ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9701

Internet Message Format | 1997-01-31 | 254KB

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: DV gun ban
Date: 01 Jan 1997 01:20:33 -0700


>The Evansville Press 12-30-96
>
>Dealers upset by newest gun law
>Associated Press
>
>Violence question not on form
>
>    LAFAYETTE, Ind.- Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
>officials sent letters two weeks ago telling dealers that customers must be
>asked at the time of purchase if they have been convicted of domestic violence.
>    But the forms for reporting buyer information do not contain that
>question, leaving local dealers unhappy- and a bit confused.
>    "We're having to enforce things that aren't written down," said Linda
>Schiuszi, owner of Schiuszi Police Gear Co. in Lafayette. "They're asking us to
>do this before they have their ducks in a row."
>    The amendment to the federal Gun Control Law of 1968 makes it illegal for
>anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor to possess, sell or ship
>firearms or ammunition. The new law took effect Sept. 30, and federal agents
>have begun confiscating firearms belonging to violators.
>    The forms, which must be filled out when a gun is purchased, are a
>firearms transaction record of sale, and if requested, a carry permit. These
>forms are sent to the local police agency and the Indiana State Police.
>    There are further complications. Bruce Bryant, a state police
>administrative assistant in firearms, said gun dealers cannot determine if a
>buyer has a domestic violence record.
>    "If a person has a domestic violence conviction and doesn't say anything
>when asked the question, there is nothing the dealer can do," he said. "All
they
>can do is send the form to our agency where it will be checked."
>    Schiuszi said that lack of paperwork means there is no documentation that
>the customer answered "no" to the domestic violence question. It doesn't even
>show that the question was asked.
>    "This does worry me because the domestic violence question is not on
>there," Schiuszi said. "The customer can say we didn't ask them the
question and
>we can't get them for lying on the form. This applies to ammunition too-
there's
>nothing to sign."
>    Burnham's, a sporting supply store in West Lafayette, is designing an
>addition to the federal form until the new federal forms are distributed.
>    "We've got a rough draft and we'll have the customer sign it," said
>Burnham's Luke Short who added that he was wondering "where does this all
stop?"
>    The law also holds the dealer responsible if someone buys a gun for
>another who can't but one legally.
>    The Lafayette Police Department still is awaiting further instructions
>from the ATF Chief Gene Reed said.
>    "We're going to sit back and wait for the ATF to give us some
>guidelines," he said. "They didn't even give us a cutoff date. If someone pled
>guilty 25 years ago to slapping his wife, he's still in violation.
>    "But no one's going to plead guilty now because they'll lose their right
>to bear arms."
>
>
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 1997!!


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: One more reason to worry about UN peacekeepers
Date: 02 Jan 1997 12:54:24 -0700


Not news to anyone around here I'm sure, but what happens if/when the
"peacekeepers" are in US towns rather than Cambodian.

Excerpts from an Editorial in today's (1-2-97) Deseret News (SLC, UT)
<http://www.desnews.com>

WASHINGTON -- It's a dirty little secret that few people at the United
Nations ever mention, yet it happens with regularity:U.N. peacekeeping
soldiers using child prostitutes fortheir pleasure.

[...]

Yet it was not a problem that Annan's boss -- outgoing Secretary
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali -- ever wanted to deal with. That is,
until early last month.

 Boutros-Ghali finally decided to take action after reading a report
on children in war written by Graca Machel, Mozambique's former
education minister. Supported by Marian Wright Edelman, head of the
U.S.-based Children's Defense Fund, she visited a half-dozen countries
 to systematically examine the effects of war on children.

 One of the things Machel found was forced prostitution of children by
soldiers of competing sides -- and, according to one paragraph in the
report, by U.N. peacekeepers.

 ''After the signing of the peace treaty in 1992, soldiers of the
United Nations operation in Mozambique recruited girls age 12 to 18
years into prostitution,'' the report said.

[...]

Stories of the Bulgarians' excesses lend credence to one of the
persistent criticisms of the $1.7 billion Cambodian mission: that a
U.N. presence brings with it Western decadence that corrupts the local
population. Urgent requests from Phnom Penh included 6,500 flak
jackets -- and 300,000 condoms. Yasushi Akashi, the head of the
U.N. mission, waved off Cambodian complaints by remarking that
''18-year-old hot-blooded soldiers'' had the right to enjoy
 themselves, drink a few beers and chase ''young beautiful beings of
the opposite sex.'' But Akashi did make one request: ''Please do not
park your U.N. vans near the nightclubs.''

 Akashi has had good reason to regret his laissez-faire attitude since
150 peacekeepers and untold numbers of Cambodians are believed to have
contracted AIDS. More U.N. peacekeepers will die of sexually
transmitted diseases than the 21 soldiers who were killed in hostile
action.

  --

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.

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

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: READ ME!!
Date: 04 Jan 1997 01:54:51 -0700

From Nancy Lord MD JD: No More Indictments

>Forwarded message:
>From:    [e-mail] (Nancy Lord)
>To:    [e-mail] (Nancy Lord)
>Date: 96-12-30 21:55:42 EST
>
>INTRODUCTION
>
>The freedom movement was dealt a harsh blow this year.
>Since April, five indictments, all of three or more militia
>members, all charged with what Justice Learned Hand once
>called,  "Conspiracy, the darling of the prosecutor's
>
>nursery."  There were convictions in Macon and more are
>coming.  Every case was made by a government agent who
>instigated conduct that supported federal conspiracy charges.
>
>Since the Macon case, I have spoken with lawyers or accuseds
>in all four other cases.  It is painfully clear that the militia
>movement needs to understand federal conspiracy law.  This
>post may not be well received.  What I say here does not
>comport with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or even
>published case law.  But it is what happens in a federal
>courtroom, where it will defeat those who do not comprehend.
>
>First, a group must agree never to condone or participate in
>illegal activity and to exclude anyone who tries to instigate
>it.  These guidelines should help decide what is legal,
>illegal, or could be made to look illegal by an overzealous
>prosecutor and his confidential informant.
>
>CONSPIRACY
>
>A conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act.  It is not
>a signed contract, or even a handshake, but can be "tacit" -
>- a wink and a nod, an unspoken understanding.  It can mean
>nothing more than holding military training one day and
>discussing the Russian tanks at an airbase the next.
>Evidence can be direct or circumstantial, and a jury can
>infer whatever the government wants them to believe.
>
>One person can think about and plan any illegal act.  He can
>have diagrams of buildings, maps to the prospective victims'
>houses, but without a substantive step (attempt) or request
>for help (solicitation), there is no crime.  (Though if
>someone else does it, the diagrams and maps mean trouble.)
>
>For two people together, a wishful dream is a conspiracy.
>Two people in the library reading about explosives could be
>charged with conspiracy to manufacture explosives.  This
>violates the first amendment, but Hizzoner will not agree.
>
>DEFENSE AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICIALS
>
>It is illegal to defend yourself against a federal official
>who is acting within the scope of his job.  He can violate
>regulations and the constitution, but if he is on duty,  you
>do not have the right to strike back.  Citizens are expected
>to be arrested and fight it out later in court.
>
>This is horrible, but it is the law.  That is not to say that
>I would go quietly to the gas chambers.  There may come a
>time to break this law, but it is still the law.  One can
>only defend against a fed if he is acting outside the scope
>of his job, "on a frolic", like attempting date rape.  A
>frolicking fed is like anyone else and can be met with force
>neccessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury.
>
>CONSPIRACY TO DEFEND
>
>The combination of these laws means that getting together to
>prepare to defend against federal officials is as conspiracy,
>particularly if there is any talk of explosives. If a group
>of people vocally criticize the federal government and engage
>in so-called para-military training, this conspiracy can be
>"inferred."  An Assistant U.S. Attorney will not have to be
>a rocket-scientist to make an inference that the government
>is who they plan to fight.  The public is so poorly educated
>that jurors are easily terrified.
>
>It is legal to resist a fed only when he is not acting as a
>fed, but as anyone else.  Studying self defense against any
>and all attackers, not the feds or even the U.N., is legal
>and was the purpose for the constitutional militias.
>
>DO AND DON'T
>
>Patriots who speak out about the unconstitutional expansion
>of the federal government, U.N. control, illegal raids, etc.,
>should not engage in training exercises.  Instead learn self
>defense by joining the reserves or the Sheriff's auxiliary,
>or taking a firearms, martial arts, or ROTC course.  Work on
>physical fitness and practice roughing it by camping with
>a nature appreciation club.  Nobody needs to put a bulls-eye
>on his head to shoot straight, run fast, and build endurance.
>
>If you feel that military style preparedness is tantamount,
>then leave the first amendment activities to others.  I'm
>trampling on the constitution, but it is, again, reality.
>Col. Bo Gritz has not been indicted for S.P.I.K.E. training
>because training alone is not illegal (in most states), as
>long as the government is not the enemy.
>
>Any group doing both public education and training with the
>same people and the same leaders is asking for indictment.
>
>DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
>
>Intent to start "a war with the federal government" can been
>"proven" by the video tapes, books, speeches, radio shows,
>that the movement produces.  The Vipers were indicted based
>on a video that one of them produced.  The movement custom
>of videotaping every speech should be curtailed, and nothing
>taped with even a hint of impending violence.
>
>If you have a tape like this around, you are not required to
>keep it secure.  Once an investigation starts, or a
>subpoena issues, it will be obstruction of justice to destroy
>it.  A spy thriller taped over it will have more information
>on the satellite tracking systems, electronic interception,
>and other high-tech spy methods than a speech about targets,
>and six guys with rifles will be picked off real quick if the
>government ever makes all out war against its citizens.
>
>They are not going to round up all dissidents at once but
>are picking off one group at a time, by using informants.
>
>CATCHING THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS
>
>Think of the momentum for freedom if in 1997 five government
>paid confidential informants (CI's) were publicly exposed
>trying to provoke crimes before anyone else got in trouble.
>
>Have a notary at your meeting, and ask all participants to
>swear to and sign an affidavit that they are not affiliated
>in any way with law enforcement or are in law enforcement
>and there for personal interest; and that they will not
>provoke illegal conduct.  If this is a lie, it will show in
>court that this person committed perjury.
>
>Assign a few responsible people as security, and identify
>them with badges or hats.  Tell participants that anyone who
>suggests illegal acts should be reported to security, who
>will then investigate the troublemaker and decide how to
>proceed.  Some troublemakers just needs attention and a
>talking to, others will need to be excluded, and a call to
>the Sheriff may be in order if you suspect a CI.
>
>A group with resources can thoroughly investigate a
>troublemaker -- criminal background (informants almost always
>have records), whom he or she meets with, where his or her
>money comes from, etc.  If you find unexplained cash and
>meetings with a guy in a Taurus as soon as your meeting is
>over, you've probably caught a CI.  DO NOT threaten or in
>any way disclose what you know, but get as much good press
>out of this as you can.  The CI might be taped trying to
>provoke illegal conduct, but only a trained interviewer
>should try this and the plan must be documented.  Do not
>incriminate yourself trying to catch the CI on tape.
>
>Once you've got the evidence, send a letter to the Sheriff,
>the local U.S. Attorney's office, B.A.T.F., and F.B.I.  This
>will force them to disclose it to defense attorneys, under
>Brady v. Maryland, if the CI ever tries to make a case
>against your group.  Then, get it out on the radio.  Invite
>the CI onto a local talk show, and confront him on the air.
>
>Send a letter to the public defender's office, informing
>them of this transaction, without details.  They will know
>about Brady material on the CI, but the U.S. Attorney will
>still have to disclose it.  Do not disclose it for him.
>
>LOVE THY NEIGHBOR
>
>A CI is a highly manipulative person who preys on the weak.
>One CI working for minimum wage and driving 100 miles twice
>a week for meetings, took an entire family out for dinners
>to win them over.  It worked, and nobody even questioned
>where the money came from.
>
>If someone in your group is in trouble, a responsible and
>caring person should help through the crisis, before a clever
>CI can ingratiate himself and gain control of his psyche.
>
>CONCLUSION
>
>The public needs to know what happened during the past year.
>The convictions in Macon prove that the average person does
>not understand the lengths to which the government goes to
>create a case against those who speak out against it.  The
>only way they will understand is if future entrapments are
>prevented and CI's are exposed attempting to manufacture
>crime.  Only then will infiltrating law abiding groups become
>an unacceptable risk for the government.
>
>In Liberty,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>=======================================================
>Nancy Lord, M.D.
>Attorney at Law
>[e-mail]
>Pager:  800-975-8520
>Temporary office location:
>191 East Broad Street
>Suite 210
>Athens, Georgia 30601
>706-548-9630
>
>"The purpose of the jury is to prevent the oppression by the government."
>Duncan v. Louisiana, Supreme Court, 1968.
>=======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
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 1997!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Guns 'n Ice Cream
Date: 05 Jan 1997 01:55:29 -0700


>>Forwarded message:
>>From:    [e-mail] (Jerry and Nancy Herrington)

>>Got this off the firearms disscussion list.... Did you hear about
>>this... Ben and Jerry's (icecream maker who supports antigun) hired a
>>former Winchester Exec. as CEO to their company... I quit eating Ben and
>>Jerry's Ice cream looooong time ago....
>>
>>    Nancy
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>* Ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc. hired Perry Odak,
>>>   a former executive of the firm that makes Winchester rifles, to
>>>   be its new CEO.
>>>     - co-founder Ben Cohen said Odak seemed "very much aligned"
>>>       with the social mission of the company.
>>>     - Ben & Jerry's  has a history of supporting anti-gun
>>>       organizations.
>>>
>>>
>>Just wanted to add a tidbit from my local paper:
>>
>>"...Cohen and Greenfield said at a news conference Thursday that the
>>search committee took Odak's work with the gun manufacturer [U.S.
>>Repeating Arms Co.] into account when they were considering him for the
>>position.  "We feel pretty strongly that anytime you can turn somebody
>>from making guns to making ice cream, you've done a wonderful thing for
>>the world," Cohen said." -- The Record, 1/3/96.
>>
>>Corporate America, 1   Us, 0   Anybody want some ice cream?
>
>Wasn't so long ago that I'd have accepted a bowl of "Cherry Garcia" from
>the devil himself! :)  But I too stopped eating their ice cream because
>of their politics.
>Of course they COULD redeem themselves by sending me a gallon of
>"M-16 Mocha" or "Hollowpoint Hot Fudge"..........
>"Chocolate carbine"?
>"Cherry Colt"?
>
>Darn, now I'm hungry!! :)
>
>Sarah (who is obviously staying up too late!)
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 1997!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Federal Court Resource
Date: 06 Jan 1997 09:13:25 -0700

Those of you in the legal community probably already know about this, but
for the rest of us, it looks like a great resource!  (So is the URL at the
very end!)

Sarah

>DIRECTORY OF ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS SERVICES to Automated Information in
>the United States Federal Courts=20
>Directory available on the Internet: http://www.uscourts.gov/PubAccess.html=
=20
>
>The federal judiciary is now in its seventh year offering various=
 electronic
>public access services to federal court information. These services have
>received strong endorsements and have generated ever increasing demand --
>more than six million calls per year-- both from within the legal community
>and from other interested parties (viz., federal and state agencies,
>business and non-profit organizations, the press, and the public in
>general). These services permit the public to gain direct, rapid, and easy
>access to official court information and records from outside the
>courthouse. The federal courts expect to complete the installation of an
>electronic public access service into every federal appellate, district,=
 and
>bankruptcy court shortly. To date, the following services are being=
 offered:=20
>
>[New Pilot Service] U.S. Supreme Court Electronic Bulletin Board System:
>Provides on-line access to the Court's automated docket, argument calendar,
>order lists, slip opinions, rules, bar admission forms and instructions,
>Court tour information, special notices and general information. The
>automated docket posted on the BBS is current as of the preceding business
>day. Slip opinions (the second version of an opinion which is issued in
>pamphlet form a few days after release of the Court's bench opinion - the
>bench opinion is released immediately after an opinion is announced in open
>court) and orders are posted within a few days after release. This BBS
>contains opinions during October Terms 1993, 1994, and 1995. Access to the
>BBS is presently provided at no cost.=20
>
>U.S. Supreme Court Clerk's Automated Response Systems (CARS): Permits=
 caller
>using a standard touch-tone telephone to obtain the status of cases on the
>U.S. Supreme Court automated docket from an automated voice synthesizer
>response system. Recording tells caller to press "1" for case information,
>"2" for Bar admission information, and "4" to speak to a clerk. For best
>results, callers should have the Supreme Court docket number available when
>making an inquiry. The case name can also be used. Usage of CARS is
>currently free and is likely to remain so..=20
>
>ABBS (Appellate Bulletin Board System): All federal circuit courts now=
 offer
>public users electronic access to appellate court decisions (slip opinions)
>and other court information such as court oral argument calendars, case
>dockets, local court rules, notices and reports, and press releases. Most
>appellate courts have upgraded their systems and offer both slip opinions
>and case dockets on the same public access computer and telephone number.
>Information on these systems can be viewed on-line or automatically
>downloaded into a user's computer. In accordance with Judicial Conference
>policy, most circuits charge a user fee for this service.=20
>
>PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records): PACER allows any user
>with a personal computer or word processor to dial-in to a district or
>bankruptcy court computer and retrieve official electronic case information
>and court dockets usually in less than a minute. User fee charges for this
>service have been instituted in most courts (see PACER section for=
 details).
>Effective April 1, 1996, the user fee is reduced to $.60 per minute of
>actual use. Persons desiring to use this service must first register with
>our registration center (toll-free call: 800 676-6856). The federal courts
>continue to upgrade equipment and expand data retrieval options and=
 reports.
>In addition, more jurisdictions will be offering 800 lines in order to
>eliminate long distance toll charges. Each court controls its own computer
>system and case information database; therefore, there are some variations
>among jurisdictions as to the information offered. The district court and
>bankruptcy court PACER each provide the information in a different manner.
>Some bankruptcy courts have developed a locally-developed PACER service
>(such courts are listed as a "NIBS" court in the additional information
>column in the detailed listing of this directory).=20
>
>Electronic Filing & Attorney Docketing Service has been operating since
>January 1, 1996 in the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland). This=
 prototype
>electronic filing system, developed by the Technology Enhancement Office of
>the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, enables attorneys to
>electronically submit pleadings and corresponding docket entries to the
>court via the Internet, and eliminates the need for court staff to handle
>paper documents or make docket entries. The court is using the system to
>manage the 5,000 maritime asbestos civil cases that it receives each year.
>All filings to these cases must be electronic. These asbestos cases involve
>approximately 400 attorneys, from around the country but predominately from
>the Great Lakes region, who generate approximately 500,000 docket entries
>per year. The service permits attorneys to electronically view and obtain
>all case documents and dockets from their offices.=20
>
>PACER Service Center Electronic Bulletin Board has been established by the
>federal court's centralized registration and billing service in San=
 Antonio,
>Texas. This new service (800 214-0847) available at no charge allows
>existing PACER, NIBS, or ABBS registrants to dial in 24 hours a day, 7 days
>a week (your PC software should be set for 8 bits, no parity, 1 stop bit=
 and
>RTS/CTS or NONE for flow control using 2400-baud modems or faster; 9600=
 baud
>modems must be V.32 compatible). The service: (a) provides an updated
>listing of courts serviced by the service center, (b) allows users to
>automatically register for additional courts and change passwords, (c)
>review user's billing history for all courts nationwide, (d) provides user
>manuals and status of each court's PACER system (e.g., courts with computer
>disruptions or other technical problems), and (e) allows users to leave
>messages and comments for service center personnel.=20
>
>VCIS (Voice Case Information System): VCIS uses an automated voice response
>system to read a limited amount of bankruptcy case information directly=
 from
>the court's database in response to touch-tone telephone inquiries. The
>service is now operating in approximately 75 bankruptcy courts, and a
>comparable service (AVIS: Appellate Voice Case Information System) is now
>available in several Courts of Appeal (see detailed listing). Usage of VCIS
>is currently free and is likely to remain so..=20
>
>Additional Background Information=20
>
>Public access services provide the greatest benefits to the public and to
>the court only if they are widely known. Please reproduce and distribute
>this document to any potential end-users interested in these time-saving
>court services. Please report errors or updates to Joann Howard Swanson,
>Administrative Office of U.S. Courts.=20
>
>If you would like additional information regarding policies, plans, or=
 fees,
>please contact Joann Howard Swanson, Electronic Public Access Program
>Manager, Office of Court Programs, AO, Washington DC 20544 [phone]=
=20
>
>For technical information, please contact J. Michael Greenwood, Electronic
>Public Access Program Technical Advisor, Technology Enhancement Office, AO,
>Washington, DC 20544 (202-273-2748),(e-mail address:
[e-mail])=20
>
>Need technical assistance or want to resolve a technical problem, contact
>our toll-free serve at [phone] (e-mail [e-mail])=20
>
>U.S. SUPREME COURT =20
>=95U.S. Supreme Court (BBS: Opinions & Dockets) [phone] =95U.S.=
 Supreme
>Court (CARS) Touch-tone Telephone [phone]=20
>No charge for access at this time=20
>
>U.S. CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL ABBS=20
>The information following each Circuit Court specifies:=20
>        (a) Users must pre-register (contact voice 800 676-6856) and pay a
>user access fee of $0.60 per minute for ABBS connect time (effective April
>1, 1996); if a double asterisk (**) presently no pre-registration nor user
>fee for access;=20
>        (b) the court's ABBS telephone number(s); and
>        (c) an additional voice telephone number for assistance from the
>clerk of courts office.=20
>
>Courts of Appeals=20
>=951st Circuit (Opinions & Dockets) [phone]-2 =952nd Circuit=
 (Opinions &
>Dockets) [phone] =953rd Circuit (Opinions & Dockets) [phone]
>=953rd Circuit (Opinions & Dockets) [phone] =954th Circuit (Opinions=
 &
>Dockets) [phone] =954th Circuit (Opinions & Dockets) [phone]
>=955th Circuit (Opinions)** [phone]-2, Voice [phone]; No fee
>=956th Circuit (Opinions & Dockets)** [phone], Voice [phone];=
 No
>fee =957th Circuit (Opinions & Dockets)** [phone], Voice (312)
>435-5850; No fee =958th Circuit (Opinions & Dockets) [phone] =958th
>Circuit (Opinions & Dockets) [phone] =959th Circuit (Opinions &
>Dockets) [phone] =9510th Circuit (Opinions & Dockets) [phone]
>=9511th Circuit (Opinions)** Available on Internet WWW/URL:
>=95http://www.mindspring.com/~wmundy/opinions.html =95D. C. Circuit=
 (Opinions &
>Dockets) [phone] =95D. C. Circuit (Opinions & Dockets) [phone]
>=95Federal Circuit (Opinions)** [phone], To Register: (202)=
 633-6593;
>No fee =95Federal Circuit (Opinions)** [phone], Voice (202)=
 633-6550;
>No fee=20
>
>Access fee: $0.60 per minute of connect time (as of 4/1/96); No charge for
>registration or technical assistance (800 676-6856)=20
>
>** In these circuits, you will be prompted for a password and/or
>identification; respond by typing (in lower case letters) bbs.=20
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>The following district and bankruptcy services are similar to the appellate
>courts' opinions service, which allows public users to view and
>electronically transfer published court opinions, orders, notices, and=
 press
>releases:=20
>
>Electronic Opinions, Orders Dissemination Service=20
>
>District/Bankruptcy Courts
>=95Idaho (FED NET) [phone] =95New Hampshire [phone], Voice=
 (603)
>225-1423 =95Pennsylvania-Eastern [phone];0646, Voice [phone]=
=20
>
>U.S. DISTRICT COURTS=20
>PACER: PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT ELECTRONIC RECORDS The information following
>each district court specifies:=20
>        (a) User must pre-register (contact voice 800 676-6856) and pay a
>user access fee of $0.60 per minute for PACER connect time (effective April
>1, 1996);=20
>        (b) the court's PACER telephone number,
>        (c) Modem Setting: Assume N/8/1 (no parity, 8 bits, 1 stop bit)
>unless otherwise noted
>      (d) additional information about court records available.=20
>=95Alaska [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Alabama-Middle [phone]=
 Civil
>& Criminal =95Alabama-Northern [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Alabama-Southern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Arizona (602)=
 514-7113
>Civil & Criminal =95Arkansas-Eastern [phone] only Civil
>=95Arkansas-Eastern [phone] only Civil =95Arkansas-Western (501)=
 783-3538
>Contact [phone] to Register =95California-Central [phone]=
 Civil
>& Criminal =95California-Central [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95California-Eastern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95California-Eastern
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95California-Northern [phone] Civil=
 &
>Criminal =95California-Northern [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95California-Southern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Colorado (303)
>844-3454 E/7/1 Civil & Criminal =95Connecticut [phone] Civil &=
 Criminal
>=95Connecticut [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Delaware [phone]=
 Civil
>& Criminal =95Delaware [phone] Civil & Criminal =95District of=
 Columbia
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95District of Columbia [phone]=
 Civil &
>Criminal =95Florida-Middle [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Florida-Middl=
e
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95Florida-Northern [phone] Civil &
>Criminal =95Florida-Northern [phone] Civil & Criminal=
 =95Florida-Southern
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95Florida-Southern [phone] Civil &
>Criminal =95Georgia-Middle [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Georgia-Middl=
e
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95Georgia-Northern [phone] Civil &
>Criminal =95Georgia-Northern [phone] Civil & Criminal=
 =95Georgia-Southern
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95Hawaii [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Idaho [phone] Contact [phone] to Register=
 =95Illinois-Central
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95Illinois-Central [phone] Civil &
>Criminal =95Illinois-Northern [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Illinois-Northern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Illinois-Southern=
 (618)
>482-9430 only Civil =95Illinois-Southern [phone] only Civil
>=95Indiana-Northern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Indiana-Southern Not
>available =95Iowa-Northern [phone] =95Iowa-Northern [phone]
>=95Iowa-Southern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Kansas [phone]=
 Civil
>& Criminal =95Kansas [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Kentucky-Eastern=
 (606)
>233-2787 Civil & Criminal =95Kentucky-Eastern [phone] Civil &=
 Criminal
>=95Kentucky-Western [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Louisiana-Eastern=
 (504)
>589-6714 Civil & Criminal =95Louisiana-Eastern [phone] Civil &=
 Criminal
>=95Louisiana-Middle [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Louisiana-Middle=
 (800)
>616-8757 Civil & Criminal =95Louisiana-Western [phone] Civil &=
 Criminal
>=95Maine [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Maine [phone] Civil &
>Criminal =95Maryland [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Maryland (800)=
 241-2259
>Civil & Criminal =95Massachusetts [phone]; 9116 Civil & Criminal
>=95Michigan-Eastern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Michigan-Eastern
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95Michigan-Western [phone] Civil &
>Criminal =95Michigan-Western [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Minnesota=
 (612)
>290-4167 Civil & Criminal =95Mississippi-Northern [phone] Civil &
>Criminal =95Mississippi-Southern [phone] =95Missouri-Eastern (314)
>539-3857 Civil & Criminal =95Missouri-Eastern [phone] Civil &=
 Criminal
>=95Missouri-Western [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Missouri-Western=
 (888)
>205-2526 Civil & Criminal =95Montana [phone] Civil & Criminal=
 =95Montana
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95Nebraska [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Nebraska [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Nevada Not available =95New
>Hampshire [phone] Civil & Criminal =95New Hampshire [phone]
>Civil & Criminal =95New Jersey [phone] Civil & Criminal =95New=
 Mexico
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95New York-Eastern [phone] Civil &
>Criminal =95New York-Eastern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95New
>York-Northern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95New York-Northern (800)
>480-7525 Civil & Criminal =95New York-Southern [phone] Civil &=
 Criminal
>=95New York-Western [phone] Civil & Criminal =95North=
 Carolina-Eastern
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95North Carolina-Eastern [phone]=
 Civil
>& Criminal =95North Carolina-Middle [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Nort=
h
>Carolina-Middle [phone] Civil & Criminal =95North Carolina-Western
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95North Carolina-Western [phone]=
 Civil
>& Criminal =95North Dakota [phone] Civil & Criminal =95North Dakota=
 (800)
>407-4453 Civil & Criminal =95Ohio-Northern [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Ohio-Northern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Ohio-Southern (614)=
 469-6990
>Civil & Criminal =95Ohio-Southern [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Oklahoma-Eastern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Oklahoma-Northern=
 (918)
>581-6903 Civil & Criminal =95Oklahoma-Northern [phone] Civil &=
 Criminal
>=95Oklahoma-Western [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Oklahoma-Western=
 (888)
>699-7068 Civil & Criminal =95Oregon [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Pennsylvania-Eastern [phone] Contact [phone] to Register
>=95Pennsylvania-Middle [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Pennsylvania-Midd=
le
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95Pennsylvania-Western [phone]=
 Civil &
>Criminal =95Pennsylvania-Western [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Puerto=
 Rico
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95Puerto Rico [phone] Civil &=
 Criminal
>=95Rhode Island [phone] Civil & Criminal =95South Carolina (803)=
 765-5871
>Civil & Criminal =95South Carolina [phone] Civil & Criminal =95South
>Dakota [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Tennessee-Eastern [phone]
>Civil & Criminal =95Tennessee-Eastern [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Tennessee-Middle [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Tennessee-Middle=
 (800)
>458-2994 Civil & Criminal =95Tennessee-Western [phone] Civil &=
 Criminal
>=95Texas-Eastern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Texas-Northern (214)
>767-8918 Civil & Criminal =95Texas-Northern [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Texas-Southern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Texas-Southern (800)
>998-9037 Civil & Criminal =95Texas-Western [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Texas-Western [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Utah [phone]=
 Civil &
>Criminal =95Utah [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Virgin Islands (809)
>776-0221 Civil & Criminal =95Virginia-Eastern [phone] Civil &=
 Criminal
>=95Virginia-Eastern [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Virginia-Western=
 (540)
>857-2288/2290 Civil & Criminal =95Vermont [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Vermont [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Washington-Eastern (509)=
 353-2395
>Civil & Criminal =95Washington-Eastern [phone] Civil & Criminal
>=95Washington-Western [phone] -6127 Civil & Criminal
>=95Washington-Western [phone] Civil & Criminal =95West=
 Virginia-Northern
>[phone] Civil & Criminal =95West Virginia-Southern [phone]=
 Civil
>& Criminal =95Wisconsin-Eastern Not available =95Wisconsin-Western (608)
>264-5914 Civil & Criminal JAMS =95Wisconsin-Western [phone] Civil &
>Criminal JAMS =95Wyoming [phone] Civil & Criminal =95Wyoming (888)
>417-3560 Civil & Criminal =95U.S. Court of Federal Claims [phone]=
 =95U.S.
>Court of Federal Claims [phone]=20
>
>Access fee: $0.60 per minute of connect time (effective 4/1/96); No charge
>for registration or technical assistance (800 676-6856)=20
>Assume Modem Setting: N/8/1 =3D no parity, 8 bits, 1 stop bit; a few courts
>(see above) use E/7/1 =3D even parity, 7 bits, 1 stop bit=20
>
>U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS PACER: PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT ELECTRONIC RECORDS The
>information following each bankruptcy court specifies=20
>        (a) Users must pre-register (contact voice 800 676-6856) and pay a
>user access fee of $0.60 per minute for PACER connect time (effective April
>1, 1996);=20
>        (b) the court's PACER telephone number;
>        (c) Modem Setting: Assume N/8/1 (no parity, 8 bits, 1 stop bit)
>unless otherwise noted
>        (d) additional information about court services (see footnotes).=20
>=95Alabama-Middle [phone] NIBS R =95Alabama-Northern=20
>=95Birmingham [phone],9 NIBS S =95Anniston [phone] NIBS S=
 =95Decatur
>[phone] NIBS S =95Tuscaloosa [phone] NIBS S=20
>=95Alabama-Southern [phone] =95Alaska [phone]-9 =95Arizona=20
>=95Phoenix [phone] NIBS S Local Calls =95Phoenix [phone] NIBS=
 S
>=95Tucson [phone] NIBS S Local Calls =95Tucson [phone] NIBS S
>=95Yuma [phone] NIBS S Local Calls =95Yuma [phone] NIBS S=20
>=95Arkansas [phone] =95Arkansas [phone] =95California-Central=
=20
>=95Los Angeles [phone] NIBS S =95Los Angeles [phone] NIBS S=
 =95Santa
>Ana [phone] =95Santa Ana [phone] =95Santa Barbara (805)=
 899-7756
>=95Santa Barbara [phone] =95San Bernardino [phone] =95San=
 Bernardino
>[phone] =95San Fernando [phone] NIBS S =95San Fernando (800)
>838-2479 NIBS S=20
>=95California-Eastern [phone] =95California-Northern [phone]
>=95California-Southern [phone] Local Calls =95California-Southern=
 (800)
>870-9972 =95Colorado [phone] =95Connecticut [phone]-2=
 =95Delaware
>[phone] NIBS S =95Delaware [phone] NIBS S =95District of=
 Columbia
>[phone],42 =95District of Columbia [phone] =95Florida-Middle=
=20
>=95Jacksonville [phone] NIBS R =95Orlando [phone] NIBS R=
 =95Tampa
>[phone] NIBS R =95Florida-Northern =95Tallahassee [phone]=
 NIBS R
>=95Pensacola Not Available NIBS =95Florida-Southern [phone]-6
>=95Georgia-Northern [phone] Local Calls =95Georgia-Northern (800)
>436-8395 =95Georgia-Middle [phone] =95Georgia-Southern =95Savannah=
 (912)
>652-4465 NIBS S =95Savannah [phone] NIBS S =95Augusta [phone]=
 NIBS
>S =95Augusta [phone] NIBS S=20
>=95Hawaii [phone] NIBS S =95Idaho [phone] To register (208)
>334-9342 =95Illinois-Central [phone] =95Illinois-Northern =95Chicago=
 (312)
>408-5101 NIBS S =95Rockford [phone]-90 NIBS S =95Illinois-Southern=
 (618)
>482-9114-6 =95Indiana-Northern [phone] =95Indiana-Southern (317)=
 226-5146
>NIBS C To register 226-6710 =95Iowa-Northern [phone] =95Iowa-Souther=
n
>[phone] =95Iowa-Southern [phone] =95Kansas [phone]=
 Local
>Calls =95Kansas [phone] =95Kentucky-Eastern [phone] Local=
 Calls
>=95Kentucky-Eastern [phone] =95Kentucky-Western [phone]
>=95Louisiana-Eastern [phone] =95Louisiana-Middle [phone]
>=95Louisiana-Western [phone] Local Calls =95Louisiana-Western (888)
>523-1976 =95Maine [phone]/9 =95Maine [phone] =95Maryland=
 (410)
>962-3211 Local Calls =95Maryland [phone] =95Massachusetts (617)
>565-6021-3, -7593-4 =95Massachusetts [phone] =95Michigan-Eastern=
 (313)
>961-4934 =95Michigan-Western [phone] =95Michigan-Western (800)=
 526-0342
>=95Minnesota [phone] =95Mississippi-Northern [phone],54
>=95Mississippi-Northern [phone] =95Mississippi-Southern (601)=
 965-6103
>NIBS R Local Calls =95Mississippi-Southern [phone] NIBS R
>=95Missouri-Eastern [phone] =95Missouri-Western [phone]
>=95Missouri-Western [phone] =95Montana [phone] S =95Nebraska=
 (402)
>221-4882 Local Calls =95Nebraska [phone] =95Nevada [phone]=
 =95New
>Hampshire [phone] =95New Hampshire [phone] =95New Jersey=
 (201)
>645-3555 =95New Jersey [phone] =95New Mexico [phone] =95New=
 Mexico
>[phone] =95New York-Eastern [phone] Local Calls =95New
>York-Eastern [phone] =95New York-Northern [phone] Local Calls
>=95New York-Northern [phone] =95New York-Southern [phone]-9=
 =95New
>York-Western [phone]-5 =95New York-Western [phone] =95North
>Carolina-Eastern=20
>=95Raleigh [phone] NIBS S =95Wilson [phone] NIBS S=20
>=95North Carolina-Middle [phone] =95North Carolina-Middle (800)=
 417-3571
>=95North Carolina-Western [phone]-4 =95North Dakota [phone]=
 =95North
>Dakota [phone] =95Ohio-Northern [phone] Local Calls
>=95Ohio-Northern [phone] =95Ohio-Southern [phone] Local Calls
>=95Ohio-Southern [phone] =95Oklahoma-Eastern [phone]
>=95Oklahoma-Northern [phone] NIBS S =95Oklahoma-Western (405)=
 231-5064/5
>=95Oregon [phone] Local Calls =95Oregon [phone]
>=95Pennsylvania-Eastern [phone] =95Pennsylvania-Middle=20
>=95Harrisburg [phone] NIBS S =95Harrisburg [phone] NIBS S
>=95Wilkes-Barre [phone] NIBS S =95Wilkes-Barre [phone] NIBS S=
=20
>=95Pennsylvania-Western [phone] =95Puerto Rico [phone] NIBS
>=95Puerto Rico [phone] NIBS =95Rhode Island [phone] =95Rhode=
 Island
>[phone] =95South Carolina [phone] =95South Carolina (800)=
 410-2988
>=95South Dakota [phone] =95South Dakota [phone]=
 =95Tennessee-Eastern
>[phone]/3-7 =95Tennessee-Eastern [phone] =95Tennessee-Middle=
 (615)
>254-5290 NIBS To register 736-5577 =95Tennessee-Western [phone]
>=95Tennessee-Western [phone] =95Texas-Eastern [phone]
>=95Texas-Eastern [phone] =95Texas-Northern [phone]=
 =95Texas-Northern
>(888 225-1738 =95Texas-Southern [phone] Local Calls =95Texas-Souther=
n
>[phone] =95Texas-Western [phone] =95Texas-Western (210)=
 472-6262
>=95Utah [phone] =95Vermont [phone] =95Vermont [phone]=
 =95Virgin
>Islands [phone] NIBS S =95Virginia-Eastern=20
>=95Richmond [phone] NIBS S =95Richmond [phone] NIBS S=
 =95Alexandria
>[phone] NIBS S =95Alexandria [phone] NIBS S =95Newport News=
 (757)
>595-1365 NIBS S =95Newport News [phone] NIBS S =95Norfolk (804)=
 441-3663
>NIBS S =95Norfolk [phone] NIBS S=20
>=95Virginia-Western=20
>=95Roanoke [phone] NIBS S =95Roanoke [phone] NIBS S=
 =95Harrisonburg
>[phone] NIBS S =95Harrisonburg [phone] NIBS S =95Lynchburg=
 (804)
>528-9003 NIBS S =95Lynchburg [phone] NIBS S=20
>=95Washington-Eastern [phone] NIBS R =95Washington-Eastern (800)=
 314-3430
>NIBS R =95Washington-Western [phone]-4 =95Washington-Western (800)
>704-4492 =95West Virginia-Northern [phone] =95West Virginia-Northern
>[phone] =95West Virginia-Southern [phone] =95Wisconsin-Easter=
n
>[phone] =95Wisconsin-Western [phone] =95Wisconsin-Western=
 (800)
>373-8708 =95Wyoming [phone]=20
>Access fee: $0.60 per minute of connect time (as of 4/1/96); No charge for
>registration or technical assistance (800 676-6856)=20
>Normally Modem Setting: N/8/1 =3D no parity, 8 bits, 1 stop bit; E/7/1 =3D=
 even
>parity, 7 bits, 1 stop bit=20
>R =3D Court requires or strongly recommends that PC Anywhere Version 4
>software or its equivalent be installed on the public user's computer=
 system.=20
>S =3D Court suggests PC Anywhere Version 4 telecommunications software, but
>can accommodate most public user telecommunication packages.=20
>C =3D Court requires that Carbon Copy Plus telecommunications software be
>installed on the public user's computer system.=20
>
>VCIS: VOICE CASE INFORMATION SYSTEM Courts of Appeal
>=951st Circuit [phone] =952nd Circuit [phone] =95DC Circuit=
 (202)
>273-0926 or [phone]=20
>
>Bankruptcy Courts
>=95Alabama-Southern [phone] =95Alaska [phone] =95Arizona=
 (Phoenix)
>NAVIS [phone] =95Arizona (Tucson) NAVIS [phone]
>=95Arkansas-Eastern & Western [phone] =95California-Central (Los=
 Angeles)
>[phone] =95California-Central (Santa Ana) [phone]
>=95California-Central (Santa Barbara) [phone] =95California-Central=
 (San
>Bernardino) [phone] =95California-Central (San Fernando) (818)=
 587-2936
>=95California-Eastern [phone] or [phone] =95California-Northe=
rn
>[phone] =95California-Southern [phone] =95Colorado (303)=
 844-0267
>=95Connecticut [phone] or [phone] =95Delaware [phone]=
 or
>[phone] =95District of Columbia [phone] =95Florida-Middle
>(Jackonsville) [phone] =95Florida-Middle (Orlando) [phone]
>=95Florida-Middle (Tampa) [phone] =95Florida-Southern [phone]=
 or
>[phone] =95Georgia-Middle [phone] =95Georgia-Northern (404)
>730-2866/7 =95Idaho [phone] =95Illinois-Northern (Chicago) (312)=
 408-5089
>=95Illinois-Northern (Rockford) [phone] =95Illinois-Central (217)
>492-4550 or [phone] =95Illinois-Southern [phone] or (800)
>726-5622 =95Indiana-Northern [phone] or [phone]
>=95Indiana-Southern [phone] =95Iowa-Northern [phone]
>=95Iowa-Southern [phone] or [phone] =95Kansas [phone]=
 or
>[phone] =95Kentucky-Eastern [phone] or [phone]
>=95Kentucky-Western [phone] =95Louisiana-Eastern [phone]
>=95Louisiana-Middle [phone] =95Louisiana-Western [phone] or=
 (800)
>326-4026 =95Maine [phone] =95Maryland [phone] =95Massachusett=
s (617)
>565-6025 =95Michigan-Eastern [phone] =95Michigan-Western (616)=
 456-2075
>=95Minnesota [phone] or [phone] =95Mississippi-Northern (601)
>369-8147 =95Mississippi-Southern (Biloxi) [phone] or [phone]
>=95Mississippi-Southern (Jackson) [phone] or [phone]
>=95Missouri-Eastern [phone] =95Missouri-Western [phone] or
>426-5822 =95Montana [phone] =95Nebraska [phone] or (800)=
 829-0112
>=95Nevada [phone] =95New Hampshire [phone] =95New Jersey=
 (201)
>645-6044/5 =95New Mexico [phone] or [phone] =95New=
 York-Eastern
>[phone] or [phone] =95New York-Northern [phone] =95New
>York-Southern [phone] =95New York-Western [phone] or (800)
>776-9578 =95North Carolina-Eastern [phone] =95North Carolina-Middle=
 (910)
>333-5532 =95North Carolina-Western [phone] =95North Dakota (701)=
 239-5641
>=95Ohio-Northern [phone] or [phone] =95Ohio-Northern (216)
>489-4771 =95Ohio-Southern (Dayton, Cincinnati) [phone] or (800)
>726-1004 =95Ohio-Southern (Columbus) [phone] or [phone]
>=95Oklahoma-Eastern [phone] =95Oklahoma-Western [phone]=
 =95Oregon
>[phone] or [phone] =95Pennsylvania-Eastern [phone]
>=95Pennsylvania-Western [phone] =95Rhode Island [phone]=
 =95South
>Carolina [phone] or [phone] =95South Dakota [phone] or
>[phone] =95Tennessee-Eastern [phone] or [phone]
>=95Tennessee-Western [phone] =95Texas-Eastern [phone]
>=95Texas-Northern [phone] or 767-4200 =95Texas-Southern (713)=
 250-5049 or
>[phone] =95Texas-Western [phone] =95Utah [phone] or=
 (800)
>733-6740 =95Vermont [phone] or [phone] =95Virginia-Eastern=
 (804)
>771-2736 or [phone] =95Washington-Eastern [phone]
>=95Washington-Western [phone] or 553-6504 =95West Virginia-Northern=
 (304)
>233-7318 =95West Virginia-Southern [phone] =95Wisconsin-Eastern=
 (414)
>297-3582 =95Wisconsin-Western [phone]=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.        =09
PO Box 271231            =09
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231    =09
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] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Meet the Real Sarah Brady
Date: 06 Jan 1997 22:30:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Received: from emout17.mail.aol.com (emout17.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.43])
    by franklin.cris.com (8.7.5/(96/12/07 3.7))
    id WAA15118; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 22:56:45 -0500 (EST)
    [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

                     STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!
           S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 231, January 6, 1997

MEET THE REAL SARAH BRADY
by Graham Denton ([e-mail])

NECESSARY FORCE, the publication of the Missouri 51st Militia
mailed December, 1996, contains the following:

An excerpt from: the January, 1994 issue of the National Educator,
page 3, an article reveals that Sarah Brady is Chairman of Handgun
Control, Inc., and while lobbying liberal Senator Howard Metzenbaum
about gun control legislation, said to him:

     "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when
     those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

Every American must be made aware of this treason.  Please post and
cross-post.  Get all local veterans organizations actively involved.

FLOOD Washington and every state capitol with opposition to the
efforts of those Communists working to socialize America, the only
way they can - by totally disarming it.

The vote on BRADY II is due shortly.

     "PEACE is the absence of opposition to socialism", so said the
     Master Communist,  N. Lenin.

     ".....when Communism has succeeded, then there will come a PEACE
     across the earth". --from the mouth of Stalin, the Soviet Butcher

Communist PEACEKEEPERS are now scattered across the earth.

We cannot have PEACE, Communist style. GUNS guarantee peace,
American style. Tell this to our elected and sworn servants.
Convince them, for they can be convinced.

G. Graham Denton ([e-mail])

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
            "First they came for the Jews.  I was silent.  I was not a Jew.
                 Then they came for the Communists.  I was silent.
                                           I was not  a Communist.
                 Then they came for the trade unionists.  I was silent.
                                          I was not a trade unionist.
                                         Then they came for me.
                         There was no one else left to speak for me."
            ......................Martin Niemoller, Nazi Germany WWII
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      SAFAN %Dot Bibee  ([e-mail])  Ph/FAX [phone]
      SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on David Feustel's Page
      http://feustel.mixi.net  219-483-1857 mailto: [e-mail]



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Women Against Gun Control's NEW HOME!
Date: 09 Jan 1997 16:31:13 -0700

ANNOUNCING!!

The NEW Women Against Gun Control Home Page!!

Check it out at http://www.wagc.com  - and please remember to update your links.

We don't have it reformatted yet, and there's LOTS more to come including a
petition to repeal the Lautenberg Amendment, so check back frequently.

Membership information will be online by Monday.

Thanks for your continued interest and support!

Sarah Thompson, M.D., Research Director
Janalee Tobias, President
Jan Teegardin, WEB Sheriff

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] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: S.A.F.A.N. No. 239    2/2
Date: 10 Jan 1997 08:38:00 -0700


(continued from part 1)
From shifting your meager assets to where that junkie with the million-
dollar-a-minute habit, Uncle Sam, can't lay hands on them, to preserving
and storing enough food and water to last you through any extended shutdown
of the government and commercial services, to the proper way to bury your
guns should blanket confiscation loom (as in Australia right now), this
common-sense guide never loses its sense of humor and perspective.

It's blissfully free of the delusion that the system can still be reformed, but
also of those tedious ramblings about U.N. conspiracies and biblical prophesy
that clog so much of what passes for "survivalist" literature these days.

If you're just starting to realize the "police" gang is unlikely to protect
you in times of real disorder -- that you'd better break down and buy
some firearms to protect your home and loved ones -- where do you start?

"101 things" has the specific, well-thought-out answers.

Handguns? Sexists may have to re-examine their prejudices as this "middle-
aged lady" warns her readers to go no smaller than .40 Smith & Wesson or
.357 magnum: "Nothing smaller, please! Don't go out and get a .25 or a .32
because you're inexperienced, have small hands or are afraid of big guns.
Instead, get some experience, overcome your fears, or find a large caliber
gun with a grip that fits smaller hands. A gun that is too underpowered
may not have the stopping power to save your life in an emergency."

Where on earth did this serendipitous little volume come from?

"I'd been active in the Libertarian movement for ages," Ms. Wolfe
explained by telephone, as I took her away from a warm supper at
home in the boondocks of the Pacific Northwest. "Before the 1994
election I was really excited, I worked on the campaign of a Republican,
Linda Smith, who ran for Congress in the 3rd District in Washington
State. I grilled her, I had dinner with her, I backed her up against
the wall at a cocktail party and wouldn't let anyone else talk to her;
I asked her all the questions, and she gave every right answer.

"I worked for her, she won, and within six months she voted for House
Bill 666, which would have gutted the Fourth Amendment, would have
allowed evidence to be used that was the product of illegal searches.
She voted for that and then she didn't even answer my letter asking why.

"So over the course of '95 I just became angrier and more furious. I was
offered the chance to write a manual of political action for the gun rights
people, based on the Handgun Control manual that someone had gotten hold of,
so I worked on that. But I thought, 'I'm telling people lies, I'm telling them
how to work within the system, and it's all useless. It just doesn't work.'

"I was just to the bursting point with hate and frustration, I thought
I was going to go postal. But one day the name of this book just hit me,
the name and the first line, and I started laughing, I thought it was
funny. So I sat down, wrote about a third of the book in a week, sent
the proposaloff to Loompanics, and they bought it. ...

"All In wanted was to write it; I didn't know if anyone would read it. So now
it's so strange to have people tracking me down over the Internet, asking
'Are you the one who wrote, "America is at that awkward stage. It's too
late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards"...'?
Especially because so many of them say 'Well, that's what I think, too.' ...

"When I was working on the book, of course I thought I was being very
radical, but then after it came back from the publisher I said to myself,
half the message of this book is 'Take responsibility for yourself;
be responsible.' And that's a very 19th-century message, a very old-
fashioned message. But people who do that are the worst enemies of
the state, or at least the people the state can least control ...

"It's an angry but an uninhibited book, it's a middle-aged lady sitting
down, sick to death of her respectability" (Ms. Wolfe makes her living
writing corporate newsletters and advertising copy, mostly under a pseudonym)
"and saying 'Screw that, we can't win within the system, so screw that.'

"That's part of the reason for the title. 'One-hundred-and-one things'
is always attached to '101 ways to fold napkins,' so I wanted to take
that concept and apply it to a very different kind of problem. ...

"I'm sorry that I circumvented the question of when to shoot; I don't know
when it will come that time. I just think we will know when it is time."

Till then, "101 Things to Do 'Til The Revolution" is available from
Loompanics Unlimited, P.O. Box 1197, Port Townsend, Wash. 98368, at $20.90
postpaid, volume discounts available.  Buy several. You have friends.
========================================================
Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. 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.



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: New Eyes for Big Brother
Date: 10 Jan 1997 08:38:00 -0700


                    HEAD FOR THE HILLS:

                  BIG BROTHER SOON TO HAVE

                  X - R A Y   V I S I O N

by Ian Williams Goddard

Joyce Price of The Washington Times (A1, 8/13/96) reports that
the government will soon have a new weapon in its war on liberty
-- a camera that can see through clothes to reveal all the
private goodies concealed therein.

Someday soon there will be no place to run, no place to hide,
no place outside the all-seeing eye of the State. It's going
to be so safe and wonderful then -- NOT!

Ms. Price writes in the Times:

        "A new weapon against terrorism works like
        Superman's eyes: It looks right through you.
        The high-tech camera, known as the passive
        millimeter wave imager, boasts the equivalent
        of X-ray vision, which allows it to penetrate
        clothing to 'see' a concealed weapon, plastic
        explosives, or drugs."

The "Millivison" camera is not an X-ray machine. An X-ray
machine creates an X-ray image by sending X-rays through a
person's body. This device on the other hand is passive, it
merely receives and reads the natural radiations from your
body; radiations that are in "a different part of the
spectrum" than X-rays.

Sufficiently solid items, such as a gun, a bag of crack or
candy, block these radiations revealing the silhouetted shape
of that item to the camera's, and in turn to the govt's, eye.

The 'National Institute of Justice' funded the research and
development of this new tool for tyranny under the pretext
of stopping terrorism. The new wave of terrorism that has
hit the U.S. is doing wonders for the growth of govt power,
just as the Reichstag fire did wonders for the Nazis.

Visit -->  http://www.webcom.com/haight/Oklahoma/Okc.1.html

The ACLU, NRA, and the National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers are not happy about the new device. Jack
King, spokesperson for the NACDL, said Millivision "seems
to be highly intrusive and a violation of the Fourth
Amendment, which guarantees the right to be secure
against unreasonable search and seizure."

While the NRA approves of the device for use at airports and
for tracking down illegal drug activity (statist air-brains),
they point out that 31 states have laws that protect the right
to carry concealed weapons. In other words, it's OK to kill the
Fourth Amendment if it stops nonviolent voluntary drug activity
-- in other words, kiss your freedoms goodbye.

The Times article also states that:

        "A Los Angeles Times poll last week found that
        58 percent of Americans would be willing to lose
        some civil liberties to help thwart terrorism."

As it has been said "Those who are willing to give up freedom
for security will soon have neither." Yet people are trained in
public schools that the government -- i.e., that the 'legal' use
of violent force -- is a cuddly and warm teddy-bear that makes
everything wonderful and should be embraced whenever a problem
appears to arise. It follows therefore that it is safe to
surrender liberty to the govt. And indeed govt is going
to keep us secure, very very secure -- HELP! let me go.

****************************************************************
visit GODDARD'S GALLARIA:  http://www.erols.com/igoddard/art.htm
some of the lanscapes, nudes, and visionary art of IAN W GODDARD
________________________________________________________________

Holistic logic --->  http://www.erols.com/igoddard/reality.html

Article: 239481 of alt.politics.libertarian
Path: netcom.com!howland.erols.net!news1.erols.com!news
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: S.A.F.A.N. No. 239    1/2
Date: 10 Jan 1997 08:38:00 -0700


                STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!
     S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 239, January 8, 1997

101 THINGS TO DO 'TIL THE REVOLUTION, a book
Review by Vin Suprynowicz ([e-mail]) or ([e-mail])

About once a year, a book crosses my desk that gets me up on my feet pacing,
cornering my long-suffering cohorts so I can read them passages aloud.
When their response is to try to pilfer the thing off my desk until I have
to stand guard with a metal pica-pole, whacking their hands and informing
them this is not the local lending library, I know I'm onto something.

It happened about a year ago with John Ross' novel of the gun culture,
"Unintended Consequences" (from little Accurate Press in St. Louis.)
Previous to that was Peter Duesberg's "Inventing the AIDS Virus (Regnery)
and L. Neil Smith's inspiring novel of handguns in outer space, "Pallas"
(hardcover from Tor, or paperback from Laissez-Faire books, 1-800-326-0996.)

This year, Christmas came just a few days late, as I opened my mail
on Jan. 3 to discover an unobtrusive little 191-page trade paperback
by Claire Wolfe.  Put off by the parody ladies-magazine title, I prepared
to read a few passages and consign the thing to the "someday" heap.

Instead, I found myself messaging bookseller friends from San Francisco
to Providence: "Recommend you make prompt inquiries RE stocking Claire
Wolfe's new paperback, '101 Things To Do 'Til The Revolution'."

Of late, I can pretty well predict my e-mail will contain several messages
a week from earnest souls who plead: "Have just discovered your columns.
Always thought of myself as a conservative or Republican, but I find I agree
with almost everything you say. The government is out of control and our
remaining freedoms and being sold down the river. But no matter how many
politicians promise to roll back taxes and and repeal bad laws, we just get
more of the same, and then I'm told 'You can't complain, you voted for them.'

"Help! I'm not ready yet to start shooting bureaucrats at random. There
are too many of them; they'll just use it as an excuse to clamp down even
harder; and who'll take care of my family when I'm gone? What can I do?"

In the past, I've tried to answer these earnest pleas by talking about
the importance of becoming a fully-informed juror, since jury duty
(providing we honor our consciences and the Ninth Amendment, in the face
of any "instructions" to the contrary from the black-robed prosecutor
behind the bench) allows us to stand as a last line of defense for our
fellow citizens against the intrusions of an out-of-control government.

I've struggled to explain the importance of exercising our Second
Amendment rights, of acquiring and learning the safe use of militia-
style arms and standing up for those who are persecuted for insisting
that only an armed people can ever be free. And I've talked of the
insidiousness of the mandatory government youth propaganda camps.

Imagine my relief at now being able to say "There happens to be a new book
that answers this very question, available for just $20.90 postpaid from
Loompanics in Port Townsend, Washington. Twenty percent discounts for five
to nine copies, 40 percent off for 10 to 49, dial 1-800-380-2230 ..."

In her introduction to "101 Things To Do 'Til The Revolution," Claire
Wolfe writes:

 "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,
 but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to tyranny, we've gone so far
 that polite political action is about as useless as a miniskirt in a convent.

 "Something's eventually going to happen. Government will bloat until it
 chokes us to death, or one more tyrannical power grab will turn out to be
 one too many. ... Maybe it'll be one more round of ' 'reasonable gun
 control' or one more episode of burning children to death to save them
 from 'child abuse.' Whatever. Something will snap ...

 "Until then, what do you do if you ... don't want to be a Good Little Citizen
 begging an unhearing congresscritter to give back the rights he and his
 buddies swiped from you? ('Dear Congressman Baron: You're such a busy and
 important person, I'm sure this little matter has just slipped your mind
 temporarily. But 90 percent of the federal government is unconstitutional.
 ... I'm sure you'll want to abolish all the unauthorized agencies and
 programs right away. Please don't forget to repeal all the illegal laws
 and get rid of the taxes while you're at it' ..."

Ms. Wolfe's "101" answers are useful, and thoroughly entertaining.
(continued in part 2)


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: New Eyes for Big Brother
Date: 10 Jan 1997 12:42:55 -0700


On Fri, 10 Jan 97 08:38:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) posted:

>The "Millivison" camera is not an X-ray machine. An X-ray
>machine creates an X-ray image by sending X-rays through a
>person's body. This device on the other hand is passive, it
>merely receives and reads the natural radiations from your
>body; radiations that are in "a different part of the
>spectrum" than X-rays.
>
>Sufficiently solid items, such as a gun, a bag of crack or
>candy, block these radiations revealing the silhouetted shape
>of that item to the camera's, and in turn to the govt's, eye.

This fairly old news.  However, one could have a lot of fun by placing
tin-foil silloutes of certain items inside the lining of one's coat
and then videotaping the resulting illegal search.

>While the NRA approves of the device for use at airports and
>for tracking down illegal drug activity (statist air-brains),

Yet another reason I have withdrawn financial support of the NRA.
They should oppose the Drug War if for no other reason than
the fact that it is the excuse for virtually ever new encroachment
of the RKBA.

--

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 who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

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

From: "Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Eyes for Big Brother
Date: 10 Jan 1997 16:06:55 -0700

At 12:42 PM 1/10/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>On Fri, 10 Jan 97 08:38:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
posted:
>
>
>>While the NRA approves of the device for use at airports and
>>for tracking down illegal drug activity (statist air-brains),
>
>Yet another reason I have withdrawn financial support of the NRA.
>They should oppose the Drug War if for no other reason than
>the fact that it is the excuse for virtually ever new encroachment
>of the RKBA.
>


I keep my membership up to date but have stopped giving extra $$$ to the NRA
for this very reason.  I give my money to other groups.

But keeping up the NRA membership is important.

Chad



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: SAFAN NO. 231.  Meet the Real Sarah Brady]
Date: 11 Jan 1997 00:43:41 -0700


>                     STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!
>           S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 231, January 6, 1997
>
>MEET THE REAL SARAH BRADY
>by Graham Denton ([e-mail])
>
>NECESSARY FORCE, the publication of the Missouri 51st Militia
>mailed December, 1996, contains the following:
>
>An excerpt from: the January, 1994 issue of the National Educator,
>page 3,  an article reveals that Sarah Brady is Chairman of  Handgun
>Contol, Inc., and  while lobbying liberal Senator Howard Metzenbaum
>about gun control legislation, said to him:
>
>     "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when
>     those who would resist us have been  totally disarmed."
>
>Every American must be made aware of this treason.  Please post
>and cross-post.  Get all local veterans organizations actively
>involved.
>
>FLOOD Washington and every state capitol with opposition to the
>efforts of those Communists working to socialize America, the only
>way they can - by totally disarming it.
>
>The vote on BRADY II is due shortly.
>
>     "PEACE is the absence of opposition to socialism", so said the
>     Master Communist,  N. Lenin.
>
>     ".....when Communism has succeeded, then there will come a
>     PEACE across the earth". --from the mouth of Stalin, the Soviet
>     Butcher
>
>Communist  PEACEKEEPERS  are now scattered across the earth.
>
>We cannot have PEACE, Communist style. GUNS guarantee peace,  American style.
>Tell this to our elected and sworn servants. Convince
>them, for they can be convinced.
>
>G. Graham Denton ([e-mail])
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>            "First they came for the Jews.  I was silent.  I was not a Jew.
>                 Then they came for the Communists.  I was silent.
>                                           I was not  a Communist.
>                 Then they came for the trade unionists.  I was silent.
>                                          I was not a trade unionist.
>                                         Then they came for me.
>                         There was no one else left to speak for me."
>                                          ......................Martin
>Niemoller, Nazi Germany WWII
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>      SAFAN %Dot Bibee  ([e-mail])  Ph/FAX [phone]
>      SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on David Feustel's Page
>      http://feustel.mixi.net   219-483-1857          mailto:
>[e-mail]
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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: Story about Women Against Gun Control
Date: 11 Jan 1997 15:23:09 -0700

FRONT PAGE STORY in today's Salt Lake City Deseret News

>Subject: Story about Women Against Gun Control
>
>   http://www.desnews.com/cit/wag.htm
>
>>  [Deseret News Web Edition]
>>=20
>>  Utah mother leads fight to bear arms
>>=20
>>  Women's group has grown from 6 to 600, plans to play big role in
>>  states' debates.
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>=20
>>  By Chip Parkinson
>>  Deseret News staff writer
>>=20
>>  [Image]
>>=20
>>  Janalee Tobias hasn't checked her e-mail for a week. She cringes at
>>  what waits -- an avalanche of messages that will take her hours to
>>  read, let alone answer.
>>=20
>>  There will be invitations to speak, pleas to continue her good
>>  work, stories that make her cry, and universally one question:
>>  ''How do I get involved?''
>>=20
>>  To her pen pals, Tobias is a model gun activist -- a mother who
>>  speaks up fearlessly for the right to bear arms, the informed
>>  leader of a burgeoning grass-roots movement known as Women Against
>>  Gun Control.
>>=20
>>  There are other female-oriented gun groups, but Tobias and her
>>  organization are the first in Utah to tap the promising vein of
>>  non-corporate citizen activism.
>>=20
>>  These are doctors, housewives, secretaries, lawyers and
>>  grandmothers who say they've realized on their own the folly of gun
>>  control. They aren't a group of women hand-picked by the National
>>  Rifle Association. They don't have much clout with lawmakers yet,
>>  and they certainly aren't backed by big money.
>>=20
>>  Yet more join their regular ranks monthly, via the Internet, via
>>  word of mouth, via gun shows. They share the power of common
>>  thought that may be as much about what it means to be female in
>>  urban America as it is about the barrel of a gun.
>>=20
>>  The South Jordan woman didn't start with such raw energy behind her
>>  or even with the values she and more than 600 women from Boston to
>>  Albuquerque say they hold inviolate.
>>=20
>>  ''My husband owned guns, and I couldn't understand his infatuation
>>  with them. I mean I bought into the idea that guns cause crime and
>>  we ought to get rid of them,'' she said.
>>=20
>>  Tobias wondered, too, about the safety of her three children. She
>>  was scared that her babies would be seriously injured by a loaded
>>  weapon no matter how well-secured it was.
>>=20
>>  Change came in the form of a challenge to Tobias' well-grounded
>>  sense of independence.
>>=20
>>  It began in late 1993 when Salt Lake Mayor Deedee Corradini
>>  proposed an ordinance requiring a seven-day wait for anyone under
>>  25 who wanted to buy a gun. Two weeks later, she announced a gun
>>  buy-back program. On the heels of that came news that Hillary
>>  Rodham Clinton would ban handguns outright if she had her way.
>>=20
>>  ''I started asking myself, 'Hey, do I really want to see more
>>  restrictions from the government?' So I began doing some research
>>  on my own,'' Tobias said.
>>=20
>>  She admits she consulted mostly pro-gun sources such as licensed
>>  dealers and statistics provided by the NRA, but she qualifies her
>>  lack of broad-based study with the idea that she already understood
>>  arguments supporting more restrictions.
>>=20
>>  Her study led her to a conclusion oft-repeated by gun supporters
>>  everywhere: Guns don't cause violence, people do. It's as true as
>>  it is simple, Tobias insists.
>>=20
>>  ''If we could hermetically seal a city and rid it of all guns, do
>>  you really think there wouldn't be violence?''
>>=20
>>  Her conclusions firmly entrenched, Tobias organized a courthouse
>>  protest against Corradini's proposal. More than 50 people showed up
>>  -- many of whom would later make up the founding mothers of Women
>>  Against Gun Control.
>>=20
>>  ''I remember at the time that all the biggest gun grabbers were
>>  women. I thought it was a terrible precedent to have women in
>>  positions of power trying to take away guns,'' Tobias said.
>>=20
>>  More now than ever, women should fight for the right to arm
>>  themselves if they choose, she reasons.
>>=20
>>  That philosophy is the defining difference between her organization
>>  and any other pro-gun group. It is, Tobias acknowledges, the
>>  group's femininity that attracts the kind of attention it receives.
>>=20
>>  ''Women are supposed to hate guns and be scared of them. They are
>>  so visible nationally and locally as being anti-gun.'' Her group
>>  has begun to send a message to Utah and the nation that not all
>>  women are for gun control, Tobias said.
>>=20
>>  Since its birth two years ago, the organization has grown from six
>>  to nearly 600. It recently opened a chapter in New Mexico; a woman
>>  in Vermont wants to open one in her hometown, and Tobias gets
>>  inquiries regularly about organizing chapters elsewhere.
>>=20
>>  The group's monthly newsletter, titled ''The BULLETin,'' and logoed
>>  T-shirts are hot items at gun shows around the West. Tobias,
>>  herself, is the target of pro-gun advocacy organizations seeking a
>>  female perspective.
>>=20
>>  In fact, it is only the busy schedules of the WAGC women that have
>>  prevented more explosive growth, Tobias believes.
>>=20
>>  ''It's really frustrating being a citizen activist. We take time
>>  off work, hold organizing meetings early in the morning and late at
>>  night, pay for long distance phone calls, pay for baby sitters and
>>  stamps,'' she said. ''It's hard work.''
>>=20
>>  So why continue?
>>=20
>>  ''To me, it's simple,'' said Sarah Thompson, a founding member of
>>  Women Against Gun Control and a physician who earned her stripes in
>>  the emergency rooms of Los Angeles County. ''We live in a violent
>>  society, and the police have no legal obligation to protect any
>>  individual, therefore we have an obligation to protect ourselves
>>  and our loved ones. Women have to know that and learn how to
>>  practice it.''
>>=20
>>  The group found instant credibility and clout in a female physician
>>  convinced that gun-control doesn't work.
>>=20
>>  ''Yes, I've seen the violence a gun can do. But I understand that
>>  banning them isn't the answer,'' Thompson tells anyone who will
>>  listen.
>>=20
>>  The solution is better -- even mandated -- education at the
>>  elementary school level, both Thompson and Tobias agree.
>>=20
>>  Tobias acknowledges Women Against Gun Control is still in its
>>  philosophical infancy and will have to mature into a more defined
>>  platform to gain credibility.
>>=20
>>  Meantime, Tobias and others, including members of the New Mexico
>>  chapter, figure to play a big role in gun-related debates during
>>  their state legislative sessions.
>>=20
>> [Image]
>>=20
>> Published 11 January, =A9 1997 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Sarah Thompson, M.D.        =09
PO Box 271231            =09
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231    =09
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: 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution - LONG
Date: 13 Jan 1997 02:28:08 -0700


>I haven't read this yet (though I plan to order a copy!), but it looks
>like just the thing for these cold winter nights!
>
>Sarah
>
>>    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
>>    SHORT VERSION
>>    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 18, 1997
>>    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
>>    Buy this book by the crate
>>
>>    About once a year, a book crosses my desk that gets me up on my feet,
>>cornering my long-suffering cohorts so I can read them passages aloud.
>>
>>  It happened a year ago with John Ross' novel of the gun culture,
>>"Unintended Consequences" (Accurate Press, St. Louis.) Previous to that was
>>Peter Duesberg's "Inventing the AIDS Virus" (Regnery) and L. Neil Smith's
>>inspiring novel of handguns in outer space, "Pallas" (Tor.)
>>
>>  This year, Christmas came just a few days late when I opened my mail on
>>Jan. 3 to discover an unobtrusive little 191-page trade paperback by Claire
>>Wolfe.
>>
>>  Of late, I can pretty well predict my e-mail will contain several
>>messages a week from earnest souls who plead: "Have just discovered your
>>columns. Always thought of myself as a conservative or Republican, but find
>>I agree with almost everything you say. The government is out of control
>>and our remaining freedoms and being sold down the river. But no matter how
>>many politicians promise to roll back taxes and repeal bad laws, we just
>>get more of the same. Help! What can I do?"
>>
>>  In the past, I've responded by talking about the importance of becoming a
>>fully-informed juror, the importance of acquiring and learning the safe use
>>of militia-style arms and standing up for those persecuted for insisting
>>that only an armed people can ever be free. And I've talked of the
>>insidiousness of the mandatory government youth propaganda camps.
>>
>>  Imagine my relief at now being able to say: "There happens to be a new
>>book that answers this very question, available for just $20.90 postpaid
>>from Loompanics in Port Townsend, Washington. Twenty percent discount for
>>five to nine copies, 40 percent off for 10 to 49, dial 1-800-380-2230 ..."
>>
>>  In her introduction to "101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution," Claire
>>Wolfe writes: "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work
>>within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to
>>tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about as useless
>>as a miniskirt in a convent. ...
>>
>>  "Something's eventually going to happen. ... Maybe it'll be one more
>>round of 'reasonable gun control' or one more episode of burning children
>>to death to save them from 'child abuse.' Whatever. Something will snap.
>>... Until then, what do you do?"
>>
>>  Ms. Wolfe's "101" answers are useful and on point.
>>
>>  From shifting your meager assets to where that junkie with the
>>million-dollar-a-minute habit, Uncle Sam, can't lay hands on them, to the
>>proper way to bury your guns should blanket confiscation loom (as in
>>Australia right now), this common-sense guide never loses its sense of
>>humor and perspective.
>>
>>  It's blissfully free of the delusion that the system can still be
>>reformed, but also of those tedious ramblings about U.N. conspiracies and
>>biblical prophesy that clog so much of what passes for "survivalist"
>>literature these days.
>>
>>  If you're just starting to realize the "police" gang is unlikely to
>>protect you in times of real disorder -- that you'd better break down and
>>buy some firearms to protect your home and loved ones -- where do you
>>start?
>>
>>  "101 things" has the specific, well-thought-out answers.
>>
>>  Handguns? Sexists may have to re-examine their prejudices as this
>>"middle-aged lady" warns her readers to go no smaller than .40 Smith &
>>Wesson or .357 magnum: "Don't go out and get a .25 or a .32 because you're
>>inexperienced, have small hands or are afraid of big guns. Instead, get
>>some experience, overcome your fears, or find a large caliber gun with a
>>grip that fits smaller hands. A gun that is too underpowered may not have
>>the stopping power to save your life in an emergency."
>>
>>  "I'd been active in the Libertarian movement for ages," Ms. Wolfe
>>explained by telephone, as I took her away from a warm supper at home in
>>the boondocks of the Pacific Northwest. "Before the 1994 election I was
>>really excited, I worked on the campaign of a Republican, Linda Smith, who
>>ran for Congress in the 3rd District in Washington State.
>>
>>  "I worked for her, she won, and within six months she voted for House
>>Bill 666, which would have gutted the Fourth Amendment. ...
>>
>>  "So over the course of '95 I just became angrier and more furious. ... I
>>was just to the bursting point with hate and frustration, I thought I was
>>going to go postal. But one day the name of this book just hit me, the name
>>and the first line, and I started laughing. So I sat down, wrote about a
>>third of the book in a week, sent the proposal off to Loompanics, and they
>>bought it. ...
>>
>>  "Of course I thought I was being very radical, but then after it came
>>back from the publisher I said to myself, half the message of this book is
>>'Take responsibility for yourself; be responsible.' And that's a very
>>old-fashioned message. ..."
>>
>>  "101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution," Loompanics Unlimited, P.O. Box
>>1197, Port Townsend, Wash. 98368, $20.90 postpaid, volume discounts
>>available.
>>
>>Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
>>Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail], or
>>[e-mail].
>>
>>***
>>
>>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!!!!!!




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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: The War Inevitable Speech
Date: 13 Jan 1997 05:47:44 -0700


>                   Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799)
>
>                        The War Inevitable Speech
>                               March, 1775
>
>
>   No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as the
>abilities of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house.
>But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and,
>therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those
>gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very
>opposite to theirs, I should speak forth my sentiments freely, and
>without reserve.  This is no time for ceremony.  The question before the
>house is one of awful moment to this country.  Should I keep back my
>opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should
>consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of
>disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly
>kings.
>
>   Mister President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of
>hope.  We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen
>to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts.  Is this
>the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for
>liberty?  Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes,
>see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern
>their temporal salvation?  For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may
>cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to
>provide for it.
>
>   I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp
>of experience.  I know of no way of judging the future but the by the
>past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the
>conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those
>hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the
>house?  Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been
>lately received?  Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet.
>Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.  Ask yourselves how
>this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike
>preparations which cover our waters and darken our land.  Are fleets and
>armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation?  Have we shown
>ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to
>win back our love?  Let us not deceive ourselves, sir.  These are the
>implements of war and subjugation - the last arguments to which kings
>resort.  I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its
>purpose be not to force us to submission?  Can gentlemen assign any other
>possible motive for it?  Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of
>the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?  No
>sir, she has none.  They are meant for us; they can almost be meant for
>no other.  They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains,
>which the British ministry have been so long forging.  And what have we
>to oppose them?  Shall we try argument?  Sir, we have been trying that
>for the last ten years.  Have we anything new to offer upon the subject?
>Nothing.  We have held the subject up in every light of which it was
>capable; but it has been all in vain.  Shall we resort to entreaty and
>humble supplication?  What terms shall we find that we have not already
>exhausted?  Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.
>Sir, we have done every thing that could be done, to avert the storm
>which is now coming on.
>
>   We have petitioned - we have remonstrated - we have supplicated - we
>have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its
>interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and
>parliament.  Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have
>produced additional violence and insult; out supplications have been
>disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of
>the throne.  In vain, after these things, we may indulge the fond hope of
>peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.  If we
>wish to be free - if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable
>privileges for which we have been so long contending - if we mean not
>basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long
>engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon, until the
>glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight! - I
>repeat, sir, we must fight!  An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is
>all that is left us!
>
>   They tell us, sir, that we are weak - unable to cope with so
>formidable an adversary.  But when shall we be stronger?  Will it be next
>week or the next year?  Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when
>a British guard shall be stationed in every house?  Shall we gather
>strength by irresolution and inaction?  Shall we acquire the means of
>effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the
>delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and
>foot?  Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means the
>God of Nature hath placed in our power.  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.
>Besides, 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.  The battle, sir, is not the strong alone;
>it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.  Besides, sir, we have no
>election.  If we are 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 heard on the plains
>of Boston!  The war is inevitable - and let it come!  I repeat, sir, let
>it come!
>
>   It is in vain, sir to extenuate the matter.  Gentlemen may cry, peace,
>peace - but there is no peace.  The war is actually begun!  The next gale
>that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding
>arms!  Our brethren are already in the field!  Why stand we here idle?
>What is it the gentlemen wish?  What would they have?  Is life so dear,
>or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery.
>Forbid it, Almighty God - I know not what course others may take; but as
>for me, give me liberty or give me death!
>
>                          -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>                     Text assembled by William Wirt,
>            derived from accounts of those who heard the speech.
>
>          "Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry"
>                                  1818
>
>
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: Domestic Violence and police
Date: 13 Jan 1997 05:48:12 -0700

>From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
>Subject: ATF Letter and local PDs.
>
>>Return-Path: [e-mail]
>>X-Authentication-Warning: blacklodge.c2.net: majordom set sender to
[e-mail] using -f
>>Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 13:09:24 -0800
>>From: "Timothy L. Krahling, Sr." <[e-mail]>
>>Organization: Stemmers Run Rifle & Pistol Club
>>To: [e-mail]
>>CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>>        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>>        [e-mail], [e-mail],
>>        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>>        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>Subject: ATF Letter and local PDs.
>>Sender: [e-mail]
>>
>>Head of Minneapolis homicide unit gets gun back, returns to work.
>>Chris Graves, Star Tribune
>>January 7, 1997=20
>>
>>A little-known Minnesota court rule paved the way for Minneapolis police=
=20
>>Lt. Dale Barsness to get his gun -- and his job -- back.=20
>>
>>The head of the homicide unit had been forced to comply with a new=20
>>federal law that says anyone who has ever been convicted of misdemeanor=20
>>domestic violence can no longer carry a firearm. Without a gun, Barsness=
=20
>>could not be a police officer in the state.=20
>>
>>But a section of the state's Rules of Criminal Procedure allowed a=20
>>Hennepin County judge to avoid a "manifest injustice" by setting aside=20
>>Barsness' guilty plea to fifth-degree domestic assault against his wife=20
>>in 1991.=20
>>
>>Barsness was one of five Minneapolis officers who had to turn their=20
>>weapons over to the internal affairs unit Dec. 12. Four of the five,=20
>>including Barsness, have gotten their guns back and have returned to=20
>>work. The status of the fifth was unclear Monday.=20
>>
>>"It's good to be back," Barsness said, noting the three weeks' worth of=20
>>work on his desk.=20
>>
>>Nationwide, the federal gun-law amendment has created consternation=20
>>among police officers, military personnel and hunters.=20
>>
>>Many have argued that it retroactively changed the legal consequences of=
=20
>>a crime and is therefore unconstitutional.=20
>>
>>U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., is drafting a bill to keep the law from being=
=20
>>applied to cases before Sept. 30, 1996. It may be presented to Congress=20
>>this month. It is not expected to be introduced in the three-day session=
=20
>>starting today.=20
>>
>>Last Friday, Hennepin County District Judge John Stanoch ruled that=20
>>Barsness could avoid the consequences of the federal law by withdrawing=20
>>the plea he entered the day after assaulting his wife at their Brooklyn=20
>>Center home.=20
>>
>>A judge in Minnesota can allow someone to withdraw a guilty plea if=20
>>extraordinary circumstances that surface later would create a "manifest=20
>>injustice." The rule has usually been used when DNA tests show that a=20
>>person who pleaded guilty to a crime could not have committed it.=20
>>
>>Barsness' attorney, Michael Friedberg, said Monday that he was not aware=
=20
>>of the rule until he started researching Barsness' case and that of=20
>>another Minneapolis officer.=20
>>
>>"The net effect will be that the plea was never entered," Friedberg said=
=20
>>Monday. "But that's not the message Dale wants to get out. He said, and=20
>>has said, what he did was wrong." =20
>>
>>Police have not released the names of the other four officers or=20
>>complete details about the outcome of their cases. The department=20
>>discovered that the federal law didn't apply to one officer who turned=20
>>in his gun. Another is attempting to have his domestic-violence=20
>>conviction expunged from his record. Like Barsness, another officer had=20
>>his guilty plea set aside.=20
>>
>>Bill McClelland, Brooklyn Center prosecuting attorney, said he didn't=20
>>object to the tactic in Barsness' case because it seemed to fit the=20
>>criteria.=20
>>
>>"I don't see Barsness as a danger to society," McClelland said. If he=20
>>lost his job because of the federal law, "Minneapolis would lose a=20
>>valuable employee, and his family would suffer because of loss of=20
>>income."=20
>>
>>Barsness has said he pays his wife $1,700 a month in support.=20
>>
>>A memo attached to the judge's order said he granted the motion because=20
>>Barsness admitted he was wrong, made no attempt to defend or justify the=
=20
>>abuse, completed "each and every condition of his probation," went=20
>>through anger management counseling and sought out additional counseling=
=20
>>on his own.=20
>>
>>While the issue of whether the federal law is unconstitutional was not=20
>>before the Hennepin County court, the judge said it was clear that=20
>>Barsness could not have known six years ago that the plea could have=20
>>jeopardized his livelihood.=20
>>
>>"To allow that to happen to this citizen who has taken responsibility=20
>>for his action, worked to resolve the issues leading to the assault and=20
>>by all accounts served as a responsible and respected member of the=20
>>community would be a manifest injustice," Stanoch said.=20
>>
>>But he noted that Barsness' actions were still criminal:=20
>>
>>"Domestic violence is a serious societal problem, and this decision=20
>>should not be taken as minimizing the actions of Mr. Barsness in 1991.=20
>>His assault was wrong."=20
>>
>>
>>=A9Copyright 1997 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.=20
>>---------------------------------------
>>
>>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.        =09
PO Box 271231            =09
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231    =09
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: Open up lil pig...
Date: 13 Jan 1997 05:48:23 -0700

>Subject: Open up lil pig...
>Sender: [e-mail]
>
>Ruling says stores not liable to patrons during robberies
>
>SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A store that is being robbed has no obligation to
>protect customers by agreeing to the robber's demands, a divided state
>Supreme Court ruled Monday.
>
>In a 4-3 decision, the court refused to let a fast-food restaurant
>customer try to prove that a clerk acted unreasonably by falsely denying
>she had a key to the cash register, a statement that allegedly prompted
>the robber to threaten to kill the customer.
>
>``A shopkeeper does not have a duty to comply with the unlawful demand of
>an armed robber that property be surrendered,'' said the opinion by
>Justice Marvin Baxter.
>
>Besides being fair to businesses, he said, the ruling should discourage
>robberies by reminding criminals that businesses have no financial
>incentive to submit to their demands. Dissenting justices questioned that
>reasoning and said the clerk's actions should be evaluated by a jury,
>which normally determines whether conduct is reasonable or negligent.
>
>The case, which has drawn national attention from critics of the legal
>system, stemmed from an August 1993 robbery at a Kentucky Fried Chicken
>restaurant in Redondo Beach.
>
>The robber put a gun to the back of Kathy Brown, the only customer in the
>restaurant, and took her cash and wallet. He then demanded the money in
>the cash register, but the clerk replied that she would have to go in the
>back to get the key.
>
>The robber then shoved his gun harder into Brown's back and said he would
>shoot her unless he got the money immediately. The cashier then opened
>the drawer and the robber took the money and fled. He was not caught.
>
>Brown sued Kentucky Fried Chicken, claiming she suffered emotional
>distress because of the restaurant's negligence in security and employee
>training. Her lawyer cited a Redondo Beach police pamphlet advising
>businesses to comply with an armed robber's demand for money.
>
>Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Abraham Gorenfield refused to dismiss
>Brown's suit and was upheld by an appellate court. But the Supreme Court
>said the case should be dismissed without a trial.
>
>Baxter acknowledged that businesses have a legal duty to take reasonable
>steps to protect customers from criminals. He noted a 1966 ruling by the
>court allowing a suit against a bowling alley whose employee warned a
>woman about an attacker but failed to accompany her to the parking lot,
>where she was beaten.
>
>Courts in some other states have allowed suits when store owners endanger
>customers by actively resisting robbers, Baxter said. But he said no
>court has recognized a duty to yield to a robber.
>
>He noted that the state Constitution recognizes the right of ``possessing
>and protecting property.'' And even if complying with a robber might
>protect an individual customer, allowing a suit for refusal to comply
>would endanger the public in the long run, Baxter said.
>
>
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]: Judge: Cops can be armed when drinking]
Date: 13 Jan 1997 11:33:48 -0700


Forwarded from FAP, FYI.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Put this under the heading of "Rules for them & rules for us".


LOS ANGELES, Jan. 10 (UPI) - A published report says a judge has
refused to force the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department to impose
restrictions that would ban off-duty deputies from carrying guns while
consuming alcohol.
    The Los Angeles Times reports Friday that Superior Court Judge
Florence Marie-Cooper has dismissed a lawsuit -- filed by a man whose son
was killed by a drunk deputy -- that sought to keep officers from arming
themselves while drinking and off-duty.
    The judge said she could not force the department to impose
restrictions on sworn personnel because of a state law that says they
can carry weapons at all times so they are prepared to take police
action at a moment's notice.
    However, plaintiff Gerald Huffman says Thursday's ruling will not
stop his efforts to make law enforcement departments review their off-
duty gun policies.
    The Times says in the past seven years, at least 17 Los Angeles
deputies have been investigated for using their weapons off-duty after
consuming alcohol.


Scott W. Allen
mailto:[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.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: New Eyes for Big Brother
Date: 13 Jan 1997 12:50:17 -0700


On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, "Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]> posted:

>I keep my membership up to date but have stopped giving extra $$$ to the NRA
>for this very reason.  I give my money to other groups.
>
>But keeping up the NRA membership is important.

Why?

--

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 who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Eyes for Big Brother
Date: 13 Jan 1997 14:05:28 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, "Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]> posted:
>
> >I keep my membership up to date but have stopped giving extra
> >$$$ to the NRA
> >for this very reason.  I give my money to other groups.
> >
> >But keeping up the NRA membership is important.
>
> Why?
>
Why indeed.

Realising that they are painted with the "extremist" brush,
I would sure like to see a no compromise lobbying organisation
like GOA rise to the prominence of the NRA.

Like GOA, not GOA, however.  I'd like to see a more "(L)ibertarian"
organisation which lobbied more for RKBA than for Xtian values and
so forth.

Heh....maybe Women Against Gun Control, eh Sarah?....Ready to take
on the "credentialed" Sarah B?   ...egads...  Sarah B and Sarah B-T!
--
Will Thompson
    Gettin' tired of the CC and Larry Pratt's getting in bed with
        the Anti-Choice crowd.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: From Deseret News Editorial--Cop in Favor of CCW
Date: 13 Jan 1997 15:15:27 -0700


I guess there are a few good ones left after all.  This should
probably be forwarded to all of our legiscritters this session.  I am
particularly impressed by how Deputy Thompson does draw any distiction
between off-duty officers and private citizens carry concealed and his
statement about the effectiveness of a gun for self defense.  I also
like his observation that businesses want government to do their dirty
work so they can avoid the economic fall-out of a Blockbuster like
prohibition.

For the record, I am opposed to requiring permits to carry weapons.
However, the current law is better than not being able to carry at
all, I suppose.  If language is to be added to specifically allow
business and churches to prohibit weapons, I think it is important to
make sure that they must clearly post their property in order to
prohibit.  IE, the default is that carry is allowed unless
specifically prohibited.  This puts the onus on the business or
church.  I've seen articles and interviews which suggest that some are
pushing for language that would prohibit unless specifically allowed.
Such language would not only let churches and business off the hook by
taking the path of least resistance without the economic fallout, but
would also prevent challanges to the law by any churches that did want
to allow carry since all they would have to do is specifically allow
it.

Let's at least make sure we know who will support our rights and who
won't.


 [Deseret News Web Edition]

 Let's clarify concealed-weapons law

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

 By Terry L. Thompson

 The Utah State Concealed Carry Permit law has been under intense
 scrutiny in the press recently, and many issues have been
 improperly expressed. Some have been intentional, some misguided
 and others uninformed.

 The following responses to common media statements concerning the
 Utah State CCP law and the Second Amendment represent my personal
 opinion and that of the majority of police officers I know.

 Statement: ''The LDS Church has stated that all lethal weapons are
 unwelcome in its buildings.''

 Not true. The LDS Church has said that lethal weapons in their
 buildings were inappropriate. The LDS Church or any other church is
 not going to say, ''OK, people. Strap on leather and let's
 worship.''

 The direction of religion is to promote spiritual guidance. It's
 unfortunate that people get the impression that the church
 denounced the concealed carrying of weapons, which it did not.
 Hence, political winds blow and politicians tip over.

 Statement: ''Proposed changes in the Concealed Carry Permit law
 will bring criticism from a minority of the state's 14,000 permit
 holders.''

 Apparently, some would have us believe that actual permit holders
 are the only residents who support the law. I submit that those who
 support the law are the majority in the state, yet many have not
 felt the need to obtain a permit for themselves. However, trust is
 placed in the law-abiding, permit-carrying citizen to do the
 ''right thing,'' a concept a few fail to understand.

 Statement: ''Business owners and churches should be able to post
 signs informing those who enter that firearms are not allowed, and
 permit holders should respect those wishes.''

 Businesses, churches and all private property owners have always
 been able to do just that. If a permit holder refuses to vacate
 private property, then a criminal trespassing charge is in order.
 Further laws are not necessary.

 Additionally, concealed weapons cannot be offensive as they are
 just that, concealed. Otherwise, off-duty police officers must
 offend citizens everywhere they go. Permit holders respect the
 wishes of business owners and choose not to patronize their
 establishment. Instead, they take their business elsewhere. The
 majority who support the law will notify the business by mail or
 telephone to that effect.

 That is why business conglomerates want the state to pass an
 unnecessary law concerning private business, so that they can avoid
 signs signaling their liberal bias without affecting business. A
 national video store chain found that out firsthand.

 Around the country there have been numerous cases of serious
 problems taking place in otherwise ''safe havens,'' our own Wasatch
 Front library hostage incident and a Weber State University
 shooting included. From a criminal perspective, I can think of few
 better places to launch an attack upon unsuspecting victims than
 church or school. I know where my victims will be like clockwork
 when I want them. That's even better if the state prohibits anyone
 from being prepared to resist (if the spin doctors get their way).

 Let's be serious: People are not carrying guns to church or school
 and would not, unless their personal circumstances warranted it.

 Here is a look at the facts: States with Right to Carry laws have a
 22 percent lower overall violent crime rate, a 31 percent lower
 homicide rate, a 36 percent lower robbery rate and a 14 percent
 lower aggravated-assault rate than states that severely restrict or
 downright prohibit citizens' rights to carry firearms for
 protection.

 The above statistics were compiled by the Law Enforcement Alliance
 of America, an organization dedicated to putting real justice back
 into the criminal-justice system. Its efforts push victims' rights
 over criminals' rights, reforms that target criminals and not
 law-abiding citizens, and telling the truth from a law-enforcement
 perspective about why gun control is not crime control.

 Utah police officers responded to a poll conducted by the Utah
 State Peace Officers Association. Seventy-percent agreed that a
 person of good character should be allowed to carry a concealed
 weapon; 96 percent felt that people should have the right to
 protect themselves and their family by use of a firearm; 80 percent
 did not feel that passing more stringent firearms laws would make
 their jobs safer.

 Primary issues for effective firearms-related crime reduction were:
 (1) enhanced penalties for use of firearms when committing a crime;
 (2) providing more severe penalties for juvenile offenders; (3)
 severely limiting the practice of plea bargaining.

 One would err to feel that anyone is responsible for his personal
 protection besides himself. Police officers (contrary to popular
 belief) do not possess psychological powers to know when and where
 a crime is to occur. When you are a victim of a violent crime, odds
 are high that you will be on your own.

 There are many different methods of self-protection, but none is as
 effective against the threatened use of deadly force as a firearm.
 We simply do not know when criminals are going to choose us as
 their next victim. It may be during a school disciplinary hearing
 or while searching for a book at the local library or while on the
 pay phone or perhaps while photographing a beautiful night moon.

 This whole church/school question is a non-issue that amounts to
 nothing more than an easy inflammatory target for gun-control
 extremists. Their intent is to whittle away the concealed carry law
 and/or make it so complicated that it becomes a burden.
 Unfortunately, well meaning but misguided citizens fall prey to
 their rhetoric.

 The bottom line is this: When criminals know that decent people are
 armed and willing and able to defend themselves, they leave them
 alone.

 Terry Thompson is a detective with the Weber County Sheriff's
 Office.

[Image]

Published 13 January, ⌐ 1997 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.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun Confiscation
Date: 13 Jan 1997 15:25:00 -0700


>Mark A. Smith wrote:
>>
>>  When they try this here, ALL BETS ARE OFF.
>> --Mark
>> ====================================================================
>>
>> ///,        ////             Mark A. Smith
>> \  /,      /  >.
>>  \  /,   _/  /.                  * * *
>>   \_  /_/   /.
>>    \__/_   <          UNITED STATES THEATRE COMMAND
>>    /<<< \_\_
>>   /,)^>>_._ \           email:  [e-mail]
>>   (/   \\ /\\\                  [e-mail]
>>        // ````
>> ======((`===========================================================
>> Subject: Australian Gun Confiscation Begins; England On Edge
>>
>>      The Australian newspaper ad says: "Our Firearm Laws Have Changed,"
>> and shows drawings of a Browning BAR hunting rifle, Winchester Model 97
>> shotgun, Ruger 10-22 .22 rimfire and a Browning-pattern semi-auto
>> shotgun which "must be handed in before 30 September 1997."
>>
>>      And in England, Parliament is nearing final passage on a ban on
>> possession of all 160,000 legally owned handguns over .22 rimfire -- and
>> legally owned .22 pistols couldn't be possessed, used or stored except
>> at licensed gun clubs.
>>
>>      That was the "moderate" proposal from John Major's Conservative
>> Government, which is being lobbied by the British Athletic Federation to
>> exempt starter pistols.
>>
>>      An amendment to extend the ban to all legal handguns was narrowly
>> defeated in Parliament Nov. 18.  The bill -- which would have no effect
>> on the estimated 1 million illegal guns in the country -- was expected
>> to pass by Christmas.
>>
>>      During the debate, members repeatedly condemned what they called
>> "the gun culture" growing in the U.K.  British gun owners have attempted
>> to head off the law with full-page newspaper ads, a letter-writing
>> campaign, marches and rallies, but the British NRA -- mainly a
>> competitive shooting organization -- never learned to flex its once-
>> significant political muscle.
>>
>>      The Australian ad says:  "Victorians handing in these firearms will
>> be paid compensation on the spot."
>>
>>      The London Independent gleefully reported:  "Australians have
>> surrendered more than 130,000 guns ... (which) are crushed or cut in two
>> before the owner's eyes, then tossed into an ever-increasing stockpile
>> of scrap metal."
>>
>>      There's still a debate about compensation in both countries.  At
>> best, it will be about half pre-law value.  And the editor of British
>> Handgun Magazine, a native of Alabama, tells us he's having difficulty
>> getting permission to take his guns to the U.S. -- which won't also
>> won't allow some of them to be imported.
>>
>>      What is occurring in Australia and the United Kingdom is having a
>> sobering effect on U.S. gunowners who have never believed that
>> confiscation of common guns was ever a real threat.
>>
>>       S. 386, introduced by Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) in 1989
>> would have banned manufacture of almost the same guns as the Australian
>> list, including any semi-auto "capable of employing" a detachable
>> magazine over 10 rounds, or any shotgun or .22 rimfire with a tubular
>> magazine capacity of more than six rounds (which includes the Model 12
>> Winchester).
>>
>> [Excerpted via The Firearms Coalition's Online Report, December 28, 1996,
>> Vol.3, No.12]
>> ###
>>
>> ========================================================================
>>
>> Copyright 1996 by Neal Knox Associates
>>                P.O. Box 6537
>>                Rockville, MD  20916.
>>
>> Reproduction and non-commercial distribution of this bulletin by any
>> means is encouraged so long as this statement is retained.
>>
>> ========================================================================
>
>--
>===================================================================
>///,        ////
>\  /,      /  >.             David E. Rydel
> \  /,   _/  /.                  *****
>  \_  /_/   /.        United States Theatre Command
>   \__/_   <               Voice-810-391-0798
>   /<<< \_\_                Fax-810-391-6785
>  /,)^>>_._ \             Alt.Fax-810-391-3528
>  (/   \\ /\\\           [e-mail]
>        // ````        [e-mail]
>======((`==========================================================
>        A VOICE OF THE MILITIAS IN THE UNITED STATES
>

And check out http://www.firearmsreform.vic.gov.au/     SCARY!

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] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Australian Gun Confiscation Begins; England On Edge
Date: 13 Jan 1997 20:39:00 -0700


     The Australian newspaper ad says: "Our Firearm Laws Have Changed,"
and shows drawings of a Browning BAR hunting rifle, Winchester Model 97
shotgun, Ruger 10-22 .22 rimfire and a Browning-pattern semi-auto
shotgun which "must be handed in before 30 September 1997."

     And in England, Parliament is nearing final passage on a ban on
possession of all 160,000 legally owned handguns over .22 rimfire -- and
legally owned .22 pistols couldn't be possessed, used or stored except
at licensed gun clubs.

     That was the "moderate" proposal from John Major's Conservative
Government, which is being lobbied by the British Athletic Federation to
exempt starter pistols.

     An amendment to extend the ban to all legal handguns was narrowly
defeated in Parliament Nov. 18.  The bill -- which would have no effect
on the estimated 1 million illegal guns in the country -- was expected
to pass by Christmas.

     During the debate, members repeatedly condemned what they called
"the gun culture" growing in the U.K.  British gun owners have attempted to
head off the law with full-page newspaper ads, a letter-writing campaign,
marches and rallies, but the British NRA -- mainly a competitive shooting
organization -- never learned to flex its once- significant political muscle.

     The Australian ad says:  "Victorians handing in these firearms will
be paid compensation on the spot."

     The London Independent gleefully reported: "Australians have surrendered
more than 130,000 guns ... (which) are crushed or cut in two before the
owner's eyes, then tossed into an ever-increasing stockpile of scrap metal."

     There's still a debate about compensation in both countries.  At best,
it will be about half pre-law value.  And the editor of British Handgun
Magazine, a native of Alabama, tells us he's having difficulty getting
permission to take his guns to the U.S. -- which won't also won't allow
some of them to be imported.

     What is occurring in Australia and the United Kingdom is having a
sobering effect on U.S. gunowners who have never believed that
confiscation of common guns was ever a real threat.

      S. 386, introduced by Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) in 1989 would
have banned manufacture of almost the same guns as the Australian list,
including any semi-auto "capable of employing" a detachable magazine over
10 rounds, or any shotgun or .22 rimfire with a tubular magazine capacity
of more than six rounds (which includes the Model 12 Winchester).

[Excerpted via The Firearms Coalition's Online Report, December 28, 1996,
Vol.3, No.12]
###

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

Copyright 1996 by Neal Knox Associates
               P.O. Box 6537
               Rockville, MD  20916.

Reproduction and non-commercial distribution of this bulletin by any
means is encouraged so long as this statement is retained.



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: NRA]
Date: 14 Jan 1997 11:31:05 -0700


Posted for Chad.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

X-Sender: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
 <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Length: 1678

Hi

Can you send this to utah-firearms?  For some reason it is rejecting my
posts...

Thanks


> Mr. Charles Hardy said:
>On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, "Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC"
><[e-mail]> posted:
>
>>I keep my membership up to date but have stopped giving extra $$$ to the NRA
>>for this very reason.  I give my money to other groups.
>>
>>But keeping up the NRA membership is important.
>
>Why?
>

because NRA membership numbers mean something in the public eye.  If NRA
membership were to drop 30% this coming year the press and anti-gun people
would have a PR field day.  However, if it were to grow 30%, they wouldn't
be able to say much.  And waffling congress people would have a harder time
blowing off RKBA when the NRA show them that there are 12000 NRA members or
whatever in their district.  Like it or not the NRA is the spokesman in the
public eye for RKBA.

All pro gun orgs are fighting on the same side.  Some do better than others
at the racket.  Keeping the NRA membership is important.  Give your extra
dollars to whom you will but the $35 for NRA membership is money well spent
for RKBA.  And the American Rifleman is interesting too.

Chad

Chad Leigh              Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net
[e-mail]         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites.
Low cost virtual servers.  Web Design.  DB integration. Tango.
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.



----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.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: The Capitol is S.A.F.E.]
Date: 14 Jan 1997 13:48:50 -0700


Folks, here is where our friends down south in Arizona are WRT to
RKBA.  Bear in mind as you read this that openly carrying a gun
as this fellow was doing requires no permit, no background check,
no training, not even residency, in short no governmental permission,
in the State of Arizona.  Ask yourself how this situation would
have played out in our own capital.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
From Ernest Hancock: (Goodnet has my account trashed beyond usage...
recommendations for a new and reliable carrier?)

Bob and I had to go down to the State Capitol today (we both get Mondays
off usually) to get the new bills filed that we can retrieve from our box
in the mailroom there. We also needed to get some goodies from the Sec of
State's office.

Principle dictated that we not disarm ourselves during our visit. So Bob
took his cell phone and I put on my 9mm Mac, in its flap holster (which
makes it hard to tell if the gun is in the holster).

As we walked in the west entrance to the main building, Fife Symington was
coming out of the elevators to our right on his way to give his State of
the State Address at the House of Representatives. We walk right behind
him and his entourage into the elevator without even being noticed
(holster always in plain sight). We then went to the Sec of State's
office to get them started on some copying we needed done.

It was then to the House of Representatives to retrieve our copies of the
newly filed bills in our mailbox (we later learned that the mailroom was
moved to the main building).

Passing the Capitol Police, we would nod hello to those that we recognized
from other occasions SAFE had come in contact with them ("Check my Gun
Please at the State Supreme Court" - "U.N. Day at Westley Bolin Plaza" -
"State Capitol 4th of July Celebration" - "SAFE Rallies at the State
Capitol" etc. ).

We entered the House of Representatives and turned left to get on the
elevator to the basement when Congressman Matt Salmon got on the elevator
to be pulled off by another man. Bob thought that he heard the man whisper
to the congressman, "That guys got a gun". It was then that a security man
stepped into the elevator and asked if that was a gun that I had. I said,
"Yes, it is". He then said, "You can't have that here". I politely said,
"Then you have to check it". Quickly a Capitol Policeman said as he
stepped up, "We can check it right here". I then took it from my holster
and handed it to him handle first with the safety on and a round in the
chamber. I closed up the holster (which now looks the same as before with
the large flap) and took the elevator to the basement. Bob and I were told
that the mailroom had been moved so back up we went.

We told the security that we would be back for the weapon when we were
finished with our business at the Capitol.

To the mailroom, then to the Sec of State's office & the Senate press
rooms and was asked about the holster a couple of times. All I had to say
was, "It was checked". (The Channel 3TV cameraman couldn't get his camera
going before the elevator door closed on him :).

On our way back to the House of Reps. we meet up with some of our friends
from Sun City that have worked with us on the Stadium District issue. As
we were talking and walking we were approached by Capt. Jay Swart of the
Capitol Police.It is fortunate that we have had dealings with each other
and understand both the law and each of our intentions. He reported that
he had found us and told me that he was told that I wanted to speak to
him. I said, "More likely they wanted you to talk to me about my gun". He
thought that I would have a problem with them checking it. I told him that
I didn't, and when I was done at the Capitol I'd be by to get it.

Bob and I caught up with our friends and finished our conversation and
then went to see some reporters. We went to see if there was any room on
the balcony to watch the Governor's State of the State. As we approached
the House of Representatives door, Capt. Swart briskly walked out
with my weapon locked open and the magazine out and started to hand it to
me. I thanked him but told him that I wasn't ready for it yet. He took it
back to the security desk inside, all the time we were treated very
kindly.

The balcony was full so we chatted with some people on various issues we
had in common. We then went to retrieve my weapon from the security desk.
The guard took it from the desk and said that he would have to give it to
me outside. He handed it to me outside the door.

I then loaded it and placed it into its holster.

Bob and I then walked through the main building on our way to our car on
the other side.... followed by two Capitol Police.

Thoughts:
      The most dangerous moments were my reloading (while many armed
police stood around me) and their unloading my weapon.

( Bobs Comments )
        This was only possible due to people making sure that the parties
involved knew and understood the law. It says a lot for our State that
this was handled so well at what was probably the most touchey time " The
State of The State speech " just think how this would have gone over on
the Capitol steps in D.C. on the State of the Union day??? We are getting
more free by the day!!!

----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.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: [[e-mail]: NRA]
Date: 14 Jan 1997 12:58:02 -0700


>
>because NRA membership numbers mean something in the public eye.  If NRA
>membership were to drop 30% this coming year the press and anti-gun people
>would have a PR field day.  However, if it were to grow 30%, they wouldn't
>be able to say much.  And waffling congress people would have a harder time
>blowing off RKBA when the NRA show them that there are 12000 NRA members or
>whatever in their district.  Like it or not the NRA is the spokesman in the
>public eye for RKBA.

Actually, I don't like it and would like to see it change.  I know
attacking the NRA is dangerous around here, but take an honest look at
what they have/are doing.  All the way back to the Gun Control Act of
'34 which paved the way for outlawing of private ownership of full
autos and shortened guns, the NRA has written more gun control
legislation than HCI.  Ruby Ridge and Waco were made possible by the
very legislation NRA helped draft.  Is there anyone here who hasn't
seen the NRA fax that went out to Congresss urging them to PASS Brady
so that we would have a national instant check system?

Are you aware that the NRA has ACTIVELY OPPOSSED efforts by grassroot
groups in Arizona to remove penalties for CCW without a permit?  Never
mind that the Arizona constitution and constitutional ratifying
debates make it clear that both open and concealed carry are byond the
power of the legislature to control, NRA wants to make sure that
everyone needs a permit, with the expensive training and intrusive
background and fingerprint/photograph check before they CCW.

It is the NRA that vocally supports prior restraint on my RKBA through
background checks to purchase and training requirements and background
checks to carry.  It is the NRA that supported the criminalization of
private possession of certain kinds of ammo.  It is the NRA that
continues to insist that I have no "legitimate" need for full autos or
shortened firearms and then has trouble explaining why I do have some
"legitimate" need for semi-auto versions of full autos.

It is the NRA that refuses to endorse solidly pro-gun candidates
simply because they disagree with that candidate's position on one
social issue (drugs).  Regardless of your personnal position on drugs
it makes even less sense for a so-called "pro-gun organization" to
refuse endorsement based on that issue than it would to refuse them
based on a candidates position on abortion, same-sex marriage or
welfare.  Why even less sense?  Becuase drugs are the excuse for more
gun and other civil rights violations than any other issue I can think
of.

The NRA is tops in their safety programs, but they are awful at
legislation.  I do not know if the NRA is simply incompentant or if
they are simply too much the old school sportsmen who really don't
care about rights.  I fully suspect that would sell my AR15 down the
river though if it meant another few months or years before their
shotguns were taken.  But either way, the NRA has done more to hurt MY
RKBA here in Utah than HCI has.

If NRA membership were to go down 300,000 and GOA and JPFO membership
went up 300,000 in the same year, I would guess we would have a
different spokesman for RKBA and we'd quit seeing so many infringments
on our rights.  I make a point in all correspondance concerning RKBA
to speciffically say "the NRA does not speak for me on this issue."
At the very least, you should look at what the NRA is saying on a
particular bill and maybe include something similar.

>
>All pro gun orgs are fighting on the same side.  Some do better than others
>at the racket.  Keeping the NRA membership is important.  Give your extra
>dollars to whom you will but the $35 for NRA membership is money well spent
>for RKBA.  And the American Rifleman is interesting too.

I was working on a lifetime membership when I became aware of all the
dirt the NRA had/was shoveling.  My first letter to Peppy got me a
completely irrelevant form letter.  My next letter, raising issues of
prior restraint, full autos and shortened weapons, and special
privleges for cops, went completely unanswered.

I would suggest that if your really feel like the NRA does more good
than harm (and I'd highly suggest you make up two honest lists and
compare them before deciding) and you want to maintain your
membership, then you should also get membership in JPFO and at least
one of the non-NRA lobbying groups.

--

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 who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men,
 undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Science and Sentiment:  Balancing the Firearms Debate
Date: 15 Jan 1997 03:19:42 -0700


>The following article is reprinted by permission of
>California Physician, copyright 1997. California Physician
>is the monthly magazine of the California Medical
>Association. It goes out each month to about 30,000
>doctors in California. This article was printed in the
>January 1997 issue.
>
>Science and Sentiment:  Balancing the Firearms Debate
>
>Timothy Wheeler, MD
>
>False is the idea of utility that would take fire from men
>because it burns, and water because one may drown in it;
>that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.  The laws
>that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature.
>They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor
>determined to commit crimes.
>
>Two centuries after criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote
>those words, modern criminologists are now reaching the
>same conclusions.  In a landmark study to be published in
>the Journal of Legal Studies, and already available on the
>Internet (http://law.lib.uchicago.edu/faculty/lott/guns.html)
>University of Chicago researchers John Lott and David
>Mustard found that allowing citizens to carry concealed
>weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no
>increase in accidental deaths.  The authors studied 3,054
>counties in the United States using controls for time
>periods, demographic differences, and changes in firearms
>laws over the study period.  In states which passed liberal
>shall issue laws for concealed carry permits, the murder
>rate fell by 8.5%, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by
>5% and 7% respectively.
>
>Physicians who follow the public health firearms debate
>may be shocked by these statistics.  But the Lott study is no
>surprise to those who read the criminology literature.
>Similar studies go back as far as the Carter administration,
>which funded an extensive literature review on weapons
>and violent crime, published as the book Under the Gun:
>Waepons, Crime, and Violence in America.  Authors James
>Wright, Peter Rossi, and Kathleen Daly's summation was
>that there is no compelling evidence that the private
>ownership of firearms among the general population is, per
>se, an important
>cause of criminal violence.
>
>More recently Northwestern University's Journal of
>Criminal Law and Criminology published Kleck and
>Gertz's national survey showing as many as 2.5 million
>annual uses of firearms to defend against imminent violent
>crime.
>
>
>How can it be that doctors have not learned the whole truth
>about guns and crime?  The answer is simple.  Most
>doctors have never considered gun crime to be germane to
>medicine, and have therefore not studied the subject.  But
>the large body of research amassed by criminologists
>during the past 20 years mostly confirms what typical gun-
>owning citizens know intuitively: Gun violence is the work
>of a small minority of criminal aberrants, most of whom
>have a lifelong history of violent and antisocial behavior.
>
>This perspective is now accepted by many in the academic
>community outside of medicine.  Charges against the
>National Rifle Association or the gun lobby fail to address
>the scientific issues raised by these reputable researchers
>and therefore contribute little to our understanding.
>
>There are physicians who believe that criminologists have
>something to teach physicians about crime.  They want to
>hear all the evidence and make up their own minds.  The
>evidence increasingly tells us that gun ownership by good
>citizens is not only safe, but is a positive benefit in that it
>helps protect innocent human life.
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: U.N. & Gun Control
Date: 15 Jan 1997 11:03:22 -0700


>> > >30 May 1996
>> > >
>> > >PRESS RELEASE SOC/CP/189
>> > >
>> > >VIEWS ON FIREARMS REGULATION DISCUSSED IN CRIME COMMISSION
>> > >
>> > >VIENNA, 28 May -- A United Nations project on firearms issues
>> > >including a survey on national experiences, policies and
>> > >regulations, and proposed electronic database, was discussed this
>> > >afternoon in the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal
>> > >Justice.
>> > >
>> > >The representative of Japan which, along with Canada, has been
>> > >providing funding and other support for United Nations research in
>> > >that area, stressed that the project was too important for its
>> > >continuation to be conditional on the availability of
>> > >extrabudgetary funds.  He announced that Japan would present a
>> > >draft resolution on the subject, and would make a voluntary cash
>> > >contribution to cover some of the activities envisaged.
>> > >
>> > >Also speaking on firearms issues were the representatives of China,
>> > >Australia, India, Portugal and Canada.  The Officer-in-Charge of
>> > >the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division,
>> > >Eduardo Vetere, introduced the topic.
>> > >
>> > >....
>> > >
>> > >EDUARDO VETERE, Officer-in-Charge of the Crime Prevention and
>> > >Criminal Justice Division introduced the report on firearms
>> > >regulation.  Last year, the secretariat had been asked to collect
>> > >information and consult with Member States on national policies,
>> > >measures and views regarding gun ownership.  Now before the
>> > >Commission was a report which contained a summary of information
>> > >received from 25 States on their experiences with regard to
>> > >criminal cases, accidents and suicides involving firearms;
>> > >transnational illicit trafficking in firearms; national and
>> > >regional legislation and initiatives; public awareness campaigns
>> > >and public opinion polls; and views on the possible preparation of
>> > >a draft declaration on the subject.  Seven more countries had
>> > >provided comments after the present report was completed.
>> > >
>> > >Also contained in the report was a summary of the work of an expert
>> > >advisory group and a secretariat project team, which had considered
>> > >how best to conduct a systematic and methodologically sound
>> > >comparative analysis of firearms regulation in selected States, he
>> > >said.  The results of the group's work--a questionnaire and
>> > >guidelines--were contained in a conference room paper.
>> > >
>> > >He acknowledged the substantive and financial contributions of
>> > >Japan and Canada to the preparatory work.  The secretariat was
>> > >being assisted in documenting the survey by the project coordinator
>> > >and a number of the institutes of the United Nations crime
>> > >prevention and criminal justice network.  The project could not
>> > >have been developed without such assistance, as it had not been
>> > >included in the regular work programme of the Division for 1996-
>> > >1997.  Moreover, in order to implement the Commission's
>> > >recommendations on the subject, three other expert group meetings
>> > >had had to be postponed.
>> > >
>> > >As proposed in the report, he said, the following steps should be
>> > >considered by the Commission for future action: making
>> > >recommendations to Member States on the statistical recording and
>> > >reporting of firearms data, including the development of a database
>> > >to be made available worldwide; encouraging additional countries to
>> > >provide data and information to the secretariat; broadening the
>> > >scope of the project by increasing the number of countries to be
>> > >polled in successive stages of the survey; and encouraging
>> > >interested countries to pursue regional and subregional cooperation
>> > >to control illicit trafficking in firearms.
>> > >
>> > >He said the commission might also wish to invite intergovernmental
>> > >organizations to strengthen inter-agency collaboration in assessing
>> > >data on the patterns and dynamics of firearms use.  It might want
>> > >to consider to what extent non-governmental organizations might be
>> > >involved in the survey and database project.
>> > >
>> > >GORO AOKI, Chief of the Firearms Division of the Office of
>> > >International Affairs of the National Police Agency of Japan, said
>> > >that the secretariat study, although preliminary, had already
>> > >illustrated the urgent need for member States to take concerted
>> > >action to regulate illicit international trafficking in firearms.
>> > >He reiterated that gun-related crimes, accidents and suicides had
>> > >become a serious problem in ensuring a safe society.
>> > >
>> > >Japan was in general agreement with what was suggested in the
>> > >Secretary-General's report.  He stressed that the project's
>> > >continuation should not be made subject to the availability of
>> > >extrabudgetary funds; it was too important.  The Secretary-General
>> > >should make maximum efforts to secure sufficient funds from the
>> > >regular United Nations budget for the undertaking.
>> > >
>> > >Japan was proposing a draft resolution on the subject, which had so
>> > >far attracted more than 20 other sponsors, he said.  Also, in the
>> > >light of the work plan presented by Mr. Vetere in an informal
>> > >session, Japan would make a voluntary cash contribution to cover
>> > >certain 1996 activities that were not funded by the regular budget.
>> > >It would decide the exact amount once the programme budget
>> > >implications of its draft resolution were determined.
>> > >
>> > >WANG FAN (China) reviewed measures taken by his Government to
>> > >regulate firearms, including laws which set minimum penalties for
>> > >violators of those regulations.  Guns used for sporting and hunting
>> > >purposes required strict licensing and could be taken only into
>> > >specified areas.
>> > >
>> > >China, he said, categorized the theft or smuggling of guns as a
>> > >very serious offence.  With the opening of the country to a market
>> > >economy, there had been an increase in the number of crimes,
>> > >including violent crimes involving firearms.  Over 80 per cent of
>> > >guns used in those activities had been smuggled into China.  Joint
>> > >efforts between China and its neighbours had succeeded in reducing
>> > >the numbers of weapons entering the country.
>> > >
>> > >Public security organs had established investigation teams which
>> > >used research and study tactics to track down those using firearms,
>> > >with the result that the detection rate for crimes involving
>> > >firearms was greater than in other criminal cases, he said.  The
>> > >Government had also strengthened control over the sale of firearms,
>> > >including toy guns that could be used by criminals to intimidate
>> > >their victims.
>> > >
>> > >PETER SCOTT (Australia) said his country's firearms controls were
>> > >administered at the state/territory level and the federal
>> > >Government's role was confined to the customs area.  The federal
>> > >Government had been working with the various jurisdictions to
>> > >achieve a nationwide regulatory framework that would reduce the
>> > >number of firearms, eliminate all automatic and semi-automatic
>> > >rifles--with limited exceptions for enforcement agencies--and
>> > >restrict access to firearms.
>> > >
>> > >Immediately following the recent tragic events at Port Arthur in
>> > >Tasmania, all jurisdictions had agreed to adopt minimum standards
>> > >in relation to firearms control, and to implement a range of
>> > >measures to regulate the availability and use of firearms across
>> > >Australia, he said.  All firearms would be registered as part of an
>> > >integrated and nationally linked licensing system and only those
>> > >who were fit and had a genuine reason and need for a firearm would
>> > >have access to one.  All jurisdictions had agreed to pay
>> > >compensation for the surrender of newly prohibited weapons.  The
>> > >Government would conduct a public education campaign in conjunction
>> > >with the amnesty and compensation scheme, and would develop an
>> > >appropriate firearms safety course.
>> > >
>> > >L.C. AMARNATHAN (India) called for urgent attention to be given to
>> > >arms proliferation.  Worldwide, communities had been threatened by
>> > >violent crimes involving firearms, causing much suffering and fear.
>> > >Also, acts of terrorism invariably used firearms and illicit
>> > >trafficking in arms had assumed serious proportions.
>> > >
>> > >Clear policy and determination had guided his country in enacting
>> > >comprehensive legislation on the issue, he said.  The laws had been
>> > >supported by machinery that enforced licensing and inspection and
>> > >prevented firearm proliferation.  However, illicit trafficking in
>> > >firearms had added an alarming dimension to firearms control,
>> > >defying efforts to contain proliferation.  Illicit transnational
>> > >trafficking in firearms was known to have links to organized crime,
>> > >terrorism, drug trafficking and extortion rackets.  The Commission
>> > >should prepare a declaration on illicit trafficking in firearms, to
>> > >encourage a greater degree of coordination among States.
>> > >
>> > >Ms. ALVES MARTINS (Portugal) said that the access of citizens to
>> > >firearms should not be totally prohibited.  However, it must be
>> > >restricted with regard to the types and calibers of weapons
>> > >allowed; and principles for the possession, usage and carrying of
>> > >arms and for the integrity and education of permit applicants
>> > >should be spelt out.  There must also be an adequate regime for
>> > >monitoring and control, and rules must be adopted to control the
>> > >international movement of arms.  There must be sufficiently
>> > >dissuasive sanctions attached to non-compliance with the
>> > >regulations.
>> > >
>> > >In line with her country's experience, she recommended that
>> > >citizens' uses of firearms be restricted to defence, hunting and
>> > >recreation.  Only pistols up to 6.35 mm in caliber, and revolvers
>> > >up to 7.65 mm in caliber, should be allowed.  To receive a permit
>> > >for self-defense, an individual must be required to demonstrate the
>> > >existence of a risk, generally in the exercise of professional
>> > >duties, that necessitated that type of protection.  Only citizens
>> > >of at least 21 years of age, with no serious criminal record, who
>> > >demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the safe use of guns, should
>> > >be allowed a permit to own one.
>> > >
>> > >DONALD K. PIRAGOFF (Canada) said his Government required all gun
>> > >owners to be licensed and to register their firearms.  Several
>> > >types of firearms had bene prohibited, including military and
>> > >paramilitary assault weapons.  Legislative provisions provided
>> > >minimum mail terms of four years for use of a firearm in the
>> > >commission of a serious crime.
>> > >
>> > >Notwithstanding international efforts to improve cooperation in
>> > >firearms control, recent shooting massacres in several countries
>> > >reminded the Commission of the real and complex challenge in that
>> > >field, he said.  The search for solutions, at national, regional
>> > >and international levels, would benefit from a neutral, fact-
>> > >finding study.  Information on the regulatory approaches of other
>> > >countries had been extremely useful to Canada in drafting new
>> > >legislation, although collection of that information had required
>> > >considerable effort.  Having the United Nations collect that
>> > >information would relieve other States from repeating the exercise.
>> > >
>> > >He thanked Japan for its leadership on firearms regulation and for
>> > >providing resources for an international study on that topic and
>> > >urged countries to participate in the study.  The sole purpose of
>> > >the research was to collect objective, baseline information from
>> > >numerous countries.  Once the statistics had been collected and
>> > >global themes and trends had been identified, the Commission would
>> > >be in a position to consider what further action might be
>> > >warranted.  He urged States to participate in the study and to
>> > >support the ongoing international firearms initiative.
>> > >
>> > >*************************************************************
>> > >This report can be found at http://www.un.org by conducting a
>> > >search for the term "firearms"
>> > >
>> > >Transcription errors are the fault of the sender
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: John Ross on How To Argue RKBA
Date: 15 Jan 1997 11:30:09 -0700

THIS IS A MUST READ!!!
Sarah

>> >Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:48:27 -0600
>> >From: John Ross <jfross@XXXXXXXX>
>> >To: Multiple recipients of <XXXXXXXXXX>
>> >Subject: Mistakes we make
>> >
>> >Okay, you lit a fire under me.
>> >
>> >The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on
>> >our issue, and letting our enemies define the terms.
>> >
>> >THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
>> >
>> >WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns."
>> >(FLAW: the implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a
>> >reasonable plan)
>> >
>> >WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and
>> >elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the
>> >gang.  You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that
>> >citizens are disarmed.  Sorry, that's unacceptable.  Better we should
>> >require every citizen to carry a gun."
>> >
>> >THEY SAY:  "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose.  You don't
>> >need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer--they're only for killing
>> >people."
>> >
>> >WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15.  You need a
>> >large-capacity magazine for their course of fire.  My SKS is a fine deer
>> >rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to
>> >trust me blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is
>> >OK to ban any gun with no sporting use.  And eventually they can replace
>> >your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
>> >
>> >WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is
>> >imprecise.  A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing
>> >people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than
>> >guns.  To be precise, a high-capacity military-type rifle or handgun is
>> >designed for CONFLICT.  When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I
>> >want the most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible.
>> >The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is
>> >that they're good practice."
>> >
>> >THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with
>> >shootouts all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc.  We need to
>> >keep guns off the streets.  If doing so saves just one life, it will be
>> >worth it."
>> >
>> >WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah" (FLAW: You have implied that
>> >if studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion shootings, CCW
>> >should be illegal.)
>> >
>> >WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are
>> >describing, that's not important.  What IS important is our freedom.  If
>> >saving lives is more important than anything else, why don't we throw
>> >out the Fifth Amendment?  We have the technology to administer an annual
>> >truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals
>> >and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past.  How does that sound?"
>> >
>> >THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting
>> >period."
>> >
>> >WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a
>> >waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that if
>> >waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)
>> >
>> >WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a gov't
>> >review board before the news is reported?  Wouldn't that prevent lives
>> >from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell?  And the fact that this law
>> >applies to people who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about
>> >crime prevention, it's about harassment.  Personally, I want to live in
>> >a freee society, not a 'safe' one with the gov't as chief nanny."
>> >
>> >THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets.  No one ever envisioned these
>> >deadly AK-47s.  I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs."
>> >
>> >WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh..."
>> >
>> >WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue--it's
>> >in the Federalist Papers.  They wanted the citizens to have the same
>> >guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry.
>> >Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field
>> >pieces with exploding shells.  In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s,
>> >etc. but not howitzers and atomic bombs.  Furthermore, according to your
>> >logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for
>> >newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and used fixed type.  After
>> >all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV
>> >and satellite transmission."
>> >
>> >THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams
>> >bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass
>> >destruction."
>> >
>> >WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.
>> >
>> >WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms
>> >ownership is a right secured by the Constitution.  But let's put that
>> >aside for a moment.  It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles.
>> >Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many
>> >motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need
>> >to do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO want
>> >to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16.  This
>> >license is good in all 50 states.  No waiting periods, no background
>> >checks, nothing.  If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old
>> >could go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons,
>> >whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on
>> >private property.  And at age 16 he could get a state license good
>> >anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property."
>> >
>> >FINAL COMMENT, useful with most all arguments:
>> >
>> >YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about your
>> >grandchildren.  I would have thought they meant more to you than
>> >anything."
>> >
>> >THEY SAY: "Hunh?"
>> >
>> >YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate
>> >effect.  I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Bill Clinton nor
>> >Newt Gingrich is going to open up internment camps for Americans like
>> >Roosevelt did fifty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of
>> >a political leader.  Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be
>> >in control here some time in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of
>> >the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him?  If that does happen, do
>> >you REALLY want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their final
>> >guarantee of freedom?  And do you relly want them to have been stripped
>> >of it BY YOU?
>> >
>> >There are more, but I think you're getting the idea now.
>> >
>> >JR
>> >

Note from Sarah:  John Ross is the author of "Unintended Consequences".
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] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Illicit U.N. Traffic
Date: 15 Jan 1997 16:01:00 -0700


Think this will have enough '>' characters soon?
Boycott Japan!

Sarah "forwarded":

>>> > >30 May 1996
>>> > >
>>> > >PRESS RELEASE SOC/CP/189
>>> > >
>>> > >VIEWS ON FIREARMS REGULATION DISCUSSED IN CRIME COMMISSION
>>> > >
>>> > >VIENNA, 28 May -- A United Nations project on firearms issues
>>> > >including a survey on national experiences, policies and
>>> > >regulations, and proposed electronic database, was discussed this
>>> > >afternoon in the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal
>>> > >Justice.
>>> > >
>>> > >The representative of Japan which, along with Canada, has been
>>> > >providing funding and other support for United Nations research in
>>> > >that area, stressed that the project was too important for its
>>> > >continuation to be conditional on the availability of
>>> > >extrabudgetary funds.  He announced that Japan would present a
>>> > >draft resolution on the subject, and would make a voluntary cash
>>> > >contribution to cover some of the activities envisaged.
>>> > >snip




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: GOA Alert-- BLM Restricting Your Gun Rights]
Date: 17 Jan 1997 11:02:22 -0700


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

              BLM Restricting Your Gun Rights ! ! !

     by Gun Owners of America, [phone], fax: [phone]
                     http://www.gunowners.org

     (Friday, January 17) -- The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) has just proposed a rule governing the use of firearms on
federal lands.  The rule is dangerously overbroad, and your input
to BLM is needed before February 5, 1997.

     The proposed rule, on page 57615 of the Federal Register for
November 7, 1996, would outlaw "[d]ischarging a firearm ...
within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, recreation
site or occupied area..."  This ineptly drafted rule could
effectively prohibit both hunting and the use of firearms for
self-defense on public lands.

     1. With respect to hunting, the proposed rule contains the
following problems:

         * It is, practically speaking, impossible for a hunter
   to determine with certainty that his activities are not within
   150 yards of a small abandoned building, another hunter's
   campsite, or an amorphously defined "recreation area."  Any of
   these are facts which would subject the hunter to criminal
   liability.

         * Hunters frequently hunt in groups.  Does this make the
   hunting site an "occupied area"?

         * The rule seems to suggest that a hunter cannot hunt
   within 150 yards of his own "blind" or campsite.

     2. The second problem with the rule is that there is no
exception for self-defense.  Thus, gun owners could face arrest,
and possibly prosecution, for using firearms to defend themselves
from vicious attackers -- whether human or wild beast.  Most
state laws have an exemption that would allow for self-defense;
the proposed rule contains no such exemption.

     3. Finally, the proposed rule would allow BLM to "[s]earch
without warrant or process any person, place, or vehicle
according to any Federal law or rule of law; and ...[s]eize
without warrant or process any piece of evidence as provided by
Federal law."

     HERE'S WHAT TO DO:  Gun owners must vigorously oppose this
effort to tamper with our Second Amendment rights.  Write the
Bureau of Land Management at:

     Bureau of Land Management Administrative Record
     Room 401LS, 1849 C Street, NW
     Washington, D.C.  20240

     Or, e-mail them via the Internet at:  [e-mail].
Please include "Attn: AC30" and your name and address in your
message.  For further information, contact Dennis McLane at
[phone].

     Tell them to eliminate the portions of the proposed rule
which seek to restrict the discharge or possession of a firearm,
and to add to any rule a self-defense exemption.

     We have made the text of the rule available on our Website.
Point your browser to http://www.gunowners.org/gtblm1.htm if you
would like a copy.

     Note: Are you receiving this as a cross-post? You can subscribe
to our E-mail Alert Network directly. Address your request to
[e-mail] and include in the body of the message
either "XX" or "all" where XX is your state abbreviation. If
you subscribe by state, you will receive federal alerts plus
those which are specific to your state of residence.  Requesting
"all" gets you all GOA alerts -- imagine that.

-----------
1     While comments were originally due on January 6, the
comment period has been extended 30 days.

----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 the text and purpose of the Constitutional guarantee relied
 exclusively on the preference for a militia `for defense of the State,'
 then the terms `arms' most likely would include only the modern day
 equivalents of the weapons used by the Colonial Militia Men." -- STATE
 v. KESSLER, 289 Or. 359, 369, 614 p. 2d 94,99 (Oregon Supreme Court,
 1980.)

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: BLM proposed rules:  You better act now!!
Date: 17 Jan 1997 09:15:00 -0700


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

Sir:

Please be advised the BLM has issued proposed law enforcement rules that
exceed their lawful authority and trash our Constitution.

THIS IS URGENT.  PLEASE READ AND ACT IMMEDIATELY.

These proposed rules are in the Federal Register, pages 57605 through 57621.

They allow for warrantless searches and seizures on land ADJACENT to any BLM
land.  They call for a special stamp allowing only those who possess such
stamps to fire a gun on BLM land.  It gets worse.  I am keeping this brief
to hold your attention.

Public comments on these proposed rules are being accepted until 2/5/97!!!

Please mail comments to:

BLM Administrative Record
Room 401, 1620 LS, 1849 C Street NW
Washington DC 20240

Unless vast public outrage is demonstrated here, these rules will assume the
color of law.  ACT NOW!
===================================================================
///,        ////
\  /,      /  >.             David E. Rydel
 \  /,   _/  /.                  *****
  \_  /_/   /.        United States Theatre Command
   \__/_   <               Voice-810-391-0798
   /<<< \_\_                Fax-810-391-6785
  /,)^>>_._ \             Alt.Fax-810-391-3528
  (/   \\ /\\\           [e-mail]
        // ````        [e-mail]
======((`==========================================================
                A VOICE OF THE MILITIAS IN THE UNITED STATES


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Cops exempted from gun law?
Date: 17 Jan 1997 12:26:01 -0700


Looks like the fix is in the works

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
GREAT NEWS! Now they are making up their minds. Are they gonna piss off
the po-leece and the folks, or are they gonna just gonna piss off the
folks? Personally, I think this is a win-win situation. I would prefer to
disarm and wake up the po-leece, but finally having it dawn on more folks
that THERE IS A CLASS OF NOBILITY in the land of the free-- now we find
out if we are still the home of the brave. My congratulations and thanks
to Mr. Stupeass, introducing. Thanks, guy, we couldn't do it without ya.

Mike Kemp
--
>     To provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a
>     domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply to government
>                     entities. (Introduced in the House)
>
> HR 445 IH
>
>                                105th CONGRESS
>
>                                 1st Session
>
>                                  H. R. 445
>
> To provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a
> domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply to government
> entities.
>
>                       IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
>                               January 9, 1997
>
> Mr. STUPAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
> Committee on the Judiciary
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                                    A BILL
>
> To provide that the firearms prohibitions applicable by reason of a
> domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply to government
> entities.
>
>      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
>      States of America in Congress assembled,
>
> SECTION 1. FIREARMS PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE BY REASON OF A DOMESTIC
> VIOLENCE MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION MADE RETROACTIVELY INAPPLICABLE TO
> GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.
>
>      (a) IN GENERAL- Section 925(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
>      amended by striking `sections 922(d)(9) and (g)(9) and'.
>
>      (b) RETROACTIVITY- The amendment made by subsection (a) of this
>      section shall take effect as if the amendment had been included in
>      section 658 of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
>      Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(f) of the
>      Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997), on the date of the
>      enactment of such Act. Any liability, penalty, or forfeiture incurred
>      by any person who would not have been subject to the liability,
>      penalty, or forfeiture if the amendment made by subsection (a) had
>      been so included, by reason of the application of any amendment made
>      by such section 658 to a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of
>      domestic violence (as defined in section 921(a)(33) of title 18,
>      United States Code) is hereby extinguished, and any action or
>      prosecution for the enforcement of any such liability, penalty, or
>      forfeiture shall not be sustained.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO
> Next Hit        Forward           New Search
> Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
> Hit List        Best Sections     Help
>                 Doc Contents
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     GO TO
> Next Hit        Forward           New Search
> Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
> Hit List        Best Sections     Help
>                 Doc Contents
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill 17 of 100
>
>   References to this bill in   Digest and Status        Download this
>   the Congressional Record     Information About this   bill. (7,298
>                                Bill.                    bytes).
>
>   To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in
>  accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed
>      firearms in the State, and to exempt... (Introduced in the House)
>
> HR 339 IH
>
>                                105th CONGRESS
>
>                                 1st Session
>
>                                  H. R. 339
>
> To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in
> accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed
> firearms in the State, and to exempt qualified current and former law
> enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed
> handguns.
>
>                       IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
>                               January 7, 1997
>
> Mr. STEARNS (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. HOSTETTLER, and Mr.
> BARR of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
> Committee on the Judiciary
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                                    A BILL
>
> To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in
> accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed
> firearms in the State, and to exempt qualified current and former law
> enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed
> handguns.
>
>      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
>      States of America in Congress assembled,
>
> SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED
> FIREARMS
> BY NONRESIDENTS.
>
>      (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
>      by inserting after section 926A the following:
>
> `Sec. 926B. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed
> firearms by nonresidents
>
>      `(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or
>      political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by
>      Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a
>      firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a
>      State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other
>      than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a
>      concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that
>      has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce,
>      subject to subsection (b).
>
>      `(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry
>      concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the
>      State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a
>      concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a
>      license or permit.
>
>      `(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry
>      concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a
>      concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility,
>      in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State,
>      county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or
>      school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an
>      establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages
>      for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger
>      area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State
>      law .'.
>
>      (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is
>      amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the
>      following:
>
>           `926B. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed
>           firearms by nonresidents.'.
>
> SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED CURRENT AND FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT
> OFFICERS
> FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS.
>
>      (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
>      by inserting after section 926B, as added by section 1(a) of this Act,
>      the following:
>
> `Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and former
> law enforcement officers
>
>      `(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or
>      any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified
>      law enforcement officer or a qualified former law enforcement officer
>      and who is carrying appropriate written identification of such status
>      may carry a concealed handgun.
>
>      `(b) As used in this section:
>
>           `(1) The term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an
>           officer, agent, or employee of a public agency who--
>
>                `(A) is a law enforcement officer;
>
>                `(B) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm in the
>                course of duty;
>
>                `(C) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the
>                agency; and
>
>                `(D) meets such requirements as have been established by the
>                agency with respect to firearms.
>
>           `(2) The term `qualified former law enforcement officer' means an
>           individual who--
>
>                `(A) retired from service with a public agency as a law
>                enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental
>                disability;
>
>                `(B) immediately before such retirement, was a qualified law
>                enforcement officer;
>
>                `(C) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the
>                retirement plan of the agency;
>
>                `(D) meets such requirements as have been established by the
>                State in which the individual resides with respect to
>                training in the use of firearms; and
>
>                `(E) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a
>                firearm.
>
>           `(3) The term `law enforcement officer' means an individual
>           authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention,
>           detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law
>           , and includes corrections, probation, parole, and judicial
>           officers.
>
>           `(4) The term `appropriate written identification' means, with
>           respect to an individual, a document which--
>
>                `(A) was issued to the individual by the public agency with
>                which the individual serves or served as a law enforcement
>                officer; and
>
>                `(B) identifies the holder of the document as a current or
>                former officer, agent, or employee of the agency.'.
>
>      (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is
>      amended by inserting after the item added by section 1(b) of this Act
>      the following:
>
>           `926C. Carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and
>           former law enforcement officers.'.
>
>      (c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall take
>      effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.



>
> IN THE BEGINNING OF A CHANGE,
> THE PATRIOT IS A SCARCE MAN AND BRAVE,
> HATED AND SCORNED.WHEN HIS CAUSE
> SUCCEEDS HOWEVER,THE TIMID JOIN HIM,
> FOR THEN IT COSTS NOTHING TO BE A PATRIOT.
> Mark Twain

----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.

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

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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Cops exempted from gun law?
Date: 17 Jan 1997 14:02:59 -0700

Hiya

Just got off the fone with a woman at Chris Cannon's office in Provo.
She seemed to be amazed that anyone would lose their civil rights
ex-post facto, that the police or govt entities would be "exempted",
that yada yada yada...

She did say that Rep. Cannon is currently in the office and she would
take my comments directly in to him.

(hint hint hint)

His phone number in provo is
801.379.2500

Merril(l) Cook's SL number is
801.524.4394

Will

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: BLM Restricting Your Gun Rights
Date: 17 Jan 1997 20:31:00 -0700


Please be sure your response is unique. An agency need only address
a form letter once, no matter how many copies they receive. Also,
please try to bring unique objections to the proposed rule. They
need only address each unique objection once, though they must list
and send a copy of that response to everyone who made that objection.

Charles Hardy posted:

>----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

>     HERE'S WHAT TO DO:  Gun owners must vigorously oppose this
>effort to tamper with our Second Amendment rights.  Write the
>Bureau of Land Management at:

>     Bureau of Land Management Administrative Record
>     Room 401LS, 1849 C Street, NW
>     Washington, D.C.  20240

>     Or, e-mail them via the Internet at:  [e-mail].
>Please include "Attn: AC30" and your name and address in your
>message.  For further information, contact Dennis McLane at
>[phone].

>     Tell them to eliminate the portions of the proposed rule
>which seek to restrict the discharge or possession of a firearm,
>and to add to any rule a self-defense exemption.

>     We have made the text of the rule available on our Website.
>Point your browser to http://www.gunowners.org/gtblm1.htm if you
>would like a copy.




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Freedom's Last Stand  2/2
Date: 18 Jan 1997 20:53:00 -0700


The Second Amendment is a part of this Constitution and is not in the
authority of Congress to alter save by an amending process as submitted
to the states. No 51-49 vote can legally supersede it. All powers in our
Constitution are delegated at three levels: Federal, State and the People.
This is where our Second Amendment rights lay, with the people. Very simply,
Congress would be breaking the supreme law if it infringed on our Second
Amendment rights. It does not have that legal power and never has. Neither
do the courts. Banning semi-autos is a clear infringement in the same way
I would handle it when encountered in the form of some dirtball on the
street. I'm not in the habit of handing over my guns to any criminal,
regardless of title or elected office.

This too is an American attitude older than our Republic, It was essentially
a British gun-grabbing attempt that ignited our Revolution. The lessons of
Lexington and the conviction of Concord are sorely needed in out time. The
Declaration of Independence has a lot to say about the reasons to dispose
of government. And none of them are to be taken lightly. In this writer's
opinion we are far beyond the of tyranny, which the minds of Jefferson,
Washington, and Madison decided was their bottom line. If we are not now
on the verge of a similar point, with similar actions presenting themselves
as strong possibilities, then we have tacitly declared Jefferson and company
criminals, and their subsequent government illegitimate. But history has
shown this is decidedly not the case; the greatest experimentation in
government has not been a complete failure. We've just let our elected
government and its bureaucracies slip from the "chains" that Mr. Jefferson
knew were the proper abode for all government.

It is not time to scrap our Constitution, it is time to reinstate it as the
lawful rule in this country. That is best done with the Constitution itself.

Either we take the preamble of our Constitution seriously or we submit
to the illegitimate and illegal actions of our elected officials as god
in our lives. Our forefathers gave us a great gift:

     "We the People in Order to ...secure the Blessings of Liberty to
     ourselves and our Posterity [that's us] do ordain and establish this
     Constitution for the United States of America."

The Founders are gone, but what they gave us is still alive enough to save
the "blessings of Liberty" if we've the courage to use it. It is to this
point that I write these words and sign them with the intent of pledging
my "life, fortune and sacred honor". Are there any other free Americans
left who will do likewise?

There are those who will honestly question the need to draw such a line
at this point. In rebuttal to that I'll point to the example of Rhodesia
and the great concern of our founders over standing armies with the need
to have an equally armed Militia. We cannot hope to prevail against a
tyrannical government armed with fully automatic weapons when we are reduced
to bolt actions or worse. We can prevail with our semi's, and they know it
- from behind every tree and rock, in a wholly American expression of "don't
tread on me." You see, it is not street crime driving the anti-gunners, it is
the complete disarmament of the American populace. If they've taken our semi's,
they'll eventually get the rest without risk. Do I know what I'm suggesting
here? Yes, I do.

I am speaking of the specter of civil war while adamantly hoping it can be
avoided. It is true that one shot could ignite a civil war under such a
scenario but if so, as at Lexington, it would be a "shot heard round the
world". Because if it were to occur our goal ought to be the reinstitution
of the Constitution and the rule of law in our unraveling society. Further,
it should be taken to the doors of those instigating such illegal acts that
might precipitate a civil war; their vote for such a bill will mean they
are to be put on trial for treason and conspiracy to violate our civil
rights. This would include the president who signs it and perhaps the
newspaper columnist and broadcast media who rail for its passage.

In the words of Sir Winston Churchill, whose mother incidentally was an
American, "Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily
win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure
and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight
with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival.
There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance
of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

To those who would consider burying their semi's in the backyard, I suggest a
careful consideration of these words. We are nearly at a critical crossroads
in the course of this nation. What we bequeath to our children (our posterity)
should be no less than what was given us, the chance to live as free men and
women. Will you act when this critical moment arrives, or bow at the feet of
your newfound god--feet that would soon be found to be wearing jackboots when
they come to kick in your unprotected door?


Transcribed by Vic Dura ([e-mail]), Rogersville, Alabama, USA


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Firearms in Russia, new laws: www link
Date: 21 Jan 1997 03:26:12 -0700

FYI
Sarah

>Firearms in Russia
>
>    http://accessnet.ru/lp/rm/eng/firearms.html
>
>----
>Sun Tzu Organization -- http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/glasnost.htm
>
>"Glasnost is the sword which itself heals the wound that it inflicts"
>    - V.I. Lenin, quoted in Pravda English Language Edition,
>        March 2, 1987.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231
http://www.therighter.com

OF COURSE Utah values and respects its minority citizens.
That's why they start the Universities on Yom Kippur and
start the Legislative Session on Martin Luther King Day!


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Join "FOOL" today!
Date: 21 Jan 1997 01:59:00 -0700


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

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Once in a while we need to break ranks and have a good laugh, and the
following letter sent to the editor of the Medford Mail Tribune here
in Oregon had me laughing my ass off!  The author is Darrell C. Monk
of Jacksonville, Oregon.  Enjoy!


"The No. 1 problem in the world is guns.  We have therefore formed
an organization aimed at banning all guns.  The name for this group
is Firearms Ownership Out-Lawed (FOOL).  Our supporters are called
by this acronym.  We are looking for people to join us FOOLs in our
attempt to destroy guns and make the world safe."

FOOL's know that all crime is caused by guns.  FOOLs further know
that guns are made for one thing only -- TO KILL!

"One good thing that Hitler did was to initiate gun control and for that all
FOOLs are grateful.  FOOLs are also indebted to Lenin, Stalin, Tojo, Castro,
Idi Amin and many other such people for their anti-gun activities."

"We FOOLs are going to destroy the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The President -- an inspiration to FOOLs everywhere -- says that the
NRA is a terrorist group."

"Gun owners say that the Second Amendment protects their rights to possess
guns. Well, we FOOLs have no use for the American Constitution!"

"At the rate we're going, FOOLs will soon rule the world and those who
refuse to obey us will have no right to exist!  We FOOL's are against
all forms of violence and those who oppose us must be eliminated!"

"Are you a FOOL?  Do you want to be a FOOL?  Do you want to get rid
of crime?  Then join the rest of us FOOLs and together we can eliminate
the menace of guns. When only the government has guns, we will live in
a FOOL's paradise."



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Firearms in Russia, new laws: www link
Date: 21 Jan 1997 10:06:42 -0700


On Tue, 21 Jan 1997,  Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>OF COURSE Utah values and respects its minority citizens.
>That's why they start the Universities on Yom Kippur and
>start the Legislative Session on Martin Luther King Day!

Actually, in Utah it is officially "Human Rights Day" and I fail to
see how starting the Utah Legislative Session on that day is any less
respectfull of minorities (or anyone else since I thought even the
majority were supposed to enjoy 'Human Rights') than swearing in the
President and Vice-President of the United States on the same day. ;)

--

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 to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase
 them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and
 provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair."
 ANDREWS v. STATE; 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 165, 178; (1871)

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: HR 445 exempts "government entities"
Date: 22 Jan 1997 22:13:00 -0700


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

BULL CRAP,    ....the Trojan Horse Legislative Effort of the last Congress
which included these unconstitutional and insidious provisions in a totally
unrelated spending legislation package is wrong in concept, wrong in process,
wrong in its totality.

DO NOT SETTLE FOR THIS ATTEMPT AT SUBTERFUGE WHICH GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF
RIGHTING A WRONG WHEN THE END RESULT IS STILL THE CONFISCATION OF YOUR BASIC
RIGHT AS GUARANTEED IN THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE THE SOLE BASIS FOR THE
FORMATION AND CONTINUANCE OF THIS NATION.

Leaving any portion of this assault against the basic guarantees afforded in
the Constitution and YOUR Bill of Rights is what needs to be addressed.  It
will NOT be remedied by saying that this is less of an illegality for a
law-enforcement officer, an employee of a Federal Agency or a member of the
Armed Forces, than it is for YOU.

Contact your legislator(s) now before this even begins to get out of
committee, don't let them sandwich this fine example of selective legislation
into some dark, remote piece of an unrelated bill.  Let them know - NOW, UP
FRONT - that they will be held individually accountable if this travesty and
bureaucratic folly does not die an appropriate and immediate legislative
death....

Barry Tarr

the Bill of Rights,
...the original Contract with America(ns)


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Human Rights Day
Date: 23 Jan 1997 10:54:48 -0700


On Wed, 22 Jan 1997,  Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>>Actually, in Utah it is officially "Human Rights Day" and I fail to
>>see how starting the Utah Legislative Session on that day is any less
>>respectfull of minorities (or anyone else since I thought even the
>>majority were supposed to enjoy 'Human Rights') than swearing in the
>>President and Vice-President of the United States on the same day. ;)
>
>Hmmmm....  I had no idea it was called "Human Rights Day" in Utah.

Yup, also in Arizona I believe.  Neither State would pass a holiday
that honored a single man.  They were willing (under intense PC
pressure) to pass a holiday honoring the priniciple.  You'll recall
that Arizona took some real heat and even lost a Superbowl over the
whole affair.  The national media did a pretty good job of painting
Arizona as a bunch of red-neck white supremists.  However, if memory
serves, it was actually the Hispanic and Indian vote that defeated the
earlier attempts to pass a MLK day.  Those two groups saw it as a
"black" holiday.  I believe a slim majority of whites supported the
holiday.  Once it was proposed as "Human Rights Day" (and they lost
the Superbowl) they went ahead and passed it.

>But it IS a State holiday, isn't it?  And aren't the legislators and
>their staff State employees?
>
>As for swearing in the Prez on the same day, well, no one ever said
>two wrongs make a right!

It is and they are.  However, at least in the case of the President
and Vice President, their inaguration is set by Amd 20 to the US
Constitution to be Jan 20.  If holding that inaguration on MLK
or HR Day is somehow disrespectful, then Congress should have picked a
different day to designate as the holiday.  I haven't delved into Utah
law to see whether it is statue or Constitutional that State officials
are sworn in on the same day, but either way, I suspect inaguragions
were held on that day long before anyone even heard of MLK.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't MLK/HR day designated as the
3rd Mondy of January rather than the 20th of January?  If so, it is
nothing more than another 3 day weekend like most of our other
holidays and I can't see that swearing in govt officials or even
working is any less respectfull than hitting the slopes or going
shopping.

>
>And it's ironic, isn't it?  Letting all those politicians determined to
>take away our human rights loose on "Human Rights Day"!!  ;-)  Maybe
>they should change the name to "Human Rights Memorial Day".....

Not a bad idea.

This is getting quite off topic for utah-firearms, but let me make one
final point.  I commented on your tag line becuase I believe it falls
into the catagory of crying wolf.  Starting Universities on Yom Kipper
is, at least, very unaccomodating to those of the Jewish faith and
should probably be corrected.  (We've had the discussion of why I
couch the foregoing with "probably" on another list so I won't go into
it again.)

However, I firmly believe that there is no disrespect intended or
shown by starting government on MLK/HR day.  By lumping the two events
together, I'm afraid you trivialize the Jewish Holy day in much the
same way oversensitive PC types trialize real acts of harrasment or
discrimination by attaching those words to things like off-color or
racial jokes.  The jokes may be in poor taste or even rude depending
on the setting, but they are not harrasment in any real sense of the
word when one compares them to real acts of harrasment or
discrimination.

Yom Kipper is a Holy Day to the Jewish people.  We used to have some
national "Holy Days" such as Veterens Day on which we, as a nation
really reflected and honored.  However, most of them have become
nothing more than "holi-days" since they have been moved to simply
make a three day weekend.  MLK/HR day is nothing more than another one
of those "holi-days".  Let's face it, it is a three day weekend at a
time of year when we are all pretty much celebrated and paraded out
from Thanksgiving, Christmas/Chaunaka, and New Years.  And the real
irony is, the very laws passed in response to MLK's efforts which
furthered the rights of minorities also greatly expanded the power of
the federal government and now regularly infringe the rights of
individuals and organizations--we celebrate human rights day in the
shadow of some of the most onerous federal legislation ever passed.
Now there's irony.

No disrespect intended, just my honest thoughts.

--

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.

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and
 degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing
 is worth fighting for is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he
 is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal
 safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless
 made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- Seen
 on a poster at a gun show. No author was cited for this truly excellent
 statement.

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: ACLU's stand on Gun Control
Date: 24 Jan 1997 14:12:00 -0700


Does the ACLU advocate Utah's right to own nuclear warheads free
of federal control, oversight or regulation, or consider the right
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects to be somewhat anachronistic, and primarily a collective
one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to assure
their own freedom and security against the central government?
These are necessary to maintain consistency with the position
statement below.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
http://rkba.org/antis/aclu.23sep91


While surfing the WWW a few minutes ago, I found the following:
At the ACLU gopher site under:

ACLU Answers on Issues in the News
Issue: Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
 unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment"
and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other
weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The
national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties
aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a
collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to
maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against
the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat
anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful
than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the
Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals
to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation
of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe
that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of
gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and
register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment
certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas,
missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and
even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership,
but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by
the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing    interpretation
of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller]
that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation
or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and
military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not
constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional
impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

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

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State
to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms,
there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to
possess a firearm." --U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds
of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on
handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional
protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of
the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals
to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads,
for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is
hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.
Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals
the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we
allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of
Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking
about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but
rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme
Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second
Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights
to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending
to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than
18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that
the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an
instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It
routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for
example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in
Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its
borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982),
cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most
important modern gun control case.

ACLU/Department of Public Education/September 23, 1991
=============================================================
ACLU Free Reading Room   | A publications and information resource of the
gopher://aclu.org:6601   | American Civil Liberties Union National Office
ftp://aclu.org           |
mailto:[e-mail] | "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"

 ... 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: Counting with the ACLU


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: pro & con URLs on gun rights
Date: 24 Jan 1997 14:12:00 -0700


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

anti-gun rights people & orgs found here
http://rkba.org/antis/
==============================
pro-gun rights orgs found here
http://rkba.org/orgs/
---------- End Forward ----------

Note: This last URL did not work for me, but http://rkba.org/ did.



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: BRADY LAW FACES SUPREME TROUBLE
Date: 24 Jan 1997 14:12:00 -0700


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

THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE (NRA)
KNOX'S NOTEBOOK
BY NEAL KNOX

FEBRUARY 1997
BRADY LAW FACES SUPREME TROUBLE

The American Bar Association, which formally advocates restrictive gun laws,
is clearly worried about what the U.S. Supreme Court is going to do to the
Brady Act.  A Notre Dame University law professor, summarizing the case for
the ABA, wrote: "The question posed is whether a good end can be secured by
doubtful constitutional means."

Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and Montana Sheriff Jay Printz, represented by
David T. Hardy and Steven P. Halbrook, respectively, successfully argued in
trial courts that Congress could not require state or local officials to
perform background checks as required by the Brady Act.  But the Appeals
Court in San Francisco reversed the lower courts' decisions; the Supreme
Court agreed last summer to hear the cases, which are financially supported
by NRA-ILA and NRA's Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund.  The cases are
based on the Tenth Amendment's prohibition against Congress encroaching on
powers reserved to the states or "the people."  The Supreme Court has
consistently refused to hear a Second Amendment challenge for almost 60 years.

Though predicting the Supreme Court is dangerous, most court-watchers believe
"Brady's" background check provision will be struck down.  Further, the law's
requirement for dealers to send purchase information to local law enforcement
agencies (which they are required to destroy within 20 days) could be strick-
en.  The sheriffs' attorneys argue that the Supreme Court should throw out
the week-long waiting period, since Congress required it only to allow time
for the background check; however, none of the five lower courts which struck
the background check also struck down the law's waiting period provision.

Rep. Charles Schumer told reporters he is writing legislation to "solve any
problem" by providing grants to states which require law enforcement agencies
to perform the checks.  No matter what the Court does, the Brady Act will be
a major issue in the new Congress for it is required to "sunset"--be stricken
from the books--in 1998, and the anti-gun forces are determined to keep it in
force.

The biggest issue in this case is how far Congress can extend its power to
regulate interstate commerce which is the basis of almost all Federal gun
laws.  A setback for the Clinton Administration on "Brady" could open the
door for legal attacks on other parts of the Gun Control Act as well as
cooling off Congress' ardor for ever-broader gun laws.



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Balancing the Firearms Debate
Date: 24 Jan 1997 14:12:00 -0700


Sarah sent this to UNITED STATES THEATRE COMMAND, but I have not seen it here.
(Losing my mail or my marbles?)

The following article is reprinted by permission of California Physician,
copyright 1997. California Physician is the monthly magazine of the
California Medical Association. It goes out each month to about 30,000
doctors in California. This article was printed in the January 1997 issue.

Science and Sentiment: Balancing the Firearms Debate

Timothy Wheeler, MD

False is the idea of utility that would take fire from men because it burns,
and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except
destruction.  The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a
nature.  They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to
commit crimes.

Two centuries after criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote those words, modern
criminologists are now reaching the same conclusions.  In a landmark study
to be published in the Journal of Legal Studies, and already available on
the Internet (http://law.lib.uchicago.edu/faculty/lott/guns.html)
University of Chicago researchers John Lott and David Mustard found that
allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it
appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.  The authors studied
3,054 counties in the United States using controls for time periods,
demographic differences, and changes in firearms laws over the study period.
In states which passed liberal shall issue laws for concealed carry permits,
the murder rate fell by 8.5%, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by
5% and 7% respectively.

Physicians who follow the public health firearms debate may be shocked
by these statistics.  But the Lott study is no surprise to those who read
the criminology literature.  Similar studies go back as far as the Carter
administration, which funded an extensive literature review on weapons
and violent crime, published as the book Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime,
and Violence in America.  Authors James Wright, Peter Rossi, and Kathleen
Daly's summation was that there is no compelling evidence that the private
ownership of firearms among the general population is, per se, an important
cause of criminal violence.

More recently Northwestern University's Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology published Kleck and Gertz's national survey showing as many as
2.5 million annual uses of firearms to defend against imminent violent crime.

How can it be that doctors have not learned the whole truth about guns
and crime?  The answer is simple.  Most doctors have never considered gun
crime to be germane to medicine, and have therefore not studied the subject.
But the large body of research amassed by criminologists during the past
20 years mostly confirms what typical gun-owning citizens know intuitively:
Gun violence is the work of a small minority of criminal aberrants, most
of whom have a lifelong history of violent and antisocial behavior.

This perspective is now accepted by many in the academic community
outside of medicine.  Charges against the National Rifle Association
or the gun lobby fail to address the scientific issues raised by these
reputable researchers and therefore contribute little to our understanding.

There are physicians who believe that criminologists have something
to teach physicians about crime.  They want to hear all the evidence
and make up their own minds.  The evidence increasingly tells us that
gun ownership by good citizens is not only safe, but is a positive
benefit in that it helps protect innocent human life.



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: (Fwd) NRA Internal strife & writing congressmen
Date: 26 Jan 1997 15:43:46 -0700


>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>From:          John Walker <[e-mail]>
>Subject:       NRA Internal strife & writing congressmen
>Date:          Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:41:05 PST
>To:            [e-mail]
>
>Good Morning All;
>
>The Washington Times on 1/23/97 ran an article that everyone
>should be very interested in seeing.  Its time for all of us
>to let our voices be known to our elected representatives.
>This means writing or faxing NRA headquarters.
>
>QUOTE:
>
>The National Rifle Association faces an internal battle early
>next month,  National Journal reports.
>
>"Neil Knox, a long time board member and first Vice President of
>the NRA who was briefly the group's top lobbyist in the early
>1980's, has been quietly plotting against executive director
>Wayne R. LaPierre Jr."  the magazine reports, citing two
>anonymous NRA sources.
>
>"A showdown could come in early February, when a few changes
>in NRA bylaws - including one that would allow a simple majority
>of the board to approve terminating officers of the group before
>their tenures expire - are slated to be voted on by the board."
>
>Besides trying to topply Mr. LaPierre, whose term is up in May,
>"Knox may also try to remove Tanya K. Metaksa, the NRA's chief
>lobbyist," the magazine said.
>
>Our congress critters need to know that regardless of whatever
>leadership problems the NRA may be having, that the Second Amendment
>still stands.
>
>All for now.
>John W.
>
>
>Robert P. Firriolo
>
>**************************************************************
>                      Don't Tread on Me!
>
>"Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the
>people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped."
>
>               - Alexander Hamilton
>                 The Federalist Papers - Number 29
>***************************************************************
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.wagc.com

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Notes on registration ...
Date: 26 Jan 1997 15:55:23 -0700

>---------- Forwarded Message ----------

>Date: 26 Jan 97 12:40:51 EST
>From: Jon Choate <[e-mail]>
>To: Tactical Artists <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Notes on registration ...
>
>Thought I'd share some of these pieces of information as I see them.
Please add
>to the whole pie of understanding.
>
>Australia has the same pattern as the United States. Both have
>state-by-state firearms control registration and firearms carry laws;
>and, in both, the states with the tightest such laws are the states with
>the highest violent crime rates. That's easy to understand; honest
>citizens obey gun laws, and criminals don't use registered firearms.
>They use stolen firearms, usually sawed-off rifles and shotguns which
>are economical and have greater fear effects. By using such firearms,
>they strongly increase the likelihood of death for their victims.
>
>On 26 Feb 87, Chief Inspector A. Newgreen, the man in charge of the
>registration system for the state of Victoria submitted a report on
>their Firearms Registration System, CRB File 39-1-1385/84.
>
>
>"(25) Having worked with registration since the latter stage of 1984, I
>have known full well that a report on firearms registration would be
>required at the conclusion of the current programme, and it has not been
>taken lightly. Previous experience in New Zealand and South Australia,
>and now indeed in the State of Victoria, indicates that firearms
>registration in the way in which it is implemented is costly,
>ineffective, and achieves little.
>
>"(27) If one is to achieve a proper balance, I am of the opinion that
>the Firearms Act should
>
>"(a) repress the criminal and irresponsible use of firearms;
>
>"(b) look after the public interest; and
>
>"(c) not place harsh restrictions on responsible and mature sports
>shooters, whilst at the same time educating the public, particularly
>Juniors, in the safe use and handling of firearms.
>
>"(28) I would therefore recommend that Firearms Registration be
>forthwith abolished, and together with the Firearms Consultative
>Committee, a far reaching, effective and proper system of education be
>introduced, as a pre-requisite to the obtaining of a shooter's licence.
>
>"(29) In conjunction with education, the penalties for those who breach
>the law should be heavily increased.
>
>"(31) If my proposal is considered a proper and viable alternative, I
>believe it could be implemented in a reasonable time span, would be less
>costly, and achieve far more in every way than the concept of
>registration. What's more, it would probably (Definitely! -- NFA) be
>more acceptable to the Shooting Fraternity, and just as acceptable to
>the Victorian public. In that way, we would have public/shooter
>acceptance, and not resistance."
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.wagc.com

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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kellerman, 43 times, NEJM
Date: 27 Jan 1997 09:28:34 -0700


Hi

I have a little project at school and need a really easily refuted
statistical report from a magazine.  First thing which came to mind
was the 43 more times study.  Do any of you have the article, or
know of someone who does, in downloadable format?

Thanks!

Will


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Review: "Waco: The Rules of Engagement"
Date: 28 Jan 1997 21:47:41 -0700

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


WACO: The Rules of Engagement

Executive Producer Dan Gifford introduces his new documentary, "Waco:
The Rules of Engagement", which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, by
saying words to the effect that "This movie is about looking under rocks
and finding what we never wanted to know."  The result is an extremely
disturbing film that should be required viewing for all Americans.  "Waco"
is a damning indictment of the BATF, the FBI, and the Congressional
hearings which allegedly investigated the disaster in which four ATF agents
and 76 Branch Davidians were killed.

Gifford and co-executive director Deborah Sommer-Gifford were inspired
to make the film when they were presented with aerial "Forward Looking
Infra-Red" (FLIR) footage taken by FBI surveillance.  The FLIR film
provides answers to many of the previously unanswered questions about Waco.
 According to Gifford, this film footage had been offered to the major news
networks and was rejected.

The heart and mind of the film come from the never-before released
FLIR footage and home videos made by the Branch Davidians with a
camera given to them by the FBI.  Accompanying them is extensive news
footage of the events at Waco, C-SPAN tapes of the Congressional hearings,
transcripts of conversations between the Davidians and negotiators and
interviews with various experts and key participants
in the disaster.

The FLIR photography was taken by FBI planes flying over the Davidian
compound to provide surveillance.  The film, which looks like ordinary
black and white film, actually measures heat, not light, and is thus
able to provide a great deal of information about weapons fire as well
as the inferno that destroyed the complex.  Interpretation of the film
is provided by an independent company.  The FLIR footage shows conclusively
that the FBI did fire on the Davidians despite their claims that "not a
single bullet was ever fired" and that the catastrophic fire was started by
the FBI firing grenades into the building after refilling it with the
deadly and flammable CS powder-methylene chloride mixture. It also provides
strong evidence that the FBI stationed personnel with machine guns outside
the only exit from the building, which if true, indicates that the FBI's
intent was to murder the Davidians, not to "rescue hostages".

The FBI gave the Davidians a video camera and tapes to make videos of
themselves, presumably to help the negotiators understand them better.
These videos were never released because the FBI feared it would generate
too much sympathy for the Davidians and David Koresh.  And in fact, the
video does refute the widely-publicized image of Koresh as a  crazed,
charismatic and controlling leader, not unlike Charles Manson, and of his
followers as the "wackos from Waco".

While Koresh was certainly not your "average American", he appears
rational, intelligent, and committed to teaching his religious beliefs. His
followers seem to be ordinary people on a spiritual quest, no different
from many I've encountered in my own spiritual seeking.
They did not appear to be brainwashed automatons, or homicidal maniacs.
Many were foreigners and ironically felt they would be safer studying
religion in the United States.  While sexual practices outside the norm did
occur, they were consensual.  I saw no evidence of child abuse whatever.
Clearly the FBI, aided by the media, demonized the Branch Davidians in an
attempt to dehumanize them.  And dehumanization of the enemy is one of the
prerequisites for genocide.

Given that the Congressional committee charged with investigating Waco
had access to all the material presented in this film, the
investigation can only be considered a farce and a travesty.  With
rare exceptions, the hearings are shown to be nothing more than a
compilation of lies and perjury combined with a lot of self-serving
political grandstanding.  What does stand out, and what gives the
film its name, is that neither the ATF nor the FBI ever had a detailed,
organized plan of attack, that there were never any formal rules of
engagement, and that no contingency plans for failure of the raids,
injuries, fire, or other foreseeable problems were ever made.

While some have commented that the film appears biased against the
government, all the involved agencies were invited to participate, to
be interviewed, and to present  their side of the story.  They all refused.
 And the producers are careful to state that they have no partisan agenda,
that their goal is to reopen debate on Waco.  They
appear almost apologetic about the damaging evidence they have collected
and state they wish someone could or would disprove their findings.  And
they emphatically do not wish to be associated with "right wing conspiracy
nuts".

It is of course impossible to do justice to a nearly three hour film
in a review.  Despite its length, I found it compelling and not at all
boring or dragging.  Technically, the visuals are mostly dependent on the
quality of the archival film, although the sound levels could use some
work.  The musical score was dramatic and quite effective. The film
includes views of the charred and mutilated bodies of some who died at
Waco, which I found appropriate, but may be too graphic for some.

YOU need to see "Waco: The Rules of Engagement."  So does every
American of every political persuasion.  For the past four years, "Remember
Waco" has been a rallying cry for the "political right"
and gun owners.  In response, they have been laughed at, dismissed,
and even accused of being anti-government terrorists. What this film shows
is human beings being methodically gassed and then burned.
Anyone and everyone who has ever vowed "Never again" needs to
view this film and renew that vow.

This is absolutely not a film to celebrate.  There is now evidence
that people within our government are guilty of genocide and crimes against
humanity and that they engaged in a huge cover-up.  This
should sadden and sicken each of us, and it should also motivate us
to find ways to prevent such a tragedy from occurring ever again.
If we do not, we become accessories to these crimes.

"Waco" has not yet been accepted for commercial release, although
negotiations are underway.  If you want to see this film, if you feel
others should see this film, then you will have to act.  Write to
Sundance and thank them for making this film available.  (When you consider
who holds the power at Sundance, it IS rather remarkable
that "Waco" was shown.)  Encourage them to support its general
release.  If you have contacts with any film distribution companies,
ask them to distribute this film.  Write letters to the editors of
newspapers and magazines.  Tell everyone you know.  If there is a
demand, if it appears profitable to distribute this documentary, Hollywood
will most likely cooperate.

Remember that this is NOT about partisan politics, Right vs. Left,
gun rights, or other divisive issues.  It is about our unalienable
Constitutional rights to religious freedom, freedom from unreasonable
search and seizure, and above all the freedom not to be murdered by
our own government.

As the Talmud commands: "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy
brother."

Further information is available at http://www.waco93.com

c 1997, Sarah Thompson, M.D.
Permission to reprint granted as long as no changes are made and full
attribution is given.

Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.wagc.com

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Police danger/death on the job?
Date: 29 Jan 1997 12:57:06 -0700

>This comes from an activist list, but don't let that stop you from reading
>it. Their are some very accurate observations of the PR used to get more
>restrictive legislation towards gun control, although that issue is not
>mentioned here. This lady is well written and thought out, and from my
>experience as a brother of the bacon, is mostly correct.
>
>Joe Horn
>
>
>>    The following appears in the 2/97 issue of the PEACE NEWSLETTER
>>(PNL), published monthly by the Syracuse Peace Council, Syracuse, New
>>York, USA. Sidebar after article refers to Syracuse incidents.
>>
>>THE POLITICS OF THE LINE OF DUTY: WHEN JUST PLAIN "DYING" ISN'T BAD ENOUGH
>>by Nancy Rhodes
>>
>>    In recent years, media coverage of police funerals typically bring
>>us "sea of blue" panoramas created by thousands of officers who often
>>travel great distances to attend. Besides expressing shared grief, such
>>ritual shows of solidarity are powerful political statements.
>>    On December 31, the National Association of Chiefs of Police
>>released figures for the year 1996, noting that the 118 officers "killed
>>in the line of duty" in the US was a 30-year low (the highest number of
>>deaths, 209, was in 1989). The Chiefs attributed this decrease to longer
>>imprisonment of violent criminals, more and better training of police, and
>>more officers' increased regular use of bullet-resistant vests.
>>    However, a breakdown of these "killed in the line of duty" figures
>>is revealing. It would be more accurate if we start referring to this
>>total as "DIED in the line of duty."
>>    Although 54 of the 118 were shot, two assaulted and one stabbed (a
>>total of 57), 45 more died in traffic accidents, 10 had heart attacks,
>>three died in plane crashes and three in falls (61 deaths).
>>    In other words, over half of this total statistic is padding. The
>>numbers have been boosted for use in arguments that favor, for example,
>>longer prison sentences. Thus, the Chiefs chose to single out that "almost
>>half" were shooting deaths.
>>    Commenting on this creative use of statistics, author Hal Pepinsky
>>(CRIMINOLOGY AS PEACEMAKING) noted recently in an informal communication
>>that since the early 70's, research has steadily shown "police work
>>remains less lethal per capita than farming or construction, not to
>>mention mining." We have about 900,000 police officers in the US, he
>>added, and the national homicide rate hovers at about 10 per 100,000 (it
>>was eight in 1995 and has pretty well stayed at 10 or less all century).
>>That makes even the homicide rate police claim for themselves well below
>>average.
>>    Police are keenly aware of semantic distinctions about death.
>>Recently PEOPLES' POLICE REPORT, put out by Portland Peaceworks, reported
>>on local police union president Jeff Barker's crusade against an OREGONIAN
>>headline he found inappropriate: "Police kill man inside his home."
>>Barker's statement to the press grumbled that the "inflammatory word
>>'kill' seemed to imply the police acted criminally rather than in
>>self-defense."
>>    Time and again police use the specter of their work's danger to
>>interrupt eforts by communities seeking accountability. The threat to
>>officer safety is aggressively argued in a host of current initiatives at
>>federal, state and local levels. These include campaigns for wider police
>>powers and curtailed civil liberties, attempts to set caps on damage
>>liability for officers, so-called "police bill of rights" legislation,
>>court challenges to review boards, justification for using pepper spray
>>and other volatile weapons, and holdouts for even larger pay raises.
>>    Meanwhile, we have not managed (though some in Congress are
>>trying) to establish a national uniform reporting requirement for deaths
>>in custody so we even know how many people police are killing. The
>>National Lawyers Guild is currently sponsoring a Los Angeles-based
>>coalition called The Stolen Lives Project, that will try to find out
>>independently. Some states don't count these deaths at all.
>>    If policing really isn't all that lethal, the job's stress goes
>>through the roof. In a rare study comparing police deaths by murder,
>>accident and suicide, 1996 University of Buffalo research led by John
>>Violanti found police are eight times more likely to commit suicide than
>>get murdered on the job. This was reported in the year-end issue of that
>>bastion of radical agitation, LAW ENFORCEMENT NEWS.
>>**********
>>Nancy is on PNL's editorial committee and often writes on police
>>accountability and human rights issues. Reach The Stolen Lives Project at
>>213/852-0578 (they have promised to get on-line soon!).
>>
>>[SIDEBAR]
>>
>>FITZY'S SCALE OF JUSTICE: WE SHALL SEE
>>
>>    "Any time a police officer comes this close to death or is in fact
>>killed, it's the type of case I feel is more important to prosecute
>>myself. . .. What I want them to see is that when they do this type of
>>crime, the entire weight of the system will come down on their shoulders."
>>    -- William "Fitzy" Fitzpatrick, Onondaga County District Attorney,
>>after the December conviction of Henry Breland for attempted murder for
>>shooting two officers on Valley Drive in Syracuse last February.
>>Fitzpatrick has personally prosecuted five cases as DA, three involving
>>attacks on police. (SYRACUSE POST-STANDARD, 12/23/96)
>>                ***
>>    "It wasn't something that rose to the level of a crime."
>>    -- Glenn Suddaby, Chief Assistant DA, explaining why prosecutors
>>didn't present local jail inmate Lucinda Batts' March '96 death to a grand
>>jury. Jail personnel ignored warning signs that she suffered from an
>>ectopic pregancy, which ruptured. A 1994 grand jury investigated the
>>deaths of inmates Johnny Williams (allegedly jumped off his sink
>>head-first four times as deputies kept on pepper spraying him) and
>>diabetic Joseph Flores (was denied insulin), but no indictments resulted.
>>(SYRACUSE HERALD-JOURNAL, 1/7/97)
>>                ***
>>    On January 23, Sheriff Kevin Walsh referred his investigation of
>>jail Sgt. Benjamin O'Dell to Fitzpatrick's office. Sgt. O'Dell could face
>>criminal charges for erasing a jail video tape that showed members of the
>>Sheriff's Emergency Response Team (SERT) he commanded "subduing" inmate
>>Jerod Crosby on January 8. O'Dell's SERT team has an above-average
>>incidence of uses of force and has used pepper spray more often than any
>>other SERT team. (SYRACUSE POST-STANDARD, 1/24/97)
>>    Sgt. O'Dell's case went to the DA's office the day before Henry
>>Breland was sentenced to "125 years to life" in prison. We'll be watching
>>to see if Mr. Fitzpatrick also brings the entire weight of the system down
>>on O'Dell.
>>************
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.wagc.com

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: SCAM - ALERT
Date: 29 Jan 1997 16:40:30 -0700

I can't verify this, but the advice is sound regardless...

Sarah

>>FYI
>>
>> Subject: New Scam . . . (fwd)  very important please read it
> There is a big scam going on where a person calls and says that they are
>doing a computer survey from a company.  The company name that they give  is
>usually a big well-known software company, and they usually say that they
> are doing the survey because they want to give out free software.   They
>want to know what would be a good time for someone to come from their
> company and install the software on your PC.  They also ask questions
>about
> income, etc.
>
> During their questioning, they (unknowingly to you) find out what
>time
> you're usually home, what kind of computer equipment you have     and all
>sorts of other valuable information.  At a company where a     friend of
>mine works, a co-worker of his received one of these calls, and he was
> robbed the very next day (of course, when he was not home).  I received a
>similar call yesterday afternoon.   Fortunately, I knew about this ahead of
> time, and we didn't provide them with any information.
> I want to make you all aware of the situation and the potential danger
>Involved in giving out any information like this over the phone.  The
>people sound very genuine, and very few people are going to question
>receiving free software.  I would advise you, however, to tell the
> people that if they have your phone number, they should have your
>address (we think they're getting it off the internet somehow), and
> they can mail you any free software they might be offering.  If you have a
> home computer set-up, you should be familiar with installing  your own
>software.  You may even want to tell them you don't have a  home computer.
> Whatever you're comfortable with.  Please don't give out any information
>that
> you may regret later.  Pass this information along to friends and family
>members, as well.  The fewer people they are able to scam, the better.
>> 



>>
>
>
>Use Proportional Font: true
>Previous From: TXH3902 @ TEXCOM (REYNOLDS: WILLIAM)
>Previous To: TXH3900@TEXCOM,TXH3901@TEXCOM,TXH3902@TEXCOM,TXH3904@TEXCOM,
> TXH3905@TEXCOM,TXH3906@TEXCOM,TXH3907@TEXCOM,TXH3908@TEXCOM,
> TXH3909@TEXCOM,TXH3910@TEXCOM,TXH3911@TEXCOM,TXH3912@TEXCOM,
> TXH3913@TEXCOM,TXH3914@TEXCOM,TXH3915@TEXCOM,TXH3916@TEXCOM,
> TXH3917@TEXCOM,TXH3918@TEXCOM,TXH3919@TEXCOM,TXH3920@TEXCOM,
> TXH3921@TEXCOM,TXH3922@TEXCOM,TXH3923@TEXCOM,TXH3924@TEXCOM,
> TXH3925@TEXCOM,TXH3926@TEXCOM,TXH3927@TEXCOM,TXH3928@TEXCOM,
> TXH3929@TEXCOM,TXH3930@TEXCOM,TXH3931@TEXCOM,TXH3932@TEXCOM,
> TXH3933@TEXCOM,TXH3934@TEXCOM,TXH3935@TEXCOM,TXH3936@TEXCOM,
> TXH3938@TEXCOM,TXH3939@TEXCOM,TXH3940@TEXCOM,TXH3941@TEXCOM,
> TXH3942@TEXCOM,TXH3943@TEXCOM,TXH3944@TEXCOM,TXH3945@TEXCOM,
> TXH3947@TEXCOM,TXH3948@TEXCOM,TXH3949@TEXCOM,TXH3953@TEXCOM,
> TXH3954@TEXCOM,TXH3955@TEXCOM,TXH3958@TEXCOM,TXH3960@TEXCOM,
> TXH3961@TEXCOM,TXH3963@TEXCOM,TXH3964@TEXCOM,TXH3965@TEXCOM,
> TXH3966@TEXCOM,TXH3967@TEXCOM,TXH3968@TEXCOM,TXH3969@TEXCOM,
> TXH3970@TEXCOM,TXH3971@TEXCOM,TXH3972@TEXCOM,TXH3973@TEXCOM
>Original to: FE-USERS @ SMTP {[e-mail]}
>Original cc: OCHFID @ SMTP {[e-mail]}
>Forwarded: true
>Attachment Count: 0
>
>Text item: External Message Header
>
>The following mail header is for administrative use
>and may be ignored unless there are problems.
>
>***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.
>
>X-Mailer: Connect2-SMTP 4.20A MHS/SMF to SMTP Gateway
>Subject: fwd: SENDALL - ALERT
>To: [e-mail]
>Organization: US ARMY TEXCOM
>Return-Receipt-To: <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
>Sender: "AUSTIN: JAY" <[e-mail]>
>From: "AUSTIN: JAY" <[e-mail]>
>Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:28:00 -0600
>In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Received: from NetWare MHS (SMF70) by c2smtp.texcom-hood.army.mil
>     via Connect2-SMTP 4.20A; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:30:59 -0600
>Received: from c2smtp.texcom-hood.army.mil (TEXCOM-HOOD.ARMY.MIL
>[155.152.200.1]
>)
>          by ormail.intel.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
>       id KAA29808 for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 28 Jan 1997
>10:34
>:40 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from ormail.intel.com by relay.hf.intel.com with smtp
>     (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0vpIPA-000qF4C; Tue, 28 Jan 97 10:37 PST
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.wagc.com

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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Don't get a concealed carry permit
Date: 29 Jan 1997 18:44:00 -0700


I don't advocate getting into legal trouble by following the "advice"
below. However, it gives good arguments why one would not want to get
a concealed carry permit unless one's licensed occupation requires it.

http://nighthawk.reichel.net/patriot/essays/claire/101.html The Patriot Zone
Excerpts from: 101 THINGS TO DO 'TIL THE REVOLUTION, By Claire Wolfe

101 Things to Do 'til the Revolution is a handbook for patriots, libertarians
and other freedom lovers who are tired of politics as usual. If you're
looking for more effective ways to take America back from the ruthless
power seekers who now pose as our "leaders," this is a good place to start.

For government consists in nothing else but so controlling subjects
that they shall neither be able to, nor have cause to do [it] harm.
 -Nicolo Machiavelli

22. Visualize Vermont carry

If the government issued permits for free speech, would you get in line
for one? If your local sheriff was willing to grant you permission to
practice your religion-- after you passed certain tests, gave your
fingerprints and let yourself to be photographed, would you apply?
If your state allowed you to hold a political meeting, but only if you
obtained the proper license and consented to having your name entered
in a government database, would you lay your money down?

The proper answer is, "We don't need no stinking permits!" Right?

Then you don't need no stinking permit to exercise your right to own and
carry firearms, either.

If you ask the government for a permit, you are admitting you don't have
a right. If you ask the government for a permit, you are also committing
a damn, dumb, dangerous deed. You are helping state governments build what
the federal government wants and is forbidden to build for itself--a
nationwide registry of gun owners. Worse--it's a registry of those people
most likely to use guns to defend themselves, their families and their
communities against villains of all varieties. These are exactly the people
the feds will most want to know about if they ever dare to take the final
steps into complete dictatorship.

Haven't you wondered why prominent, federal, anti-gun officials
spend very little time fighting and bemoaning the movement for
states to issue concealed carry permits? Because it benefits them!

Don't ever get a concealed carry permit. If you have the courage,
bear your gun as you wish. It is your right. Think of it as an act
of civil disobedience. In many western states, concealed carry without
a permit is merely a misdemeanor, and one most law enforcement agencies
won't even enforce. In other states, like New York, it's a felony and
they'll treat you like a murderer for doing it.

If you don't want to break the law, then work to change it. Only one state
recognizes the rights of gun owners. Little Vermont has no restrictions on
the right to carry firearms, openly or concealed. Gun-rights activists know
the system as "Vermont carry." A few states, like Montana and Wyoming which
already have a strong gun culture, are probably ripe for its introduction.
A few others, like Florida, which have seen the benefits of "allowing"
concealed carry, might also eventually be candidates for the more just and
radical position.

No slave shall keep any arms whatever, nor pass, unless with written
orders from his master or employer, or in his company, with arms from
one place to another. Arms in possession of a slave contrary to this
prohibition shall be forfeited to him who will seize them.
 -A Bill Concerning Slaves, Virginia Assembly, 1779

http://nighthawk.reichel.net/patriot/essays/claire/101.html#order
How to Order 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution is available from Loompanics Unlimited,
P.O. Box 1197, Port Townsend, Washington 98368. Phone orders: 1-800-380-2230.
Single-copy cover price $15.95 + $4.95 shipping. 5-9 copies, 20 percent off
the cover price. 10-49 copies, 40 percent off the cover price. Other discounts
are available, and shipping cost drops dramatically on bulk orders.

Copyright Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint is freely given, provided that
the author is properly credited and that publication information, including
publisher's address and phone number are included in any reprint or excerpt.



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Legislative Alert 01
Date: 31 Jan 1997 01:19:47 -0700

>Subject: Legislative Alert 01
>
>Number: 01               Date:  01/30/97
>Subject:  HELP!  HB47 -- Restrictions On Weapons In Taverns & Private Clubs
>-- Slated For Committee Tomorrow Morning
>
>The House Law Enforcement & Criminal Justice Committee will hear four
>gun-related bills tomorrow morning, 8:00 AM at the Utah State Capitol in
>Room 225.  Three of the four bills are "under control," however  Rob
>Bishop, USSC Lobbyist, said he really needs telephone calls and faxes going
>to EACH Committee Member, asking him/her to OPPOSE  HB47.
>
>As you know, Representative John B. Arrington is carrying HB47, entitled
>"Restrictions On Weapons In Taverns And Clubs," which originated in
>Attorney General Jan Graham's office.  The purpose of the bill is to
>prohibit the carrying of "dangerous weapons and firearms" (including those
>firearms legally carried by permit holders) into taverns and private clubs.
>As justification for this legislation, the Legislative Fact Sheet states,
>"Since alcohol lowers inhibitions, and because taverns and private clubs
>are places designed for the primary purpose of serving alcohol for
>on-premises consumption, it is not wise to allow the patrons and guests to
>carry dangerous weapons into these places."
>
>This legislation would require taverns and certain private clubs to post a
>sign at each entrance stating that "it is unlawful for a person, including
>a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm ... to carry a firearm or
>dangerous weapon on the premises."  Violation is a Class B misdemeanor.
>
>Following is the body of  the text we faxed to Committee Members.  (You may
>want to fax something similar or make the following points if you choose to
>telephone Committee members.)
>
>1.  It's ALREADY against the law to be in possession of a firearm if
>intoxicated.  Utah Code reads:
>76-10-528. Carrying a dangerous weapon while under influence of alcohol or
>drugs is unlawful.
>(1) Any person who carries a dangerous weapon while under the influence of
>alcohol or a controlled substance as defined in Section 58-37-2 is guilty
>of a class B  misdemeanor.  Under the influence means the same level of
>influence or blood or breath alcohol concentration as provided in Section
>41-6-44.
>(2) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the person:
>        (a) is licensed in the pursuit of wildlife or any kind; or
>        (b) has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm.
>
>        Notice in (2)(b) that concealed carry permit holders are
>specifically NOT exempted from the law.  Therefore, why not enforce the law
>we already have?
>
>2. HB47 presumes that every concealed carry permit holder who visits a
>tavern or private club is going to drink alcoholic beverages.
>        Would the supposed justification for this legislation (as written
>in the "Utah Attorney General's Office Legislative Fact Sheet") sound as
>"logical" if we were talking about automobiles?  Let's see: "Since alcohol
>lowers inhibitions, and because taverns and private clubs are places
>designed for the primary purpose of serving alcohol for on-premises
>consumption, it is not wise to allow patrons and guests to [drive a motor
>vehicle to] these places."  This logic presumes that everyone who goes to a
>tavern or private club is driving away in a drunken stupor.  We all know
>that a blanket statement of this kind  holds little merit.  Such is the
>case with citizens who have been issued a concealed carry permit.
>        As the largest concealed carry trainer in Utah, we can attest that
>citizens learn about all of Utah's firearm's laws, including Utah Code
>76-10-528 (mentioned in #1 above) and are also given a copy of Utah's
>firearm's laws for further study at home, in the training course they are
>mandated to attend before they are issued a concealed carry permit.  To our
>knowledge, not even ONE concealed carry permit holder has broken this
>current law.
>
>We urge you to oppose HB47.  Thank  you.
>
>
>Here is the info to contact EACH Committee Member.  Please remember to
>speak/write courteously.
>
>HOUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT & CRIMINAL JUSTICE
>Robert Killpack (R-44), Chair  H - 263-2980
>Jack Seitz (R-55), Vice Chair H - 789-0650; O - 789-1552; F - 789-1551
>Blake Chard (R-15) H - 773-7474;O - 774-7715
>David Gladwell (R-7) H - 782-4130; O - 626-2409
>David Hogue (R-52)  H - 254-1668; O - 253-7586; F - 253-7586
>Susan Koehn (R-18) H - 296-1761
>Carl Saunders (R-11) H - 476-1110; O - 476-7070; F - 476-7074
>John Swallow (R-51) H - 572-8201; O - 531-7870; F - 531-7968
>Perry Buckner (D-42) H - 964-8215; O - 599-6754; F - 967-4333
>Neal Hendrickson (D-33) H - 696-8920
>
>UTAH HOUSE FAX
>If the Rep is a Republican [phone]
>If the Rep is a Democrat [phone]
>
>AGR's  24-HOUR LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE
>[phone]

I will be testifying AGAINST this bill tomorrow. (Friday)
Anyone who can is invited to attend the committee meeting at
8 AM in Rm. 225 of the Capitol.  Those who can't, please
call or fax as above.

Other bills of concern which will be debated at this committee
hearing are: HB 41, Restrictions on Weapons in Airports
HB 45 - Traffic Checkpoints Amendments (probably unconstitutional)
HB 30 - Concealed Firearms Amendments (may also be unconstitutional)
I've heard that these bills may be amended in committee,
but have no details.  In their CURRENT form, they are
unacceptable.

In addition, HB 207 which grants reciprocity to holders of
other states' concealed carry permits needs your SUPPORT.

Sorry for the late notice......

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.wagc.com

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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Legislative Update
Date: 31 Jan 1997 18:20:12 -0700

Results of today's committee hearings on firearms issues:

HB 41 - Restrictions on Weapons in Airports
    (supported by USSC, opposed by WAGC)
    Passed out of committee favorably.  There is still some
    confusion over whether this bill is in accord with FAA
    regulations which will have to be settled by the full
    House.

HB 47 - Restrictions on Weapons in Taverns and Clubs
      (opposed by USSC and WAGC)
      Tabled by committee.  (i.e. KILLED!)

HB 30 - Concealed Firearms Amendments
      Bill withdrawn and substitute bill introduced.
      Substitute bill had no major objections thanks to
      some BRILLIANT work by USSC's lobbyist, Rob Bishop.
      Passed out of committee favorably.

HB 207 - Out of State Firearm Permit
       Bill withdrawn and substitute bill
      introduced.  Substitute is less favorable than            original since it
limits reciprocity to those
      states whose certification standards meet or
      exceed Utah's.  However it is an acceptable
      compromise.
      Passed out of committee favorably.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Also, please be on the lookout for SB 27, Sen. Steiner's bill which would
effectively destroy concealed carry.  Best estimate is that it will be
discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committee next week sometime.  I'll keep
you posted.

Thanks to all who showed up and/or called!

Please urge your representative to support HB 207!

Thanks!

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
http://www.therighter.com
http://www.wagc.com

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: LPU: Legislative follow up
Date: 31 Jan 1997 18:35:07 -0700


On Fri, 31 Jan 1997,  Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>Results of today's committee hearings on firearms issues:
>
>HB 41 - Restrictions on Weapons in Airports
>    (supported by USSC, opposed by WAGC)
>    Passed out of committee favorably.  There is still some
>    confusion over whether this bill is in accord with FAA
>    regulations which will have to be settled by the full
>    House.

Does this restrict carry in the entire airport or only in the
secure area?

>
>HB 30 - Concealed Firearms Amendments
>      Bill withdrawn and substitute bill introduced.
>      Substitute bill had no major objections thanks to
>      some BRILLIANT work by USSC's lobbyist, Rob Bishop.
>      Passed out of committee favorably.

Details on this on?  How does it handle businesses, churches, schools,
universities, govt. buildings, etc?

>Also, please be on the lookout for SB 27, Sen. Steiner's bill which would
>effectively destroy concealed carry.  Best estimate is that it will be
>discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committee next week sometime.  I'll keep
>you posted.
>
>Please urge your representative to support HB 207!

27 and 207.  Boy wonder if that was just coincidence?

>
>Thanks!

Thanks for the update.

--

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 balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be
 preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike;
 but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. ... Horrid
 mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of
 them; ... the weak will become a prey to the strong." -- Thomas Paine

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Legislative Update
Date: 31 Jan 1997 18:56:12 -0800



On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Results of today's committee hearings on firearms issues:
>HB 207 - Out of State Firearm Permit
>       Bill withdrawn and substitute bill
>      introduced.  Substitute is less favorable than
      original since it
>limits reciprocity to those
>      states whose certification standards meet or
>      exceed Utah's.  However it is an acceptable
>      compromise.
>      Passed out of committee favorably.
>
  Sarah

    FYI, Washington is currently considering Idaho-style
(unlimited) recognition of out-of-state CCWs.  Oregon is also
considering soemthing, but I won't knoiw what until Tuesday.

Joe Waldron
GOAL of WA lobbyist