -- declares "It shall be
>unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved
>in interstate commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has
>reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone."
>
>  Exemptions are granted if the owner has a government license for the gun,
>if the gun is not loaded and is in a locked container or locked rack, or if
>the owner is "traversing school premises" for the purpose of going hunting,
>providing the hunter has the prior permission of school authorities.
>
>  Gun rights groups like Virginia's Gun Owners of America quickly
>mobilized, warning in an Oct. 3 press release that -- given that
>authorities in the past have extended "school zones" 1000 feet from school
>property -- this bill "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. ... Anyone without a pistol carry license
>driving through a zone with an unloaded firearm, that is not in a locked
>container or rack, faces five years in prison. ..."
>
>  Those who defend the bill told me this week that the old bill did indeed
>establish 1,000-foot "zones" around schools, but that this new "try" bans
>guns only on school property, not neighboring private property.
>
>  However, the language of the law as reported in the Sept. 28
>Congressional Record still uses the term "zones," without any limiting
>definition. And even Capitol Hill supporters admit "It isn't clear" whether
>the law would allow random stops and gun searches of cars driving on city
>streets (start ital)near(end ital) a school.
>
>  Anyway, the point of the 1995 Supreme Court (start ital)Lopez(end ital)
>ruling was that this is not a federal concern. The separate states are
>perfectly capable of outlawing guns on schools grounds if they want to.
>Many already have.
>
>  So, why such a poisonous Halloween present, from a Republican Congress?
>
>  "All of these things were Clinton  administration wants and desires, and
>I think you had a Clinton administration that was willing to shut down the
>government and blame us again," explained a high-level Republican
>congressional staffer who would only speak off the record.
>
>  "So we just had to swallow hard and accept a lot more spending than we
>wanted," the staffer told me. "We've just lost the PR battle over these
>shutdowns."
>
>  One proposed "fix" is to make the budget resolution -- now non-binding --
>into a binding outline which the president would have to sign in April or
>May, making it harder to shovel so much unexamined manure into spending
>bills at the last minute. Congressman Chris Cox has proposed such a
>measure.
>
>  But in the short run, all that can probably be done is to retain
>congressfolk who voted against HR 3610 -- representatives like Barton,
>Coleman, Hall and Stockman of Texas, Barcia of Michigan, Chabot and Kaptur
>of Ohio, and Burr and Coble of North Carolina. That and, of course, to
>defeat gun-grabbers who sneak in such "stealth" assaults on the right of
>law-abiding citizens to carry a loaded firearm for self-defense in the
>first place -- characters like Schumer, Feinstein, Kohl, Kennedy,
>Lautenberg, and Clinton.
>
>Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
>Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail].
>
>***
>
>Vin Suprynowicz          [e-mail]
>
>"Next year in Galt's Gulch!"
>
>
>****************************************************************************
>Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
>Send a blank message to: [e-mail] with the words subscribe FA
>on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
>Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH  43229
>****************************************************************************
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Volunteer for Bresnahan
Date: 24 Oct 1996 10:43:08 -0600

Hi all!
I'm forwarding this at the request of Rep. David Bresnahan who is currently
in a tough battle for re-election, complicated by his recent problems
regarding his use of a concealed firearm.  (His CCW permit has been returned
however!)

Whatever your opinion of the legal mess, Dave has been a tireless fighter for
gun rights in Utah, so please consider helping him out if you can.  Please
respond to [e-mail] if you want to volunteer, and NOT to either
me or the list.  Thanks!

Sarah

>Return-Path: [e-mail]
>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 07:31:07 -0700
>From: David Bresnahan <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: volunteer
>
>Thanks for your willingness to volunteer. The first way you could help
would be to get
>me some volunteers from your organization who could work the phone bank.
Any day you
>can get them. I need to know who and when so we can coordinate the number
of lines and
>who's coming, etc.
>
>Times we need phone bank help: 11/1 5-9p.m., 11/2 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., 11/4
5p.m. - 9
>p.m., 11/5 9 a.m. - 7:30 p.m.
>
>On 11/4 at 9 a.m. in Sandy Dist. Court I will have my hearing. We'd like to
pack the
>court room with supporters. It won't last long, and when it ends I'll have
a news
>conference. Can you help get some of your people there?
>
>On election day, 11/5, we need volunteers to be poll watchers. These are
people who go
>to the polls and copy from their list to our list who has voted already.
THat takes
>about 1 hour to do. THen the list is brought to the phone bank where we
call the ones
>who haven't voted yet. THis is a critical job and we badly need the help.
>
>In addition to the above, I need people to help with honk and waves on 11/4
and
>11/5. We'll have one 7 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. each day and at 4:30 - 6 p.m. The
more the
>merrier.
>
>Thanks so much.
>
>David B
>
>
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

"The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted."
                Justice Louis Brandeis


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: CRIMESTRIKE: Clinton's use of INS
Date: 25 Oct 1996 06:44:09 -0600

>From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
>Subject: CRIMESTRIKE: Clinton's use of INS

>>                        CHECKS & BALANCES
>>                      Crime In Campaign '96
>>
>>                       NRA-ILA CrimeStrike
>>             11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030
>>                          1-800-868-4411
>>
>>       CRITICS CONTEND CLINTON USING INS FOR POLITICAL GAIN
>>
>>* BACKGROUND CHECKS TRASHED . . . Fingerprint cards for 4,000 to
>>6,000 citizen applicants under President Clinton's Citizenship
>>USA program were "tossed in the garbage" instead of being
>>forwarded to the FBI for mandatory criminal background checks,
>>according to Kathy Bell, an office automation clerk for the
>>Immigration and Naturalization Service's Los Angeles branch.  The
>>branch generates more than a quarter of all citizenship
>>applications nationwide.  Source: Los Angeles Times, 10/17
>>
>>* MEET YOUR NEW NEIGHBORS: " RAPISTS,  . . . EVEN MURDERERS"
>>"The Clinton administration's blatant manipulation of the INS for
>>political gain is shocking enough," said California Gov. Pete
>>Wilson (R) this week.  "But  . . . I am even more disturbed at
>>reports that this election-year rush for new voters has weakened
>>the normal background screening required for citizenship and . .
>>.  allowed thousands of criminal aliens including rapists, drug
>>traffickers, gun smugglers and even murderers to slip through
>>the cracks and become U.S. citizens."  Gov. Wilson also wrote
>>Attorney General Reno, urging her to launch a probe into the
>>matter.  Source: Washington Times, 10/22
>>
>>* CRIMINALS OKAYED BY CLINTON ADMINISTRATION . . . Earlier this
>>month, an INS investigator gave congressional testimony that
>>5,000 applicants under President Clinton's Citizenship USA
>>program had criminal records. Nevertheless, they were allowed to
>>become citizens.  Source: Washington Times 9/25
>>
>>* WHY THE RUSH? WHY, ELECTION DAY. . .  Congressional Republicans
>>contend that the Clinton Administration's "rush to
>>naturalization" is a move to boost the number of Democratic
>>voters.  "They are misusing the citizenship process for political
>>purposes, which is not only unethical but illegal," said Rep.
>>Bill Zeliff (R-NH).  Sources: Los Angeles Times, 10/17,
>>Washington Times, 9/25
>>
>>* PRESIDENT CLINTON'S TEXAS TWO-STEP . . . In addition to the
>>controversy surrounding President Clinton's use of the INS in
>>California, Texas Gov. George Bush, Jr. (R) has complained about
>>the administration's decision to redeploy 46 Border Patrol agents
>>from Texas to California.  Although Gov. Bush said he would give,
>>"...the president the benefit of the doubt," he also added that
>>"...it seems awfully suspicious that as we come down the election
>>cycle that there is more emphasis placed on California than
>>Texas."  Source: Los Angeles Times, 10/17
>>
>> =+=+=+=+
>>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

Well don't this just beat it all!  Those of us law-abiding CITIZENS who wish
to get a CCW, and are "privileged" to live in a state which allows them, STILL
have to have FBI background checks to exercise a fundamental RIGHT of
citizenship.
Non-citizen aliens, who have fewer rights, don't.
Makes sense to me!
And makes it clear just whom the administration REALLY fears....

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail/fax)
http://www.therighter.com

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights,
governments are institutied among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it....But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security..."
                The Declaration of Independence


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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: UTAH'S HEAD OF PUBLIC SAFETY IS READY FOR PRIVATE LIFE
Date: 25 Oct 1996 17:25:43 -0600

http://www.sltrib.com/96/oct/25/tci/00411143.htm


#     # #######  #####    ###
 #   #  #       #     #   ###
  # #   #       #         ###
   #    #####    #####     #
   #    #             #
   #    #       #     #   ###
   #    #######  #####    ###

Of course, that's only my opinion....


>                        Friday, October 25, 1996
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         UTAH'S HEAD OF PUBLIC SAFETY IS READY FOR PRIVATE LIFE
>
>  Bodrero -- `a Cop's Cop' -- Plans to Step Down Before the End of the
>                                  Year
>
>
>
>         Doug Bodrero, head of the Utah Department of
>         Public Safety, will resign. (Paul
>         Fraughton/The Salt Lake Tribune)
>
>         BY JOSHUA B. GOOD
>         THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
>
>                   Utah's top cop, Department of Public Safety
>         Commissioner Doug Bodrero, has given notice -- the
>         governor has until Jan. 1 to find a replacement.
>
>                  After eight years overseeing the state's
>         law-enforcement branch, Bodrero, 48, said he wants to
>         quit ``while on top.''
>
>                 ``My blood pressure is good and I want to
>         keep it that way,'' he said Thursday.
>
>                 It is not likely he is giving up the
>         $80,000-a-year job for an unemployment check. Bodrero
>         said he is looking at a couple of jobs, including an
>         opening with a Florida-based research group that
>         recently won a U.S. Department of Justice contract to
>         develop domestic-terrorism training for officers.
>
>                 ``Utah and the West have our share of those
>         problems,'' said Bodrero, who would stay in Utah if
>         given the job.
>
[...snip...]
>         ------------------------------------------------------
>
>         ⌐ 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.

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

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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UTAH'S HEAD OF PUBLIC SAFETY IS READY FOR PRIVATE LIFE
Date: 25 Oct 1996 21:26:29 -0600

mine also, he was a good cop gone bad once he took on being a brueaucrat.

----------
> From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: UTAH'S HEAD OF PUBLIC SAFETY IS READY FOR PRIVATE LIFE
> Date: Friday, October 25, 1996 5:25 PM
>
> http://www.sltrib.com/96/oct/25/tci/00411143.htm
>
>
> #     # #######  #####    ###
>  #   #  #       #     #   ###
>   # #   #       #         ###
>    #    #####    #####     #
>    #    #             #
>    #    #       #     #   ###
>    #    #######  #####    ###
>
> Of course, that's only my opinion....
>
>
> >                        Friday, October 25, 1996
> >  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >         UTAH'S HEAD OF PUBLIC SAFETY IS READY FOR PRIVATE LIFE
> >
> >  Bodrero -- `a Cop's Cop' -- Plans to Step Down Before the End of the
> >                                  Year
> >
> >
> >
> >         Doug Bodrero, head of the Utah Department of
> >         Public Safety, will resign. (Paul
> >         Fraughton/The Salt Lake Tribune)
> >
> >         BY JOSHUA B. GOOD
> >         THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
> >
> >                   Utah's top cop, Department of Public Safety
> >         Commissioner Doug Bodrero, has given notice -- the
> >         governor has until Jan. 1 to find a replacement.
> >
> >                  After eight years overseeing the state's
> >         law-enforcement branch, Bodrero, 48, said he wants to
> >         quit ``while on top.''
> >
> >                 ``My blood pressure is good and I want to
> >         keep it that way,'' he said Thursday.
> >
> >                 It is not likely he is giving up the
> >         $80,000-a-year job for an unemployment check. Bodrero
> >         said he is looking at a couple of jobs, including an
> >         opening with a Florida-based research group that
> >         recently won a U.S. Department of Justice contract to
> >         develop domestic-terrorism training for officers.
> >
> >                 ``Utah and the West have our share of those
> >         problems,'' said Bodrero, who would stay in Utah if
> >         given the job.
> >
> [...snip...]
> >         ------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >         ⌐ 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.
>
> --
> Will Thompson
> Alpha Engineering
> Philips BTS
> Phone [phone]   Fax [phone]  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Letter to Editor
Date: 29 Oct 1996 13:38:48 -0700


I had decided the Trib wasn't going to print this, but it looks like
it finally made its way to the top of their queue.  From today's
Tribune:

--begin letter--

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.

"Not a second to be spent in seeking a fight, long hours devoted to
avoiding it, and, if a fight is imposed upon us, however much time is
necessary to win it."
    -Mark Helprin, "Mr. Clinton's Foreign Policy", WSJ, Aug 12, 96

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Lunch Box Knife Leads to Girl's Arrest
Date: 30 Oct 1996 21:20:00 -0700



                  Lunch Box Knife Leads to Girl's Arrest

   COLUMBIA, S.C. (Associated Press) - An 11-year-old honor student who
packed a knife in her lunch box to cut a piece of chicken has been
suspended and arrested on charges of having a weapon at school.
   "Mom was busy, and Dad had gone to work," Charlotte Kirk said,
explaining why she packed the smooth-edged steak knife with her leftover
peas, chicken, and apple on Oct. 18, 1996.
   After a friend in the cafeteria spotted the knife and suggested it might
not be allowed, Charlotte went to higher authorities, and got a lecture
from a teacher and a guidance counselor.
   "I never took it out of the box," Charlotte said. She tried to eat her
lunch, tearing the chicken with her fingers. "But I didn't eat a lot," she
said. "I was too upset."
   That afternoon, as she and her father, Carl Kirk, were leaving Hopkins
Middle School, a deputy sheriff came, put her in his cruiser and drove away -
not allowing her father to ride along. Charlotte looked out the back window
all the way to the sheriff's office, making sure her dad was still there.
   Supt. Donald J. Henderson said officials followed policy: "When a weapon
is found, the police have to be called."
   Charlotte's lawyer, Ben Wofford, said: "Clearly, in Charlotte's
environment, she doesn't think that a kitchen knife is a weapon."
   Officials decided Friday (10-25-96) not to expel Charlotte after she
showed up at a hearing with her lawyer and a handful of supportive letters
from her counselor and teachers. Charlotte can return to class Monday but
will be on probation, and still faces a hearing in family court.
--
Peter J. Celano    [e-mail]
http://ic.net/~celano   member SPECLUSA    < ><
-------------
Ready to DO something?  Try http://ic.net/~celano/ip/
Always remember - LIPS SINK SHIPS!!!
To subscribe, email [e-mail]
with the message "subscribe ignition-point".
http://ic.net/~celano/ip/