ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9703

Internet Message Format | 1997-03-31 | 265KB

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NRA Dirt: Fork in the road.
Date: 04 Mar 1997 17:21:46 -0700

>Return-Path: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail]
>X-Authentication-Warning: 1eagle1.com: Host www.1eagle1.com
[192.41.82.252] claimed to be mithoff.1eagle1.com
>X-Sender: [e-mail].
>Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 08:34:17 -0700
>Subject: NRA Dirt: Fork in the road.
>
>We are at the penultimate fork in the road where the NRA BOD election is
>concerned. There are two or more factions in the NRA, some who still
>believe, even after all the losses, that we can hang on to our weapons of
>self and home defense and sport use. Some of us know those rights are fast
>fading and unless we act quickly and decisively, all will be lost.
>
>Re: The NRA BOD election. There are some questions one might ask oneself
>about the NRA vote.
>
>1. Are we better off as a class now than 10, 8, 6, 0r even 4 years ago?
>Yes or no.
>
>2. Should the NRA be focusing it's entire effort on PRESERVING the 2nd, or
>should it be dividing it's precious and scarce resources on victim's rights,
>women's issues, crimestrike and other PC "image" issues that eat money and
>yield nothing except to make the executive of the NRA feel that it is
>"sensitive" to Washington issues.
>
>3. With the LAW and the Constitution firmly on our side are we winning the
>debate? If not, why not? WHY NOT?
>
>4. Is the Knox "no compromise" faction radical? Do we call that radical now?
>Why?
>
>5. Did Wayne LaPierre cross forbidden lines in his tantrum and expose' to
>the media? His Liddy show performance made me nauseous as he displayed his
>lack of character. His public comments that Knox would "turn the NRA into
>the John Birch Society" and would "cater to the Militias" was as Clinton
>administration/Chuckie Schumer tactic as I have ever seen, and I was shocked
>and angered when Wayne went public and effeminate in his rage, not unlike a
>jilted lover. The fact is, Wayne's management has been poor, and as far as
>the fund mismanagement, all wayne can do is try to distract memebership and
>the BOD from it as long as possible.
>
>I'm no apologist for either Wayne or Neal, I know them both, and we have a
>tough decision to make, affecting the future of the NRA. Unless a miracle,
>generated by hard work and militancy occurs, our futures are pretty much
>set, the direction of the gun abolition/confiscation movement as developed
>incredible momentum, owing to a LACK of solid, informed, proactive
>resistance against the gradualist erosion of the BOR.
>
>The question of the NRA Election boils down simply to two choices of
direction.
>
>1. We remain on the left-centrist "offend no-one" path of compromise and
>ultimate firearms abolition in our lifetimes.
>
>2. We take a right turn and yield our rights no further while we still have
>the law on our side. Let's HAVE the Supremes rule on the 2nd. If they rule
>it's a collective right and Big Gov't suggests confiscation, at least we
>know where we are and what we have to do. At least we bring it out in the
>open. We owe our descendants the effort, or we are not worthy of being
>called Americans.
>
>Take yer pick. Neither is ideal, but here we are after years of one way
>failing again and again. So, do we stand up for our rights like free men and
>women? Do we remember how? Or do we keep kissing ass hoping we can hang on
>to a shotgun, if we're good little citizens?
>
>Joe Horn
>NRA Life
>
>"It is better to die on one's feet, than to continue living on your knees."
>                                                Emiliano Zapata
>
>"Don't call it gun control, call it what it is:
>Gun abolition or gun confiscation."
>                                    Joe Horn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
http://www.therighter.com


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: fw: William Gray on NRA elections
Date: 05 Mar 1997 13:07:50 -0700

>Subject: William Gray on NRA elections
>  Date:   Tue, 04 Mar 1997 20:11:09 GMT
>>> "ONE SIMPLE QUESTION"

>>> In voting for the members of Board of Directors, there is really only
>>> one issue, one simple question:
>>>
>>> DO YOU WANT WAYNE LAPIERRE TO BE THE EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT
>>> OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION?
>>
>>I'm sorry, but this is simplistic wishful thinking.
>>
>>But if the question must be put in these terms, I regret that I must answer
>>No, I do not want Wayne to continue as EVP.
>>
>>Joe Olson is a good friend of mine.  We are close enough that he lent me
>>the dough to buy a M1911 I had longed for for many years; with my final
>>payment, I also gave him a bottle of single-cask, single-malt whiskey
>>as an interest payment.  As a nondrinking Mormon, I buy very few people
>>booze of any kind.  I bought this for Joe because he has almost single-
>>handedly kept me out of prison for several years.
>>
>>You see, Joe works his butt off for gun owners.  Joe is at the Capitol
>>in St. Paul virtually every day during the session and is in contact
>>with our friends often when the legislature is not in session.  More,
>>Joe is trusted and respected by our enemies.
>>
>>Joe does all this and has done all this for several years with no pay
>>at all.  He has more than once contributed real money of his own to cover
>>his expenses (parking, impressive phone bills, printing, etc.).  He has
>>an unpaid network of unpaid assistants who help him learn of last minute
>>schedule changes, evil amendments, waffling supporters, and so on.  Without
>>the unpaid labor and skill of Joe Olson, Minnesota would be the
>>unquestioned star of the HCI show because every second of every session,
>>our side has been in a minority.  Without Joe Olson, Minnesota would have
>>laws I could not obey.
>>
>>I know Joe and have seen him in action.  He is not afraid to spend money
>>when it is available and needs to be spent.  And he is able to discern
>>between essential spending and desirable spending, and disciplined
>>enough to restrict spending when it must be restricted.
>>
>>Unfortunately, on this last point, the finance committee of the Board
>>and the paid staff part ways.  The staff has shown that they canNOT
>>restrict spending to the essential and NRA finances have suffered
>>badly as a result.
>>
>>The problem isn't active mismanagement so much as FAILURE to manage, poor
>>internal controls, too much unquestioning dependence on outside vendors,
>>repeated and deliberate failure to follow Board policy requiring director-
>>officer approval of major expenditures, multimillion dollar "contracts"
>>without any paper record until the invoice comes in, and an habitual
>>overstating of revenue projections so that every year ends with something
>>like last November's "fire sale" of memberships for as little as 16 cents
>>on the dollar (thus avoiding another multi-million dollar loss year).
>>Because of this, a majority of the Finance Committee and a majority of
>>the Board have lost confidence in Wayne's ability to MANAGE the business
>>and affairs of the NRA.  He is a great spokesman and a great person,
>>but he can't run a business.  And, it is YOUR MONEY that is pouring out
>>through the dike with the Finance Committee's finger trying to stop
>>the flow.
>>
>>It isn't the mission or the message.  TODAY everyone, Board and staff,
>>agrees on no compromise defense of the Second Amendment.  In the past,
>>with K-Mart Cassidy, your rights were on sale, with a Blue Light special
>>on compromise every day.  The Dave Edmundson faction was so fearful of
>>confrontation that they were giving our rights away faster than our
>>enemies could steal them.
>>
>>Wayne helped stop that.  But Wayne got his job because the members said
>>Enough! and elected a Board with an attitude.  They worked to replace the
>>worst of the staff problems.  They worked to revitalize the organization,
>>both in its physical plant, image, and membership.  Some of that took
>>big bucks.  Then we had two crucial elections and more big bucks got spent.
>>
>>We got results, but it came time to restrain spending.  It seems that the
>>paid staff cannot get that message and cannot show the fiscal restraint
>>needed now.  The board knows the members are tired of the constant
>>tin cup routine from NRA HQ, but the paid staff is ignoring lawful
>>orders from their employers, the Board that hired them.
>>
>>Do you realize that most of the 8 people on the paid staff's hit list
>>are ALL the members of the finance committee up for reelection? I can
>>assure you that Joe would rather eat lint than have this brawl in our
>>lifeboat.  But he knows the rules of the game and the paid staff is
>>essentially in mutiny.
>>
>>I've met Wayne and liked him.  I've corresponded with Tanya and enjoyed
>>it.  I've never met Marion Hammer, but her success with CCW in Florida
>>is an inspiration.  It grieves me to have to oppose them.
>>
>>But I know Joe and I've worked with him--for free--many long and
>>thankless hours.  I also know his legal expertise, and I assure you that
>>you do not get an enviable reputation as a corporate tax scholar without
>>being able to understand when the numbers are saying, Stop Spending.
>>I know that Joe spends nearly a month a year,  u n p a i d,  on NRA Board
>>business; do you have any idea how much he could earn as a consultant
>>if he sold that amount of time in his area of expertise?  (Hint:  I
>>could live comfortably on the tithing he'd owe if he were LDS!)
>>
>>So I am forced to trust him and his analysis.  Reason leaves me no choice.
>>
>>I also know Weldon Clark.  Weldon lived here for a while while he was
>>a board member.  He's an engineer; as he put it, he and I both a share
>>a practical desire to "get the damned crate out the door," that is, to
>>deliver the goods.  I know something of the personal sacrifices Weldon
>>has made to serve you and me on the board and in the cause.  I know that
>>he would not be opposing people who have delivered part of the goods
>>unless he feared, with good reason, that severe damage would result
>>otherwise.
>>
>>These are not micromanaging Dilbert bosses.  And I know from their
>>recommendation that the other people on the hit list are also tough,
>>no-nonsense gun rights activists of the first water.
>>
>>I am voting Leroy Pyle's short list of 8, coincidentally the same 8 the
>>paid staff want us to fire.  I urge you to do the same.  The stakes are
>>very high and I know how much we need a brawl in our lifeboat.  But
>>we set a new course into the wind when the Knox coalition rescued the
>>NRA a few years ago.  It would be foolhardy to turn them out now; they
>>are the people who provided the guts and the push that got us where we
>>are once again taken seriously.
>>
>>Those 8 names again are:
>>        Richard L. Carone       Weldon H. Clark, Jr.
>>        Howard J. Fezell        Fred Griisser
>>        Neal Knox               J.O. McFalls, III
>>        Prof. Joseph Olson      Albert C. Ross
>>
>>Ten other persons who should be elected are:
>>       Robert G. Baer          Irv Benvoin
>>       Cathy L. Gilronan       Bill Miller
>>       James D. Ramm           Michael Slavonic
>>       Wayne Stump             Miles Ugarkovich
>>       Robert Veavie           Phillip Williams
>>
>>Because the Board is elected by a plurality (those with the most
>>votes win), you increase the power of your vote if you vote only for
>>these 18 candidates.  (The more candidates you vote for, the more
>>likely it is that your most highly-favored candidates will not get
>>enough votes to win.)
>>
>>
>>Bill
>>
>
>TTYL
>-=JB=-
>
>The Patriots' Page:  http://www.c2.org/~patriot
>
>-=-=-=-=-=
>
>STICK TO YOUR GUNS!
>
>THE FIGHT TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
>MUST BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIC FACTS:
>
>http://www.c2.org/~patriot/yourguns.htm
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> [e-mail]
> P.O. BOX 194
> Montalba TX 75853
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
http://www.therighter.com


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: GOA *Urgent * Federal Alert-- 03/05/97
Date: 05 Mar 1997 13:35:05 -0700

>Rep. Chenoweth to Introduce Full Repeal of Lautenberg Gun Ban
>  -- Ask your Rep. immediately to cosponsor bill!
>
>                 by Gun Owners of America
>    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA  22151
>   [phone], fax: [phone], http://www.gunowners.org
>
>
>     (Wednesday, March 5) -- Rep. Helen Chenoweth is going to
>introduce a full repeal of the Lautenberg gun ban either late
>today or sometime tomorrow.  As you know, this ban disarms
>millions of citizens for having committed minor offenses and
>prevents them from owning guns for life.
>
>     Gun Owners of America vigorously opposed the Lautenberg ban
>last year as it represents one of the worst gun control laws
>passed in decades.  After the ban passed, the New York Times
>hailed the gun ban as "progress on gun control."  And more
>recently, the Wall Street Journal has confirmed that the problems
>which GOA warned about are now in fact occurring.  According to
>the December 23, 1996 article in the Wall Street Journal, the gun
>ban is now:
>
>     * Disarming many policemen across the country;
>
>     * Disarming men and women for domestic disputes that
>occurred even 20 years ago; and is
>
>     * Threatening to disarm any parent who has been convicted
>for simply spanking their children.
>
>     While there are other bills to "tweak" the Lautenberg ban,
>only Rep. Chenoweth's bill will completely repeal the ban from
>the federal code.  The Barr compromise (H.R. 26) would only
>repeal the retroactive portion of the ban -- thus leaving the ban
>in the federal code for the future.  The Stupak bill (H.R. 445)
>would only exempt the police, thus leaving the common people
>under the effect of the gun ban.
>
>     HERE'S WHAT TO DO:
>
>     Call your Representative right away and urge him or her to
>become an original cosponsor of Helen Chenoweth's bill. The
>deadline for original cosponsorship will be late today or sometime
>tomorrow. If your representative is unfamiliar with her proposal,
>they can call her office for more information. Call your
>Representative at 202-225-3121.  Or you can also reach them at
>1-800-962-3524 or 1-800-972-3524, but be prepared to let the phone
>ring a few times.
>
>     NOTE:  Rep. Chenoweth's bill still does not have a number.
>Your Representative can get a copy from either her office, or by
>calling GOA at 703-321-8585.
>
>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
>your state of residence or the word "all". If you subscribe by state,
>you will receive every federal alert plus alerts which are specific
>to your home state. Requesting "all" means you will receive all
>alerts generated whether federal or state in nature.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 271231
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
http://www.therighter.com


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: GOA Federal Alert--03/12/97
Date: 12 Mar 1997 23:11:00 -0700


Reps. Cannon, Cook and Hansen are conspicuously absent from the
list of cosponsors.
---------- Forwarded message ----------

          Chenoweth Introduces Full Lautenberg Repeal
           -- Your work helps deliver 11 Cosponsors!

                 by Gun Owners of America
               8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
                  Springfield, VA  22151
                 http://www.gunowners.org


     (Wednesday, March 12) -- Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)
yesterday introduced a full repeal of the Lautenberg gun ban.
Thanks to your help, phones have been ringing off the hook on
Capitol Hill, and 11 Representatives have signed on to her bill
as original cosponsors.

     [By contrast, the other leading bill to repeal the
Lautenberg gun ban only had one original cosponsor when it was
introduced earlier this year.  That bill, introduced by Rep.
Bob Barr (R-GA), would only repeal the retroactive part of the
gun ban, leaving the ban in place for the future.  While
opposing the retroactive part of the ban, Rep. Barr endorsed
the underlying principle behind the Lautenberg gun ban last
Thursday (3/6/97) in USA Today, calling it "important and
worthwhile legislation."]

     Rep. Chenoweth's bill (H.R. 1009) repeals the ENTIRE
Lautenberg ban.  Entitled the "States' Rights and Second and
Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997," the bill lays out 17
findings that help advance the pro-gun cause.  For instance,
the bill states that,

     * "Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves
against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.  Of
these self-defense cases, as many as 200,000 are by women
defending themselves against sexual assault."

     * "The Lautenberg Amendment oversteps federal authority,
violating states' rights . . . [and] violates all notions of
constitutional Due Process and constitutes an ex post facto
law."

     * "The Lautenberg Amendment does not deal with a subject
delegated to Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution of the United States and is therefore
unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution,
as interpreted by United States v. Lopez."

     HERE'S WHAT TO DO:

     If you're Representative is not listed below, keep on him.
Get your friends, neighbors, family, gun clubs, etc. to support
the Chenoweth repeal bill.  And remember to emphasize that the
Chenoweth bill (H.R. 1009) is the only bill to *completely*
repeal the Lautenberg gun ban from the federal code.  All the
other half-baked repeals would still leave the ban in the federal
code for the future.

     WHO HAS COSPONSORED THE CHENOWETH BILL ALREADY?

  1. Rep. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
  2. Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY)
  3. Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
  4. Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV)
  5. Rep. Virgil Goode (D-VA)
  6. Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA)
  7. Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN)
  8. Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY)
  9. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
 10. Rep. Joe Skeen (R-NM)
 11. Rep. Don Young (R-AK)


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
your state of residence or the word "all". If you subscribe by state,
you will receive every federal alert plus alerts which are specific
to your home state. Requesting "all" means you will receive all
alerts generated whether federal or state in nature.



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: 2nd Amendment NWO Style
Date: 13 Mar 1997 21:13:00 -0700



OPEN CHALLENGE:

Can anyone find a lousier public official statement than this?

Taken from San Jose Mercury News Letters to the Editor,
apparently March 8 or 9

SECOND AMENDMENT APPLIES TO STATES, NOT TO INDIVIDUALS

Some people were upset recently when I used the word "myth" to
describe what the National Rifle Association refers to as "the
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." One man even wrote
this paper (Letters, March 1) saying I should resign my position
as a deputy district attorney for Santa Clara County because he
claimed I did not believe in the Constitution. Let me assure him
that, like all prosecutors in this county, I believe in all of
the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, including the Second
Amendment. I have also studied that amendment and the cases
interpreting it.

Frankly, it was generous to use the term "myth" to describe the NRA's
contention that the Second Amendment gives an individual a right to
own any firearm. It is actually a fraud. The Second Amendment reads
"A well regualted militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." There are over 30 cases interpreting the Second Amendment.
From the United States Supreme Court on down, they are unanimous that
the Second Amendment only guarantees the rights of states to create
militias. There has never been a single opinion which agreed with the
NRA that the Second Amendment granted an individual right. There is
no reason to believe there ever will be. The NRA must realize that its
position has no validity, because it does not even bother to raise the
issue in court any more, even though it still litigates gun issues
constantly. Instead, it prefers to continue to mislead the public
about the real meaning of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, many
people have been taken in by the fraud.

Don't just take my word for it. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice
Warren Burger was referring to their Second Amendment argument when
he said "the National Rifle Association has done one of the most
amazing jobs of misrepresenting and misleading the public." Former
U.S. Attorney Generals Katzenbach, Clark, Richardson, Levi, Bell,
and Civiletti wrote, "For more than 200 years, the federal courts
have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only
the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia;
it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purpose.
The nantion can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's distortion
of the constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an
effective national policy toward guns and crime."

--Stan Voyles
Deputy district attorney,
Santa Clara County

NOTE:
Talk radio caller heard last weekend reported that in applying to own
a firearm, he was asked to fill out a form professing no affiliation
with any militia or group believing in national sovereignty. (He does
not know what would happen if he said he did, but he has heard that it
is difficult if not impossible to acquire a firearm if a person claims
otherwise.)

So,
   no guns for militia men
   no guns for non-militia men





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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: GOA Federal Alert-- 03/11/97
Date: 14 Mar 1997 10:09:59 -0700


>     BLM Forced to Withdraw Proposed Rule Due to Your Action!
>         -- But they are trying to salvage what they can
>
>                    by Gun Owners of America
>      8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA  22151
>     [phone], fax: [phone], http://www.gunowners.org
>
>
>     (Tuesday, March 11, 1997) -- Your efforts have once again
>paid off as Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, today
>directed the Bureau of Land Management to halt action on a
>proposed rule that we alerted you to earlier this year.
>
>     The rule would have seriously infringed on your Second
>Amendment rights while you are on public land. The powers of BLM
>law enforcement personnel would have been greatly expanded,
>especially as they relate to the use of firearms by law-abiding
>citizens.
>
>    But while you deserve a resounding "well done", this issue may
>be far from dead.
>
>    What follows are excerpts from today's press release by
>Secretary Babbitt.
>
>---- begin quoted text ----
>
>Secretary Babbitt Directs BLM to Halt Action, Go Back to the
>Drawing Board With Law Enforcement Regulations
>
> This action does not diminish the legal authority of BLM law
> enforcement officers on public lands
>
>Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt announced today that he has
>directed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to halt further
>actions on a proposal to consolidate law enforcement regulations.
>
>"My decision to stop further action on this proposal is based on
>the confusion and misinformation about how these regulations would
>affect BLM's law enforcement responsibilities under existing law,
>as demonstrated by the many public comments received," said Babbitt.
>
>"This action does not diminish the legal authority of BLM law
>enforcement officers on public land. But it is very clear that we
>have not done a good job of clarifying regulations and communicating
>BLM's legal authority under existing federal statutes to protect
>health, safety and environmental resources on America's public
>lands.
>
>"I've been contacted personally by Idaho Governor Phil Batt and
>several members of Congress, who have expressed the concerns of
>many," Babbitt said.
>
>"We hear the users of the public lands and we will do all we can
>to help them understand the legal authority of BLM under existing
>federal statutes," said Sylvia Baca, acting director of the Bureau
>of Land Management. "BLM will go back to the drawing board, and any
>future attempt to improve existing regulations and make them more
>understandable by public lands users will include better public
>education efforts to explain the BLM law enforcement program."
>
>---- end quoted text ----
>
>As you see, they are in no way acknowledging that the rule itself
>was wrong in the first place. Nor do they promise not to expand
>the scope of BLM's law enforcement activity-- the above statements
>notwithstanding, the proposed rule would have expanded their
>authority beyond what they currently wield.
>
>GOA has placed the text of the rule at:
>
>http://www.gunowners.org/gtblm1.htm
>
>so that you can read it for yourself.
>
>  ** ACTION ITEMS **
>
>  1. Pat yourself on the back.
>  2. Grimace as you do so.
>  3. Watch for future alerts.
>
>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 your state of residence or the word "all". If you subscribe
>by state, you will receive every federal alert plus alerts which are
>specific to your home state. Requesting "all" means you will receive
>all alerts generated whether federal or state in nature.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE NEW ADDRESS!!



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

From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weber County Sheriff
Date: 14 Mar 1997 12:29:28 -0700

from Neil Sagers
----
Weber County Residents call your county commissioners and urge
them to appoint Terry Thompson as Weber County Sheriff.

The county commissioners can be reached at 399-8401.  Call each
commissioner and express your preference.  The commissioners are
Joe Ritchie, Bruce Anderson, and Glen Burton.

Now is your chance to have a pro-Second Amendment sheriff.  The
former sheriff, Craig Dearden, has accepted the position as head of
the Utah Department of Public Safety.  The top three candidates for
the open position were chosen by Republican party delegates.  Now
the county commissioners will appoint the new sheriff.

Only one of the three candidates, Terry Thompson, has had the
courage to stand up for the Second Amendment.  Other candidates
were silent or quietly anti-gun.  Terry has the endorsement of the
NRA, USSC, UR&PA, LEAA and others.  He has written several
pro-gun editorials, most recently in the Deseret News where he
pointed out the fallacies of anti-gunner's arguments.  He has also
written articles for the LEAA journal and testified before congress.
He is for citizen rights and disgusted with political correctness.

Unfortunately Terry does not have the political buddies of the other
candidates and input to county commissioners is important.  Second
Amendment rights may not be at the top of the agenda for county
commissioners, but here are a few other points for talking.

Terry has the experience with the Weber County Sheriff.  One
candidate, Mike King, has not even worked for the Sheriff, Mike has
spent the last several years working for Jan Graham in the Utah
Attorney General's office.

Terry has the energy and the dynamic personality that it will take for
the Republican party to win the next election for Sheriff.  Other
candidates looked nice and spoke well but did not motivate
supporters.

He supports the conservative values of Weber County and will have
broad appeal to voters.

Commissioners will have personal interviews with each candidate on
March 13 followed by a public forum the week of March 17.  A final
decision will be made by the last week of March.

Neil Sagers

Chad Leigh              Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net
[e-mail]         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites.
WWW Wholesale including virtual domains.  Tango.  PHP/FI
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: GOA Federal Alert-- 03/12/97
Date: 14 Mar 1997 15:37:31 -0700

>Return-Path: [e-mail]
>Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 13:32:43 -0500
>From: Craig Fields <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: Craig Fields <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: GOA Federal Alert-- 03/12/97
>
>          Chenoweth Introduces Full Lautenberg Repeal
>           -- Your work helps deliver 11 Cosponsors!
>
>                 by Gun Owners of America
>               8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
>                  Springfield, VA  22151
>                 http://www.gunowners.org
>
>
>     (Wednesday, March 12) -- Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)
>yesterday introduced a full repeal of the Lautenberg gun ban.
>Thanks to your help, phones have been ringing off the hook on
>Capitol Hill, and 11 Representatives have signed on to her bill
>as original cosponsors.
>
>     [By contrast, the other leading bill to repeal the
>Lautenberg gun ban only had one original cosponsor when it was
>introduced earlier this year.  That bill, introduced by Rep.
>Bob Barr (R-GA), would only repeal the retroactive part of the
>gun ban, leaving the ban in place for the future.  While
>opposing the retroactive part of the ban, Rep. Barr endorsed
>the underlying principle behind the Lautenberg gun ban last
>Thursday (3/6/97) in USA Today, calling it "important and
>worthwhile legislation."]
>
>     Rep. Chenoweth's bill (H.R. 1009) repeals the ENTIRE
>Lautenberg ban.  Entitled the "States' Rights and Second and
>Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997," the bill lays out 17
>findings that help advance the pro-gun cause.  For instance,
>the bill states that,
>
>     * "Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves
>against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.  Of
>these self-defense cases, as many as 200,000 are by women
>defending themselves against sexual assault."
>
>     * "The Lautenberg Amendment oversteps federal authority,
>violating states' rights . . . [and] violates all notions of
>constitutional Due Process and constitutes an ex post facto
>law."
>
>     * "The Lautenberg Amendment does not deal with a subject
>delegated to Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the
>Constitution of the United States and is therefore
>unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution,
>as interpreted by United States v. Lopez."
>
>     HERE'S WHAT TO DO:
>
>     If you're Representative is not listed below, keep on him.
>Get your friends, neighbors, family, gun clubs, etc. to support
>the Chenoweth repeal bill.  And remember to emphasize that the
>Chenoweth bill (H.R. 1009) is the only bill to *completely*
>repeal the Lautenberg gun ban from the federal code.  All the
>other half-baked repeals would still leave the ban in the federal
>code for the future.
>
>     WHO HAS COSPONSORED THE CHENOWETH BILL ALREADY?
>
>  1. Rep. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
>  2. Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY)
>  3. Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA)
>  4. Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV)
>  5. Rep. Virgil Goode (D-VA)
>  6. Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA)
>  7. Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN)
>  8. Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY)
>  9. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
> 10. Rep. Joe Skeen (R-NM)
> 11. Rep. Don Young (R-AK)
>
>
>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
>your state of residence or the word "all". If you subscribe by state,
>you will receive every federal alert plus alerts which are specific
>to your home state. Requesting "all" means you will receive all
>alerts generated whether federal or state in nature.
>
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE NEW ADDRESS!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: R2A! Australia spending $ on guns instead of health care
Date: 14 Mar 1997 19:02:53 -0700


>Hmmmm..... Looks like GUN CONTROL may be the REAL public health problem!
>
>Sarah
>
>>The Advertiser - Adelaide - Saturday - 8 March 1997
>>
>>States warn disaster looms over funding cuts to health
>>
>>THE STATE MINISTERS are..alarmed by reports that the (Federal) government
>>is examining proposals to cut a further $1.3 billion from the health
>>budget...The Health Minister, Dr. Woolridge, again refused to rule out
>>further cuts.
>>
>>end of quote.
>>
>>While the government of Australia is spending 0.5 Billion $ Australian to
>>confiscate a few firearms.
>>
>>While the firearms death rates for Australia have been trending downward
>>since at least 1980.  See Australian Bureau of Statistics data at:
>>
>>http://www.abs.gov.au/d3110122/2222.htm
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE NEW ADDRESS!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: R2A! Why don't  I ever get asked?
Date: 14 Mar 1997 19:34:50 -0700

And Hopkins wonders why I won't send them any money!  Sheesh!
Sarah

>Here we go again.......................
>
>Copyright =A9 1997 Nando.net
>Copyright =A9 1997 Scripps Howard=20
>
>(Mar 13, 1997 12:43 p.m. EST) - Most Americans believe handguns ought to=20
>be regulated like automobiles.
>
>That's a key finding in a new survey by the Johns Hopkins School of=20
>Public Health and the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research
>Center.
>
>The telephone survey of 1,200 Americans throughout the country disclosed=20
>for the first time an overwhelming public demand for handguns to be
>treated like other consumer products. The survey showed:
>
>-- 82 percent favor mandatory registration of handguns.
>
>-- 70 percent want handgun owners to be trained and licensed.
>
>-- 86 percent support laws to require all new handguns be childproofed.
>
>-- 68 percent want new handguns "personalized" so only an authorized user=
=20
>could operate the weapons.
>
>Tom Smith, director of the survey, characterized the public's position as=
=20
>"the automobile model."
>
>"People want to expand the current patchwork system of regulation into a=20
>more comprehensive system of regulation analogous to what now
>exists for automobiles," he said.
>
>"We register cars and require that people have a license to drive.=20
>Similarly, we could register guns and license gun owners."
>
>Almost all Americans, according to the survey, would tighten restrictions=
=20
>on gun purchases by criminals and even by those convicted of
>misdemeanors such as shoplifting and driving under the influence of=20
>alcohol.
>
>Specifically, 95 percent would prohibit handgun purchases by people=20
>convicted of displaying a firearm in a threatening manner -- and 61=20
>percent
>would deny guns to people convicted of indecent exposure.
>
>By big majorities the public also wants stricter laws on gun sales. Seven=
=20
>out of 10 believe sales should be limited to stores rather than
>individuals, who currently are allowed to sell at shows or privately.=20
>Eight out of ten want sales limited to one gun per person per month.
>
>There are 38,000 gun-related deaths a year in the United States -- more=20
>than 100 deaths every day. An additional 17,000 are treated for
>accidental, nonfatal gunshot wounds, which costs the public $4 billion=20
>annually for medical care.
>
>Gun homicide is the leading cause of death for black males aged 15 to 24.=
=20
>And, the survey disclosed, 20 percent of all Americans have been
>threatened with a gun.
>
>
>--=20
> John Hurd                                                              =20
>      =20
> The sound of gunfire on a shooting range is                    =20
> someone actively involved in gun control.....
> NRA Endowment HKE4739F   USPSA FY4161   IROI
>
>
>----------------------------------
>To unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail]
>with the following line in the body:
>
>unsubscribe right2arms
>
>***Visit http://www.wizard.net/~kc/firearms.html
>to learn more about guns in America***
>
>RIGHT2ARMS IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. THE OWNER
>TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE NEW ADDRESS!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: R2A! FYI
Date: 15 Mar 1997 12:06:42 -0700


>  I received this on another net, I forward it for your consideration.
>Some important points are raised, I think, particularly with regard to
>media bias.
>***********************************************************
>Local reporting on the bank shooting spree here in Michigan has been very
>interesting on several levels.  None of the local on-scene reports that
>I've seen or heard have included the kind of gunfire mentioned in these
>posts, although at least some of the shots in question have been audible
>on some of them.  I suspect five or six is probably closer to the truth
>than 200.
>
>Even more interesting is the fact that the perp, a black male, killed
>only whites.  He stepped over black people on the floor of the bank to do
>it,  so it was no accident.  What makes this interesting is the fact that
>not once has it been mentioned by anybody in the Detroit media.
>
>They're still wondering "what the killer's motive was" and looking into
>his socially deprived background for "reasons why this tragedy happened".
> I guess we're all supposed to be too stupid to notice that the faces of
>the five victims are all white, and the "traumatized (but otherwise
>unharmed) survivors" they're interviewing are all black.
>
>This was a series of racially based murders committed by a black man who
>set out to kill whites -- a racist -- that much is crystal clear.  I can
>only imagine what would be happening just now had the races of the perp
>and the victims been reversed.
>
>You have, of course, heard by now that the missing bank SECURITY GUARD
>has been found huddled behind the furnace in the bank basement, where she
>remained for almost 24 hours despite the fact that the police used the
>adjacent area for preliminary interviews of the witnesses.  She is being
>treated by the media like some kind of heroic victim.  It's enough to
>empty one's stomach.
>
>Anyway, if there is anybody reading this who still thinks the media
>reports the "news" with anything even remotely resembling "journalistic
>professionalism" I can assure you that it just ain't so -- a least not in
>Deeetroit.  This is another triumph of Political Correctness as
>administered by the spin doctors of the media.
>
>BTW, every time we see the replay,  Ruthanne and I scream at the TV in
>unison -- "HEAD SHOT, HEAD SHOT, HEAD SHOT..."  but nobody's listening.
>Things would be very different if we ran the zoo.
>*********************************
>
>  Curiouser and curiouser..........................
>
>Charles Riggs, Gunsite 1991 - DVC!
>1st vice-pres. KC3- Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed
>"Stop Crime- Be Armed- Fight Back!"
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE NEW ADDRESS!!



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: R2A! Why don't I ever get asked?
Date: 15 Mar 1997 10:10:00 -0700


Sarah Thompson forwards:

(BTW I had to turn off quote markers because you already had them on
a *CROSSPOST*! Please forward and crosspost without adding them. They
are meant to mark quoted text to which you are specifically replying.)

>(Mar 13, 1997 12:43 p.m. EST) - Most Americans believe handguns ought to
>be regulated like automobiles.

>The telephone survey of 1,200 Americans throughout the country disclosed
>for the first time an overwhelming public demand for handguns to be
>treated like other consumer products. The survey showed:

>-- 82 percent favor mandatory registration of handguns.

Not required for automobiles unless used for commercial purposes.
Of course, the LEOs think any use on a public right-of-way is a
commercial use.

>-- 70 percent want handgun owners to be trained and licensed.

No such requirement for automobile owners, only "drivers".

>-- 86 percent support laws to require all new handguns be childproofed.

This a new feature on automobiles?

>-- 68 percent want new handguns "personalized" so only an authorized user
>could operate the weapons.

Another new automotive feature? Car thieves cut out the steering
lock. Though I'll be glad to sell you a personalized fuel pump lock,
AFAIK installation and activation of one is not legally required.

>Tom Smith, director of the survey, characterized the public's position as
>"the automobile model."

Excellent. Show proof you are at least 18 years of age and it's "cash
and carry". Registration is only required to "drive" it off the lot.

>"We register cars and require that people have a license to drive.
>Similarly, we could register guns and license gun owners."

LEOs and armed mercenary guards and couriers, i.e., those using firearms
as weapons for commercial purposes, should be licensed and bonded.

>Almost all Americans, according to the survey, would tighten restrictions
>on gun purchases by criminals and even by those convicted of misdemeanors
>such as shoplifting and driving under the influence of alcohol.

New requirements for purchases of automobiles of which I am unaware?

>Specifically, 95 percent would prohibit handgun purchases by people
>convicted of displaying a firearm in a threatening manner -- and 61
>percent would deny guns to people convicted of indecent exposure.

Ban car ownership by people who "drive" recklessly or rudely or
commit lewd or indecent acts in them?

>By big majorities the public also wants stricter laws on gun sales. Seven
>out of 10 believe sales should be limited to stores rather than
>individuals, who currently are allowed to sell at shows or privately.
>Eight out of ten want sales limited to one gun per person per month.

Cars can only be legally purchased from licensed dealers? Guess that
makes me a criminal for selling a car directly to my brother without
cutting a licensed dealer in for his 100% commission.

>Gun homicide is the leading cause of death for black males aged 15 to 24.
>And, the survey disclosed, 20 percent of all Americans have been
>threatened with a gun.

Bet nearly 100% have been threatened with a car. Deaths from injuries
from cars also far outnumber those from guns or projectiles they have
fired.

CC to [e-mail]



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: crosspost from rec.guns
Date: 15 Mar 1997 12:49:06 -0700

>Return-Path: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail]
>X-Sender: [e-mail].
>Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:26:06 -0700
>Subject: crosspost from rec.guns
>
>
>> From the Illinois State Rifle Association:
>> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:36:09 -0600 (CST)
>> To: [e-mail]
>> From: [e-mail] (Tom Skuse)
>> Subject: Regulatory Warning
>>
>>ISRA President Jim Valentino asks that the following be forwarded
>>to your club or range:
>>
>>
>>* * * * * * * * ISRA Regulatory Alert No. 97002 * * * * * * * *
>>
>>
>>ATTENTION: Gun Clubs & Ranges
>>
>>The NRA Range Department has issued a warning that a Mr. Bruce Ryan of
>>"Lead Research" is notifying gun clubs and ranges that one of his
>>representatives will be visiting their facilities to investigate for
>>lead contamination.
>>
>>
>>
>>   This individual CAN NOT legally demand admittance to your range and
>>   facilities. He is NOT affiliated or associated with any federal or
>>state   agency, nor obtained legal process (warrants) warns the NRA.
>>
>>
>>
>>The environmental information which he states is not to be believed,
>>states NRA and asks clubs and ranges to DENY HIM ACCESS. Clubs and
>>ranges should contact their attorneys and the NRA IMMEDIATELY after
>>being contacted by Mr. Ryan or "Lead Research".
>>
>>NRA believes that this organization is trying to get information to
>>bring suits for damages or injunctions against clubs and ranges.
>>
>>
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>>Tom Skuse
>>Committee of Correspondence
>>I S R A
>>
>>
>>
>>RA-16\A0\30-02
>>
>>
>>Tom Skuse in Canton, IL
>>@midwest.net
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE NEW ADDRESS!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Weber County Sheriff
Date: 15 Mar 1997 13:04:58 -0700

At 12:29 PM 3/14/97 -0700, Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>from Neil Sagers
>----
>Weber County Residents call your county commissioners and urge
>them to appoint Terry Thompson as Weber County Sheriff.
>
>The county commissioners can be reached at 399-8401.  Call each
>commissioner and express your preference.  The commissioners are
>Joe Ritchie, Bruce Anderson, and Glen Burton.
>
>Now is your chance to have a pro-Second Amendment sheriff.  The
>former sheriff, Craig Dearden, has accepted the position as head of
>the Utah Department of Public Safety.  The top three candidates for
>the open position were chosen by Republican party delegates.  Now
>the county commissioners will appoint the new sheriff.

Does this mean that Craig Dearden, the new head of DPS is ANTI-GUN?
This is of particular concern, since I believe the legislature just gave
the head of DPS COMPLETE CONTROL over the CCW process by allowing him,
rather than the governor, to appoint ALL members of the commission.
If this is the case, is there any room in the scenario for (gasp!)
citizen input?

Thanks!

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE NEW ADDRESS!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Heads Up
Date: 15 Mar 1997 20:37:33 -0700


>                 Heads Up
>
>   A Weekly edition of News from around our country
>
>          March 14, 1997   #26
>
>      by:  Doug Fiedor    [e-mail]
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>  Previous Editions at:  http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>A PARADOX IN THE LAW
>    Those of us who were paying attention
>might have learned a little about federal law this week.
>Because, evidently, the law in the United States has just
>been changed considerably.  (see Rule of Law in the
>Feb. 7 issue of "Heads Up" for the way it once was)
>    No more need citizens worry about the
>laws passed by Congress, Vice President Al Gore implied
>to the nation during a televised press conference.
>Unless laws are first vetted through the courts, they
>have "no controlling legal authority," the VP said.
>Ozone Head served sixteen years in Congress and he is now
>on his fifth year as vice-president.  So . . . he must
>know exactly what he is talking about.  He's an authority
>on law. . . .  Well?  Isn't he?
>    Never mind that 18 USC 607 says that "It
>shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive
>any contributions . . . in any room or building occupied
>in the discharge of official duties. . . ."  And, never
>mind that the words "any person," "any contributions"
>and "any room or building" are words that are very clear
>and easy for all of us to understand.  Ozone Head found a
>cop-out:  "There was no controlling legal authority."
>    No one asked if this also applies for
>executive orders, rules and regulations, but it probably
>would.  If there is no court decision on the subject,
>there is no controlling law!  That's this week's simple
>legal rule of thumb, freshly invented by the simpleton in
>the White House.
>    The fact is, Gore made at least fifty
>fund-raising telephone calls from the White House.  And
>now we learn, he also made quite a few fund-raising calls
>from his Senate office for the campaign five years ago.
>So, even if we forget the White House calls, he still
>committed a series of federal felony offenses from his
>Senate office.
>    His "no controlling legal authority"
>argument is kind of interesting after you think about it
>for a while.  Because, how do you get a law started that
>way?  If something is not illegal (no controlling legal
>authority), you can't get arrested for doing it.  But,
>if no one gets arrested, and has it tested in court, how
>would there ever get to be "controlling" legal
>authority?  That's an attractive paradox.
>    And, unless we see Al "the Ozone Head"
>Gore being led off by the FBI in stainless steel
>bracelets, apparently his interpretation of the law is
>correct (for those in government, anyway).  Cause, after
>all, he stood up in front of the television cameras and
>admitted to the nation what he had done -- and he even
>said that he was proud of it.
>    The Department of Justice certainly should
>not need more proof than that!  That is, were they
>inclined to enforce the law.
>
>REMOVE BAD JUDGES
>    Surprise, surprise.  Finally, it looks like
>Congress is starting to take a good look at activist
>judges.  It's about time, too!
>    "The Washington Times" reported Wednesday
>that House Majority Whip Tom DeLay is already writing
>articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Fred
>Biery of Del Rio, Texas.  Biery, you may remember, is the
>judge who postponed indefinitely the swearing in of two
>Texas Republicans because members of the military voted
>for them.
>    The local race for county commissioner and
>sheriff were won by only 800 votes.  Biery ruled it
>unfair because many of the military votes cast were
>absentee votes.
>    Also under consideration for impeachment
>is U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson in San Francisco
>who blocked voter approved California Proposition 209,
>and U.S. District Court Judge Harold Bear, Jr. who tossed
>out drug evidence in a New York case because he did not
>think police had reason to search the defendant's
>car -- he later reversed himself.
>    Articles of impeachment are filed in the
>House (indictment), and require a simple majority vote to
>pass.  Then they go to the Senate (for trial), where a
>two-thirds vote is necessary to convict.  To date, only
>13 judges have been impeached, and only three since 1986.
>    With all the crazy decisions lately, it
>seems like this action is way overdue.  Judges must be
>"encouraged" to follow the Constitution, and especially
>the Bill of Rights.  Any judge deviating from the
>Constitution, as written, should be removed from the
>bench immediately.
>    Already, liberal groups are calling the
>proposed impeachment action "intimidation."  But that's
>good, actually.  Hopefully, judges will think of it that
>way, too.  Because, if Congress "intimidates" judges into
>obeying the Constitution by impeaching one or two a
>year, so much the better for us citizens.
>
>DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT
>    Those of us who were adults back in the
>1960's will remember the words "down with the
>establishment" from the hippies back then.  That's when
>a "trip" required acid, "crash" had two distinctly
>different meanings and the word "man" included everyone.
>    Where did all those hippies go, we
>sometimes wonder.  Obviously, most of them grew up to
>become productive adults.  That's because about the time
>they got married and started having kids, an interesting
>revelation popped into their drug-soaked minds:  They
>needed a dependable source of income to live
>comfortably!  And, to legally acquire the amount of money
>required to feed and house a family requires that they
>first get cleaned up and act like part of the
>establishment.  So, most did.
>    Not all did, though.  Not really.
>    Many of the anti-establishment hippie-type
>college kids managed to stay on campus.  They are now
>teachers.  Yup, these are now the far-left instructors
>teaching our children.  Yes, they are still far-left
>anti-establishment radicals -- most of them have never
>had a real job of any sort, nor any type of life outside
>of a commune or campus lifestyle.  But, they get to mold
>the thinking of our youngsters, nonetheless.
>    Another bunch of anti-establishment types
>became environmentalists.  You know, they commune with
>nature, and all that stuff. . . .  Some of them even
>weaseled their way into government positions, working for
>regulatory agencies.  Others are members of militant
>environmental organizations, pushing their government
>brethren for more anti-establishment rules and
>regulations.
>    No, the anti-establishment crowd did not
>disappear.  Not all of them, anyway.  They just cleaned
>themselves up a little and went political.  And if you
>look closely, they seem to be winning their fight against
>the establishment, too.
>    It seemed a little preposterous back then
>when a popular radio personality called them "long hair
>hippie-type pinkos."  Most of us thought them to be
>totally a-political -- drop-outs rather than "pinkos."
>    We were wrong!
>    They are today's socialist teachers and
>today's socialist regulators.  And it shouldn't be a
>surprise to anyone that the political ones are still
>working against the American establishment by aiding
>groups like the UN and UNESCO.
>    The problem is that what they consider
>to be the "establishment" includes our United States
>Constitution and most of our American values.
>
>PROTECTING PROPERTY
>    We're not very enthused at writing "book
>reports" on this end.  But there is one recently released
>book that really deserves mention.  And, we might add,
>although we only had time to spend about fifteen minutes
>thumbing through it, like many others we immediately
>added our name to the list of potential purchasers.
>    This is essentially a self defense book for
>property owners.  The book is targeted at both current
>and would-be property owners, and outlines dozens of
>interesting signs to look for when walking rural land.
>    A retired biologist (who, understandably,
>wishes to remain anonymous) spent a year documenting all
>applicable "endangered" plants and animals for five
>midwest states.  Both diagrams and full color pictures
>are included so as to make identification almost easy for
>even the untrained eye.
>    But the book goes far beyond just
>identification of endangered (and potentially endangered)
>plants and animals.  This author also offers concise
>information on what to do about the potential problem.
>    For instance, two chapters include
>information on the legal methods used by government
>agencies to "restrict" the usage of private property
>occupied by endangered species -- and information on how
>to fight that action.
>    But, most interesting to current land
>owners is the "proactive" preventive information
>included.  About one-third of the book includes
>instructions concerning everything from transplanting to
>total eradication of many protected plants and animals.
>In other words, information on how to get it off of your
>land, and keep it off of your land, before the regulators
>find out it was there.
>    Now . . . before the environmentalists get
>their shorts in a bunch, we should again report that this
>book was written by a well experienced biologist.
>Therefore, most instructions include information on how
>to effectively move the unwanted plant or animal to
>suitable public land (or the local regulator's land) --
>presumably, far away from your own property.
>    The book, we were told, is self-published
>and advertised by word of mouth.  Even so, the first
>5,000 copy printing, we were told, sold out in about two
>months.  Another 5,000 will be printed in two or three
>weeks.
>    It's a shame, actually, that such a book is
>necessary.  But, necessary it is.  The environmental
>wackos in government now have more stupid laws, rules
>and regulations regarding endangered species (and "near"
>endangered species) than any single person can learn.
>And most of these laws, rules and regulations can
>adversely affect private land usage.
>    Many of these regulations make no sense,
>either.  For instance, at a Kentucky meeting, we were
>shown five plants that are proposed to be labeled
>"threatened," and "protected," by environmentalists.  We
>mentioned that, in Michigan, we called those plants
>"weeds," and they are very plentiful throughout the
>state.  We further mentioned that property owners in
>Michigan would consider it a good thing if Kentucky
>environmentalists came up and removed as many as they
>wished.
>    Obviously, this was not the desired
>response.  For, the environmentalist ranger continued
>right on with his prepared speech on why it is necessary
>for government agents to do an environmental "inventory"
>on all public and private land in the state.
>    Ulterior motives, maybe?  Of course!
>    We were asked (told) to not advertise this
>book, and we honor that request.  Apparently, the books
>are sold as fast as they are printed and everyone
>involved is comfortable with that situation.  We also
>chose to not compile information about the author and the
>book's distributors.  Suffice to say, they all own
>property locally.  Readers may draw their own conclusions
>from that statement. . . .
>    Yes, this new book will sell well.  And it should.  It
>is an informative and well written text.  But it is a
>damn shame that such a book is necessary.
>
>ANARCHY ON HIGH
>    "Sometimes there is a difference between
>what is legal and what ought to be done," America was
>informed this week.  We should all remember that message,
>too.  Because, those words came directly from the
>nation's chief law enforcement officer, the President of
>the United States!
>    Yup, the nation's chief lawman implied
>that "there is a difference between what is legal and
>what ought to be done."  Those words should resonate
>loudly within every patriot hall in the nation!  Those
>words should be framed in gold for all good citizens to
>ponder.  Finally, Slick Willie uttered something
>bordering on truth.
>    Of course, he didn't mean it.  Well, he didn't mean it
>to apply to us American citizens, anyway.  That was his
>excuse for why (he thinks) he can morally violate
>campaign fund-raising laws with impunity.
>    And, that he did!  Most of the campaign laws.
>    Former White House chief of staff
>Leon E. Panetta practically admitted on NBC last Sunday
>that the 1996 Clinton reelection committee illegally
>spent $35-million to $40-million in Democratic National
>Committee "soft money" contributions on campaign
>commercials.  Yet, federal law prohibits the use of that
>money in an election campaign.
>    "The president was looking at a Republican
>Congress trying to implement a contract on America that
>would impact on Medicare, on education, go after the
>assault weapons ban, and the president was committed to
>make sure that that would not happen and that he would be
>able to be reelected," was Panetta's excuse.
>    Yup, and the end justifies the means.
>Because, "there is a difference between what is legal and
>what ought to be done."  The Republicans were coming, was
>the administration's rallying cry.  Can't have
>that . . . so anything goes in order to win!
>    Al Gore wasn't the only one dialing for
>dollars at the White House.  Slick admitted doing it,
>too.  And when Hillary was asked by the press if she
>partook in the fund-raising activities from the White
>House, she said (six times!):  "I do not recall making
>any [telephone calls], but I'm not going to say
>absolutely never.  I just don't recall being asked to
>make any.  I don't recall making any," she told
>reporters.  Uh huh.  Sure.
>    In Hillary-speak, that means:  Yes, I did
>it.  So what?  Don't bother me with those inane questions!
>    But both Panetta and Secretary of Defense
>William S. Cohen, who also appeared on the NBC show,
>said they never solicited campaign contributions from
>their Capitol Hill offices when they were in Congress
>because they felt "it would have been improper."  Yeah.
>It could get them some prison time, too!
>    Attorney General Janet Reno also seemed
>to acknowledge the problem.  Last week she said that
>federal law prohibits solicitation and receipt of
>campaign funds on federal property "by any person for the
>purpose of influencing any election for federal office."
>She just hasn't decided to do anything about it yet.  So,
>let's do our civic duty and give her a few pertinent
>facts:
>    "It is unlawful for a foreign national to
>contribute to any political campaign" (2 USC 441e).  Yet,
>Al Gore, Ron Brown, Senator Chris Dodd, John Huang, and
>quite a few others at the Democratic National Committee
>headquarters knowingly and actively solicited funds from
>foreign nationals.
>    Slick Willie intentionally accepted
>campaign money from Communist China operatives.  His
>"plausible denial" scenario of not being informed -- that
>the Chinese were laundering money into political
>campaigns -- by the FBI and the National Security Council
>will soon fail.  Believe the FBI on this one, folks.
>Clinton knew early on that the Communist Chinese were
>involved laundering money into political campaigns, and
>he wanted the lion's share of it.  But, for him to admit
>that is to admit to a serious federal felony.  Hence, the
>current cover-up and finger pointing in the news.
>    "Whoever promises any contact or other
>benefit as a consideration, favor, or reward for any
>political activity may be fined, imprisoned, or both"
>(18 USC 600).  That would include Bill and Hillary
>Clinton, Al Gore, Senator Chris Dodd, and a whole cast of
>characters in the Commerce Department and the DNC (most
>of Congress, too!).
>    Slick had to know that John Huang was
>probably a mole for the Chinese government.  Yet, he
>gave Huang a position at the Department of Commerce
>anyway.  As we all know now, that tactic paid off
>handsomely in campaign funds!  And one only need read
>any current newspaper to learn of all the "coffees" and
>other perks offered to major contributors by the Clinton
>administration.
>    "Whoever illegally obtains campaign
>contributions, or knowingly accepts campaign
>contributions that are laundered in an attempt to conceal
>the nature, source, ownership or control of the funds,
>may be fined, imprisoned, or both" (18 USC 1956).  That
>would include Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John
>Huang, Chris Dodd, the leadership at the DNC, and quite
>a few Clinton appointed ambassadors.
>    Half of the Clinton administration was
>involved in the re-election campaign -- and therefore,
>procuring campaign funds.  It started as soon as they
>took office, with Ron Brown and John Huang at Commerce
>shaking-down business executives and foreign nationals,
>and it ramped up quickly from there.
>    This administration did whatever it took
>to get money.  They sold access.  They sold influence.
>They sold government positions.  They sold government
>services.  And they changed laws and regulations to
>benefit major campaign contributors -- including foreign
>governments.
>    Did they break the law?  Sure.
>Continuously.  But, so what?  The Republicans were
>coming, and the end justified the means.  It was
>justified for the Clinton, Clinton and Gore team to
>violate the law because, "sometimes there is a difference
>between what is legal and what ought to be done."
>    Remember that.  There is a difference.
>But . . . only if you are an official of the federal
>government.
>
>INTERESTING LEGAL TERMS
>    Below are a few legal terms that seem to
>apply to the current news reports.  These are provided
>only because they offer interesting insight into what
>some lawyers in the Department of Justice may (or should)
>be thinking if they read the same news reports we do.
>    Just for kicks, we picked the oldest law
>dictionary on our shelf:  "The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary"
>by James C. Cahill, dated 1922.  This dictionary was
>chosen because it was published before American law was
>corrupted by the FDR administration.
>    Conspiracy:  "A combination of two or more
>persons by some concerted action to accomplish some
>criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some
>purpose, not itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or
>unlawful means."
>    Malfeasance:  "The unjust performance
>of some act which the party had no right, or which he had
>contracted not, to do."
>    Misfeasance:  "The performance of an act
>which might lawfully be done, in an improper manner, by
>which another person receives an injury."
>    Nonfeasance:  "The neglect or failure of a
>person to do some act which he ought to do.  The term is
>not generally used to denote a breach of contract, but
>rather the failure to perform a duty towards the public
>whereby some individual sustains special damage, as
>where a sheriff fails to execute a writ.
>    "When a legislative act requires a person
>to do a thing, its nonfeasance will subject the party to
>punishment;  as, if a statute require the supervisors of
>the highways to repair such highways, the neglect to
>repair them may be punished."
>    Last but not least comes a term from a
>twenty year old political dictionary of obviously liberal
>bent.  We choose this book because we believe that, when
>the subject at hand is the behavior of liberal
>politicians, it is probably best to define the terms the
>way the liberal politicians understand them.  And, this
>term was once a real favorite of the socialist
>reactionaries among us:
>    Civil Disobedience:  "Refusal to obey a
>law, usually on the ground that the law is morally
>reprehensible.  Recent examples of civil disobedience
>include Negro refusals to obey segregation laws and
>actions of anti-Vietnam war groups in refusing to honor
>draft regulations.  Civil disobedience ordinarily takes
>the form of nonviolent resistance and is aimed at
>arousing public opinion against the law."
>
>IMPEACHMENT
>    Just as we completed the text for this
>week's issue of "Heads Up" a very important story
>popped-up.  This is from "The Washington Times," and the
>synopsis is included immediately below:
>    "The chairman of the House Judiciary
>Committee has been asked to begin an impeachment inquiry
>of President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore amid
>accusations that a growing campaign-finance scandal has
>compromised national-security interests and corrupted the
>country's foreign-policy decisions.  Rep. Bob Barr,
>Georgia Republican, made the request this week in a three-
>page letter to Chairman Henry J. Hyde, challenging fund
>raising "on federal property and with federal
>resources.""
>    This is good stuff, forks.  The article is well worth
>reading -- no, studying -- in its entirety.  This is
>history in the making, and Jerry Seper of "The Washington
>Times" does an excellent job of summarizing the situation
>as it exists today.
>    Friday's "Washington Times" is on the Internet all
>weekend, so go over and check it out.  The address is:
>http://www.washtimes.com/fullindex/fullindex.html
>
>              -- End --
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE NEW ADDRESS!!



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: R2A! Why don't I ever get asked? (fwd)
Date: 15 Mar 1997 23:29:00 -0700


Forward since Kaylin is not on the utah-firearms list. Please copy
responses to her as well as the list. On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 15:04:17
"Kaylin Robinson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >(Mar 13, 1997 12:43 p.m. EST) - Most Americans believe handguns ought to
> >be regulated like automobiles.

> >The telephone survey of 1,200 Americans throughout the country disclosed
> >for the first time an overwhelming public demand for handguns to be
> >treated like other consumer products. The survey showed:

> >-- 82 percent favor mandatory registration of handguns.

> Not required for automobiles unless used for commercial purposes.
> Of course, the LEOs think any use on a public right-of-way is a
> commercial use.

> >-- 70 percent want handgun owners to be trained and licensed.

> No such requirement for automobile owners, only "drivers".

> >-- 86 percent support laws to require all new handguns be childproofed.

> This a new feature on automobiles?

> >-- 68 percent want new handguns "personalized" so only an authorized user
> >could operate the weapons.

> Another new automotive feature? Car thieves cut out the steering
> lock. Though I'll be glad to sell you a personalized fuel pump lock,
> AFAIK installation and activation of one is not legally required.

> >Tom Smith, director of the survey, characterized the public's position as
> >"the automobile model."

> Excellent. Show proof you are at least 18 years of age and it's "cash
> and carry". Registration is only required to "drive" it off the lot.

> >"We register cars and require that people have a license to drive.
> >Similarly, we could register guns and license gun owners."

You missed a point here , my dear, anyone can buy a car if they have
cash to do so.  You really dont have to be licensed to buy one OR
drive it off the lot.  You only need a license to test drive it or
register it???  Am I wrong???

> LEOs and armed mercenary guards and couriers, i.e., those using firearms
> as weapons for commercial purposes, should be licensed and bonded.

> >Almost all Americans, according to the survey, would tighten restrictions
> >on gun purchases by criminals and even by those convicted of misdemeanors
> >such as shoplifting and driving under the influence of alcohol.

> New requirements for purchases of automobiles of which I am unaware?

I am aware of no regulations which would stop you from "test driving"
(except a license)  or buying (not even a license) a car.

> >Specifically, 95 percent would prohibit handgun purchases by people
> >convicted of displaying a firearm in a threatening manner -- and 61
> >percent would deny guns to people convicted of indecent exposure.

> Ban car ownership by people who "drive" recklessly or rudely or
> commit lewd or indecent acts in them?

I dont even think they ban a car to those convicted of "automobile
homicide"

> >By big majorities the public also wants stricter laws on gun sales. Seven
> >out of 10 believe sales should be limited to stores rather than
> >individuals, who currently are allowed to sell at shows or privately.
> >Eight out of ten want sales limited to one gun per person per month.

> Cars can only be legally purchased from licensed dealers? Guess that
> makes me a criminal for selling a car directly to my brother without
> cutting a licensed dealer in for his 100% commission.

I am so ashamed of you for your criminal activity :)

> >Gun homicide is the leading cause of death for black males aged 15 to 24.
> >And, the survey disclosed, 20 percent of all Americans have been
> >threatened with a gun.

> Bet nearly 100% have been threatened with a car. Deaths from injuries
> from cars also far outnumber those from guns or projectiles they have
> fired.

I have been more often threatened with a car!!!  Tis true some 20 years
ago I was threatened with a gun.  But every time I drive downtown I am
facing death at the hands of idiots...  (much more frequent)

One more thing.  Do you know that if you kill someone with a gun it
is either manslaughter or murder???  (10 to life)  However if you kill
someone with a car and happen to be drunk or on drugs at the time it
is "vehicular homicide" and the max you can get is 5 years in jail???

And I can drive a unlicensed car for a while.  God forbid I ever shot
one!!!:)

Want to regulate guns like they do cars???? I am all for it.
at least it would be a start in the right (less intrusive) direction.

KR





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Web of Fraud & Deceit 3/3
Date: 17 Mar 1997 10:41:00 -0700


[Missing text?] "death-wish"!

The Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control [NCIPC] is funded by you and me. Since 1992, millions of
the CDC's annual budget for injury prevention and control have gone to
"research" on gun injuries and studies on how handgun availability affects
homicide rates. Even more specifically, over the last few years, the CDC
has funded the politically driven, scientifically-corrupt firearms-related
"research" of Dr. Arthur Kellermann with over $1.7 million of YOUR money!
The CDC also funds newsletters that urge people to lobby for "gun-control".

A 1989 article in JAMA quoted a CDC official's statement that his work
there involved "systematically building a case that owning firearms
causes death." And, in the words of NCIPC's own director, Dr. Mark
Rosenberg, he "envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use
and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost,
a public health menace." It couldn't be stated more plainly.

2 A DIFFERENT BREED

In contrast to the phonies like Kellermann and Rosenberg, there are
some concerned medical doctors out there who do take the Hippocratic
Oath to heart, and put their patients' welfare above all else. These
are "working" physicians --- they have practices to tend to, and real
patients to care for. Their activities to preserve our Constitution
and its Second Amendment are funded, in contrast, by their own incomes,
and by individual, concerned private citizens, not by government grants
that allow them to sit in an office all day and think up ways to do us
gun-owners in.

Some of the medical doctor-players in the fight against the
politicization of American medicine:

     Dr. Edgar Suter is a family doctor, and the Chairman
     of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, a
     nationwide group of health- care professionals --- the
     name says it all!

     Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr. is a Prof. of Neurosurgery and
     Adjunct Prof. of Medical History at Mercer University
     School of Medicine in Macon, Georgia. Dr. Faria fled
     the shores of Castro's persecution, and knows, firsthand,
     all about the price of Liberty and freedom.

     Dr. Martin Fackler is the foremost authority on wound
     ballistics. He is a tenacious fighter against the
     tide of politically-correct medical "opinion" when it
     comes to the diagnosis and treatment of gun-shot wounds.

     Dr. Timothy Wheeler is Chairman of Doctors for
     Responsible Gun Ownership, a California-based
     nationwide group of like-minded physicians.

     Dr. Sarah Thompson is [was-SB] Executive Director of Women
     Against Gun-Control. Unlike the other "Sarah", Dr. Thompson
     does not pull in thousands of dollars every time she opens
     her mouth in public. When not treating patients, Dr. Thompson
     works tirelessly on our behalf.


3 NO, NOT "TEFLON BULLETS"

Spiders are usually helpful to man --- their webs catch insects which
are ultimately harmful to our food crops. In this case, however, the
web's function is less benevolent, for this web is spun to catch and
destroy the truth, and our guns, in the process.

The web of fraud and deceit is badly in need of a teflon coating, so
the lies can't stick anymore. But a good, Dr. Paul Gallant is engaged
in the private practice of Family Optometry, Wesley Hills, NY. He is
Chairman, Committee for Law-Abiding Gun-Owners, Rockland [LAGR],
a 2nd Amendment grassroots PAC based in Rockland County, NY.

The authors may be reached at: LAGR, P.O. Box 354, Thiells, NY 10984-0354.

                        ---   ---   ---
COPYRIGHT 1997 by Conservative Consensus (unless otherwise noted). Please
redistribute widely, provided nothing is changed, and our headers and
trailers remain intact. Publications may reprint provided credit is given.

CURIOUS about what the media and political elite have planned
for the rest of us? Want to find out what they'd rather not tell
you? Send email with SUBSCRIBE as the subject to:

VISIT our Website: Get free, downloadab[text missing, all V3X8]

D                       N
DIPR                    NCIPC
disarmament
                        P
E                       Pediatrics
Eisen, Joanne Dr.       perpetrators=victims

F                       R
Faria, Miguel Dr.       Rosenberg, Mark Dr.

G                       S
Gallant, Paul Dr.       sampling procedures
                        sampling-apple/orange
H                       statistics re-cooked
Hippocratic Oath        study, fraudulent
                        Suter, Edgar Dr.
J
journal-JAMA            T
journal-NEJM            Thompson, Sarah Dr.
                        Trauma
K                       trust doctor-betrays
Kellermann, Arthur Dr.
                        W
L                       Web of Fraud & Deceit
Loftin, Colin Ph.D.     Wheeler, Timothy Dr.

M
media
medical politicians
Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests: [e-mail]
Advertising, Editorial, etc: [e-mail]

Distribution:



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Edelman Letter        1/2
Date: 17 Mar 1997 10:41:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subj: I have never seen this is so clear and in such certain terms...

http://TeamInfinity.com/bible
http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html (updated)
http://TeamInfinity.com/~ralph/irs.audit.html <-SCATHING GAO Audit of IRS


Again I have never seen the denial of Second Amendment rights to the
citizens so completely expressed in so certain unequivocal pat terms.
I have seen the fax of this actual letter. This should leave absolutely
no doubt that this administration (and others I am sure) believes and
creates policy that says without reservation that the private citizens
in this nation do NOT have the right to possess firearms of ANY TYPE
WHATSOEVER. We are NOT talking shades of grey here at all.

[e-mail]

"The Constitution shall NEVER be construed to prevent the people of the
United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
Samuel Adams

[e-mail] wrote, Mike Kemp <[e-mail]> forwards:

10 March 1997
1 ACR

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONFIRMS EDELMAN LETTER:

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ADOPTS KING GEORGE III's FIREARMS POLICY

The following letter on U.S. Department of Justice official stationery,
hand stamped "Feb 20  1997" (date received) was sent by Ms. Ronnie Edelman,
Principal Deputy Chief, Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, Criminal
Division, Department of Justice to a citizen of Alabama.  In the letter, Ms.
Edelman answers the addressee's question regarding Clinton Administration
policy on the Second Amendment in clear and unequivocal terms.  Today, 10
March 1997, the letter was confirmed by both the addresseee and the Justice
Department as genuine.  This letter, and the policy interpretation it
enunciates, is of vital interest to all defenders of the Constitution and
particularly, the Second Amendment.

The letter reads as follows, in it's entirety:


 Your electronic mail to President Clinton was forwarded to the Criminal
Division of the Department of Justice for response.  You asked about
reciprocity between the states for recognition of another state's concealed
weapons permits, the administration's views on the Second Amendment and
handguns, and whether the administration is familiar with the University of
Chicago Law School Study on the effects of concealed weapons statutes.

 As envisioned by the founders of this nation, the federal government was
one of limited powers.  It was intended, under the Tenth Amendment, that
state governments would retain all powers not specifically delegated to the
federal government.  While this balance has altered over the years, the
states have retained certain perogatives and rights.  Among those rights
retained by the states is the ability to establish the the qualifications
necessary to carry a concealed weapon within a given state.  As you may
be aware, a number of states have adoptive permissive, or "shall issue",
concealed weapons statutes.  Other states have not elected to pursue this
path.  The federal government does not participate in this debate.
Therefore, this administration does not take a position on the issue of
requiring the states to grant recognition of another state's concealed
weapons permits.

 The Second Amendment, whether in regard to handguns or all guns, is a
matter of growing scholarly debate.  The current state of federal law does
not recognize that the Second Amendment protects the rights of private
citizens to possess firearms of any type.  Instead, the Second Amendment is
deemed to be a collective right belonging to the state, not to an individual.

Accordingly, the Second Amendment is interpreted by this administration as
prohibiting the federal government from preventing a state government from
forming or having a state-recognized militia force.  With this understanding
in mind, the source of a citizen's authority to possess a handgun has never
been particularly identified in American law.  Since the beginning of the
creation of various gun control laws, beginning in 1934, no administration
has sought to clarify this ambiguity.

 Finally, your description of the "University of Chicago Law School study on
the effects of concealed weapons statutes" was too general a description for
use in locating that study.  We have seen a concealed weapon study presented
in Volume 62 of the Tennessee Law Review in 1995, which suggests that there
is a corresponding drop in crime as the number of concealed weapon permits
rise.  Nevertheless, the issue of concealed weapons permits remains a matter
for state decision.  Like the reciprocity provision discussed above, and for
the same reasons, the federal government does not currently participate in
this debate.

Sincerely, (Signature)

Ronnie L. Edelman
Principal Deputy Chief
Terrorism and Violent Crime Section
Criminal Division

Addendum:

The six listed here constitute one half of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The following cases by name, case number and which circuit Courts of Appeals
have rendered such decisions:
  From the Third: United States vs. Tot; 1321 F.2d 261 (1942)
  From the Sixth: United States vs. Marin; 530 F.2d 103 (1976)
  From the Seventh: Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove; 532 F. Supp. 1169
  (N.D. Illinois 1981)
  From the Eighth: United States v. Wilber Hale; 978 F. 2d  1016 (1992)
  From the Ninth: Hickman v. Block; 81 F.3d 98 (1996)
  From the Tenth: United States vs. Oakes; 564 F. 2nd 384  (1977)

 This is the current state of the Federal law, ie: The Second Amendment does
not protect the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type.
(End of letter)

 WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DON'T THEY UNDERSTAND?!?!?

Contact your Congressman & Senators, now!  It is but one step from this
policy to federal gun confiscation raids.  If you think the Feds won't try
it, ask the Davidians-- if you can find any.  In their arrogance of power &
willful ignorance of the Constitution, the Clintonistas believe that the
Second Amendment is just so much toilet paper as far as "the peasants" are
concerned.  We must convince them otherwise with our phone calls & faxes NOW.
 If we fail to roll back this "policy" peacefully, we will have to fight to
retain the God-given liberties bequeathed us by the sacrifices of our ancestors.
[ Continued In Next Message... ]





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Edelman Letter        2/2
Date: 17 Mar 1997 10:41:00 -0700


[ ...Continued From Previous Message ]
1. I CALL ON ALL FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS TO BURN UP THE FAX AND PHONE LINES!
DEMAND THAT THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN CONGRESS REPUDIATE THIS DANGEROUS AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY!  DEMAND TO KNOW WHEN IT WAS THAT THIS COUNTRY
REVERTED TO THE MONARCHY OF KING GEORGE III (OR KING WILLIAM THE WORST)!

2. DEMAND THAT LEGISLATORS AT ALL LEVELS, FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL, AS WELL
AS GOVERNORS AND SHERIFFS, DECLARE THEIR OPINION BY RECORDED VOTE OR WRITTEN
STATEMENT ON THIS POLICY!  WE NEED TO KNOW NOW WHERE THEY STAND, NOW!

3. Clean, bore sight, and take your rifle (or pistol) to the range this
Saturday.  Post a copy of the above Edelman letter on your target stand and
fire the tightest group into it that you can muster-- dead center.  Remove
the "target", circle the group, make the notation "This is the only kind of
'gun control' the Founding Fathers endorsed", and mail it to your Congressman
or local media talking head.

4. Pass on this gentle reminder to all politicians of whatever stripe-- if
you imitate King George's policies you may get   King George's results.

-- Mike Vanderboegh, 1 ACR
Constitutional Militiaman

"One if by land,
Two if by sea,
Three if by air assault."

El Jeffe, El Capiton, Generalissimo Klintonista speaks out about
the US Constitution:

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical
Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of
individual freedom to Americans ..."

"And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom.  When
personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it.  That's
what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public
housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more
things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."

President Bill Clinton, 3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"

"We can't be so fixated on our desire
 to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..."

Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

Why can't any of these be considered a violation of the oath of
office to uphold the Constitution and qualify as TREASON !!

"The road to tyranny, we must never forget,
begins with the destruction of the truth."

(William J. Clinton, from his 10/15/95 speech at
the University of Connecticut to mark-
"Fifty Years After Nuremburg: Human Rights & The Rule Of Law")

"Gun registration is not enough." Attorney General Janet Reno, December 10,
1993 (Associated Press) "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is
only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno

++++++++++++++++++++ ><> ++++++++++++++++++++++++

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each
citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do
his share in this defense are constitutional rights secure." Albert Einstein

"Resistance to Tyranny is obedience to God."

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we
shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no
power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement
of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ....The unlimited power
of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state
governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of
the People."--Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts --
not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the
Constitution."

-- Abraham Lincoln

Lest anyone should doubt the INTENT which IS the FORCE of the LAW read on:

[e-mail]

The following are some quotes from some of our founding fathers (many of
whom were very dedicated Christians, not to mention the framers of the
government and thereby whose ORIGINAL intent, is the FORCE of the LAW):

1) "A well regulated [trained] Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." Second Amendment (emphasis mine)

2) "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms ..." Thomas Jefferson

3) "... The people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves
and the state ..." Pennsylvania declaration of 1776

4) "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who
approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright
force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry

5) "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people... To disarm the
people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." George
Mason

6) "Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike
citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people
with arms." James Madison

7) "... Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in
awe, and preserve order to the world as well as property. The balance of
power is the scale of peace." Thomas Paine

8) "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed
and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be,
on any pretense, raised in the United States..." Noah Webster

9) "Liberty and order will never be perfectly safe until a trespass on the
Constitutional provisions for either, shall be felt with the same keenness
that resents an invasion of the dearest rights..." James Madison

10) "They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

11) "Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual
discretion...in private self defense." John Adams

12) "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the
United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
Samuel Adams

13) "Those who reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the
fatigue of supporting it." Thomas Paine

Am I ignorant to think that I can understand the intent of the Second
Amendment without guidance from current day anti-gun "elites"?





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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Web of Fraud and Deceit
Date: 17 Mar 1997 14:57:54 -0700


>Conservative Consensus(tm)
>----------------------------------------------------------------
> Events * Analysis * Commentary * Forecasts * Readers' Opinions
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>What in the world is going on?   www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html
>
>Security Column * V3X8 * 15/Mar/97 * ISSN 1074-245X
>
>
>                    WEB OF FRAUD AND DECEIT
>
>
>by Dr.  Joanne D.  Eisen and
>Dr.  Paul Gallant
>
>1 A FLY IN THE OINTMENT
>
>     "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we
>     practice to deceive!"
>
>     Sir  Walter Scott penned those words 150 years ago.  But he
>must  have  had a crystal ball to see into the 1990s, because he
>sure    pegged    the    medical    politicians   of   America's
>anti-self-defense lobby to a tee!
>
>     We're going to untangle this web for you.
>
>     One  of  the  dictums  of medicine has always been "Do your
>patient  no  harm".   Yet, there are some doctors in high places
>who  are doing just that.  For there are medical "professionals"
>in  this  country  who  have,  by  their  actions, truly aligned
>themselves  on  the side of the criminals who prey upon society,
>both  the  common  street-variety  of  criminal,  as well as the
>government-variety.
>
>     They've  done this by corrupting a once-prestigious body of
>medical literature with lies and fraudulent studies, in the name
>of "public health".  They've suppressed and distorted legitimate
>research  on  firearms and violence when it disagrees with their
>own preconceived notions.
>
>     They've even gone so far as to force the resignation of the
>only  editor  of a medical journal who dared print the truth ---
>Dr.   Miguel  Faria  was  editor  of  the Journal of the Medical
>Association  of  Georgia  [JMAG]  until the summer of 1995.  Dr.
>Faria's   resignation   was   forced,  not  because  he  was  an
>incompetent  editor, but because he refused to mix politics with
>medicine [see sidebar].
>
>     These  unscrupulous doctors have done all this to achieve a
>goal of civilian disarmament.  Well, Hippocratic Oath or not, if
>they succeed, the medical politicians will have done irreparable
>harm  to  their  collective  "patient" --- America's law-abiding
>citizens.
>
>2 BLACK IS WHITE, RIGHT?
>
>     Just  as  the  spider meticulously spins his web, strand by
>strand,  the  medical  politicians  have used their journals ---
>JAMA,  NEJM, Trauma, Pediatrics --- and some government agencies
>---  the  CDC  ---  to spin their own intricate web of fraud and
>deceit.   But the target of this web is a different sort of prey
>--- it's guns --- our guns! And gun-owners!
>
>     Each strand in the medical politicians' web is another lie,
>couched  in  "scientific"  language.  Each lie is systematically
>leaked  to  willing  accomplices in the media, and heralded as a
>great new medical discovery.  Each lie is accepted, and repeated
>ad  nauseum,  until  liberal  folk  who,  often  unfamiliar with
>firearms,  become  fearful of those who themselves, casually and
>naturally, regard firearms as tools, as beloved collectibles, as
>sporting   equipment,   and   most   importantly,  as  emergency
>equipment.
>
>     Law-abiding  American gun-owners have been told that WE are
>the  murderers  in  society,  that WE are responsible for all of
>America's  problems.   We're told guns are "dangerous", and that
>if  you  own  a gun, it'll more than likely be used against you!
>We're  told  that  if  you  own a gun, you're magically going to
>become transformed into some raging, homicidal sociopath.  We're
>told,  in  short,  that  no  thinking,  caring, civilized person
>should  even  want  to  own  one of these horrible things in the
>first place!
>
>     And,  to  make  sure  we buy all this malarkey, the medical
>politicians  whip  up  "studies" designed to "prove" their lies,
>and tell us black is white, and white is black.
>
>     It  is said that "figures lie, and liars figure", and while
>the  anti-self-defense lobby relies on the "new" math to figure,
>the  old  math  works  just  fine  to  debunk the figures of the
>medical  politicians.  Most of the tricks used to try to fool us
>are  not  difficult  to  understand.   The  tough  part comes in
>identifying,  in  a  particular  study,  just  which  tricks are
>employed  by  these  charlatans  to  skew  the  results to their
>desired conclusion.  Here's some of the "how".
>
>3 A SAMPLE OF BIAS
>
>     As  an  example,  scientific  studies  depend  on  sampling
>procedures  ---  that means taking a small portion of the whole,
>and using it to base conclusions about the whole from that small
>portion  which  was  actually  chosen.   If that sample is large
>enough,  and selected properly, it will represent the whole well
>enough  for most purposes.  But, instead of using scientifically
>rigorous  representative samples, unscrupulous researchers often
>use  small,  carefully  selected, non-representative samples, so
>that  they  can  build  their  bias into the study from the very
>start.  Then, by using data from those unrepresentative samples,
>they extrapolate their conclusions to the whole.
>
>     Suppose,  for  example,  we consider a shipment of "fruit",
>equally  divided  into  apples  and oranges.  Apples are high in
>pectin,  and  low in Vitamin C.  Oranges, on the other hand, are
>higher  in  Vitamin  C,  and lower in pectin.  However, we could
>design  a  "study" which will "prove" that apples are as high in
>Vitamin  C  as  oranges  are.   All we'd need to do is carefully
>select  samples of the "fruit" in our shipment, making sure that
>we  only choose the oranges, and use them as our "representative
>fruit sample".  Once we determine the Vitamin C content of those
>oranges,  we  can  then  project  the  Vitamin C content of this
>"fruit" "sample" back to the entire shipment of "fruit".
>
>     Voila! "New Medical Studies Prove Apples Are Just As Good A
>Source of Vitamin C as Oranges Are."
>
>     We  could  devise  a similarly dishonest "study" to "prove"
>that apples and oranges have the same pectin content.
>
>     Honest  researchers  take into account the entire shipment.
>Dishonest  ones generally don't.  And, they won't tell you that,
>either!
>
>4 OF DARKNESS AND ICICLES
>
>     Another  example  of  the statistical chicanery used by the
>medical  politicians  is  called  the  "post-hoc" fallacy.  This
>trick  is  often  camouflaged  by  a  wealth  of impressive, but
>irrelevant,  statistics  cited  within  a  study.   The post-hoc
>fallacy  goes like this: If "A" follows "B", then "B" has caused
>"A".   A  variation  of  this  occurs  when  there  may  be some
>legitimate  relationship  between the variables "A" and "B", but
>it  is  not possible to be sure which is the cause, and which is
>the effect.
>
>     For  example,  it  is  always darker on each successive 3rd
>Thursday between the months of October and December.  Suppose we
>measure the temperature on each 3rd Thursday of these months ---
>it  is  highly  likely that the 3rd Thursday in November will be
>colder than the 3rd Thursday in October, and the 3rd Thursday in
>December will be even colder.
>
>     Voila  ---  "Researchers  Make  New Discovery: Studies show
>that  the  darker  it  is,  the colder it is!" Just think of the
>money  that  the  manufacturers  of  energy-efficient [plugless]
>refrigerators  could  rake  in  by  marketing a large, dark box!
>Sounds  silly?  Well,  when the equation reads "more guns = more
>crime",  the  logic's  the same, but that one apparently doesn't
>sound quite so silly to some people.
>
>5 WHO'S LYING HERE?
>
>     Sometimes,  finding the truth can seem an almost impossible
>task.   Sometimes,  it's  a  matter of one person's word against
>another,  with  no  other  witnesses  to  help  set  the  record
>straight.   Today,  we have two camps of medical scientists, and
>each  tells a different story.  One side says guns are bad.  The
>other says guns are only tools --- it's some people who are bad.
>If  one camp is telling the truth, the other must be lying.  But
>which one?
>
>     Sometimes,  it's  easy  enough to tell who the liar is, and
>one  doesn't need 20/20 vision, or a PhD, to see through the web
>--- just some plain, old-fashioned common sense.
>
>     In  1986, a study by a Dr.  Arthur Kellermann was published
>in  the  New  England  Journal  of Medicine [NEJM] which claimed
>something rather incredible to us gun-owners --- this study said
>that  "a  gun-owner  is  43  times  more likely to kill a family
>member   than  an  intruder."  Yet,  another  group  of  medical
>scientists said this was simply not true.
>
>     Who's  the  liar?  You make the call.  Hint: The authors of
>this  study  used  the bad-guy body-count as the sole measure of
>the  protective  benefits of guns --- totally ignoring the lives
>saved,  the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the
>property protected by the presence of a gun.
>
>     Just  5 years later, in 1991, another study appeared in the
>NEJM  authored  by  Colin  Loftin, PhD, which, to us gun-owners,
>told  another incredible tale --- it said that in Washington DC,
>the  city's  ban  on all handguns, rifles and shotguns, led to a
>reduction of violent crime in the nation's capitol.  And, again,
>another  group  of  medical scientists said that this was simply
>not true.
>
>     Who's the liar here? You make the call.  Hint: Just 2 years
>after  the  NEJM published this "study", the mayor of Washington
>DC  proposed  that the National Guard be called in to patrol the
>streets  of Washington D.C.  to keep what little was left of the
>"peace".
>
>     Fast  forward  to  1993.  Yet another study appeared in the
>NEJM,  also  authored  by  Arthur Kellermann, claiming this time
>that  "a  gun-owner  is  2.7  times more likely to kill a family
>member  than an intruder".  And, again, another group of medical
>scientists said this was simply not true, either.
>
>     Who's the liar? Again, you make the call.  Hint: Kellermann
>lumped  the good guys with the bad guys, and called the bad guys
>"victims".   Kellermann  had  the  unmitigated chutzpah to label
>perpetrators  killed  by  the  police,  in  the line of duty, as
>"victims"!
>
>     The  claim  that a firearm ban could somehow lower the rate
>of  violent  crime  in  Washington  DC  was outrageous.  That "a
>gun-owner  is  43 times more likely to kill a family member than
>an  intruder"  was  equally  so.   In  hoping  to  create a more
>plausible  hoax, Kellermann merely re-cooked the statistics on a
>lower flame in order to come up with his "2.7" number.
>
>     What  gave  Kellermann the confidence to think he could get
>away  with  the perpetration of such a hoax? Banking on the high
>esteem most Americans hold their doctors in, Kellermann betrayed
>this  trust,  and  in  the  process,  gave  Americans corrupted,
>statistical and scientific horse-puckey!
>
>     One  additional  hint  --- a week after publication of this
>study, during his presentation to a firearm-prohibition advocacy
>group,  Kellermann  made  an  emotional admission of his already
>well- known anti-gun bias!
>
>6 NOT ALL THE SAME
>
>     In  this  indictment  of  the  medical  politicians  of the
>anti-self-defense  lobby,  we'd  hate  to  leave  you  with  the
>impression  that  all  doctors  come  from  the same mold as the
>Kellermanns  and  the  Loftins.  They don't.  In fact, there are
>some  true American patriots within the medical community in the
>vanguard  of  the  counter-assault  against the web of fraud and
>deceit of the medical politicians.
>
>     In  stark  contrast,  Dr.  Edgar Suter is a once-unassuming
>family   doctor   from  California.   Now,  Dr.   Suter  is  the
>outspoken,  foremost  expert  on  firearms  and  violence in the
>medical   literature   on   firearms   today.   He  is,  not  so
>coincidentally, also Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy
>Research.
>
>     In  the  June  1995  Journal  of the Medical Association of
>Georgia, Dr.  Suter wrote:
>
>     It is increasingly common to hear that 'guns are a
>     virus', or discussion of the 'bullet as pathogen'.  As
>     appealing as the claim may be to some, guns are not
>     pathogens, and crime is not a disease.  Crime is a
>     social problem that does not lend itself to analysis
>     or treatment under the medical model.
>
>     Treating crime as a disease --- the essence of the
>     'public health' approach to gun violence --- is as
>     illogical and ineffectual as the converse --- treating
>     disease as a crime.  It is a distorted concept,
>     indeed, that the rights of good people, the most
>     virtuous and productive citizens, should be defined
>     --- or more precisely, restrained --- by the criminal
>     actions of predators in our society."
>
>     In  1994, there was a study published in the Journal of the
>Medical  Association  of  Georgia, authored by Dr.  Edgar Suter:
>Guns  in  the  Medical Literature --- A Failure of Peer Review".
>Calling most of the medical literature on firearms "politicized,
>incompetent results-oriented research", Dr.  Suter concluded:
>
>     Errors of fact, design, and interpretation abound in
>     the medical literature on guns and violence.  The
>     overwhelming preponderance of data we have examined
>     shows that between 25 to 75 lives may be saved by a
>     gun for every life lost to a gun.  Guns save far more
>     lives than they cost.
>
>     Again,  another  group of medical scientists says that this
>was simply not true.  Who's the liar?
>
>     Go ahead --- you make the call.  But no hints on this one.
>
>     We don't think you'll need any!
>
>
>
>  Sidebar Insert --- YOU'RE TWICE A VICTIM --- Sidebar Insert
>
>
>1 A GUN-OWNER'S DEATH-WISH?
>
>     Just  who's  funding  this  web  of fraud and deceit? Well,
>guess  what  ---  we  are!  Adding insult truly to injury, these
>fraudulent  "studies"  are  funded  by  taxpayer  monies  --- as
>law-abiding gun- owning Americans, who choose only to exercise a
>fundamental,  Constitutionally-guaranteed  right, WE'RE actually
>paying  to  have  our  own  rights  stripped  away! Talk about a
>"death-wish"!
>
>     The  Centers  for  Disease  Control's  National  Center for
>Injury  Prevention  and Control [NCIPC] is funded by you and me.
>Since  1992,  millions  of  the  CDC's  annual budget for injury
>prevention  and  control have gone to "research" on gun injuries
>and  studies on how handgun availability affects homicide rates.
>Even  more  specifically,  over  the last few years, the CDC has
>funded    the    politically    driven,   scientifically-corrupt
>firearms-related  "research" of Dr.  Arthur Kellermann with over
>$1.7  million of YOUR money! The CDC also funds newsletters that
>urge people to lobby for "gun-control".
>
>     A  1989  article  in JAMA quoted a CDC official's statement
>that  his  work  there  involved "systematically building a case
>that owning firearms causes death." And, in the words of NCIPC's
>own  director,  Dr.   Mark  Rosenberg, he "envisions a long term
>campaign,  similar  to  tobacco use and auto safety, to convince
>Americans  that  guns  are,  first and foremost, a public health
>menace." It couldn't be stated more plainly.
>
>2 A DIFFERENT BREED
>
>     In  contrast  to the phonies like Kellermann and Rosenberg,
>there  are  some concerned medical doctors out there who do take
>the  Hippocratic  Oath to heart, and put their patients' welfare
>above  all  else.   These are "working" physicians --- they have
>practices  to  tend  to,  and  real patients to care for.  Their
>activities to preserve our Constitution and its Second Amendment
>are   funded,   in  contrast,  by  their  own  incomes,  and  by
>individual, concerned private citizens, not by government grants
>that allow them to sit in an office all day and think up ways to
>do us gun-owners in.
>
>     Some of the medical doctor-players in the fight against the
>politicization of American medicine:
>
>     Dr.  Edgar Suter is a family doctor, and the Chairman
>     of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, a
>     nationwide group of health- care professionals --- the
>     name says it all!
>
>     Dr.  Miguel A.  Faria, Jr.  is a Prof.  of
>     Neurosurgery and Adjunct Prof.  of Medical History at
>     Mercer University School of Medicine in Macon,
>     Georgia.  Dr.  Faria fled the shores of Castro's
>     persecution, and knows, firsthand, all about the price
>     of Liberty and freedom.
>
>     Dr.  Martin Fackler is the foremost authority on wound
>     ballistics.  He is a tenacious fighter against the
>     tide of politically-correct medical "opinion" when it
>     comes to the diagnosis and treatment of gun-shot
>     wounds.
>
>     Dr.  Timothy Wheeler is Chairman of Doctors for
>     Responsible Gun Ownership, a California-based
>     nationwide group of like-minded physicians.
>
>     Dr.  Sarah Thompson is Executive Director of Women
>     Against Gun- Control.  Unlike the other "Sarah", Dr.
>     Thompson does not pull in thousands of dollars every
>     time she opens her mouth in public.  When not treating
>     patients, Dr.  Thompson works tirelessly on our
>     behalf.
>
>
>3 NO, NOT "TEFLON BULLETS"
>
>     Spiders  are  usually  helpful  to man --- their webs catch
>insects which are ultimately harmful to our food crops.  In this
>case,  however,  the web's function is less benevolent, for this
>web is spun to catch and destroy the truth, and our guns, in the
>process.
>
>     The  web  of  fraud and deceit is badly in need of a teflon
>coating,   so  the  lies  can't  stick  anymore.   But  a  good,
>continuous dose of the truth will do the trick, just as well!
>                        ---   ---   ---
>Copyright  1996  by  McMullen  Argus Publishing, Inc.  Reprinted
>from  the  April 1996 issue of American Survival Guide magazine.
>Used with permission.
>
>Dr.   Joanne  D.   Eisen  is  engaged in the private practice of
>Family   Dentistry,   Old   Bethpage,  NY.   She  is  President,
>Association  of  Dentists  for  Accuracy in Scientific Media, an
>organization  of  Dentists  concerned  with educating the Dental
>profession  and  the  populace  about  the real truth concerning
>"gun-control".
>
>Dr.   Paul  Gallant is engaged in the private practice of Family
>Optometry, Wesley Hills, NY.  He is Chairman, Committee for Law-
>Abiding  Gun-Owners, Rockland [LAGR], a 2nd Amendment grassroots
>PAC based in Rockland County, NY.
>
>The  authors may be reached at: LAGR, P.O.  Box 354, Thiells, NY
>10984-0354.
>
>                        ---   ---   ---
>COPYRIGHT  1997  by  Conservative  Consensus  (unless  otherwise
>noted).    Please   redistribute  widely,  provided  nothing  is
>changed,   and   our   headers   and   trailers  remain  intact.
>Publications may reprint provided credit is given.
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| SUBSCRIBER OFFER   :::   O T T O   S C O T T ' S   C O M P A S S   |
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| "I find it not so surprising that a lot of Otto Scott's ideas and  |
>| observations have been borrowed," his editor recently told me.     |
>| As the editor of Conservative Consensus, I agree!  Otto Scott      |
>| writes on today's topics from a unique, historical perspective,    |
>| that gives you a looking-glass into the future.                    |
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Conservative Consensus subscribers can get a free issue by         |
>| writing to: Otto Scott's Compass, POB 69006 Seattle, WA 98168, or  |
>| [e-mail] for email.  Subscriptions are $50 per year.      |
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>CURIOUS  about  what  the media and political elite have planned
>for the rest of us? Want to find out what they'd rather not tell
>you? Send email with SUBSCRIBE as the subject to:
>
>                 [e-mail]
>
>VISIT our Website: Get free, downloadable news releases that you
>can  copy  and pass on to friends.  Updates, back issues, reader
>comments.  All TEXT -- visit us with any browser.
>
>             http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html
>
>A CUMULATIVE INDEX of our releases for 1997 will be available on
>our  Website  after  mid-March.   Release  numbers,  rather than
>pages, will be cited.  Here are the entries for this release:
>
>
>"                                 F
>"bullet as pathogen"      V3X8    fallacy post-hoc          V3X8
>"gun as virus"            V3X8
>                                  J
>D                                 journal-JAMA              V3X8
>DIPR                      V3X8    journal-NEJM              V3X8
>
>E                                 M
>Eisen, Joanne Dr.         V3X8    media                     V3X8
>                                  medical politicians       V3X8
>F
>Faria, Miguel Dr.         V3X8    P
>                                  perpetrators=victims      V3X8
>G
>Gallant, Paul Dr.         V3X8    S
>                                  sampling procedures       V3X8
>H                                 sampling-apple/orange     V3X8
>Hippocratic Oath          V3X8    statistics re-cooked      V3X8
>                                  study, fraudulent         V3X8
>K
>Kellermann, Arthur Dr.    V3X8    T
>                                  trust doctor-betrays      V3X8
>L
>Loftin, Colin Ph.D.       V3X8
>
>N
>NCIPC                     V3X8
>
>P
>Pediatrics                V3X8
>
>R
>Rosenberg, Mark Dr.       V3X8
>
>S
>Suter, Edgar Dr.          V3X8
>
>T
>Thompson, Sarah Dr.       V3X8
>Trauma                    V3X8
>
>W
>Web of Fraud & Deceit     V3X8
>Wheeler, Timothy Dr.      V3X8
>
>D
>disarmament               V3X8
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests: [e-mail]
>         Advertising, Editorial, etc:  [e-mail]
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE NEW ADDRESS!!



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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Arms and Bribery at White House
Date: 17 Mar 1997 15:05:39 -0700

I guess Clinton's pro-money beliefs are even stronger than his anti-gun
beliefs....
.... or could it be he just doesn't HAVE any standards??
Sarah

>Unbelievable.  Payed off to ship HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars
>of arms into the US.  Fugitives running from smuggling cases.
>Bribery at the White House.   And this came out last Friday, and
>no news story on network TV!!!
>
>  It was a huge shipment of arms, about 100 containers, said Robert
>  Sanders, a Washington lawyer who was representing China Jiang An in
>  negotiations with the Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol
>  Tobacco and Firearms and the State Department over the weapons. ''It
>  was mostly ammunition, but there was about 100,000 automatic
>  weapons. Altogether it was a couple hundred-million dollar deal,
>  he said.
>
>Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/KARL STOLLEIS
>March 14, 1997
>BY MICHAEL HEDGES
>SCRIPPS-HOWARD NEWS SERVICE
>WASHINGTON
>
>A massive shipment of Chinese guns and ammunition, which had been
>banned by order of President Clinton, was approved for delivery into
>the United States four days before the head of a major Chinese gun
>company met Clinton in the White House.
>
>On Feb. 2, 1996, the federal government issued importation permits
>for a multimillion dollar shipment of more than 100,000
>semiautomatic weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition. The
>permits were for a company called China Jiang An to deliver arms
>made by Chinese government owned arms manufacturers Norinco and Poly
>Technologies.
>
>Four days later at the White House, President Clinton met Wang Jun,
>chairman of the government owned conglomerate that runs Poly
>Technologies.
>
>Wang was taken to the White House by Charlie Trie, a Little Rock
>restaurant owner who tried to donate $644,000 to the Clinton legal
>defense fund and had helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars
>for the Democratic National Committee. President Clinton has said he
>didn't know Wang Jun until the White House meeting and didn't
>discuss business with him.
>
>The guns never made it into the country because Chinese government
>officials involved in their import were, at about the same time, the
>target of a massive federal sting operation. While the Chinese
>companies were trying to bring guns in legally, there was a backdoor
>operation to smuggle in other weapons involving executives of
>Norinco and Poly Technologies, federal indictments charged.
>
>State Department and Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms
>officials said the issuing of permits after the ban was appropriate.
>A bureau spokesman said the permits were issued under a 1994
>amendment that said Chinese guns in the pipeline for delivery before
>the presidential ban would be allowed. But some experts found that
>explanation unconvincing.
>
>It was a huge shipment of arms, about 100 containers, said Robert
>Sanders, a Washington lawyer who was representing China Jiang An in
>negotiations with the Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol
>Tobacco and Firearms and the State Department over the weapons. ''It
>was mostly ammunition, but there was about 100,000 automatic
>weapons. Altogether it was a couple hundred-million dollar deal,
>he said.
>
>Sanders said he had been negotiating with U.S. officials for months
>seeking clearance for the weapons to enter the country.
>
>All of a sudden there was a breakthrough, he said. I can't
>account for it.
>
>Officials at China Jiang An, who listed an address in Michigan on
>import permits, couldn't be reached for comment.
>
>Others were equally surprised. Another attorney said the government
>was tying other arms importers in knots to keep guns out of the
>country because the Clinton administration was opposed.
>
>All of a sudden the Chinese can bring in the largest shipment
>anyone ever heard of, said the attorney, who asked not to be
>identified. I was highly suspicious.
>
>As representatives of the Chinese gun companies worked to get the
>guns approved, they were planning to sneak in other guns, according
>to a federal indictment issued in May.
>
>Lu Yi Lun, identified as an assistant president of Norinco, was in
>Washington in late 1995 and early 1996 working to secure import
>permits, said American lawyers who met with him.
>
>Lu told associates that he was under pressure to get Chinese weapons
>past the Clinton embargo and that he couldn't go home until the arms
>shipment was approved. Just weeks later, Lu was named a central
>figure in the indictment issued in the San Francisco gun smuggling
>case. He is now a fugitive.
>
>A federal law enforcement official involved in a huge sting of
>Chinese gun pushers said, I don't think it is farfetched to assume
>these people (Chinese arms officials) were doing anything and
>everything to get legal shipments approved. It was a major source of
>hard currency for them. I can't explain why the government would
>allow it to happen, especially with the president on record as
>adamantly opposed to it.
>
>After the 1996 indictments, efforts to import the approved guns
>stopped, according to attorneys. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and
>Firearms said no weapons ever arrived under those permits, and they
>expired last month.
>
>The smuggling case continues to cause alarm, however, and is being
>discussed in the debate over whether to lease a closed Navy base in
>Long Beach, Calif., to a Chinese government owned company.
>
>Wednesday, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., questioned the port deal and
>raised the issue of Chinese gun smuggling. Are we allowing this
>adjunct to the Chinese military to penetrate our country or
>influence us? To me it's quite astounding there was no national
>security review of this.
>
>The San Francisco indictments say Lu and others conspired to smuggle
>2,000 machine guns and other munitions into the United States.
>
>William Schaefer, an assistant U.S. attorney in San Francisco, said
>Lu is an indicted defendant who is a fugitive so I am obviously
>not in a position to comment about matters involving him. These were
>weapons designated as military weapons which were illegal even
>before the president's ban of May 1994.
>
>The indictment said Chinese arms merchants, including Lu, had agreed
>to deliver those weapons to undercover agents posing as members of
>organized crime. In February 1996, just days after the White House
>meeting, Lu and co-conspirators illegally imported the machine guns,
>the indictment said.
>
>Federal enforcement officials were confident that they had
>penetrated the upper echelons of the Chinese government's arms
>industry, and planned to sting high officials before ending their
>undercover operation. But word of the undercover operation leaked in
>Washington.
>
>We had to end this at a very inopportune time, a top federal law
>enforcement official said. Some of those indicted who are
>fugitives (like Lu) would likely have been arrested. They benefited
>from the leak of this story.
>
>Lu worked under Wang Jun at Norinco, officials said.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>     Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum, Indiana-FIJA, Inc.
>                Url: http://www.iquest.net/~rjtavel/
>                  *************************
>                Not a high-tech law firm brochure.
>    Dr. Tavel's Self Help Clinic and Sovereign Law Library
>     promotes "action that raises the cost of state violence
>         for its perpetrators (and) that lays the basis for
>             institutional change " -- Noam Chomsky
>          For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D.
>                 *************************
>                          Updated Daily by
>   The Other One Computer Consulting International, Ltd.
>                     mailto:[e-mail]
>    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
The Righter
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE NEW ADDRESS!!



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: HR 1009
Date: 18 Mar 1997 10:47:59 -0700


I put in calls to Hansen, Cook, and Cannon this morning (800-962-3524
or 800-972-0524 gets you the capital switchboard for free.  Just ask
for Utah Rep whoever.) concerning HR1009, "The States' Rights and 2nd
and 10th Amendment Restoration Act of 1997", by Helen Chenoweth.  This
bill would completely repeal the Lautenberg Gun ban on those convicted
of misdemeener domestic violence charges.

The staffers who handle such issues were unavailable in both Hansen's
and Cannon's offices so I left them messages on their machines.  I was
able to speak with the fellow in Cook's office who handles these
things.  He said he was unaware of the bill but would pull it off the
computer, look it over, and get Cannon's position on it.  I let him
know that I had called a week ago and left a message with the
secretary concerning the bill before it had even been assigned a
number, that it had 11 original co-sponsors, and I was surprised that
none of Utah's reps were on the list.

We had a nice exchange.  He told me what a rat race things were and
how tough it was to keep up on bills without constituents letting them
know which bills were of concern.

I let him know that I wanted Cannon to co-sponsor and support the
bill.  He was surprised when I pointed out that in some jurisdictions,
spanking a child in public could land a "domestic violence" conviction
and thus forever deprive someone of the right to own a gun.  Moral
here is don't assume the staffer or even the congressmen are aware of
things we consider obivious.  Point them out, and let them hear them
again and again.

I pointed out that this bill had caused problems for police
departments AND for decent law abiding citizens who were now stripped
of their rights to hunt, recreate, or defend themselves and their
families over some minor mistake that may have occurred 20 or 30 years
ago.  I also pointed out that while police unions were now working for
an exemption for cops, that was a dangerous and unwise course of
action.  I said, "Even the president must not be above the law."  (He
liked that.)  "Neither should our locol police officers.  If it is a
bad law for them, it is a bad law for you and me."  I told him that it
should be up to the States to decide if a particular action warrented
removal of basic rights.  If it did, they should charge the individual
with a felony.

In any case, I encourage all of you to take a few minutes and call our
three congressmen.  Ask to speak to the staffer who handles firearms
issues.  Speaking with the secretary is like sending an email to the
bit bucket I've decided.  If the staffer is not available, ask to
leave a message on their voice mail.  Inform them of the bill (number,
name, and sponsor's name, along with what it does), ask them to
co-sponsor and support it, and ask for a return call with their
position if the staffer doesn't know it.  Once again, 800-962-3524 or
800-972-0524.

--

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.

"Poor people have access to the courts in the same sense that the
 Christians had access to the lions. . ." -- Judge Earl Johnson Jr.




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  HR 1009 -Reply
Date: 18 Mar 1997 12:30:21 -0700

Charles:

Good to see a post from you.

I have talked to Cook's SLC office on three occasions about HR 1009.

A few days ago one of Cook's staff called me to discuss the bill.  Her
name is Helen, and she was surprised that the conservative people from
Idaho would favor a bill that gave guns back to domestic abusers.

We talked for a few minutes then I faxed her a letter summarizing my
reasons for supporting the Bill.  I also included some of the releases from
GOA and the Dec. '96 WSJ article by Bovard (sic).

Cook's SLC staff can not honestly continue to claim they are not aware
of the bill, or the reasons Rep. Cook should support it.

Helen also promised that Rep. Cook would have a letter out to me soon
explaining his position on this bill.



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: HR 1009 -Reply
Date: 18 Mar 1997 16:57:38 -0700


On Tue, 18 Mar 1997,  DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]> posted:

>A few days ago one of Cook's staff called me to discuss the bill.  Her
>name is Helen, and she was surprised that the conservative people from
>Idaho would favor a bill that gave guns back to domestic abusers.

This is where it is important to frame the discussion correctly.
"Giving guns back to domestic abusers aka wife beaters" is a losing
issue.  However, taking taking guns away, removing basic rights, over
misdemeaner convictions is the real issue here.  By all means, if
someone commits a violent and heinous act, whether it be against a
family member or a total stranger, charge and convict of a felony, AND
then keep them off the streets for a long while.  But don't remove
basic rights over a public swat on a child's bottom, a shoving match
between brothers, or raised voices.

I've been thinking that I was basically immune from this legislation
and was just fighting it on principle until I remembered today the
fights my younger brother and I used to have with each other.  We
could go at it pretty good one minute and be best buddies again the
next.  Kept it up until I was 16--past the age when one could be
charged as an adult for certain things.  Usual stuff among siblings
close in age and size I'd guess.  But it would probably qualify as
some kind of "domestic violence" in today's new world.

If someone insists on sticking to the "giving guns back to wife
beaters" line, then we can at least back them into the corner of
explaining why "wife beaters" who happen to be cops should be given an
exemption so they can pack guns around.  After all, they can do just
as much damage with their service arms (which are taken and stored at
home) as they could with a privatly owned gun.

>Cook's SLC staff can not honestly continue to claim they are not aware
>of the bill, or the reasons Rep. Cook should support it.

I've never called any of the local offices.  I'm never sure how much
communication there is between them and DC during the session.  With
the 800 numbers and 2 hour time difference it is really easy to call
DC at 7:00 am before leaving for work or even over a lunch break.

>
>Helen also promised that Rep. Cook would have a letter out to me soon
>explaining his position on this bill.

I'd like to see a copy or at least summary of that letter when you get
it.  If his position is anything but unequivacable support and
co-sponsorship, he's got a LOT of explaining to do.  ;)

--

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.

"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money,
 except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer
 to be generous with other people's freedom and security." -- William F.
 Buckley


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: FYI HR 339
Date: 18 Mar 1997 17:05:10 -0700


While speaking to Cook's staffer about HR1009 this morning, he
mentioned HR 339 also sponsored by Chenoweth.  Apparently, this bill
would require States to honor out of State CCW permits.

I haven't looked at the bill and don't intend to as it's sure to be
DOA.  I did mention to the staffer that while I thought it sounded
pretty good on the surface, I'd like him to look at how it would treat
residents of Vermont who are not required to get a permit to CCW.  It
would also be interesting to know if it would force the Federal
Government to honor CCW permits on the land it controls.  EG national
parks, forest service, BLM, Washington DC(!).  ;)

Anyway, for those interested, I'm sure the bill can be found in the
usual places.


--

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.

"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money,
 except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer
 to be generous with other people's freedom and security." -- William F.
 Buckley


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

From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: HR 1009 -Reply
Date: 18 Mar 1997 17:16:47 -0700

Bro Charles said said quoting bro Neil:
>
>>Cook's SLC staff can not honestly continue to claim they are not aware
>>of the bill, or the reasons Rep. Cook should support it.
>
>I've never called any of the local offices.  I'm never sure how much
>communication there is between them and DC during the session.  With
>the 800 numbers and 2 hour time difference it is really easy to call
>DC at 7:00 am before leaving for work or even over a lunch break.
>


Someone told me that the local office is the most important to call.
Constituents are more likely to call the local office and so they are taken
a little more resiously.

So I was told.

Call them all!

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.
WWW Wholesale including virtual domains.  Tango.  PHP/FI
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: HR 339 Addendum
Date: 18 Mar 1997 17:30:58 -0700


OOPPPS.  Despite what I posted, curiosity got the best of me and I
pulled up the bill on thomas.  It is sponsored by Stearns, Bartlett,
Hostetler and Barr.  Not by Chenoweth.

Further, there are serious problems with the bill IMHO.  First of all,
if the State you are in issues CCW permits, your permit is valid but
only with all of the same restrictions of the permits issued by the
State you are in.  In theory, a State could implement a CCW permit but
make it valid only on private property or invalid within 10,000 feet
of schools, churches, etc, etc.  Or a State could issue permits to
carry a concealed firearm, but make it valid only for transport to or
from a range for target shooting.  (Massachusetts issues two types of
gun permits.  The easier one to obtain is very similar to the
hypothetical "target permit" above.)  Your permit would carry the same
restrictions and you'd be liable for knowing these restrictions.  So
anti gun States could circumvent the bill and you gain nothing.

The bill handles States which do not issue permits much better by
listing those areas--schools, non-gun sporting events, airports, govt
buildings, etc--where the permit is not valid.  The list is too long,
IMO, but at least it is only one list to remember and most places on
it are places where we have come to expect our rights(privleges?) will
be infringed.

Secondly and much more importantly, the bill would also exempt current
AND FORMER LEOs sans permits of any kind.  However, they are simply
exempted from all State laws against CCW without the restrictions
above.  IE, you or I would be subject to all the restrictions of State
issued permits, or to the federal list of restrictions if the State
didn't issue permits, while former and current cops would not.  They
are free to carry into bars, sporting events, schools, churches, govt
buildings, polling places, etc, etc, etc.  Talk about creating a duel
class system!  These are not cops on active duty, these are joe
citizen in either their home or another State who either currently or
at some point in the past worked for a police department somewhere and
retired on good terms.  So this is a big winner for the LEO
establisment while gaining us peons little.


With this kind of baggage, I take comfort in the fact that the bill
should be DOA.

--

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.

"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money,
 except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer
 to be generous with other people's freedom and security." -- William F.
 Buckley


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: HR 1009 -Reply
Date: 18 Mar 1997 17:34:02 -0700


On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]> posted:

>Someone told me that the local office is the most important to call.
>Constituents are more likely to call the local office and so they are taken
>a little more resiously.
>
>So I was told.
>
>Call them all!

I hadn't though of that.  I do make a point of always giving my name
and letting them know I am calling from Utah.  I then leave a phone
number and/or address that proves the point.  Of course, calling both
may give twice the bang for the buck as I doubt they communicate who
has called with which position, only how many have called.


--

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.

"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money,
 except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer
 to be generous with other people's freedom and security." -- William F.
 Buckley


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dunblane vigils end tragically
Date: 19 Mar 1997 19:30:15 -0700

Clearly we need to ban candles, matches, lighter, perfume, and
perhaps even children and cats!
Then again what we REALLY need to do is make stupidity a crime!

Sarah


>This was so funny I had to forward it -
>
>From:    M Collinson, INTERNET:[e-mail]
>
>>From the Yorkshire Post 15/3/97
>
>A man is recovering in hospital after his Bradford home was set on fire
>by a candle he lit in memory of the children of Dunblane.
>
>Harold Coates suffered burns to his upper body and shock following the
>blaze which is believed to have been started by a candle that fell on
>the floor from the window ledge of his home in New Cross street.
>
>Firemen found the ground floor well alight and had to rescue Mr Coates
>who was asleep upstairs. He is now recovering in Bradford Royal
>Infirmary.
>
>...Paramedic Ted Wilson gave Mr Coates's pet cat heart massage after it
>had been overcome with smoke.
>
>In Leeds single mother of four Beverley Cosgrove narrowly missed losing
>her home when a Dunblane candle set up by her 13 year old son filled the
>house with thick black smoke.
>
>...."The problem is that there could have been thousands of children
>doing this around the country, and if their parents didn't know it could
>lead to tragedy. Everyone wants to do something for Dunblane, but I
>think they should consider something else instead of candles" she said
>--
>Also, a pensioner in Ladywood, Birmingham was seriously
>injured by flying glass after mounting a candle in the
>top of a perfume bottle.  The heat caused the perfume
>to ignite, causing an explosion which blew out the
>window of her apartment.
>
>Gotta love the anti-gunners here.  My God are they STOO-PID!
>
>Also you will no doubt be happy to know that Sean Connery
>is doing an anti-handgun ad which will be shown in cinemas
>here.
>
>Steve.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: David Caplan - NRA election
Date: 19 Mar 1997 20:08:28 -0700

>I am in receipt of a scurrilous letter attacking long time NRA board member
>David I. Caplan and urging that he not be reelected. The letter purports to
>be signed by "Tim Wilson" who purports to be writing from "The Paladin
>Group" and to state its position. I am informed: a) that there is no "Tim
>Wilson" who wrote this letter at the "Paladin Group"; b) that the Paladin
>Group is not Paladin Press, has no connection w/ firearms or the NRA and
>does not take any of the positions attributed to it in the letter -- nor is
>it opposed to those positions. It simply has no relevance to such issues;
>they are as irrelevant to it as the Filoque Question is to the AFL-CIO.
>
>        Indicative of the accuracy of this letter is the fact that it
>claims Caplan supports the unseating of Wayne LaPierre. In fact, Caplan is
>a supporter of LaPIerre's and is supported by him for reelection, as anyone
>can determine by looking at the full page ad in the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN. When
>this letter cannot be trusted as to matters that can be checked, no
>credence can be put on its subjective or other non-verifiable claims.
>
>        The fact is that David Caplan is a very able
>physicist-turned-patent lawyer who has labored long and selflessly not only
>on the NRA board and various committees but in bringing gun cases (without
>compensation) in the NT court, including one major legal victory from that
>states highest court. He also pioneered Second Amendment issues having
>written several law review articles in the 1970s and 1980s.
>
>        Please do not take the foregoing as making any statement on the
>issue of Wayne LaPierre, Neal Knox etc. I have literally NO OPINION on that
>issue because I don't know enough to make a judgment. My support for David
>Caplan does not relate to this at all. I also unreservedly endorse Law
>Professor Joe Olson, who is also the president of Academics for the Second
>Amendment. As reference to the American Rifleman etc. will show, Joe is a
>strong supporter of Neal's and opponent of Wayne LaPierre.
>                               Don Kates
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NRA elections (fwd)
Date: 19 Mar 1997 22:38:30 -0700

A note from Joe Olsen...

>    Normally I wouldn't burden this list with a blatent Ad for my
>reelection but Kates brought the issue up and since the strength of
>America's premier civil liberties guardian is at stake, I'll send you some
>stuff.
>    1st.   The election isn't about Mr. LaPierre as a person.  It is
>about his abysmal lack of business/finance management talent AND his
>evasion of Board directives attempting to bring financial stability to the
>organization.  In my opinion, it is desireable to keep (if that is still
>possible) him on as a spokesman/lobbiest but it is imparitative to get him
>away from business/financial side of the house.  On this point, notice
>that all four of the Finance Committee (which passed a unanimous lack of
>confidence straw vote in December) are targeted for unelection by Mr.
>LaPierre's supporters.
>
>    2nd.   Mr LaPierre poured gasoline on the bridge by calling the
>New York Times into his office for a press conference in which he called
>those Directors who aren't enamored with his management "extremeists,"
>supporter of "militias" and worse.  That is indicative of his poor
>judgement.  In a business corporation, he wouldn't have lasted another
>day.  But he did succeed in distracting some Directors from the REAL
>business/financial failings of his leadership.
>
>    3rd.   Neal Knox did not start this to get LaPierre's job.  Neal
>doesn't want it and won't take it.  What happened was that concerned
>Directors (like me) went to Neal because he is an acknowledged NRA leader,
>a man of vast experience within the NRA, and the First Vice-President with
>our concerns that the business/financial leadership was worse than
>terrible.  We discovered the problem, "pulled" information out of a
>reluctant staff, and brought the matter to Neal when it became obvious
>that Mr. LaPierre's continuance as Executive Vice President (General
>Manager) of the NRA threatened the financial future of the entire
>organization.
>
>    4th.   There is no philosophical split on the Board regarding the
>need for vigorous defense of the Constitutional right to keep and bear
>arms.
>
>For more, see The Minnesota Director's Letter at http://www.visi.com/~gray
>and read the attached plug for my reelection (it has some discussion of
>the problems at NRA).
>


I attended a seminar of the Academics for the Second Amendment where I
had the chance to get to know Joe, and I endorse him unequivocally.

Sarah
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: "Wynne, Steve" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Dunblane vigils end tragically
Date: 20 Mar 1997 09:08:00 MET


Alternatively we could ban all gun owners who are notoriously stupid as this
on-line group regularly proves.
A entire class of schoolchildren were killed by someone who was allowed to
have a gun license.  I'm not sure that those of you that have children who
seem to be able to dismiss this tragedy so easily would be so happy if they
were your kids that were massacred whilst in gym.
The righter ?  You're just very very sad.
Please, all of you, stay on that side of the Atlantic and just continue to
ruin your own country.
 ----------
edgarsuter; jneil; sfbearcop; gardner; gunflower; jerry; jbovard;
102062.2510; 6mysmesa; keeva; Matti; 70274.1222; rjtavel; wapette; WAGC;
drgotww; utah-firearms; Stonewall

Clearly we need to ban candles, matches, lighter, perfume, and
perhaps even children and cats!
Then again what we REALLY need to do is make stupidity a crime!

Sarah


>This was so funny I had to forward it -
>
>From:  M Collinson, INTERNET:[e-mail]
>
>>From the Yorkshire Post 15/3/97
>
>A man is recovering in hospital after his Bradford home was set on fire
>by a candle he lit in memory of the children of Dunblane.
>
>Harold Coates suffered burns to his upper body and shock following the
>blaze which is believed to have been started by a candle that fell on
>the floor from the window ledge of his home in New Cross street.
>
>Firemen found the ground floor well alight and had to rescue Mr Coates
>who was asleep upstairs. He is now recovering in Bradford Royal
>Infirmary.
>
>...Paramedic Ted Wilson gave Mr Coates's pet cat heart massage after it
>had been overcome with smoke.
>
>In Leeds single mother of four Beverley Cosgrove narrowly missed losing
>her home when a Dunblane candle set up by her 13 year old son filled the
>house with thick black smoke.
>
>...."The problem is that there could have been thousands of children
>doing this around the country, and if their parents didn't know it could
>lead to tragedy. Everyone wants to do something for Dunblane, but I
>think they should consider something else instead of candles" she said
>--
>Also, a pensioner in Ladywood, Birmingham was seriously
>injured by flying glass after mounting a candle in the
>top of a perfume bottle.  The heat caused the perfume
>to ignite, causing an explosion which blew out the
>window of her apartment.
>
>Gotta love the anti-gunners here.  My God are they STOO-PID!
>
>Also you will no doubt be happy to know that Sean Connery
>is doing an anti-handgun ad which will be shown in cinemas
>here.
>
>Steve.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Dunblane vigils end tragically
Date: 20 Mar 1997 08:26:18 -0700

>Alternatively we could ban all gun owners who are notoriously stupid as this
>on-line group regularly proves.
>A entire class of schoolchildren were killed by someone who was allowed to
>have a gun license.  I'm not sure that those of you that have children who
>seem to be able to dismiss this tragedy so easily would be so happy if they
>were your kids that were massacred whilst in gym.
>The righter ?  You're just very very sad.
>Please, all of you, stay on that side of the Atlantic and just continue to
>ruin your own country.


It is a sad tragedy.  But gun laws did nothing to prevent it.  Your UK gun
laws are very draconian, and, though you won't believe it, do nothing to
protect you.  They didn't stop this tragedy.  Sometimes tragedies happen.
That is part of the human experience.  With a population of 5 billion, the
world will statistically see tragedies like this on a regular basis, and
with improved communications the rest of the world hears about it.  Similar
tragedies happened in the past but nobody knoew except those involved
because the world's communications were very non-existant.

The "news" item of the burnings is sad.  Forwarding around the "news"
article was probably in bad taste.  What some people found "funny" is that
in all the rush for "feel good" reactions people were causing more
problems.  Personally, I didn't find it humorous.  Let me assure you.  No
one was laughing at the tragedy itself.  Only sadness.  (And frustration
knowing full well that those anti-gun zealots would capitalize on this
tragedy to push their irrational fears into the mainstream media again to
push their agenda)

The bigger tragedy is that people, in their fear of tragedies, try very
hard to force people to live the way they want them to.  People in the
modern world want everything to be "idyllic" and "good" and are willing to
trample on their neighbors to force their neighbors to live according to
their ideals.  That is the real tragedy of today's society.  The
intolerance of people for their neighbors.  Especially intolerance rooted
in irrational fear.

Guns play a greater role for good in a society then they do for bad.  Too
bad the UK doesn't have a few more guns.  You might find less crime on your
streets and in your homes.  A growing body of scholarly research shows that
more crime is averted through the use of a firearms than is caused by a
firearms existence.  Almost no crime is caused by a firearms existence.
Lots of crime is averted by a firearms being at the right place at the
right time.

Steve, your posting was very condescending.  Calling people stupid and
talking down to them  because you have an irrational fear that you cannot
deal with is condescending.  I suggest you acquaint yourself with some
rational thoughts concerning guns, not fearful reactional thoughts.
Acquaint yourself with the body of supportable research that discounts the
notion of "gun control" as a way to stop crime.  Learn the sociological
reasons that the UK has less firearms crime than the US.  Become informed.
Stop being a reactionary and start being an agent of action based on
knowledge, reason, and logic.

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.    DB integration. Tango.
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: RE: Dunblane vigils end tragically
Date: 20 Mar 1997 12:07:19 -0700


On Thu, 20 Mar 97 09:08:00 MET, "Wynne, Steve" <[e-mail]> posted:

>
>Alternatively we could ban all gun owners who are notoriously stupid as this
>on-line group regularly proves.

I understand that Great Britain, Japan, and many other nations have
come very close to banning the private ownership of guns altogether.
Yet, even as restrictions get tighter, crimes, both tragic and
mundane, involving firearms continue to increase.  are not your police
now asking for guns for their own defense while fighting crimes?  I
seem to recall an article recently which said the carrying of knives
was also coming under regulation in England.  Seems crimes with knifes
are also increasing.  What's next, cricket bats, walking sticks,
shovels, and steel toed work boots?

As the failures of the total ban on certain drugs and certain
pornography in the U.S. and the increasingly tight restrictions on
guns and knives in the UK go to prove, you cannot prevent people from
obtaining anything if they want it badly enough.  The only people
affected by a prohibition on guns are those who are law abiding and
would pose no threat to their fellow men anyway.  Academic studies in
the U.S. indicate that making it easy for law abiding citizens to
carry weapons for self defense, results in roughly a 7% decrease in
violent crime.

It is also interesting to note deToqueville's observations on
America's very low crime rate in spite of having almost no
professional police forces in her cities.  That observation was made
at a time when freemen were allowed to arm themselves as they saw fit.

>A entire class of schoolchildren were killed by someone who was allowed to
>have a gun license.  I'm not sure that those of you that have children who
>seem to be able to dismiss this tragedy so easily would be so happy if they
>were your kids that were massacred whilst in gym.

What occured in that school is a tragidy and I've yet to see anyone,
on this list or elsewhere, suggest otherwise.  That tragidy, however,
was not cause by "stupidity" on the part of a gun owner.  It was
caused by an evil, homicidial maniac who likely had something in his
background which should have prevented him from owning a gun LEGALLY
under your laws.  But anyone callous enough to perpetuate such an
atrocity, is not going to think twice about whether they have a
license for the weapon they use.

Atrocities committed using guns make for striking headlines and prompt
grand and glorious speaches by politicians.  But laws prohibiting the
private ownership of guns will not prevent the criminally depraved
from obtaining them and using them towards evil ends.  As a similar
situation in a Roadside Diner in the U.S. shows, they do prevent
decent and law abiding people from being able to effectively defend
themselves and loved ones from the maniacs who have, since time
immemorial, preyed upon the weak and defenseless.  You would seem to
like to make us all defenseless against armed or even simply numerous
thugs.

And such laws will do absolutly nothing to prevent such fiends from
committing acts of terror through other means.  One of the largest
massacures in U.S. history was perpetuated using nothing more than 2
gallons of petro and a match.  Shall we outlaw gasoline and matches?
Very few of the rioters in L.A. used guns.  Bricks, fists, bats, and
matches are all mobs need to destroy entire cities.  It's illustritave
how a couple of diminuative Asian shop keepers were able to save their
life's work from the mob's terror just by having a gun or two handy.
It's tragic how many more decent people were prevented by California's
strict gun licensing laws from obtaining guns when they really needed
them.

I do not yet have children.  Regardless, neither I, nor anyone I know
has dismissed this tragedy, easily or otherwise.  On the contrary, the
absolute inability of the school system to provide even rudamentary
security for the children in their care (in both the U.K. and the
U.S.) is one more evidence that perhaps when I do have children, I
should seriously consider schooling them at home.

However, I also realize that life is, by its very nature, an uncertain
and risky business.  No parent would ever want to lose a child.  But
neither can a parent protect their child from all possible harm.  Even
attempting to do so will cause more harm than good.  I grew up riding
horses, motercycles, and snowmobiles.  I also did some rapelling and a
lot of camping.  These things all pose fairly high levels of danger
compared to sitting at home watching the Television.  But the rewards
are much greater as well.  My parents understood this and allowed me
the opportunities afforded by such activities.

So it is with countries.  Japan and England are probably safer places
to live so far as crime is concerned than is the U.S.  Singapore is
certainly safer and cleaner than any of the above.  But to me, freedom
is more important than safety.  I would rather die on my feet fighting
for that freedom, than live on my knees begging for mercy and
privlege.  And whether it is government forces, a crazed homicidal
maniac, or just a common street thug who is trying to deprive me my
freedom, a firearm is the best tool available to assist me in
maintaing that freedom.

>The righter ?  You're just very very sad.
>Please, all of you, stay on that side of the Atlantic and just continue to
>ruin your own country.

I'm more than happy to do just that.  As were my forefathers some 225
years ago.  I think I and my countrymen would simply return your own
request back to you.  Please, stay on your side of the atlantic and
run your country as you see fit.  But don't try to run mine.  Please
quit using the U.N., your diplomats, and your media to try to impose
gun control in my nation.  Quit complaining when I reject your efforts
to impose gun control in my nation.  We certainly have never attempted
to force you to allow ownership of guns.

And also please have the backbone to live with the consequences of
your decision to be an unarmed nation.  Please do not repeat your
pleas, already made twice in this century, for my nation to become
involved in your wars when you find you can't quite handle them
yourselves.  Please do not ask ever again for the decent, law abiding
citizens of this nation, whom you would, if you had your way, disarm
today, to donate their private guns--the very guns you would have
taken from them by force and destroyed--so that your own unarmed
populace can be prepared to repell what seems an imminent invasion of
your nation.

You were once the greatest empire in the world--an empire on which the
sun never set.  You are now little more than a tiny island nation.
What possible evidence have you to offer that ANY of your country's
policies in any area should be adopted by anyone?

I sorrow in the death of your children.  But do not expect me to allow
the death of a few dozen children in your nation--deaths that may well
have been prevented simply by providing their teachers with the proper
training and equipment to offer some defense--to browbeat me into
surrendering my God-given and blood-won--the blood of nearly 1 million
Americans who have died and countless more who have been wounded since
we decided to stay on our side of the Atlantic and "ruin [our] own
country" in 1776--rights and freedoms.

Yes, I sorrow in the death of your children.  My freedom loving
countrymen sorrow in the death of your children.  And we have no
intention of having to sorrow in the death of our, or our children's
freedom.  We intend to do everything we can to prevent that death.
For that would be an even greater tragidy than what happened in your
schoolhouse.

With best regards and deepest condolances,

--

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 answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other;
 but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be
 feared than loved if you cannot be both. ...Men worry less about doing
 an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself
 feared. The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures that they
 are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is
 strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective." - -
 Machiavelli - The Prince; Chapter 17


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: RE: Dunblane vigils end tragically
Date: 20 Mar 1997 12:07:19 -0700


On Thu, 20 Mar 97 09:08:00 MET, "Wynne, Steve" <[e-mail]> posted:

>
>Alternatively we could ban all gun owners who are notoriously stupid as this
>on-line group regularly proves.

I understand that Great Britain, Japan, and many other nations have
come very close to banning the private ownership of guns altogether.
Yet, even as restrictions get tighter, crimes, both tragic and
mundane, involving firearms continue to increase.  are not your police
now asking for guns for their own defense while fighting crimes?  I
seem to recall an article recently which said the carrying of knives
was also coming under regulation in England.  Seems crimes with knifes
are also increasing.  What's next, cricket bats, walking sticks,
shovels, and steel toed work boots?

As the failures of the total ban on certain drugs and certain
pornography in the U.S. and the increasingly tight restrictions on
guns and knives in the UK go to prove, you cannot prevent people from
obtaining anything if they want it badly enough.  The only people
affected by a prohibition on guns are those who are law abiding and
would pose no threat to their fellow men anyway.  Academic studies in
the U.S. indicate that making it easy for law abiding citizens to
carry weapons for self defense, results in roughly a 7% decrease in
violent crime.

It is also interesting to note deToqueville's observations on
America's very low crime rate in spite of having almost no
professional police forces in her cities.  That observation was made
at a time when freemen were allowed to arm themselves as they saw fit.

>A entire class of schoolchildren were killed by someone who was allowed to
>have a gun license.  I'm not sure that those of you that have children who
>seem to be able to dismiss this tragedy so easily would be so happy if they
>were your kids that were massacred whilst in gym.

What occured in that school is a tragidy and I've yet to see anyone,
on this list or elsewhere, suggest otherwise.  That tragidy, however,
was not cause by "stupidity" on the part of a gun owner.  It was
caused by an evil, homicidial maniac who likely had something in his
background which should have prevented him from owning a gun LEGALLY
under your laws.  But anyone callous enough to perpetuate such an
atrocity, is not going to think twice about whether they have a
license for the weapon they use.

Atrocities committed using guns make for striking headlines and prompt
grand and glorious speaches by politicians.  But laws prohibiting the
private ownership of guns will not prevent the criminally depraved
from obtaining them and using them towards evil ends.  As a similar
situation in a Roadside Diner in the U.S. shows, they do prevent
decent and law abiding people from being able to effectively defend
themselves and loved ones from the maniacs who have, since time
immemorial, preyed upon the weak and defenseless.  You would seem to
like to make us all defenseless against armed or even simply numerous
thugs.

And such laws will do absolutly nothing to prevent such fiends from
committing acts of terror through other means.  One of the largest
massacures in U.S. history was perpetuated using nothing more than 2
gallons of petro and a match.  Shall we outlaw gasoline and matches?
Very few of the rioters in L.A. used guns.  Bricks, fists, bats, and
matches are all mobs need to destroy entire cities.  It's illustritave
how a couple of diminuative Asian shop keepers were able to save their
life's work from the mob's terror just by having a gun or two handy.
It's tragic how many more decent people were prevented by California's
strict gun licensing laws from obtaining guns when they really needed
them.

I do not yet have children.  Regardless, neither I, nor anyone I know
has dismissed this tragedy, easily or otherwise.  On the contrary, the
absolute inability of the school system to provide even rudamentary
security for the children in their care (in both the U.K. and the
U.S.) is one more evidence that perhaps when I do have children, I
should seriously consider schooling them at home.

However, I also realize that life is, by its very nature, an uncertain
and risky business.  No parent would ever want to lose a child.  But
neither can a parent protect their child from all possible harm.  Even
attempting to do so will cause more harm than good.  I grew up riding
horses, motercycles, and snowmobiles.  I also did some rapelling and a
lot of camping.  These things all pose fairly high levels of danger
compared to sitting at home watching the Television.  But the rewards
are much greater as well.  My parents understood this and allowed me
the opportunities afforded by such activities.

So it is with countries.  Japan and England are probably safer places
to live so far as crime is concerned than is the U.S.  Singapore is
certainly safer and cleaner than any of the above.  But to me, freedom
is more important than safety.  I would rather die on my feet fighting
for that freedom, than live on my knees begging for mercy and
privlege.  And whether it is government forces, a crazed homicidal
maniac, or just a common street thug who is trying to deprive me my
freedom, a firearm is the best tool available to assist me in
maintaing that freedom.

>The righter ?  You're just very very sad.
>Please, all of you, stay on that side of the Atlantic and just continue to
>ruin your own country.

I'm more than happy to do just that.  As were my forefathers some 225
years ago.  I think I and my countrymen would simply return your own
request back to you.  Please, stay on your side of the atlantic and
run your country as you see fit.  But don't try to run mine.  Please
quit using the U.N., your diplomats, and your media to try to impose
gun control in my nation.  Quit complaining when I reject your efforts
to impose gun control in my nation.  We certainly have never attempted
to force you to allow ownership of guns.

And also please have the backbone to live with the consequences of
your decision to be an unarmed nation.  Please do not repeat your
pleas, already made twice in this century, for my nation to become
involved in your wars when you find you can't quite handle them
yourselves.  Please do not ask ever again for the decent, law abiding
citizens of this nation, whom you would, if you had your way, disarm
today, to donate their private guns--the very guns you would have
taken from them by force and destroyed--so that your own unarmed
populace can be prepared to repell what seems an imminent invasion of
your nation.

You were once the greatest empire in the world--an empire on which the
sun never set.  You are now little more than a tiny island nation.
What possible evidence have you to offer that ANY of your country's
policies in any area should be adopted by anyone?

I sorrow in the death of your children.  But do not expect me to allow
the death of a few dozen children in your nation--deaths that may well
have been prevented simply by providing their teachers with the proper
training and equipment to offer some defense--to browbeat me into
surrendering my God-given and blood-won--the blood of nearly 1 million
Americans who have died and countless more who have been wounded since
we decided to stay on our side of the Atlantic and "ruin [our] own
country" in 1776--rights and freedoms.

Yes, I sorrow in the death of your children.  My freedom loving
countrymen sorrow in the death of your children.  And we have no
intention of having to sorrow in the death of our, or our children's
freedom.  We intend to do everything we can to prevent that death.
For that would be an even greater tragidy than what happened in your
schoolhouse.

With best regards and deepest condolances,

--

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 answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other;
 but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be
 feared than loved if you cannot be both. ...Men worry less about doing
 an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself
 feared. The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures that they
 are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is
 strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective." - -
 Machiavelli - The Prince; Chapter 17


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Cop shoots Cop
Date: 20 Mar 1997 12:47:47 -0700


And they worry about private citizens losing their cool.
Why was a cop brandishing a weapon in the first place?
From today's trib..

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]        Thursday, March 20, 1997       [Image] [Image]

                   Mistaken Identity As Cop Kills Cop

 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
     LOS ANGELES -- Two motorists exchanged words, one waved a
 gun and was fatally shot by the other without either man realizing
 that they were police officers, one off-duty and the other
 undercover, authorities said.
     Undercover Det. Frank Lyga, 40, fired two shots after Officer
 Kevin Gaines, 31, waved his weapon on a busy street in a commercial
 neighborhood Tuesday afternoon, Police Chief Willie Williams said.
 Neither officer was wearing a uniform and both were driving unmarked
 cars.
     Gaines' car ended up in the parking lot of a North Hollywood gas
 station a few blocks from Universal Studios Hollywood.
     Lyga, who was working a sting operation, pulled Gaines from his
 car as other undercover officers converged on the scene, police said.

     Gaines was identified as an officer from the Pacific Division in
 West Los Angeles after he arrived at the hospital, where he was
 pronounced dead an hour and a half after the shooting.
     Police did not know why the two men were arguing. Each had at
 least 10 years of experience with the department.
     ''All we know is that a tragic and confusing confrontation took
 place and neither knew the other was a police officer,'' said Officer
 Eduardo Funes, a department spokesman.

--

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

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.  You cannot
strenghten the weak by weakening the strong.  You cannot help the wage
earner by pulling down the wage payer.  You cannot further the
brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.  You cannot help the
poor by destroying the rich.  You cannot build character and courage
by taking away a man's initiative and independence.  You cannot help
men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for
themselves."  --Abraham Lincoln


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

From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Utah-Firearms/ROC project proposal:  Fed buildings to allow check
Date: 20 Mar 1997 13:27:18 -0700


I have a proposal for all of us.  Let's get Merrill Cook (R - UT 2) to
propose a bill in the House and then lets get Reps all over to support it.

Federal Buildings and Federal Property could not be off limits to legally
carried weapons (in the states where that is possible) UNLESS they provided
a mechanism for safe checking of weapons (like I understand AZ does).  This
would include Post Offices and any Federal Building located in states with
CCW (of any type).

What say ye?

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.
WWW Wholesale including virtual domains.  Tango.  PHP/FI
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Utah-Firearms project 2
Date: 20 Mar 1997 13:33:59 -0700


Private Eye magazine and some other events rag magazine in the same vein as
Private Eye are always publishing anti-gun drivel.  A recent issue of the
events one I saw at a sandwich store was claiming (through undercover
reporting from the gun show) that the Salt Palace gun show is just a den of
Naziism (and implying that gun owners are a bunch of Nazi skin head
sympathizers) and nothing else.  Private Eye regularly publishes opinion
pieces by Ron Yengich, some attorney of the bleeding heart liberal do
gooder type, and these often are anti-gun using outrageous and inflammatory
language to describe gun owners and those who would resist his statist
ideas.

We need to respond to these whereever and whenever they occur.  We need to
use intelligent, rational, and logical thinking without resorting to name
calling or "extremist" language.  We need to make these people and their
ideas look stupid and extreme to the public using rational and logical
speach.

We can use this mailing list to report such drivel and to help each other
in formulating responses.  Both directly to the publishes and authors as
well as indirectly through other Utah/SL-area media like the Trib and
Deseret News opinion letters column.

Who is on board?

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.
WWW Wholesale including virtual domains.  Tango.  PHP/FI
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Utah-Firearms project 2 -Reply
Date: 20 Mar 1997 13:57:23 -0700

I am



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The Ithaca Auto and Burglar (fwd)
Date: 20 Mar 1997 13:40:00 -0700


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

THE ITHACA AUTO AND BURGLAR

By L. Neil Smith <[e-mail]>

Exclusive to _The Libertarian Enterprise_

    The faded magazine ad haunts us across six long decades of
stupidity and corruption:

         "Here's the Ithaca Auto and Burglar gun, the so-called
    "Sawed Off Shot Gun" which holdup men fear because its load of
    sixteen buckshot spread over such a wide circle that a poor gun
    pointer, who would miss with a revolver or pistol ... is very
    sure to hit ... handy to carry in the pocket of an auto or in a
    holster ... Detective Harry Loose ... first induced the banks in
    and around Chicago to use it, then its use spread to sheriffs,
    police departments, paymasters, watchmen, express messengers, and
    it's a wonderful home protector. The U.S. Army demonstrated what
    American shotguns ... would do during the late war. This Ithaca
    Auto and Burglar Gun weighs about 1 1/4 pounds, it has 20 gauge
    12 1/4" barrels, cylinder bore ... Price, including excise tax,
    $40.55."

    The Ithaca Auto and Burglar was a veritable marvel in its time, a
near-perfect blue steel and walnut "magic wand" of self-defense,
against strong-arm artists and protection racketeers in the age in
which it was introduced, ideal -- because of its light weight,
moderate caliber, limited range, and short length -- for women, the
elderly, and children who might require it, not only against house
burglars, muggers, and the like, but against an abusive or incestuous
parent.

    If John Lennon had been carrying an Ithaca Auto and Burglar under
his coat, the Fab Four would be selling live albums of their fifth
reunion concert by now.

    It is illegal -- or, more accurately and revealingly, placed
beyond the reach of all but an economic and political elite -- and
has been since 1934, because its 12 1/4" barrels are 5 3/4" shorter
than federal law mandates, and its overall length -- roughly 20" --
is shy, by about the same amount, of the minimum length specified by
a statute that should never have been passed or judicially upheld in
a nation with something like a Second Amendment in its Constitution.

    When I was a kid, my first lesson in politics arose from the fact
that my home town, Fort Collins, Colorado, was "dry" -- which is to
say that it was illegal to sell "adult beverages" within the city
limits, and had been since Prohibition. What made it educational was
that this imbecilic situation was maintained at the polls every year
by a tacit coalition of self-righteously muttering church ladies like
my own grandmother, and -- to begin with -- by bootleggers who plied
their trade inside the town, and later on, by proprietors of bars and
liquor stores that came to surround the "Choice City" in a tight
ring.

    If you understand that, you understand the politics of victim
disarmament -- commonly and improperly known as "gun control".
National politics of the 1930s were dominated by an unprecedented
violence and corruption that sprang directly from trying to outlaw
production, distribution, and consumption of ethanol. Every bit of
the criminal activity -- gang-wars, drive-by shootings, summary
search and seizure, asset forfeiture -- that we have come to
associate in our times with drug prohibition arose, to begin with, in
the "Roaring Twenties".

    In those days, Al Capone was the most politically powerful
individual in Chicago, in the Midwest, and possibly in the United
States. He purchased city councilmen, state legislators, congressmen
and senators the same way that I (the daddy of an electronic-age
seven-year-old) purchase AA batteries. Others of his kind did as
much of the same thing as they could. I leave it to _you_ to figure
out whose interests were _really_ being represented in Congress in
1934.

    The "weapon of choice" for creatures like Al Capone was hardly
the Ithaca and Auto Burglar, or even the infamous Thompson
Submachinegun, it was the lives of countless revolver-carrying
cannon-fodder thugs, and the influence of crooked politicians.

    Who was really protected by the Ithaca and Auto Burglar and the
Tommy Gun? Shopkeepers, householders, and especially truck drivers
whose vehicles were often stopped and stolen (just as Florida
pleasure boats are today) to serve as disposable conveyances for
illicit alcohol. One store proprietor with a "sawed off" scattergun
could discourage three or four goons who'd come to collect. One
truck driver with a "Chicago Piano" could run off a dozen highwaymen.

    As surely as the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed to disarm the
militant _non_-nonviolent blacks who were threatening to overturn the
political apple cart ...

    As surely as the Brady Bill was passed because a certain variety
of men -- well-represented in politics -- are mortally afraid to see
women begin to arm themselves ...

    As surely as Bill Bennett and Bill Clinton's rifle and magazine
law was passed because -- in this dangerous age of multiple
assailants, when a single individual's only chance against a gang is
often firepower, and the ideal weapons of self-defense are
semiautomatic rifles and pistols -- both right wing and left wing
socialists couldn't bear the humiliation of Korean store owners
successfully defending themselves against their clients during the LA
riots ...

    The Ithaca Auto and Burglar was stamped out because it threatened
gangsters and hijackers who were the real constituency of the
congressmen who outlawed it.

    Now Daniel Patrick Moynihan crawls dripping out of his butt of
Malmsey to attack expanding handgun bullets with a proposed 10,000
percent tax, exactly as he earlier attacked small caliber cartridges.
Why? Could it be because they're _effective_ for use by ordinary
productive class people against the freelance thieves and muggers
who, as a statist, Moynihan naturally identifies with?

    Write Moynihan. Ask him. And while you're at it, ask the
sonofabitch why he shouldn't spend his long-overdue retirement behind
bars, for having tried to deprive every man, woman, and responsible
child in this country of their unalienable individual, civil,
Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or
concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun,
_anything_ -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's
permission.

    Ask him.

***
Permission to redistribute this article is hereby granted by the
author, provided it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and
appropriate credit given.



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Utah-Firearms/ROC project proposal:  Fed buildings to allow check
Date: 20 Mar 1997 16:40:49 -0700


I'm all for it and forward the following since it saves me typing it
in myself.

--included email---

I received a "franked" mailing today from Rep. Merrill Cook on a series of
town meetings at the following times and locations:

March 25, 7pm, Churchill Junior High Auditorium

March 27, 7pm, West Jordan City Council Chambers

March 29, 2pm (smart thinking), Salt Lake City Library

April 1, 7pm, Whitmore Library Auditorium

April 2, 7pm, National Guard Armory (12953 South Minuteman Drive)

April 3, 7pm, Park Library Auditorium

--end included email--

--

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.

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing,
 great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of
 honor and good sense." -- Winston Spencer Churchill Address at Harrow
 School, October 29, 1941



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Rep. Paul Introduces Semi-Auto Ban Repeal!
Date: 22 Mar 1997 08:01:00 -0700


         Rep. Paul Introduces Semi-Auto Ban Repeal!

                  by Gun Owners of America
                8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
    Springfield, VA  22151, [phone], fax: [phone]
                  http://www.gunowners.org

(Friday, March 21, 1997) -- Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill
to repeal the Clinton ban on certain semi-automatic firearms. Rep. Paul
introduced H.R. 1147 yesterday, and his office has asked GOA members
and activists for their help in getting cosponsors to the bill.

Here's what the bill would do:

* Repeal the ban on more than 180 types of semi-automatic firearms;

* Repeal the ban on large capacity magazines (that is, clips that hold
  over 10 rounds of ammunition);

* Repeal the other draconian gun control provisions in the 1994 crime
  bill, which have helped to drive more than 50% of the gun dealers out
  of business.(1)

ACTION ITEM: Urge your Representative to cosponsor H.R. 1147,
the "Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1997." Call your
Representative at 202-225-3121. Or you can also reach them at
1-800-962-3524 or 1-800-972-3524, but be prepared to let the
phone ring a few times. The GOA website contains mailto: links
for those Representatives who have e-mail. Always include your
postal address when sending e-mail to your member of Congress.

UPDATE on Chenoweth bill (H.R. 1009): You will remember that Rep.
Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) has introduced a bill to fully repeal the
Lautenberg gun ban which disarms millions of Americans for very
slight misdemeanors, even those committed as long as 20 years ago.
Her bill has 11 cosponsors -- the same 11 that cosigned the bill
upon introduction.

Many of you have reported that your Representative claims to
be a cosponsor, even though we didn't list him in our March 12
alert. Be forewarned: your Rep. could be just feeding you a
line. (Or, it could just mean that he wants to cosponsor the
bill, but just hasn't gotten around to it. If so, then press him
to do it right away.) The list we have given you is from
LegiSlate, one of the premier Congressional tracking services.
If your Rep. is not listed below, then he is NOT on the bill.

Here are the Reps. who have cosponsored the bill as of 12:00 P.M. on
Friday: Tom Coburn (R-OK), Barbara Cubin (R-WY), John Doolittle (R-CA),
Jim Gibbons (R-NV), Virgil Goode (D-VA), Wally Herger (R-CA), John
Hostettler (R-IN), Ron Lewis (R-KY), Ron Paul (R-TX), Joe Skeen (R-NM),
and Don Young (R-AK).

Correction:  Our March 12 e-mail alert stated that H.R. 1009
"lays out 17 findings that help advance the pro-gun cause." In
fact, two findings were merged together right before introduction,
and thus, the bill officially contains only 16 findings.


1  The 1994 crime bill states that gun dealers can not operate
a business unless "the requirements of State and local law applicable
to the business have been met." This means the BATF now has arbitrary
authority to use zoning laws to shut down gun dealers. And in fact,
this has greatly contributed to the massive drop in federally licensed
firearms (FFL) dealers. FFL's have now plummeted nearly 57 percent to
the lowest level in 22 years -- for a total of more than 150,000
dealers who have lost their licenses.

***********************************************************************
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 your state of residence
or the word "all". If you subscribe by state, you will receive every
federal alert plus alerts which are specific to your home state.
Requesting "all" means you will receive all alerts generated whether
federal or state in nature. That address should also be used if you
wish to unsubscribe.
***********************************************************************




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Love Letter to the Alphabet Soup Dudes
Date: 22 Mar 1997 17:58:00 -0700


LETTER TO A GUN-GRABBER: THE WRATH TO COME
By Victor Milan <[e-mail]>
Exclusive to _The Libertarian Enterprise_

I'm here to deliver an indictment -- and a warning.

You speak of "gun control legislation." What a world that conveys! Ah,
democracy, the Great Insulator: it enables you to commit crimes without
exposing yourself to physical or moral payback. You can impose your will
on others at gunpoint -- which is rape, and also politics -- but without
having to dirty your precious palm with an actual gun, not to mention risk
actually getting hurt.

Our society calls this "citizenship." I name it cowardice and hypocrisy.

Let's get real: what you want is for mercenaries -- paid in part by wealth
looted from gun owners -- to do your bidding by disarming us at gunpoint:
kicking down our doors, stomping our pets to death, killing us and our
families if we resist complying with your desires. That's about the size
of it, isn't it, Mr. Democracy?

Because we will _not_ flop onto our backs and let you stick it in. The gun
owners of America will not disarm themselves. If you want our guns you must
come and take them.

I take for granted that you won't try this yourself: that would be exposing
yourself to harm. And it would be, rest assured.

Instead you'll send hirelings. Or should we perhaps call them scapegoats?
For you imagine they can absorb your sins -- including the additional sin of
exposing others to risks you're too craven to take yourself -- and leave you
pure and safe and infinitely holier than Neil or Vin or I or scum of our ilk.

We will not be disarmed peaceably. It is illegal. It is immoral. Ultimately
it would be fatal. For if we are disarmed, our property and lives become
entirely dependent upon the judgment and humanity of those who rule us.

For some reason this puts me irresistibly in mind of the "medical"
experiments carried out in Nazi concentration camps. That's what happens
when humans are placed irremovably under the control of others. When the
minions of the benevolent State can act without any fear of consequences.

Don't imagine it's any different here. You obviously believe there are evil,
slavering, kill-crazy freaks in the world -- it's how you see us gun owners,
no? It's how Charles "Julius Streicher" Schumer and Morris "Goebbels" Dees
portray us. Are you absolutely confident that _no one_ who resembles your
vision of us will ever occupy a position of power in your disarmed America?

Dream on.

Consider Waco. Passing up opportunities to capture David Koresh on his fre-
quent and predictable solo trips out of Mt. Carmel, declining an invitation
from Koresh to come out and inspect his guns, BATF deliberately chose to
stage a firefight at a church filled with women and children -- the flashier
and bloodier, the better the media play. They were willing to kill kids for
appropriations.

Maybe you're still in denial over Waco. Maybe you think it's all "right wing
anti-government hate;" the pro-government hate groups certainly want you to
believe that. So maybe you're a good German and accept what you're told.

But I challenge you: look into a mirror. Look into your soul. Do you
_really_ want the men who made the plans, sent the troops, or pulled the
triggers at the Seventh Day Adventist Church outside Waco to have absolute
power over you? Would you like for the confessed felon from the FBI who
destroyed an internal critique of the Bureau's handling of Ruby Ridge --
for fear that the man they had set out to destroy every bit as thoroughly
might be able to use it to ensure himself a fair trial -- to have the power
to poke his finger against your name on a computer screen and say, "This
one dies"? _That's the power you want to give him._

Think it'll never come to that? You're probably right. Let's say you win:
your mercenaries disarm us. _Then what?_ You have the votes, and the warm
fuzzy sense of accomplishment.

They have the guns.

In which case you're _slaves_, mother******. As we are, so shall you be.
You shall know the feel of a suppressed MP5 muzzle in your ear and a
jackboot's **** up your ***. That's the price of being conquered, always.

Though you will have raped us, plundered us, enslaved us, and killed us by
proxy, by proxy we will have our vengeance. Through the agency of your own
myrmidons. Your hash will be settled long before you have to worry about
Michael Kahoe or Larry Potts in charge of the Bureau of Population Reduction.

Yes, the world is becoming more "democratic." It's also filling up with
strife. Your democracy is upheld by bayonets -- like all political power.
The brute truth we see around the globe -- from Somalia, where US and UN
troops disarmed the common folk and left them to be butchered in thousands
by bandits, to central Africa where megamurder is brewing fresh, to Kabul
where over a million unarmed citizens cower in shadows praying for
deliverance from a few thousand religious cranks with Kalashnikovs, and
that their deliverers don't exact a greater price than Taliban -- is this:
only those with guns _count_. The rest are livestock.

So hear my warning: fear the wrath to come.

And it's not even _ours._ We'll never hurt you, unless testosterone poisoning
actually induces you to get off your futon and try to grab our guns yourself.
And we both know that won't happen.

You are bringing on a civil war. _You_ are, because of your sick need to
dominate, because you cannot bear to let others live who are different from
you. You will not like the results.

Because if civil war does come, you'd best hope we win. That's specifically
we libertarian types; in the society we'd build, you would be perfectly free
to spew your anti-gun hate: only if you tried to put your ideas into effect
would you be at risk -- like any violent criminal. If the populists or
conservatives dominate -- well, you'll just have to go along with whatever
they want, because they have the guns and you have your self-righteousness,
and guess which wins.

But above all things pray _your_ side doesn't win. Because then you'll learn
the hideous truth: your selfless servitors, those ninja-clad upholders of
democracy, are really Jeffrey Dahmer with a Black & Decker, and you're an
Asian teen.





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Looking for Militia Bob
Date: 24 Mar 1997 13:14:11 -0700

Please s let me know how I can contact you.

Thanks,

David Sagers



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Letter to Editor
Date: 24 Mar 1997 18:07:14 -0700


For those who may have missed it, there was a front page article in
yesterday's Tribune reporting BYU's support of a law that would allow
it to prohibit CCW on campus.  I certainly support the right of
private property owners to control access to that property, but am
afraid this kind of statement from BYU may lead to a blanket
prohibition of CCW at all schools and campuses State wide.

Below is my letter to the Tribune editor.  Feel free to use it for
ideas and send your own letters as the Tribune seems to have quit
printing mine.  I'm going to watch the DesNews for any similar article
and plan to send them a letter on the irony of the church, whose
members where once disarmed by government troops and then left to the
mercy of armed mobs in Missouri and whose founder, Joseph Smith
carried a 6 shooter for self defense even into Liberty Jail (this gun
can be seen at the church musuem west of temple square and has 6
barrels that rotate to fire), disarming their own members who have
passed not only an FBI background check to CCW but also a bishop's
interview prior to being admitted to BYU.

If anyone wants to pursue that angle and needs some more info, let me
know I'll try to dig out specific dates and locations.  The church is
not terribly open to lobbying, but maybe we can at least keep the
restrictions private rather than becoming blanket.

Be sure to include your s-mail address and phone if you submit any
letters via email.  Tribune--<[e-mail]>.

Also, the Deseret News poll for this week is on wilderness
designation.  Surf over and log your opinions,
<http://www.desnews.com/question/question.htm>.

--include letter--

Charles Hardy
xxx
xxx
xxx

March 24, 1997

Editor, Salt Lake Tribune

Dear Editor

I'd like to comment on your front page article of March 23, concerning
BYU policy on guns.  As private property, BYU is, or should be,
absolutely free to control access to their campus.  That control does
or should include the ability to prohibit the carrying of firearms or
other weapons onto campus simply by posting signs to that effect at
all campus entrances.  If current law does not support this right, or
is vague or conflicting, it should be amended.

However, just as BYU would not ever attempt to impose their own
admissions, conduct, or other internal policies on the other colleges
and universities in this State, neither should their weapons policy be
foisted upon the UoP, the UCMT, or any other institution through some
legislative blanket prohibition.  Any institution or business wishing
to prohibit law abiding adults from carrying guns should be willing to
post signs to that effect and then (as one video chain did) bear the
economic consequences of those signs.

Of course, before BYU posts those signs, they may wish to consider for
whom they are making the campus safer by prohibiting law abiding
adults from carrying guns for self defense.  Not a single concealed
weapons permit holder has ever been charged with a weapons violation
on any campus in this State.  So they don't seem to pose any danger at
all.  Criminals, on the other hand, will surely ignore signs and
statutes as they always have.  Only now, those criminals will be
secure in the knowledge that every intended mugging, assault, or rape
victim is safely unarmed and unable to offer any real resistance.  It
seems to me the safer this world is for criminals, the more dangerous
it is for the rest of us.

Sincerely

Charles Hardy

--

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

"When values are sufficient, Laws are unnecessary.
 When values are insufficient, Laws are unenforceable."
    -Barry Asmus


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: H.R. 1009
Date: 25 Mar 1997 12:02:52 -0700


This message is being sent to both utah-firearms and lputah as I think
members of both lists are interested in this topic.  Please be sure to
trim headers on responses if appropriate.

I have some good news, some bad news, some worse news, and some
appalling news concerning H.R. 1009, Chenoweth's bill to entirely
repeal the Lautenberg gun ban.

The good news: I spoke with Steve in Cannon's office and Bryan in
Hansen's office this morning.  Cannon supports the bill and agrees
that whatever is done, the law must apply equally to both private
citizens and cops.  Hansen has not yet read the bill, but is likely to
support it in principle.  I've preveiously heard from Cook's office
that he supports it.

The bad news: None have signed on as co-sponsors yet.  Part of this is
due to the current recess.  They can't co-sponsor even if they want to
until after they reconvine.  Part of it is due to question on
strategy.  Realistically, the odds of this bill making past the
president are about 0.  Some are wondering if it wouldn't be better to
chip away at the edges of the bill and pass what they can rather than
work on what they can't.

The worse news: Hansen's office claims to have received 8 to 10
communications concerning this bill.  All have been in favor of
repeal.  Cannon's office has received some 700(!!) communications
concerning this bill.  All but about 12 have been in favor of keeping
the ban in place.  Fortunately, virtually all of those 700
communications favoring the ban have come from outside the State of
Utah and appear to be part of some organized effort.  Cannon knows
these are not the views of his constituents, but is concerned he may
be being set up and some anti gun group located in Utah will claim to
know that his mail was "100 to 1" in favor of the ban or something
similar.

Regardless, there are more than 12 of us on this list and the phone
call, or email is free.  Please take a few minutes to email, call, or
write our three reps and let them know how you feel on this issue so
the numbers are more in our favor.  In any communication, be sure to
indicate you are a Utah resident--Mailing addresses and phone numbers
on letters and emails, at least a phone number left on phone messages
or simply stating you are calling from Utah if you get to speak to a
live person.  You can always ask for "Whoever is handling firearms
issues for the Congressman."

The appalling news: One reason none have co-sponsored is the NRA and
other gun groups have not yet decided what they want to do and are
suggesting a wait and see approach for a few weeks.  The GOA is not
included in those "other gun groups" as they have not made contact
with our reps yet.  Folks, it's no wonder we can't get pro-gun
legislation passed when the NRA and her affiliates are so indecisive.
With their historical pandering to the police community, I'm afraid
the NRA may support exemptions for cops while leaving the rest of us
twisting in the wind.  One thing I think is clear, we are never going
to repeal this thing unless the police unions are forced to work with
us rather than having the luxery of working against us.  Once cops are
no longer being put out of work over this law, it will cease to be an
issue and we will not get rid of it.

Things to do:

1-Contact the three reps and let them know where you stand.  Be sure
they know you are a Utah resident.  Emphasize the point that whatever
is done, whatever is politically feasable, cops and citizens must be
treated alike.  If the bill can't be repealed this year, so be it. But
then the cops continue to live under the law like the rest of us.  I
also make the point that my views and votes do not depend on NRA
postitions.

Contact info:

Phone: [phone] and 1-800-972-3534 will get you the capital
switchboard for free.

Mail:   Utah Congressman _____
    House of Reps.
    U.S. Congress
    Washington D.C.

will find them in plenty of time especially given the current recess.

email: <[e-mail]>.

They are also having town meetings over the next week or so.

2-If anyone has any contacts with the NRA, GOA, local affiliates, or
other pro gun groups, please urge them to support a complete repeal
and to contact our reps on that point.  WAGC would be a great one to
contact the reps on this one, both as an organization and as indivuals
through an organized effort--Sarah?

3-In letters to the editor and whatever other pubplicity you can
muster, make the point that the problem is not with guns in the hands
of wife beaters--real wife beaters should not be running free in the
first place.  The problem is with a justice system that too often
allows felony offenses to be ple bargained down and thus turns felony
offenders lose on our streets.  This is not just a gun issue.  It is a
States' and communities' rights (powers) issue.  It is a civil liberty
question.  In fact, were it anything other than gun rights being
treated in this manner, I'm sure we'd have the ACLU climbing all over
it.  Try revoking voting rights over a misdemeener, let alone
retroatively, and see what would happen.

Anyway, it only takes a few minutes to make a free call or send an
email.  In ony takes a few minutes and a stamp to send a letter.
Let's at least make contact on this one.

--

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 do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --
 Santayana


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Let's Support The Gun Grabbers!
Date: 25 Mar 1997 10:05:00 -0700


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

Hey, gang!  Here's a "public information campaign"
that could really use our support!

They even have an 800 number so we can ALL call them on their nickel
and have them send us a neat-o information packet at their expense!

The California Wellness Foundation makes grants like $15,000 to
the Orange County Citizens for the Prevention of Gun Violence.

Here's a little something I snipped from that group's web page:

http://members.aol.com/stopgunvio/index.htm

"We need to deal with gun violence as a true health epidemic that
is costing us tens of thousands of American lives yearly. We need
to move beyond the criminal justice system and the Second Amendment
so that we may focus on the overall preventability of gun violence
rather than continuously lamenting its deadly results."

So:
let's all call 1-800-64-YOUTH and receive our "citizen's involvement
kits" on how we can help stop youth violence in our communities.

Remember! It's Free! Everyone please call...




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: TO A JAIL AFAR?
Date: 25 Mar 1997 10:05:00 -0700


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

Dear Americans:

One of the events that led to the American war for independence was the fact
that when citizens were arrested for what amounted to political crimes, those
citizens were jailed without trial and sent abroad to prisons far from home.
Well, it appears that practice has again appeared in Pennsylvania. There is
probably similar legislation in your own state since this looks like an ACIR
sponsored bill. The following piece was passed unanimously, without debate,
in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and took effect immediately.

HOUSE BILL #86
INTRODUCED BY DALEY, HANNA, AND ROBINSON, JANUARY 28, 1997.
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, JANUARY 29, 1997

AN ACT

Amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes, empowering the Governor to authorize the transfer of
certain convicted offenders pursuant to outstanding treaties.

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as
follows:

Section 1.  Chapter 91 of Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated
Statutes is amended by adding a subchapter to read:

       SUBCHAPTER D

       EXCHANGE OF OFFENDERS UNDER TREATY

Sec.
9171.  Exchange of offenders under treaty.

Whenever a treaty is in force providing for the transfer of convicted
offenders between the United States and a foreign country, the Governor or
his designee, upon application of the Secretary of Corrections, is
authorized to give the approval of the Commonwealth to transfer as provided
in the treaty.

Section 2.  This act shall take effect immediately.

END

I asked those knowledgeable in legislative affairs if this means that if
the US and Russia had a treaty to exchange prisoners, could an American
arrested for, lets say a firearm violation, could he be sent there?  The
answer was YES>  It does not specify the type of crimes, it does not
specify whether the prisoner is or is not an American, nor does it specify
whether the crime committed is a misdemeanor or a felony or even an
infraction.  It does not specify whether the crime is a federal or a state
offense. All it says is that a treaty exist between the countries and that
prisoners may be sent to the foreign jurisdiction.  I sure dont like the
looks of this one.  Better check your own state legislature for this
snake-in-the-grass.

Mike I.




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: H.R. 1009--addendum
Date: 25 Mar 1997 14:22:42 -0700


I failed to mention in my earlier post on this topic that I was told
one addittional hurdle for this bill before even getting to the
president's desk is the fact that Speaker Gingrich _supports_ the ban
and isn't going to help Chenoweth's bill along at all.  The ambitious
may want to contact his office after contacting our own reps.

--

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

"I've got a firm policy on gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be
the one controlling it."
     - Clint Eastwood


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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Letter to Editor
Date: 25 Mar 1997 14:58:48 -0700


On Tue, 25 Mar 97 08:03:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) posted:

>
>I saw that too, and was quite disgusted that BYU is in league with
>Utahns Against Gun Violence. Have you considered also sending letters
>to the First Presidency and to the BYU administration?

I've thought about it, but for reasons I'm not really free to discuss
here, think it best to hold off for at least a couple of weeks.
Others here though should certainly consider letters to LDS church
headquarters and/or BYU administration.  As I said in my post, I can't
imagine either is too apt to be swayed by lobbying, but perhaps their
position could be better clarified as one in support of private
property rights rather than one that is (at least now tacitly)
interpretable as anti-gun.

>
>On a related topic, what is the legal consensus whether a church,
>for example, could post a sign promising to prosecute anyone other
>than a LEO carrying a firearm, concealed or not, into the premises,
>and then successfully prosecute? If this is an option, why have none
>of the churches or businesses (Did Blockbuster or Home Depot ever
>prosecute?) bleating for a law availed themselves of it?

I'm no lawyer, but I've heard it argued both ways.  My personal
opinion is that any private property owner should be free to
abosultely control access to their property.  That includes
prohibiting any person short of a sworn LEO with a signed warrant from
entering for any or no reason whatsoever.  Of course, civil rights
laws disagree if that private property happens to be a business
generall open to the public. ;)

In all seriousness though, BYU as church owned property would probably
have no problems getting an arrest, indictment, and conviction for
criminal trespassing on anyone who refused to leave after being
requested to do so for any reason.  Blockbuster and Home Depot, so far
as I know, never even saw anyone carrying a gun to make a request to
leave or file a complaint.  That's not to say that no one carried a
gun in.  Only that (surprise, surprise!!) no one even knew they had
the gun, let only was in any danger.

I suspect there are two reasons businesses and churches would want a
specific law.  The first is that it eliminates market forces.
Blockbuster dropped their signs not only because of their stated
reason that it was unenforcable (no duh!), but also because they were
singled out for boycott.  Nobody wants to take the responsibility of
posting signs that actually say to the whole State, "We don't support
your gun rights" or "We don't trust you with guns."  This is why one
of the many bills that would have modified the permit said that guns
were prohibited in churches unless the church specifically authorized
you to carry the gun.  The default then becomes no guns as someone
would have to take affirmitave action to allow them.  At the same time
it prevents lawsuits from any church that may actaully support gun
rights since they do have the ability to allow guns.

We must be very vigilant to be sure that any bill which specifically
allows the prohibition of guns in one area or another sets the default
value as allowing guns and requires the property owner to take
affirmitave action to prohibit guns.  No church in this State is
likely to ever post signs that say, "You and your guns are welcome."
But neither are very many likely to go to the trouble of posting signs
that say, "Your gun is not welcome."  They may offer statements about
what is "appropriate," they may make requests from the alter or in
their newsletters, but I don't think they are going to post signs.  It
will be left, as it should, a private decision.

This is very important because most bills banning guns from churches
and schools ban them not just from the actaul property, but also ban
them within a certain distance of said property--500 to 1000 feet is
fairly common.  That's creeping up on a 1/4 of a mile radius around
every church, school, daycare, temple, synagoge, etc, etc, etc in the
State.  Similar bills introduced in Arizona include school crossings
as school zones.  Ever notice how many churches and schools and
daycares and school zones we have in this State?  Try driving to work
without passing right in front of one, let alone a 1/4 mile within
one.

The second reason certain groups want a specific law rather than using
existing tresspassing laws is that a specific law would likely cite a
person with some kind of weapons violation.  Current law would not
necessarily do that.  In other words, under current law, there is
never going to be a demonstrable problem with people carrying guns
into businesses and churches since even if there were a lot of people
doing it and being cited, those infractions would only appear as
tresspassing charges, the same as if they were leafleting without
persmission or sleeping on the lawn without permission.  But add a
specific law and now everyone of those gets reported as a gun
violation at a church.  Also, it is one more crime with which to
charge criminals who are doing something more than just CCWing.

Of course we all know that the vast majority of such convictions WOULD
be real criminals.  If my gun isn't welcome at Blockbuster, I'll just
rent elsewhere.  If someone gets arrested for a gun violation at
Blockbuster, it is probably because he pulled it out and tried to rob
the place.  Of course the antis will make every such statistic look
like it was a CCW permit holder to prove there is a problem and thus
lobby for tighter restrictions.

Once again, I'm not a lawyer and the foregoing is little more than
rational conjecture on my part.  Bottom line as I see it, there is no
problem with CCW, so the antis need to create a problem.

--

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

"I've got a firm policy on gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be
the one controlling it."
     - Clint Eastwood


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: GOA Special Request
Date: 25 Mar 1997 18:41:58 -0700

>Return-Path: [e-mail]
>Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 16:30:31 -0500
>From: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: GOA Special Request
>
>
>   Are You a Small Dealer Put Out of Business by BATF Regulation?
>
>
>    A reporter from The New Republic magazine is doing a story on
>how the BATF has put small, hobbyist dealers out of business.  If
>you want to talk to him, call Steve Glass at the magazine:
>1-202-331-7494.
>
>    This request was posted on 3/25/97.  Please call within a
>week.
>
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: GOA Special Request
Date: 25 Mar 1997 18:39:00 -0700


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

   Are You a Small Dealer Put Out of Business by BATF Regulation?

    A reporter from The New Republic magazine is doing a story on how
the BATF has put small, hobbyist dealers out of business.  If you want
to talk to him, call Steve Glass at the magazine: 1-202-331-7494.

    This request was posted on 3/25/97.  Please call within a week.

"It is an infallible rule that a prince who is not wise himself cannot
be well advised"-- Machiavelli - The Prince.

Qui desidererat pacem, prepaerat parabellum.-- Vegetius

Qui non prepaerat parabellum, requiescat in pacem.-- Joe Horn




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

From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Larry Pratt on the Radio now and Cook tomorrow night
Date: 26 Mar 1997 08:41:14 -0700

Hi All

Larry Pratt from GOA is on KTALK right now (8:35 am Wed 3/26).

--

Merrill Cook has his "Town Meeting" in West Jordan tomorrow night at 7PM in
the WJ City Council Chambers at 8000 S Redwood Road.

I am going to be there with a draft of my fed buildings law as well as
HR1009 info.  Let's get a bunch of us there!  Who will be there?

A caller to the show this morning where Pratt is on claimed that Merrill
Cook won't sponsor or vote for HR1009 because domestic violence offenders
shouldn't have guns (according to a conversation with a Cook staffer named
RP).  Boy does Cook need some education.

So, who will be there?  We should all meet.  I am going to where my Bill of
Rights VOID WHERE PROHIBUTED BY LAW tshirt.

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.    DB integration. Tango.
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dunblane vigils end tragically]
Date: 24 Mar 1997 14:28:45 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------6CF8471638F3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sent from wrong address last time, try again....

--------------6CF8471638F3
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Philips Broadcast Televison Systems
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "102062.2510" <[e-mail]>,
    6mysmesa <[e-mail]>,
    "70274.1222" <[e-mail]>, agr <[e-mail]>,
    bmw <[e-mail]>,
    "Claire.wolfe.freedom" <[e-mail]>,
    davebres <[e-mail]>,
    drbraces <[e-mail]>, drgotww <[e-mail]>,
    dsagers <[e-mail]>,
    edgarsuter <[e-mail]>,
    gardner <[e-mail]>, gunflower <[e-mail]>,
    jbovard <[e-mail]>, jerry <[e-mail]>,
    jneil <[e-mail]>, keeva <[e-mail]>,
    Matti <[e-mail]>,
    owner-utah-firearms <[e-mail]>,
    rjtavel <[e-mail]>, sfbearcop <[e-mail]>,
    silbergd <[e-mail]>,
    Stonewall <[e-mail]>,
    utah-firearms <[e-mail]>, WAGC <[e-mail]>,
    wapette <[e-mail]>
References: <3330F1E2@msm_smtp.orbit.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net wrote:
>
> >Alternatively we could ban all gun owners who are notoriously stupid as this
> >on-line group regularly proves.
> >A entire class of schoolchildren were killed by someone who was allowed to
> >have a gun license.  I'm not sure that those of you that have children who
> >seem to be able to dismiss this tragedy so easily would be so happy if they
> >were your kids that were massacred whilst in gym.
> >The righter ?  You're just very very sad.
> >Please, all of you, stay on that side of the Atlantic and just continue to
> >ruin your own country.
>
[Deletions of Chad's reasoned, rational and empathetic reply]
>
> Steve, your posting was very condescending.  Calling people stupid and
> talking down to them  because you have an irrational fear that you cannot
> deal with is condescending.  I suggest you acquaint yourself with some
> rational thoughts concerning guns, not fearful reactional thoughts.
> Acquaint yourself with the body of supportable research that discounts the
> notion of "gun control" as a way to stop crime.  Learn the sociological
> reasons that the UK has less firearms crime than the US.  Become informed.
> Stop being a reactionary and start being an agent of action based on
> knowledge, reason, and logic.
>
> Chad
>

Steve,

Chad is a nice guy who happens to own a gun. (or two)  He seems quite
willing to "turn the other cheek" and try and show you that not all
gun owners are "fanatic wingnuts".

I'm not so nice.

Stupidity:  Would that happen to have something to do with subscribing
to a mail list concerning something you fear and loath, and then
whining that you find the ideas expressed on the list "offensive"?
I'd say that's as good a definition as any I've read recently.

Coming on this list and calling me names and expecting me to "come
round to your propah way of thinking" is an equally good definition.

If my children were massacred whilst in gymansium, my anger would be
focused on the person who did it, not on the tool the person used
to do it.  Getting angry at the bat someone uses to bash in someone
else's head instead of the person with the bat, is yet another
fine example of stupidity in my book.  If, perhaps, said person
had been found guilty of bashing someone else in the head with
a bat previously, yet still allowed to purchase a bat, I suppose
I would be angry at the barrister and constable who allowed him
to purchase a bat.  Being angry at the bat is stupid.

Mrs. Thatcher had it right when she complained about the
"nanny state".  With all of your "mind your head" "mind the step"
"look left" "rules of the park" etc, you seem to have come to the
conclusion that no one is responsible for protecting themselves
without the nanny first pointing to it and gently reminding you
that your head needs protecting.  Life has problems and dangers,
Steve.  You can continue to complain that life is "not exactly
cricket", but that doesn't change the basic unfairness and danger
of rising upon your hind legs.

If you find this soooo discomforting, might I suggest you send
the following:
mail [e-mail]
unsubscribe
and then kindly, bugger off?

Cheers

Will


--------------6CF8471638F3--



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  5 letters
Date: 26 Mar 1997 12:57:55 -0700

This morning on KTKK (am 630) the #Preacher# called in and discussed a
conversation he had with one of Merrill Cook#s aids concerning the
repeal of the domestic violence gun ban (HR 1009).

Jack Stockwell was the host and Larry Pratt, President of GOA was the
guest.  Cook is not supporting Chenoworth's HR 1009, rather he
supports the Barr repeal.  The only change Barr's repeal makes is to
remove the retrospective provision.  You will still lose your Second
Amendment rights for a misdemeanor!

Since the first of the year I have personally faxed 4 or 5 letters to Rep.
Cook and called his office  another 4 or 5 times.  According to Helen at
Cook#s office I am now the most active and vocal constituent.

I am quite surprised to learn that 5 letters and 5 calls make me the most
vocal constituent!  In other words, it appears that most constituents don#t
make much of an effort to work with and educate their representatives.
If all it takes to bring attention to an issue is a few letters and phone calls,
please get moving on it today.

Letters are easy, especially if you receive any kind of alerts from GOA
or NRA, then follow up with a phone call and basically repeat what you
said in the letter.

60 million gun owners in America, 3 million members of the NRA and even
less in GOA.  Some gun owners are MIA.


The Honorable Merrill Cook
US House Of Representatives
515 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C.  20515-3808
[phone] or [phone] / [phone]

Local:
125 South State, Suite 2311
Salt Lake City, Utah  84138
Ph:  524-4394    Fax:  [phone]

Merrill Cook has his "Town Meeting" in West Jordan tomorrow night
(Thurs) at 7 PM in the WJ City Council Chambers at 8000 S Redwood
Road.  Lets all show up and remind Cook that he was elected on a
strong pro gun campaign, not as a luke warm Bob Dole moderate.



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: 5 letters
Date: 26 Mar 1997 13:37:26 -0700


On Wed, 26 Mar 1997,  DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]> posted:

>guest.  Cook is not supporting Chenoworth's HR 1009, rather he
>supports the Barr repeal.  The only change Barr's repeal makes is to
>remove the retrospective provision.  You will still lose your Second
>Amendment rights for a misdemeanor!

In Cook's defense, this seems to be the approach the NRA is pushing
right now.  How can we expect our congressmen to support a gun bill
if the self proclaimed voice of the gun owners doesn't support
the bill?  We can only expect that if lots of us tell our congressmen
we do want them to support it and let them know that position is not
dependant on NRA position.

Maybe the NRA thinks Barr's bill has a chance and Chenoweth's doesn't,
but there is no reason they can't urge support of both.  Also, let's
remember that this wouldn't even be showing up on the political radar
scope except cops are not exempt and some have been put out of work.
Removing just the ex post facto aspect may be viewed as the only inch
we can get this time.  Or one may consider that it will immediately
allow all those cops to go back to work and thus remove police union
support of a repeal.  What about future convictions of police officers
you ask?  I'm betting you'll see almost zero cops ever charged or
convicted of anything that might be considered "domestic violence"
ever again.  Instead of pleading felonies to misdemeeners, they will
simply plea domestic violence to some sort of very general disorderly
conduct.

>I am quite surprised to learn that 5 letters and 5 calls make me the most
>vocal constituent!  In other words, it appears that most constituents don#t
>make much of an effort to work with and educate their representatives.
>If all it takes to bring attention to an issue is a few letters and phone calls,
>please get moving on it today.

It also means that a few people can have tremondous sway if they all
contact on the same side of the issue.  Letter, calls, and visits
are needed.
>60 million gun owners in America, 3 million members of the NRA and even
>less in GOA.  Some gun owners are MIA.

I might say the NRA is MIA on gun rights.  I might say it, but I won't
so as to not offend anyone.

>
>
>The Honorable Merrill Cook
>US House Of Representatives
>515 Cannon House Office Building
>Washington, D.C.  20515-3808
>[phone] or [phone] / [phone]
>
>Local:
>125 South State, Suite 2311
>Salt Lake City, Utah  84138
>Ph:  524-4394    Fax:  [phone]
>
>Merrill Cook has his "Town Meeting" in West Jordan tomorrow night
>(Thurs) at 7 PM in the WJ City Council Chambers at 8000 S Redwood
>Road.  Lets all show up and remind Cook that he was elected on a
>strong pro gun campaign, not as a luke warm Bob Dole moderate.
>
>


--

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 first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- William
 Shakespeare; Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II, spoken by Dick the Butcher.


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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 5 letters
Date: 26 Mar 1997 14:09:48 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Mar 1997,  DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]> posted:
>
> >guest.  Cook is not supporting Chenoworth's HR 1009, rather he
> >supports the Barr repeal.  The only change Barr's repeal makes is to
> >remove the retrospective provision.  You will still lose your Second
> >Amendment rights for a misdemeanor!
>
> In Cook's defense, this seems to be the approach the NRA is pushing
> right now.  How can we expect our congressmen to support a gun bill
> if the self proclaimed voice of the gun owners doesn't support
> the bill?  We can only expect that if lots of us tell our congressmen
> we do want them to support it and let them know that position is not
> dependant on NRA position.
>

Also, I would suggest an invite be sent to
Janalee Tobias
[e-mail]  (WAGC)

I know she's worked hard to gather signatures, etc. to repeal the
Lautenb??? Act and is a buddy of Merril's.  Dunno if Sarah or I can
make it yet...moving's taking longer than we'd hoped, gettin'
expensive...
>
> 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 first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- William
>  Shakespeare; Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II, spoken by Dick the Butcher.
Do you have the context of that quote?

--
Some scientists say that the major building block of the Universe
is hydrogen, because it is the most plentiful element.  But my
theory is that the Universe is made up of stupidity, because it is
more plentiful than hydrogen.
                                  -Frank Zappa


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

From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cook in West Jordan tomorrow -- Get together beforehand for food
Date: 26 Mar 1997 15:42:56 -0700

OK

Tomorrow at 7pm is Merrill Cook's town meeting in West Jordan at 80th South
and Redwood.  A bunch of us are meeting at 5:30-5:45 for food and to talk
shop and we will be at the meeting between 6:30 and 6:45.

I believe there is a Boston Market or similar Deli like place across from
the WJ City building.  Meet there.  Wear your urban camo (ie, tie, shirt,
maybe a jacket or other respectable attire.

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.
WWW Wholesale including virtual domains.  Tango.  PHP/FI
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Forest service and Shooting in N Utah
Date: 26 Mar 1997 16:07:39 -0700

>Envelope-to: [e-mail]
>Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:40:45 -0700
>From: Neil W. Sagers <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Chad,
>Encoding: 54 Text
>
>Chad,
>
>Would you take a look at the following and consider posting it to the
>Utah firearms alert.
>
>----------------------------------------------
>U.S. Forest Service to Ban Shooting in Parts of Salt Lake, Davis, and
>Weber County
>
>The Forest Service has made a proposal which would ban shooting
>(target, hunting and archery) along a half-mile wide corridor next to
>city limits from Salt Lake County to Weber County.  The proposal
>would also ban use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs).  Public comments
>are being taken until April 15.
>
>Noise control and accident prevention have been cited as the
>reasons to ban all shooting.  However, there have been few noise
>complaints and no serious accidents ever reported from hunting and
>shooting in the area.
>
>Forest Service spokeswoman, Patti Klein, claims support of local
>governments, but is unable to name persons or localities.  The Utah
>Division of Natural Resources opposes the proposal because it would
>interfere with efforts to manage local deer populations.  The NRA is
>also looking at getting involved in the fight.
>
>The proposal is touted as a model for future regulation of hunting in
>Utah and other states.  The underlying reason seems to be another
>attempt by the Federal Government to close public lands and to
>eliminate hunting and legitimate uses of firearms.
>
>If you value the right to hunt in Utah, your help is needed now.
>
>1.  Call Patti Klein at 801 943-1794 and request an information
>package.  Let Patti know that you do not support her proposal to
>close public lands and eliminate hunting near city limits.  Ask her
>respectfully to withdraw the proposal.  Patti
>
>2.  Call your elected officials and ask them to oppose efforts by the
>Forest Service to close public lands to shooting and OHVs.  U.S.
>Senators and Representatives, State Senators and Representatives,
>County Commissioners, Mayors and Utah DWR officials should all be
>asked to oppose the proposal.
>
>3.  Comment to the Forest Service and find as many reasons as you
>can to oppose the closure of public lands to shooting and OHVs.
>
>Patti has apparently not been answering her calls and not returning
>messages, so make sure her phone does not get any rest until the
>proposal is withdrawn.  Make a record of the times you called and
>how hard it was to get in contact with Patti to build a case for
>extension of the comment period.
>
>Neil Sagers
>

Chad Leigh              Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net
[e-mail]         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites.
WWW Wholesale including virtual domains.  Tango.  PHP/FI
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Advantage Rent a junk]
Date: 26 Mar 1997 17:50:38 -0700


For those who rent cars...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

 * Crossposted from: GUNS

From last week:


=C4 Area: GUNS=20
  Msg#: 533                                          Date: 18 Mar 97 =
 18:17:24
  From: GARY WESTFALL                                Read: Yes    Replied:=
 No=20
    To: ALL                                          Mark:                  =
  =20
  Subj: Anti-firearms car rentals

Just came back from Phoenix, AZ.  I had rented a vehicle from ADVANTAGE
through my travel agent.  When I arrived I found out they have a=20
"NO HANDGUNS ALLOWED" sign.  Those of you travelling to AZ might
want to find another car rental agency that doesn't have such a=20
policy.


I am informed by the local folks their policy is set at headquarters.

        Advantage Rent-A-Car may be contacted at:

        Mr. James Walker, CEO
        PO Box 5D
        San Antonio, TX 78217-8064

X-Posted to PRN, AZRKBA & !RIGHT2ARMS

----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.

What light is to the eyes - what air is to the lungs - what love is to the
heart, liberty is to the soul of man. -- Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)


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

From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cook in West Jordan tomorrow -- Get together beforehand for
Date: 26 Mar 1997 22:17:29 -0700

>OK
>
>Tomorrow at 7pm is Merrill Cook's town meeting in West Jordan at 80th South
>and Redwood.  A bunch of us are meeting at 5:30-5:45 for food and to talk
>shop and we will be at the meeting between 6:30 and 6:45.
>
>I believe there is a Boston Market or similar Deli like place across from
>the WJ City building.  Meet there.  Wear your urban camo (ie, tie, shirt,
>maybe a jacket or other respectable attire.
>
>Chad


well, I drove by there tonight to see what there is and there is no Boston
Market there...  So meet at the West Jordan WINGERS right south of the 90th
S and Redwood on the East side.  5:30-5:45 .  We'll choose a place
(WINGERs, Marquee, and some Pizza place) and meet face to face and plan etc.

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.    DB integration. Tango.
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Veto of anti-gun legislation
Date: 27 Mar 1997 08:46:00 -0700


WAGC take note!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order)

There is much more to the story than what is said in the following news clip.
Doug

*** Anti-gun group blasts Virginia governor over veto

A major gun control group blasted Virginia Gov. George Allen Tuesday for
vetoing a bill to bar guns from a county's youth recreation areas, but the
National Rifle Association praised him and his understanding of gun laws.
Handgun Control Inc., founded by former presidential press secretary James
Brady and his wife, Sarah, said the conservative Republican governor had
given in to the gun lobby. Allen vetoed Monday a measure that would have
barred guns, knives and other weapons from teen centers in Fairfax County,
Va. For the full text story, see
http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2106386-a02

Treason seems to be popular with Sarah Brady. We who love freedom should
get the governor's address and write him letters of support. I will pass
this along to WAGC to see if they can help us.




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: ACTION: Order Waco matchbooks by this Wednesday.]
Date: 27 Mar 1997 11:54:13 -0700


First I've heard of this, but thought some here might be interested...

Forwarded from AZRKBA:

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:05:34 -0800
>To: [e-mail]
>From: Erik Hermansen <[e-mail]>
>Subject: ACTION: Order Waco matchbooks by this Wednesday.
>
>Please read this announcement and pass along where appropriate.  If you
>repost the message to someplace non-"L"-ibertarian, then edit the message
>so it only contains points of interest to your readers.  Keyword search for
>"Libertarian" and you'll see what I mean.
>--
>GREAT AMERICAN SNUFF-OUT UPDATE
>
>Big thanks to all of those that ordered matchbooks!  I was feeling a bit
>silly--like I had a real boondoggle on my hands--until I started hearing
>from you all.  Also thanks for the imaginative cards and stationary--it is
>good for my morale.  The first case of 2500 matchbooks has been sold and
>there is a real possibility of distributing a 3rd case for a total of 7500
>matchbooks.
>
>If I can get past the 4000 matchbook order mark by tomorrow, I will take
>the leap of faith and order one more case.  If not, then I will stay at
>5000 and hope that this will be enough for everyone.  (It's a bit like
>playing Blackjack.)
>
>So if you have mailed an order yesterday or today, please inform me by
>e-mail ([e-mail]) or telephone [phone]) and let me know
>how many you've ordered.  If you plan to order, also inform me as soon as
>you can.
>
>You may order as late as March 31, but I'm hoping that you can place an
>order or at least inform me by tomorrow.  See ordering info at end of
>message.  E-mail me for statement of goals and strategy.
>
>DISTRIBUTION IDEAS
>
>Show up at your LP supper club or other meetings and pass out matchbooks to
>people.  I imagine the average LP member knows about 5 people that think
>the ATF/FBI are a bunch of jackbooted thugs, so without any hardcore
>activism, I bet you could get 100 matchbooks effectively distributed.  If
>your meeting is not within the week of April 19, then print out this
>message, take it to the meeting, and see if you can get some people
>interested in ordering.  (I am going to try this myself, but since I
>haven't gone to any meetings for 2 years, they will all think I'm some
>lousy jerk that only shows up to peddle matchbooks.)
>
>Gun shops--call ahead and see if the owner is interested in letting you
>leave a couple dozen laying in the shop for customers to pick up.
>
>Conventions--Richard Lopez has offered to pass out matchbooks at
>"Preparedness Expo 97" in Dallas, Texas on April 11, 12, and 13.  This is
>the right idea!  Thousands of independence-oriented individuals wandering
>around to get the message to.
>
>Colleges--I've spent some time petitioning in the local University District
>in Seattle, and I believe that this is the best place to find idealists and
>intellectuals.  Look for bookstores, coffeehouses, student lounges.  Staple
>matchbooks to telephone poles (students are curious enought to wonder why
>the hell somebody would do that).
>
>Other places?
>
>Now, if you guys really want this to pay off, then let's start talking
>about some ideas for April 19 protest events.  The matchbooks all have info
>that points the reader to Gene Trosper's web page and a recorded event
line.
>
>I have some ideas I will post on the Libertarian Activist list tomorrow.
>I've been trying to come up with ways to make an interesting event that
>will attract participants and even media attention.  Ideas from you for
>this would be great.  If you are simply interested in participating in
>protest events, but not necessarily committed, would you drop me an e-mail
>to let me know?
>
>ORDERING INFO (Repeat from 3/18 post)
>
>In summary, each matchbook briefly describes the Federal onslaught at Waco
>and gives instructions to mail the matchbook to Janet Reno.  There is a
>phone# to a recorded event line, and an URL to a Waco website maintained by
>Gene Trosper.  The matchbook is "Sponsored by the Libertarian Committee for
>Safe Government".  See full text at end of this message.
>
>I paid for the initial printing and am selling the matchbooks at-cost.  Get
>as many as you can handle and order AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, since possibly I
>will be able to adjust my printing order up from the first quantity before
>the press starts rolling--which means more matchbooks circulating around
>carrying our message.  If the price is keeping you from ordering as many as
>you could distribute, let me know and I'll see what I can do.
>
>The deadline for orders is 3/31--but get them in sooner and more things
>will be possible.
>
>Price: $4 per 100 matchbooks + $3.50 shipping (US Postal--United States only)
>
>Include:
>- Check or money order made out to "Erik Hermansen"
>- Address to which matchbooks will be shipped
>- Phone# and/or e-mail for contacting you if needed
>
>Send to:
>Erik Hermansen
>1315 Madison St., #445
>Seattle, WA  98125
>
>I won't give your name out to anyone.  If I can't ship the matchbooks you
>order, I will send you a refund, or not cash your check and notify you.
>
>You can e-mail me at [e-mail] (preferred) or call at (206)
>362-6812.
>
>---
>Front cover text:
>
>The Great
>American
>Snuff-Out
>
>Back cover text:
>
>REMEMBER WACO!
>On April 19, 1993, agents
>of the US government
>rammed & gassed the Mount
>Carmel home of Branch
>Davidians in Waco Texas,
>killing 76 men, women,
>& children.
>
>Inside cover text:
>
>Let those responsible know
>that you remember.  Mail
>this matchbook to:
>Attorney General Janet Reno
>950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
>Washington DC, 20530
>
>For info about planned
>protest events:
>[phone]
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9119/waco.html
>
>Sponsored by the
>Libertarian Committee
>for Safe Government
>
>
=========================================================
                     Do Freedom!!!

    http://home.utah-inter.net/don-tiggre/lrthp.htm
=========================================================



========================================================================
To subscribe: send a message to the [e-mail]
with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field.  Use UNSUBSCRIBE to
remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems?
    email: Not [e-mail] or [e-mail]
For info about this system and its lists email: [e-mail]

========================================================================
via: Sportsman's Paradise~~Online 602-922-1639 - www.sportsmen.net


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


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Women's Firearms Alliance
Date: 27 Mar 1997 12:49:47 -0700

Dear fellow gun enthusiasts and RKBA'ers,

I am very pleased to announce the formation of the Women's Firearms
Alliance, effective immediately.  WFA is a 501(c)4 non-profit, lobbying
organization committed to protecting the individual right to keep and
bear arms.

We believe that all living creatures have an inherent right to self-
defense and that knowledge of self-defense empowers women in self-
reliance and self-respect.  Women's Firearms Alliance supports training
in the safe use and handling of firearms as part of responsible
citizenship.

Through our lobbying efforts we strive to educate legislators, law
enforcement officers and the public about firearms issues, particularly
as they relate to women.

Although our focus is on firearms issues as they apply to women,
men are welcome to join and participate.

We have several classes on personal protection and self defense for
women scheduled for this spring.  The first will be held on April 19
at the Lee Kay Center.

The Women's Firearms Alliance unequivocally opposes the Lautenberg
Amendment, and supports Rep. Chenoweth's HR 1009 to repeal it in its
entirety.  We plan to have representatives at the meeting with
Rep. Merrill Cook this evening, as well as at the pre-meeting planning
dinner.

Although we believe in maintaining our independence and unique
perspective, we are eager to work cooperatively with other pro-
firearms groups.

For further information, please contact:
Women's Firearms Alliance
201 S. Main Street, Suite 900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
[phone]

We will have our e-mail and Web page up and running shortly.  In
the meantime, you may address e-mail inquiries to me at
[e-mail].

Please note that in order to help form this new organization, I have
resigned from the Board of Directors of Women Against Gun Control
and am no longer formally affiliated with that group.

We look forward to working with you and would appreciate your assistance in
getting the word out about our new organization.

Yours in liberty,
Sarah




Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Report on Rep Merrill Cook's Town Meeting in W Jordan Utah 3/27/97
Date: 28 Mar 1997 00:11:08 -0700


Several Utah-Firearms people and acquaintances of Utah-Firearms people and
I met beforehand for dinner at a restaurant.  We took a few minutes to get
aquainted and then talked about 2 thing:  Lautenberg repeal (HR 1009
[Chenowith] and the Barr bill) and my CCW in Fed Buildings bill.  We agreed
that the Lautenberg thing would be the talker in the meeting and that the
other thing, my CCW in Fed Building bill would be presented afterwards and
that we would start following up on that after he got it (this is where ROC
comes in).  We then went to the meeting.  The first question asked was
whether cook would vote for the Chenowith Bill.  He said that he supported
Barr.  It was discussed for the next hour by everyone in the meeting almost
and basically Merrill said he though Chenowith was DOA and that Barr had a
lot better chance to get out.  He would not co-sponsor Chenowith.  He did
say that he would vote for Chenowith if that was the one to reach the floor
which he believes won't happen.  Ie, he is not pro Lautenberg but sees no
future for Chenowith.  [Someone who was there please correct any
misrepresentations I make].  The most important thing is that he agreed to
be educated and to work with us on Amendments to Barr to beef it up to a
Chenowith like bill.  We have a committment from him to sit down with some
of us before he goes back to DC on April 6.

This is something each one of us needs to do wherever we are: contact our
Rep. and try and convince them to work to amend Barr to keep cops and
non-cops joined together sink or swim, and to remove the misdemeanor part.

Cook posed the question about guns in the Capitol building and whether the
2A meant anyone should be able to visit the Capitol Building with a gun and
he thought not (cannot blame him even though philosophically I think you
should).  I got up and asked him if he would support the disarming of
visitors to the Capitol (assuming DC were to allow CCW) if there was a
check station provided to safely disarm and if the Fed Government would
assume all liability for the safety of people disarmed.  He said he would.

After the meeting I talked with him a moment and gave him a draft copy of
my law (as written by me :-) and he said he would look at it and was glad
to get it.  So I am going to get some LSAS people to write it up the way a
law should be in the law language baloney and submit it again and then I
need everyone in the USA to write him and convince him to submit this as a
bill.  I will let you know but he has my ideas on the proposed law and I
will follow this up.

He also, after the meeting was over, gave his support again on getting
himself educated on the RKBA and the facts and statistics and to allow us
to work with him on Barr amendments to make it better.

I need Lobo to contact me on this (Barr thing as well as my CCW in Fed
Buildings thing) as well.

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.    DB integration. Tango.
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Addendum to: Report on Rep Merrill Cook's Town Meeting in W
Date: 28 Mar 1997 00:17:51 -0700


Ok Folks

There were several of us there.  We can go again to the ones on Sat and
next Tues Wed and Thurs but those who were already there cannot get up and
speak again.  He needs to see new faces.  We need people to go to these
meetings Merrill is having.  We also want to know about you so we can
support one another and agree to common tactics and strategies...  He
basically supports us and we don't want to antagonize him.  He can be
educated.  We do need to impress on him the importance of this in a polite
and "working together" attitude.  A few people (not utah-firearms people)
there in WJ tonight were a little antagonistic because he wasn't a strict
2A "guns everyone" person.  This does us no good to be antagonistic as he
is 75% or so on our side and willing to work and learn!

Charles Hardy previously sent around this which he got from someone else [
my comments in [Chad: ]:

--included email---

I received a "franked" mailing today from Rep. Merrill Cook on a series of
town meetings at the following times and locations:

March 25, 7pm, Churchill Junior High Auditorium

March 27, 7pm, West Jordan City Council Chambers

March 29, 2pm (smart thinking), Salt Lake City Library  [Chad: This is a
Saturday so not so bad at 2pm]

April 1, 7pm, Whitmore Library Auditorium [Chad: 2xxx E and 7000 South ]

April 2, 7pm, National Guard Armory (12953 South Minuteman Drive)

April 3, 7pm, Park Library Auditorium [Chad: Taylorsville]

--end included email--


-----

Chad
ask me about  @rkba.com   email address!  Show your support for the 2A and
the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.


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.    DB integration. Tango.
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Advisory: NJ gun lawsuit
Date: 31 Mar 1997 14:25:04 -0700

>-----------------------------------------
>ADVISORY FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
>News from the National LP headquarters for
>members & supporters of the Libertarian Party
>-----------------------------------------
>Watergate Office Building
>2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
>Washington DC 20037
>Phone: [phone] Ext. 226
>E-mail: [e-mail]
>For information about the party: [phone]
>-----------------------------------------
>March 29, 1997
>-----------------------------------------
>
>
>New Jersey Libertarians lose lawsuit over tardy gun permits
>
>        WASHINGTON, DC -- Libertarians in New Jersey have lost a
>lawsuit to force local police departments to stop their foot-dragging
>when issuing gun permits.
>
>        On March 21st, Somerset County Superior Court Judge Edward
>Coleman dismissed a lawsuit filed by Diane Adler, Chair of the
>Libertarian Party of Somerset & Middlesex Counties -- and ruled that
>police do not have to issue or deny gun permits within 30 days, despite
>a state law which requires them to do so.
>
>        Coleman said it would be contrary to the "spirit" of the
>gun-control statute to require a police chief to "blindly" issue
>permits within 30 days of receiving an application.
>
>        County LP spokesperson John Paff criticized the decision,
>saying, "[This] ruling basically gives police chiefs as long as they
>want to issue gun permits. In our anti-gun society, it gives them too
>much leeway."
>
>        Adler had filed the lawsuit in August 1996 after waiting 34
>days without being granted a permit by Franklin Township police.
>According to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f), local police chiefs must issue a
>"Firearm Purchaser Identification Card" within 30 days of receipt of
>application, unless good cause for denial is present.
>
>        Adler eventually received a permit on September 17, 1996 -- and
>asked, "If I had not filed the suit, how long would it have taken?"
>
>        At the court hearing, Franklin police said it took so long to
>issue permits because of the lengthy FBI background and fingerprint
>checks required to prevent "disastrous" consequences if a gun was sold
>to a felon.
>
>        But Adler's attorney Elizabeth Macron noted that her client had
>applied for a gun for protection, and said: "Talk about the tragedy
>that can happen if a woman who wants to be armed isn't."
>
>        However, Superior Court Judge Coleman ruled that the state's
>interest in keeping guns out of criminals' hands overrode Adler's
>interest in having her permit issued within the statutory 30-day limit.
>
>        Adler dismissed that argument, and said, "Criminals are not
>going to go through this process to get a gun."
>
>        Paff also expressed disappointment over the decision, and said
>Libertarians had hoped that a victory would "pressure police chiefs to
>issue permits more quickly" so other New Jersey citizens would not have
>to wait as long as Adler did.
>
>        Adler is now considering an appeal.
>
>        "If funds are available, Adler wants to appeal the decision to
>the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, and to the state Supreme
>Court if necessary," said Paff.
>
>        Despite the disappointing outcome, the case won the LP of
>Somerset & Middlesex Counties considerable publicly -- and some
>criticism.
>
>        For example, the Home News and Tribune (East Brunswick, NJ)
>called the Libertarians' defense of the Second Amendment "bizarre," and
>editorialized that their legal "quest should be silenced."
>
>        "I suspect that Libertarians in other parts of the country
>don't realize how politically unpopular the right to keep and bear arms
>is in 'liberal, free-thinking' New Jersey and how hostile the New
>Jersey media is toward those who exercise those rights," said Paff.
>
>        But Paff said Libertarians won't back down on their defense of
>gun rights -- and will continue to publicly proclaim that Libertarians
>"oppose all forms of gun control," and "believe that an armed citizenry
>is essential to a free society."
>
>--
>The Libertarian Party                                      http://www.lp.org/
>2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                          voice: 202-333-0008
>Washington DC 20037                                         fax: [phone]
>
>For subscription changes, please mail to <[e-mail]> with the
>word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!


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

From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: more on Forest Service etc.
Date: 31 Mar 1997 15:52:12 -0700

Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us
    with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:38:28 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1

Yesterday an E-mail message alerted me to the following situation.
=====================================================
The Forest Service has made a proposal which would ban shooting
(target, hunting and archery) on Forest Service land along a half-mile
wide corridor next to city limits from Salt Lake County to Weber
County.  The proposal would also ban use of off-highway vehicles
(OHVs).  Public comments are being taken until April 15.

Noise control and accident prevention have been cited as the reasons to
ban all shooting.  However, there have been few noise complaints and
only one incident reported several years ago from hunting and shooting
in the area.  No problems have been reported from archery.

Forest Service spokeswoman, Patti Klein, claims support of local
governments, but is unable to name persons or localities.  The Utah
Division of Natural Resources opposes the proposal because it would
interfere with efforts to manage local deer populations.

The proposal is set forth as a model for future regulation of hunting in
Utah and other states.  The underlying reason seems to be another
attempt by the Federal Government to close public lands and to eliminate
hunting and legitimate uses of firearms.

Patti Klein is listed as the spokeswoman and can be reached at 801
943-1794 for information and information packages.  I let Patti know that I
do not support her proposal to close public lands and eliminate hunting
near city limits.
========================================================

I called and talked with Patti Klein (943-1794).  She said these measures
were being considered because of safety reasons.  Although she did
not have know of any reports, details or general, about accidents or
noise complaints, the Forest service believes these rules are needed to
prevent what might happen.

Patti also said that the Forest Service was working on this with the Davis
County Planning Commission and Farmington City.  She said that if I
wanted to find out if there were any incidents or complaints I would need
to contact the county sheriff's office.  In other words, they didn't even
bother to find out if there was a problem before making up new
regulations.

This decision is being made at the local level.  She swore that
Washington had nothing to do with this!  Mike Sieg is apparently the
decision maker on this one and you should direct you comments to him at
the address below.

I was given the old line about Mike Sieg being a gun owner and a hunter.
Kinda' reminds me of Karen Shepherd claiming she believed in the
Second Amendment.

The forest service will be taking comments until April 15, 1997.

Send your comments to:

Mike Sieg, District Ranger
6944 South 3000 East
Salt Lake City, Utah  84121

Chad Leigh              Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net
[e-mail]         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites.
WWW Wholesale including virtual domains.  Tango.  PHP/FI
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Church shooting]
Date: 31 Mar 1997 17:10:27 -0700


Forwarded from AZRKBA.
Pass along to anyone who thinks guns have no place in a church....

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
Southern Baptist Press news service.

Deacon shoots would-be robber following morning service

By Elizabeth Young

APACHE JUNCTION, Ariz. (BP)--Four members of Crossroads Southern
Baptist Church in Apache Junction, Ariz., ended up face-to-face with
an armed gunman despite taking precautions while counting the money
following the morning service March 16.

The situation ended when deacon Bob MacMillan shot the would-be
robber, Rusty Gabriel Rhynard, who was listed in serious condition
immediately after the shooting and remained hospitalized March 27.

Pastor Dale Buchman expressed dismay at how the church and its members
have been portrayed by the media. Newspaper and television reports
made it sound like the members were protecting the offerings at all
costs, when, in reality, their lives were being threatened, he said.

"The people did what the people needed to do," the pastor said.

Following the service, MacMillan's wife, Gerri, and another woman went
to the church office, where they locked the dead bolt lock on the door
and closed the curtains before proceeding to count the morning's
offering. Rhynard, who had attended the morning service, knocked on
the door and said he wanted to pray with someone.

MacMillan, who was closing up the building, went out another door and
talked to Rhynard for about 25 minutes.

When Rhynard became more and more agitated, MacMillan tried to place a
call to the pastor and then called deacon Bill Hayes, who came back to
the church from his home.

While waiting for Hayes, MacMillan, who was feeling increasingly
uncomfortable around Rhynard, went to his truck to get his handgun and
told Rhynard he was getting his sunglasses. MacMillan had a permit to
carry the weapon. Buchman estimated that in the area "80 percent of
the people who go around the desert any carry a gun."

When Hayes arrived, MacMillan left Hayes with Rhynard and went back
into the church through another door to warn the women and call the
police.

Meanwhile, Rhynard pulled a gun on Hayes and ordered him to open the
office door. Hayes explained the door was locked and he couldn't get
in. He offered to give Rhynard the money, but the robber insisted that
Hayes have the women open the door, which they then did.

When MacMillan arrived in the office, Rhynard had his gun pointed at
his wife's head. Upon seeing MacMillan, Rhynard swung his gun toward
him, and MacMillan shot Rhynard once in the stomach.

Rhynard staggered out the door to his car and started to drive away
when he crashed. The church members slammed and locked the door and
waited for police.

"The money had nothing to do with it," Buchman said. Rhynard "wanted
in where those people were." MacMillan "wasn't trying to be a hero,"
the pastor said; the church members were "fearful for their lives."
Had MacMillan not acted as calmly as he did, the situation could have
been much worse, Buchman said.

The church "did what we should have done," Buchman said. "I don't see
us changing anything in our procedures." Even banks with sophisticated
security systems get robbed, he noted.


----- END -------

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

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


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

From: Sarah Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Oppose HR 85 the "No more Handloaders" bill
Date: 31 Mar 1997 16:32:19 -0700

> Subject: Oppose HR 85 the "No more Handloaders" bill
> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:05:49 -0600
> Organization: Texas Networking, Inc.
>
> Please call your Congressmen and women,
>
> HR 85 the "Bombing Prevention Bill" by Rep. Louise Slaughter
> would impose a $100 permit fee on anyone wishing to buy reloading
> components.
>
> Kyle Odom
> kodom2texas.net    (replace 2 with a @ to return email)
>
> NO COMMERCIAL EMAIL PLEASE!
>
>---- End Forwarded Message ----
>
>
>
>"It is an infallible rule that a prince who is not wise himself cannot be
>well advised"
>          - Machiavelli -  The Prince.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

NOTE: NEW ADDRESS!!