ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9612

Internet Message Format | 1996-12-30 | 288KB

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian Justice: A Dud?
Date: 01 Dec 1996 01:29:51 -0700


>Conservative Consensus
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Events * Analysis * Commentary * Forecasts * Readers' Opinions
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html
>
>NEWS FLASH * V2XC76 * 11.29.1996 * ISSN 1074-245X
>
>(c)1996 by Conservative Consensus.  Copying information below.
>
>                        CANADIAN JUSTICE: A DUD?
>
>THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT refused to release a firearms study paid
>              for with taxpayer money "to evaluate the impact of
>              the 1977 and 1991 legislation pertaining to firearms
>              incidents."  The contract was awarded in December
>              1995 to Prairie Research of Winnipeg, Manitoba.
>              Gary Breitkreuz, a member of parliament, was able to
>              obtain only nine of the 2,019 pages of the study
>              from the Department of Justice.  Mr. Breitkreuz said
>              justice department insiders have told him the study
>              reveals that "the 1977 and 1991 amendments regarding
>              gun control..." have been ineffective.
>_________________________
>
>ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: How is it that citizens allow such
>arrogance and abuse of authority?  Studies conducted in the public
>interest -- paid for with public money -- and the results hidden
>away from public scrutiny!
>
>CAN the bureaucrats in Canada possibly be serious?  A
>representative of the people, who has been elected to the
>parliament, unable to see what the people have paid for?
>
>HOW is it that the public has come to allow corrupt, power-driven
>bureaucrats -- themselves on the public payroll -- to pursue their
>own agenda at public expense?
>=========================
>COPYING: (c)1996 by Conservative Consensus.  All rights reserved.
>Permission granted for PRIVATE, NON-COMMERCIAL USE, provided
>nothing is changed and our headers and trailers remain intact.
>
>GIFT IDEA: Everything you need for the most exciting, unique and
>personal gift you can give that special someone is a printer and
>your PC or Mac!  Visit the "Gifts" section of our Website.
>
>FREE SUBSCRIPTION: Short on time?  Want the straight story, not
>just the media spin?  Send email with SUBSCRIBE as the subject to:
>
>                  [e-mail]
>
>YOU WILL receive 12-15 news releases monthly, extracted from
>Conservative Consensus Journal; no mail from other subscribers.
>We cover events affecting:
>                               ***
>The US Constitution * US & World Security * Political Corruption
>Individual Liberty * World Financial Markets * Religious Freedom
>                               ***
>VISIT OUR WEBSITE:  Get free, downloadable news releases that you
>can copy and pass on to friends.  Frequent updates, back issues,
>and reader comments.  All text!  Visit us with any browser.
>
>              http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html
>
>COMING RELEASES: Japan & Nuclear Weapons * 150 Witnesses saw TWA
>800 hit by Missile * Vast New IRS Authority * Commerce Department
>Corruption * Art Contest: Religious Liberty * Journalists:
>Literally in bed with the government * Real Censorship goes
>Unreported * Citibank and Private Money Laundering * Deadly
>Bacterial Infection in US blood supply * Personal Protection:
>State doesn't have to care * Education Column: Enviromania in the
>Textbooks * Book Review: Handbook on Religious Liberty * Religion
>Column: Same-Sex "Marriage"
>__________________________________________________________________
>
>       Subscribe/Unsubscribe [e-mail]
>   Advertising Rates, news tips, editorial and other questions
>Conservative Consensus * [e-mail] * [e-mail]
>__________________________________________________________________
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
http://www.therighter.com

The Tree of Liberty needs fertilizing.....


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is it better to be safe or free?
Date: 01 Dec 1996 01:29:34 -0700

The following is by Jeffrey Snyder.
It's a MUST READ!!

Sarah

>IS IT BETTER TO BE SAFE OR FREE?  THAT'S THE GUN CONTROL ISSUE
>
>>From the perspective of the Second Amendment, the problem with 28 years of
>federal gun control legislation certainly is that they infringe the right to
>keep and bear arms, and therefore deserve to be struck down.  But there is
>another perspective from which it may be said that the problem with laws like
>the gun-free school zone act, Brady, and the assault weapon ban has
_nothing_ to
>do with guns.
>
>>From this other perspective, gun laws are only a part of a general class
of laws
>that all share the a certain fundamental characteristic, that all spring from a
>common purpose and desire.  If we truly wish to stop legislation like Brady, we
>must grasp the underlying impulse from which this legislation springs.  Unless
>we understand and reject that impulse, and the principle behind this _type_ of
>legislation, the impulse will remain a well-spring for thousands of new laws.
>
>Gun control laws of the last 28 years all share the following fundamental
>characteristic: They outlaw or restrict and activity that is not inherently
>wrong in order to prevent harm before it occurs.
>
>Making Criminals
>
>Stated simply, the laws _create_ crimes in order to _stop_ crimes.
>
>English common law distinguished between crimes that were _malum in se_, or
>morally wrong in themselves, like rape, murder or robbery, and crimes that were
>_malum prohibitum_, wrong because prohibited by a legislative pronouncement.
>
>There is nothing inherently wrong, or evil, with purchasing a firearm across
>state lines, entering a post office while carrying a firearm, purchasing a
>firearm without first enduring a background check, or owning an "assault
weapon"
>or magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.  These activities in
and of
>themselves harm no one; the deed in itself is not immoral.
>
>And so that there's no quibbling here, let;s be clear about this: Ethically
>speaking, there is nothing wrong with a convicted felon purchasing a firearm,
>regardless of whether he has an intention of using it in the commission of a
>crime.  The _act_ of acquiring and owning a firearm harms no one.  Until the
>very moment he commits his crime, the felon is free, like each of us, to choose
>good over evil.
>
>The purchase of a handgun across state lines, or without a background
check, has
>been made _malum prohibitum_, declared wrong.  This is said to be a means of
>preventing the wrong people from obtaining firearms and to keep firearms out of
>certain places.  _To prevent harm before it occurs_.
>
>Law-abiding citizens, such as firearm dealers, are now subject to the risk of
>becoming criminals, not because _their_ conduct or activity harms any one, but
>solely to prevent _other_ persons from perpetrating criminal misdeeds.
>
>Yes, the concept of prevention sounds appealing.  Why _wait_ only to punish
>people _after_ the fact, when the murder or rape has already been committed?
>Then it's _too late?_
>
>What could possibly be wrong with preventing persons from selling firearms to
>convicted felons?  Why should society knowingly take a risk that convicted
>felons _might_ have reformed?  What could possibly be wrong with taking
steps to
>prevent crime _before_ it occurs, with saving lives?
>
>Pursuit of Safety
>
>Perhaps the pursuit of safety through prevention seems reasonable, even though
>one perhaps recognizes that there is a certain madness in the notion of
creating
>new crimes to eliminate others.  But listen to what we're saying: we agree to
>restrict liberty to purchase safety.
>
>Perhaps we believe, as Sarah Brady likes to say, that "If it saves even one
>life..."
>
>How touching.  But if we propose to make this bargain, let us look squarely at
>what it means to criminalize otherwise innocent activities as a means of
>preventing crime before it occurs.
>
>First, recognize that only laws that criminalize behaviour _malum in se_ and
>impose restrictions on liberty (punishment) _after the fact_, when it is _too
>late,_ accord with presumption of innocence - the principle that government
>honors the liberty of its citizens until their deeds convict them.
>
>Laws that criminalize innocent behaviour in order to prevent crimes _before_
>they occur effectively presume guilt.  Brady, for example, in seeking to
prevent
>harm _before_ it occurs, effectively presumes that all handgun purchasers are
>madmen or felons, and all firearm dealers are engaged in criminally
abetting the
>commission of a crime with a firearm, unless the purchaser's innocence is
>_proven_ by an absence of damning records in the hands of the authorities.
>
>Second, laws that criminalize conduct wrong in itself to prevent crime
before it
>occurs make the behavior of criminals the measure of the rights and scope of
>liberty that the law will permit to the innocent.  Assault weapons are
dangerous
>in the hands of criminals, therefore, no one shall have them.
>
>Such laws tell the law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on
>their own conduct, but on the conduct of the lawless.  That the law will permit
>the innocent to have only such rights and liberties as criminals will allow.
>
>Fear of Crime
>
>A law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior
of the
>guilty, that rests on the principle that the conduct of criminals dictates the
>scope of liberty for the rest of society, in no sense "fights" crime.
>
>For society has permitted its fear of crime, and craving for safety, to
turn the
>force of law against the innocent and law-abiding.  Far from _fighting_ crime,
>the criminalization of otherwise innocent activities represents a society in
>_retreat_ from crime.  This is a society desperately accommodating itself to
>crime.
>
>A society that is, instead, outraged over crime would boldly direct its
energies
>against the criminals.  A righteously indignant society would angrily
resolve to
>surrender no ground, forfeit no liberties to the lawless.
>
>For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to
>accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals.  Society controls
>crime by forcing criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of
>the law-abiding.
>
>Third, laws that criminalize innocent behavior in order to prevent harm before
>it occurs make a mockery of, and trivialize, laws that criminalize behavior
that
>is truly wrong.
>
>Selective Laws
>
>Guns are banned in post offices and school zones.  Why this partiality to post
>offices and schools?  Are we protecting hallowed places from being defiled?  Is
>it okay to shoot up a gas station or a library, but not a post office?
>
>The selectivity in the law is inherently unsupportable.  It is apparent
that the
>law is merely a political, manipulative ploy, purely symbolic.
>
>What do such laws say?  That murder is wrong, but it is really, really wrong -
>and we really, really mean it! - in schools and post offices?
>
>In its implicit suggestion that murder is "more wrong" in some places than in
>others, the law undermines the seriousness of murder and reveals, in fact, that
>we do not take "mere murder" seriously.
>
>Presumed Innocence
>
>Faced with the dire fact of murder and crime, we retreat into symbolism.
>
>Yet to one who believes that by relinquishing a little liberty, and bearing
some
>slight inconveniences, we might truly purchase greater safety, the
foregoing may
>be regarded as so much libertarian gibberish, and less than convincing.
>
>Yes, a rigid adherence to the presumption of innocence grants a maximum
scope to
>individual liberty.  But, the critics might bray, too much emphasis is
placed on
>individual freedom.
>
>We do not live alone, we live in society.  The actions of some members -
such as
>gun dealers, regardless of whether they are evil or wrong in themselves - have
>consequences that adversely affect others.
>
>There is no reason that some persons in a good position to thwart criminal
>endeavors should not be compelled to join the fight against crime, to prevent
>crime before it occurs to make our society a safer place.
>
>The problem with this "interconnectedness of all things" argument is that
it has
>no logical or natural stopping place: it can be used to justify absolutely
>anything!
>
>Once the principle of punishing only activities that are actually wrong is
>abandoned, we have no star to guide us.
>
>The Drug Analogy
>
>Consider: the use of drugs for pleasure (rather than for therapeutic
reasons) is
>wrong, according to our society.  To _prevent_ this, we have completely banned
>the purchase and sale of drugs except as prescribed by a physician.
>
>Alas, this has not been sufficient; drug use continues at unacceptable levels.
>Accordingly, bankers, car dealers and anyone who receives payment in cash
>exceeding $10,000 must report the fact to the authorities, so that the
>authorities may trace "drug money."
>
>Landlords who rent property where drug dealing occurs risk loss of their
>property to the government for failing to prevent the very activity that the
>government could not.  A landlord should know what happens on his premises and
>take action to evict the dealers.
>
>Oh, but why stop here?  Surely the grocery store managers in drug infested
>neighborhoods know who the druggies are.  Why not prohibit them from selling
>food to these scum?  Are we serious about ostracizing these people and
>condemning their behavior, or not?  If just one life is saved...
>
>The "interconnectedness of all things" argument has no objection, no principle
>that would say, "Thus far, and no further!"
>
>Why just landlords and bankers?  Why not grocery store clerks?  Aren't they all
>part of the Great Drug Chain?
>
>Good First Step
>
>So here let us note the fourth characteristic of laws that criminalize innocent
>conduct in order to prevent crime before it occurs.  To the extent that they
>"work," they do not so much actually _prevent_ the crime from occurring- they
>_locate_ the battleground for our next prevention efforts.
>
>Each prevention effort is thus "a good first step."  The problem is that each
>step is only a first step: the goal endlessly recedes before us.
>
>This is easy to see with gun control legislation.  Brady prevents criminals
from
>buying guns froms legitimate dealers.  Next we must shut down unregulated sales
>at flea markets and gun shows.  Next we must require homeowners to keep thier
>guns in vaults so criminals cannot steal them.
>
>Once these efforts have succeeded- so that the gun market for criminals is
>converted into an illegal, underground market, like the market for illegal
>drugs- we will need to tighten import restrictions to shut down the borders.
>
>Eventually, we will need to regulate sales of metal-working tools by Sears, and
>implicate everyone in the Great Gun Chain.  Soon it will be a crime to own a
>hacksaw.
>
>By now it should be evident what the project of these laws is: to so
arrange the
>material conditions of life that those disposed to act upon their evil
>intentions will have no means of realizing their designs.
>
>Matters must be so arranged that, though criminals will _want_ to use guns,
they
>just won't be able to _get_ them.  People will _want_ drugs, they just won't be
>able to buy them.  Crazy people will _want_ to blow up buildings, they just
>won't be able to.  Thus will the world be made a safer place.
>
>Responsibility
>
>And now we come to the critical point, the self-destructive contradiction
>inherent in laws that criminalize innocent conduct to prevent crime before it
>occurs: _their goal is to make responsibility irrelevant._
>
>It doesn't matter if criminals _want_ to commit murder with guns; we will
>arrange things so that they simply _cannot._  Pass Brady and a few other
>well-crafted laws, vigorously enforce them, and it won't _matter_ whether
people
>act responsibly or not.  Their irresponsible intentions will be rendered
>impotent and irrelevant.
>
>Query: how does the law have the moral authority to hold people responsible for
>their behavior if the law is engaged in a project whose operative
presumption is
>that responsibility and irresponsibility can be made irrelevant?
>
>How do criminals- how does _anyone_-learn that they are responsible for their
>actions, if the law is engaged in a mighty project to render it irrelevant
>whether one does or does not want to act responsibly?
>
>And if we think that laws designed to prevent crime _before_ it occurs can
>indeed make the world a safer place, we should ask ourselves this:
>
>How, exactly, is the world made a safer place by making self-control and
>responsibility irrelevant?


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
http://www.therighter.com

The Tree of Liberty needs fertilizing.....


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Patriots among us
Date: 03 Dec 1996 00:07:06 -0700


>***************************************************
>Gun News Digest/winter 1996
>Reader Feedback
>
>Stand For Children:
>Stop Gun Control!
>
>Dear Editor:
>    It was all over the news, weeks beforehand. The Children's Defense Fund
>was planning a rally, called "Stand For Children," to be held June 1,1996
at the
>Lincoln Memorial, with celebrity speakers and a six-figure crowd. They were
>going to rally against all the evils that society was perpetrating upon
>children. Rah rah rah. How could anyone object to a cause like that?
>    Of course, that's exactly what the anti-gunners count on, when they
>convince organizations with noble overall goals to include their ideas. "How
>DARE anybody contradict the CDF's stand on gun control? After all, They're
Doing
>It For The Children," the latest impenetrable shield for any otherwise
repugnant
>cause that can't wrap itself in the flag.
>    Or IS it so impenetrable? Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
>(JPFO) has created a small comic book, entitled "'Gun Control' Kills Kids!",
>featuring a lovable character called Gran'pa Jack. His grandchildren see him
>cleaning his rifle (an obvious "assault weapon"), and want to know what he's
>doing and why. He patiently explains to them (and their parents) exactly
how gun
>control not only doesn't protect children (or in fact anybody), but rather puts
>them at greater risk of genocide and other governmental murder, and how we
can't
>rely on government for protection against ordinary crime either. They raise
many
>of the questions and objections the antis and fence-sitters do, and he responds
>with fact and logic (the twin banes of the anti-selfdefense lobby).
Although the
>format is clearly aimed at the young, it includes enough "insider" humor to
>amuse older folks too. It is also jampacked with facts, complete with source
>references. With that youthappeal, title, and message, it was perfect for the
>occasion.
>    Paul W. Moog, Jr., Executive Director of the Northern Virginia Citizens'
>Defense League (a grassroots civil rights group, right across the Potomac River
>from Washington, DC), swung into action. Using the Paul Revere Net (a
network of
>computer bulletin board systems headed by Leroy Pyle of Chicago), he posed a
>challenge: if someone would cover fee cost of the JPFO materials, the NVCDL
>would provide volunteers to distribute them at the Stand For Children rally.
>Wesley Jones of Moose Pass, Alaska, (no kidding!) picked up the gauntlet, and
>arranged with Aaron Zelman, Executive Director of JPFO, to express ship a
>thousand copies of "Gran'pa Jack" in the nick of time.
>    Paul and Your Humble Writer, along with Jim Snyder, Val Finned, and Tim
>Casey, hauled the comics down to the Memorial, where we met up with Chip
>Fettrow, Wayne Dougherty, and his two young daughters. We set up JPFO posters,
>plus handmade ones saying things like "Facts the gun-grabbers don't want you to
>know!", and of course "Gun control kills kids!", on the sides of the boxes, so
>that people approaching from any angle could see them. We "dressed for success"
>(not suits and ties, but no NRA hats or cammies), and wore the heart-shaped
>"Stand for Children" stickers that the event's organizers handed out.
>    We had surprisingly few negative (and surprisingly many positive)
>reactions. We thanked the few hostile people for their opinions, and
>concentrated on our mission: getting these comics into the hands of
children and
>open-minded adults. Paul Moog said: "Every comic we got into the hands of a
>child was a victory for our side. Children still have open minds since they
have
>not been infected with the dreaded disease of political correctness."
>    There were many anti-gun symbols on the banners of assorted child-welfare
>groups, but I don't recall seeing any groups whose names indicated that they
>were specifically lobbying for gun control. A few people from assorted other
>causes stopped by to chat, such as a Jewish lady from PFLAG (Parents and
Friends
>of Lesbians And Gays), and a group against war toys (a cause that some pro-gun
>people agree with, the theory being that toy guns can lead to lack of respect
>for the responsibility that comes with real guns). Media personnel (who of
>course were plentiful) stopped by to take pictures, get a comic (and an NVCDL
>press release), and interview some of us.
>    The participants' consensus was that our effort was a great success. All
>1,000 comics were distributed rather quickly, in the sea of over 200,000
people.
>After we informed Aaron Zelman, it was decided that we should plan an even
>larger public education effort at any similar events in the future. With enough
>funding and volunteers, we could distribute 50,000 comic books!
>    The NVCDL and JPFO are looking for individuals and companies that wish to
>sponsor future educational efforts. We would like to thank Wesley Jones for his
>generous support, and the System Operators of the Paul Revere Net for their
>communications assistance.
>    For more information on JPFO, write to them at 2872 S. Wentworth Ave.,
>Milwaukee, WI 53207, or call [phone]. Contributions and dues are
>tax-deductible, as JPFO is a 501(c)3 (non-profit educational) organization.
>    For more information on NVCDL, send SASE to PO Box 821, Alexandria, VA
>22313, or Internet e-mail to [e-mail], or see their web page at
>http://www.erols.com/ nvcdl/index.html.
>    For more information on the Paul Revere Net, use your modem to call the
>free "Air 'n Sun" BBS at [phone], or send Fidonet netmail to me at
>1:109/120, or Internet e-mail to [e-mail].
>                        Dave Aronson
>                        Alexandria, VA


PS: Anyone in the Salt Lake City area interested in either seeing this great
comic/pamphlet, or organizing distribution in the area, please contact me.
Also, JPFO has a NEW comic out on Fully Informed Juries - also excellent!!

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

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Washington DC's New School Chief Weighs Use of Armed Guards
Date: 03 Dec 1996 00:27:39 -0700


>From: Harvey Wysong <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Washington's New School Chief Weighs Use of Armed Guards
>
>Arrogance and ignorance always seem to walk hand-in-hand.
>Washington, D.C. produces a never ending stream of counter-productive
>legislation. Yet, inside the Beltway, their drinking water can't meet
>minimal standards, and their school children can't read & write.
>
>-- Harvey

And clearly their strict gun control laws are making the schools safer
for everyone!

Sarah

>                ==================================
>Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 09:33:54 -0800
>From: Kay Ness <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Washington's New School Chief Weighs Use of Armed Guards
>X-Url: http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/dc-schools.html
>
>November 30, 1996
>
>           Washington's New School Chief Weighs Use of Armed
>           Guards
>
>           By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
>           [W] ASHINGTON -- The retired Army general hired to
>               run the capital's collapsing public school
>           system says he may send armed guards into the
>           worst schools to end the violence in them.
>
>           The school system's new leader, Julius W. Becton
>           Jr., also said he was close to approving a
>           security plan that would make it harder for
>           students to smuggle weapons into schools.
>
>           General Becton, who was named earlier this month
>           as chief executive officer by the city's emergency
>           financial control board, says that security is a
>           top priority and that "failure is not an option."
>
>           Like civilians stranded in a war zone, some
>           teachers and students at McKinley High School in
>           Northeast Washington said this week that they were
>           angry about the plan.
>
>           "These kids are not criminals, they are students,"
>           said a guidance counselor, speaking on condition
>           of anonymity, as she surveyed a group of
>           teen-agers smoking cigarettes, laughing and
>           jostling during a break near the blocklong school
>           within shouting distance of the Capitol. "Would
>           you want armed men in your child's school? What
>           has it come to?"
>
>           McKinley, where two girls were stabbed on the same
>           day this month and a local radio reporter was
>           beaten at the scene, is a school where security is
>           to be tightened.
>
>           A financial control board that has taken over
>           running the near-bankrupt city turned to General
>           Becton, who once ran the Federal Emergency
>           Management Agency, after it found that the elected
>           school board and Superintendent Franklin L. Smith
>           were failing to stop the downward spiral of the
>           school system.
>
>           At least twice a day police cars race to a city
>           school to arrest students or hangers-on for crimes
>           including murders, beatings, sexual assaults,
>           theft, robberies and bomb threats. Teachers have
>           been accused 35 times this year of hitting
>           students.
>
>           A company from McLean, Va., has been hired to
>           provide the city's 158 schools with 223 guards.
>           General Becton is reviewing the company's proposal
>           to used armed police officers, security guards,
>           cameras and metal detectors to prevent students
>           from smuggling in weapons.
>
>           Spending more money per pupil than any other large
>           American city -- more than $8,000 a year -- and
>           providing a lower student-to-teacher ratio than
>           even the wealthiest suburbs has not helped.
>
>           For the last 20 years, student achievement as
>           judged by virtually every standard has fallen
>           short of the national average by a wide mark, at
>           or near the bottom in every comparison of the 50
>           states and the District of Columbia. The dropout
>           rate for high school is about 40 percent, near the
>           highest for any city.
>
>           Student enrollment has fallen to just under 79,000
>           from a peak of nearly 150,000 in 1970, and some
>           schools operate at just 60 percent of capacity.
>           White flight to the suburbs in the 1960's and
>           1970's, followed by the departure of middle class
>           blacks who moved mainly to nearby Maryland, sped
>           the decline.
>
>           Abdusalam Omer, imposed as chief financial
>           administrator for the schools, told the financial
>           control board the system was on the verge of
>           collapse because of long-term neglect and
>           mismanagement. He said the administration had
>           spent $54 million more than its budget over the
>           last five years and could not properly account for
>           hundreds of employees.
>
>           Mayor Marion S. Barry Jr. was on an
>           "image-building" trip to Asia this month when the
>           control board took over the school system.
>           Announcing at a news conference that he had lured
>           a Chinese company to open a Peking duck restaurant
>           in the capital, Mayor Barry said he was helpless
>           to stop the school takeover.
>
>           "We know that the school board has flunked," he
>           said.
>
>        ****************************************************
>               TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS
>        ****************************************************
>               Voir Dire: (n), A French phrase which means "jury tampering."
>        ****************************************************
>        Harvey Wysong
>        National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association
>        701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A.
>        [e-mail]        [phone]
>        ****************************************************
>
>
>****************************************************************************
>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.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mail problem
Date: 05 Dec 1996 03:49:26 -0700



>Hello all!
>It's come to my attention that there was a problem with my ISP, and
>that mail sent to this address was bounced at times, starting roughly
>Dec. 1.
>The problem now seems to be corrected.  (Thanks, Dave!)
>However, if you sent me mail during the past few days, I may not have
>received it.  If I don't respond, that's why.  If it's important, please
>send it again.
>
>Should you have any further problems with bounced mail, please resend it
>to [e-mail], my backup address.
>
>Sorry for any inconvenience!
>
>Sarah
>Sarah Thompson, M.D.
>PO Box 271231
>Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
>801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
>http://www.therighter.com
>
>"The irresistable is often only that which is not resisted."
>                Justice Louis Brandeis
>
>GO JAZZ!!!!!!
>
>
>


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: It applies to them as well]
Date: 05 Dec 1996 11:43:20 -0700


May be a good time to do a little digging and see if any our favorite
officers have anything in their past.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Law Enforcement Caught Napping by New Federal Law

azaz- Stream
                               AZ-Domestic Violence-Police,590

By The Associated Press

Phoenix area law enforcement agencies say they have been caught unprepared
by one aspect of a new federal law and
are scrambling to figure out what it means for them.

Under the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, law enforcement
officers convicted of a domestic
violence misdemeanor - and anyone else so convicted - will be forced to give
up their guns.

"Obviously this has some pretty serious ramifications for everybody both
from a police standpoint internally but also for
our work load externally," Scottsdale police Sgt. Brian Freeman said Wednesday.

The law the law received little notice until this week when the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms faxed memos
to the area agencies.

"Our legal advisors were just barely informed of it this morning (Wednesday)
and they're having to do research to
determine if and how it affects any of our officers. They don't even know
the ins and outs of this thing," Mesa police
spokesman Earle Lloyd said.

"It snuck up on everybody," Lloyd added.

Lloyd said he learned on television Tuesday night that three police officers
in Denver had been reassigned to desk jobs
because of the law.

"Now we have to do research to find out if we have any officers who have
been convicted of domestic violence. We
don't know whether we do or don't," he said.

The law is prompting formation of a study group by the Arizona Peace Officer
Standards and Training, which certifies
state, county, local and most tribal police officers.

"I know that our legal advisor from the Attorney General's Office will be
involved in that as well as other legal advisors
and county attorneys. It undoubtedly is going to have some impact. We just
don't know the level of that impact yet," said
Mel Risch, standards and certification manager.

Currently, no one convicted of a felony can become certified, but applicants
with prior misdemeanor convictions are
considered on a case-by-case basis, he said.

Phoenix officials also were checking its into impact.

"We're a department of over 2,000 employees. I'm sure that there's a
possibility we have one affected," said Phoenix
police Detective Mike McCullough.

Apache Junction police Lt. Brian Duncan was less concerned.

"I know none of our officers have been convicted of domestic violence so
that doesn't appear to be a problem," he said.

Spokesmen for Chandler, Gilbert, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and
the Department for Public Safety all said
their agencies also were reviewing the law but that no officer has been
removed from active duty.

Freeman and former Arizona Attorney General Bob Corbin, a past president of
the National Rifle Association,
predicted the law won't stand up.

"I think the law does have some problems with its defensibility particularly
when you talk about its retroactive
provisions," Freeman said. "I've never known a law to be effective that had
such sweeping retroactive provisions."

Corbin also scoffed, saying the NRA may challenge it and that taking a gun
from an officer could violate the second
amendment.

"He could be a decorated police officer who has saved many lives. But now he
can't carry a gun because 20 years ago
he hit his wife or had some domestic violence misdemeanor charge. It's just
stupid," Corbin said. "These laws - they
have no affect on the criminal."




"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.  We ask not
your counsels or arms.  Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.  May
your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our
countrymen."
                      ---Samuel Adams,   1776

Everyday 5479 crimes are prevented by the responsible use of firearms!!!!!!!!


Scott Wood
2nd Vice President
BRASSROOTS, INC.

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

"Ships are very safe when in port. Unfortunately a ship's mission has
 nothing to do with staying in port!" -- Anonymous

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: SL Tribune Editorial favoring right to shoot animals
Date: 05 Dec 1996 14:21:56 -0700


Last week the SL Tribune ran an editorial opposed to a recent court
ruling in which some participants said it was improper to use a gun to
destroy a pet or other animal.  The editorial was one of their better
ones IMHO, arguing for preservation of the right of people to use a
centuries old method of humanely destroying ill, unneeded, or unwanted
animals.  Today, there were two letters to the editor opposing the
editorial and suggesting that any use of firearm in destroying animals
in inherently inhumane.

Below is my letter to the SL Tribune.  As usual, I've got more than
quota sitting in their queue and odds of my letter getting printed are
slim.  I would ask those of you who agree with me, or even just agree
that it is none of government's business, to send a quick letter in.
I'm including my letter, feel free to use any or all of it so long as
you alter it enough to make it look unique.



12/5/96


Dear Editor

Thank you for the reasoned and rational stand taken in your Nov. 27
editorial "Overboard for Pets."  I grew up in a fairly rural area and
I can attest to the longstanding tradition of using a firearm to put
down animals.  The reasons go beyond simple economics.  A firearm is
the most humane tool available to common people that will allow them
to take care of this task independently.  While city folks tend to
forget, independence and self reliance are still highly valued (and
essential) traits in some areas.

Further, having had close personal association and long conversations
with some animal control officers, I am not convinced that a well
placed bullet is any less humane than the needles and chemicals
commonly used by professionals.  Would anyone expect an association of
those professionals to not oppose the only viable method for
individuals to take care of their animals themselves?  That is like
expecting auto-mechanics and building contractors to be pleased about
people doing their own repairs or remodeling.

Finally, having to euphanise a long-loved pet is a difficult and
heart-breaking task.  I cannot fault those who would lay it on someone
else's shoulders and ease their aching souls by telling themselves the
needles are humane.  But I expect them to respect my decision to help
my pets out of this world the same way I helped them into it--with
privacy, dignity, and my own two hands.  I expect them to understand
and appreciate that given the choice between needles and bullets, I
choose for my animals the same means I would choose for myself.  How
tragic that that choice, hundreds of years old and encompassing the
final acts of compassion, love, appreciation, and bonding of man to
loyal animal would now be criminalized over a few people's
incompetence and lot of people's misunderstanding.

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.

"Ships are very safe when in port. Unfortunately a ship's mission has
 nothing to do with staying in port!" -- Anonymous


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Release: Brady Bill
Date: 05 Dec 1996 21:03:46 -0700


>-----------------------------------------
>NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
>2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
>Washington DC 20037
>-----------------------------------------
>For release: December 5, 1996
>-----------------------------------------
>For additional information:
>Bill Winter, Director of Communications
>[phone] Ext. 226
>Internet: [e-mail]
>-----------------------------------------
>
>
>Abolish the Brady Bill, Libertarian Party tells Supreme Court
>
>        WASHINGTON, DC -- The Supreme Court should abolish the Brady
>Bill altogether rather than struggling to decide which government
>officials get to enforce it, the Libertarian Party said today.
>
>        "The highest court in the land shouldn't be dividing up the
>power to violate the Bill of Rights between federal, state, and local
>bureaucrats," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party chairman. "Instead,
>it's the Supreme Court's responsibility to defend the Second Amendment
>-- and every other basic civil right -- against usurpation by
>government."
>
>        In arguments before the Supreme Court this week, sheriffs from
>Arizona and Montana challenged the Brady Bill as an unconstitutional
>infringement on state and local governmental authority. The
>legislation, signed into law in 1993, requires local governments to
>conduct criminal background checks on handgun purchasers and mandates a
>five-day waiting period.
>
>        "The nine justices could have used this case as an opportunity
>to reaffirm the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms," said
>Dasbach. "Instead, they let the case degenerate into a legalistic
>argument over which government agency -- state or federal -- is best
>equipped to violate that right.
>
>        "But the question isn't whether to delegate such power to a
>state bureaucrat or a federal one," he said. "It's whether the court
>will recognize that rights belong to the people -- not to the
>government. After all, the Second Amendment is designed to defend
>citizens against government. The Founding Fathers would be outraged to
>see this basic, fundamental right tossed up for grabs while the Supreme
>Court watches."
>
>        The high court's refusal to stand up for the Second Amendment
>is particularly disturbing, said Dasbach, because gun control isn't
>just unconstitutional -- it also doesn't work.
>
>        For example, he noted, proponents of the Brady Bill claim that
>criminal background checks kept guns out of the hands of 100,000
>felons. But according to the U.S. Department of Justice, only seven
>people who failed the background check were brought to trial -- and
>only three served time in prison.
>
>        "That either means the Brady Bill put 99,997 felons back out on
>the streets to terrorize innocent Americans, or that many of these
>100,000 people were actually law-abiding citizens erroneously
>identified as felons," Dasbach said. "Either way, the Brady Bill is a
>failure."
>
>         In fact, the supposed targets of the law -- criminals -- seem
>to be the only ones unbothered by it, Dasbach said. As evidence, he
>pointed to a recent Justice Department survey of convicted felons
>showing that 93% had obtained their guns illegally.
>
>        "Criminals are apparently deterred, however, when citizens are
>allowed to purchase guns to defend themselves," said Dasbach.
>
>        Since passage of Florida's law allowing citizens to carry
>concealed weapons, more than 258,000 people have received permits. FBI
>reports show that the murder rate in Florida has fallen 22%, while the
>national rate has risen 14% in the same period, he noted.
>
>        Waiting periods like those mandated by the Brady Bill also pose
>problems, Dasbach said.
>
>        He cited the 1991 case of Bonnie Elmasri of Wauwatosa, WI, who
>inquired about getting a handgun to protect herself from an abusive
>husband but was told that local officials had imposed a 48-hour waiting
>period. The next day, she and her two sons were killed by her husband.
>
>        Noting that President Clinton said recently that "people are
>alive today" because of the Brady Bill, Dasbach countered, "The
>evidence suggests that far more people are dead today because of it.
>That's why, if the Supreme Court wants to save innocent lives, it
>should abolish the Brady Bill.
>
>        "How many more defenseless women and children like Bonnie
>Elmasri and her two young sons have to be sacrificed on the altar of
>gun control?" he asked. "And what will it take for the Supreme Court to
>realize that the Second Amendment is a basic human right, enshrined in
>the Constitution, that can't be negotiated away by politicians?"
>
>--
>The Libertarian Party                                      http://www.lp.org/
>2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                          voice: 202-333-0008
>Washington DC 20037                                         fax: [phone]
>
>For subscription changes, please mail to <[e-mail]> with the
>word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Ironic Articles in Saturday's SL Trib
Date: 09 Dec 1996 10:31:47 -0700


There are three articles in Saturday's SL Trib that bear reading and
commenting on.  The first two appear on page one.  One discusses how
the SLC police department destroys all guns that come into their
possession while the SL county Sherrif's office only destroys cheap
.22 pistols and "assault weapons" and any guns which are missing
serial numbers or are illegal under federal law--sawed off shotguns,
full auto etc--but will trade sporting rifles and such to gun dealers
for new weapons for the deputies.  This trading is reported to have
saved the Sheriff's office tens of thousand of dollars.  The is the
usual whining from anti gun folks about selling "putting guns back on
the street."  Heaven forbid some nice guns ever get back into the
hands of honest citizens.

Contrasted with this on page one is an article discussing a couple of
SLC cops accused by individuals of beating them for no reason.  On
page two or three is an article discussing the new crime bill that
makes it illegal for anyone ever convicted of a domestic violence
charge to own or posses a gun and the fact that LEOs and military
personnel are not exempt.  Seems some of them are really torqued off
at having to live under the same laws as the rest of us.

There are a number of things that really should be commented on in
letters to the editor in these three articles--financial prudence of
destroying valuable property in these tough economic times, irony of
worrying about private citizens getting guns when cops are being
accused of violence, and the shear hypocrisy of domestically violent
cops wanting to keep their guns while taking them away from joe
citizen.  I've sent the tribune two letters this week and won't even
waste the time sending them another.  I encourage others to grap a
copy of Saturday's paper or to see if you can bring up the articles on
the web server and then drop a few letters to the editor.

--

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.

In March of 1916, Pancho Villa deliberately murdered 19 Americans in a
cross-border raid. This became the cause for Woodrow Wilson, a
president with a notoriously long fuse, to send Gen. Pershing 400
miles into Mexico at the head of an army of 15,000. The next time an
American plane is blown from the sky and the president of the United
States attends yet another funeral or displays his Churchillian
fortitude in begging for the power to tap telephones, think of that
different America with a braver and clearer sense of its place in the
world"
    -Mark Helprin, "Mr. Clinton's Foreign Policy", WSJ, Aug 12, 96

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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ironic Articles in Saturday's SL Trib
Date: 09 Dec 1996 11:02:42 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> There are three articles in Saturday's SL Trib that bear reading and
> commenting on.  The first two appear on page one.  One discusses how
> the SLC police department destroys all guns that come into their
> possession while the SL county Sherrif's office only destroys cheap
> .22 pistols and "assault weapons" and any guns which are missing
> serial numbers or are illegal under federal law--sawed off shotguns,
> full auto etc--but will trade sporting rifles and such to gun dealers
> for new weapons for the deputies.  This trading is reported to have
> saved the Sheriff's office tens of thousand of dollars.  The is the
> usual whining from anti gun folks about selling "putting guns back on
> the street."  Heaven forbid some nice guns ever get back into the
> hands of honest citizens.
>
Saturday was a good day for irony....

In the "destruction of guns" article, the Salt Lake County armouror
said something like "Most criminals don't buy their guns from a dealer,
they steal them or buy them from someone who stole them."  But, on
the editorial page, in one of those HCI supplied editorials, they
say that the Brady Act has kept "40,000 felons from buying guns" and
that losing the Brady Act would set up a condition where the criminals
would travel to "non-background checking states" to buy their guns.

I can just see it....my distant relative, Ozzy, decides that he's gonna
participate in yet another drive by shooting, so he heads down to
Pro-Arms
to pick up one of those swapped out .357s from the County Sherriff's,
Pro-Arms won't sell him one, so....off he goes to Nevada where he
doesn't
have to have a background check....of course, the fact that he can't
purchase out of state doesn't matter....then, it's back here, all legal
and clean, and out he goes to shoot up the town.  He's stupid, but he
isn't that stupid.  He'd get the gun the same place he got it before:
the paroled felon down the street who deals in stolen guns.

Then, on Sunday, the "Point of Law" editorial from the Trib's hack
lawyer has this little gem in it: (paraphrased) "We need the Brady
Act.  It stops 75 felons/day from purchasing handguns."  ?!?  Wonder
where he got that number?  Last I heard, HCI was pimping the 40,000
number, and DOJ said 7 prosecutions since Brady went into effect!

Makes the head spin....

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

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Virus HOAXES
Date: 09 Dec 1996 23:57:14 -0700


>EVERYONE - save this message, and go to an authoritative source before
>propagating virus warnings.
>
>Cheers, Mitch
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>             __________________________________________________________
>
>                       The U.S. Department of Energy
>                    Computer Incident Advisory Capability
>                           ___  __ __    _     ___
>                          /       |     /_\   /
>                          \___  __|__  /   \  \___
>             __________________________________________________________
>
>                             INFORMATION BULLETIN
>
>            Internet Hoaxes: PKZ300, Irina, Good Times, Deeyenda, Ghost
>
>November 20, 1996 15:00 GMT                                        Number H-05
>______________________________________________________________________________
>PROBLEM:       This bulletin addresses the following hoaxes and erroneous
>               warnings: PKZ300 Warning, Irina, Good Times, Deeyenda, and
>               Ghost.exe
>PLATFORM:      All, via e-mail
>DAMAGE:        Time lost reading and responding to the messages
>SOLUTION:      Pass unvalidated warnings only to your computer security
>               department or incident response team. See below on how to
>               recognize validated and unvalidated warnings and hoaxes.
>______________________________________________________________________________
>VULNERABILITY  New hoaxes and warnings have appeared on the Internet and old
>ASSESSMENT:    hoaxes are still being cirulated.
>______________________________________________________________________________
>
>Introduction
>============
>
>The Internet is constantly being flooded with information about computer
>viruses and Trojans. However, interspersed among real virus notices are
>computer virus hoaxes. While these hoaxes do not infect systems, they are
>still time consuming and costly to handle. At CIAC, we find that we are
>spending much more time de-bunking hoaxes than handling real virus incidents.
>This advisory addresses the most recent warnings that have appeared on the
>Internet and are being circulated throughout world today. We will also address
>the history behind virus hoaxes, how to identify a hoax, and what to do if you
>think a message is or is not a hoax. Users are requested to please not spread
>unconfirmed warnings about viruses and Trojans. If you receive an unvalidated
>warning, don't pass it to all your friends, pass it to your computer security
>manager to validate first. Validated warnings from the incident response teams
>and antivirus vendors have valid return addresses and are usually PGP signed
>with the organization's key.
>
>PKZ300 Warning
>==============
>
>The PKZ300 Trojan is a real Trojan program, but the initial warning about it
>was released over a year ago. For information pertaining to PKZ300 Trojan
>reference CIAC Notes issue 95-10, that was released in June of 1995.
>
>http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/notes/Notes10.shtml
>
>The warning itself, on the other hand, is gaining urban legend status. There
>has been an extremely limited number of sightings of this Trojan and those
>appeared over a year ago. Even though the Trojan warning is real, the repeated
>circulation of the warning is a nuisance. Individuals who need the current
>release of  PKZIP should visit the PKWARE web page at http://www.pkware.com
>CIAC recommends that you DO NOT recirculate the warning about this particular
>Trojan.
>
>Irina Virus Hoax
>================
>
>The "Irina" virus warnings are a hoax. The former head of an electronic
>publishing company circulated the warning to create publicity for a new
>interactive book by the same name. The publishing company has apologized for
>the publicity stunt that backfired and panicked Internet users worldwide. The
>original warning claimed to be from a Professor Edward Pridedaux of the
>College of Slavic Studies in London; there is no such person or college.
>However, London's School of  Slavonic and East European Studies has been
>inundated with calls. This poorly thought-out publicity stunt was highly
>irresponsible. For more information pertaining to this hoax, reference the
>UK Daily Telegraph at http://www.telegraph.co.uk
>
>Good Times Virus Hoax
>=====================
>
>The "Good Times" virus warnings are a hoax. There is no virus by that name in
>existence today. These warnings have been circulating the Internet for years.
>The user community must become aware that it is unlikely that a virus can be
>constructed to behave in the manner ascribed in the "Good Times" virus
>warning. For more information related to this urban legend, reference CIAC
>Notes 95-09.
>
>http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/notes/Notes09.shtml
>
>Deeyenda Virus Hoax
>===================
>
>The "Deeyenda" virus warnings are a hoax. CIAC has received inqueries
>regarding the validity of the Deeyenda virus. The warnings are very similar
>to those for Good Times, stating that the FCC issued a warning about it,
>and that it is self activating and can destroy the contents of a machine
>just by being downloaded. Users should note that the FCC does not and will
>not issue virus or Trojan warnings. It is not their job to do so. As of this
>date, there are no known viruses with the name Deeyenda in existence. For a
>virus to spread, it  must be executed. Reading a mail message does not execute
>the mail message. Trojans and viruses have been found as executable attachments
>to mail messages, but they must be extracted and executed to do any harm. CIAC
>still affirms that reading E-mail, using typical mail agents, can not activate
>malicious code delivered in or with the message.
>
>Ghost.exe Warning
>=================
>
>The Ghost.exe program was originally distributed as a free screen saver
>containing some advertising information for the author's company (Access
>Softek). The program opens a window that shows a Halloween background with
>ghosts flying around the screen. On any Friday the 13th, the program window
>title changes and the ghosts fly off the window and around the screen. Someone
>apparently got worried and sent a message indicating that this might be a
>Trojan. The warning grew until the it said that Ghost.exe was a Trojan that
>would destroy your hard drive and the developers got a lot of nasty phone
>calls (their names and phone numbers were in the About box of the program.)
>A simple phone call to the number listed in the program would have stopped
>this warning from being sent out. The original ghost.exe program is just cute;
>it does not do anything damaging. Note that this does not mean that ghost
>could not be infected with a virus that does do damage, so the normal
>antivirus procedure of scanning it before running it should be followed.
>
>History of Virus Hoaxes
>=======================
>
>Since 1988, computer virus hoaxes have been circulating the Internet. In
>October of that year, according to Ferbrache ("A pathology of Computer
>Viruses" Springer, London, 1992) one of the first virus hoaxes was the
>2400 baud modem virus:
>
>        SUBJ: Really Nasty Virus
>        AREA: GENERAL (1)
>
>        I've just discovered probably the world's worst computer virus
>        yet. I had just finished a late night session of BBS'ing and file
>        treading when I exited Telix 3 and attempted to run pkxarc to
>        unarc the software I had downloaded. Next thing I knew my hard
>        disk was seeking all over and it was apparently writing random
>        sectors. Thank god for strong coffee and a recent backup.
>        Everything was back to normal, so I called the BBS again and
>        downloaded a file. When I went to use ddir to list the directory,
>        my hard disk was getting trashed again. I tried Procomm Plus TD
>        and also PC Talk 3. Same results every time. Something was up so I
>        hooked up to my test equipment and different modems (I do research
>        and development for a local computer telecommunications company
>        and have an in-house lab at my disposal). After another hour of
>        corrupted hard drives I found what I think is the world's worst
>        computer virus yet. The virus distributes itself on the modem sub-
>        carrier present in all 2400 baud and up modems. The sub-carrier is
>        used for ROM and register debugging purposes only, and otherwise
>        serves no othr (sp) purpose. The virus sets a bit pattern in one
>        of the internal modem registers, but it seemed to screw up the
>        other registers on my USR. A modem that has been "infected" with
>        this virus will then transmit the virus to other modems that use a
>        subcarrier (I suppose those who use 300 and 1200 baud modems
>        should be immune). The virus then attaches itself to all binary
>        incoming data and infects the host computer's hard disk. The only
>        way to get rid of this virus is to completely reset all the modem
>        registers by hand, but I haven't found a way to vaccinate a modem
>        against the virus, but there is the possibility of building a
>        subcarrier filter. I am calling on a 1200 baud modem to enter this
>        message, and have advised the sysops of the two other boards
>        (names withheld). I don't know how this virus originated, but I'm
>        sure it is the work of someone in the computer telecommunications
>        field such as myself. Probably the best thing to do now is to
>        stick to 1200 baud until we figure this thing out.
>
>        Mike RoChenle
>
>This bogus virus description spawned a humorous alert by Robert Morris III :
>
>        Date: 11-31-88 (24:60)  Number: 32769
>        To: ALL Refer#: NONE
>        From: ROBERT MORRIS III Read: (N/A)
>        Subj: VIRUS ALERT       Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
>
>        Warning: There's a new virus on the loose that's worse than
>        anything I've seen before! It gets in through the power line,
>        riding on the powerline 60 Hz subcarrier. It works by changing the
>        serial port pinouts, and by reversing the direction one's disks
>        spin. Over 300,000 systems have been hit by it here in Murphy,
>        West Dakota alone! And that's just in the last 12 minutes.
>
>        It attacks DOS, Unix, TOPS-20, Apple-II, VMS, MVS, Multics, Mac,
>        RSX-11, ITS, TRS-80, and VHS systems.
>
>        To prevent the spresd of the worm:
>
>        1) Don't use the powerline.
>        2) Don't use batteries either, since there are rumors that this
>          virus has invaded most major battery plants and is infecting the
>          positive poles of the batteries. (You might try hooking up just
>          the negative pole.)
>        3) Don't upload or download files.
>        4) Don't store files on floppy disks or hard disks.
>        5) Don't read messages. Not even this one!
>        6) Don't use serial ports, modems, or phone lines.
>        7) Don't use keyboards, screens, or printers.
>        8) Don't use switches, CPUs, memories, microprocessors, or
>          mainframes.
>        9) Don't use electric lights, electric or gas heat or
>          airconditioning, running water, writing, fire, clothing or the
>          wheel.
>
>        I'm sure if we are all careful to follow these 9 easy steps, this
>        virus can be eradicated, and the precious electronic flui9ds of
>        our computers can be kept pure.
>
>        ---RTM III
>
>Since that time virus hoaxes have flooded the Internet.With thousands of
>viruses worldwide, virus paranoia in the community has risen to an extremely
>high level. It is this paranoia that fuels virus hoaxes. A good example of
>this behavior is the "Good Times" virus hoax which started in 1994 and is
>still circulating the Internet today. Instead of spreading from one computer
>to another by itself, Good Times relies on people to pass it along.
>
>How to Identify a Hoax
>======================
>
>There are several methods to identify virus hoaxes, but first consider what
>makes a successful hoax on the Internet. There are two known factors that make
>a successful virus hoax, they are: (1) technical sounding language, and
>(2) credibility by association. If the warning uses the proper technical
>jargon, most individuals, including technologically savy individuals, tend to
>believe the warning is real. For example, the Good Times hoax says that
>"...if the program is not stopped, the computer's processor will be placed in
>an nth-complexity infinite binary loop which can severely damage the
>processor...". The first time you read this, it sounds like it might be
>something real. With a little research, you find that there is no such thing
>as an nth-complexity infinite binary loop and that processors are designed
>to run loops for weeks at a time without damage.
>
>When we say credibility by association we are referring to whom sent the
>warning. If the janitor at a large technological organization sends a warning
>to someone outside of that organization, people on the outside tend to believe
>the warning because the company should know about those things. Even though
>the person sending the warning may not have a clue what he is talking about,
>the prestigue of the company backs the warning, making it appear real. If a
>manager at the company sends the warning, the message is doubly backed by the
>company's and the manager's reputations.
>
>Individuals should also be especially alert if the warning urges you to pass
>it on to your friends. This should raise a red flag that the warning may be
>a hoax. Another flag to watch for is when the warning indicates that it is a
>Federal Communication Commission (FCC) warning. According to the FCC, they
>have not and never will disseminate warnings on viruses. It is not part of
>their job.
>
>CIAC recommends that you DO NOT circulate virus warnings without first
>checking with an authoritative source. Authoritative sources are your computer
>system security administrator or a computer incident advisory team. Real
>warnings about viruses and other network problems are issued by different
>response teams (CIAC, CERT, ASSIST, NASIRC, etc.) and are digitally signed by
>the sending team using PGP. If you download a warning from a teams web site or
>validate the PGP signature, you can usually be assured that the warning is
>real. Warnings without the name of the person sending the original notice, or
>warnings with names, addresses and phone numbers that do not actually exist
>are probably hoaxes.
>
>What to Do When You Receive a Warning
>=====================================
>
>Upon receiving a warning, you should examine its PGP signature to see that it
>is from a real response team or antivirus organization. To do so, you will
>need a copy of the PGP software and the public signature of the team that
>sent the message. The CIAC signature is available from the CIAC web server
>at:
>
>http://ciac.llnl.gov
>
>If there is no PGP signature, see if the warning includes the name of the
>person submitting the original warning. Contact that person to see if he/she
>really wrote the warning and if he/she really touched the virus. If he/she is
>passing on a rumor or if the address of the person does not exist or if
>there is any questions about theauthenticity or the warning, do not circulate
>it to others. Instead, send the warning to your computer security manager or
>incident response team and let them validate it. When in doubt, do not send
>it out to the world. Your computer security managers and the incident response
>teams teams have experts who try to stay current on viruses and their warnings.
>In addition, most anti-virus companies have a web page containing information
>about most known viruses and hoaxes. You can also call or check the web site
>of the company that produces the product that is supposed to contain the virus.
>Checking the PKWARE site for the current releases of PKZip would stop the
>circulation of the warning about PKZ300 since there is no released version 3
>of PKZip. Another useful web site is the "Computer Virus Myths home page"
>(http://www.kumite.com/myths/) which contains descriptions of several known
>hoaxes. In most cases, common sense would eliminate Internet hoaxes.
>
>- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>CIAC, the Computer Incident Advisory Capability, is the computer
>security incident response team for the U.S. Department of Energy
>(DOE) and the emergency backup response team for the National
>Institutes of Health (NIH). CIAC is located at the Lawrence Livermore
>National Laboratory in Livermore, California. CIAC is also a founding
>member of FIRST, the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, a
>global organization established to foster cooperation and coordination
>among computer security teams worldwide.
>
>CIAC services are available to DOE, DOE contractors, and the NIH. CIAC
>can be contacted at:
>    Voice:    [phone]
>    FAX:      [phone]
>    STU-III:  [phone]
>    E-mail:   [e-mail]
>
>For emergencies and off-hour assistance, DOE, DOE contractor sites,
>and the NIH may contact CIAC 24-hours a day. During off hours (5PM -
>8AM PST), call the CIAC voice number 510-422-8193 and leave a message,
>or call 800-759-7243 (800-SKY-PAGE) to send a Sky Page. CIAC has two
>Sky Page PIN numbers, the primary PIN number, 8550070, is for the CIAC
>duty person, and the secondary PIN number, 8550074 is for the CIAC
>Project Leader.
>
>Previous CIAC notices, anti-virus software, and other information are
>available from the CIAC Computer Security Archive.
>
>   World Wide Web:      http://ciac.llnl.gov/
>   Anonymous FTP:       ciac.llnl.gov (128.115.19.53)
>   Modem access:        [phone] (28.8K baud)
>                        [phone] (28.8K baud)
>
>CIAC has several self-subscribing mailing lists for electronic
>publications:
>1. CIAC-BULLETIN for Advisories, highest priority - time critical
>   information and Bulletins, important computer security information;
>2. CIAC-NOTES for Notes, a collection of computer security articles;
>3. SPI-ANNOUNCE for official news about Security Profile Inspector
>   (SPI) software updates, new features, distribution and
>   availability;
>4. SPI-NOTES, for discussion of problems and solutions regarding the
>   use of SPI products.
>
>Our mailing lists are managed by a public domain software package
>called ListProcessor, which ignores E-mail header subject lines. To
>subscribe (add yourself) to one of our mailing lists, send the
>following request as the E-mail message body, substituting
>CIAC-BULLETIN, CIAC-NOTES, SPI-ANNOUNCE or SPI-NOTES for list-name and
>valid information for LastName FirstName and PhoneNumber when sending
>
>E-mail to       [e-mail]:
>        subscribe list-name LastName, FirstName PhoneNumber
>  e.g., subscribe ciac-notes OHara, Scarlett W. 404-555-1212 x36
>
>You will receive an acknowledgment containing address, initial PIN,
>and information on how to change either of them, cancel your
>subscription, or get help.
>
>PLEASE NOTE: Many users outside of the DOE, ESnet, and NIH computing
>communities receive CIAC bulletins.  If you are not part of these
>communities, please contact your agency's response team to report
>incidents. Your agency's team will coordinate with CIAC. The Forum of
>Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) is a world-wide
>organization. A list of FIRST member organizations and their
>constituencies can be obtained by sending email to
>[e-mail] with an empty subject line and a message body
>containing the line: send first-contacts.
>
>This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
>agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
>Government nor the University of California nor any of their
>employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any
>legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
>usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
>disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
>owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial products,
>process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
>otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
>recommendation or favoring by the United States Government or the
>University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed
>herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
>Government or the University of California, and shall not be used for
>advertising or product endorsement purposes.
>
>LAST 10 CIAC BULLETINS ISSUED (Previous bulletins available from CIAC)
>
>G-43: Vulnerabilities in Sendmail
>G-44: SCO Unix Vulnerability
>G-45: Vulnerability in HP VUE
>G-46: Vulnerabilities in Transarc DCE and DFS
>G-47: Unix FLEXlm Vulnerabilities
>G-48: TCP SYN Flooding and IP Spoofing Attacks
>H-01: Vulnerabilities in bash
>H-02: SUN's TCP SYN Flooding Solutions
>H-03: HP-UX_suid_Vulnerabilities
>H-04: HP-UX  Ping Vulnerability
>
>RECENT CIAC NOTES ISSUED (Previous Notes available from CIAC)
>
>Notes 07 - 3/29/95     A comprehensive review of SATAN
>
>Notes 08 - 4/4/95      A Courtney update
>
>Notes 09 - 4/24/95     More on the "Good Times" virus urban legend
>
>Notes 10 - 6/16/95     PKZ300B Trojan, Logdaemon/FreeBSD, vulnerability
>                       in S/Key, EBOLA Virus Hoax, and Caibua Virus
>
>Notes 11 - 7/31/95     Virus Update, Hats Off to Administrators,
>                       America On-Line Virus Scare, SPI 3.2.2 Released,
>                       The Die_Hard Virus
>
>Notes 12 - 9/12/95     Securely configuring Public Telnet Services, X
>                       Windows, beta release of Merlin, Microsoft Word
>                       Macro Viruses, Allegations of Inappropriate Data
>                       Collection in Win95
>
>Notes 96-01 - 3/18/96  Java and JavaScript Vulnerabilities, FIRST
>                       Conference Announcement, Security and Web Search
>                       Engines, Microsoft Word Macro Virus Update
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6.1
>Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.3, an Emacs/PGP interface
>
>iQCVAwUBMpN8qrnzJzdsy3QZAQHpZgP/V+NTN7AwEtWCM46sSBMFnEuz0NxmN9X2
>DMOFnATcUSNvukXBPAMc3LMYmnjhp+CrqDyfQCWVBUaHDTmb3yKTTsexYev5alyd
>cSR4uZjQrMjO1pu16HG7BS+faxaP+E/FVEcbAof9a+tjX4aj9LTOM/Nt8Hb6Aazo
>eRHTBH+AYy4=
>=fBQM
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!



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

From: Glenn Clapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ironic Articles in Saturday's SL Trib
Date: 10 Dec 1996 10:38:33 -0700

WILL THOMPSON wrote:
n the street who deals in stolen guns.
>
> Then, on Sunday, the "Point of Law" editorial from the Trib's hack
> lawyer has this little gem in it: (paraphrased) "We need the Brady
> Act.  It stops 75 felons/day from purchasing handguns."  ?!?  Wonder
> where he got that number?  Last I heard, HCI was pimping the 40,000
> number, and DOJ said 7 prosecutions since Brady went into effect!
>
> Makes the head spin....
>
I've heard 40,000 (just now), 60,000 (cited by Slick Willey on
various occasions), and 100,000 as cited by Sarah "no such thing
as law-abiding" Brady at the Democrat convention.  Yet the real
number of "felons" taken to trial is still 7.  After further
investigation, I have no idea what the real number of law abiding
citezens who have been denied due to clerical error or paperwork
mixup really is.  I do know that all (but 7) of the 40,000/60,000/
100,000 people finally got their guns.  You just can't believe those
guys.

Sarah Brady math:    7 == 100,000
I'd like Sarah to balance my checkbook!


Glenn

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Looking for range in SL area
Date: 10 Dec 1996 11:19:56 -0700


Hello all,

I've got the chance to take person shooting.  My only problem is I've
got no idea of where to go now that I'm living in the big city.  Can
someone suggest a good range or two in the SL area?  Sandy would be
even better?  I'd like to let her try my .22 LR as well an evil
assault rifle (.223).  Are there any ranges that will allow me to
shoot long guns?  Thanks for the help.

--

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.

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time."--Thomas
 Jefferson (1774)

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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for range in SL area -Reply
Date: 10 Dec 1996 11:40:08 -0700

The closest to Sandy would be the Holladay gun club located at
6401 South Wasatch Blvd,  942-9208.  There are 4 pistol ranges,
one bay where you can shoot handguns, centerfire rifles, or
shotguns, and a 100 yard rifle range.  Have fun.

Also,  what's your take on Pro Arms posting signs saying "no
loaded firarms except law enforcement"?  Just one more in a long
list of reasons NOT to shop there in my opinion.

[e-mail]

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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area
Date: 10 Dec 1996 12:16:00 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I've got the chance to take person shooting.  My only problem is I've
> got no idea of where to go now that I'm living in the big city.  Can
> someone suggest a good range or two in the SL area?  Sandy would be
> even better?  I'd like to let her try my .22 LR as well an evil
> assault rifle (.223).  Are there any ranges that will allow me to
> shoot long guns?  Thanks for the help.
>
> --
>
> Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on

Depends on what you want.  If you want a nice "safe" environment,
try Pro-Arms( approx. 3700 so, redwood rd.)  The problem with that
is that it is an indoor range and the annoyance factor of having
someone with a Desert Eagle or a .44 Mag in the lane next to you....
or for that matter, as last night, the magpie from hell cawing
while you try and instruct, etc.  They do, I believe allow .223
as long as it's not iron (steel) core.

I try to avoid Doug's.

Hendrickson range in parleys/emmigration canyon is _real nice_,
by far my favorite formal range in Utah.  But it do get cold
up there this time of year....

Lee Kay (5600 w. 2100 s.) is a big, all purpose range, but some
of the range masters are extreme rule nazis.  (with good reason)
And the noise and so on, make for a less than relaxing environment
to take a first time shooter.

Salt Lake Gun Club (Just off wasatch blvd at approx 6500 so)..
Never been there.

Other problems with indoor/formal ranges are the rules.  Novice shooters
should be aware of safety rules, but I prefer to accept the idea that
they will screw up a bit.  Making them so nervous about the range
master yelling about minor infractions adds too much intimidation
I think.

I would choose a reasonably warm day and head out to the west side
of Utah Lake, just south of the mine.  There's an old strip mine
which has been "converted" to plinker's paradise.  (Ownership is
unknown to me, but nothing's posted.)  That way, your friend can
experience shooting in a relaxed manner and you can model correct
behavior, etc.
--
Will Thompson
Alpha Engineering
Philips BTS
Phone [phone]   Fax [phone]  [e-mail]

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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area -Reply
Date: 10 Dec 1996 12:40:50 -0700

Mike Thompson wrote:
>
[...snip...]
ooops...got the name of Holladay gun club wrong...SLGun Club
is on North Redwood road, right?  'Bout 18th north?
>
> Also,  what's your take on Pro Arms posting signs saying "no
> loaded firarms except law enforcement"?  Just one more in a long
> list of reasons NOT to shop there in my opinion.
>
> [e-mail]

Philosophical discussions aside....

My initial reaction was negative as well.  Then I got some facts.
Seems they've had a bunch of unintended discharges.  One bozo
started field stripping his chambered Glock-at the counter-inches
from the sales guy-and put a nice little hole in the floor between
his feet.  Another was trying a holster....chambered round...bang...
nice wall hole.

These and other incedents have forced them, in my opinion, to post
the signs.  I can just imagine what would have happened had someone
been injured.  In fact, I support them in posting the signs.  No one
said you had to risk your life to run a business.  More importantly,
even though stupid people have done some very dangerous and stupid
things, Pro-Arms is still there supporting your RKBA....

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area -Reply
Date: 10 Dec 1996 13:23:20 -0700


On Tue, 10 Dec 1996,  Mike Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>The closest to Sandy would be the Holladay gun club located at
>6401 South Wasatch Blvd,  942-9208.  There are 4 pistol ranges,
>one bay where you can shoot handguns, centerfire rifles, or
>shotguns, and a 100 yard rifle range.  Have fun.

Thanks for the info.  Thanks also to Will for providing a nice list of
ranges and places to shoot.  Can you provide directions to your spot
west of the Lake, Will?

>
>Also,  what's your take on Pro Arms posting signs saying "no
>loaded firarms except law enforcement"?  Just one more in a long
>list of reasons NOT to shop there in my opinion.

I know nothing of this or any other reasons not to shop there, being
new to the area.  However, gun stores are the one place that I can see
a reasonable cause to place restrictions on loaded guns.  They are the
one public place other than a range where it is socially acceptable
and common to have weapons unholstered, gripped in shooting position,
working the actions, etc, etc.  I'm not sure a complete ban on loaded
weapons is the appropriate way to address this, but it is the easiest.
Anytime LEOs are exempted I get a little peeved, but that is another
issue.  Finally, while I do not fully support a complete ban on loaded
weapons, I do support any business' right to restrict access on any
grounds they choose.  It is private property and I can always shop
elsewhere.

>
>[e-mail]
>


--

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.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you.  May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen.              - Samuel Adams

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Guns save lives
Date: 10 Dec 1996 13:59:44 -0700


>    Here is an article we can have some fun with.
>
>Tom
>******************************************************
>The Evansville Courier 12-10-96
>
>Study that shows guns reduce Crime is defended
>By The Associated Press
>
>    WASHINGTON- A researcher who contends that concealed-handgun laws deter
>violent crime defended his study Monday against charges that it was flawed.
>    The recent study by Professor John Lott and a graduate student at the
>University of Chicago Law School asserted that legally concealed weapons could
>have prevented 1,570 murders and 4,177 rapes in 1992 alone.
>    But Georgetown University Professor Jens Ludwig said at a debate, "There
>is no credible evidence to support the idea that permissive concealed-carry
laws
>reduce violent crime."
>    The debate was sponsored by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, which
>advocates gun control.
>    Ludwig noted that the study showed no appreciable difference between the
>rate of adults and juveniles slain.
>    He   said Ma adults should have enjoyed greater protection under Lott' s
>theory because juveniles don't qualify for concealed weapons permits.
>    Lott's study, which examined statistics from all U.S. counties between
>1977 and 1992, also found that laws allowing concealed weapons did not increase
>accidental deaths.
>    He stuck by the findings Monday, and said he had shared data with a dozen
>researchers across the country who were working to verify it.
>    "We found that when states adopt these concealed handgun laws then you
>obviously get a large drop in violent crime rates," Lott said.
>    Another group of researchers questioned whether Lott's model was skewed
>because he failed to account for extraordinary events in the key state of
>Florida.
>    The 1980 Cuban boatlift and the transformation of Miami into a hub of
>cocaine trafficking caused a dramatic jump in the region' s crimes.
>    "The results are simply too fragile for people to make policy on," said
>Daniel Nagin, a public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University.
>
>****************************************************
>    Now Lott may be completely full of beans, but, from our experiences in
>Evansville,
> I don't think so.
>
>TGB
>
>****************************************************
>The New Gun Week 12-10-96
>
>Indiana Town Unsafe for Robbers
>
>    The Evansville Courier; which is anti-gun, carried a Nov. 20 editorial
>headlined "Evansville not safe for criminals today."
>    The Indiana paper declared, "Evansville is not a good place these days
>for robbers and thieves. 'Dangerous' may be an even more apt description.
>Consider:
>    "- Monday evening, a man who allegedly robbed the Walnut Street Subway
>restaurant with a knife and then fled with the cash drawer was shot twice
by the
>manager. He was reported in critical condition at Welborn Baptist Hospital.
>    "- Just a month ago, a man with a hatchet allegedly attempted to rob a
>cash advance business and was shot in the head by the owner after throwing the
>hatchet. He survived the shooting.
>    ". . . each of these incidents should serve as a warning to outlaws- stay
>out of Evansville."
>    Apparently it doesn't occur to the Courier that these people are using
>firearms to stop would-be robbers.
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!



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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area -Reply
Date: 10 Dec 1996 15:20:46 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 1996,  Mike Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:
>
> >The closest to Sandy would be the Holladay gun club located at
> >6401 South Wasatch Blvd,  942-9208.  There are 4 pistol ranges,
> >one bay where you can shoot handguns, centerfire rifles, or
> >shotguns, and a 100 yard rifle range.  Have fun.
>
> Thanks for the info.  Thanks also to Will for providing a nice list of
> ranges and places to shoot.  Can you provide directions to your spot
> west of the Lake, Will?
>
From Sandy, take I-15 to the Lehi exit.  Couple of miles later, take
the right fork to The Lehi Roundup rodeo. (The fork is a bit hard to
see...there's an old gas station/garage with the Lehi Roundup sign..)
Go right again at the rodeo ground/Maverick gas station.  Head west to
Redwood road.  Turn left on Redwood and go south a few miles.

There's a Cook Mine on the northern end of the mountains.  A couple
of miles past there are a bunch of mine tailings on the right side of
the road.  Turn in there.  A couple of hundred yards off the road
is a small strip mine with a lot of shooter's garbage.  (Take a bag
and pick up some extra garbage, ok?  We don't need the GOB image.)

If "plinker's paradise" is full, anywhere south of it is flat, backed
by hills and "loaded" with excellent target placement areas.  It's
sortof a day trip, but much more enjoyable for the beginner I think.
Plus, evening overlooking the lake is real nice....  ;)  ("I love
the smell of Outer's in the evening.....")

Oh...I forgot the Stockton "range".  South of Tooele, they've set up
a few cement tables, shooting toward an old sand bar.  Bare bones.
--
Will Thompson
Alpha Engineering
Philips BTS
Phone [phone]   Fax [phone]  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net)
Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area -Reply
Date: 10 Dec 1996 23:57:35 -0700

>On Tue, 10 Dec 1996,  Mike Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:
>
>>The closest to Sandy would be the Holladay gun club located at
>>6401 South Wasatch Blvd,  942-9208.  There are 4 pistol ranges,
>>one bay where you can shoot handguns, centerfire rifles, or
>>shotguns, and a 100 yard rifle range.  Have fun.
>
>Thanks for the info.  Thanks also to Will for providing a nice list of
>ranges and places to shoot.  Can you provide directions to your spot
>west of the Lake, Will?
>

West of Utah Lake from SL

Either go down Redwood Rd or I15 (depending on where you are at).  If you
go down I15  go round the point of the mountain to the main Lehi exit.  Go
west.  If you go down Redwood just go until you get there.  Redwood turns
into the road on the west side.  If you go through Lehi you will eventually
get to an intersection with a flashing light.  Turn left onto this road.
This is the same road that was Redwood back in SL.  About 5-8 or so miles
(guess) past this blinking light, on the right hand side of the road, will
be some big piles of dirt and a quarry.  You have arrived.

Chad

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



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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area -Reply
Date: 11 Dec 1996 11:55:38 -0600 (MDT)

I have a free pass to the shooting range @ Doug's Shootin Sports.   Out
of curiosity, why should I beware of them?
Vincent
[e-mail]

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

From: Glenn Clapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area
Date: 11 Dec 1996 14:48:31 -0700

Support the Holiday Gun Club!  The county and developers want to
kill it.  If you don't know where it is, it is just North of the
entrance to Big Cottonwood Canyon on "Gun Club Road."

Glenn

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I've got the chance to take person shooting.  My only problem is I've
> got no idea of where to go now that I'm living in the big city.  Can
> someone suggest a good range or two in the SL area?  Sandy would be
> even better?  I'd like to let her try my .22 LR as well an evil
> assault rifle (.223).  Are there any ranges that will allow me to
> shoot long guns?  Thanks for the help.
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
> "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time."--Thomas
>  Jefferson (1774)

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

From: Glenn Clapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area -Reply
Date: 11 Dec 1996 14:49:24 -0700

Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> The closest to Sandy would be the Holladay gun club located at
> 6401 South Wasatch Blvd,  942-9208.  There are 4 pistol ranges,
> one bay where you can shoot handguns, centerfire rifles, or
> shotguns, and a 100 yard rifle range.  Have fun.
>
> Also,  what's your take on Pro Arms posting signs saying "no
> loaded firarms except law enforcement"?  Just one more in a long
> list of reasons NOT to shop there in my opinion.
>
> [e-mail]

What are the other reasons?

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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area -Reply
Date: 11 Dec 1996 15:00:09 -0700

> From: [e-mail]
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:55:38 -0600 (MDT)
> Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area -Reply
> To: [e-mail]
>
> I have a free pass to the shooting range @ Doug's Shootin Sports.   Out
> of curiosity, why should I beware of them?
> Vincent
> [e-mail]
>
It's not that anyone else should beware Doug's.  I don't go there myself
because the one time I did go to look around the air was pretty thick.
It may have been a one time thing, but I'm around enough lead as it is.

I've also just never much liked their attitude there.  When the little
Glocks were first released they acted as if there was something wrong
with me because I didn't want to put a non-refundable deposit on one
before I could put my hands around the grip.  No big...it's just given
that Pro-Arms is closer to my house, has a fairly clean range and
friendly (at least to my wife and I) people working there and given
that Golden Spike is where I really prefer to buy guns when their prices
allow, I really don't have any reason to go to Doug's.  To each his
own.

Will



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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area -Reply -Reply
Date: 11 Dec 1996 15:27:29 -0700

I personally have a problem with Pro Arms.  It seems to me that
since they moved from their Murray location to the new one on
Redwood Road their prices have gone through the roof and their
attitudes have gone into the toilet.  Essentially it seems that their
attitude is "if you don't buy it (at the outragious price) they next
guy will".  I also work a lot with local law enforcement and am
disgusted at the prices they charge these poor guys for
specialized L.E. equipment, e.g. hi-capacity magazines.  I'm an FFL
so I know what Pro Arms pays for this stuff.  In fact, I'm sure they
pay less than I do as they buy is much larger quantities.  I'm not
convinced that they are as much of a true friend of the shooting
public and RKBA as someone mentioned earlier in this thread.  As
far as the "no loaded firearms"signs go, I can certainly understand
if the intent is to address negligent discharges.  However, I
believe that they could address the ND issue as well, or better, by
requiring that all loaded and concealed weapons stay that way
while in the store.

Mike


>>> WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]> 12/11/96 03:00pm
>>>
> From: [e-mail]
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:55:38 -0600 (MDT)
> Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area -Reply
> To: [e-mail]
>
> I have a free pass to the shooting range @ Doug's Shootin
Sports.   Out
> of curiosity, why should I beware of them?
> Vincent
> [e-mail]
>
It's not that anyone else should beware Doug's.  I don't go there
myself
because the one time I did go to look around the air was pretty
thick.
It may have been a one time thing, but I'm around enough lead as
it is.

I've also just never much liked their attitude there.  When the little
Glocks were first released they acted as if there was something
wrong
with me because I didn't want to put a non-refundable deposit on
one
before I could put my hands around the grip.  No big...it's just
given
that Pro-Arms is closer to my house, has a fairly clean range and
friendly (at least to my wife and I) people working there and given
that Golden Spike is where I really prefer to buy guns when their
prices
allow, I really don't have any reason to go to Doug's.  To each his
own.

Will




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

From: Glenn Clapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for range in SL area -Reply
Date: 12 Dec 1996 08:53:45 -0700

WILL THOMPSON wrote:
>

>
> I've also just never much liked their attitude there.  When the little
> Glocks were first released they acted as if there was something wrong
> with me because I didn't want to put a non-refundable deposit on one
> before I could put my hands around the grip.  No big...it's just given
> that Pro-Arms is closer to my house, has a fairly clean range and
> friendly (at least to my wife and I) people working there and given
> that Golden Spike is where I really prefer to buy guns when their prices
> allow, I really don't have any reason to go to Doug's.  To each his
> own.
>
> Will

I don't like Doug's either.  Last time I was in there, they treated
me like crap.  They were really put out that I wanted to examine
more than one model of a 1911, then when I decided to buy none
of them, they (yes, more than one person behind the counter) made
a comment about wasting their time.  A few weeks earlier I spent
about a grand there on a rifle.  They don't have to worry.  I won't
be wasting their time any more.

Glenn

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Fw: Waco Film Release]
Date: 12 Dec 1996 11:21:47 -0700


Maybe a reason to attend the film festival this year...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
HOT DAMN! Proof that there is a God! I just downloaded this piece of mail,
and I have to share this fanfriggintastic news with the rest of the "Free"
world!

Remember the "rest of the story" type documentary that a journalist named
McNulty up in Colorado was filming which Brassroots has been talking about
since last summer? The one with ALL of the FLIR footage -- bulldozing
bodies, etc. -- and the "home movies"? IT'S HERE!!

Comments and suggestions are welcome. Let's do this right.

In refreshed Liberty,

Phil Murphy, President
Brassroots, Inc.
--

> Philpot!...Hurrah!...I have just been informed of the statement in Neal
> Knox's, HARD CORE that 'WACO-RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" has been selected for
> screening at the Sundance Film Festival in January. It is also supposed
to
> be released for theatrical and TV viewing at the same
> time...........howsabout we try to have a premier screening in Tucson
via
> Brassroots....Dr, David Hardy in attendance, and a slew of  "foaming at
the
> mouth" book sellers in the lobby !
>
> I'll bet the theater on Wilmot is available at a reasonable
rent.....maybe
> even the
> LOFT.............they love the Robert Redford Sundance Film
Festival......I
> can't believe the liberal, pink fluffies at Sundance would consider such
a
> film..........
> Thank you Jesus, prehaps there is still hope (especially after reading
your
> rant in my E mail this AM).........der "Dutchman"
--

Thank you, Dutch, my soul is rekindled.

Phil
--
"And so we pummel the few
 remaining embers of our foolish
 optimism into the cold, dark ash
 of political reality."
              -- Bryan Rigsby, after
                 testifying before the
                 House Judiciary
                 Sub-committee

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand
that feeds you.  May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity
forget that ye were our countrymen.              - Samuel Adams

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Left Elite Hypocrisy
Date: 13 Dec 1996 03:38:08 -0700


>The New American 12-9-96
>
>Carl Rowan's Bullet-Proof Hypocrisy
>
>    In The Coming Race War in America, Carl Rowan issues anew a call for
>complete disarmament of civilians. Throughout his career as a columnist and
>television commentator, Rowan has stridently defended radical gun control. In
>October 1985, for example, Rowan declared in a column that there should be a
>"universal federal ban on sale, manufacture, importation and possession of
>handguns." In a 1981 essay he argued on behalf of a gun control regime in which
>"Anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law
>goes to jail- period." However, on June 14, 1988, the public learned that Rowan
>would exempt himself from this prohibition. On that date, Rowan shot and
>wounded- with an unregistered .22 caliber pistol- Neil Smith, a young intruder
>who had trespassed onto Rowan's property to take a dip in his swimming pool.
>    In the immediate aftermath of the incident, Rowan offered several
>conflicting accounts regarding the provenance of his handgun. He originally
>stated that he had purchased the gun himself in response to threats on his life
>(which he later claimed had been made by the Ku Klux Klan). He also initially
>claimed that the gun had been properly registered. However, when DC police
>disclosed that the gun had not been registered, Rowan changed his story,
>claiming that the gun belonged to his son, who "was an FBI agent and did not
>have to register it [because it was] properly registered federally." This claim
>was deflected by DC police authorities, who pointed out that under DC law, all
>guns must be registered locally; failure to do so was punishable by up to a
year
>in prison and a $1,000 fine.
>    Similar contradictions were emitted by Rowan's son, Carl Rowan Jr. He
>initially claimed that he had attempted to register the gun in 1982, but was
>told that "I didn't have to register it because I was a law enforcement
>officer." However, on another occasion he stated that he didn't attempt to
>register the weapon after he left the FBI in 1983 because the DC handgun law
>would not permit a private citizen to register a handgun acquired after 1976,
>when the law went into effect. In short, it was simply impossible for the elder
>Rowan to have legal possession of the gun he used to defend himself in 1988.
>    In a column published three days after the shooting, Rowan blustered: "A
>lot of theoretical, ideological crap is being written by people who have not
>been threatened, have not had a stranger at their bedroom window at 2 a.m. and
>have not been confronted by a doped-up          intruder just outside their
>door. Let my political enemies crow. But let them know that as          long as
>authorities leave this society awash in drugs and guns, I will protect my
>family."
>    This is not to say, however, that Rowan recognized that others enjoy the
>same right to          armed self-defense that he claimed for himself:
>    "Let the National Rifle Association or others call me a hypocrite because
>I fired a gun in a moment of personal peril. I shall still be for strict gun
>control."
>    Shortly after a mistrial was declared in Rowan's September 1988 gun
>possession case, Rowan claimed that Herbert Reid, an adviser to DC Mayor Marion
>Barry, had offered to make a deal on the gun charges if the columnist would
>"'lower [his] voice' about corruption in the city." Reid described this
>allegation as a "bald-faced lie," and Rowan never provided corroboration for
>this charge. Yet in a parenthetical comment in his new book, Rowan resurrects
>this bit of self-serving melodrama, asserting that his trial came about because
>of "Marion Barry, [who was] seeking revenge for my written criticisms of
>him...." Rowan also maintains that "I have never owned a handgun
personally, and
>have always supported gun control"- proving again that his hypocrisy is utterly
>bulletproof.
>
>
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: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 13 Dec 1996 03:56:41 -0700

Hmmmm....  I haven't heard of any Salt Lake area police giving up
their guns....  Anyone interested in calling the PD's and asking?
(Of course I do realize that domestic violence "doesn't happen"
here in Utah! <g>)

Sarah


>Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law   Minneapolis
>         officers give up guns in wake of new law Anne OConnor
> Star Tribune
> December 12, 1996
>
>Three Minneapolis police officers turned in their guns Wednesday and went
>on paid administrative leave until an investigation determines if they
>should be fired. Others may soon follow suit.
>
>They did so because of a change in federal gun control law that says
>anyone, civilian or sworn official, with a misdemeanor conviction for
>domestic violence cannot "ship, transport, possess or receive firearms or
>ammunition."
>
>Law enforcement agencies are scrambling to comply and worrying that some
>of their cops are going to lose their right to carry a gun.
>
>The three Minneapolis officers turned in their guns after the chief
>ordered anyone with a conviction to do so. More are expected to come
>forward.
>
>"If you can't carry a weapon, you can't be a police officer," Chief Robert
>Olson said. He said he thinks the law was poorly planned and is concerned
>that he may lose some good cops.
>
>"But the Police Department must obey the law, and we will obey the law,"
>he said.
>
>The law, which went into effect Sept. 30, was part of an omnibus
>appropriations bill passed in the last Congress. Originally it contained
>an exemption for law enforcement officials, but the exemption was taken
>out at the last minute, according to Linda Marson, communications director
>for Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn.
>
>While law enforcement agencies are feeling the heat most acutely at the
>moment, the law also applies to citizens who own or work with guns.
>Hunters with misdemeanor convictions, for example, are supposed to turn in
>their guns immediately. Store clerks with convictions wouldn't be allowed
>to handle guns in stores.
>
>Most people in law enforcement circles said Wednesday that the idea behind
>the law, to prevent domestic abuse, is good. But there are many troubling
>aspects to the law, including the fact that it has no time limits.
>
>"It's retroactive back to the beginning of time," said Don Davis, state
>public safety commissioner. "To me, the legislation is very specific;
>there's not a lot of flexibility here . . . There was, in my opinion, no
>deep thought given to it."
>
>Olson said the law should apply only to new hires.
>
>"I don't hire people who have convictions for domestic violence, period,"
>he said. "I think that's appropriate."
>
>But without a time limit, even a conviction for a minor infraction between
>a brother and sister who argued as teenagers would be grounds for
>dismissal for most police officers. The possibility of having to fire good
>officers who got into a scrape 10 or 20 years ago rubs Olson the wrong
>way.
>
>"I will be pretty much forced to terminate them," he said. "There will
>certainly be some tragic things happening in these families."
>
>There are some mitigating factors in the law. If the record of a
>conviction is expunged by a judge or if the person is pardoned by the
>governor, the person will be allowed to carry a gun again.
>
>Brian Dietz, press secretary for Gov. Arne Carlson, said it's too early to
>predict what the law will mean for Carlson's office. Dietz pointed out
>that the governor sits on Minnesota's pardons board, but that he isn't
>able to grant clemency himself.
>
>The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is responsible for
>enforcing the federal law.
>
>"We carry guns, and the law applies to federal officials also," said Roger
>Wheeler, special agent in charge of the Minneapolis office of the FBI. "If
>there is an agent who has been convicted of domestic abuse, it would be
>required they turn in their firearm."
>
>Coleen Rawley, Minneapolis FBI spokeswoman, said a letter from the ATF
>that spelled out the new law went out on a law enforcement teletype system
>to many agencies, including the FBI and police departments.
>
>She said she understands that the Justice Department will send forms to be
>signed by all agents of the FBI,the Drug Enforcement Administration and
>the Immigration and Naturalization Service who are authorized to carry
>firearms, saying they have not been convicted of domestic violence. She
>said she has not seen the form.
>
>Davis said that most agencies don't keep misdemeanor records much longer
>than seven years and that they will have to depend on the honesty of their
>employees.
>
>Staff writer Randy Furst contributed to this article.
>
>
>Copyright 1996 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
>---------------------------------------
>
>TTYL
>-=JB=-
>
>The Patriots' Page:  http://www.c2.org/~patriot
>
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: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 13 Dec 1996 08:41:40 -0700


On Fri, 13 Dec 1996,  Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>Hmmmm....  I haven't heard of any Salt Lake area police giving up
>their guns....  Anyone interested in calling the PD's and asking?
>(Of course I do realize that domestic violence "doesn't happen"
>here in Utah! <g>)
>
>Sarah

I'd love to find out that Bell and a few of his jack-booted associates
had some prior problems that would keep them off the street.

Can anyone here tell me if it is possible for joe citizen to check the
criminal (misdameener) record of someone?  How to do it?

--

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

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

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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 13 Dec 1996 09:23:10 -0700

> From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)

> I'd love to find out that Bell and a few of his jack-booted associates
> had some prior problems that would keep them off the street.
>
> Can anyone here tell me if it is possible for joe citizen to check the
> criminal (misdameener) record of someone?  How to do it?

Court decisions are public records, right?  I would imagine there's this
warehouse down 'round 3rd S. and 9th W. (Remember the scene in Indiana
Jones where the guy is "storing" the ark?)  Should be able to just wander
around and read to your heart's content?




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 13 Dec 1996 09:47:13 -0700


On Fri, 13 Dec 1996,  WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]> posted:

>> From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
>
>> I'd love to find out that Bell and a few of his jack-booted associates
>> had some prior problems that would keep them off the street.
>>
>> Can anyone here tell me if it is possible for joe citizen to check the
>> criminal (misdameener) record of someone?  How to do it?
>
>Court decisions are public records, right?  I would imagine there's this
>warehouse down 'round 3rd S. and 9th W. (Remember the scene in Indiana
>Jones where the guy is "storing" the ark?)  Should be able to just wander
>around and read to your heart's content?

Any organized way to check directly on somebody's name?  I know the
cops can just plug it into a computer, but what about the rest of us?
Any reasonable way to get a list of every cop on the SL or HP force?

--

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.

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are
 therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the
 aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they
 are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by
 the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human
 legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall
 himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." -- Sir William
 Blackstone

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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 13 Dec 1996 13:00:59 -0700

If all of us who profess to be pro-RKBA really believe that this
new law prohibiting anyone convicted of a misdemeanor domestic
violence offence from ever owning firearms is bullshit, which it is,
then why the hell do some of you delight in seeing a law
enforcement officer (or anyone else for that matter) disarmed for
the same reason?  I see this idea of attempting to identify affected
LEOs for the purpose of disarming them as hypocritical, and,
worse yet, as falling victim to the pro-gun control idiots who
support this moronic law.  Additionally, all this type of activity
can hope to produce is greater alienation between  law
enforcement and the law-abiding citizen.  Although I share your
disgust for Officer Bell's disdainful, elitist and, dare I use the term,
jack booted mentality towards CCW holders, I urge you to
reconsider.

Mike

 Charles Hardy <[e-mail]> 12/13/96 09:47am >>>

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996,  WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
posted:

>> From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
>
>> I'd love to find out that Bell and a few of his jack-booted
associates
>> had some prior problems that would keep them off the street.
>>
>> Can anyone here tell me if it is possible for joe citizen to check
the
>> criminal (misdameener) record of someone?  How to do it?
>
>Court decisions are public records, right?  I would imagine
there's this
>warehouse down 'round 3rd S. and 9th W. (Remember the scene
in Indiana
>Jones where the guy is "storing" the ark?)  Should be able to just
wander
>around and read to your heart's content?

Any organized way to check directly on somebody's name?  I
know the
cops can just plug it into a computer, but what about the rest of
us?
Any reasonable way to get a list of every cop on the SL or HP
force?

--

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.

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and
are
 therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not
the
 aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man
than they
 are; neither do they receive any additional strength when
declared by
 the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human
 legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the
owner shall
 himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." -- Sir
William
 Blackstone


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 13 Dec 1996 16:48:07 -0700


On Fri, 13 Dec 1996,  Mike Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>If all of us who profess to be pro-RKBA really believe that this
>new law prohibiting anyone convicted of a misdemeanor domestic
>violence offence from ever owning firearms is bullshit, which it is,
>then why the hell do some of you delight in seeing a law
>enforcement officer (or anyone else for that matter) disarmed for
>the same reason?  I see this idea of attempting to identify affected
>LEOs for the purpose of disarming them as hypocritical, and,
>worse yet, as falling victim to the pro-gun control idiots who
>support this moronic law.  Additionally, all this type of activity
>can hope to produce is greater alienation between  law
>enforcement and the law-abiding citizen.  Although I share your
>disgust for Officer Bell's disdainful, elitist and, dare I use the term,
>jack booted mentality towards CCW holders, I urge you to
>reconsider.
>
>Mike

Mike,

I do believe this law is crap.  But I also think that the AW ban and
the high capacity mag ban are also crap.  Cops are exempt from the
latter two because they can effectively purchase these items for
personal use through the department.  I also think the prohibition on
guns on school grounds, post offices, court houses, etc, etc, are
crap.  Cops are exempt from these because they are technically almost
always "on duty" if they want to be and can carry anywhere they darn
well please.  I think asking big brother for permission to CCW is
crap.  Once again, cops are mostly exempt because of their "on duty"
status.  Same thing will go for the up coming restrictions on the
already resritive and unconstitutional CCW permits.

There is already way too much alienation between cops and those they
are suppose to serve--gun owner or otherwise.  That alienation comes
from the fact that cops are above many of the laws they enforce on the
rest of us.  (Gun laws are just the most blatant legal example.  When
was the last time a cop got speeding ticket?  How often is someone
with a badge going to be subjected to an illegal search at a traffic
stop?)  Further, gun owners take their hardest beating from statist,
power hungry cops who call for more and more gun control to make their
jobs safer.  It has been relatively risk free for cops to make these
pleas because they have always been unaffected by them.  If the cops
have to live under the same laws as the rest of us, they may just quit
calling for those laws.  At the very least, I do suspect there is some
correlation between those who would abuse my RKBA and those who would
abuse a spouse.  If nothing else, maybe some bad cops will be taken
off the street and won't make such nice spokesmen for HCI.

This is also about a balance of power.  The executive branch is
suppose to act as a check on the legislative branch--not a rubber to
stamp.  Same goes for States vs Feds.  If local cops have to enforce
laws against their fellows just as they enforce them against us
commoners, maybe they will quit enfocing some of those laws and give
the legislative branch cause for pause.

Further, the department is going to have a really tough time
explaining why joe citezen who once had a problem with the wife is
unfit to own any gun, but Sgt. Friday who once had a problem with his
wife should be packing heat and making arrests every day of the year.
Ideally, I'd like to see departments take the stand that a misdameaner
is just that--not serious enough to remove basic rights regardless of
profession.  I doubt the cop bosses will do that, but I'll settle for
breaking down the notion in people's minds that there is some magical
difference between cops and the rest of us.

I can tell you this, if Billy Boy's SS guard was limited to the same
laws as the rest of us (IE no uzzis, no carry in schools, etc, etc) we
wouldn't have most of the gun laws we do.  Cops are peace keepers,
their weapons are for defensive purposes, they are not commandos
or military.  There is no reason for any LEO to posses ANY weapon
that I cannot purchase without restriction.

--

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.

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

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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: While You Weren't Looking... (fwd)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 23:53:19 -0700 (MST)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
   Subject: "While You Weren't Looking..."
      Date: 13 Dec 1996 02:44:00 -0000
      From: Secret Squirrel <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy, alt.radio.talk, alt.fan.art-bell

                           COMMAND GUIDANCE
              by Robert K. Brown, SOF Magazine, Jan. 97

In the final days of the 104th Congress, when no one on our side
seemed to be watching, the Democrats managed to quietly attack and
severely damage the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

The impact certainly will be worse than the assault weapons ban.

Clinton's hatchet men attached a number of riders to appropriation
bills.  In their haste to get home to run for re-election most of the
Republicans voted for the Democrats' language, which imposes more gun
control while allowing unreasonable search and seizure.  The worst of
it authorizes federal law-enforcement agencies to

1)confiscate firearms from, and prohibit further sales to, anyone
  convicted of a domestic related misdemeanor, and
2)establish a nationwide network of firearms-enforcement areas on the
  nation's highways.

The confiscation bill, sponsored for the Clinton administration by
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), might be the most sweeping, anti-gun
law since the Revolutionary War.

Although its language was weakened somewhat by NRA-friendly Rep. Bob
Barr (R-Ga), it dramatically changes the rules for lawful gun
ownership.

It used to be that felons were denied the right to gun ownership, but
that now has been extended to include those convicted of politically
incorrect misdemeanors.  As it now stands, if you are convicted of
any misdemeanor related to domestic conflict, ATF goons can come
through the door and seize your guns.  In other words, a man who
threatens to hit his wife and is convicted of uttering a threat might
lose his guns for life.

Women, take note:  Although this provision obviously is meant to show
female voters the Big Brother (the overbearing, federal government)
wants to "protect" them from brutish spouses, the reality could be
just the opposite.  For example, if a woman is connvicted of a
misdemeanor for (God forbid) spanking her children, she legally would
not be able to own a firearm to protect herself from a dangerous ex-
husband, and so on.

If these domestic crimes are so heinous, then the states ought to
change them to felonies, leaving the status of gun ownership the same.
But status quo on gun ownership is precisely what Lautenberg and
Slick Willie wanted to change.

The blunt reality is that this change in law represents the first step
toward prohibiting anyone convicted or any misdemeanor from owning
firearms.  And make no mistake, Big  Brother's goal is not to decrease
domestic violence or halt other misdemeanors; it merely is one more
excuse to seize more guns.

The second new, last-minute, anti-gun law was deviously engineered to
dovetail and  work with other recent changes in federal search-and-
seizure laws -- and expands ATF enforcement of firearms-confiscation
laws.

Earlier this year a separate bill, passed into law, expanded the right
of federal agents to stop vehicles for any reason.  Another new law
expanded the right of all law-enforcement officers -- federal, state
and local--to search a vehicle without a search warrant once it has
been stopped.

Federal law enforcement agencies have sought those changes for at
least 10 years to make it easier to intercept drugs.  The most recent
versions, however, clearly are Clinton-administration schemes to
facilitate firearms seizures.  (This won't be the first time anti-drug
provisions have been misused.)

The new firearms-enforcement areas created in the closing minutes of
the 104th prohibit the transportation of a firearm within 1,000 feet
of a school, unless exempted.

The catch is that almost every highway in America at some point is
within 1,000 feet of a school.

If a search conducted within one of these enforcement zones turns up a
firearm that is not locked up, even if it is unloaded, the driver is
subject to a felony charge.

This means  that if the old, pump shotgun in the rifle rack of your
pickup is not secured in a manner deemed acceptable by some
Washington bureaucrat, and you drive within a quarter-mile of a
school, your life suddenly could be altered by a trip as a "felon"
through the criminal-justice system.  Having a concealed-weapons
permit is not any protection, either, unless there was a background
check conducted in order to issue the permit.

That means that people who are carrying firearms legally in vehicles
in Vermont and Alabama -- states that issue such permits without
background checks -- are guilty of a federal felony.  It also means
that people in Virginia and Alaska, who can legally carry a loaded
firearm in a vehicle, are felons according to Big Brother.

The NRA is considering which action to take.  Who knows what will
happen?  Perhaps another question we should asking is, who was
supposed to be alerting all of us about this anti-gun, SNEAK ATTACK IN
CONGRESS Certainly the damage done to the lawful ownership of firearms
in a few short days was far worse than the passage of assault-weapons
ban.

As an NRA director, I know that if we had been able to alert our
members before this happened, there might have been enough outraged
phone calls to head off these things.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: to Hardy RE:to Mike
Date: 14 Dec 1996 18:45:36 +0000

Good piece.  I agree.  no cop should have a gun if joe citizen is not
entitled to have one. (it makes sense, if the world  is safe enough
for joe citizens not to carry, then it is plenty safe for the cops too) It also gripes me
to see cops carrying their weapon in plain clothes, off duty, with
their little badge straped to their belt next to the gun,  as if to
say i am something special. They are not. If they want to carry off
duty in plain sight let them be like the rest of us who do. There are
plenty instances where cops think they are superior to joe public,
and they need to be reminded they are citizens just like the rest of us.
larry larsen
> Date:          Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:48:07 -0700
> From:          [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
> To:            [e-mail]
> Subject:       Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
>                -Reply
> Reply-to:      [e-mail]

>
> On Fri, 13 Dec 1996,  Mike Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:
>
> >If all of us who profess to be pro-RKBA really believe that this
> >new law prohibiting anyone convicted of a misdemeanor domestic
> >violence offence from ever owning firearms is bullshit, which it is,
> >then why the hell do some of you delight in seeing a law
> >enforcement officer (or anyone else for that matter) disarmed for
> >the same reason?  I see this idea of attempting to identify affected
> >LEOs for the purpose of disarming them as hypocritical, and,
> >worse yet, as falling victim to the pro-gun control idiots who
> >support this moronic law.  Additionally, all this type of activity
> >can hope to produce is greater alienation between  law
> >enforcement and the law-abiding citizen.  Although I share your
> >disgust for Officer Bell's disdainful, elitist and, dare I use the term,
> >jack booted mentality towards CCW holders, I urge you to
> >reconsider.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Mike,
>
> I do believe this law is crap.  But I also think that the AW ban and
> the high capacity mag ban are also crap.  Cops are exempt from the
> latter two because they can effectively purchase these items for
> personal use through the department.  I also think the prohibition on
> guns on school grounds, post offices, court houses, etc, etc, are
> crap.  Cops are exempt from these because they are technically almost
> always "on duty" if they want to be and can carry anywhere they darn
> well please.  I think asking big brother for permission to CCW is
> crap.  Once again, cops are mostly exempt because of their "on duty"
> status.  Same thing will go for the up coming restrictions on the
> already resritive and unconstitutional CCW permits.
>
> There is already way too much alienation between cops and those they
> are suppose to serve--gun owner or otherwise.  That alienation comes
> from the fact that cops are above many of the laws they enforce on the
> rest of us.  (Gun laws are just the most blatant legal example.  When
> was the last time a cop got speeding ticket?  How often is someone
> with a badge going to be subjected to an illegal search at a traffic
> stop?)  Further, gun owners take their hardest beating from statist,
> power hungry cops who call for more and more gun control to make their
> jobs safer.  It has been relatively risk free for cops to make these
> pleas because they have always been unaffected by them.  If the cops
> have to live under the same laws as the rest of us, they may just quit
> calling for those laws.  At the very least, I do suspect there is some
> correlation between those who would abuse my RKBA and those who would
> abuse a spouse.  If nothing else, maybe some bad cops will be taken
> off the street and won't make such nice spokesmen for HCI.
>
> This is also about a balance of power.  The executive branch is
> suppose to act as a check on the legislative branch--not a rubber to
> stamp.  Same goes for States vs Feds.  If local cops have to enforce
> laws against their fellows just as they enforce them against us
> commoners, maybe they will quit enfocing some of those laws and give
> the legislative branch cause for pause.
>
> Further, the department is going to have a really tough time
> explaining why joe citezen who once had a problem with the wife is
> unfit to own any gun, but Sgt. Friday who once had a problem with his
> wife should be packing heat and making arrests every day of the year.
> Ideally, I'd like to see departments take the stand that a misdameaner
> is just that--not serious enough to remove basic rights regardless of
> profession.  I doubt the cop bosses will do that, but I'll settle for
> breaking down the notion in people's minds that there is some magical
> difference between cops and the rest of us.
>
> I can tell you this, if Billy Boy's SS guard was limited to the same
> laws as the rest of us (IE no uzzis, no carry in schools, etc, etc) we
> wouldn't have most of the gun laws we do.  Cops are peace keepers,
> their weapons are for defensive purposes, they are not commandos
> or military.  There is no reason for any LEO to posses ANY weapon
> that I cannot purchase without restriction.
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
>                                          THOMAS JEFFERSON
>
>

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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: L&J: [Fwd: Can't Happen?!?! HAH! <fwd>] (fwd)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 09:33:07 -0700 (MST)

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
  Send mail to [e-mail] for more info.

---559023410-851401618-850667587=:20842
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



---559023410-851401618-850667587=:20842
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Content-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961215093202.20842E@cor-oz>

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from hollyent.com ([206.234.87.10]) by sirius.wnstar.com
          (post.office MTA v1.9.3b ID# 0-11476) with SMTP id AAA195
          for <[e-mail]>; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 06:25:21 -0800
Return-Path: [e-mail]
Received: from MHS by hollyent.com with MHS
    id AGDDANEE ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 07:17:54 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

================[ Distributed Message ]================
         ListServer: TAB (Take America Back Mail List)
               Type: Not Moderated
     Distributed on: 14-DEC-96, 06:50:52
Original Written by: IN:[e-mail].
=======================================================


You just gotta love it, folks (see below). It is pure ecstacy, like Revenge
Of The RKBA Patriots.

The Law of Karma in action: "What Goes Around Comes Back Around To Grab You
In The Ass." (slightly paraphrased)

Now the Goons are getting a dose of their own insane legislatitive agenda.

I wonder if klintoon ever wapped Hillarity or the kid? No duck hunting for
him if he did.

Bob Knauer

-----

>>From the Columbus Dispatch, located at:
>http://www.cd.columbus.oh.us/
>
>Personal comments contained within [ ] - H.J.
>Note to Law Enforcement by J.J. at bottom.
>=======================================
>
>
>
>December 13, 1996
>
>New gun law snares six officers
>
>
>
>By Jodi Nirode
>Dispatch Staff Reporter
>
>    Five Columbus police officers -- including a sergeant -- and a
>State Highway Patrol trooper have been stripped of their duties
>and weapons in connection with charges against them for domestic
>violence.
>    The action comes in the wake of a federal law designed to get
>tough on those convicted of assaulting spouses and other loved
>ones. The law, which went into effect Sept. 30, prohibits from
>possessing a gun anyone with a conviction of domestic violence or
>other misdemeanors where force or attempted force is used.
>
>[Blatant violation of 10th Amendment and article I, section 9, prohibiting
>expost facto laws]
>
>The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
>shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of
>rebellion or invasion the public safety require it.
>No bill of attainder or ex post facto law
>shall be passed....
>(U.S. Constitution Art I, Sec 9)
>
>    Many local law enforcement officials -- including those with the
>Columbus Division of Police and the Highway Patrol -- say they
>weren't aware of the law until the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
>Firearms sent a memo to police agencies Nov. 26.
>
>[BATF - surprise, surprise....]
>
>    The ATF, in charge of enforcing the law, has put the burden on
>police agencies to determine whether any of their officers are
>affected.
>
>     "We're looking to educate people on this issue as best we can," said
>ATF spokesman Patrick Berarducci.
>
>[Berarducci....now, where have we heard his name before? could it
be....WACO???]
>
>    News of the law has sent agencies scrambling to catch up.
>    The Columbus police internal affairs bureau identified 30 of 1,688
>officers who might be affected, Acting Chief Robert Kern said. Of
>those, five had convictions that merited reassignment.
>
>[Why not give 'em all bicycles, night sticks, whistles, and be done with it?]
>
>    All five have been moved to administrative posts that don't require
>carrying a gun and will keep their current pay rate until the law
>has been fully reviewed by the courts, he said.
>
>[Guess the unConstitutionality of this piece of tripe becomes serious when
>it affects the 'enforcers'...]
>
>    Those reassigned from the Columbus Division of Police are Sgt.
>Ronald Dunlap, 42, an 18-year veteran, sent to desk duty with the
>patrol bureau; Jack L. Bosse, 50, a 25-year veteran, reassigned to
>the personnel department; Christopher Odom, 25, a second-year
>veteran, to the radio room; and Suzanne M. Mills, 32, a six-year
>veteran.
>    It was not immediately known where Mills had been reassigned,
>police spokeswoman Carrie Bartunek said.
>    Bartunek said she could not comment on the details of the
>convictions or when the offenses took place. A record of Mills' case
>-- the only officer convicted in Franklin County Municipal Court
>-- could not be found.
>
>[I'm so sure!]
>
>    A 1992 Dispatch story stated that Mills -- then using the last name
>Carollo -- assaulted her 7-year-old daughter, causing a bruise on
>her cheek and a bloody nose.
>
>[Ahhhhhh....one of those discipinarians...the school probably turned her in]
>
>    All four officers declined interviews with the Dispatch. [smart move]
>    The name of the fifth has not been released because that officer
>has yet to be notified, Bartunek said.
>    One of the 1,359 uniformed officers at the State Highway Patrol
>has been reassigned, spokeswoman Brenda Collins said.
>    Trooper Jerry Hernandez, 29, of the Lima Highway Patrol post,
>yesterday was sent to administrative duty. His pay was cut to
>reflect his new job, Collins said. [Hmmmmmm....sounds like double
>punishment. Nothin' unConstitutional 'bout that...]
>
>    Details weren't available on his conviction, which came in 1990 for
>domestic violence against his wife.
>    Representatives from 18 of the 25 other policing agencies in
>Franklin County told The Dispatch that they did not expect any of
>their officers to be affected. Officials from the other seven agencies
>could not be reached.
>    Finding out whether officers fall under the law can be tedious
>work, officials say.
>    That's because criminal background checks through the Bureau of
>Criminal Identification and Investigation don't always list
>misdemeanor records, said Capt. Wayne Howard of the Gahanna
>Police Department.
>    To double-check, Gahanna police investigators have been searching
>records in the counties where their officers live.
>    "Really, there's an opportunity that something could fall through
>the cracks," Howard said.
>
>[Never happens to the peons....]
>
>    Police agencies aren't the only ones affected by the law. It also
>involves anyone who owns a gun, from soldiers to public citizens,
>said Berarducci of the ATF.
>    "There is no exception," he said. "I don't know why everyone keeps
>concentrating on law enforcement officials. It affects doctors,
>lawyers, mayors, city councilmen  . . . everybody."
>
>[And they said it would never happen in America....RIGHT!!!]
>
>    Right now, thousands of state employees who are certified to carry
>weapons are being reviewed. That review includes:
>    * More than 8,000 guards, supervisors and parole officers statewide
>through the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
>    * 400 full-time officers and 100 part-time officers with the Ohio
>Division of Wildlife.
>    * 92 liquor control and food trafficking agents in the Ohio
>Department of Public Safety.
>    * 94 agents at the Bureau of Criminal Identification and
>Investigation in the attorney general's office.
>    Ironically, those last 94 officers who are reviewing the criminal
>history files of others are having their records reviewed at the
>same time, said Christopher Davey, spokesman for the attorney
>general.
>
>************************************************************************
>
>    The law applies retroactively to any convictions before the Sept. 30
>date, which some say may be unconstitutional, Kern said.
>    "My concern is it's retroactive  . . . because when a lot of people are
>young -- 18, 19 -- they might be married and have a problem.
>
>
>*************************************************************************
>[Now there's a Constitutional scholar....MAY BE unConstitutional???? Like you
>ever read the bloody document????]
>
>    "Then when they're older they may have divorced, had counseling,
>straightened their problem out," Kern said.
>    Mike Tanner, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Capital
>City Lodge No. 9, said the national FOP is planning to file an
>injunction to stop the law.
>
>[Oh my...the enforcement officers really can't stand being treated like the
>peons! They didn't give a flying rat's behind about the Constitutionality of
>this piece of dreck until it hit home. And they have the nerve to wonder why
>they are so despised....]
>
>    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms lists information about the
>law under
>the firearms section on its Web site:
>    http://www.atf.treas.gov
>
>[Put on yer seat belts....we're in for a ride!]
>
>Helen Reed-Johnson
>==============================
>To Law Enforcement:
>
>As you can now see, those right-wing, radical extremists aren't as crazy as
>you were led to believe. Just remember that while your "bosses" are doing
>this IN YOUR FACE gun confiscation to your brothers and sisters of the
>Frateral Order, they're also telling you to consider virtually any American
>who owns a gun as an extremly dangerous criminal.
>
>Bet you're furious right now. Thought it would never happen to you, right?
>Oh, you never had a domestic problem? Just wait. They'll get around to you
>soon enough. (Remember:They eat their young). Now, you know how WE feel.
>
>Here's some advice: Don't bother sending your informants to patriot
>meetings...show up yourself (in uniform), and bring your partners. Start
>distributing that free literature your informants snaged from our meetings.
>
>One more thing, instead of wasting valuable time watching us, start watching
>the guys who send gun-grabbing memos to your office.
>
>
>Welcome to the Revolution...
>
>J.J. Johnson
>==============================
>===========================================================
>J.J. & Helen Johnson - Fridays - 8:00 pm EST - WWCR 5.070 Mhz
>E Pluribus Unum & The Ohio Unorganized Militia
>P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787
>Voice [phone] Voice Mail: 1-888-572-6280
>Web Site - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html
>"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6
>
>
>
--

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

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



========================================================================
To subscribe: send a message to the [e-mail]
with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field.  Use UNSUBSCRIBE to
remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems?
    email: Not [e-mail] or [e-mail]
For information about this system and its lists email: [e-mail]
  Help to save your liberties! mailto: [e-mail] SUBJECT: bernie
========================================================================
via: Holly Enterprises 602-922-1639 - www.hollyent.com





=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Unsub info - send to [e-mail] with "unsubscribe"
in body (not subject) of the msg.  List-Owner - Mike Goldman <[e-mail]>

---559023410-851401618-850667587=:20842--

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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 16 Dec 1996 10:03:54 -0700

Mike,

I do believe this law is crap.  But I also think that the AW ban and
the high capacity mag ban are also crap.  Cops are exempt from the
latter two because they can effectively purchase these items for
personal use through the department.  I also think the prohibition
on
guns on school grounds, post offices, court houses, etc, etc, are
crap.  Cops are exempt from these because they are technically
almost
always "on duty" if they want to be and can carry anywhere they
darn
well please.  I think asking big brother for permission to CCW is
crap.  Once again, cops are mostly exempt because of their "on
duty"
status.  Same thing will go for the up coming restrictions on the
already resritive and unconstitutional CCW permits.

I absolutely agree with everything you say here.

There is already way too much alienation between cops and those
they
are suppose to serve--gun owner or otherwise.  That alienation
comes
from the fact that cops are above many of the laws they enforce
on the
rest of us.  (Gun laws are just the most blatant legal example.

I also agree that there is already too much alienation between
cops and citizens.  Why then antagazine the situation by actively
seeking out affected LEOs?  If we are really trying to get the police
on our side, I see this as the wrong way to go about it. If an
agency identifies those affected officers and strips them of their
weapons that's another story.
 When
was the last time a cop got speeding ticket?

Believe it or not, this does happen.  Although I'd be nieve to think
that a badge would not serve you well in most situations.

 How often is someone
with a badge going to be subjected to an illegal search at a traffic
stop?)  Further, gun owners take their hardest beating from statist,
power hungry cops who call for more and more gun control to
make their jobs safer.

Then it's the power hungry cops who abuse their status as a cop
who need to be identified and booted off of the force.  We don't
need to go on a witch hunt.

  It has been relatively risk free for cops to make these
pleas because they have always been unaffected by them.  If the
cops
have to live under the same laws as the rest of us, they may just
quit
calling for those laws.

Agreed!
At the very least, I do suspect there is some
correlation between those who would abuse my RKBA and those
who would
abuse a spouse.  If nothing else, maybe some bad cops will be
taken
off the street and won't make such nice spokesmen for HCI.

This is also about a balance of power.  The executive branch is
suppose to act as a check on the legislative branch--not a rubber
to
stamp.  Same goes for States vs Feds.  If local cops have to
enforce
laws against their fellows just as they enforce them against us
commoners, maybe they will quit enfocing some of those laws and
give
the legislative branch cause for pause.

Further, the department is going to have a really tough time
explaining why joe citezen who once had a problem with the wife
is
unfit to own any gun, but Sgt. Friday who once had a problem
with his
wife should be packing heat and making arrests every day of the
year.
Ideally, I'd like to see departments take the stand that a
misdameaner
is just that--not serious enough to remove basic rights regardless
of
profession.  I doubt the cop bosses will do that, but I'll settle for
breaking down the notion in people's minds that there is some
magical
difference between cops and the rest of us.

I can tell you this, if Billy Boy's SS guard was limited to the same
laws as the rest of us (IE no uzzis, no carry in schools, etc, etc) we
wouldn't have most of the gun laws we do.  Cops are peace
keepers,
their weapons are for defensive purposes, they are not
commandos
or military.  There is no reason for any LEO to posses ANY
weapon
that I cannot purchase without restriction.

I don't disagree at all.  The point I was trying to make in my
original post was that by us actively seeking out LEOs affected by
this BS misdemeanor domestic violence law will most certainly
further alienate law-abiding citizens and police officers.  I'd much
rather see a coming together for the common good of both.

Mike

--

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.

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


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 16 Dec 1996 10:58:59 -0700


On Mon, 16 Dec 1996,  Mike Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

[much deleted for lack of quoting offsets making reply difficult and
cumbersome]

>I don't disagree at all.  The point I was trying to make in my
>original post was that by us actively seeking out LEOs affected by
>this BS misdemeanor domestic violence law will most certainly
>further alienate law-abiding citizens and police officers.  I'd much
>rather see a coming together for the common good of both.

And my point is that agencies like the UHP and SLCPD may drag their
feet on this and not identify officers.  IOW, officers will not be
affected but you and I will (FWIW, I am unaffected by this law) and so
there remains no incentive for officers to begin supporting our
rights.  I don't think officers can be alienated from citizens any
further than they already are just by us insisting they live up to the
same laws we all do.  I also think that those officers who are the
biggest probelm, the power hungry ones, are most likely to have
domestic convictions in their pasts.  Removing those with domestic
convictions then kills two birds with one stone, force cops and
departments to live under the same asinine laws we all do so they will
stop supporting those laws AND get some of the worst cops off the
street.  Cops are not going to "come together" with us so long as they
are not affected.  I want to make sure they get affected as quickly as
possible so this law can go away as quickly as possible.

So I'll ask once again, does anyone know of anyway to get a list
of all officers within a department?

Does anyone know how to check court records of a random person?

Thanks.

>
>Mike
>


--

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.

"`The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
 The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and
 not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not
 such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed,
 curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for
 the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-
 regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.
 Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the
 Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." -- NUNN v. STATE,
 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)

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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 16 Dec 1996 12:02:46 -0700

So I'll ask once again, does anyone know of anyway to get a list
of all officers within a department?

Does anyone know how to check court records of a random
person?

I don't disagree with your intent; only with your methods.  I
believe that a proactive approach with law enforcement to the
problem  will be far more fruitful that the antagonistic approach
you suggest.  If you believe that the result of your campaign will
make LEOs want to work with us against this foolish law I think
you're being extremely naive.  Even if it does force LEOs to push
for a repeal of the law it certainly does nothing to help to bridge
the gap between law enforcement and the public.  If you succeed
in disarming a LEO who has a  domestic abuse conviction don't
think for a minute that the agency or any of its individual officers
are going to have any warm and fuzzy feelings towards you.  Like
it or not, we need these people on OUR side.  And believe it or
not, most of them are.

Mike



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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: L&J: [Fwd: Can't Happen?!?! HAH! <fwd>] (fwd)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 11:03:58 -0800



On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>I wonder if klintoon ever wapped Hillarity or the kid? No duck
>hunting for him if he did.

Then there was the Secret Service report of Hillary throwing a lamp at
Bill.  Let's see... misdemeanor (domestic) assault, destruction of
government property; that's a good start for charges.  Where's Kenneth
Starr when you really need him?


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 16 Dec 1996 13:06:49 -0700


On Mon, 16 Dec 1996,  Mike Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

Please add something to offset quoted material from the material you
are writing.  It does make it much easier to follow the discussion and
to keep track of who is saying what.

>I don't disagree with your intent; only with your methods.  I
>believe that a proactive approach with law enforcement to the
>problem  will be far more fruitful that the antagonistic approach
>you suggest.

What proactive approach?  The police isolate themselves with private
ranges, contempt for the very laws they are enforcing, and even the
NRA provides competitions open only to LEOs.  There is NO incentive
for cops to defend our rights.  Cops were adamantly opposed to
allowing CCW in arizona until the voters made the legislature make it
clear that they were not going to grant CCW to offduty cops without
giving to everybody.  The only way to get and keep cops on the side of
citizens' rights is to tie them to the citizens so they have no
choice.  Sink or swin together, but no more privleged classes.

>If you believe that the result of your campaign will
>make LEOs want to work with us against this foolish law I think
>you're being extremely naive.

And if you think letting them work and live in violation of current
statute while the commoners suffer under its burden is going to make
them suddenly benovolent and protective of our rights you are saddly
mistaken.  How many cops spoke against prohibition?  In 20+ years of
federally imposed speed limits how many cops argued against it?  How
many cops support your rights to be free from warrantless search and
seizure while traveling?  How many vocally supported loosening the
restrictions on CCW in this State?  How many of them support your
right to CCW without licking the govt's boots and begging permission
to do something you were born free to do? IE Vermont style carry?  How
many of them would support ANY provision for non LEOs to EVER carry a
gun onto a plane?  Cops do it all the time.  A little training, a form
or two, and they do it.  Are they smarter or more proficient than you
or I could be?  Cops, like every group of humans, have a really hard
time working for or even supporting something in which they have no
vested interest.

LEOs didn't become tea-totalers during prohibition.  They didn't all
start driving 55 in the 70s, they don't leave their guns at home or
secure them in their car when they are off duty.  They don't offer to
let every other cop on the road stop them without cause and tear their
cars appart in a search.  They don't have to.  They aren't asked to.
You and I are.

I don't particularrly care if they work with us or not as long as the
law is repealed.  If it isn't, then I don't particularrly want those
convicted of violent misdomeeners working as cops anyway.  I expect
cops to be held to a higher, not a lower, standard than the rest of
us.  A man or woman who would become violent with a family member is
that much more likely to become violent with me.

>Even if it does force LEOs to push
>for a repeal of the law it certainly does nothing to help to bridge
>the gap between law enforcement and the public.  If you succeed
>in disarming a LEO who has a  domestic abuse conviction don't
>think for a minute that the agency or any of its individual officers
>are going to have any warm and fuzzy feelings towards you.  Like
>it or not, we need these people on OUR side.  And believe it or
>not, most of them are.

Maybe, maybe not.  But those who are on our side are not going to take
offense at my suggestion or even determination that cops live under
the same laws as the rest of us.  Those who are not on our side are
not going to join us becuase we bend over and make nice yet again.
I'm including below a post sent to FAP by an LEO.  This guy is on our
side it seems.  Does it sound like he is going to be offended by
someone holding cops up to the same standard as the rest of us?

In short, a few weeks behind a desk worried about the future may at
least keep a few people's mouth shut the next time Brady goes looking
for cops to support her.

--include forwarded message--


As a LEO,

I have personally laughed in the face of some of my colleagues who
boasted voting for Klinton and trumpeting the efforts of organized
crime....er I mean labor.

Most of these chumps belong to the FOP. I belong to the LEAA, the only
REAL professional organization of law enforcement !

To any of you fellow LEO's who voted for Klinton...Don't cry now, go
thank your Union Steward ! You thought your jobs and rights were safe
just because we were law enforcement. Well, too bad...How many of you
pompous fools scoffed at the NRA just last month ? Now you crawl to them
to ask for their help ?

The anti's care nothing about rights....they care nothing about your
service to community or country. They care nothing about how you will
"fly" that desk for a couple of months while you sweat it out over what
your department is planning for you. While you suckled up to the Chief or
Mayor's "teat" thinking you were safe, calling your brothers and sisters
who believe in the RKBA "radicals", you were the one's who got
"suckered".

If you can't tell, I'm pissed. And no...the new law doesn't affect me.
I'm clean, no record....but, rights are still being violated. So, why
should I speak out ????? Call me a fool, call me an American.

http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/leaa1.html

Wake up !


Frank Finch
[e-mail]

--

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.

"`The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
 The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and
 not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not
 such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed,
 curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for
 the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-
 regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.
 Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the
 Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." -- NUNN v. STATE,
 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)

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

From: Mike Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 16 Dec 1996 15:16:48 -0700

It appears to me that you are making no distinction between the
beat cop and the brass.  From personal experience I find that, in
Utah at least,  the average street cop is on our side.  It's the
"politically correct" appointed brass that are, in many cases, no
friends of the RKBA movement.  I also don't believe that it's the
responsibility of the police to protect our rights; only to enforce
the laws, good and bad alike.  I'm afraid that we are going to have
to agree to disagree on this particular issue.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Copd lose guns
Date: 16 Dec 1996 16:59:33 -0700


From AZRKBA.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

>
> When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
> When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
> When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
> Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.
>

When the banned the new manufacture of machineguns for civilian use in 1986,
  I didn't speak out because as a police officer, I didn't think civilians
  had any use for a machine gun and besides, I could always
  get them for myself.
When they banned the importation of some semiautomatic rifles in 1989, I
  didn't speak out because as a police officer, I didn't think civilians
  had any use for imported semiautomatic rifles, and besides, I could
  always get them for myself.
When they instituted apriori checks on the exersize of the right to bear arms
  in 1993, I
  didn't speak out because as a police officer, I didn't think civilians
  had any use for handguns, and besides, I could always get them for
  myself.
When they banned the new manufacture of high capacity magazines and semi-
  automatic firearms for civilian use in 1994,  I didn't speak out, because
  as a police officer, I didn't
  think civilians had any use for semiautomatic firearms and high capacity
  ammunition feeding devices, and besides, I could always get them for
  my self.
And when they passed a ex-post facto law that reached into the distant past
  and robbed me of my ability to make a living in my chosen profession in
  1996, there was no one left to speak out for me because there were no more
  gun owners who gave a shit.



--

Steve Kimmel
[e-mail]

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

"In all history the only bright rays cutting the gloom of oppression
 have come from men who would rather get hurt than give in." -- Jeff
 Cooper; from "Pistols and the Law" in "Cooper on Handguns"

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Copd lose guns
Date: 16 Dec 1996 17:08:24 -0800



On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, [e-mail] (Charles Hardy) wrote:
>
>>From AZRKBA.
>
>----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
>When the banned the new manufacture of machineguns for civilian use
in 1986,
>  I didn't speak out because as a police officer, I didn't think
civilians
>  had any use for a machine gun and besides, I could always
>  get them for myself.



As a 28-year Marine veteran, I love to see police officers referring
to citizens as "civilians."

Point to remember:  we're ALL shipmates on the U.S.S. America.  ANY
violation of the Bill of Rights will eventually diminish ALL of us.

Joe Waldron
USMC (ret)

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Copd lose guns
Date: 16 Dec 1996 18:23:24 -0700


On Mon, 16 Dec 1996,  [e-mail] posted:

>As a 28-year Marine veteran, I love to see police officers referring
>to citizens as "civilians."

I was kind of under the impression that anyone not in the military was
a civilian.  It kind of worries me to see our former peace officers
becomming and aspiring to more and more military organization,
behaviour, and tactics.  What is necessary and proper for a soldier to
do in a war zone, is not, IMHO, at all proper for a cop to do on
american soil involving US Citizens.

>
>Point to remember:  we're ALL shipmates on the U.S.S. America.  ANY
>violation of the Bill of Rights will eventually diminish ALL of us.

Very true.  Until now, LEOs have been exempt from many of the
infringments inflicted on teh rest of us.

>
>Joe Waldron
>USMC (ret)
>


--

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.

"In all history the only bright rays cutting the gloom of oppression
 have come from men who would rather get hurt than give in." -- Jeff
 Cooper; from "Pistols and the Law" in "Cooper on Handguns"

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law
Date: 16 Dec 1996 16:14:13 -0700


On Mon, 16 Dec 1996,  Mike Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>It appears to me that you are making no distinction between the
>beat cop and the brass.  From personal experience I find that, in
>Utah at least,  the average street cop is on our side.  It's the
>"politically correct" appointed brass that are, in many cases, no
>friends of the RKBA movement.

How many UHP Troopers does your experience include?  SCLPD officers?
Other than those two organizations you are probably correct mostly
correct.  However, very few of the pro-RKBA cops are willing to speak
up in our defense, probably due to fear of retribution from the brass.
If they have some high stake in it, they may speak up in spite of the
brass which is what we need.  In any case, losing some officers from
the street may force the brass to rethink some things.

>I also don't believe that it's the
>responsibility of the police to protect our rights; only to enforce
>the laws, good and bad alike.

I believe all public officials swear an oath to defend the
Constitutions of the US and Utah.  Enforcing bad laws is no different
than "just following orders".  There is suppose to be a balance of
power between three branches of govt as well as between the fed and
the States.  That balance extends beyond the ability of the CEO to
veto bills.  Refusing to enforce bad laws, or at least speaking
against them in the same way they speak in favor of laws they support,
is a part of that balance.  Also, if our cops would concentrate more
on just "keeping the peace" (peace officers) rather than "enforcing
the law" (LEOs) there would be the adverserial relationship between
cops and non-cops that we see today.  In Texas I'm told that the
down-to-earth, decent cops refer to the over-zelous, JBGTs as "law
enforcement types" while keeping the label "peace officer" for
themselves.

>I'm afraid that we are going to have
>to agree to disagree on this particular issue.

If you refuse to see the light I guess so.  ;)

>


--

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.

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
 reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
 the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
 independence." -- Charles A. Beard

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Honor System at SLPD and SL County Sheriff
Date: 17 Dec 1996 12:52:44 -0700


Front page article in todays SL Trib about how the Domestic Violence
prohibition on gun possession is going to affect SL PD and Sheriff's
personnel.  Both the Sheriff and the Chief say that anyone convicted
in the future will be either let go or reassigned.

However, it is aparantly too difficult to check past records so they
won't even try.  The Chief says anyone convicted of Domestic Violence
would likely be let go while the Sheriff will reassign them to desk
duty at a pay cut.  Both say they have informed their personnel of the
law and will rely on the "honor system" to enforce it.

I feel soooo much better.  Tell a man you are going to make no effort
to check his record, but that if he tells you there is something there
it will, at best, cost him a pay cut, and at worst get him fired out
right, and then ask him to freely volunteer that informantion and
seriously think his "honor" is going to have him in there spilling his
guts.  These guys are incredible.  Let's go to an honor system for
enforcing speed limits.

The article notes that the ACLU was not opposed to the law at the time
it passed but now has serious constitutional concerns about it.  I'm
hoping their lack of initial opposition was due to lack of time to
muster oppostion and that they would be just as concerned about the
constitutional questions if cops were exempted and the law only hit at
us commoners.  But I have my doubts.  Oh well, if nothing else maybe
we'll finally see the ACLU argue in favor of gun rights.

Interesting quote at the end from somebody at some agency that works
with domestic violence along the lines that the law ignores the
ability of people to change.  IE a problem 20 years ago does not mean
you have a problem today.

In any case, I'm thinking some letters to the editor are in order, but
as usual, my queue is more than full with the papers, I'm sure.

--

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.

"In all history the only bright rays cutting the gloom of oppression
 have come from men who would rather get hurt than give in." -- Jeff
 Cooper; from "Pistols and the Law" in "Cooper on Handguns"

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

From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
Subject: 7-11 manager fired for apprehending robbery suspect (fwd)
Date: 17 Dec 1996 18:16:50 -0700 (MST)

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

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

   ______ [Contents....]- StarText.Net Home - Community News - InterAct -
   Market Place
   Updated: Monday, Dec. 16, 1996 at 22:34 CST




Manager fired hours after being honored for work

   By The Associated Press


   ODESSA -- One minute, Wiley Berggren was a 7-Eleven star, honored at a
   company dinner for increasing sales and controlling overtime.

   But 21/2 hours later, Berggren was out of a job, fired for violating
   company policy by apprehending a robbery suspect.

   "This has sort of ruined the holidays," said Berggren, an eight-year
   veteran until his Dec. 10 firing.

   Three youths were trying to steal an 18-pack of beer Dec. 9 when
   Berggren, manager of the Odessa store, walked out of a storeroom. He
   said that he headed for a female customer whom he was concerned about
   and that one of the three youths attacked him.

   "So, I wrapped him up and took him to the ground," said Berggren, who
   bound the suspect's hands with a trash bag until police arrived. The
   other two escaped.

   Berggren said he merely acted in self-defense.

   "These punk kids have no regard for anybody or anything," he said. "I
   didn't want anybody to get hurt."

   Employees who intervene in suspected criminal activity will be fired,
   according to the policy of Southwest Convenience Stores, a licensee of
   Dallas-based Southland Corp.

   "There is no challenge to this policy," said District Manager Nick
   Pappes, who conceded that firing Berggren was a tough decision. "We
   can't allow any gray area."

   The policy is in place in all 35 of Southwest's Odessa locations, said
   claims manager Laurie Lindsey.

   "We are not going to jeopardize employee or customer safety," she
   said.

   After a similar incident four years ago, Berggren was "a hair from
   being fired," Pappes said.

   Two other major West Texas convenience store companies have similar
   employee nonaggression policies, a check by the `Odessa American'
   found.

   Dan McCurdy, spokesman for San Angelo-based Town & Country Food
   Stores, said employees are expected to give bandits full cooperation,
   "even if it's ripping off the cash register from the roots."




     _________________________________________________________________

   © 1996 Fort Worth Star-Telegram -- Terms and Conditions -- Send
   us your Feedback.

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Limbaugh suggests Toys for Guns
Date: 18 Dec 1996 10:47:07 -0700

>Return-Path: [e-mail]
>Date: 18 Dec 96 02:14:14 EST
>From: Thomas Burke <[e-mail]>
>To: BlindCopyReceiver:;
>Subject: Limbaugh suggests Toys for Guns
>Sender: [e-mail]
>
>    Yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh show, Limbaugh suggested
>that Los Angeles institute a "Toys for Guns" program.
>    OK, I'm baiting you.
>    It seems that it was suspected that gang members had broken into a
>storage area and stolen toys that had been collected for poor children for
>Christmas.
>    Rush said that there was a sure fire way to get the toys back, but only
>if
>the people of L.A. were firm in their resolve to do so.
>    They should institute a "Toys for Guns" program and give the gang members
>guns in exchange for the toys and that way the people of L.A. could get all the
>toys back
>in time for Christmas.
>    What a hoot.
>
>Tom
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
http://www.therighter.com

The Tree of Liberty needs fertilizing.....


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Minneapolis officers give up guns in wake of new law-Reply
Date: 19 Dec 1996 07:03:51 -0700

Charles wrote: (I think - someone correct me if I'm wrong!)
>I can tell you this, if Billy Boy's SS guard was limited to the same
>laws as the rest of us (IE no uzzis, no carry in schools, etc, etc) we
>wouldn't have most of the gun laws we do.  Cops are peace
>keepers,
>their weapons are for defensive purposes, they are not
>commandos
>or military.  There is no reason for any LEO to posses ANY
>weapon
>that I cannot purchase without restriction.

Mike wrote:
>I don't disagree at all.  The point I was trying to make in my
>original post was that by us actively seeking out LEOs affected by
>this BS misdemeanor domestic violence law will most certainly
>further alienate law-abiding citizens and police officers.  I'd much
>rather see a coming together for the common good of both.

I don't really disagree with either of you.  Police should have no
special privileges and should obey the same laws as the rest of us.
The best outcome would be "a coming together" to defeat these
stupid laws.  However, I don't get the impression that the police
are willing to give up their special powers and privileges.  They
seem to want to be exempted from the laws, not repeal them.

If they're willing to work WITH us to REPEAL the laws, great!  Otherwise,
it's up to US to make sure they abide by the same laws as ordinary citizens.

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
http://www.therighter.com

The Tree of Liberty needs fertilizing.....


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Donates to Anti-Gun Coalition
Date: 19 Dec 1996 08:49:23 -0700


>Gun Week (12/1/96) reports that AT&T has given $3 million to an Anti-Gun
>Organization. AT&T has teamed up with the Benton Foundation, the Coalition
>for America's children, the advertising council, Inc. and Young & Rubicon
>to promote a so called "Children's campaign" titled "Whose side are you
>on?" Ruth Wooden, president of the Advertising Council said the campaign
>will promote the issues of the Coalition for America's Children (a.k.a.
>"the Coalition").
>
>The campaign was made possible by a $3 million grant from AT&T. Many of the
>members of the campaign are also members of Handgun Control, Inc. Five of
>the Coalition's seven-member executive committee are HCI or Stop Handgun
>Violence members. Ten of its 19 member steering committee are also Handgun
>Control, Inc. or Stop Handgun Violence members.
>
>If you look at the Coalition's web site, it shows numerous organizations
>with direct links to HCI.
>
>Check out http://www.kidscampaigns.org and judge for yourself. It even has
>links to the "Stand for Children" effort
>(http://www.usakids.org/html/research.html) which Newt Gingrich denounced
>last summer as a puppet of the Democratic party.
>
>If you're an AT&T customer, you might want to ask them why they are
>supporting Anti-Gun liberal organizations with your money.
>
>
>****************************************************************************
>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
http://www.therighter.com

The Tree of Liberty needs fertilizing.....


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prince Phillip article
Date: 19 Dec 1996 13:03:33 -0700

YES!!!!  Prince Philip for King!!
Heck, Prince Philip for PRESIDENT!!!!!

Sarah

>PRINCE PHILIP caused an outcry among gun law reformers and the people of
>Dunblane last night by claiming that gun clubs were no more dangerous than
>squash clubs or golf clubs.
>
>"I can't believe that members of shooting clubs are any more dangerous than
>members of a squash club or a golf club or anything else," he says in a radio
>programme to be broadcast tonight. I mean, they're perfectly reasonable people,
>like the great majority of the population in this country."
>
>Prince Philip urges listeners to remember that people and not weapons are the
>danger. "If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and
>batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very
>easily - I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?"
>
>He adds: "I sympathise desperately with the people who are bereaved at
Dunblane,
>but I'm not altogether convinced that it's the best system to somehow shift the
>blame on to a very large and peaceable part of the community in trying to make
>yourself feel better. This transfer of blame on to the sport shooters, I think,
>is a little unreasonable. I mean, I can understand the fury and unhappiness.
>But, I mean, these are sensible people who belong to these clubs."
>
>Prince Philip also says that the Firearms Bill going through the House of Lords
>is "unreasonable" and ineffective. The Bill, which is making slow progress,
will
>render 160,000 handguns illegal, but the Prince believes that it will do
nothing
>to prevent guns falling into criminal hands.
>
>His remarks, which will be transmitted during the Inside Edge programme on BBC
>Radio Five Live, were attacked for their timing as well as their content. There
>are likely to be broader constitutional questions about the wisdom of a member
>of the Royal Family expressing opposition to controversial legislation in
>progress.
>
>Ann Pearston, the organiser of the Dunblane Snowdrop petition, said: "Prince
>Philip is effectively endorsing the argument of the shooting community and, as
>the husband of the monarch, he is taking sides in a very sensitive political
>debate." Beverley Birnie, 32, whose six-year-old son Matthew survived the
school
>massacre in which 16 pupils and a teacher died, said: "How many people can you
>kill in three and a half minutes with a cricket bat? It is not the same as an
>automatic gun. You have to be realistic."
>
>At Westminster the Prince's remarks were generally denounced as "crass" and
>"insensitive". Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party, said:
>"He should keep out of the guns debate. Clearly most of the people whom he
>associates most intimately with shoot as a sport, but the overwhelming majority
>of public opinion in Scotland is for a total ban on handguns.
>
>"It is not a matter of blaming people for what happened in Dunblane. It is a
>matter of trying to ensure public safety in the future. His comments are crass,
>insensitive and typically Prince Philip."
>
>Tony Banks, Labour MP for Newham North West, said: "As ever, the Duke of
>Edinburgh has got it wrong. No one is blaming responsible members of gun clubs.
>Unfortunately, they are just being asked to pay the price because of
Dunblane. I
>despair of the Duke of Edinburgh. This man is insensitive, selfish and
>ham-fisted. A prolonged period of silence on his part would be much
>appreciated."
>
>Alan Williams, Labour MP for Swansea West, said: "I think it is very
ill-advised
>of the Prince at this delicate stage in the fortunes of the monarchy to come
>blundering in on an issue on which most members of the public, as well as most
>MPs would disagree with him. He has done his cause no good, nor the reputation
>of the monarchy."
>
>Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat MP for Fife North East, said: "Sadly, the
>Duke of Edinburgh is entirely out of touch with public opinion on this matter."
>
>For the gun lobby, the Duke's words came as a welcome relief from the tide of
>popular opinion. "I'm delighted that he has had the courage to make this
>statement," said Michael Yardley, a spokesman for the Sportsman's
Association of
>Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Clearly, there has been a scapegoating of
>the shooting community since the Dunblane tragedy, probably because Thomas
>Hamilton is dead and not available to face the music."
>
>Prince Philip's remarks were welcomed also by Sir Jerry Wiggin, the Tory
>vice-chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council who led a rebellion of
>pro-shooting MPs in the Commons. He said: "It's good to have support from
such a
>wise and authorative source. Thousands of people who use weapons safely for
>their hobby are being blamed and he has sussed that out."
>
>Last night a Buckingham Palace spokesman emphasised: "These were personal views
>and not intended to cause hurt to those at Dunblane." However, the Prince may
>incur a reprimand from his family. The Queen and the Princess Royal were deeply
>moved by their Dunblane visits. A family friend said the likely royal reaction
>would be: "He's really gone and put his foot in it this time."
>--
>I seriously bloody doubt it given the raking Prince William took in the press a
>couple of weeks ago.
>
>MOVING SLOWLY???  It is hard to conceive how it could move much faster!  Note
>how to disagree with  the Duke Of Edinburgh they have to slander him, because
>they have no real argument based in reason.
>
>Kudos to Prince Phillip, about the only member of the Royal Family I have ever
>had any respect for.
>
>Steve.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
http://www.therighter.com

The Tree of Liberty needs fertilizing.....


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Be careful in California!]
Date: 20 Dec 1996 12:17:14 -0700


No big surprise, but California is really bizare.  For the non-Scots
among us, a dirk is a Scottish Short Sword (dagger) usually with a
blade in the 18" range.  It is decrative and ceremonial these days and
almast always unsharpened, considered part of proper evening wear when
in Scottish attire or worn during the day by bandsmen (pipers and
drummers).  The knife carried in the sock mentioned below is actually
a skean dbu(sp?) which is nothing more than a fixed blade of about 3"
to 5" usually with a bone or horn handle.  It is somewhere between a
ceremonial piece and a utility knife.  Dropping one into a coat pocket
is the equavalent of carrying a swiss army knife there--except the
blade doesn't fold.

FWIW, I also know of a piper who had quite a hassel in Massachusetts
for having said dirk and skean dbu on the floorboard of his car.  He
had left them there after a performance rather than putting them away
with the rest of his uniform.  It almost cost him a felony arrest as
ANY double edged knife is felony illegal in the PRM and both skean
dbus and dirks tend to have double edges (if they can be called edges
in an unsharped condition) for at least part of their length.

I wonder how long before butchers tools are outlawed...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----



Hi, all --

Lt. Steven McKinney of the District Attorney's office in Sacramento has
written to warn us all about a change in California law regarding dirks and
daggers.  If I am summarizing his warning correctly, it is that you can wear
your these (and the black knife) in a sheath and openly suspended from your
waiste and not be in trouble.  He also believes it is OK in your kilt sock.

Bottom line is that it must be in plain view, not concealed.  He says a
member of his band was arrested on a felony violation because he was carrying
it in his pocket.

Be forewarned . . . .

susan

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
 may attempt to tyrannize, ... the people are confirmed by the next
 article in their right to keep and bear arms." -- Tench Coxe in "Remarks
 on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution",
 Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Kevlar Cowboys' Albuquerque Operation
Date: 21 Dec 1996 12:42:00 -0700


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

Well, Monday the 16th of December was a dark day for one 69 year old
Albuquerque man, his last day, too. The "jack booted thugs" made famous
in Waco a few years back were alive and well in New Mexico that day.
 Monday morning a "joint task force" of the Albuquerque Police and the
Bernalillo County Sheriff Departments executed a search warrant and one
person simultaneously. The predawn "raid" was ostensively to obtain
evidence from a residence. The offense was counterfeiting checks and
motor vehicle type IDS, hardly a "violent" crime.
 An Albuquerque man, 69 year old Ralph Garrison, was awakened by the predawn
commotion outside his house in the 2600 block of Quincy NE. Turns out
Garrison not only owned the house he was living in, but the house next door,
the target of the "raid". His concern was someone was attacking his property.
 In Garrison's first encounter with the police that morning, they shined
flashlights in his face and ordered him to return to his house. He did so
reluctantly, but he called 911 and reported the disturbance. The conversation
between 911 and Garrison, released and played on the local news very clearly
shows that Garrison was consumed with fear for himself and his property. He
clearly indicates in the audio clips he could not identify those individuals
who ordered him back into the house as police and asked for police assistance.
The transcript of the call shows "They're breaking into my house -- a whole
bunch of people." Later in the call Garrison told the dispatcher, "They've got
lights and everything (inaudible) in my face." and "Oh, yes. I can't, I can't
see (inaudible) going on."
 Garrison indicates, "I'm gonna go out there now." The dispatcher asked
Garrison to take the phone with him. As Garrison walks out the door he says,
"I've got my gun. I'll shoot the sons of bitches." There is a long pause and
someone is heard yelling and Garrison seems to try to say something. A roar
of gun fire ensues. News reports indicate he was shot by three officers armed
with "AR15" rifles. One individual claims to have heard shot bursts on the
airing of the 911 tape, which indicates M16's not AR15's. Evidence markers at
the scene indicate at least a dozen shots were fired. Did not these officers
realize that the same disorientation they hope for in the targets of these pre-
dawn affairs can be experienced by anyone who is woken up from a sound sleep?
 One of the three officers involved in this shooting has been a defendant in
three federal excessive-force lawsuits since 1991 for which the city has
already paid $375,000 in settlements. In one case in March 1993 this
officer was involved in the fatal shooting a subject while police were
attempting to arrest that person on a charge of parole violation from an
arson conviction. The man had threatened officers with a "locomotive-shaped
cologne bottle" after a 4 1/2 hour standoff. The city paid $100,000 for that
one and I suspect they will pay for this one as well. (With our money.)
 Police have said all three officers who shot Garrison were wearing SWAT
gear, which includes black fatigues and police patches but no gold badges.
Another portion of the story indicates the officers "were wearing outfits
that say 'POLICE' and 'SHERIFF' on the back". (So a guy is supposed to
read a mans back when he shines a flashlight in your face.)
 The newspaper indicates, "one police vehicle had its spotlight on. The U.S.
Customs Service also took part in the search, and a Customs helicopter also
was providing light." Where I come from, police cars have rotating red lights.
Where were they? A police spokesman said marked police vehicles and uniformed
officers were also on the "outer perimiter" of the scene, but he didn't know
exactly where. Was this a cowboy operation or what(I hate to disparage good
cowboys)? Police have said Garrison apparently didn't know he was dealing
with police and went back inside, phoned 911 and told the dispatcher people
were breaking into his property.
 The Albuquerque Police Department has announced they will probe the issue of
why the 911 dispatch center was not aware of the operation going on next door
to Garrison's. (Nice move, but a little short of the problem in my estimation.)
 The picture of the event, carried in the Albuquerque Journal, on Tuesday
morning shows only "Kevlar Cowboys" on the scene. You know the "Jack Booted
Thugs" image, so familiar in news coverage these days. Most police departments
in New Mexico require a uniformed officer to be involved in these actions.
It is apparent from the news coverage of this event that no one, recognizable
to Mr. Garrison as a police officer, was available to talk "non-targets" that
morning. Also apparent is the fact that when the adrenaline flowed that
morning, not one of the officers on the scene had ever been in the Boy Scouts,
where all are taught that shining ones flashlight in someones eyes is not only
impolite, but it renders ones vision inoperative for a period of time.
This was a fatal problem forced upon Mr. Garrison.
 To add insult to injury, Garrison's dog was shot as well. I guess the poor
dog had a "police recognition" problem as well. The dog attempted to guard
Garrison, after the Kevlar Cowboys shot him and they claim they had to kill
the dog to be able to administer first aid to the victim. Garrison died a
couple of hours later at the hospital.
 Another fact that has not been covered by the "media" is the fruitfulness of
the search operation in the first place. Did they find anything? No word yet.
I suspect they did not or they would be using those facts to justify the event.
 This whole situation could have been prevented by reasonable operational
tactics from the Albuquerque Police Department. First, there was not even a
violent crime involved in the criminal complaint which yielded the search
warrant. Was a "SWAT TEAM"-early morning operation really necessary for this
event (SWAT team operations are probably never justifiable by civilian police
anyway)? Second, the Kevlar Cowboys running the operation felt no need to
handle public relations at the scene with other than the finesse offered by
a conquering army. Third, the Kevlar Cowboys did not have a presence at the
dispatch center and the dispatch center was totally unaware of the operation.
(Maybe the police chief should be more involved in running his department
than his lobbying efforts on the behalf of social causes.)
 Another interesting note is the County Sheriff, who had members of his
department involved in this event, was present at the press conference the
afternoon after this event and did not take an active role in the press
conference. This is the only constitutionally recognized law enforcement
officer in the county and he kept his mouth shut.
 We need to return to the old days when cops were recognizable and their job
was to protect citizens, not gun them down. Lets return the police to civilian
(as opposed to paramilitary) status and see if the violence level does not
return to a decent level. Lets get rid of the Kevlar Cowboys and start doing
business the old fashioned way, legally and within the bounds of the United
States Constitution. I don't think anyone can justify a no-knock search
warrant for a counterfeiting operation under any stretch of any imagination.
John Gordon - Albuquerque, N. M. - WD5DHR



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: You make the call --> Re: Clinton Goes After More Guns
Date: 22 Dec 1996 07:51:08 -0700


>>>Anthony A Fasano wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Didn't the SC destroy the idea that a law like Brady could disarm=
 felons
>>>> in U.S. v Haynes? Brady can only disarm honest people.
>>>>=20
>>>
>>>I believe that US v Haynes said that criminals could not be proscecuted
>>>for lying on the 4473...since by telling the truth they would be
>>>incriminating themselves and that's a violation of the 5A.
>>>
>>
>>RJ-
>>        Is this really true?  Any light you can shed would be appreciated.
><snip> ....
>>Thanks
>>Sarah
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>01/29/68 HAYNES v. UNITED STATES=20
>
>
>[Editor's note: footnotes (if any) trail the opinion]=20
>
>[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES=20
>
>[2] HAYNES=20
>
>v.=20
>
>[3] UNITED STATES=20
>
>[4] No. 236=20
>
>BLUE BOOK CITATION FORM: 1968.SCT.12 (http://www.versuslaw.com)=20
>
>[5] Date Decided: January 29, 1968=20
>
>[6] SYLLABUS=20
>
>[7] Petitioner was charged by information with violating 26 U. S. C. =A7=
 5851
>(part of the National Firearms Act, an interrelated statutory system for=
 the
>taxation of certain classes of firearms used principally by persons engaged
>in unlawful activities) by knowingly possessing a defined firearm which had
>not been registered as required by 26 U. S. C. =A7 5841. Section 5841
>obligates the possessor of a defined firearm to register the weapon, unless
>he made it or acquired it by transfer or importation, and the Act's
>requirements as to transfers, makings and importations "were complied=
 with."
>Section 5851 declares unlawful the possession of such firearm which has "at
>any time" been transferred or made in violation of the Act, or which "has
>not been registered as required by section 5841." Additionally, =A7 5851
>provides that "possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize
>conviction, unless the defendant explains such possession to the
>satisfaction of the jury." Petitioner moved before trial to dismiss the
>charge, sufficiently asserting that 5851 violated his privilege against
>self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The motion was=
 denied,
>petitioner pleaded guilty, and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of
>Appeals. Held :=20
>
>[8] *fn1. Congress, subject to constitutional limitations, has authority to
>regulate the manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearms, and may tax
>unlawful activities. Pp. 90, 98.=20
>
>[9] *fn2. Petitioner's conviction under =A7 5851 for possession of an
>unregistered firearm is not properly distinguishable from a conviction=
 under
>=A7 5841 for failure to register possession of a firearm, and both offenses
>must be deemed subject to any constitutional deficiencies arising under the
>Fifth Amendment from the obligation to register. Pp. 90-95.=20
>
>[10] *fn3. A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination
>provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register=
 under
>=A7 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under =A7 5851. Pp.=
 95-100.=20
>
>[11] *fn4. Restrictions upon the use by federal and state authorities of
>information obtained as a consequence of the registration requirement,
>suggested by the Government, is not appropriate. Marchetti v. United=
 States,
>ante, p. 39, and Grosso v. United States, ante, p. 62. Pp. 99-100.=20
>
>[12] *fn5. Since any proceeding in the District Court upon a remand must
>inevitably result in the reversal of petitioner's conviction, it would be
>neither just nor appropriate to require such needless action and=
 accordingly
>the judgment is reversed. Pp. 100-101.=20
>
>[13] CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH=
 CIRCUIT.=20
>
>[14] APPELLATE PANEL:=20
>
>[15] Warren, Black, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas;
>Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.=20
>
>[16] DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUSTICE HARLAN=20
>
>[17] Petitioner was charged by a three-count information filed in the=
 United
>States District Court for the Northern District of Texas with violations of
>the National Firearms Act. 48 Stat. 1236. Two of the counts were
>subsequently dismissed upon motion of the United States Attorney. The
>remaining count averred that petitioner, in violation of 26 U. S. C. 5851,
>knowingly possessed a firearm, as defined by 26 U. S. C. =A7 5848 (1),=
 which
>had not been registered with the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate,
>as required by 26 U. S. C. =A7 5841. Petitioner moved before trial to=
 dismiss
>this count, evidently asserting that =A7 5851 violated his privilege=
 against
>self-incrimination, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.1 The motion was
>denied, and petitioner thereupon entered a plea of guilty.2 The judgment of
>conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 372
>F.2d 651. We granted certiorari to examine the constitutionality under the
>Fifth Amendment of petitioner's conviction. 388 U.S. 908. For reasons which
>follow, we reverse.=20
>
>I.=20
>
>[18] Section 58513 forms part of the National Firearms Act, an interrelated
>statutory system for the taxation of certain classes of firearms. The Act's
>requirements are applicable only to shotguns with barrels less than 18
>inches long; rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long; other weapons,
>made from a rifle or shotgun, with an overall length of less than 26=
 inches;
>machine guns and other automatic firearms; mufflers and silencers; and=
 other
>firearms, except pistols and revolvers, "if such weapon is capable of being
>concealed on the person . . . ." 26 U. S. C. =A7 5848 (1); Treas. Reg. =A7
>179.20, 26 CFR =A7 179.20. These limitations were apparently intended to
>guarantee that only weapons used principally by persons engaged in unlawful
>activities would be subjected to taxation.4=20
>
>[19] Importers, manufacturers, and dealers in such firearms are obliged=
 each
>year to pay special occupational taxes, and to register with the Secretary
>of the Treasury or his delegate. 26 U. S. C. =A7=A7 5801, 5802. Separate=
 taxes
>are imposed on the making and transfer of such firearms by persons other
>than those obliged to pay the occupational taxes. 26 U. S. C. =A7=A7 5811,=
 5821.
>For purposes of these additional taxes, the acts of making and transferring
>firearms are broadly defined. Section 5821 thus imposes a tax on the making
>of a firearm "whether by manufacture, putting together, alteration, any
>combination thereof, or otherwise." Similarly, to transfer encompasses "to
>sell, assign, pledge, lease, loan, give away, or otherwise dispose of" a
>firearm. 26 U. S. C. =A7 5848 (10).=20
>
>[20] All these taxes are supplemented by comprehensive requirements
>calculated to assure their collection. Any individual who wishes to make a
>weapon, within the meaning of =A7 5821 (a), is obliged, "prior to such
>making," to declare his intention to the Secretary, and to provide to the
>Treasury his fingerprints and photograph. 26 U. S. C. =A7 5821 (e); Treas.
>Reg. =A7 179.78. The declaration must be "supported by a certificate of the
>local chief of police . . . or such other person whose certificate may . .=
 .
>be acceptable . . . ." Treas. Reg. =A7 179.78. The certificate must=
 indicate
>satisfaction that the fingerprints and photograph are those of the
>declarant, and that the firearm is intended "for lawful purposes." Ibid.=
 Any
>person who wishes to transfer such a weapon may lawfully do so only if he
>first obtains a written order from the prospective transferee on an
>"application form issued . . . for that purpose by the Secretary." 26 U. S.
>C. =A7 5814 (a). The application, supported by a certificate of the local
>chief of police, and accompanied by the transferee's fingerprints and
>photograph, must be approved by the Secretary prior to the transfer. Treas.
>Reg. =A7=A7 179.98, 179.99. Finally, every person possessing such a firearm=
 is
>obliged to register his possession with the Secretary, unless he made the
>weapon, or acquired it by transfer or importation, and the Act's
>requirements as to transfers, makings, and importations "were complied
>with." 26 U. S. C. =A7 5841.5=20
>
>[21] Failure to comply with any of the Act's requirements is made=
 punishable
>by fines and imprisonment. 26 U. S. C. =A7 5861. In addition, =A7 5851=
 creates a
>series of supplementary offenses; it declares unlawful the possession of=
 any
>firearm which has "at any time" been transferred or made in violation of=
 the
>Act's provisions, or which "has not been registered as required by section
>5841." Finally, =A7 5851 provides that in prosecutions conducted under that
>section "possession shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize
>conviction, unless the defendant explains such possession to the
>satisfaction of the jury."=20
>
>II.=20
>
>[22] At the outset, it must be emphasized that the issue in this case is=
 not
>whether Congress has authority under the Constitution to regulate the
>manufacture, transfer, or possession of firearms; nor is it whether=
 Congress
>may tax activities which are, wholly or in part, unlawful. Rather, we are
>required to resolve only the narrow issue of whether enforcement of =A7=
 5851
>against petitioner, despite his assertion of the privilege against
>self-incrimination, is constitutionally permissible. The questions=
 necessary
>for decision are two: first, whether petitioner's conviction under =A7 5851=
 is
>meaningfully distinguishable from a conviction under =A7 5841 for failure=
 to
>register possession of a firearm; and second, if it is not, whether
>satisfaction of petitioner's obligation to register under =A7 5841 would=
 have
>compelled him to provide information incriminating to himself. If, as
>petitioner urges, his conviction under =A7 5851 is essentially
>indistinguishable from a conviction premised directly upon a failure to
>register under =A7 5841, and if a prosecution under =A7 5841 would have=
 punished
>petitioner for his failure to incriminate himself, it would follow that a
>proper claim of privilege should have provided a full defense to this
>prosecution.*fn6 To these questions we turn.=20
>
>III.=20
>
>[23] The first issue is whether the elements of the offense under =A7 5851=
 of
>possession of a firearm "which has not been registered as required by
>section 5841" differ in any significant respect from those of the offense
>under =A7 5841 of failure to register possession of a firearm. The United
>States contends that the two offenses, despite the similarity of their
>statutory descriptions, serve entirely different purposes, in that the
>registration clause of =A7 5851 is intended to punish acceptance of the
>possession of a firearm which, despite the requirements of =A7 5841, was=
 never
>registered by any prior possessor, while =A7 5841 punishes only a present
>possessor who has failed to register the fact of his own possession. If=
 this
>construction is correct, nothing in a prosecution under =A7 5851 would turn=
 on
>whether the present possessor had elected to register; his offense would
>have been complete when he accepted possession of a firearm which no
>previous possessor had registered. We need not determine whether this
>construction would be free from constitutional difficulty under the Fifth
>Amendment, for we have concluded that =A7 5851 cannot properly be construed=
 as
>the United States has urged.*fn7=20
>
>[24] The United States finds support for its construction of =A7 5851=
 chiefly
>in the section's use of the past tense: the act stated to be unlawful is=
 "to
>possess any firearm which has not been registered as required by section
>5841." (Emphasis added.) It is contended that we may infer from this choice
>of tense that the failure to register must necessarily precede the=
 accused's
>acquisition of possession. We cannot derive so much from so little. We
>perceive no more in the draftsman's choice of tense than the obvious fact
>that the failure to register must precede the moment at which the accused=
 is
>charged; we find nothing which confines the clause's application to=
 failures
>to register which have occurred before a present possessor received the
>firearm. It follows that the phrase fastened upon by the United States is,
>at the least, equally consistent with the construction advanced by=
 petitioner.=20
>
>[25] If, however, nothing further were available, it might be incumbent=
 upon
>us to accept the Government's construction in order to avoid the
>adjudication of a serious constitutional issue. See, e. g., Ashwander v.
>Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 348 (concurring opinion); Crowell v.=
 Benson,
>285 U.S. 22, 62. But there are persuasive indications at hand which, in our
>view, preclude adoption of the position urged by the United States.
>Initially, we must note that each of the other two offenses defined by =A7
>5851 indicates very specifically that the violations of the making or
>transfer provisions, on which the =A7 5851 offenses are ultimately=
 premised,
>can have occurred "at any time." An analogous phrase in the registration
>clause would have made plain beyond all question that the construction now
>urged by the United States should be accepted; if this was indeed Congress'
>purpose, it is difficult to see why it did not, as it did in the other
>clauses, insert the few additional words necessary to make clear its=
 wishes.
>The position suggested by the United States would thus oblige us, at the
>outset, to assume that Congress has, in this one clause, chosen a=
 remarkably
>oblique and unrevealing phrasing.=20
>
>[26] Similarly, it is pertinent to note that the transfer and making=
 clauses
>of =A7 5851 punish the receipt, as well as the possession, of firearms; the
>registration clause, in contrast, punishes only possession. Under the
>construction given =A7 5851 by the United States, Congress might have been
>expected to declare unlawful, in addition, the receipt of firearms never
>previously registered; indeed, the receipt of the firearm is, under that
>construction, the central element of the offense. Congress' preference in
>the registration clause for "possession," rather than "receipt," is
>satisfactorily explicable only if petitioner's construction of =A7 5851 is
>adopted.=20
>
>[27] Third, and more important, we find it significant that the offense
>defined by =A7 5851 is the possession of a firearm which has not been
>registered "as required by section 5841." In the absence of persuasive
>evidence to the contrary, the clause's final words suggest strongly that=
 the
>perimeter of the offense which it creates is to be marked by the terms of
>the registration requirement imposed by =A7 5841. In turn, =A7 5841=
 indicates
>quite precisely that "every person possessing a firearm" must, unless
>excused by the section's exception, register his possession with the
>Secretary or his delegate. Moreover, the Treasury regulations are entirely
>unequivocal; they specifically provide that "every person in the United
>States possessing a firearm (a) not registered to him,. . . must execute an
>application for the registration of such firearm . . . ." Treas. Reg. =A7
>179.120. (Emphasis added.)=20
>
>[28] The pertinent legislative history offers additional assistance, and
>points against the Government's construction. The registration clause was
>inserted into =A7 5851 by the Excise Tax Technical Changes Act of 1958. 72
>Stat. 1428. The two committee reports indicate, in identical terms,*fn8=
 that
>the existing section was thought inadequate because, although it defined as
>an unlawful act the possession of any firearm which had been made or
>transferred in violation of the Firearms Act, it failed "to so define the
>possession of an unregistered firearm." H. R. Rep. No. 481, 85th Cong., 1st
>Sess., 195; S. Rep. No. 2090, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 212. The section as
>amended "specifically defines such possession of an unregistered firearm as
>an unlawful act." Ibid. It is useful to note that the committees did not
>suggest that the failure to register must have preceded the acquisition of
>possession. Further, the reports indicate that the proposed amendment was
>intended to make available in prosecutions for possession of an=
 unregistered
>firearm the presumption already contained in =A7 5851; they conclude that=
 the
>"primary purpose of this change is to simplify and clarify the law and to
>aid in prosecution." H. R. Rep. No. 481, supra, at 196; S. Rep. No. 2090,
>supra, at 212.=20
>
>[29] We infer that the amendment was thought to have two purposes. First,=
 it
>would complete the series of supplementary offenses created by =A7 5851, by
>adding to those premised on a making or transfer one bottomed on a failure
>to register. Second, it would facilitate the prosecution of failures to
>register by permitting the use of the presumption included in =A7 5851. It
>would thus "aid in prosecution" of conduct also made unlawful by =A7 5841.
>Both these purposes are fully consistent with the construction of =A7 5851
>urged by petitioner; but only the first offers any support to the position
>suggested by the United States.=20
>
>[30] We are unable to escape the conclusion that Congress intended the
>registration clause of =A7 5851 to incorporate the requirements of =A7=
 5841, by
>declaring unlawful the possession of any firearm which has not been
>registered by its possessor, in circumstances in which =A7 5841 imposes an
>obligation to register. The elements of the offenses created by the two
>sections are therefore identical. This does not, however, fully resolve the
>question of whether any hazards of incrimination which stem from the
>registration requirement imposed by =A7 5851. Two additional distinctions
>between the offenses have been suggested, and we must examine them.=20
>
>[31] First, it has been said that the offenses differ in emphasis, in that
>5851 chiefly punishes possession, while =A7 5841 punishes a failure to
>register. Cf. Frye v. United States, 315 F.2d 491, 494; Castellano v.=
 United
>States, 350 F.2d 852, 854. We find this supposed distinction entirely
>unpersuasive, for, as we have found, the possession of a firearm and a
>failure to register are equally fundamental ingredients of both offenses.
>Second, it has been suggested that =A7 5841 creates a "status of unlawful
>possession" which, if assumed by an individual, denies to him the=
 protection
>of the constitutional privilege. Castellano v. United States, supra, at=
 854.
>It has evidently been thought to follow that the privilege may be claimed=
 in
>prosecutions under =A7 5841, but not in those under =A7 5851. This is no=
 less
>unpersuasive; for reasons discussed in Marchetti v. United States, decided
>today, ante, at 51-52, we decline to hold that the performance of an
>unlawful act, even if there exists a statutory condition that its=
 commission
>constitutes a waiver of the constitutional privilege, suffices to deprive=
 an
>accused of the privilege's protection. We hold that petitioner's conviction
>under the registration clause of =A7 5851 is not properly distinguishable=
 from
>a conviction under =A7 5841 for failure to register, and that both offenses
>must be deemed subject to any constitutional deficiencies arising under the
>Fifth Amendment from the obligation to register.=20
>
>IV.=20
>
>[32] We must now consider whether, as petitioner contends, satisfaction of
>his obligation to register would have compelled him to provide information
>incriminating to himself.*fn9 We must first mark the terms of the
>registration requirement. The obligation to register is conditioned simply
>upon possession of a firearm, within the meaning of =A7 5848 (1). Not every
>possessor of a firearm must, however, register; one who made the firearm,=
 or
>acquired it by transfer or importation, need not register if the Act's
>provisions as to transfers, makings, and importations "were complied with."
>If those requirements were not met, or if the possessor did not make the
>firearm, and did not acquire it by transfer or importation, he must furnish
>the Secretary of the Treasury with his name, address, the place where the
>firearm is usually kept, and the place of his business or employment.
>Further, he must indicate his date of birth, social security number, and
>whether he has ever been convicted of a felony. Finally, he must provide a
>full description of the firearm. See 26 U. S. C. =A7 5841; Treas. Reg. =A7
>179.120; Internal Revenue Service Form 1 (Firearms).=20
>
>[33] The registration requirement is thus directed principally at those
>persons who have obtained possession of a firearm without complying with=
 the
>Act's other requirements, and who therefore are immediately threatened by
>criminal prosecutions under =A7=A7 5851 and 5861. They are unmistakably=
 persons
>"inherently suspect of criminal activities." Albertson v. SACB, 382 U.S.=
 70,
>79. It is true, as the United States emphasizes, that registration is not
>invariably indicative of a violation of the Act's requirements; there are
>situations, which the United States itself styles "uncommon,"*fn10 in which
>a possessor who has not violated the Act's other provisions is obliged to
>register.*fn11 Nonetheless, the correlation between obligations to register
>and violations can only be regarded as exceedingly high, and a prospective
>registrant realistically can expect that registration will substantially
>increase the likelihood of his prosecution. Moreover, he can reasonably=
 fear
>that the possession established by his registration will facilitate his
>prosecution under the making and transfer clauses of =A7 5851. In these
>circumstances, it can scarcely be said that the risks of criminal
>prosecution confronted by prospective registrants are "remote possibilities
>out of the ordinary course of law," Heike v. United States, 227 U.S. 131,
>144; yet they are compelled, on pain of criminal prosecution, to provide to
>the Secretary both a formal acknowledgment of their possession of firearms,
>and supplementary information likely to facilitate their arrest and=
 eventual
>conviction. The hazards of incrimination created by the registration
>requirement can thus only be termed "real and appreciable." Reg. v. Boyes,=
 1
>B. & S. 311, 330; Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 599-600.=20
>
>[34] We are, however, urged by the United States, for various disparate
>reasons, to affirm petitioner's conviction. It is first suggested that the
>registration requirement is a valid exercise of the taxing powers, in that
>it is calculated merely to assure notice to the Treasury of all taxable
>firearms. We do not doubt, as we have repeatedly indicated,*fn12 that this
>Court must give deference to Congress' taxing powers, and to measures
>reasonably incidental to their exercise; but we are no less obliged to heed
>the limitations placed upon those powers by the Constitution's other
>commands. We are fully cognizant of the Treasury's need for accurate and
>timely information, but other methods, entirely consistent with
>constitutional limitations, exist by which such information may be=
 obtained.
>See generally Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 585. See also Adams v.
>Maryland, 347 U.S. 179; Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52.
>Accordingly, nothing we do today will prevent the effective regulation or
>taxation by Congress of firearms.=20
>
>[35] Nonetheless, these statutory provisions, as now written, cannot be
>brought within any of the situations in which the Court has held that the
>constitutional privilege does not prevent the use by the United States of
>information obtained in connection with regulatory programs of general
>application. See United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259; Shapiro v. United
>States, 335 U.S. 1. For reasons given in Marchetti v. United States, supra,
>and Grosso v. United States, ante, p. 62, we have concluded that the points
>of significant dissimilarity between these circumstances and those in
>Shapiro and Sullivan preclude any proper application of those cases here.
>The questions propounded by =A7 5841, like those at issue in Albertson,=
 supra,
>are "directed at a highly selective group inherently suspect of criminal
>activities"; they concern, not "an essentially non-criminal and regulatory
>area of inquiry," but "an area permeated with criminal statutes." 382 U.S.,
>at 79. There are, moreover, no records or other documents here to which any
>"public aspects" might reasonably be said to have attached. Compare Shapiro
>v. United States, supra, at 34; and Marchetti v. United States, supra.=20
>
>[36] The United States next emphasizes that petitioner has consistently
>contended that =A7=A7 5841 and 5851 are unconstitutional on their face; it=
 urges
>that this contention is foreclosed by the inclusion in the registration
>requirement of situations in which the obligation to register cannot=
 produce
>incriminating disclosures. We recognize that there are a number of
>apparently uncommon circumstances in which registration is required of one
>who has not violated the Firearms Act; the United States points chiefly to
>the situation of a finder of a lost or abandoned firearm.*fn13 Compare
>United States v. Forgett, 349 F.2d 601. We agree that the existence of such
>situations makes it inappropriate, in the absence of evidence that the
>exercise of protected rights would otherwise be hampered, to declare these
>sections impermissible on their face. Instead, it appears, from the=
 evidence
>now before us, that the rights of those subject to the Act will be fully
>protected if a proper claim of privilege is understood to provide a full
>defense to any prosecution either for failure to register under =A7 5841=
 or,
>under 5851, for possession of a firearm which has not been registered.=20
>
>[37] Finally, we are asked to avoid the constitutional difficulties which=
 we
>have found in =A7=A7 5841 and 5851 by imposing restrictions upon the use by
>state and federal authorities of information obtained as a consequence of
>the registration requirement. We note that the provisions of 26 U. S. C. =
=A7
>610714 are applicable to the special occupational taxes imposed by =A7=
 5801,
>although not, apparently, to the making and transfer taxes imposed by =A7=
=A7
>5811 and 5821. In these circumstances, we decline, for reasons indicated in
>Marchetti, supra, and Grosso, supra, to impose the restrictions urged by=
 the
>United States.=20
>
>[38] We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against
>self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for
>failure to register a firearm under =A7 5841 or for possession of an
>unregistered firearm under =A7 5851.=20
>
>V.=20
>
>[39] It remains only to determine the appropriate disposition of this case.
>Petitioner has seasonably and consistently asserted a claim of privilege,
>but the courts below, believing the privilege inapplicable to prosecutions
>under =A7 5851, evidently did not assess the claim's merits. It would
>therefore ordinarily be necessary to remand the cause to the District=
 Court,
>with instructions to examine the merits of the claim. We note, however,=
 that
>there can be no suggestion here that petitioner has waived his privilege,
>and that, moreover, the United States has conceded that petitioner's
>privilege against self-incrimination must be found to have been
>impermissibly infringed if his contentions as to the proper construction of
>=A7=A7 5851 and 5841 are accepted. Brief for the United States 8.=
 Accordingly,
>the District Court would be obliged in any additional proceeding to=
 conclude
>that "there is reasonable ground to apprehend danger to the witness from=
 his
>being compelled to answer." Reg. v. Boyes, supra, at 330. It follows that
>any proceeding in the District Court must inevitably result in the reversal
>of petitioner's conviction. We have plenary authority under 28 U. S. C. =A7
>2106 to make such disposition of the case "as may be just under the
>circumstances." See Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 327-331; Grosso=
 v.
>United States, supra. It would be neither just nor appropriate to require
>the parties and the District Court to commence an entirely needless
>additional proceeding. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is=
=20
>
>[40] Reversed.=20
>
>[41] MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of
>this case.=20
>
>[42] CASE RESOLUTION=20
>
>[43] 372 F.2d 651, reversed.=20
>
>[44] MINORITY OPINION=20
>
>[45] MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN, dissenting.=20
>
>[46] For reasons stated in my dissent in Marchetti v. United States and
>Grosso v. United States, ante, p. 77, I cannot agree with the result=
 reached
>by the Court in this case.=20
>
>***** BEGIN FOOTNOTEHERE *****=20
>
>[47] *fn1 Petitioner's motion asserted merely that =A7 5851 was
>"unconstitutional," and the order denying the motion does not indicate more
>precisely the substance of petitioner's contentions. His subsequent
>arguments, both in the courts below and here, have, however, consistently
>asserted a claim of the constitutional privilege. No suggestion is made by
>the Government that the claim of privilege was not sufficiently made.=20
>
>[48] *fn2 Petitioner's plea of guilty did not, of course, waive his=
 previous
>claim of the constitutional privilege. See, e. g., United States v. Ury,=
 106
>F.2d 28.=20
>
>[49] *fn3 The section provides that "It shall be unlawful for any person to
>receive or possess any firearm which has at any time been transferred in
>violation of sections 5811, 5812 (b), 5813, 5814, 5844, or 5846, or which
>has at any time been made in violation of section 5821, or to possess any
>firearm which has not been registered as required by section 5841. Whenever
>on trial for a violation of this section the defendant is shown to have or
>to have had possession of such firearm, such possession shall be deemed
>sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant explains
>such possession to the satisfaction of the jury."=20
>
>[50] *fn4 The views of a subsequent Congress of course provide no
>controlling basis from which to infer the purposes of an earlier Congress.
>See Rainwater v. United States, 356 U.S. 590, 593; United States v. Price,
>361 U.S. 304, 313. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the Committee
>on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, while reporting in 1959
>on certain proposed amendments to the Act, stated that the "primary purpose
>of [the Firearms Act] was to make it more difficult for the gangster=
 element
>to obtain certain types of weapons. The type of weapon with which these
>provisions are concerned are the types it was thought would be used
>primarily by the gangster-type element." H. R. Rep. No. 914, 86th Cong.,=
 1st
>Sess., 2.=20
>
>[51] *fn5 The section provides that "Every person possessing a firearm=
 shall
>register, with the Secretary or his delegate, the number or other mark
>identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such
>firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment, and, if such
>person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an
>executive officer thereof. No person shall be required to register under
>this section with respect to a firearm which such person acquired by
>transfer or importation or which such person made, if provisions of this
>chapter applied to such transfer, importation, or making, as the case may
>be, and if the provisions which applied thereto were complied with."=20
>
>[52] *fn6 Indeed, so much is recognized by the Government; it has stated
>that "we concede that if petitioner's reading of the two provisions were
>right . . . petitioner's conviction under Section 5851 would not be valid."
>Brief for the United States 8.=20
>
>[53] *fn7 The Government's position is generally supported by several cases
>in the courts of appeals. See, in addition to the opinion below, Frye v.
>United States, 315 F.2d 491; Starks v. United States, 316 F.2d 45; Mares v.
>United States, 319 F.2d 71; Sipes v. United States, 321 F.2d 174; Taylor v.
>United States, 333 F.2d 721; Castellano v. United States, 350 F.2d 852;
>Pruitt v. United States, 364 F.2d 826; Decker v. United States, 378 F.2d
>245. None of these cases, however, undertook an extended examination of the
>relationship between =A7=A7 5851 and 5841. Compare Lovelace v. United=
 States,
>357 F.2d 306, 309; and Mansfield, The Albertson Case: Conflict Between the
>Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and the Government's Need for
>Information, 1966 Sup. Ct. Rev. 103, 158-159, n. 95.=20
>
>[54] *fn8 The language in the reports was evidently taken without change or
>elaboration from the recommendations submitted to the House Committee on
>Ways and Means by the Treasury. See Hearings before House Committee on Ways
>and Means on Excise Tax Technical and Administrative Problems, 84th Cong.,
>1st Sess., 185, 211.=20
>
>[55] *fn9 We note that =A7 5841 has several times been held to require
>incriminating disclosures, in violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege
>against self-incrimination. See Russell v. United States, 306 F.2d 402;
>Dugan v. United States, 341 F.2d 85; McCann v. United States, 217 F.Supp.
>751; United States v. Fleish, 227 F.Supp. 967. See also Lovelace v. United
>States, supra, at 309.=20
>
>[56] *fn10 In particular, the United States emphasizes the position of a
>finder of a lost or abandoned firearm. Brief for the United States 20.=20
>
>[57] *fn11 We must note, however, that certain of these prospective
>registrants might be threatened by prosecution under state law for
>possession of firearms, or similar offenses. It is possible that such
>persons would be obliged, if they registered in compliance with =A7 5841,=
 to
>provide information incriminating to themselves. Such hazards would, of
>course, support a proper claim of privilege. See Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S.
>1. For illustrations of state statutes under which such prosecutions might
>occur, see Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. =A7 53-202 (1958); Del. Code Ann., Tit.=
 11, =A7
>465 (1953); Hawaii Rev. Laws =A7 157-8 (1955); Iowa Code =A7 696.1 (1966);=
 Kan.
>Stat. Ann. =A7 21-2601 (1964); La. Rev. Stat. =A7 40:1752 (1950); Minn.=
 Stat. =A7
>609.67 (1965); N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 2A, =A7 151-50 (1953). We have
>discovered no state statute under which the present petitioner might have
>been subject to prosecution for acts registrable under =A7 5841, and he has
>not contended that registration would have incriminated him under state=
 law.=20
>
>[58] *fn12 See, for example, Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506;
>Marchetti v. United States, supra.=20
>
>[59] *fn13 Again, we note that these registrants might be confronted by
>hazards of prosecution under state law, and that those hazards might=
 support
>a proper claim of privilege. See supra, n. 11.=20
>
>[60] *fn14 Section 6107 provides that "In the principal internal revenue
>office in each internal revenue district there shall be kept, for public
>inspection, an alphabetical list of the names of all persons who have paid
>special taxes under subtitle D or E within such district. Such list shall=
 be
>prepared and kept pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary or=
 his
>delegate, and shall contain the time, place, and business for which such
>special taxes have been paid, and upon application of any prosecuting
>officer of any State, county, or municipality there shall be furnished to
>him a certified copy thereof, as of a public record, for which a fee of $ 1
>for each 100 words or fraction thereof in the copy or copies so requested
>may be charged." The special taxes to which the section refers include=
 those
>imposed by 26 U. S. C. =A7 5801.=20
>
>***** END FOOTNOTEHERE *****=20
>
>[Editor's note: Illustrations from the original opinion, if any, are
>available in the print version]=20
>
>Copyright 1996 VersusLaw, Inc. [phone]. http://www.versuslaw.com=20
>
>19680129=20
>
>
>1968.SCT.12=20
>
>
>        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum, Indiana-FIJA, Inc.=20
>=A0=A0        Url: http://www.iquest.net/~rjtavel/=20
>           *************************
>           Not a high-tech law firm brochure.=20
>  Dr. Tavel's Self Help Clinic and Sovereign Law Library=20
>  promotes "action that raises the cost of state violence=20
>    for its perpetrators (and) that lays the basis for=20
>         institutional change " -- Noam Chomsky
>     For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
http://www.therighter.com

The Tree of Liberty needs fertilizing.....


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Free access to Bills
Date: 22 Dec 1996 08:37:52 -0700


>UPDATE FOR ALL SUBSCRIBERS AND INTERESTED USERS of
>Code-Co's Internet Access to Utah Law:
>======================================
> Non-subscribers to our service may still access any bill before the Utah
>Legislature. (You are welcome to tell others how to access a bill and use it
>yourself.)
>
>   The address is: http://www.code-co.com/utah/leg/bills.htm
>
>On that page, you just enter the bill number for the bill you want to see,
>and you will be able to see, print and download the bill, no password required.
>
>We hope you are finding the service useful.
>
>Byron Harward
>Code-Co Law Publishers
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
http://www.therighter.com

The Tree of Liberty needs fertilizing.....


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sen. Duke on the Constitution
Date: 23 Dec 1996 17:43:58 -0700


>WAS OUR CONSTITUTION MEANT FOR A DIFFERENT TIME?
>by Sen. Charles R. Duke ([e-mail])
>(State Sen. Colorado, District 9)
>
>Frequently critics of the constitutional debates sweeping the country
>today will assert that the Framers of our Constitution could not possibly
>have known what the present day United States is about.  They contend
>that we live in a global marketplace with responsibilities to ourselves
>and our neighbors.  Crime on the scale we know it wasn't even an
>issue, these critics claim, to those involved with the American War for
>Independence.  They would have us draw the conclusion that our
>Constitution was meant for a different time and is inadequate to deal
>with the world we know today.
>
>In 1761, King George was issuing "writs of assistance" to his tax
>collectors.  These writs permitted no-knock searches of ships,
>warehouses, and homes without a warrant by the King's agents,
>ostensibly looking for contraband.  It was these writs that lead to
>the insertion of the Fourth Amendment to our Bill of Rights.
>
>That Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their
>persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
>and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
>upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
>particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
>things to be seized."  It means we have a right to be secure without
>fear the government will intrude without probable cause.
>
>Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 666.  This
>resolution states that evidence obtained with or without a warrant
>will be admissible in court if the evidence was obtained under a
>"reasonable objective belief" that the gaining of the evidence was
>consistent with the Fourth Amendment.  In other words, neither
>probable cause nor warrants will be necessary if the agents have
>a reasonably objective belief that the evidence is necessary.
>
>At Concord in 1775, British General Thomas Gage used informants to determine
>the location of caches of arms held by the patriots.  His
>intention was to march through and seize the arms, in particular the
>cannon, thereby disabling the ability of the patriots to resist.  The
>British fetish about banning arms led to the Second Amendment to
>secure, supposedly forever, the right of the people to defend
>themselves against the government.
>
>In 1994, the Congress passed the Crime Control Act, which banned
>"assault weapons," some by model name and others by descriptions
>so vague that over 190 actual models of weapons will actually be
>banned.  The ban has led to the greatest caching of weapons and ammunition in
>the hands of private citizens one could possibly
>imagine.
>
>Coincidentally, one of the commanders of the British forces during
>the War for Independence was General Henry Clinton.
>
>In 1783, the Treaty of Paris concluded the War for Independence and
>the colonies were declared to be free and sovereign states.  Our
>Constitution would not have been adopted had the Tenth Amendment
>not been added to ensure freedom and liberty for states and
>individuals.
>
>In 1994, the Congress adopted the General Agreement on Tariffs and
>Trade (GATT), which effectively abolished sovereignty not only for
>states, but also our nation.  It brings any state or federal law under
>the control of a World Trade Organization.  This law was heavily
>promoted by the internationalists who view state sovereignty with
>contempt.  Any person who supported GATT should not be given
>future opportunities to violate that person's oath to the nation.
>
>The Constitution was not written about the life and times of 1789,
>when the Bill of Rights was adopted.  It was written about tyranny;
>it was written about freedom; it was written about liberty.  The
>Framers did indeed understand what government in 1995 is about.
>The challenge for us is to understand what 1776 was about.
>
>End
>=======================================================
>Editors and Friends:
>     I will be on vacation for the remainder of 1996.  The regular columns
>will
>resume when 1997 begins.  As a suggestion piece, this article was originally
>released March 20, 1995, and is one for which I have had many requests.
>Merry Christmas to all, the happiest of New Years to you, and may God
>bless America.........Charles R. Duke
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!

Happy Holidays!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: In the Words of its proponents
Date: 23 Dec 1996 21:47:14 -0700


>  In an op-ed piece titled "Disarm The Citizenry,"
>The Washington Post, Friday, April 5, 1996,
>page A19, columnist Charles Krauthammer
>wrote:
>
>   "Ultimately, a civilized society must
>disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum
>of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed by
>sister democracies such as Canada and Britain.
>Given the frontier history and individualist
>ideology of the United States, however,
>this will not come easily. It certainly cannot
>be done radically. It will probably take
>one, maybe two generations. It might be 50
>years before the United States gets to
>where Britain is today.
>  Passing a law like the assault weapons
>ban is a symbolic--purely symbolic--move
>in that direction. Its only real justification
>is not to reduce crime but to desensitize
>the public to the regulation of weapons
>in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
>
>
>Back issues of The Washington Post are
>available on microfiche in many public
>libraries or from the paper's Back
>Issues Department at [phone]
>
>TTYL
>-=JB=-
>
>The Patriots' Page:  http://www.c2.org/~patriot
>
>-=-=-=-=-=
>
>STICK TO YOUR GUNS!
>
>THE FIGHT TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
>MUST BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIC FACTS:
>
>http://www.c2.org/~patriot/yourguns.htm
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> [e-mail]
> P.O. BOX 194
> Montalba TX 75853
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!

Happy Holidays!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: reloader's night before christmas
Date: 24 Dec 1996 00:07:33 -0700


>From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey &/or Holly Jennings)
>Subject: reloader's night before christmas

>
>`Twas the night before Christmas, cold, dark and foreboding,
>As I sat at the work bench, quite busy reloading.
>The empties from autumn were polished so clear
>For primers and powder, and bullets from Speer
>
>And Hornady's soft-points, and Nosler's Partitions
>(MY bench ain't no place for brand name omissions!)
>All sat in their boxes, right next to the press
>With dies from Pacific, and RCBS
>
>When all of a sudden there came such a jolt,
>I grabbed for my Mossberg, and whipped out my Colt.
>As I spilled Hodgdon's powder all over the shelf
>I scrambled for cover, just to pro-tect myself
>
>>From up on the rooftop, came hoofbeats and snorting
>Like the noise out of L'il Rock, from Clinton's cavorting!
>I eased off the safety, to press-check my auto
>With 230-hardball, I'd knock 'em all blotto
>
>Were these rogue federal agents, sent by Schumer and Reno?
>Or a staggering Ted Kennedy, in bad need of Beano?
>My question was answered with a knock, and some sneezing,
>"It's Santa, you moron, lemme in there, I'm freezing!"
>
>I flipped off the dead-bolt and threw the door wide,
>To find St. Nick a'shivvering, Rudolph by his side
>He eyeballed my Springfield, with a nod of approval
>"You're all set," he said, "for dirtball removal."
>
>"But this is no raid, we're not here to harm you
>Or persecute, prosecute or even disarm you"
>Instead, said dear Santa, he needed to borrow
>My .357, 'till day after tomorrow
>
>"It's okay," he assured me, with a hint of frustration.
>"I'm enrolled in the National Rifle Association"
>He showed me his card, 'twas a Life Member rating
>"I've had this since me and the missus were dating!"
>
>"And you see, Dave ol' buddy, I've gotten real nervous
>"Since Feinstein was elected, with a promise to serve us
>"So henceforth as I'm out there, my presents a'stackin'
>"I want to assure you, I'm legally packin'
>
>"And my gift for you this year, should give you a hoot
>"I've told the Supreme Court to give Brady the boot!
>"Now, Rudy and I must be on our way"
>He said, as he climbed back on the seat of his sleigh
>
>With the reins in his hand, and my Smith in his pocket
>He jingled the sleighbells and was off like a rocket
>With a pair of speedloaders, and ammo to spare
>I knew he'd be safe, he was loaded for bear
>
>As he faded from view, I could still hear him calling
>"From D.C., where 'P.C.' is already falling
>"To bad guys in L.A., Detroit and Atlanta
>"I'm licensed to carry. Don't be messin' with Santa!"
>
>=======================================================
>mailed to me from [e-mail] (Dave Workman)
>
>hope all have a merry christmas
>
>
>
>   _=____________________-
> <|------==(____)--------|     Jeffrey L. Jennings MD
>   |//////______________|         [e-mail]
>    \       /| (  )/
>    /      /) -----
>   /    o /)
>  / P7M13/)
> /o_____/)
>
>  "Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
>("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.")
>   -- Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)
>
> Gun control: The theory that Black people will be better off
>    when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.   -- from Usenet
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!

Happy Holidays!!



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Letter on Domestic Violence
Date: 24 Dec 1996 15:08:32 -0700


Below is a letter headed to the editor.  I post it in hopes it will
encourage others to take the time to send letters on the topic.  Let's
see if we can't keep the cops chained to ourselves so that we end up
with a repeal rather than just another exemption.  Or at the very
least, force them to live under the same oppression we do.  Feel free
to use any of this, but if you send it to a SLC paper, modify it
at least enough that it looks original.

Charles Hardy
xxx
xxx


December 24, 1996


Dear Editor

All of the recent "news" regarding new federal firearm prohibitions
for anyone ever convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge
(felons are already prohibited) would be comical if it weren't such a
tragic commentary on the state of the Republic.  Gun prohibitionists
including police unions painted a very compelling picture of removing
guns from wife beaters.  It is a tough image to refute.  But I must
question why we are denying God-given rights over misdemeanors.  Not
to mention doing so in an unconstitutional ex-post-facto manner.

The tragic part is none of the above would have made the news these
days except Congress forgot to exempt police officers.  The headlines
should read, "Law Enforcers Don't Like Living Under Same Laws as
Commoners."

For the record, my past is clean.  Also, I do not think a police
officer should automatically lose his or her job over a misdemeanor.
But neither should a hunter, trapper, or guide.  Nor should anyone
lose their ability to hunt, recreate, or defend themselves and family
over something that may be no more serious than spanking a child in
public.

However, the police unions have painted these convictions with a broad
and ugly brush.  They are now going to have a tough time explaining
why a person so painted should be allowed to carry sawed-off shotguns,
high-tech sniper rifles, and high-capacity pistols loaded with armor
piercing bullets (none of which are legally available to even the most
upstanding of private citizens) while engaged in extremely stressful
and temper-trying situations as a police officer.  It's high time cops
and Congress lived under the same laws as the rest of us.  Of course,
with Salt Lake City and County relying on the "honor system" to find
convictions among officers, they are still exempt for all practical
purposes.

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.

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

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prince Philip
Date: 25 Dec 1996 09:12:11 -0700

>Date: 23 Dec 96 09:16:13 EST
>From: Steven Kendrick/UK <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: Prince Philip


>Reply to WESLEY JONES
>>>Twice in his speech, Prince Philip made a point of expressing sympathy with
>>>the Dunblane families - nothing less would have been expcted of any humane
>>>and feeling person - but, corrctly, he did not permit that sympathy to cloud
>>>an opinion held honestly. He separated two distinct issues, while others
>>>have not.
>>>
>>>In many ways it is regrettable that Buckingham Palace and Prince Philip's
>>>office have rushed to try to smooth waters, for that has served only to
>>>confuse and disguise the worth of the point he was trying to make - a point
>>>and view that are gathering momentum daily.
>>>
>
>>So, is there hope Steve or is this just a flash in the pan?
>
>If the Earl of Shrewsbury keeps hitting the Home Secretary over the head with
>his threat to resign if they don't allow the bill to be heavily amended, I
think
>we have a chance.  The Earl is the Chairman of the Firearms Consultative
>Committee.  He was appointed two days before the bill came into the House of
>Lords, by the Home Secretary.  He basically read the bill, said it was totally
>illogical, unjust, not thought through, too expensive and totally
unworkable and
>threatened to resign!
>
>My kind of politician!
>
>I think that the antis have totally oversold their point.  This is Britain, and
>people only respond to emotionalism for so long.  People give you dirty looks
>when you mention "Dunblane".
>
>A lot of politicians are now getting very worried, especially the Scottish
>National Party.  They were ignoring gun owners despite a deluge of mail
from us,
>rallies and so on, because they thought banning handguns was overwhelmingly
>popular with the public.
>
>Now the public is beginning to have second thoughts, and the politicians have
>nowhere to go.  The SNP sent out a press release on Friday that was totally
>ridiculous, saying that the "gun lobby" should not take any comfort from the
>change in public opinion and that they should not try and expand their efforts.
>Talk about desperation!
>
>Most members of the SNP are in rural constituencies with a lot of hunters, and
>they are very, very, worried!
>
>Labour has wisely kept their mouths shut, but some Labour MPs are now
>back-peddling.
>
>I sent out a message about campaigning against a local MP who was all for
>banning combat knives and guns, and the antis got hold of it and warned him.
>Now he is saying that guns are okay for sporting use, etc!
>
>What a giggle!
>
>In any case, even if we fail, there is zero chance of this bill standing up in
>the European Court of Justice, I feel.
>
>Steve.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!

Happy Holidays!!



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Roy Innis letter in today's (12/27) Herald]
Date: 27 Dec 1996 10:36:29 -0700


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

From ma-firearms, published in the Boston Herald.

----- Begin Included Message -----
 This was the last letter to the editor in the Herald this morning
(Friday December 27, 1996.)

                      Racist gun bans

            Any intent to ban the sale of "Saturday night
          specials" ("The safest possible guns," Nov. 30)
          needs to be examined within a proper historical
          perspective.  "Niggertown Saturday night specials"
          was a term used by racists in the South to describe
          pot metal guns used by blacks for protection.

            Today, the "Niggertown" has been dropped, but
          for those of us who know the meaning of the term,
          it's no less hurtful and offensive.  In the past,
          because of the economics of the South and its racist
          gun-control law, blacks were confined to the
          sub-rosa market of the inexpensive, dangerous
          so-called "Saturday night specials" to obtain
          means of protection.  Today, in many crime-ridden
          minority communities, that need still exists.

            History teaches that racism creeps into law under
          good intentions.  Attempts to ban handguns that
          are inexpenssive (but safe) are directly aimed at
          minority gun ownership.  It's more useful to
          educate all citizens about firearm safety.

                                             Roy Innis,
                            Congress of Racial Equality
                                         New York, N.Y.

    - David Chesler ([e-mail], [e-mail], etc.)


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


----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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




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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Toy and Product Support
Date: 28 Dec 1996 00:17:51 -0700

Hi!  I thought you might be interested in this.

Sarah

>From: "Chris Meissen" <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
>Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 22:00:28 -0600
>Subject: New Toy and Product Support

>
>The old CyberEagles here will remember the really negative
>experiences I had with Auto Ordnance and the EAA Witness when it came
>to quality control and customer satisfaction.  For those who don't
>remember, I found that my Auto Ordnance government model 1911A1 was
>assembled with little, if any, concern for quality assurance; four
>barrels before finding a satisfactory one, frame and slide rails with
>incredible clearances, and a production supervisor who seemed totally
>unconcerned about the discovery of an entire batch of bad barrels
>summarizes the essence of my experience with this company.  With EAA,
>my .45 Witness fired nearly 3 feet right and 2 feet low at 15 yards
>right out of the box. A call to EAA resulted in an hurried
>recommendation to call "Denny's Shooter's Supply" for adjustable
>sights and a "click" as I was hung up upon.
>
>Well, I just got another government model .45 and I'm happy to
>announce that I'm more than pleased with my new toy.  This fine
>firearm was manufactured by Brolin Arms of Pomona, CA and they appear
>to be quite interested in their quality.  It also sells for lots less
>than a more traditional name brand.  I paid $320 at a hardware/gun
>store and it's listed on the internet at CADCO.com for $309.  For the
>money, it appears an excellent firearm.
>
>I was impressed by the smooth feel of the slide at the store. Field
>stripping it revealed almost no tool marks on the lower frame. What
>was there was nearly microscopic.  This is because the frame and
>slide are investment cast 4140 steel with minimal machining but hand
>finished.  According to Karl, at customer support, they have more
>people engaged in hand finishing than in the prelimary manufacturing
>processes in order to assure a smoothly operating, accurate firearm.
>
>Trigger pull was unmeasured but feels like about 3 lbs., give or take
>a few ounces.  It's so smooth and light with minimal overtravel that
>everyone who's tried it loves it.  There is a small amount of takeup
>prior to release but it's not detrimental to accuracy.  I've fired
>about a box and a half of reloads through it and they produced
>some of the smallest groups I've ever fired from a pistol.  Even my
>wife likes this piece!
>
>I called the manufacturer this morning to get answers to questions I
>had about it and I spoke at length with "Karl", the factory customer
>service rep.  When I mentioned that it had no problems feeding semi-
>wadcutters or lead roundnosed bullets but that the feed ramp was too
>high to feed Hornady XTP hollow points, he indicated that I should
>send it back to them, along with a couple of unloaded bullets (in
>order to avoid shipping loaded rounds) and they'd be happy to do
>whatever was necessary to assure reliable feeding with my bullet of
>choice.  In his words, "we want our guns to work reliably for our
>customers with whatever ammunition they choose to use for self-
>defense or whatever."   I told him I might send it in later, after
>I've broken it in a bit more (I'm having too much fun shooting it
>now) but that it works quite well with ball, semi-wadcutters, and
>lead roundnose so I've got plenty of ammo I can use in it for now. He
>also said nothing negative about my use of handloaded rounds, even
>when I told him flat out that the load I was using was one that was a
>duplicate of factory loads with the XTP's.
>
>In short, if anyone's considering aquiring a single-action,
>traditional .45acp pistol (did I mention the standard 8 round
>magazine that comes with it?), I heartily recommend that they take a
>serious look at this finely made, American-made, reasonably priced
>firearm.
>
>Do I sound happy with mine?   I should because I am most pleased.
>
>-- Chris Meissen
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!

Happy Holidays!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unintended Consequences Review
Date: 28 Dec 1996 00:30:18 -0700


>    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
>    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED Dec. 31, 1996
>    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
>    Finally, a novel of liberty to rival 'Atlas Shrugged'
>
>    My most re-printed column of the past year has been my Dec. 31, 1995
>review of John Ross' novel of the gun culture, "Unintended Consequences."
>It appears below, unaltered:
>
>    #  #  #
>
>  John Ross is an investment broker and financial adviser from St. Louis,
>Missouri. Mr. Ross fires 20,000 rounds of ammunition per year. He is "by
>his own admission, a member of the gun culture."
>
>  Missouri is one of the last states that still bans carrying handguns for
>personal protection by anyone except policemen and judges. Mr. Ross,
>understanding that this exposes his wife and daughter, and the spouses and
>children of all Missourians, to the tender mercies of armed felons, has
>contributed thousands of dollars to lobby the legislature to repeal that
>handgun ban.
>
>  Since that hasn't yet worked, Ross, who earned degrees in both English
>and Economics from Amherst College, decided to write a novel. The book
>dramatizes the history of our government's war on the gun culture. As Mr.
>Ross says in his author's note, "Today in America, honest, successful,
>talented, productive, motivated people are ... being stripped of their
>freedom and dignity and having their noses rubbed in it. The conflict has
>been building for over half a century, and once again warning flags are
>frantically waving, while the instigators rush headlong towards the abyss,
>and their doom."
>
>  The first two-thirds of "Unintended Consequences" comprise a
>fictionalized chronology of various characters on three continents
>experiencing the effects of being armed -- and being disarmed -- from 1906
>to the present. Characters are built with solid, credible personal
>histories. That takes some ink -- 860 pages in hardcover.
>
>  By the time Warsaw ghetto uprising survivor Irwin Mann shows his young
>American nephew pictures of naked Jews being herded to their deaths in the
>Nazi camps, only to have the lad point out to him that none of the
>soldiers' weapons have bullets in their chambers, you'll be hanging on
>every revelation.
>
>  "Would many people notice this fact, as you have?" the stunned Irwin Mann
>finally asks, after the lad demonstrates how you can tell whether each of
>the weapons in question has been loaded and cocked.
>
>   "Anyone with any knowledge of guns," replies young Henry Bowman.
>  But the Jews of Europe, of course, had no knowledge of guns. They had no
>gun culture. And so they died.
>
>  In the final third of the book, set (start ital)after(end ital) Waco and
>Ruby Ridge, our own gun-grabbers finally go too far. The members of the gun
>culture find themselves pushed to the point where they realize it's either
>give up all their weapons, bend over, and hope they use some lubricant ...
>or fight back.
>
>  Individually, without getting together to form any giant conspiracy, they
>start killing their oppressors. A few at first ... then by the hundreds.
>
>  As one of the characters in "Unintended Consequences" says, "When the
>United States government suspects a citizen has failed to pay a five dollar
>federal tax and then spends more manpower and more money spying on that
>citizen then it spent on surveillance before the invasion of Haiti, there
>is something wrong. When government tax agents carry guns and wear black
>ski masks to hide their faces, the evil has become institutionalized. And
>when those government agents shoot nursing mothers and burn women and
>children alive over $200 tax matters, then you have a government that is
>out of control."
>
>  "Unintended Consequences" is published by little Accurate Press of St.
>Louis -- the firm's first novel.
>
>  "Greg (Pugh) saw the first few chapters, and said he wanted it, that he
>hoped it would do for him what 'The Hunt for Red October' did for the Naval
>Institute Press," Ross says.
>
>  John Ross and Greg Pugh don't know the half of it. I doubt this
>magnificent novel will be an overnight best-seller, without the kind of PR
>campaign it would get from a major publisher. But neither was "Atlas
>Shrugged." Sales of Ayn Rand's masterpiece just kept growing by word of
>mouth, until it became this century's classic novel of liberty, never out
>of print in 40 years.
>
>  Now it has company.
>
>  "Unintended Consequences" will terrify and appall jackbooted
>stormtroopers everywhere, and even more so the whimpering media geeks who
>squat to lick those boots. "Unintended Consequences" has characters you
>will care for, and a sense of proportion and scale that firmly resists the
>temptation to go overboard with superhuman feats more suited to the likes
>of Stallone and Schwarzenegger.
>
>   Does Ross worry about accusations that the book's "too political"?
>
>  "In the review that's scheduled to run in the publication of the JPFO
>(Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership), the Firearms Sentinel,
>they liken this book to Harriet Beecher Stowe's 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' in
>1853. A lot of northerners had considered slavery as a guaranteed three
>square meals a day and a roof over your head; it didn't seem logical to
>them that a slave owner with $3,000 invested in a slave would beat or
>torture or kill him.
>
>  "But 'Uncle Tom's Cabin,' a work of fiction, sensitized people to the
>realities of slavery in a way that a bunch of people standing around on
>stumps making speeches never could have done. ... Yeah, I've written a
>political novel. People who don't have any connection with the gun culture
>need to be made aware that our government is shooting people in the head
>and burning them alive because they didn't pay a $200 tax. I make no
>apologies for writing a political novel."
>
>  I have rarely been as moved by any work of fiction as I was by John Ross'
>"Unintended Consequences." It is a masterwork. (And mind you, I'm saying
>this about an Amherst man.) Anyone who cares about the Second Amendment --
>or any of the Bill of Rights -- must read it.
>
>  "Unintended Consequences" will be ready to ship to bookstores nationwide
>in January, through wholesaler Baker & Taylor. Individual copies are $32
>postpaid from  Accurate Press, 7188 Manchester Road, St. Louis, Mo. 63143;
>phone [phone].
>
>  Order several. You have friends.
>
>Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
>Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail].
>The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at
>http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United
>States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas
>Nev. 89127.
>
>***
>
>Vin Suprynowicz        [e-mail],  (OR:)  [e-mail]
>
>Voir Dire: (n), A French phrase which means "jury tampering."
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!

Happy Holidays!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Santa Cult (HUMOR)
Date: 28 Dec 1996 00:59:16 -0700

>Return-Path: [e-mail]
>Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 13:07:38 -0500
>From: "Thomas J. Aveni" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: The Santa Cult

>Santa Claus cult busted at north pole.  :)
>
>Here's a little holiday humor:
>
>Northpole Standoff
>
>     A fierce battle ended in a stand-off today as a
>multi-jurisdictional task force of federal law enforcement agents
>tried to arrest the leader of a militant doomsday cult, who call
>themselves "Elves," living in a heavily fortified compound at the
>Northpole. According to witnesses, federal agents hid in livestock
>trailers as they drove up to the compound.
>
>    The approach was difficult in the snow using wheeled vehicles.
>Several agents were reportedly thrown from the trailer when it hit
>a snowbank.  The agents were unable to use dogteams and sleds because
>the ATF agents shot all the dogs during training at a nearby
>recreational facility where agents had practiced for weeks on a
>mock-up of the compound in preparation for the raid.
>
>   As three National Guard helicopters approached, over 100 law
>officers stormed the main compound, a heavily fortified gingerbread
>structure, throwing concussion grenades and screaming "Come out!"
>Cult
>members and law officers negotiated a cease-fire about 45 minutes
>after the incident began.
>
>   For the next several hours, ambulances and helicopters swarmed
>the premises.  The area was cordoned off and ATF agents with machine
>guns
>were posted in the roadways to keep reporters at least two miles
>from the main battle area.
>
>   In a lengthy report on the group Saturday, The Northpole
>Tribune-Herald said that the cult was known to have a large arsenal
>of high-powered weapons, probably produced in a workshop disguised as
>a "toy factory."  This toy factory is also believed to be the sight of
>a mephamphetamine laboratory, according to sources inside the ATF.
>
>   The article quoted investigators as saying the crazed cult
>leader, who uses several aliases, "Santa Claus," "Saint Nick,"
>"Sinterclaas," and "Saint Nicholas," age unknown, has abused
>children and claims to have at least 15 wives. Santa Claus denies
>these accusations of abuse and said he has had only one wife, Mrs.
>Santa Claus.
>
>   Authorities had a warrant to search the Northpole compound for
>guns and explosive devices and an arrest warrant for its leader,
>Santa Claus, said Mess Stanford of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
>Firearms in Washington, D.C.  Mr. Stanford added it would be
>useless to attempt to get a copy of this warrant, however, because it had
>been sealed, "for national security reasons."
>
>   The assault came one day after the Northpole Tribune-Herald
>began publishing a series on the cult, quoting former members as
>saying the deranged cult leader, Santa Claus, abused children and
>had at least 15 wives.
>
>   ATF spokesman Jack Killchildren in Washington said the assault
>had been planned for several weeks, although he added, "I think the
>newspaper's investigation set up heightened tension."
>
>   The cult's fortress, called "The Toy Factory," is dominated by a
>tower with lookout windows facing in all directions. Guards
>reportedly patrol the 77-acre grounds at night.
>
>   Attorney General Janet Reno ordered the raid after cult members
>refused to surrender documents relating to national security.  A
>source inside the Justice Department said that the documents were
>lists of cabinet members and highly placed government officials who
>were naughty or nice.  Despite preliminary, secret negotiations to
>obtain the list, the Elves refused to surrender the document to the
>Justice Department.
>
>   The raid was scheduled early, because December 25 is
>believed to be a traditional cult holiday and all the militant
>elves would be engaged in cult rituals in preparation for the event.
>
>   At a press conference this afternoon, Attorney General Reno said,
>"These militants abuse children in the most vile manner, by
>teaching them to expect charity.  They have even distributed free, working
>replicas of 'assault weapons' and 'handguns.'   It is a matter of
>dire importance to our future and the future of all our children, that
>this peril be ended by every means at our disposal."
>
>   She went on to say that "I do not want to surround the compound
>and shoot everyone and then burn it to the ground in order to
>prevent this child abuse from occurring again, but that appears to be our
>only alternative."
>
>   According to Reno, the "Toy Factory" itself is a sweatshop and
>conditions inside were horrendous.  The Department of Justice is
>also looking into allegations of animal cruelty.  Former members of the
>cult have claimed that Santa Claus frequently uses leather
>restraints on at least eight reindeer, housed in sordid conditions on the
>compound.  Witnesses reported seeing a reindeer with a protruding
>red nose, which Janet Reno said was further indication of the abusive
>conditions inside the compound.
>
>   Several of the elves were reported by the BATF to have been
>carrying automatic weapons. However, independant sources dispute
>this, claiming that the "automatic weapons" were nothing more than
>large candy canes.
>
>   ATF leader Ted Oyster, shaken after the ordeal, spoke to
>reporters as hundreds of agents, many of them in tears, were taken
>away from the Northpole in military airlifts, ambulances, and
>private vehicles.
>
>   "We had our plan down, we had our diversion down, and they were
>waiting..." Oyster said resignedly, shaking his head.
>
>    A hospital spokesman said that most of the wounded ATF agents
>appeared to be suffering from shrapnel wounds from broken candy
>canes, as well as frostbite, apparently suffered from wearing forest-green
>camoflage in the wintery terrain.
>
>   Attorney General Reno offered no comment on these reports.
>
>  Mack "the knife" McWarty was seen strolling across the White
>House lawn, chuckling to himself as he read what inside sources say was a
>copy of the naughty/nice list.
>
>   One highly placed government official was found dead in Marcy
>Park.  His name and the cause of death are unknown at this time,
>however, the White House immediately issued a statement claiming
>the official had committed suicide after learning his name was not on
>the nice list.
>
>   Patsy Thomahawk refused to comment on the advice of her attorney
>on whether she had any part in removing copies of the naughty/nice
>list from a safe in the White House.
>
>   A spokesman from the MJTF said that it was indeed a tragedy
>that Santa Claus had caused this confrontation, but this should be
>a lesson to anyone who tries to give to everyone without permission
>from the welfare department, and that gathering sensitive data without a
>permit from official sources will be stopped by any means.
>
>   FBI spokesman Bob Pricks, the former national Abortion Poster
>Child of 1944, relayed that "We are dealing with a madman.  We have
>cut off all electricity, water, and communications to the compound.
>Santa Claus has demanded that we relay a message to the world.  It
>reads, 'Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.'  FBI
>psychological experts are presently analyzing the message, however,
>preliminary reports indicate this is an encrypted threat to invade
>the neighboring towns near the Northpole.  It may also be a doomsday
>message that the cult intends to commit suicide, like Jonestown."
>
>   Shortly after the raid, a smiling Reno was seen strolling
>through the pile of rubbish looking for anatomically correct Barbie
>dolls. She claimed that she was going to confiscate any that she
>found as "evidence" and that they were for a personal investigation that
>she was conducting.
>
>   Attorney General Reno also disclosed some information about
>plans to raid Mr. E. Ster Bunny sometime next spring. According to
>the FBI's report on Mr. Bunny, he has been hording food all year. This
>is in direct violation of a secret Presidential Directive. "This
>ingratitude for everything that we have done will stop, even if it
>means raiding every house in the USA to enforce these new laws that
>were made to insure your freedom...." Reno said.
>
>   This, boys and girls, should make us all sleep just a little
>bit better tonight. The government will protect us from
>overindulging in freedom. If they didn't step in and take control
>of that "naughty/nice" list, just think what shape we might be in.....
>
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
801-966-7278 (voice mail and fax)
http://www.therighter.com

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

GO JAZZ!!!!!!

Happy Holidays!!



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: A Letter from the Future
Date: 28 Dec 1996 09:26:00 -0700


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

                    A Letter from the Future:
            United Socialist States of North America

                               by

                     Brad Peterson, Chaplain
                         E Pluribus Unum

                                                   November, 1999
Dear friend:

   It is late November, 1999. Things are very different now in the United
Socialist States of North America, formerly the USA. It's freezing outside,
and not much better inside, since the EPA ordered most of the power plants
shut down a few years ago. We have lots of trees around here, so we'll make
it through the winter all right, I guess. Good thing I saved up lots of
canned food; the grocery stores stay empty most of the time these days;
what with the government-run farms that can't produce enough, and the
constant truckers' strikes. Some food shipments are even being hijacked.
Lots of folk have died of starvation and disease recently; and remember that
health care plan they passed in '96? What a joke -- you could die of old age
standing in line. Most hospitals had to close, and few folks can afford to
drive to Memphis with gas at $3.85 a gallon, thanks to the big Eco Summit in
'96 that tripled the price of fuel to raise money for the new Environmental
Police Force. Those are the guys in the green helmets; they carry guns too.
   I remember how controversial that NAFTA treaty was before they passed
it, and now I understand why so many fought it so hard. You see, we don't
produce much here anymore, and with a primarily service-oriented economy,
we lost our standard of living and are now just like one big underclass.
Of course, the government bureaucrats still live on easy street, but
nobody says too much about that kind of thing anymore; I mean, after they
took over the radio stations and most of the newspaper companies were
bought out by the government, the news is mostly world events, and we
really can't tell what is happening in the USSNA. All of the last
conservative columnists and talk show hosts were imprisoned in late '96;
rumor has it some were executed in detention camps out west, but we can't
be sure.
   I remember a small handful of preachers that always tried to warn us
about the possibility of all of this happening, but they were gradually
railroaded out of the mainline churches for upsetting the people too much.
Now, it seems they were right, but they, too, are all gone. We don't go
out much anymore; the constant roadblocks and the vehicle searches make
just going to the store a frightening experience, for the children
especially. The U.N. soldiers are everywhere; you see, after they
suspended the Constitution back in '97, the old U.S. Army was merged with
the U.N. units, and now we can't tell who the Americans are anymore. I
guess it really doesn't matter, they court-martialed most of our troops
who resisted the merger, so everyone in blue these days is part of the
North American Occupation Force, one way or the other.
   Many people formed small militia groups in the summer of '98, but it
was  already too late. They put up one heck of a fight, especially down
South, but there just weren't enough of them. You see, when the Brady
Bill passed, nobody took it seriously. Then came the Crime Bill of '94.
The Patriots tried to sound the alarm back then, but not enough people
called their Congressmen ... it passed also. Next was the assault weapons
ban. This one had significant opposition, but at last, even the pro-Second
Amendment politicians caved in and allowed the bill to pass, helped
greatly by the socialist media's lengthy propaganda blitz. By the time
enough people understood what was really going on, they had already passed
Brady II, which made every house with a gun subject to random government
searches. Thousands of homes were assaulted in late '97, and the government
forces killed so many private citizens, the population had to make a choice
... disarm or die. Most people then gave up their guns to keep from being
killed or imprisoned.
   I remember that deal back in '93 in Waco, Texas. I didn't want to
believe our government was really capable of mass-murder; but, looking
back on it, Waco was just a test, to see how much the people would put up
with. I guess we failed the test; soon after Waco, they started raiding
churches, patriotic meetings, and religious groups all over the country.
If only we had listened to those who tried so hard to warn us back then.
And you know, all of that New World Order stuff has come true, and I fear
it's not over yet. I don't know what we can do, though; all private
meetings are outlawed, we have no guns, and folk are too scared to even
discuss the new government.
   I would now give anything to be able to go back ten years, back when
we could speak, write, preach, and assemble together for the good of the
nation; if only we had gotten involved while we were still free.
   Well, I better close for now; the night security forces will be making
their rounds, and you know I could be beaten and imprisoned for writing an
unauthorized letter. I'll get it to the underground postal service when
it's safe again.
   A complacent citizen, if only I had done ... something ... for freedom.
   "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we
remembered Zion." Psalm 137:1 ... it doesn't have to end this way ... the
choice is ours. We stand for Liberty now. Or we serve under Tyranny!



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: 3 deputies sue to regain guns...]
Date: 30 Dec 1996 09:23:08 -0700


From AZRKBA.

Wonder if the suit is worded to include us commoners or only cops.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

A26 AZ Republic 12/29/96

3 deputies sue to regain guns

        Three Los Angeles deputy sheriffs filed a lawsuit this week to
block enforcement of a federal law that prohibits anyone convicted of
domestic violence from carrying [* NOTE: should say 'owning and carrying' *]
a gun.  The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said that the
law, which took effect Oct. 1, gives no exemption to the military or law
officers, for most of whom a gun is a job requirement.  In most states,
crimes of domestic violence are prosecuted as misdemeanors.  The deputies
from Los Angeles County, named as Doe 1, Doe 2 and Doe 3, had their guns
confiscated and were reassigned to civilian duties after being involved
in domestic-violence incidents, the lawsuit said.  Two officers pleaded
no contest to domestic-violence charges, and the third was convicted of a
misdemeanor charge of domestic violence.


"We are somewhat amused by the hysteria manifest in the press at the
suggestion by Gordon Liddy that if one is menaced by bad guys
(particularly the ninja) one is wise to shoot for the head.  That
statement has got a whole bunch of journalists and commentators bleeding
from the nose.  One wonders why it should.  Where else should you shoot a
man if he is probably wearing an armored vest?  If you decide to shoot you
have made the big decision.  Where you place your shot is merely a
technical matter." -- Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, Independence Issue, 1995.

Cory Brickner                         The Freedom Pages
[e-mail]                http://www.public.asu.edu/~brickner/

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety
 deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

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

From: andelain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [[e-mail]: 3 deputies sue to regain guns...]
Date: 31 Dec 1996 00:08:50 -0700 (MST)

>Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 09:23:08 -0700
>From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
>Subject: [[e-mail]: 3 deputies sue to regain guns...]
>
>
>>From AZRKBA.
>
>Wonder if the suit is worded to include us commoners or only cops.
>

Yeah, right.  :)

This whole thing has just served to feed my cynicism.  The last
thing I expect is the military and law enforcement to stand up
for civilian civil rights.  I completely expect this lawsuit to
be upheld *for government employees*, thus making the seperation
twixt lords and peasants even more profound.


Will

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Not as Different as the News thinks
Date: 31 Dec 1996 13:37:29 -0700


The following is from the 12-31 Deseret News Editorial page.  Seems to
me we had very similar law pass recently as part of an anti-terrorist
bill--namely allowing the use of evidence obtained without benefit of
warrant or probably cause so long as the cop had good intentions.
Anyone care to refresh my memory of the details of our version of this
law?  I've done my best to forget exactly when and in what it was
passed.  Also maybe someone would care to remind the News of Congress'
disregard for individual rights and point out we aint as far removed
from England as they may like to think.  As usual, my queue is quite
full.

 [Deseret News Web Edition]

 The rights of the individual taking a trampling in Britain

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

 By Anthony Lewis

 LONDON -- For all their democratic similarities, the political
 societies of Britain and the United States differ in a profound
 respect. It is a difference that goes back to the American
 Revolution.

 Americans fear the power of the state. The framers of the
 Constitution wrote in devices to check power, divide it, defend
 individuals against it. And the instinctive fear of a centralized
 state remains as strong today.

 No such instinct is detectable in Britain. There is, rather, what
 must seem to Americans an extraordinary public indifference to
 encroachments of state power on individual rights.

 A current example, a startling one, is a police bill proposed by
 the Conservative government and now making its way through
 Parliament. It would give the police broad power to enter anyone's
 home or office without a warrant, rummage through papers and plant
 bugs. They could do so with no restraint except the good will of
 the chief constable in each police district, who would be the
 authorizing power.

 The bill would allow such warrantless searches and electronic
 surveillance to deal with any ''serious'' crime. Any crime
 punishable by a sentence of three years or more would qualify as
 ''serious.''

 Not only a possible criminal's home or office would be vulnerable
 to those new powers. The police could search and bug anywhere --
 including the offices of the target's lawyer. The privacy of legal
 consultations, hitherto regarded as sacrosanct in Britain and other
 European countries as it is under American constitutional law,
 could be breached at will.

 All this is a sharp break with what the British call their
 unwritten constitution: concepts of freedom that have tradition
 behind them though they are not enforceable as law. The maxim that
 ''a man's home is his castle'' arose in the English courts. In 1763
 William Pitt the Elder said: ''The poorest man may in his cottage
 bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its
 roof may shake, the rain may enter, but the king of England cannot
 enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined
 tenement.''

 When the bill was debated last month in the House of Lords, an
 amendment was offered to require a judicial warrant for searches
 and surveillance. The government defeated the amendment, opposing
 it on the puzzling ground that it would threaten ''the traditional
 impartiality of judges, placing them too firmly in the
 law-enforcement camp.'' Judges have been issuing warrants here and
 in other countries for centuries without any such result.

 A highly regarded judge, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, supported the
 unsuccessful amendment in the Lords debate. He noted that
 individuals would have no remedy if the police abused their new
 powers -- no way to sue for damages, for example. ''The common law
 will be able to do nothing,'' he said, ''if the right to invade our
 property is conferred on the state, in the form of the police, with
 no prior approval from an independent party.''

 The bill was proposed by the home secretary, Michael Howard, who
 has been much criticized for disregarding civil liberties.
 Surprisingly, the Labor opposition supported him on this bill.

 Jack Straw, Labor's shadow home secretary, said there would be
 ''greater accountability'' if a chief constable, rather than a
 judge, had the duty ''to ensure compliance with the law.'' Hugo
 Young, a columnist in The Guardian, scorned the notion that a
 police official was ''the rightful custodian'' of people's privacy.
 He said Straw had ''plumbed the depths of intellectual chicanery.''

 It seems especially odd that the leader of the Labor Party, Tony
 Blair, would let it take such an illiberal stance. He is a lawyer,
 and he has worked with great success to give Labor a more modern
 image.

 But the explanation is obvious. There will be an election here in
 1997, and Blair does not want to look soft on crime. He is
 reminiscent of President Clinton, who allowed much illiberal
 legislation to become law despite civil liberties objections before
 the U.S. election.

 Fifty years ago Justice Hugo L. Black replied to an argument that
 the U.S. Supreme Court should follow English practice in a
 particular matter. Those who wrote our Constitution, he said,
 wanted Americans to have far greater protection against official
 abuse than the English had ever had. The example of the police bill
 makes his point.

[Image]

Published 31 December, ⌐ 1996 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Return to front page


--

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

"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the
 active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base
 enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest.
 There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are
 forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is
 inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!" -- Patrick
 Henry (1736-1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775