ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9707

Internet Message Format | 1997-08-01 | 262KB

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Cops on Gun Laws
Date: 01 Jul 1997 08:46:00 -0700


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

The San Diego Police Officers Association polled its members about gun
control on 05 May 1997 and published the results in their official
newsletter, "The Informant".

Note that the actual questions asked are stated here to prevent
confusion. Anyone who has taken a survey knows the pitfalls of
vague or misleading questions.

1.  Do you support an assault weapons ban?
         NO - 82.1%

2.  Do you support a limitation on magazine capacity?
         NO - 82.2%

3.  Do you support a law-abiding private citizen's right to carry a
    concealed weapon?
         YES - 84.9%

4.  Do you believe that armed, law-abiding citizens are a threat to
    you as a police officer?
         NO - 87.8%

5.  Have recent gun laws (weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, and
    increased waiting periods) reduced violent crime in your area?
         NO - 94.2%

6.  Would you support a point of sale background check (instant check)
    for the purchase of a firearm?
         YES - 92.1%

7.  Does gun ownership by private citizens increase public safety?
         YES - 87.1%

8.  Do you believe the criminal justice system needs streamlining and
    reform?
         YES - 99.2%

9.  Do you believe in the death penalty?
         YES - 99.2%

10.  Do you believe that restrictive gun laws will reduce violent crime?
         NO - 92.1%

11.  Do you believe that gun buy-back or turn-in programs take guns out
     of the hands of criminals?
         NO - 98.5%

12.  Do you believe that misuse of a firearm in a crime should result in
     stiff, mandatory sentences with no plea bargaining?
         YES - 95.6%

These results are consistent with similar polls taken all across the
U.S. for over 20 years.

Please contact the San Diego Police Officers Association for copies of
this poll or talk to your local police officer about his/her views on
gun control.

Vote NO on I-676.

Lance Parker
[e-mail]




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Unraveling Some Brady Law Falsehoods
Date: 02 Jul 1997 20:39:00 -0700


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

[www.FreeRepublic.com]

Unraveling Some Brady Law Falsehoods

Los Angeles Times
July 2, 1997 By JOHN R. LOTT JR.

The Brady law has received much credit for the country's rapidly
dropping crime rate. Yet with the Supreme Court striking down the
law's background check requirements, it faces its ultimate test.
If President Clinton and gun control advocates are correct, the
court's decision will unleash a new crime wave.

The Justice Department continually releases "new" studies crediting
the law with reducing crime. Actually, the downward crime trend
started in 1991, well before the Brady law became effective in March
1994. My research shows that this decline is in great measure because
of higher arrest rates and more states allowing law-abiding citizens
to carry concealed handguns.

Others estimate that the Brady bill had a much smaller effect on gun
sales than the 100,000 rejections its proponents claim. Last year the
General Accounting Office reported that initial rejections numbered
about 60,000, and more than half were for purely technical reasons,
mostly paperwork errors that eventually were corrected. A much smaller
number of rejections, 3,000, were due to violent crime convictions--and
presumably many of these people just proceeded to buy a gun on the street.

Brady law backers have focused almost exclusively on the value of
background checks, the one part of the law that the Supreme Court
specifically struck down. Yet there never was much controversy over
this issue: When Congress debated the law, no one, not even the National
Rifle Assn., opposed background checks. The dispute was over a five-day
waiting period versus an "instant check." Ultimately, the success of
background checks and waiting periods must be judged by their impact on
crime. To seriously evaluate their impacts, however, one must recognize
that other legal changes also occurred.

For example, during 1995 and 1996, 10 more states adopted nondiscretionary
concealed handgun laws. In the belief that concealed handguns deter
crime, 31 states now grant permits automatically to citizens who have
no significant criminal records or histories of major mental illness.
In all 31 states, more people now carry legally concealed handguns.

Considerable evidence supports the notion that permitted handguns deter
criminals. Polls show that there are at least 760,000 and possibly as
many as 3.6 million defensive uses of guns per year. In 98% of the cases,
people simply brandish weapons to stop attacks. This is further reflected
in the different rates of "hot burglaries," where a resident is at home
when a criminal strikes. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun
control laws, almost half of all burglaries are "hot." The U.S., with
laxer restrictions, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13%.

This difference is no accident. Surveys of convicted American burglars
indicate that the fear of potentially armed victims causes them to spend
more time than their foreign counterparts "casing" a house to ensure that
nobody is home. Felons frequently comment that they avoid late-night
burglaries because "that's the way to get shot."

Fortunately, we can disentangle the different effects of waiting periods,
background checks and concealed handgun laws, as many states adopted
these different laws at different times. In a study examining these
differences (published in the January issue of the Journal of Legal
Studies) David Mustard and I analyzed the simultaneous effect on crime
from background checks, state waiting periods, the lengths of waiting
periods, nondiscretionary concealed handgun laws and other gun laws.
Our research examined crime rates over 16 years in all 3,054 U.S.
counties. The largest previous gun control study examined only 170
cities within a single year. We also accounted for changes in arrest
and conviction rates, changes in prison sentence lengths and general
variables affecting crime such as unemployment, income and poverty.

While arrest and conviction rates were the most important determinations
of crime rates, of all the different gun laws, liberal concealed handgun
laws were the most important. Passing these handgun laws caused murders
to decrease by least 8%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and
robberies by 3%. The percentage drops were largest in the most urban,
most crime-prone counties, and women benefited much more than men from
carrying concealed handguns. In contrast, no evidence indicated that
either waiting periods or background checks lowered crime rates.

Yet research does not convince everybody. Perhaps the Supreme Court's
decision will be able to shed light on how effective the Brady law was.
Will crime rates shoot up as quickly without the nationwide background
checks as gun control advocates claimed that they fell because of them?
My bet is that they will not. Will gun control advocates take me up on
that wager?
                                   - - -

John R. Lott Jr. Is a Visiting Fellow at the University of Chicago Law
School

Copyright Los Angeles Times





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Party Pooper -Forwarded
Date: 08 Jul 1997 14:34:14 -0700

Its time to be a party pooper, as I have to tell NRA that I don't support their
instant background check (and registration) as follows:

Dear Ms. Metaska:

I have written this letter to object to your and NRA's support of the
instant background check.  An instant background check has several
problems:  1.  It violates the constitutional requirement of the presumption
of innocence in that it requires a person to prove their innocence before
they can exercise a civil right to buy a firearm.  2.  It is most clearly an
infringement of the Second Amendment.  3.  An instant computer check
has been used before to create an instant list of gun purchasers and de
facto registration of gun owners.  Perhaps you are familiar with the
attempts in Philadelphia and Texas to compile lists of gun owners through
existing information.

Any compromise of our principles is a compromise of my basic civil rights
and cannot be accepted.  It may seem politically wise to accept a small
intrusion of my sacred rights in order to avoid a larger intrusion.  But, in
the end, we all have lost our civil rights.  When was the last time we
restored civil rights through a compromise?  If a mugger threatens to kill
me and take my money and I negotiate to give him my money if he doesn't
kill me, I have been robbed just the same.

Perhaps I am simply an extremist that Charlton Heston discussed
weeding out of the NRA in his infamous radio interview.  If I am an
extremist because I will not compromise my principles, then I am proud to
be called that and would encourage you to join me.  If I am to be weeded
out of the NRA because I will not compromise my principles, I will
volunteer to go; but I will also take my money and my time.

I have adopted the *Tough Love* approach discussed by John Taylor,
attached, when it comes to NRA support of compromises to my civil
rights.  I suggest you read it if you have not recently reviewed it.

Sincerely


Neil Sagers
_________________________________________

"TOUGH LOVE" By John Taylor, the Libertarian Second Amendment
Caucus Maryland Coordinator

There comes a time when you just have to apply the Reagan Rule
(that's Nancy, not Ronald), and "Just Say No".  Sometimes, it's the only
way to show someone you love them.  Recent events within the power
structure in the NRA (lately referred to by some as the
"NECROTIC REPUBLICAN APOLOGISTS") are indicators that such a time
has come for rank-and-file members of the organization.

Regardless of which side a member might have backed in the recent
internecine feud -- or perhaps other members found, as did I, little to
cheer for on  either side -- it has become clear that the NRA is not, and
for some time has not been, an organization responsive to, solicitous of,
or even interested in the welfare of its members.  This despite the simple
fact that a core of contributing members make possible all the
organization's expenditures, be they lavish, foolish, or simply ineffective.

The ascendancy of (former?) gun rights icon Charlton Heston to the
position of First Vice President (after a brief courtesy stop on the
Board of Directors) demonstrates that even the superficial attempts to
pander to the membership (direct election of the 76th board member)
have been subverted by the need of the organization's inner circle to
maintain complete control of the association's affairs.  This heightened
perception of need for tight control may well have something to do with
the appearance that the NRA's "leadership" is no longer as interested in
supporting gun rights as they are in featherbedding.

There is a school of thought that says, "We have to support the NRA.
They're the biggest gun rights organization on the planet; they're our only
hope; if we fight among ourselves, we'll destroy ourselves ..." etc., etc.,
etc.  I submit to the membership that;

    (a)    support, as with a wayward child, requires neither
coddling
        nor covering up for transgressions;

    (b)     they're only a "hope" for us as long as they're working for
us;

    (c)    if we don't get back on track, we'll destroy ourselves
through
        simple neglect of duty.

The most successful and popular ad campaign in the organization's
history was called, simply, "I'm the NRA".  (I've always been convinced
that the campaign was dropped because too many members began to
actually dare to believe it.) It's true -- I'm the NRA, as are you who
contribute time, money, and other support.  Without that constant
infusion, the organization will become paralyzed.

And that -- paradoxical as it may seem -- is exactly what I propose.  I
propose that every contributing member begin, right this minute, to cut off
the flow of air to this over-fueled monstrosity.

Not to kill it -- not at all -- but merely to bring it to its knees, gasping,
forcing it to say, in tones feeble through lack of sustenance, "What do
you want of me, that I may live on?" At which time, the battle will be over,
and we will have won.

But what do we want? What is the solution to our dilemma? How do we
rein in this beast, bring it to a halt, and set it back on the right path,
restored and re-invigorated? First, I submit that it is emphatically not by
purging the organization of its so-called
"extremists".

The "extremists" in the NRA are that very core that is most activist, most
caught up in the life-or-death struggle that rages on around the insulated,
uninvolved, country-club-minded set that constitutes the bulk of our
membership.  It is these "extremists" who give of their time and money
beyond any reasonable expectation.  It is these
"extremists" who are there all the time, not just when their particular ox is
in danger of being gored (or perhaps "clintoned").

It is these "extremists" who read about, write about, and even
exclusively "live and breathe" the constant struggle between the
controlling state and the free individual.  If we purge ourselves of these
"extremists," we've cut out our own heart and brain, and the body will
soon cease to exist.

Second, we, the membership, must demand that the NRA's leaders
defend our rights unequivocally, aggressively, and resolutely.  The war
can be successfully fought only by those with a total commitment to
winning.  There is no compromise when it comes to principle.  That
assertion bears repeating.  There is _no_ compromise when it comes to
principle.

Third, we must begin, today, an active campaign to regain the ground we
have lost.  It is insufficient to merely oppose further limitations.  We must
begin to actively campaign for repeal of all anti-gun laws, starting with
those at the federal level, all of which are demonstrably unconstitutional.

We must unrelentingly seek, educate, and support, legislators, NRA
officers, board members, and associates who are dedicated to repeal of
NFA '34, GCA '68, import bans, "appearance" bans, registration laws,
permit laws, licensing laws, record-keeping laws, as well as all
"executive orders", "rules and procedures", "interpretations", and other
unauthorized edicts.

We must reject all local and state anti-gun laws as inconsistent with the
supreme law of the land.  We must reject any and all anti-gun court
interpretations as unconstitutional.  All such restrictions must be rejected
unequivocally, repeatedly, and summarily.  We must no longer tolerate
infringement in any form.

If we want to restore our rights to their intended status, we cannot do so
by accepting a "small infringement" instead of a big one.  Our purpose
must be clear and unequivocal.  If an initiative is introduced that intends
to support us, but falls short of meeting a simple test of constitutionality,
then we must be strong enough to not support it in any substantive way.
 We can affirm the intent without conceding our rights or compromising
our position.

If our goal is to re-direct our efforts to meet these goals, we must have a
plan.  I submit that the agenda is simple.  There are three things we must
do, beginning immediately.

1.  Stop contributing to the NRA -- time, money, or any other resources.
As harsh as it seems, this is the only way we have a chance to get their
attention.  This will be difficult, and will require greater sacrifice than it
might appear at first.   All direct and indirect contributions (e.g.
*round-up*, FONRA dinners, _anything_ that puts money or effort into the
coffers) must cease immediately, and must not be resumed, no matter
how desperate the pleas, until we have regained control of our NRA.

2.  Every "fund-raiser" must be returned with a long, detailed letter
setting forth what we want, in detail.  Every board member must be sent
letters describing the same.  Every officer must be flooded with requests
-- no, demands -- for accountability.   Each member must take it upon
himself or herself to spread the word, preach the gospel, and recruit as
many other members as possible to _actively_ join the cause.  It will not
be sufficient to merely offer support.

3.  Our list of demands must be short, precise, and unequivocal; said
demands must be pressed relentlessly until they are met.   Nothing less
than total agreement must be accepted.   OK, that's the easy part.  If
you're still with me -- that is, still in agreement in principle -- here comes
the rough part.  We've established that we as the NRA have to be
assertive, active, dedicated, and focused to succeed.  But what
specifically are we to promote as our organizational agenda?
What are to be our demands? If we're against compromise, what are we
for?  I offer three simple principles that we must apply uncompromisingly
-- three benchmarks by which we measure every effort.

1.  No bill, no matter how sympathetic to our cause, may be actively
supported by members' dues, staff time or efforts, or other association
resources if it compromises, in any way shape or form, the principles
behind the Second Amendment.   This means that we must actively
oppose as flagrantly unconstitutional (and inimical to liberty) any and all
taxation, licensing, regulation, registration, or other restriction of the right
to keep and bear _any_ arms suitable to the individual.  This includes any
and all so-called "right-to-carry" legislation other than a simple affirmation
of the right as described above.  Yes, including bills such as those
federalizing the regulation of concealed carry, and state initiatives that
relax restrictive carry laws if they  themselves constitute an infringement
of the basic right.

2.  No legislator may be actively supported by members' dues, staff time
or efforts, or other association resources if he or she is not an active
gun rights advocate.  No exceptions,  regardless of how much he or she
promises -- the proof, as they say, is in the pudding.  Conversely, true,
proven allies should be supported, regardless of political affiliation, or
some qualitative assessment of "viability".   Finally, _no_  candidate
should receive support or a positive "rating" from the NRA if they have
ever actively supported "gun control" in any form, regardless of their
reason for doing so.

3.  No NRA initiative that is not _directly_ related to gun rights may be
actively supported by members' dues, staff time or efforts, or other
association resources.   This includes all book  tours, anti-crime
programs, and any other efforts that are tangential (at best) to gun rights
issues.  The funds of the membership may be used _only_ to support
true pro-gun legislation or the repeal of anti-gun legislation.

We must recognize that there is no future in continuing to attempt to
resist the assaults of the anti-liberty forces, as long as we are fighting
on their turf.  We are wasting our effort reacting to attacks that are
launched under conditions that are totally favorable to our assailants.
 There is no value in trying to fight our battles in the media.  If we're
smart, we'll fight at the grass roots level, and let the media find us if they
can.

Our fight must be inclusive of others who find themselves targeted by
the government and/or the mass media.  We need not embrace all of their
principles, but we do need to recognize, acknowledge, and publicize the
misdeeds of our common enemies.  We can gain (and give) much
sympathy merely by pointing out that we are individuals, just like other
individuals, who have been targeted for marginalization and demonization
by those who would control us.

We must use the tools available to us -- grass roots networks, clubs,
associations, and other informal gatherings -- to create our own network
of individuals who are irrevocably dedicated to protecting our rights.
One of the most potent weapons we have is the internet.  The measure
of the degree of fear that the government and media have of the internet
can be found in their efforts to control it and marginalize it, respectively.

In summation, we have two tasks at hand.  First, we must regain control
of the NRA, and use it, as controlling members, to support our rights.
Second, we must reshape the nature of our gun rights efforts.  We must
seize the high ground and hold it against all assaults.  Let the enemy
come to us ...  and when he does, let him find us prepared.




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [INFO] GOA Web Page -Forwarded
Date: 09 Jul 1997 10:01:49 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id TAA09963; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 19:04:08 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA24975; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 21:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma024958; Sun Jul  6 21:09:29 1997
Message-Id: <Pine.ULT.3.90.970706201246.870A-100000@shrike>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list


Noban:

In case you have not seen it, it is a MUST to check out the GOA web
page.  Dang, this is a great effort!

http://www.gunowners.org/index.html#pet

Even mentions the efforts to repeal the AW ban, so this message is
actually on topic for this list. (!)

There is lots to like about this web page, and two features that I thought
were particularly cool are:
1.  The petition from WAGC to be delivered to Congress to repeal
Lautenberg.  Sign this petition and then go look at all the signatures
they have from all over the country.  See your friends.  This is great!
2.  Auto-emailer to Congress.  You can send an email to as many as ALL the
critters that have email at once (of course their auto-responses will spam
you, but hey...).  Just send to your Rep. and Senators if you insist on
not getting carried away.

I like having something to _do_ on a pro-rkba web page, not just read the
usual stuff.  GOA's page does not disappoint.

Enjoy!
John Posthill




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  AARP and Guns -Forwarded
Date: 09 Jul 1997 10:19:15 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA12076; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 10:06:07 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id MAA22765; Wed, 9 Jul 1997 12:10:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma022742; Wed Jul  9 12:09:43 1997
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

AARP's Position On Gun Control

For more than a decade, the Association has urged the federal government to
control the availability of handguns because of their frequent use in the
commission of violent crime.

Handguns continue to present a serious threat to citizens of all ages.  Every
year, more than 23,000 Americans are killed with handguns.  At least $1
billion is spent annually on medical costs associated with the treatment of
individuals who have been shot.

The prevalence of violence in some neighborhoods has resulted in many older
persons becoming virtual prisoners in their homes.  Increasingly, individuals
living in the inner city are suffering the loss of children and grandchildren
who are the victims of violent crimes and senseless shootings.

In many states, juveniles are permitted to own and carry guns, contributing
to this rising tide of violence.  Further the lack of restrictions on handgun
sales in certain states enables gun runners to sell guns in states where
sales are limited.  This lack of uniformity among the states significantly
undermines their ability to control handgun availability.

Increased criminal activity involving automatic and semiautomatic weapons
persuaded the Association in 1989 to expand its earlier gun control policy to
include these weapons.  This policy reads as follows:

The federal government must control the availability of handguns and
semiautomatic and automatic weapons because of their frequent use in the
commission of violent crimes.




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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AARP and Guns -Forwarded
Date: 09 Jul 1997 10:41:11 -0600

DAVID SAGERS wrote:

> Increased criminal activity involving automatic and semiautomatic weapons
> persuaded the Association in 1989 to expand its earlier gun control policy to
> include these weapons.  This policy reads as follows:
>
> The federal government must control the availability of handguns and
> semiautomatic and automatic weapons because of their frequent use in the
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> commission of violent crimes.

Ahhhh fer ch**sakes....auto's used frequently?

It's actually somewhat heartening, in an admittedly twisted way,
to have my basic theorem "supported" yet again:
People are stupid!
--
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: "Kevin S. Van Horn" <[e-mail]>
Subject: training
Date: 09 Jul 1997 12:32:53 -0600

Where's a good place to get some basic firearms training?  I live in
south Utah county (Payson).

----------------------------
Kevin S. Van Horn, Ph.D.
KSVH Software and Consulting
[e-mail]



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

From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: training
Date: 09 Jul 1997 12:38:19 -0600

>Where's a good place to get some basic firearms training?  I live in
>south Utah county (Payson).
>
>----------------------------
>Kevin S. Van Horn, Ph.D.
>KSVH Software and Consulting
>[e-mail]


Well, I'll take you out shooting.  The various gun stores also usually have
people associated with them who are NRA trainers.  You can call Gunnies in
Orem and ask them what sort of stuff they offer or know about.  Also, Van
Wagenens in Orem has flyers and posters from various people up usually (at
least when I have been there).

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: Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: training
Date: 09 Jul 1997 12:53:27 -0600

Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
>
> Where's a good place to get some basic firearms training?  I live in
> south Utah county (Payson).
>
> ----------------------------
> Kevin S. Van Horn, Ph.D.
> KSVH Software and Consulting
> [e-mail]


Kevin,
    You might try Wahsatch Shooters at Layton.   Bill Filiaga does courses
there and others probably do as well.  I don't have their phone number
with me.

Good shooting,
Dave



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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AARP and Guns -Forwarded
Date: 09 Jul 1997 13:08:12 -0600

S. Thompson wrote:
>
> >AARP's Position On Gun Control
> >
> >For more than a decade, the Association has urged the federal government to
> >control the availability of handguns because of their frequent use in the
> >commission of violent crime.
> >
> >Handguns continue to present a serious threat to citizens of all ages.  Every
> >year, more than 23,000 Americans are killed with handguns.  At least $1
> >billion is spent annually on medical costs associated with the treatment of
> >individuals who have been shot.
> >
> >The prevalence of violence in some neighborhoods has resulted in many older
> >persons becoming virtual prisoners in their homes.  Increasingly, individuals
> >living in the inner city are suffering the loss of children and grandchildren
> >who are the victims of violent crimes and senseless shootings.
> >
> >In many states, juveniles are permitted to own and carry guns, contributing
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >to this rising tide of violence.  Further the lack of restrictions on handgun
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >sales in certain states enables gun runners to sell guns in states where
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >sales are limited.  This lack of uniformity among the states significantly
> >undermines their ability to control handgun availability.
> >
> >Increased criminal activity involving automatic and semiautomatic weapons
> >persuaded the Association in 1989 to expand its earlier gun control policy to
> >include these weapons.  This policy reads as follows:
> >
> >The federal government must control the availability of handguns and
> >semiautomatic and automatic weapons because of their frequent use in the
> >commission of violent crimes.
> >
> OK, Folks - here it is:  Today's Quiz!
>
> Which states allow juveniles to own handguns?
> Which states have no restrictions on the purchase of handguns?
>
> The first person to answer correctly will win a fully-automatic handgun
> suitable for giving to their favorite child or grandchild. <g>
>
> Sarah
>
> PS: Feel free to post if you think others would like to enter! <g>

--
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: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: AARP and Guns -Forwarded
Date: 09 Jul 1997 13:40:33 -0600


On Wed, 09 Jul 1997,  WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]> posted:

>> OK, Folks - here it is:  Today's Quiz!
>>
>> Which states allow juveniles to own handguns?
>> Which states have no restrictions on the purchase of handguns?
>>
>> The first person to answer correctly will win a fully-automatic handgun
>> suitable for giving to their favorite child or grandchild. <g>
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> PS: Feel free to post if you think others would like to enter! <g>

Actually, I would like to enter.  And I will allow the prize to be
semi-automatic firearm suitable for the giving to my favorite child.
Both Utah and Arizona specifically allow minors to posses handguns.
In Utah it must be with parental consent though it has gotten much
stricter in the past 10 years.  I do not know if Arizona requires
that.  Also, while living in Arizona 18 months ago I learned that, at
that time at least, the Arizona CCW law did not have an age
restriction as a co-worker had assisted his underage daughter in
obtaining a permit to CCW.  I would be willing to bet that Vermont
does not restrict the ownership of handguns to minors nor prohibit
them from possessing them on or about their person in a peaceful
manner.

For part two, prior to Brady, Utah had no restrictions on the sale of
handguns except for prohibiting their purchase or possession by felons
and other federally prohibited persons.  Other regulations re handgun
sales were federally imposed.  I would guess once again that places
like Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska, have very few or no regulations
concerning handgun purchases that would affect non-felons or the
mentally ill except for those imposed by the feds.

I purchased my first handgun at age 17 or 18 from my older brother.
Purchased my second one at 20 from a private party.

Is this close enough to win my prize or do I need to find statute
cites?  ;)

We must be careful not to give tacit approval to regulations by
arguing about whether they exist.  The appropriate response to the
assertion that some States may not prohibit minors from owning guns
is, "Good for them!  How else are the youth to learn one of their
great civic responsibilities and rights?"

--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed; a
 well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free
 country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be
 compelled to render military service in person." - [This was Madison's
 original proposal for the "Second Amendment" -- James Madison, I Annuals
 of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [[e-mail]] To the NRA
Date: 09 Jul 1997 14:50:21 -0600


                        July 8, 1997

Ms. Marion Hammer
Mr. Wayne LaPierre, Jr.
National Rifle Organization
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

Dear Ms. Hammer and Mr. LaPierre,

I have received several requests from each of you to renew my
membership in the National Rifle Association.  I am unwilling
to do so now, or in the foreseeable future.

You see, I'm one of those "extremists" whom you feel you need
to purge from the ranks of the organization.  I know better
than to go where I'm not wanted.  I certainly know better than
to pay for such treatment.

I believe that many, though still a minority, of our law
enforcement agents do behave like "jack-booted thugs" and that
calling them what they are is appropriate and necessary.  I
believe that federal law enforcement should be severely curtailed
and should always work under the supervision of local law
enforcement.

I believe the Second Amendment guarantees me the right to own
any weapon I choose, specifically including fully automatic
"machine guns".  In fact, if the Second Amendment is to have any
meaning, then we are obligated to own fully automatic weapons and
weapons of mass destruction in order to resist the depredations
of a corrupt, unconstitutional government that would sell us and
our children into slavery.

I believe I do not need anyone=92s permission to own or carry the
weapon of my choice.  I most assuredly do not need anyone's
permission to defend myself, my family, or my property.  I will
not beg, and I will not subject myself to degradation by a
government that presumes I am "guilty" until it determines my
innocence.

I do not, and will never, concede that the police, the military,
the legislature, the ATF, our despicable president, or anyone
else is my intellectual or moral superior and has the right to
judge me.  Only a fully informed jury of my peers may do that,
and then only where it has lawful jurisdiction.

I believe that all gun control laws are inherently evil.  It is
not enough to say that Brady will "sunset".  If you're willing to
tolerate evil for one day, will you tolerate it for two?  If you
are willing to tolerate it for two days, will you tolerate it for
a year?  And if you tolerate it for a year, why should anyone
believe you will not tolerate it forever?   Honor and integrity
dictate that we demand a repeal now!

Domestic abuse is a heinous crime and must be treated as such.
But I will never condone the removal of rights as punishment for
a misdemeanor.  Likewise I will never condone the removal of a
person's right to self-defense in response to a non-violent
crime, nor will I condone the denial of basic rights to those
persons who, through no fault of their own, suffer from a mental
illness, but pose no threat to others.

I find your support for the overturning of the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, which denies First Amendment rights as "necessary
to get tough on crime", abhorrent; it is an indication of your
true nature and goals.

NRA-ILA has done many wonderful things.  Your educational programs
are excellent, have taught the joys of gun use and ownership to
many, and have no doubt prevented many deaths and injuries due to
your emphasis on safety training.  There is no better firearms
safety program for children than Eddie Eagle.  Your research and
legislative resources have been invaluable to me.

However, the time for compromise is past.  This is no longer about
hunting, or target shooting.  It's not about safety. It's not about
begging for permission to exercise rights that existed long before
either government or man.

It's about survival: individual survival and family survival.  It's
about survival of the form of government envisioned by the founders
of this nation.  It's about the survival of the gun culture in the
face of a government that would willingly commit genocide against it.
If you think I'm a wild-eyed radical, just look to Clinton's soul
mate, Tony Blair, who has publicly announced that gun bans have
nothing whatever to do with public safety; that the issue is the
elimination of the gun culture.

Far too many others have attempted genocide against my people.
I will not close my eyes.  I will not lie down.  I will not go
willingly.  I will resist until there is nothing left of me to resist.

I will not register my guns, my ammunition, myself, or my family.
I will not consent to background checks, especially when performed
by a fascist government. I will not ask permission from anyone to do
what is right.
When you decide to stop selling our birthright,
When you decide to stop supporting permits,
When you proclaim that each and every one of us is innocent until proven
guilty; that we need not subject ourselves to "background checks",
registration or bureaucracy,
When you refuse to tolerate evil,
When you are willing to call evil by its rightful name,
When you are willing to call genocide by its rightful name,
When you stop distracting yourselves and others with peripheral issues,
When you learn that a compromise with the devil is no compromise at all,
Then, and only then, will you have my support.

Until that time, may your chains rest lightly.

Sincerely,


Sarah B. Thompson, M.D.

Permission to distribute and/or copy granted provided this letter is
reproduced in its entirety, without changes, and full attribution is
given.


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

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same=20
object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right,=20
it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards
for their=20
future security..."                                The Declaration of
Independence





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Start Your Own Newspaper!
Date: 10 Jul 1997 15:50:00 -0700


From Ed Wolfe ([e-mail]), posted to IP

A few months ago, some of us were discussing starting our own newspapers
to counter the biased media. The Oregon Observer is now offering an
instructional video to help others get started with their own paper.

This kind of paper WORKS. Just last week another Code Enforcement
Officer resigned in Oregon due to an article in the Oregon Observer.
If you want to know what you can do to help take back our country from
the slime that are controlling the masses, fight them at their own game.
Be your own media. Check this out:

           How To Start Your Own State-Wide Newspaper...

                         Get The Video!

You've been asking for it, now it's available to you from, "America's
Hardest Hitting Newspaper" The Oregon Observer. Edward Snook takes you
step by step through what it takes to have a successful and hard hitting
newspaper in your own state.

With your video you also get a written list of equipment needed and
access to assistance from The Oregon Observer Staff when you need
questions answered. Starting out, many situations will arise which are
not talked about on the video and may be unique to your area or
circumstances. As valuable as the video is, the continued support
program is equally important. You will also receive back issues of The
Oregon Observer, which will give you a hands-on visual example of the
type of newspaper that works, The Oregon Observer way. Exposure is the
answer...Do it the right way and succeed!

Order your video today for only $79.00, which includes shipping
and handling.

                    Send your order and payment to:

                         The Oregon Observer
                    19093 S. Beavercreek Rd. #333,
                       Oregon City, Oregon 97045
                                  or
             Order with your Visa or Mastercard by calling:

                            [phone]

http://www.oregonobserver.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe, email
[e-mail] with the message:
 subscribe ignition-point
         or
 unsubscribe ignition-point
http://ic.net/~celano/ip/





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Whiskey Rebellion July 16
Date: 10 Jul 1997 15:50:00 -0700


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

 The Covenant Syndicate
 July 7, 1997, vol. 1, no. 27

(Back Issues posted at: http://capo.org/opeds/opeds.html)

*********************

The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794
Elmer E. Specht ([e-mail])

Be sure to celebrate, and encourage others to do so, the upcoming 203rd
anniversary of Whiskey Rebellion Day --- July 16th. Back when we knew
how to run a country, the farmers of western Pennsylvania (and others in
Carlisle, PA; Hagerstown, MD; and various parts of Virginia later joined
the fray) rose up at the imposition of a tax on spiritus frumenti, of
which it is duly recorded they produced and consumed prodigious amounts.
It seems moonshining was the only way they could get their produce to
market in the east, notably Philadelphia, without undesirable spoilage.
But Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, in his wisdom,
imposed an ad valorem tax amounting to twenty-five percent of the value
of the spirits.

Thus ired, the western Pennsylvania rustics, restless since June,
surrounded the home of the local tax man, one John Neville of Bower
Hill, near Pittsburgh, and invited him to depart the county. He thought
to demur, having some militiamen with him, and succeeded in killing
one Oliver Miller in what was the opening shot in the rebellion. The
"rebels" then fired back, Neville signaled his slaves to fire from the
rear, and more blood flowed. Thus it was a scant 24 years between the
time the "lobsterbacks" of King George fired on the colonists in Boston
(in 1770), killing five, and the time the federal government took to
killing its own citizens. The next day, July 17, 1794, James McFarlane,
a Revolutionary War veteran, and popular commander of the local militia,
was shot dead in what may have been a ruse to lure him into the open,
thinking the soldiers defending Neville wished to parley. That ended any
hope of peaceful resolution, and the locals proceeded to burn Neville's
buildings to the ground as he was spirited away by the federal troops.

The federal government responded as one might anticipate, by relying
on yet more force. President Washington recruited a militia from the
surrounding states (to their everlasting shame) --- which was dubbed,
derisively, the "watermelon army." After a few more months, during which
time some of Neville's sycophants were tarred and feathered just prior
to their hasty and unscheduled departures for the east, the rebels,
realizing they could not withstand the onslaught of the government,
disappeared into the countryside. Two of these stalwarts were tried
for treason, convicted, and pardoned by Washington. Thomas Jefferson
condemned the use of military force and Hamilton's arrogation of power
by the feds. It was, along with some other intraparty miscues, the
(ignominious) end of the Federalist Party. Jefferson was elected as
a Republican-Democrat in 1800, defeating John Adams in his bid for
a second term.

You will not read much, if any, of this in your local newspaper, but I
am committed to bringing back the memory of this mirific and glorious
event in the history of our great country, so mark your calendars for
July 16th accordingly, and drink a toast to those who knew how to deal
with corruption and greed in high places, and share a moment of silence
for Oliver Miller and James McFarlane, the first two American patriots
killed by their own government.

Credit where credit is due department: read Thomas P. Slaughter's The
Whiskey Rebellion (Oxford University Press) for the whole unvarnished
story.

*********************

The Covenant Syndicate is presently distributed as a free service to
media outlets and select electronic distribution lists. If you enjoy
this, feel free to recommend these to your local newspaper for inclusion.

For permission to reprint, contact David Hall at: [e-mail]

P.S. Our columnists are also available for radio/TV interviews or comment.
Please contact them directly at their email address for your programs;
or for more information, contact David Hall at: [e-mail]




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Mr. Cannon signed on, where is Mr. Cook?
Date: 11 Jul 1997 15:34:20 -0700

     (Thursday, July 10) -- The momentum in support of Rep.
Chenoweth's bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun ban continues to grow.
The list of cosponsors to H.R. 1009 is now up to 29, as
Rep. Chenoweth's bill continues to be the "bill of choice" for
Representatives to cosponsor.  (Its nearest competitor has only
17 cosponsors.)

     As mentioned in last month's alert, GOA personnel will join
Rep. Chenoweth and representatives of several grassroots
organizations this upcoming Monday to focus attention on the dangers of
the Lautenberg gun ban.  GOA will be calling on other
Representatives to join Mrs. Chenoweth and cosponsor H.R. 1009.

     Check out the following list of cosponsors to H.R. 1009.  If your
legislator is not listed, send him a Western Union mailgram and encourage
him to get on the stick!

     BUNNING (R-KY)      KIM (R-CA)
     CANNON (R-UT)       LaHOOD (R-IL)
     CHAMBLISS (R-GA)    LEWIS, R (R-KY)
     COBURN (R-OK)       McINTOSH (R-IN)
     COOKSEY (R-LA)      PAUL (R-TX)
     CRAPO (R-ID)        PICKETT (D-VA)
     CUBIN (R-WY)        SKEEN (R-NM)
     DICKEY (R-AR)       SMITH (R-MI)
     DOOLITTLE (R-CA)    SPENCE (R-SC)
     GIBBONS (R-NV)      STUMP (R-AZ)
     GOODE (D-VA)        THORNBERRY (R-TX)
     HASTINGS (R-WA)     WATTS (R-OK)
     HERGER (R-CA)       WICKER (R-MS)
     HILL (R-MT)         YOUNG, D (R-AK)
     HOSTETTLER (R-IN)


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



Received: from multiverse.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id HAA13941; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 07:20:36 -0600
Received: from whqvax.picker.com (whqvax.picker.com [144.54.1.1])
    by multiverse.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/dml/dilbert2.0) with SMTP id JAA15462
    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:23:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ct.picker.com by whqvax.picker.com with SMTP;
          Fri, 11 Jul 1997 9:22:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from burton.ct.picker.com ([144.54.57.68]) by ct.picker.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    id AA02505; Fri, 11 Jul 97 09:22:55 EDT
Received: by burton.ct.picker.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id JAA07798; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 09:22:45 -0400
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII


    GOA set for new offensive as more Reps. jump on the full
                        Lautenberg repeal
 -- Last chance to send Western Union Mailgram and sign petition

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


     (Thursday, July 10) -- The momentum in support of Rep.
Chenoweth's bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun ban continues to
grow.  The list of cosponsors to H.R. 1009 is now up to 29, as
Rep. Chenoweth's bill continues to be the "bill of choice" for
Representatives to cosponsor.  (Its nearest competitor has only
17 cosponsors.)

     As mentioned in last month's alert, GOA personnel will join
Rep. Chenoweth and representatives of several grassroots
organizations this upcoming Monday to focus attention on the
dangers of the Lautenberg gun ban.  GOA will be calling on other
Representatives to join Mrs. Chenoweth and cosponsor H.R. 1009.

     Check out the following list of cosponsors to H.R. 1009.  If
your legislator is not listed, send him a Western Union
mailgram and encourage him to get on the stick!


     BUNNING (R-KY)      KIM (R-CA)
     CANNON (R-UT)       LaHOOD (R-IL)
     CHAMBLISS (R-GA)    LEWIS, R (R-KY)
     COBURN (R-OK)       McINTOSH (R-IN)
     COOKSEY (R-LA)      PAUL (R-TX)
     CRAPO (R-ID)        PICKETT (D-VA)
     CUBIN (R-WY)        SKEEN (R-NM)
     DICKEY (R-AR)       SMITH (R-MI)
     DOOLITTLE (R-CA)    SPENCE (R-SC)
     GIBBONS (R-NV)      STUMP (R-AZ)
     GOODE (D-VA)        THORNBERRY (R-TX)
     HASTINGS (R-WA)     WATTS (R-OK)
     HERGER (R-CA)       WICKER (R-MS)
     HILL (R-MT)         YOUNG, D (R-AK)
     HOSTETTLER (R-IN)


     ACTION:  This is your last chance to send a Western Union
mailgram in support of H.R. 1009, the only bill in the Congress
that will fully repeal the Lautenberg gun ban.  Call
1-800-651-1486.  Get your neighbors and gun clubs to send a
message as well, as GOA will soon be changing the mailgram
message.  A fee of $6.95 will be charged to a person's phone bill
for a mailgram requesting their Congressman to cosponsor the
Chenoweth bill.

     ACTION:  Sign the Women Against Gun Control Petition.  At
Monday's press conference (mentioned above), Women Against Gun
Control (WAGC) will present Rep. Chenoweth with petitions in
support of the Lautenberg repeal -- petitions that many of you
have signed.  Note:  if you have not as yet signed the WAGC
petition, a cgi version is at
http://www.gunowners.org/petition.htm on the GOA website.  We
will append your personal information and any comment you care to
make to a copy of the petition and deliver it to WAGC.  Men and
women both are invited to sign.  Help make the presentation of
the petition a tremendous moment.  If you do not have web access,
we will fax or e-mail you a copy upon request.

********************************************************************

                     Victory in the States!

    Bureaucrats Throw in the Towel on Fingerprints (for now)

     Gun owners and liberty activists won a stunning victory in
Alabama by defeating the Department of Public Safety's plan to
fingerprint driver's license applicants and encode the print in
government computers.  Understanding that computerizing
fingerprints into driver's license data bases is part of the
architecture for gun owner registration, GOA joined efforts to
oppose this scheme.

     Confirming GOA concerns was a statement by U.S. House
Speaker Newt Gingrich on CNN calling for the computerized
scanning of gun buyers fingerprints through the so-called
"national instant check."

     Thanks need to go to Linda Muller's "Fight the Fingerprint"
e-mail list ( http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml ), Cyndee
Parker's Coalition to Repeal the Fingerprint Law in Georgia
( http://www.mcwebs.com/repeal ), and all those who helped them as
well.


    Gun Owners rising up against FBI Fingerprint Registration

     Gun owners are winning victories against fingerprinting in
suprising places.  On Monday, July 7, 1997 the board in the major
suburban Virginia jurisdiction of Fairfax County (just outside of
Washington, DC) defeated a proposal to fingerprint concealed
carry applicants on a 5 to 5 tie vote.

     Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, South Dakota and, of course,
Vermont are among several states that do not fingerprint persons
who get concealed carry permits.  Pennsylvania, with over
five hundred thousand permits issued, has little or no problem
with honest gun owners carrying for self-defense.

     Sadly an effort in Ohio to fingerprint concealed carry
applicants is being led by Reps. Bill Batchelder (R-81) and Joy
Padgett (R-95).  GOA informed Rep. Batcheleder in a one-on-one
meeting of the success of the Pennsylvania process which eschews
fingerprints.  Yet, he and Rep. Padgett continue to ignore
grassroots activists, and thus, are feeling the heat from gun
owners who oppose fingerprints, high fees and other anti-gun
carry restrictions.

********************************************************************
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] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Mr. Cannon signed on, where is Mr. Cook?
Date: 11 Jul 1997 16:35:10 -0600


Afraid to offend the liberals.  I plan to attend his next town meeting
and call him on this one.  If we have roughly the same turnout of
conservatives as we did last time, he may have some explaining to do.

--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

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



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  FBI INFORMANT
Date: 14 Jul 1997 15:43:25 -0700

McCurtain Daily Gazette (Idabel, Oklahoma)

1 July 1997

THE REV. ROBERT MILLAR IDENTIFIED AS FBI INFORMANT
By J.D. Cash

Tulsa-- Near pandemonium broke out in a federal courtroom here Monday
when a senior agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shocked
observers by telling the court that the spiritual leader of Elohim City, the
Rev. Robert Millar, was a confidential informant for the FBI.

The McCurtain Daily Gazette has long been reporting that Elohim City is a
religious and
paramilitary compound in east-central Oklahoma that is frequented by
some of the most
dangerous members of the neo-Nazi iunderground in the United States
and Canada.

Although residents of the cult have continued to deny it publicly, the
Gazette has reported that its sources believe one of those shadowy
figures was Timothy McVeigh.Stories published in this newspaper have
also exposed Elohim City as the center of a wide-ranging conspiracy to
overthrow the federal government by members of a group called the
Aryan Republican Army.

Several of those members have since been arrested on charges related
to a string of bank robberies across the midwestern United States.

The incredible revelation that the leader of Elohim City himself was part of
a government
intelligence operation came during a pre-trial hearing associated with the
upcoming trial of another confidential informant and frequenter of the
compound, Carol E. Howe.

Howe, a former Tulsa beauty queen, debutante and one-time paid
undercover informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
is scheduled to stand trial later this month for conspiracy charges
associated with making bomb threats and possession of bomb-making
components.

Howe was indicted shortly after the Gazette reported that she intended
to be a key witness in the trial of Timothy McVeigh.U.S. District Judge
Richard Matsch, who presided over the McVeigh trial, refused to let
Howe testify in Denver-- ruling that her information that Elohim City was
the center of the bombing conspiracy "might confuse the jury."

Under questioning Monday by Howe attorney Clark Brewster of Tulsa,
Special Agent Peter
Rickel stunned everyone when he reluctantly admitted that the man
Elohim City cult members call "Grandpa" is really a cooperating source for
the FBI.

Millar's status as a confidential informant began in the fall of 1994.The FBI
admitted in court that Millar was a paid confidential informant, although
the amount of his paycheck was not revealed.

When Rickel disclosed this startling information, a senior FBI agent and
several U.S.  attorneys bolted from the courtroom in an agitated state.

Millar's encampment was heretofore considered by experts in domestic
terrorism to be the "Switzerland" of the neo-Nazi movement in the United
States.Elohim City, a 1,000-acre area of rolling timberland, is the
residence of some 80 followers.  But more importantly, it has played host
to some of this nation's most notable subversives.

Thus Millar's position as a mole for the FBI could explain why the
compound has never been raided.Despite its use as a hideout for
gunrunners, drug dealers, bank robbers and
suspected members of the conspiracy that bombed the Alfred P. Murrah
Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Elohim City has enjoyed a reputation as
a place fugitives can live without fear of arrest.

In the weeks before the Oklahoma City bombing, BATF agent Angela
Findley had planned to raid the compound and arrest its security advisor,
Andreas Carl Strassmeir.

Strassmeir, an illegal alien who migrated to Elohim City from Germany,
was supected by Findley of converting semi-automatic weapons to
machine guns as well as plotting with other Elohim City residents and
visitors to bomb federal installations.

Carol Howe reported to Findley during the time she worked for the
BATF.Howe told Findley that Strassmeir was the ringleader in the plot to
bomb the Oklahoma City federal building and that Millar was preaching
twice a day to his flock that the group had to act by April 19, 1995, or
they would end up like the Branch Davidians in Waco.

The arrest of Strassmeir was scrubbed after senior members of the
BATF, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office met in February, 1995 and
discussed Findley's plan.

Sources have told the Gazette that Strassmeir was also an important
source of intelligence for the U.S. government.In January, 1996, shortly
after it was discovered that it was Strassmeir that Timothy McVeigh had
called for in the days before the bombing, the German national fled to his
native Berlin with the aid of German intelligence officers.

With Millar now exposed, the loss of Elohim City as a virtual nest of spies
for the U.S.  intelligence community is almost assured.But such a loss
could have consequences far beyond the obvious.If Millar was reporting
a wider conspiracy to bomb the Oklahoma City federal building, and
those reports were not subsequently turned over to Timothy McVeigh's
defense team, then the withholding of such critical information by the FBI
could get McVeigh a new trial.

Those reports, as well as Howe's, will likely be sought by the defense
teams for both McVeigh and Terry Nichols and may also be subpoenaed
by the grand jury convened in Oklahoma City to investigate the bombing.

Also those reports could prove important in several civil suits that are
pending against the government for its alleged failure to notify the
occupants of the Murrah building that there was a heightened risk of
danger on April 19, 1995.  And Congress is also looking into the
government's intelligence role in the bombing.

Calls to the compound to get Millar's comments about the situation were
not returned.
END OF STORY
********************************************
JDT Commentary: Three other observations about the hearing not
mentioned by J.D. in his story--
1.  The Feds were particularly interested in a discovery motion that they
filed against the accused, Carol Howe.  Howe it seems had the
effrontery to tape many of her phone calls with Angela Findley, her ATF
handler.  The government would like to get copies of the tapes before
Findley goes on the stand and commits perjury.  The Feds are very put
out that Ms. Howe would use their own tactics on them.  We say:
"Bravo, Carol!!"

2.  The fed witnesses, while afflicted with a tremendous amount of
"earlier onset of Alzheimer's" (as in "I don't recall...." and "I can't
remember......") did spend an inordinate amount of time trying to shield
Unterscheissfuhrer Dennis Mahon of the White Aryan Resistance from
negative allegations made by Carol Howe about bomb making plans,
components, etc."It was almost as if Mahon was also a snitch, even
though one FBI man denied it on the stand," said one witness in the
courtroom interviewed by this writer.

Perhaps the Feds and Dennis have reached a "modus vivendi" with each
other on the subject of Carol Howe.

3.  If Millar really was an FBI snitch/provocateur before the bombing, that
would make most of the senior leadership at Elohim City at one time or
another to be Federales-- Millar, Ellison, Strassmeir, etc.  Indeed, not
even in Czarist Russia did the secret police send paidprovocateurs to
provoke other paid provocateurs.  Elohim City can thus be seen in its true
light-- not as an operation infiltrated and suborned by infiltrators-- but
rather as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the FBI/ATF.  This throws
McVeigh's E.C. days in a whole new light.It also begs the question of
what happens to Millar now... does he face a new Night of the Long
Knives when the E.C. "herrenvolk" find their "Pastor" has been passing
the plate to the Feds??

What, too, will happen to Special Agent in Charge Thomas Kukor of the
OKC FBI office? I guess we now know what happened when he "sang
in the choir" on special trips to E.C.  Was Kukor playing "choirboy" or
"bagman" for the coverup when he visited Elohim City on his "community
outreach program?"

One thing is certain: the FBI could open a new money-making
opportunity:franchised #Rent-A-Nazi" outlets.  They own so many of
them they might as well put them to some use that doesn't get buildings
blown up and hundreds of people killed.  Just a thought.

-- Mike Vanderboegh, 1 ACR
Editor, The John Doe Times
Posted here July 4, 1997
Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/

Peter L. Sroufe




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  U. Students Can't Be Armed
Date: 16 Jul 1997 08:53:43 -0700

Wednesday, July 16, 1997

U. Students Can't Be Armed, Trustees Rule


BY DAN EGAN
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
###
### The University of Utah soon could find itself in the thick of a fight
over the state's concealed-weapons law.
### Monday, the U.'s Board of Trustees approved a student-behavior
code that prohibits students from carrying weapons on campus unless
they have explicit approval from school officials.
### The policy has the backing of many in the university community.
### ``The nature of a university campus is one where there is a free
exchange of ideas, and I'd be afraid to exchange my free ideas with
someone else if one of us may be armed,'' said U. Police Chief Bob
Wilson.
### Gun advocates contend the policy violates the state's 1995
liberalized concealed-weapons law, which allows permit holders to
carry their firearms ``without restriction.''
### ``The university can pass all the laws they want, but legally they
cannot restrict concealed-carry permit holders on campus,'' said Joe
Venus Jr., publisher of American Gun Review magazine.
### ``It doesn't matter if they are students or average people going to
[use] the Marriott Library. It's very clear under state law,'' he said.
### Venus contends the concealed-weapons law gives permit holders
the right to take their guns in any public place, though he acknowledged
private-property owners, such as churches and private schools, can
prohibit guns on their land.
### Brigham Young University, for example, does not allow anyone to
bring a gun on campus, said school spokeswoman Carri Jenkins.
### ``Though we're not happy with that, private-property owners can
pretty much do what they want,'' said Venus.
### Venus said he intends to meet with U. leaders to discuss the issue,
and hopes they will agree with his interpretation of the law.
### If they don't, ``we'll look into this and we'll take whatever action is
necessary,'' he said.
### The U. apparently has had a no-gun rule since the late 1970s, said
U. attorney Laura Scott.
### Monday's vote affirmed that policy and takes it a step further. The
new code also prohibits guns at off-campus university activities such as
athletic events.
### The U. isn't the only institution within the state's nine-school
higher-education system to have a policy restricting weapons on
campus. Weber State, scene of a fatal shooting in 1993, prohibits guns
as well.
### Utah State University has a ban against ``unauthorized'' guns, but
the policy does not address concealed-weapons permit holders. The
school is considering a wider ban similar to the U.'s, said USU Vice
President Paul Norton.
### ``Most schools do have their own policies,'' said Patricia Crane,
spokeswoman for the Utah System of Higher Education. ``Some only
have to do with on-campus housing. Other policies extend further than
that.''
### Higher-education attorney Harden Eyring said the system is
interested in changing the law so there could be no question about the
issue. ``There is a general sense within the system that campuses
would be safer without weapons,'' he said.
### A similar uniform ban would be welcomed in Utah's public schools,
said Doug Bates, an attorney for the Utah State Office of Education.
### Bates said individual districts have adopted bans, but he would like
to see a uniform gun restriction implemented by a new law.
### State lawmakers said they would consider changing the law during
the last legislative session, though they subsequently backed off.
### Steve Gunn, an attorney and board member of Utahns Against Gun
Violence, said his group is searching for a sponsor to introduce a new
law that would ban concealed weapons in churches, public and private
schools and hospitals, among other places.
### ``The law that is on the books now is seriously flawed,'' Gunn said.
``It's one that was passed in haste and without due consideration for its
ramifications.''
### Venus maintains that holders of concealed-weapons permits are
responsible gun owners, and no one has been able to demonstrate the
new law is a problem.


#Copyright 1997, The Salt Lake Tribune

All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune
and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or
reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.




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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: UofU students/CCW
Date: 16 Jul 1997 16:41:49 -0600

Hiya

Any other students here who have CCW?

Thanks

Will



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

From: Bruce Lovell <[e-mail]>
Subject: UTAH CCW---2 QUESTIONS
Date: 16 Jul 1997 23:04:49 -0600 (MDT)

Greetings! I live in Colorado but I have a Utah CCW which I obtained in
1996. I have two questions which hopefully someone on this list can answer:

Question 1:

When I received my Utah permit the info sheet that came with it said that
"If you are stopped by the police you should notify as soon as possible
that you have a permit and are carrying or have a firearm in your
vehicle, etc" or words to that effect.

My question is: Does this really have the force of law or is it just
somebody's idea at Public Safety that it would be advisable to tell the
officer? Is this requirement actually in the Utah Statute?

Question 2: Around the first of this year I heard that an effort was to
be made to get the Utah legislature to pass legislation restricting
places where one could carry even with a CCW. I heard that places like
schools, universities, churches, bars, state and local government
facilities, etc were being considered for restrictions.

Has any such legislation passed restricting places one can carry? If not,
is there much likelihood of passage this legislative season?

Bruce A. Lovell                     PGP Public Key available on request
Boulder, Colorado  USA
E-Mail: [e-mail]




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: UTAH CCW---2 QUESTIONS
Date: 17 Jul 1997 13:38:43 -0600


On Wed, 16 Jul 1997,  Bruce Lovell <[e-mail]> posted:

>Greetings! I live in Colorado but I have a Utah CCW which I obtained in
>1996. I have two questions which hopefully someone on this list can answer:

Bruce,

I was waiting for someone more knowledgable than myself to answer your
questions, but haven't seen anything come through yet.  So I'll give it
a jab.

>
>Question 1:
>
>When I received my Utah permit the info sheet that came with it said that
>"If you are stopped by the police you should notify as soon as possible
>that you have a permit and are carrying or have a firearm in your
>vehicle, etc" or words to that effect.
>
>My question is: Does this really have the force of law or is it just
>somebody's idea at Public Safety that it would be advisable to tell the
>officer? Is this requirement actually in the Utah Statute?

I have not done a comprehensive search of Utah Statute, but I have
purused the various sections dealing with guns a bit.  I have never
seen anything that would require a person to tell a peace officer
about the presence of gun or a permit.  I do not have a CCW but almost
always keep a gun in the car in a manner legal for one not holding a
CCW.

My basic theory on traffic stops is this: 1- Avoid giving any reasons
to be stopped in the first place.  2- If stopped do not give out any
unneeded info.  I simply see no need to turn a 2 minute stop over a
burned out tail light into a 15 or 30 minute ordeal while some
potentially anti-gun (or simply overly nervous) LEO type runs every
computer check he can think of.  I also see no need to make some
officer nervous over something that is none of his business.  So
 long as the probability of him seeing my gun is nill (ie it is under
a seat or in a good concealed rig) he doesn't need to know.

However, if the likelyhood of him seeing my gun is high, I'd rather
tell him about it first so as to show I have nothing to hide and
hopefully decrease any perceived threat.  This would be the case if
the gun were sitting on the seat, in the glove box on top of the
registration he just asked for, or if he was about to search me or my
car.  At that point, with both hands on the wheel, I'd camly and
clearly say something to the effect (if I had a permit), "For my
safety and yours I'd like you to be aware that I have a State issued
permit to carry a concealed weapon and that there is a weapon in the
car (or on my person)."  Since I don't have a permit I'd ommit that
part and substitute something like "in compliance with State law".
With a permit I'd be very sure to state that fact very clearly before
mentioning the gun so there is no chance for him to mistake my
disclosure for a threat.

>
>Question 2: Around the first of this year I heard that an effort was to
>be made to get the Utah legislature to pass legislation restricting
>places where one could carry even with a CCW. I heard that places like
>schools, universities, churches, bars, state and local government
>facilities, etc were being considered for restrictions.
>
>Has any such legislation passed restricting places one can carry? If not,
>is there much likelihood of passage this legislative season?

No such legislation has passed.  The legislature is out of regular
session for a few more months and nothing on this front has come up in
the two special sessions of which I am aware.  With the hub-bub
created and perpetuated by the media and antis, you can be sure it
will be on the agenda this winter.

In spite of the fact that the only permit holder of whom I am aware
who has been convicted of a gun related crime was one of our former
legislator who was charged with and plead to discharging a firearm
inside city limits (into a soft dirt ditch to scare a fleeing
criminal), I'd bet that there will be some kind of restriction placed
on CCW permits.  First of all, the law is vague on private property
and, IMHO, needs to be cleared up so that private property rights are
respected.  So long as the property is really private and I do not
have to enter, I have no problem with the owner restricting guns (or
mormons or Jews or whites, blacks, or martians for that matter) so
long as they clearly post their position so that I don't violate the
law inadvertantly.  Retail stores will generate a lot of discussion in
this regard.

Second, areas like day cares and grade schools are just way too
emotional of places not to get restricted.  After all, there is
virtually no one who is willing to challenge the antis' and media's
claims that guns don't belong in schools.  And there are VERY few to
none who are willing who are both articulate enough to do so well AND
are in a position where they will ever be heard.  At the very least,
expect to see school emplyees and parents disarmed at least during
school hours.  To be perfectly honest, with the NEA's position on
guns, every teacher who continues to pay dues desrves what they get in
this area, IMO, though that doesn't justify infringing the rights of
other teachers, employees, or parents who need to be on school grounds
for some reason..

The trick will be to make sure that the hoplophobes are not able to
get Universities and churches thrown in with primary and secondary
schools.  I have no problem with churches banning guns so long as they
are required to post.  The antis will want to get the default set to
guns being banned unless the church specifically allows it.  We need
to make sure that the default is that guns are allowed unless the
church specifically bans them and posts notices to that effect.

Also, both BYU and the UofU have enacted policies against any
(non-leo, I'm sure) guns on campus.  My opinion is that as private
property BYU is free to do so.  However, as govt (read public)
property, the U should be subject to the State preemption law that
prophibits any city or county in the State from enactly gun laws more
strict than the State at large.  Several school boards have also
passed such policies, though I'm not sure how they would enforce it on
anyone other than an employee who they could threaten with job related
problems.

Hope my long winded response helps somewhat.

--

Charles C. Hardy        | If my employer has an opinion on
<[e-mail]>            | these things I'm fairly certain
801.588.7200 (work)        | I'm not the one he'd have express it.

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule
 of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm
 the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
 general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of
 inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be
 appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered
 academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was
 offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States,
 by President Washington.



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun Prohibitionists Dig Dirt, Not Science
Date: 18 Jul 1997 11:51:00 -0700



PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!

Dear Friends,

For quite a while now we've known that the gun-grabbers were
interested in disarming all of us in order to gain and keep
power. We've known that their so-called "science" was utterly
fraudulent, funded by the politically-controlled National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a division of the
Centers for Disease Control), and published by "politically
correct" medical journals totally devoid of any integrity.
Even Congress, hardly a bastion of ethics, was appalled at
the degree of fraud and professional misconduct supported and
funded with OUR tax dollars.

Now however, it appears that the gun-grabbers have abandoned
even the pretense of professionalism or scientific inquiry.

On July 16, Dr. Katherine Kaufer Christoffel, Medical Director
of the Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan (HELP), sent the following
internet message:

"In a message dated 07/16/97 08:23:52, [e-mail]
(Katherine Kaufer Christoffel) wrote:

"<<Does this group have a web page; if so, does it list members?
Might VPC dig up some dirt on it (Maybe we asked already-KP would
know.)K>>"

"this group" refers to Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research
(DIPR) "VPC" refers to the Violent Injury Prevention Center,
located at Children's Memorial Medical Center in Chicago. HELP
is "located at" VPC.

In other words, Dr. Christoffel, and her colleagues at VPC/HELP,
are no longer interested in scientific debate, or even the most
basic level of ethical behavior. No doubt they have finally
realized that they have been exposed for the charlatans and quacks
they are, and have descended into the muck in the hopes of finding
some to sling.

Not everyone understands the fine points of scientific research or
statistics. Not everyone can evaluate the validity of a scientific
study. But EVERYONE knows what "digging dirt" is!

Since Dr. Christoffel seems concerned that gun rights advocates
are somehow "dirty", I'd suggest that each of us write her a polite
note listing our credentials and assuring her that we have no
"dirt" in our backgrounds for her to dig up. Her e-mail address
is [e-mail]. Copies should be sent to the other
recipients of her request for dirt as well. Their addresses are:
[e-mail], [e-mail] and [e-mail].
Another copy should go to HELP at [e-mail].

More important, the people and foundations who fund Dr. Christoffel
and her colleagues deserve to know exactly what it is that they're
funding. Even those persons who are sincerely and honestly ANTI-GUN
should be outraged at this sort of misconduct! And since we, as
taxpayers, are helping to support these tax-exempt foundations,
we have the obligation to demand accountability.

HELP is funded primarily by The Joyce Foundation and The John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Please write to these
foundations and request that they justify their funding for such
"scientific inquiry".

The Joyce Foundation can be reached at [e-mail]
The MacArthur Foundation can be reached at [e-mail]

A full list of supporters of HELP can be found on their Web Page
http://www.childmmc.edu/HELP/helphome.htm

Finally, please consider making a donation to Doctors for Integrity
in Policy Research. Edgar Suter, M.D., the National Chair, has been
at the forefront of those exposing the junk science used by the gun
prohibitionists, and he certainly doesn't have millions of dollars
in foundation and government funding. (In the interest of honesty,
ethics, and full disclosure: I am a member, and Director of Women's
Affairs for DIPR, and consider Ed a friend. However, I have no
financial interest in the organization at all, and Ed doesn't know
I'm including this plea!)

Doctors for Integrity in Research Policy, Inc.
5201 Norris Canyon Road
Suite 220
San Ramon, CA 94583
[e-mail]
voice 510-277-0333
FAX [phone]

For those people who either don't have e-mail access
or prefer to use snailmail or fax, addresses are below.

HELP Network
Children's Memorial Hospital
2300 Children's Plaza, #88
Chicago, Illinois 60614
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)

Violent Injury Prevention Center (VIPC)
Children's Memorial Hospital
2300 Children's Plaza, #88
Chicago, Illinois 60614
[phone]
[phone] (Fax)

Office of Grants Management, Research and Information
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
140 S. Dearborn St. Ste. 1100
Chicago, IL 60603-5285
USA
E-mail: [e-mail]
[phone]

If you would like more information on either the research studies,
or on Dr. Suter's correspondence with HELP, please contact either
me or Dr. Suter.

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY!

Thank you!

Sarah

Sarah Thompson, M.D.

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




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: The Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi
Date: 18 Jul 1997 12:34:00 -0700


Forward via Patricia Neill <[e-mail]> and
Monte http://www.proliberty.com/observer

Hi Folks -

I just thought some of you would get as much of a kick out of the
following as I did.  I've known Dr. Edgar Suter here on the net for
several years; he's a good guy, and has done a lot for the Right
to Keep and Bear Arms in America.  He's had many articles published
in a number of important publications.

His speech is *usually* a little more down to earth than this
rebuttal is, but this situation warranted exactly what he wrote.
Many of his medical peers are extreme liberals that equate guns
with disease; Edgar's articles invariably take them to task and
blow them out of the water.

Hope you enjoy this!  His answer follows a letter from someone who
had rejected one of his articles...    :)

- Monte

American Public
Health Association
Mervyn Susser, MB, BCh. FRCP(E), DPH
Editor, American Journal of Public Health
Office of the Editor
Columbia University
Sergievsky Center
P&S Box 16
630 West 168th Street
New York, NY 10032
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
e-mail wilcoxj@sergievsky. cpmc.columbia.edu

July 11, 1997

[To:]
Edgar A. Suter, MD
National Chair
Doctors for Integrity in Research and Public Policy [sic]
5201 Norris Canyon Road, Suite 220
San Ramon, CA 94583-5405

Ms # 97/019L Letter to the Editor entitled: "Suter re: Stat Methods."

Dear Dr. Suter:

I am of course under no obligation to answer an open letter, but it might
assist you in judging scientific publishing if in this case I respond
briefly. Just as obviously you do with much else you read (as I infer from
the 2 letters you have sent me) you seem to respect neither the precision of
language nor the conventions of scientific discourse. My rejection letter
indicated that we have no "place" for your letter, not no "space" as you
interpret it. In this instance, that was a polite way of saying that your
letter does not measure up to the scientific and literary standards for
publication in the Journal.

Sincerely,
<signed>
Mervyn Susser, MD
MWS/jw
cc: Nancy Johnson
David Hemenway

*******************
July 17, 1997

Dear Dr. Susser,

You dissemble.  Your boastful claim notwithstanding, there was no nuance to
your rejection of my letter criticizing your Hemenway & Richardson polemic.
There was no nuance to be lost on me.  Your ostentatious and rebuttable
claims of high standards aside, your rejection was - and remains - nothing
more than a clumsy and transparent effort to conceal the salient and
humiliating facts.

Your self-acclaimed peer-review escaped noticing that a grossly incompetent
piece by known advocates failed the most basic statistical standards,
standards that are even espoused, as I referenced, in print for all to see,
by your sister prohibitionists at the New England Journal of Medicine. Your
self-vaunted peer-review failed to notice that the authors had not reported
on critical portions of their survey instrument.

Empty puffery and ham-fisted insults can neither undo the egregious errors
foisted upon you by the authors nor conceal the dishonesty perpetrated by you
upon your readers.  You confuse "conventional scientific discourse" with
prevarication.

AJ Liebling wrote that "Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one."
You, Sir, have not yet awakened to one of the most liberating truths of the
Information Age.  Allow us to stun you awake.  We, Sir, own a printing press
and the errors of your science and the lapses in your ethics, by the time you
receive this, will have been considered by one-thousand times the readership
of your insular cellulose fief.

Your humble colleague and nagging conscience,

Edgar A. Suter MD
National Chair
Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research Inc.
5201 Norris Canyon Road, Suite 220
San Ramon, CA 94583-5405
voice 510-277-0333
FAX [phone]





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  RELINING AMERICA'S BIRDCAGES
Date: 18 Jul 1997 17:00:43 -0700


RELINING AMERICA'S BIRDCAGES

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

Exclusive to _The Libertarian Enterprise_


    Historians of the future -- like paleobiologists describing some bizarre
underseascape populated with crinoids, trilobites, and giant
water-breathing scorpions -- will regard the century we've almost lived
through as the "Age of Lies".

    We all swim in an ocean of lies, every day.

    Some of us even drown in them.

    How many people do you know who still believe that Jack Kennedy
was shot by a lone assassin? Or that if the Navy says it didn't shoot
down TWA 800, then it didn't. Or that the government couldn't possibly
have murdered those women and children near Waco? One belief we all
share, however, is that if more people knew the truth -- about
JFK, TWA 800, Waco, the Federal Reserve, Social Security, or anything
else that the government, the public schools, and the media use each
other to lie to us about -- we'd have a chance at a better world.

    For decades, many individuals and entire movements have tried
tackling the government on its own terms and failed miserably.
Government will be the last thing that changes. It should be obvious by
now to anybody with half a brain that politics -- at least at the national
level -- is not the answer to any question anybody genuinely concerned
with individual liberty ever intended to ask.

    The school system is in the process of self-destructing, as surely as if
Captain Kirk, Scotty, and Mr. Spock were giving it all the proper
passwords. Not only has it abandoned any pretense at teaching kids
what they must know to become autonomous adults, in favor of pumping
them full of fascist propaganda, it's now fallen victim to its own agenda.
NEA union members unable to read, write, or calculate themselves, and
who know nothing of science, economics, or history, can only pretend to
earn their overbloated salaries by battling the "Menace of Midol",
enforcing "political correctness", and confiscating pocket knives too
small to be of utility for anything but skinning and field-dressing
butterflies.

    There _is_ a way to knock another leg from under the three-legged
stool of government, public schools, and media, a workable substitute for
conventional politics that demands no compromise on the part of those
who wish to be free. What's more, if the enemies of liberty possess no
integrity, it can even make that fact an asset, instead of the frustrating
liability it's always seemed to be.

    From now on, whenever you hear reporters lying on radio or
television, or read lies they've written in newspapers or magazines
-- about the internet, about your right to own and carry weapons, about
Waco, about anything -- wait for the next commercial, or take note of the
nearest quarter- or half-page advertisement, the kind of ads that
constitute a publication's "bread and butter".

    Now ordinarily, if you did anything about any of the million lies a day
the media spew at you and your children, it would simply be to complain
about it to a friend in person or on the internet, or write a letter to the
editor. A letter you know will be published only if it makes your side look
like a gaggle of lunatics. A letter which, if it fails to serve their purposes,
the editorial crew will snigger at obscenely, crumple into a sweaty little
ball, and toss into the circular file -- "_Missed, dammit!_ How about three
out of five?"

    Instead of going through that useless empty ritual one more time, write
your letter to that advertiser, telling him about what you've just read in the
publication, or heard on the station, whose bills he pays with his
advertising fees. Tell him the intellectual thugs whose wages he pays
are lying about all the vital issues of the day. (Each of us has his own
pet peeve, and you can stick to that if you prefer.) They're trying to help
vile pressure groups and politicians deprive you of your rights. They're
trying to get you injured or killed -- and even worse, to get your
_children_ injured or killed -- on _his_ nickel!

    Pretend you're a liberal, or that he is. Don't let it sound intellectual.
Keep it easily understandable, expressed in short words and shorter
sentences. Stick to one concept per letter. Make your pen or keyboard
drip with emotion. Think with your tear ducts (and parts south). Tell him
he's helping evil be perpetrated. He pays for it, therefore it's his fault. If
he's the average guy who manages a furniture store, he won't know
what to do with a letter like this, blaming him for all the world's problems.
If he gets a _dozen_, and they all seem independent and spontaneous,
he may quit selling furniture and join a monastery!

    So now it's time to reverse yourself (remember, you're a liberal, or he
is) and let him off the hook. Tell him that you don't necessarily hold him
responsible. After all, we're men of the world.
We know that newspaper and TV people are the "something worse" that
_scum_ keeps from floating to the top.

    But don't forget to ask him this question: if the newspaper or TV
station lies about something as simple and basic, for example, as the
Bill of Rights, then why should anybody believe anything they have say
about _his_ goods or services? Don't threaten or bluster -- nobody
actually gives a damn in any case, and your guilt-trip was just a buildup
to the punchline -- simply demand an answer to your question. If they'll lie
about A and B then why not C and D?

    Now comes the most important part: be sure and send a copy of your
letter to the newspaper or television station. But _don't_ send it to the
editorial department. Send it to the _advertising_ manager.
He'll pay close attention to it. He never _gets_ any letters, except from
the advertisers themselves, bitching that last Tuesday's grocery store
double-trucker employed the wrong typeface.

    Unlike the hairsprayheads and J-school graduates upstairs who only
_think_ they run the joint, he doesn't care that you can be credibly blown
off as a "right-wing kook". He won't argue with you about what the
Second Amendment "really" provides. And he won't sniff haughtily that
your letter is eleven words over some 400-word limit.
The only thing he cares about is advertising revenue.

    If he thinks editorial's policy is fiscally harmful, he'll go straight to the
top management and -- provided you're consistent and persistent enough
-- the First Amendment be damned, they'll come down on editorial like a
ton of bricks.

    Before I wrote this column, I checked with Vin Suprynowicz, the
assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas _Review Journal_,
celebrated syndicated columnist, and editor-in-chief of _The
Libertarian Enterprise_. Vin's worked all his adult life at papers of varying
size across the country. I asked him if the idea was sound and how
many letters might be required to have noticable effect.

    Vin astonished me by replying that six or seven letters a week for
three to five months would probably do the trick. I'd thought it would take
many times that number and at least twice that long. If he's only half right,
then a mere 300 letters could, in only half a year, change the editorial
policy of the most left-wing metropolitan birdcage liners. As if by a
miracle (the usual kind, requiring lots of elbow-grease and skull-sweat
on our part) the "little men" by whom we find ourselves governed will
have lost one more pillar of support.

    Naturally, there's no reason you can't wage this kind of campaign all
by yourself. On the other hand, if you and your friends get together and
hold a "Libertyware Party" on a regular basis -- say, monthly -- you can
share any research you've done (you may find that addresses are
remarkably hard to root out for certain national advertisers who want
your money but don't want any other kind of contact with their
customers) and plan ways to distribute your letters throughout the month
in order to make them appear as independent and spontaneous as you
want them to. Be sure you all use different kinds of paper or stationery,
different ink colors, and different handwriting, typewriters, or printer
typefaces. It sure beats standing in the rain collecting petition signatures.

    Electoral politics has failed. It's time to take the same energy and put it
into an undertaking which can achieve more than our late lamented LPUS
ever achieved.




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Tribune Editorial
Date: 21 Jul 1997 08:57:18 -0700

Monday, July 21, 1997

More Gun `Facts'

Toni Marie Sutliff's letter (Forum, July 1) was short on facts and
long on opinion. I find it odd that her ``fact'' that the Second Amendment
protects only the National Guard is not known to two sitting Supreme
Court justices.

In writing his concurring opinion in the recent Brady Bill case, Justice
Clarence Thomas notes that, along with the Tenth Amendment, ``[t]he
Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on
the government's authority,'' and that the ``Federal Government's
regulatory scheme . . . at least as it pertains to the possession of
firearms, runs afoul of that amendment's protection.''

Since the Brady Bill is a restriction on individual possession of firearms
and not the National Guard, it appears that Justice Thomas believes that
the Second Amendment protects an individual right and not a state
power.

In ``A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law'' (Princeton
University Press, 1997), Justice Antonin Scalia states: ``It would . . . be
strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a
provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated Militia --
and to find that purely institutional guarantee accorded a position of great
prominence immediately following freedom of religion and freedom of
speech.''

Sutliff's ``fact'' that ``guns, especially handguns, have no purpose other
than destruction'' is probably true in the frightened minds of the gun
banners. However, in the real world a gun's purpose is generally
determined by its user.

Civilians and police carry guns for the protection of their lives, not to
reign down destruction on society. I have friends who have guns that
they never intend to shoot; the purpose their guns serve them is simply
the joy of owning a beautiful piece of machinery.

And, if Sutliff would bother to stop by a shooting range one weekend,
she would find people using guns, including those evil, dreaded
handguns, for purposes no more sinister and destructive than an
enjoyable day of target shooting.

On the issue of holding gun manufacturers and retailers liable for the
criminal misuse of guns, Sutliff states that we do not hold toolmakers
responsible for murders committed with their tools, since the tool
manufacturer can reasonably assume the buyer will use the product in a
legitimate way.

This logic would seem to preclude holding gun manufacturers liable,
since most guns sold will be used in a legitimate way and only a very,
very small number will ever be used to commit a crime.
 WILLIAM SCOTT
 Park City




#Copyright 1997, The Salt Lake Tribune

All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune
and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or
reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Gun-Free School Zones Act
Date: 18 Jul 1997 15:52:53 -0700

reposted from Newsgroup talk.politics.guns

Item from AP:  It seems that in urging the Supreme Court  to reinstate a
federal-level ban on firearms within 1000 feet of  schools (the 1990
Gun-Free School Zones Act), the Clinton  administration argues that the
national economy is adversely  affected by gun-related violence at
schools.  Therefore, the  reasoning continues, Congress was authorized
to institute the ban under (you guessed it) the Interstate Commerce
clause of the
Constitution.  Said Solicitor General Drew S Day III, "This is not  about just
regulating guns.  Congress is concerned with this impact  on the national
economy."
  Asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "Is there any violent crime that
doesn't affect interstate commerce under your rationale?"
  Ginsburg later asked Days to cite an example of a law which Congress
would NOT have the authority to enact under the Interstate Commerce
Clause.  Interjected Justice Scalia, "Don't give away anything here.
They might want to do it."


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





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  A well-regulated population...
Date: 18 Jul 1997 15:55:32 -0700

WEST MIDLANDS POLICE
Explosives & Firearms Department18 June 1997

FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1997
COMPENSATION SCHEME

I am directed by the Chief Constable to remind you that the above Act
com= es into force on 1 July 1997.  Under the terms of the Act, all large
calibre=

handguns and certain expanding ammunition will become prohibited and
must=

be handed in under the Government Compensation Scheme.

A compensation claim form and a list of values is enclosed.  Only one
cla= im per certificate holder will be accepted.

A similar scheme is available for the small-bore hand guns that you may
hold.

Ancillary equipment (as per the enclosed list) can also be subject to the=

compensation scheme.

All items can be surrendered between 4.0 pm and 8.0 pm on the dates
liste= d for selected stations or 10.0 am and 6.0 pm at Police
Headquarters on any day thoughout the surrender (except Bank Holiday
25 August).

If you have any enquiries regarding any matter concerning the
compensatio= n scheme, please contact the West Midlands Police
Compensation Help Line on=

0121-626 xxxx open between 9.0 am and 5.0 pm Monday to Friday.

All compensation application forms and relevant firearms etc. must be
handed in not later than 30 September 1997.

Yours faithfully

R C FORD

Inspector for
Superintendent
--

Notice the way the way they wrap it up into a "compensation scheme". =

Sounds almost pleasant, doesn't it?
The Government appears to have seriously underestimated the number
of affected people, as they have run out of claim forms, and it's doubtful
everyone will be notified until after July 1.

This letter came with an inch thick pile of guff for me to plough through=
=2E =

It supposedly lists most popular items, but guns like the Beretta 92FS,
SIG-Sauer P220, Colt Series 70 etc are not listed, and only one make of
brass, Starline is listed.

I am somewhat fortunate in that my certificate expires on the 27th of
September, so they're letting me hand it all in then.

I hope you never get a letter like this through your door.  Here we have =
I think the ultimate example as to why gun registration laws should be
opposed.

Steve.

A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police
state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy your arms shall
no= t be infringed.





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Preaching to the choir
Date: 18 Jul 1997 15:40:33 -0700


Topic No. 6

Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 16 Jul 1997 16:00:10 -0400 (EDT), Larry Ball wrote:

>Mike and all, one thing I did not bring up in my summation of the
>article yesterday, neither Kates or Kleck are RKBA fans.  They believe
>in the gun from its utility value only.  They believe in regulation of
>the gun by government.  In this they are true liberals.  The citizen
>cannot be trusted to far.

Funk discusses this a bit in his review:

               Kates and Kleck suggest that
               reasonable controls, such as preventing felons and
               the insane from possessing firearms, are both
               constitutional and criminologically sound in light
               of the current research. But, they maintain,
               outright prohibition of civilian firearm ownership
               is neither.

               While the authors address some constitutional
               issues, the focus of The Great American Gun Debate
               is a utilitarian analysis of gun ownership and its
               effects on criminals and law-abiding citizens alike.
               This is a strategy that is well worth pursuing: As
               scholars such as Northwestern Law School's Daniel
               Polsby have emphasized, the social utility of
               handguns, not the Second Amendment, is what does and
               should concern the public most when it comes to gun
               laws. The authors do note, however, that the
               academic literature on the Second Amendment is so
               heavily weighted in favor of interpreting it as
               protecting the right of individual Americans to
               possess a firearm that this interpretation has come
               to be known as the "Standard Model."

I think there are two separate arguments here:

(1).  Constitutional.  (2)  Practical.

Kates and Kleck, particularly Kates, recognize the constitutional
argument  for RKBA as an individual right to be so persuasive as to be
the "standard  model."  Both, however, recognize that to "Joe and Jane
Sixpack," not to  mention "Joseph and Janet Champagne," the
constitutional argument simply  doesn't matter.  Kates and Kleck argue
that the vast majority of the  citizenry are more results-oriented--i.e., they
look at the social utility  of a position.  We in the RKBA/Individual Rights
group have not addressed  this very well.  While IMHO the constitutional
argument should settle the  issue, the truth is that social utility often
predisposes the public, or the  justices, to look for a way to defend a
particular answer.

Accepting (or ignoring, if you wish) that government may constitutionally
restrict felons and insane from firearms, the social utility argument then
becomes one that both Kleck and Kates argue:  society is better off with
the  armed citizenry described by the Founders and supported by
volumes of recent  social research (see, e.g., Kleck, Lott, the Vermont
and Florida "CCW"  experience, etc.)  If we had done a better job,
starting in at least 1968,  of presenting the social utility of firearms as
well as the constitutional  requirements, then the public would recognize
that not only is the individual  rights interpretation of the Second
Amendment the correct one, it is the  socially desirable one.

I'm about 1/3 of the way into John Ross' _Unintended Consequences_,
and up  to the point I'm at he's done a good job of describing the historical
 perspective and the genesis of what today is called the "gun culture."
Obviously I can't speak for the rest of the book, but I'd suggest anyone
subscribing to this list ought to find a copy and read it.

Then we need to get it into our libraries and get reviews printed in our
Sunday supplements to the Daily Fishwraps of the country, along with
Kates'  and Kleck's latest and several other recent "pro-RKBA" writings.

To sum up, Larry, I'm not sure that you got the point of the Kates/Kleck
work:  emphasize the social utility because it supports our position and
because it's the argument that will persuade them that need persuading.





Topic No. 7

Cc: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

<deletia>

>emphasize the social utility because it supports our position and
>because it's the argument that will persuade them that need persuading.

Excellent point, Mike, and absolutely correct. We've been preaching to
the choir - and giving the wrong sermon too!  There are a multitude of
examples where the law says one thing, but popular convention says
something else.
There are still laws in some places which prohibit stores being open on
Sunday, require you to honk your auto horn at intersections to warn
people on horseback, etc. Nobody even thinks of enforcing them, and
every year one or two are removed from the books (thus providing great
filler for local newspapers), but plenty of them are still around. For
contrast, consider desegregation. Even with the law mandating it, the
culture didn't change as requested.

"The law" seldom leads "the norm"... it's usually the other way around.
Changes typically start in popular culture, and the law only follows
sometime later after the change has become pervasive and
commonplace. "The law" may win battles, but "the norm" wins the war.
RKBA needs to stop chanting the Second Amendment mantra as our only
tool and spend more time on cultural norms.

On a bright note, I believe this is already happening and we are making
progress. However, as with most cultural shifts, those whose position is
threatened tend to react with the most vigor early on. We should expect
our struggles to be most intense _right now_. If we continue to gain
ground, our struggles will lessen due to a combination of our greater
strength and their weakened resistance.

So right now, Right Now, is the deciding period in this struggle. We've
seen the most oppressive gun control laws in this nation's history
passed in the last four years (Brady, AWBan); we've also seen some
significant strides forward (CCW in 30+ states). The battle lines are
shifting back and forth because the balance of power is uncertain and
both sides are fighting at a fever pitch.

We often complain that we're not seeing enough pro-RKBA legislation at
the federal level. Considering Mike's words, perhaps we should worry
less about that (hold our legislative ground for the moment), and refocus
our proactive energies on the cultural side. We can't legislate an
emotional acceptance of gun ownership, any more than we can legislate
morality. But if the people
(the popular culture) lead, the leaders (and the better RKBA laws) will
follow.

RLH




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  gun control fight of our lives
Date: 18 Jul 1997 16:10:44 -0700

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


>Washington Ceasefire, Washington state's HCI affiliate, has filed
>Initiative 676, an initiative that will require testing and licensing
>of ALL handgun owners in the state, will allow confiscation of
>handguns possessed without said license, will require reporting of
>private sales of handguns and which will require trigger locks or
>other secure storage devices be provided with all handguns sold or
>"transferred".
>
>The initiative was filed Feb 10th.  Supporters have until 3 July to
>collect the necessary 179,248 valid signatures to place it on the
>November ballot.  In a radio debate with Ceasefire president Tom Wales
>yesterday, I was told they had 210,000 signatures on hand, with a goal
>of 225,000 by next Thursday.  (Error rates generally run 10-20%).
>
>As of last month, more than half of the bankrolling of I-676 was done
>by about a dozen liberal Seattleites.  Bill Gates gave $35K, his
>father another $1K.  Five "friends of Bill" gave an additional $10K
>apiece.  Bill's father hosted another high-roller fund raiser on June
>11th (no figures available yet).
>
>(Full Public Disclosure Commission reporting data can be obtained at
>the PDC's web site at www.washington.edu/pdc/.  Files 06.txt or 06.zip
>give an itemized list of contributors.)
>
>We anticipate the bad guys will spend hundreds of thousands or more
to
>promote the initiative over the coming four months.  Paul Allen,
>Bill's Microsoft co-founder, just spent $5 MILLION to "buy" a stadium
>referendum, so apparently Bill feels the need to play billionaire
>one-ups-man-ship, at the expense of the Washington gun owner.
>
>Also disturbing is the fact that Tom Wales is a federal prosecutor.
>In 1993, Hillary Clinton used Washington as the test state for the
>planned government takeover of health care.  The federal bill was
>modeled on the one passed in WA that year, with extensive input from
>and coordination with HC's health care task force.  One must wonder if
>the administration has decided to test the possibility of pushing
>their gun control agenda at the local level through the initiative
>process.  Wales certainly seems to have the time available to do this.
> His boss, U.S. Attorney Katrine Pflaumer, has contributed $300 to the
>initiative as well.
>
>Leading gun rights groups in the state have formed a political action
>committee called Washington Citizens Against Regulatory Excess
>(WeCARE) to fight the initiative.  Political consultants advise us it
>will take about $1 MILLION to get our message across and defeat Bill
>and his buds... IF it can be defeated.  We welcome contributions from
>anywhere in the U.S.  (As Paul Allen just reminded us, there is no
>limit on spending on initiative campaigns.)
>
>You can read the complete text of I-676 at
>www.halcyon.com/claw/NO-I-676.
>
>
>Joe Waldron
>Chairman, WeCARE
>Director, Washington State R&P Assn
>Director, Washington Arms Collectors
>Lobbyist, GOAL of WA
>WA State Field Rep, CCRKBA
>[phone]
>
>(My apologies to any who find this request for funds offensive.  But
>we're in the gun control fight of our lives here in WA, a true David v
>Goliath battle.  If they win in WA, do you think for a minute HCI
>won't push similar initiatives in other initiative states?  We are
>also listed with the PDC, and full disclosure of funds collected and
>funds expended will be available on line.)


--
    Johann Opitz
<[e-mail]>





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Some Big "News" Email Addresses -Forwarded
Date: 18 Jul 1997 12:15:19 -0700

Received: from wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id LAA20616; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:59:28 -0600
Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us
    with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 12:07:01 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1

*Jus Dare*
Some Big "News" Email Addresses

Many of you may be interested in writing or forwarding good material  to
various "news" organizations.


[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  The Path To The New World Order -Forwarded
Date: 21 Jul 1997 16:29:32 -0700

Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id QAA01551; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:10:12 -0600
Received: (from root@localhost)
      by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0)
      id QAA08847;
      Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:50:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>



If you want to have a good look at the plans for taking control of this
country, you only have to look at the history of how they have done it in the
past.  Look at the similarities!

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

Subj:    Nazi Democrats
BCC:    TWStough

Received via the Internet-

Lauren

Washington Times
Letters to the Editor
June 7 - Arlington, VA

During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have
frequently denounced the Republicans as Nazis due to their attempts to
control runaway federal spending.  How very ironic. I remember the Nazis. Let
me share a little about them and recall some of their exploits.

First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize". The
Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early
struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The National Socialist
Workers Party of Germany". Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the
nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national
resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement.

Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and academic
elite against the conservative republic. After Der Fuhrer's election ceased
being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social
phenomenon, party membership was especially popular with educators,
bureaucrats, and the press.

Being a Nazi was "politically correct". They called themselves "The Children
of the New Age of World Order" and looked down their noses at everyone else.
As Hitler acquired more power, he referred to his critics as "The Dark Forces
of Anarchy and Hatred". Anyone who questioned Nazi high-handedness in the
German press was branded a "Conservative Reactionary". Joseph Goebbels,
minister of communications, proclaimed a "New World Order".

The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians
and Gypses who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the "New World
Order" and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that
they wouldn't fall into the hands of "terrorists and madmen".Right-wing
fanatics of the "Old Order" who protested firearms registration were arrested
by the S.S. and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the Government of
the German people".

Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded
an "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act" through Parliament that gave the Gestapo
extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the
German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the Gestapo and
the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). German citizens who
refused to surrender their guns when the "jack-boots" (Gestapo) came calling,
were murdered in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo were the federal
marshals' service of the Third Reich. The S.W.A.T. team was invented and
perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the enemies of the German
people.

When the Policia Bewakken, or local police, refused to take away guns from
townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the street and
shot to death by the S.A. and the S.S. Those were Nazi versions of the
B.A.T.F. and the F.B.I. When several local ministers spoke out against these
atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again.

The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank
accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizens who had
prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt against the
Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and the military.
 Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps. Mountain roads
throughout central Europe were closed to prevent the escape of fugitives into
the wilderness, and to prevent the movement and concealment of partisan
resistance fighters.

Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the children to
report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such parents
disappeared. Pagan animism became the state religion of the Third Reich and
Christians were widely condemned as "right wing fanatics".

Millions of books were burned first and then people. Millions of them burned
in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried women were
paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals
for it. Evil was declared as being good, and good was condemned as being
evil.  World Order was coming and the German people were going to be the
"peacekeepers".

Yes, indeed, I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or "right
wing", or "patriots" or "militias". They were Socialist monsters.

-- Thomas Colton Ruthford
====================================


P.S.:  Can someone tell me why whole buildings are occupied by CDC far away
from the labs?





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [Fwd: Re: [mom-l] Brady Law] -Forwarded
Date: 21 Jul 1997 16:37:58 -0700

Received: from logoplex.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id OAA04935; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:13:49 -0600
Received: (from domo@localhost) by logoplex.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id PAA10806 for mom-l-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:26:42 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: logoplex.com: domo set sender to owner-mom-l using -f
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Militia of Montana
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win16; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3DC15DD566FB"
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------3DC15DD566FB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Another thought concerning the recent Court decision.

Randy
--
________________________________________________________________________
Join the Militia of Montana mailing list!

Send Email to:

        [e-mail]

in body of message put:

        subscribe mom-l

Militia of Montana - http://www.logoplex.com/resources/mom

Militia Of Montana                                  Tel: [phone]
P.O. Box 1486                                        Fax: [phone]
Noxon, MT  59853                                 [e-mail]
________________________________________________________________________

--------------3DC15DD566FB
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from mailhub.dartmouth.edu (mailhub.dartmouth.edu [129.170.16.6]) by paw.montana.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA02802 for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:34:09 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from dasher.Dartmouth.EDU (dasher.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.6])
    by mailhub.dartmouth.edu (8.8.5+DND/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA23980
    for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:34:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text

--- You wrote:
 Now, thanks to the Supreme Court and
>Sherriff Mack, gun regisrtation is nationalized. Some victory eh?
>

His assessment with what has happened with the Brady Law is absolutely
correct. I do not believe that Sheriff Mack or Sheriff Prince have sold out.
By filing that suit they did win a major victory -- STATES RIGHTS. They need
to be commended for standing up to Washington, D.C.

Randy
--- end of quote ---
Randy,
I don't have the information handy but perhaps someone who does can point out
that there were two things here to be concerned with and they should be treated
as different issues. One was the usurpation os the Sheriffs dept would have
been a bigger blow to the miitia movement than the registration of guns in that
having a Sheriff who is willing to form a posse is a very important strategic
maneuver. I talked with Sheriff Mack about this in Boston a couple of years ago
and I like what he had to say. Second is that the 5 day waiting period and
registration are a seperate issue and not necessarilly part of the Brady bill.
Instant checks on my record per se do not bother me if it was just a check of
felony convictions and etc. but the other paperwork and information submitted,
which ATF has been (illegally) cataloging isn't dependant upon the Brady bill
and should be delt with as an an ongoing and unrelated issue.
As usual the situation has been oversimplified by some (which I am doing here
also but I admit it) and easy answers are thrown at us when in fact the problem
isn't easy to understand nor easy to solve. We will successfullly complete our
journey by moving one step at a time. The supreme court has just handed down
some overdue lip service for the constitution and decisions favoring states
rights. We have to keep a fire under them all to keep them moving towards
admitting that local issues cannot be effectively handled at the national
level. I believe that is what is causing the Supreme Court to step on
Congresses toes regarding the overuse of both the commerce clause and the
general welfare clause of the Constitution to meddle in local affairs. This
also is a complicated area that just can't be dealt with in oversimplified
terms.
I wish I had more time to write on this but I don't so I'll hand off my opinion
in case anyone else can. I believe we are seeing the start of undoing some of
the national control over local issues that were invoked to "end discrimination
in the south", then the workplace, then the home...  We may do well to strike
while the iron is hot and concentrate on shedding light on the inability of the
national government to positively affect anything more than appearances on the
local level while, at times, causing disasterous negative consequences. A
terribly high price to pay for no substantial gain.
Rick


--------------3DC15DD566FB--







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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [mom-l] WA Initiative 676 -Forwarded
Date: 21 Jul 1997 16:37:41 -0700

Received: from logoplex.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id TAA04173; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:13:21 -0600
Received: (from domo@localhost) by logoplex.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id VAA21924 for mom-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:10:08 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: logoplex.com: domo set sender to owner-mom-l using -f
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail] (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

Here is the information on I-676 as promise from a list member.


Randy


>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 12:36:14 -0800 (AKDT)
>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>To: [e-mail]
>From: cas <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Initiative 676
>
>>From: "Jay Williams" <[e-mail]>
>>Subject: Initiative 676
>>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 19:22:47
>>BestServHost: lists.best.com
>>Sender: [e-mail]
>>Errors-To: [e-mail]
>>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>>To: [e-mail]
>>
>>Initiative 676 will MANDATE:
>>
>>- LICENSING and REGISTRATION of every handgun owner in Washington;
>>-RENEWAL of your "handgun safety license" every five years
>>-TRIGGER LOCKS with every handgun sold, both commercial and private sales;
>>-REPORTING and REGISTRATION of private sales of handguns;
>>-CREATION of a "handgun czar" within the Department of Licensing;
>>-CONFISCATION of all handguns possessed without a "handgun safety license"
>>-NON-COMPLIANCE will be enforced with criminal charges and jail time!
>>
>>"Washington Citizens for Handgun Safety," the official sponsor of I-676, is
>nothing more than a front for HCI's Washington state affiliate,
>>Washington Ceasefire.
>>
>>"Washington Citizens for Handgun Safety"...raised more than $145,000 in the
>first four months of this year....  The single largest donor to
>>I-676 is none other than Microsoft co-founder and chairman Bill Gates!  Mr.
>Gates has donoted $35,000 so far to help deny your right to own
>>a handgun.  Several other Seattle-area elitists wrote $10,000 checks in
>support of this gun-grabbing initiative.
>>
>>[This is from a letter I got from Washington Citizens Against Regulatory
>Excess, chaired by Joe Waldron ([e-mail]).
>>
>>Washington Citizens Against Regulatory Excess
>>P.O. Box 50270
>>Bellevue, WA
>>98015-0270
>>[phone]
>>FAX: [phone]
>>
>>Any of you using Windows 95 can find a better OS in the Mac or OS/2, so
>don't worry about having to give up Microsoft products.]
>>
>>Jay Williams
>>[e-mail]
>>Sniper Country - http://www.prostar.com/web/sniper
>>=========================================
>>"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
>>arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
>government."
>>
>>-Thomas Jefferson
>>=========================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [mom-l] NRA -vs- Constitution -Forwarded
Date: 21 Jul 1997 16:37:29 -0700

Received: from logoplex.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id SAA04130; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 18:20:52 -0600
Received: (from domo@localhost) by logoplex.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) id UAA21741 for mom-l-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:16:15 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: logoplex.com: domo set sender to owner-mom-l using -f
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

{For those of you who have been following the posts on "Rights v.
Privileges" I have renamed this thread more appropriately to "NRA -vs-
Constitution".}

I could not agree more with following assessments of the NRA by Bill
Utterback. For those of you who continue to NOT support Gun Owners of
America {GOA} in favor of the NRA are giving your money to an organization
that has learned that if the Anti-Gunners go away then the corporate
leadership is out of a job. This is simply called Job Security. GOA is for
your rights not "Job Security." Please read the posts below and weigh your
decision carefully.

Randy

>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:35:20 -0500
>To: [e-mail]
>From: Bill Utterback <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: RIGHTS v. PRIVILEGE
>Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>        [e-mail], [e-mail]
>
>Reposting to mailing lists and news groups, e-mailing, faxing, web
>page posting, and making hard copies for distribution of this
>message are encouraged.
>
>
>
>At 11:58 AM 6/29/97 -0400, Howard Fezell wrote:
>>
>>On ABC's "This Week" program aired 06/28/97 NRA Exec. V.P. Wayne H. LaPierre
>>referred to our right to keep and bear arms as a "privilege".  To many, this
>>would seem an insignificant comment.
>>
>>However, privleges are granted by the state -- and may be revoked.
>>
>>Rights, on the other hand, are inalienable.
>>
>>Those who would like to help educate the NRA's chief executive officer on
>>this point may reach him at:  National Rifle Association, 11250 Waples Mill
>>Road, Fairfax, VA  22030  [phone].
>>
>>Howard Fezell  (www.2ndAmendment.net)
>
>==================================================================
>
>Well, I was about to enjoy a calm, peaceful Sunday morning until
>this message came along to really push my button.
>
>I have a friend in San Antonio, Bob Wheaton, who I have known for
>about nine years.  Bob is an ex-NRA Life Member and as far back as
>I can remember has been loudly complaining that NRA is actively
>compromising away our right to keep and bear arms.  Back four or
>five years ago when I was an NRA member and NRA-ILA contributor, I
>used to think that, although NRA's defense of our rights was
>sometimes weak, that NRA must know the ins and outs of Washington
>politics and must be doing the best job possible considering the
>circumstances.
>
>I have since changed my opinion.  For the past few years I have
>clearly understood that NRA has become a 'Big Corporation' and the
>primary goal of NRA is to continue the salaries and prestige of
>the corporate officers.   NRA has to be careful not to be too
>successful in countering anti-gun legislation because it is in its
>vested interest to keep the battle going.  The goal of NRA is not
>to protect our rights but to feed off the battle.
>
>The recent internal struggle that ousted Neal Knox from his NRA
>position and replaced him with Charleton Heston gives us a primary
>spokesman for NRA who publicly states "AK-47's are inappropriate
>for private ownership, of course" and " . . .(I) don't even think
>it (the Brady Bill) should be repealed . . ."
>
>The full transcript of the radio interview containing these
>remarks follows:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>    DATE    May 6, 1997
>>    TIME    8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT)
>> STATION    KGO-AM  (ABC)
>>LOCATION    San Francisco
>> PROGRAM    Morning Drive Time
>>
>>            Ted Wygant, anchor:
>>
>>               Well this is very appropriate to talk with Moses as
>>            we talk about it, at least.  Now let's say good morning
>>            to the man who played it so well, Charleton Heston.
>>            Good morning, sir!
>>
>>            Charleton Heston (Actor/NRA Board Member): And good
>>            morning to you, Mister Wygant.
>>
>>            Wygant:  Well, we're delighted to have you with us, and
>>            we appreciate your time because you have taken on a
>>            task that I think a lot of folks might have backed
>>            away with because a lot of concern about the National
>>            Rifle Association.
>>
>>            Heston:  Our country belongs to Hercules, doesn't it?
>>
>>            Wygant:  Yeah, right.  What made you do it?  How come
>>            you want to get in the middle of this?
>>
>>            Heston:  Well, I've, of course, been- found myself in
>>            the arena, if you will, on a number of public sector
>>            causes.  I suppose starting back when I started
>>            demonstrating for civil rights back in 1961.  Long
>>            before it got fashionable in Hollywood.  And then the
>>            Screen Actors Guild, and the National Endowment For The
>>            Arts, and the Separate Theater Group, and so on- and
>>            then the Presidential Task force, and the Arts and
>>            Humanities.  And I've been a member of- of the National
>>            Rifle Association for, oh, twenty years or more.  When
>>            I was a kid in Michigan, in the Depression, I lived in
>>            a little hamlet in Northern Michigan with about, oh,
>>            a hundred houses which contained easily two hundred and
>>            fifty, three hundred fire arms of various kinds.
>>            Mostly being used for hunting, of course- food for the
>>            table.  But I was asked, as is true with all of the
>>            jobs I've done.  Somebody asked me.
>>
>>            Wygant:  Well, you've got quite a task.  And- and
>>            you've been named first vice president.  You- you're a
>>            member of the board at-at one point, and gee, you just
>>            zipped right up.
>>
>>            Heston:  I just was elected to the board on Saturday.
>>
>>            Wygant:  Yeah.
>>
>>            Heston:  It's the primary defender of the second
>>            amendment of the Bill Of Rights, which is, of course,
>>            a core document.  The Bill Of Rights is right at the
>>            basis of the American idea, those wise old dead white
>>            guys that made up the country knew what they were
>>            about.  And you- it is a mainstream issue.  Most
>>            Americans, in fact, support the second amendment's
>>            right to bear and carry arms, and there are, as you
>>            suggest, a few extremists, and some of them are- are on
>>            the board.  And we have, however, we- they elected- or
>>            re-elected in the case of Wayne LaPierre, and elected
>>            in my case and Cain Robinson's case- police chief Cain
>>            Robinson is now second vice president.  We re-elected
>>            Marion Hammer as president.
>>
>>            Wygant:  Mister Heston, could I ask you to stand by
>>            here for just a moment?  We have to get to traffic, but
>>            I- I do want to continue talking with you.  Could you
>>            hang in for a minute?
>>
>>            Heston:  Yeah.
>>
>>            Wygant:  Okay, good.  Thanks.
>>
>>                        ****************
>>
>>            Wygant:  Okay, right now let's get back to Charleton
>>            Heston talking to us from his home in Southern
>>            California.  Let me ask you, you mentioned that there
>>            are some right wing folks- far right wing, still around
>>            the NRA.  Are you going to try to get them off the
>>            board and out of the picture?
>>
>>            Heston:  That- that's certainly the intention, and I
>>            think it's highly doable.  Wayne LaPierre is- is a
>>            superb leader, Marion Hammer's a strong president.
>>            And I think Cain Robinson and I can provide some useful
>>            support there.
>>
>>            Wygant:  Now the image of- of the NRA has been an
>>            organization that supports the right of people to buy
>>            any legal firearms, and, of course, you go to any- any
>>            gun store- gun shop and you see things there that are
>>            big, and brutal, and deadly, and far more than you need
>>            for- for hunting or home protection.  Do you stand by-
>>            I mean, the image is...
>>
>>            Heston:  AK-47's are inappropriate for private
>>            ownership, of course.
>>
>>            Wygant:  Yeah, but the image is that they're- the fire
>>            power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a
>>            homeowner would need.  Why is it necessary to have
>>            those guns available anyway?
>>
>>            Heston:  I just got through telling you.  The
>>            possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely
>>            inappropriate.
>>
>>            Wygant:  Right, but AK-47's one thing, but I've been in
>>            a gun shop- I've been in gun shops, and there's fire
>>            power there that doest's seem necessary and that people
>>            worry about being out there in- in the hands of, you
>>            know, potential criminals.
>>
>>            Heston:  I'm not certain what you're point is- that
>>            there are guns available in gun stores?
>>
>>            Wygant:  No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would
>>            need.  In other words, why does the NRA support guns
>>            that have overkill?  Let's put it that way.  Shouldn't
>>            there be some sort of limit?
>>
>>            Heston:  Well, for any certain time, AK-47's are
>>            entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the-
>>            the problem, of course, is not guns held by private
>>            citizens, but guns held by criminals.  And where we
>>            have failed, where the government has failed is with
>>            entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is
>>            meaningless.  I'm not even- don't even think it should
>>            be repealed because it doesn't do anything.  and it's
>>            been in- on the books for more than two years.  In the
>>            course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people
>>            have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons
>>            with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm.
>>
>>            Wygant:  Well, we've- we gotta- I really appreciate
>>            talking with us.  It'll be interesting to see-
>>            interesting to see how you handle the public image of
>>            the National Rifle Association and those in the far
>>            right in the group.  And if you don't mind, we'd like
>>            to talk to you again.
>>
>>            Heston:  I hope we can do that.
>>            Wygant:  Alright, thanks very much.
>>
>>            Heston:  Mister Wygant.
>>
>>            Wygant:  Thank you.  Charleton Heston from his home in
>>            Southern California, and the KGO Radio News time is
>>            8:23.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Now in addition to Heston, we have Wayne LaPierre who publicly
>states that our right to keep and bear arms is a "privilege".
>Excuse me while I throw up.
>
>I would like to encourage everyone to divert their contributions
>and dues from NRA to the two organizations which truly act to
>protect our fight to keep and bear arms:  Gun Owners of America
>and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.  Both of
>these 'no slack' organizations are worthy of our support.
>
>Gun Owners of America
>8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
>Springfield Virginia 22151
>PH: 703-321-8585
>FX: 703-321-8408
>http://www.gunowners.org/
>
>Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership
>2872 South Wentworth Avenue
>Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53207
>Phone:   [phone]
>FAX:     [phone]
>http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/jpfo.html
>
>And let's not forget another equally deserving organization:
>
>Fully Informed Jury Association
>P. O. Box 59
>Helmville, Montana 59843
>Phone/Fax [phone]
>http://www.fija.org/
>
>Roger Cravens <[e-mail]> recently posted some
>pertinent remarks about NRA.  His message is copied below:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>After doing some very serious comparisons between
>>Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle
>>Association, I decided not to renew my NRA membership.
>>And I had been a supporter either as a volunteer or
>>financially of the NRA for at least 30 years, both
>>while in military career status as well as in non-
>>military/civilian status.
>>
>>I'm now 47 years old, and some member of my family
>>(father, uncles, cousins, aunts, etc) have supported
>>NRA for as long as I can remember.  Even as a kid,
>>it was NRA volunteers that taught me how to shoot a
>>22 cal single shot rifle as a kid of 5 years old.
>>
>>But their position on 2d Amendment issues of all
>>kinds have become more and more liberal and anti-
>>2d Amendment.
>>
>>I have seen absolutely nothing originate from
>>Gun Owners of America that comes close to what
>>has come out of NRA in the past 10 years.  So
>>all of my support, as well as monetary support,
>>will be going to GOA from now on.  I have also
>>been encouraging as many people as possible to
>>stop supporting the NRA and start supporting
>>GOA.  With much better success that I had ever
>>hoped for.
>>
>>I am ashamed to admit that I haven't sent in
>>my dues for this year.   But I will be soon.
>>I have several hot monetary issues I have to
>>take care of and pay off first, then I'm
>>writing a check to GOA.
>>
>>A copy of this message has been forwarded to GOA.
>>
>>GOA:
>>
>>Please send any and all information on supporting
>>and joining your organization to the following
>>address.  I will send in my annual dues very soon
>>after receipt.
>>
>>Roger D. Cravens, Jr.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Let me also mention that Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America was
>one of the speakers at the Alamo Militia Muster that I
>coordinated.  Held on November 12, 1994, at the Alamo in downtown
>San Antonio, Texas, about 500 active participants in the Texas
>Constitutional Militia listened to Larry speak like a true
>patriot.  His actions and the actions of Gun Owners of America
>have never since waivered from no-compromise support of our
>absolute right to keep and bear arms - and to form militias.  The
>NRA, according to Heston, wants to get right wing folks off the
>NRA board and out of the picture (see radio interview above for
>exact words).
>
>The militia is the people and the people are the militia.
>Although it is essential for the present for the people to
>maintain possession of conventional arms as a deterrent to
>unconstitutional actions by government, the people/militia must
>also learn to use the most effective weapons available.  These
>weapons, which will see extensive use in the near future, are mass
>public demonstrations and mass public civil disobedience.  We need
>to regain control of the voting process from the computers which
>print out whatever totals the controllers desire and awaken the
>sleeping majority of American citizens to the necessity of
>electing patriots to public office.
>
>America and American government has fallen far away from the
>ideals of the founding fathers.  In order to restore limited,
>Constitutional government with Liberty and Justice for all, it is
>essential to realize that there is very little the government does
>that can not be done better and much less expensively by the
>private sector.  It is essential to realize that government is
>authorized to do only those things specifically authorized by our
>federal and state constitutions, and that most of what government
>does today is unconstitutional.
>
>In the United States, governments have powers delegated to them by
>the people.  Governments have only delegated powers, not rights.
>Furthermore, any statute must be written under the authority of
>powers delegated to the government by the Constitution or that
>statute is not law and is null & void.  Here is a quote for you:
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form
>and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective
>for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its
>enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
>unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
>never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
>settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
>
>Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it
>imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or
>authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed
>under it...
>
>A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional
>law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a
>statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded
>thereby.
>
>No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to
>enforce it."
>
>Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 256
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>What are YOU doing to assist in restoring limited, Constitutional
>government?  A good place to start would be by financially
>supporting the organizations listed above.
>
>for Liberty,
>Bill Utterback
>
>Life Member GOA
>Ex-member NRA
>Ex-contributor NRA-ILA
>
>==================================================================
>
>[e-mail]                  (backup: [e-mail])
>
>"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from
>falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
>Government from falling into error."
>U.S. Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds,
>339 U.S. 382,442
>
>World's Smallest Political Quiz: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
>
>Libertarian Party: http://www.rahul.net/lp/
>
>Fully Informed Jury Association: http://www.fija.org/
>
>Gun Owners of America: http://www.gunowners.org/
>
>Police Against the New World Order:
>http://www.police-against-nwo.com/index.htm
>
>PGP PUBLIC KEY sent on request.
>
>
>
>
>





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Domestic Media Email Addresses
Date: 22 Jul 1997 11:07:00 -0700



Here are all the domestic media emails I have

[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  BLACK SOLDIER SPEAKS OUT ABOUT GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT!
Date: 22 Jul 1997 13:24:11 -0700

Received: from legacy.lgcy.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA02219; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:00:15 -0600
Received: from xmission.xmission.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id ta241351; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:07:22 -0600
Received: from xmission.xmission.com (slc308.modem.xmission.com [166.70.2.124]) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id NAA25759; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 13:05:57 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
Cc: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListMember: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]

I know this is kind of lengthy but it follows what I have
been told by other soldiers.
It saddens me to think we participate in such activities as a nation.  We
need to get=20
more involved to help stop this nonsense. =20

Donna

>From: "R. Parker" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: BLACK SOLDIER SPEAKS OUT ABOUT GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT!
>
>>AID & ABET POLICE NEWSLETTER
>>Constitutional Issues for Lawmen
>>Vol. 3, No. 4
>>
>>
>>BLACK SOLDIER SPEAKS OUT
>>ABOUT GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT!
>>Dear Confederates,
>>
>>    This is my first communication with your organization.  The political
>>climate in the military being what it is, I trust you will keep my=
 identity
>>confidential.
>>    My thoughts and beliefs are somewhat confused these days.  But, I want to
>>express some feelings I've kept inside for some time.  I'm a ____Sergeant=
 in
>>the U.S. ________ with ___ years in service.  I've been out of country
for 11
>>months this tour.  Not certain when I'll return home.  Our ____Lieutenant,
>>risking his bars, gave several of us copies of your military and police
>>publication several months ago.  I've read one other over the last few
years.
>> This issue was very cogent as it covered comparisons of the American
>>Constitution with the United Nations charter.  The realization that=
 soldiers
>>can't serve under the United Nations without violating our national oath
that
>>your publication imparts did enhance my blood pressure.  It also=
 reinforced
>>in me once again that even though many soldiers feel something is wrong=
 with
>>some of our missions and some of the things we are being commanded to do,=
 so
>>few actually know what is going on in the military and the world today.
>>    In my career, I've seen first hand, up close, how American soldiers and=
 the
>>soldiers of other nations have been used to take guns and freedom away=
 from
>>poor, black, Asian and Hispanic people who need their guns to try to=
 retain
>>their freedoms by fighting against communist renegade leaders in their own
>>nations and governments.  The people of Somalia was a prime example. =
 Going
>>in, we were not aware that they were fighting to resist violent Marxist
>>forces and endeavoring to live free.  "PEACE ENFORCEMENT," they called it.
>> As I viewed it, we disarmed the wrong side:  the good people in the=
 towns.
>> Forthwith, the people no longer have a way to resist the barbaric,
>>UN/U.S.-backed communist War Lords.  Some of us lost good friends in that
>>"peace enforcement" effort against the poor, Somali people.  Many of them,
>>for good cause, now detest us.
>>    In Haiti we accomplished the same, installing a Marxist dictator
>>(thankfully, I had no part in that U.S./U.N.-backed communist takeover).
>> South Africa, thanks to strong American and European pressures, now=
 suffers
>>under a communist junto.  Several million black Christian brothers and
>>sisters are being dispatched, as I compose this letter, by the communist
>>terror our nation advanced there.  Inquiring of our superiors "why," we=
 get
>>no logical answer.  World Peace under U.N. communism is a fraud.  Our
>>military leaders go about bewildered but undaunted.  One wonders if they
>>understand these geo-political machinations.
>>    As did most, I entered the military to serve and protect the freedoms and
>>property of the people of my own nation against totalitarianism,=
 communism,
>>or fascism (which are all the same).  Can anyone logically articulate how=
 we
>>are assisting our country, or these other poor nations' people, by forcing
>>them under world communism?  This kind of thinking has drawn me some heat,
>>regardless.  I suppose that since I performed well at removing the=
 freedoms
>>of one nation's people I'm now in a "special unit" in another nation
using my
>>talents to enslave another people.  Several of us, including the=
 Lieutenant,
>>understand that we are once again being used here to undermine the present
>>government of this non-communist dictatorship and prepare it to become
>>another asset of the United Nations.  Understanding this, as you can
imagine,
>>puts us in a shameful and stressful situation.  It's difficult to change
>>one's job description from one of guarantor of freedom to one of=
 facilitator
>>of world sla
>>very.  I don't mean to denigrate other fellow military members, but from=
 an
>>historical position, this enslavement of poor people is particularly
>>difficult for Afro-American soldiers.
>>    Most of us in the U.S. military do not understand what we are a part of.
>> Soldiers, and "the folks back home" are told that we're helping the poor
and
>>oppressed people in other countries.  I could live with that, but it's not
>>true.  It's like we are mercenaries for the highest bidder, not American
>>soldiers.  We, of course, can't speak out-loud about these feelings, for
>>reasons you're already aware of.
>>    I've heard of your educational activities and publications for several
>>years.  Your publications are passed around "quietly" because there are=
 some
>>political problems associated with being caught with patriot or
>>constitutional materials.  We have been instructed that any U.S.=
 individuals
>>or groups that espouse or publish about "patriotic activism,"
"constitutional
>>violations" or government conspiracies are subversives and it will do our
>>careers severe damage to express interest or get involved.  That speaks
>>volumes, since some in the military (including up the Chain) are members=
 of
>>anti-American, leftist movements or groups.  This has no deleterious=
 effect
>>on their careers.  More factually stated, having a leftist world view is
>>somewhat beneficial at promotion time.  We see this and more and discuss=
 it
>>quietly.  As I see it, more of us are beginning to see the truth and=
 that's
>>good, but it does seem the day may come when we will all have to decide=
 whom
>>and what we will serve.  Th
>>ere is no longer the pride we once experienced in the days when we served
>>only our nation and its people.  Will we see a return to those days?
>>    We ask you to gird yourselves for rough times and continue sending out=
 the
>>newsletters as long as you can.  The knowledge passed on through its
pages to
>>those of us in the active service of the U.N. (not the U.S.) is important
and
>>timely.  In that regard, pass this on to the citizens stateside who are=
 told
>>that "We are now serving under NATO."  NATO is a red herring; it's still=
 the
>>U.N. in power.  They changed the command to NATO to protect the U.N.=
 program
>>from the growing storm of contention and controversy over their Marxist
goals
>>and leadership.  NATO is under U.N. control, according to past records of
>>agreements. (Investigate and be clear.)  The test is to look and see what
>>colors fly.  Look closely and observe the U.N. blue and white.
>>    Those of us who have seen it first hand, and now understand, are saddened
>>that many of our Afro-American brothers and sisters, along with the
>>Hispanics, are misled to believe that a one-world system is going to be=
 our
>>people's answer to total equality and freedom.  "Quality" time in the
>>military has allowed some of us to see the truth.  I've beheld communism's
>>true FACE, its history written in the drawn, despondent faces of millions.
>> "All races and many creeds=85just as dead under that exploitive system!"
>>    There is one positive thing about communist internal subversive=
 takeovers.
>> They always kill the captured nation's traitors, since they understand
that,
>>if they would sell-out their own people, they certainly cannot be trusted.
>> This serves to help purify the gene-pool!
>>    The communist leaders are hiding the fact that they are very wealthy from
>>money and property they take from the poor, not the rich, yet they speak=
 of
>>"liberation of the poor."  They "liberate" the poor of what little they
have,
>>under the banner of "equality" and secretly live opulent lifestyles
>>themselves, secretly always retaining power and untold riches.  I see now
>>that this is the same falsehood they have instilled in my people in the=
 U.S.
>>    Some of us can now see plainly that, under the United Nations world
>>government plan, the only difference is, this time Afro-Americans will
not be
>>enslaved alone.  The rich Marxists in America and around the world are no
>>respecters of persons.  Afro-Americans will be enslaved right along with=
 all
>>other non-wealthy Anglos, Hispanics, Asians, and other indigenous peoples=
 of
>>the world, all made to serve the masters of a "world plantation."  There=
 is
>>no satisfaction for my people in this arrangement.  Therefore, we must
all do
>>our part, our duty, and see that this world imperialism does not succeed.
>>    Sincerest gratitude to all our fellow soldiers and police assisting in=
 your
>>efforts to stop this insidious one-world program, and in addition, for
>>sending out the special military newsletters.  Tell all there that the=
 most
>>gratifying message you send us is that of assuring us we're not alone in
this
>>war.
>>    Well-worn copies of your publications are passed on to members of my unit
>>and then on to others.  Be advised some of us here will continue to=
 educate
>>as many as we can in regards to real duty and true freedom, until we
prevail.
>>
>>Semper Fi, CO-DE
>>
>>[STAFF NOTE:  We pray this brother and his team stay safe and continue to
>>focus upon God, not man.  Man without God always has and always will
screw up
>>the world.  Yes, we receive communications regularly from soldiers and
lawmen
>>in sensitive career positions, who have a need to get some things off=
 their
>>chests, sharing with those who understand.  For all those reading this
>>letter, believe us when we tell you that we do our very best to keep your
>>identities secure.  But we do ask for permission to air your thoughts with
>>our fellow Americans in uniform.  These times of sharing thoughts and
>>experiences help many "in the trenches" who may be too afraid (or too=
 wise)
>>to communicate.  All original communiqu=E9s are destroyed forthwith.]
>>
>>Aid & Abet Police Newsletter
>>Published for members of Law Enforcement,=20
>>     Military, National and Coast Guard. =20
>>Public is welcome. =20
>>Publisher:  Police Officer Jack McLamb, Ret.
>>Editor:  Police Officer A. Rick Dalton
>>Writers:  National Guardsman Fred Willoughby
>>    Mr. Louis E. Stradling
>>Marketing:  Peter Giordano
>>http://www.police-against-nwo.com/
>>e-mail at:  [e-mail]
>>FAX  [phone]
>>Ph.   [phone]
>>World HQ:  Arizona USA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>***************************************************************************=
*
>          STOP THE NATIONAL ID CARD AND ITS DATABASES NOW!!!!!!
>               VISIT OUR WEB SITE   www.mcwebs.com.repeal
>
>                Coalition to Repeal the Fingerprints Law
>                     5446 Peachtree Industrial Blvd.
>                                Suite 133
>                            Atlanta, GA  30341
>                               404-250-8105
>
>                  Cyndee Parker, National Spokesperson
>                        [e-mail]
>
>                  Debra Cardin, Georgia State Director
>                            [e-mail]
>
>"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without
>bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so
>costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the
>odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival.  There may be a
>worse case.  You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory,
>because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."  Churchill=20
>
>
>"We the people are the rightful masters of Congress and the courts, not to
>overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the
>Constitution."  =20
>                                         Abraham Lincoln
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  WeCARE
Date: 22 Jul 1997 13:49:58 -0700

HERE IS THE FULL ADDRESS:


Joe Waldron
Chairman, WeCARE
Director, Washington State R&P Assn
Director, Washington Arms Collectors
Lobbyist, GOAL of WA
WA State Field Rep, CCRKBA
PO Box 50270
Bell, WA 98015-0270

[phone]

My apologies to any who find this request for funds offensive.  But
we're in the gun control fight of our lives here in WA, a true David v
Goliath battle.  If they win in WA, do you think for a minute HCI won't
push similar initiatives in other initiative states?  We are also listed with
the PDC, and full disclosure of funds collected and funds expended will
be available on line.

- --
    Johann Opitz
<[e-mail]>





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Government Kills
Date: 23 Jul 1997 10:52:00 -0700


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

Well, let's see. There's Gordon Kahl, Joe Love, Chaplin Hill, that guy who
was shot down in the ROT thing, and many, many, many, many, many, many,
many, many, many, many others. And probably still more than that. Let's all
get this guy some info he can use.
Patty


PLEASE DISTRIBUTE & CIRCULATE

I'm currently researching a book that documents the multitude of
innocent people murdered by the government(s) (local, county and of
course the feds) of the United States. I need FIRST HAND, PROVABLE
information, not someone ranting on about an incident that may have
happened. If you would send the proof first, when that is verified,
we'll then ask for the details. I'm trying to cover all the known
occurrences (Bonus March, Penn. coal miners strike, atomic testing
on our own people, Japanese internment during WWII, Penn. State,
the MOVE bombing in Philly, USS Liberty, Ruby Ridge, Waco and many;
many more (looks like we'll be able to add Desert Storm). The title
of the book is "Government Kills", it's a documentary. I want to blow
the blinders off the ignorant masses who still think the government
is such a wonderful entity and they're here to help us. The following
is a partial list, but it sets the example of what is needed. Proof
consists of the following:

    1. Photos, video tapes
    2. Legal documents
    3. Press articles
    4. Medical documents
    5. Insurance documents

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mike Johnson Chairman
Arizona Constitutional Rights Committee
(ACRC) or snail mail to:

P.O. Box 51914
Phoenix, Arizona 85076-1914

Thank you for your courage

Mike J.




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  GOA Alert-- Federal 07/25/97 -Forwarded
Date: 25 Jul 1997 16:01:38 -0700

Received: from smtp2.erols.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id OAA04386; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:48:42 -0600
Received: from gunowners.org (spg-as64s05.erols.com [207.172.51.132])
    by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA06365;
    Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Gun Owners of America's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    Gun Bills Moving in Senate and House Judiciary Committees

                    by Gun Owners of America
      8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA  22151,
             [phone], http://www.gunowners.org
                     (Friday, July 25, 1997)

     * Juvenile Crime Bill (S 10).  After coming under intense
pressure from GOA activists, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has
modified a provision that would have treated gun owners like
organized crime figures. The original language could have sent
a gun dealer, manufacturer or owner to prison for up to twenty
years for something as minor as two record-keeping mistakes.
After GOA alerted the Senate to these problems, several Senate
offices told Gun Owners of America they could not support the
bill as it was then drafted.  This led to Senator Hatch revising
his bill.

     But several problems remain with S. 10, even as it was
reported out of the Judiciary Committee yesterday by a 12-6 vote.
The bill would still impose a twenty year sentence for minor
mistakes involving semi-automatics, school zones, and supervised
handgun use by your kids.  There were also several amendments
that were added to the bill in committee.  Thus, once the dust
settles, GOA will update you on the specifics in this bill.  S.
10 is not expected to be considered by the full Senate until
October.

     On a brighter note, the Judiciary Committee did kill a
provision last week that would have required gun owners to lock
up their guns, thus jeopardizing people's ability to defend
themselves in an emergency.  The amendment, introduced by Sen.
Herb Kohl (D-WI), was narrowly defeated by a vote of 9-8.
Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) was the only Republican to cross over
and join Democrats in voting for the amendment.  Gun owners may
see this provision resurrected since Sen. Kohl has vowed to offer
his amendment once again on the Senate floor.

     While gun owners hailed the defeat of an anti-gun amendment
in a Senate Committee, the Constitution did not completely escape
unscathed.  Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) offered a compromise
alternative to the Kohl amendment that would require all dealers
to have gun locks, or other gun safety devices, available for
sale.  The panel approved Hatch's amendment, 10-7.

     * Forfeit Your Guns Bill (H.R. 1965).  The House Judiciary
Committee recently passed a forfeiture "reform" bill by a 26-1
vote.  This bill would, in most cases, make the forfeiture laws
even worse.  Indeed, there is a tremendous problem.  According to
a survey done by The Pittsburgh Press, 80% of the people who had
property seized by the federal government were never even charged
with a crime.

     Currently, BATF is allowed to come into your business or
your home under some circumstances and seize your firearms and
other business and personal property.  This authority has been
egregiously and repeatedly abused by BATF.

     Under H.R. 1965, your rights as a gun owner or businessman
would be considerably diminished.   Let's say that you and two
other limited partners own a gun shop, and that BATF decided to
come in and seize your business.  Under H.R. 1965, BATF could
seize your business without a warrant if there were probable
cause to believe the property was subject to forfeiture.  There
would also be a broad definition of your personal assets which
BATF could seize because they were "proceeds" of your business.

     Your partners would not have to be notified until well after
the seizure, and would lose their interest in your business if
they did not act within 30 days -- and, even then, they may be
unable to receive compensation for their interest in your
business.

     BATF could conduct a fishing expedition against you without
probable cause, and it could use hearsay evidence against you in
initial proceedings.  Your right to raise an Eighth Amendment
objection to the seizure would be seriously limited, and you
would have to demonstrate an extraordinary showing of hardship to
get a court to order the BATF to temporarily return the business
to you pending trial.

     If it turned out that BATF had made a mistake, its liability
to you would be limited.

     FOR THE RECORD:  No Senator has yet to introduce a repeal of
the 1994 semi-auto ban or a full repeal of the Lautenberg gun
ban.  The House Subcommittee on Crime has yet to schedule any
action on H.R. 27 (Bartlett's Self-Defense Bill), H.R. 1009
(Chenoweth's full repeal of the Lautenberg gun ban), or H.R. 1147
(the semi-auto ban repeal).  The new 800 number for Capitol  Hill
is 1-800-522-6721.


********************************************************************
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: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Preaching to the choir -Forwarded
Date: 28 Jul 1997 19:00:20 -0700

Received: from mars.aros.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id CAA01927; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:03:25 -0600
Received: from sarahtho (pm7-0.slc.aros.net [207.173.24.193])
          by mars.aros.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP
      id CAA07777; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 02:09:19 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>I think there are two separate arguments here:
>
>(1).  Constitutional.  (2)  Practical.
    Well, so far I agree.  However, I disagree vehemently with
the remainder of this discussion.

>Kates and Kleck, particularly Kates, recognize the constitutional
>argument  for RKBA as an individual right to be so persuasive as to be
>the "standard  model."  Both, however, recognize that to "Joe and Jane
>Sixpack," not to  mention "Joseph and Janet Champagne," the
>constitutional argument simply  doesn't matter.  Kates and Kleck argue
>that the vast majority of the  citizenry are more results-oriented--i.e.,
they
>look at the social utility  of a position.  We in the RKBA/Individual Rights
>group have not addressed  this very well.  While IMHO the constitutional
>argument should settle the  issue, the truth is that social utility often
>predisposes the public, or the  justices, to look for a way to defend a
>particular answer.
    It is true that "Joe and Jane Sixpack" don't care a bit about the
constitution.  It is sad, but true, that most of the justices don't either.
But think about what you're proposing.  Do you really want to concede,
a priori, that the constitution is irrelevant?  If you do so, I maintain
that the
battle, and the war, are irrevocably lost.

>Accepting (or ignoring, if you wish) that government may constitutionally
>restrict felons and insane from firearms, the social utility argument then
>becomes one that both Kleck and Kates argue:  society is better off with
>the  armed citizenry described by the Founders and supported by
>volumes of recent  social research (see, e.g., Kleck, Lott, the Vermont
>and Florida "CCW"  experience, etc.)  If we had done a better job,
>starting in at least 1968,  of presenting the social utility of firearms as
>well as the constitutional  requirements, then the public would recognize
>that not only is the individual  rights interpretation of the Second
>Amendment the correct one, it is the  socially desirable one.
    Rights are unchanging and immutable.  "Social utility" is NOT.
If, someday, someone comes up with statistics that refute Kleck and Lott,
will you then willingly turn in your firearms?  And who gets to define "social
utility" anyway?  It was of tremendous social utility for the British to
disarm
the rebellious colonists.  It was of equally great social utility for
Hitler to
disarm Jews and anyone else who didn't support him.  Our current
administration  believes it is social utility to label any and all dissenters
"terrorists" and then deprive them of all rights, harass, imprison, or even
murder them.  Is that really what you want here?
    Make no mistake:  the argument is most assuredly NOT about
the relative niceties of self-defense against muggers and rapists.  I'm not
discounting this aspect; as a woman, and former victim, I know how
important this is.  But ultimately the argument is about tyranny; not just
the tyranny of one stronger person against one weaker person, but the
tyranny of any government, state, church or group that
wishes to forcefully inflict its will on any other individual or group.

>To sum up, Larry, I'm not sure that you got the point of the Kates/Kleck
>work:  emphasize the social utility because it supports our position and
>because it's the argument that will persuade them that need persuading.
    There's nothing wrong with Kates's, Kleck's or Lott's work.  It's
excellent, but it's TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to RIGHTS.  Its utility is in
demonstrating conclusively that those who favor gun control are de facto
supporting murder, rape and assault against innocent citizens.
    However, if you use "social utility" as your primary argument, you
are playing the enemy's game - and the enemy, and its ministry of propaganda
(the media), are infinitely better at playing it, and have infinitely more
resources, than the RKBA movement ever will.  Never, ever agree to play
by the enemy's rules!

>"The law" seldom leads "the norm"... it's usually the other way around.
>Changes typically start in popular culture, and the law only follows
>sometime later after the change has become pervasive and
>commonplace. "The law" may win battles, but "the norm" wins the war.
>RKBA needs to stop chanting the Second Amendment mantra as our only
>tool and spend more time on cultural norms.
    Maybe I'm confused.  I thought the GOAL of all this was to create
and preserve a culture where respect for the constitution, respect for
individual rights and liberties IS the norm!  If, instead, the goal is for us
gunowners to be safe from "bad guys", while we ignore our neighbors
being dragged off to prison in the middle of the night, maybe we're not on
the same team.

>On a bright note, I believe this is already happening and we are making
>progress. However, as with most cultural shifts, those whose position is
>threatened tend to react with the most vigor early on. We should expect
>our struggles to be most intense _right now_. If we continue to gain
>ground, our struggles will lessen due to a combination of our greater
>strength and their weakened resistance.
    Our struggles have not yet peaked.  Remember that Tony Blair
admitted that the disarmament of British SUBJECTS had nothing to do
with safety and everything to do with eliminating the "American gun culture".
He was successful, and the vast majority of British sheeple agree
with what he did.  They're actually foolish enough to believe that handing
over
their firearms will make the world "safer".  What will they do when China
decides it wants more than just Hong Kong?
    Expect no less here.  We are living in a  fascist state that is just
beginning to consolidate its powers.  I predict that genocide will be
attempted
against gun owners here as well.  We will be declared "enemies of the state"
and "social utility" will be defined as disarming, or exterminating, us, and
anyone else misguided enough to take the Constitution literally.  The
reason we are being "allowed" "permits" is to drug us into forgetting about
rights, and to lure us into putting our names and firearms and fingerprints
into databases.

>We often complain that we're not seeing enough pro-RKBA legislation at
>the federal level. Considering Mike's words, perhaps we should worry
>less about that (hold our legislative ground for the moment), and refocus
>our proactive energies on the cultural side. We can't legislate an
>emotional acceptance of gun ownership, any more than we can legislate
>morality. But if the people (the popular culture) lead, the leaders (and the
>better RKBA laws) will follow.
    This is partially correct.  Legislation is useless.  The Constitution
is all the "legislation" we need.  What we must do is reclaim our rights
regardless of what Congress does or does not do.
    We do need to educate the people - NOT to accept the social
utility of firearms, but to understand the concepts of individual rights and
liberties.  Any other path leads to tyranny.  Any other path is doomed.





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Domestic media Email Addresses
Date: 29 Jul 1997 08:25:00 -0700


From Ralph <[e-mail]>

Here are all the domestic media emails I have

[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Cook's Town Meetings
Date: 30 Jul 1997 08:45:46 -0700



Cook Calls Utahns to Meetings





### Rep. Merrill Cook, R-Utah, has scheduled three town meetings in
Salt Lake County next week to answer questions and listen to
constituent concerns about transportation, housing and crime.
### Local experts will be on hand for each meeting.
### -- The transportation meeting is 7 to 8:30 p.m. Monday at Sandy City
Hall, 1000 Centennial Parkway, Room 211. Panelists include Utah
Department of Transportation Director Tom Warne, UTA light-rail project
manager Rick Thorpe and Wasatch Front Regional Council Director Will
Jeffries.
### -- The housing meeting is 7 to 8:30 p.m. Tuesday at Salt Lake
Community College, Technology Building Auditorium, 4600 S. Redwood
Road, Taylorsville.
### Panelists will include Marion Willey, director of Utah Nonprofit
Housing; Kathy Ricci, director of Salt Lake City capital planning; and John
Milchick Jr., state coordinator for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
### -- The crime meeting is from 7 to 8:30 p.m. Aug. 6 at the Salt Lake
County Commission Chambers, 2001 S. State St., North Building.
Panelists include Salt Lake County Sheriff Aaron Kennard and Salt Lake
City Police Chief Ruben Ortega.




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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: FIST DATABASE
Date: 30 Jul 1997 16:50:57 -0600

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------467D3FDA7112
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.nauticom.net/www/acsl/fist.htm

--------------467D3FDA7112
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="fist.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="fist.htm"

          ALLEGHENY COUNTY SPORTSMEN'S LEAGUE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

       THE DISCOVERY OF ANOTHER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GUN OWNER DATABASE

                                 "F I S T"

                                   [Image]

Just when you thought you were safe from having information on yourself and
that of the firearms you purchased entered in to a central computerized gun
database comes the Bureau of Justice Statistics a division of the U.S.
Justice Department with a computer program designed to do just that. The
Allegheny County Sportsmen's League (ACSL) has this time acquired a fully
operational database program which was developed for the U.S. Justice
Department called "FIST". "FIST" is an acronym which stands for Firearms
Inquiry Statistical Tracking. Who's firearms are they tracking -- yours.
Yes, in spite of the ruling by Common Pleas Court in Pittsburgh (See Order
of the Court --Preston Covey & Allegheny County Sportsmen's League v. City
of Pittsburgh)that such a scheme was in violation of state and federal law,
the U.S. Justice Department has gone ahead with FIST.

In comparison, what the ACSL uncovered in August of 1995 was just a proposal
to develop a gun database. FIST is a fully developed program that will
collect information on you, your guns, and write that information to a
database and send that data to a central file in Washington. This program is
being distributed to certain Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEO) through
out the country to collect statistics on the number of guns pruchased.

The program is being distributed to certain CLEOs throughout the country to
collect statistics on the number of guns purchased. It is believed that some
500 CLEO's are already set up to run the FIST program. The software is given
free to all the CLEOs for them to collect information on you, the dealer and
the type and serial numbers of the guns you purchase (handguns, rifles or
shotguns).In addition, the program also would be used to collect information
on who applies and are granted concealed weapons permits. The program
provides for storing the necessary information on all the dealers in the
CLEO's jurisdiction so that this information is linked directly to each
firearm purchased. The program is designed to work in conjunction with the
Brady law background check especially when the Brady instant check come on
line in 1998 when all firearms purchased must go through the national
instant check system.

The final language in the Brady Law approved by the U.S. Senate has a
provision requiring the U.S. Attorney General to establish a national
instant criminal background check system that any licensee may contact, by
telephone or by other electronic means in addition to the telephone, for
information, to be supplied immediately, on whether receipt of a firearm by
prospective transferee would violate section 922 of title 18. The U.S.
Attorney General was given the authority to develop such computer software,
design and obtain such telecommunications and computer hardware, and employ
such personnel, as are necessary to establish and operate the system in
accordance with this section. These provisions are very vague and it gives
the AG great latitude in developing the system. Presently the CLEOs who
administers the background check under the Brady 5 day waiting period are
primarily the county sheriffs. This program indicates that the AG may be
looking to the CLEO s again to conduct the instant check when it comes on
line in 1998.

"FIST" was developed by the REgional Justice Information Service referred to
in the documentation as the REJIS Commission for the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, in Washington D.C. The developers of this program used
Microsoft's Access database, a database program developed by the Microsoft
Corporation. This database program is included in the popular Microsoft
Office a package of software widely used through the country. FIST is made
up of a series of entry screens allowing for imputing of the name, address
and social security number of each applicant who applies to purchase or
transfers any handgun, rifle shotgun, or who makes application for a
concealed weapons permit. Also in the Applicant s personal Info screen there
is a series of buttons at the bottom which provide for entry of Dealer Info,
Rejection Info, Handgun Info and Misc. Info .
                                   [Image]

In the "Dealer Info" screen the CLEO enters information on the dealer who
submits the request for a background check and the dealer is linked with the
applicant and the information on the firearm.
                                   [Image]

The CLEO also enters your driver s license number. How the CLEO received the
inquiry from the dealer, and the disposition of the background check is also
recorded.
                                   [Image]

Selecting the Handgun Info button present the CLEO with a screen that allows
for entry on the gun purchased (Make, Model, Caliber, Barrel Length and
serial number). While the screen is titled Handgun Info the same information
of Rifles and shotguns, or other (possibly NFA transfers) if a rifle or
shotgun and selected as the firearm being purchased in the Applicant's Info
screen.

There are also data screens to record information on the disposition of the
background check. The Government wants to know whether the purchase was
approved, and if not, what was the reason for the denial. They want to know
whether the purchaser who was denied the purchase challenged the action in
court, whether there was any court action, or whether the challenge was
administratively resolved. All of this information can be put on the central
file.
                                   [Image]

The program documentation explains that the purpose of the program is to
"support the CLEO in their normal daily operations. At the same time the
data is being entered and used by the CLEO the information that is needed by
BJS is being collected automatically without any special forms or procedures
being required. The data that will be used for statistical purposes is
generated by the CLEO by simply clicking on the appropriate button." The way
this would work is when a handgun, rifle or shotgun is purchased each dealer
must fill out a federal form 4473, the Brady Form and the state record of
purchase collecting all of the necessary information on the gun and the
purchaser. The dealer either places a phone call to the CLEO, or sends a
fax, to request the instant background check. All of the information
collected by the CLEO is entered into the database through the FIST programs
entry screens. Every day the database is backed up onto a diskette. Each
month this data is then sent to the Bureau of Justice Statistics in
Washington on a diskette, or via a modem. There this information could be
entered into a master database. All this information is handled in
electronic format, no paperwork involved.

REJIS explains that the only information that the Bureau of Justice
Statistics requires is the number of firearm transfers, how many were
approved or disapproved and the reasons for rejection. They explain that all
of the data on the applicant remains with the CLEO and it remains the
responsibility of the CLEO to insure that it is deposed of in the
appropriate manner as the law governing the CLEO require. But that begs an
answer to the question, "why then collect the information on the purchaser
and the firearm in the first place if it isn't to be used for developing a
national registration?" Remember that in December of 1993 President Clinton
charged Attorney General Janet Reno with developing a means to establish a
national registration scheme. Can "FIST" be used for that purpose, you bet
it can.

While the Brady Law only allow the CLEO's to retain the data for only 20
days, who is going to do the investigations to insure your rights are
protected? Pennsylvania s Act 17 made permenant the collection of
information of the purchase of handguns, with long gun coming in 1997. There
is nothing to stop the CLEO from backuping the database on a diskette, as
they are instructed to do on a daily basis in order to insure that data on
the hard dive is protected, and transfer it to another database. Who is
going to stop the Justice Department from requiring the whole database? Our
source tells us that the BJS requested the complete database file.
                                   [Image]

Anyone who understands databases know that this information is portable to
other databases or other file formats. For example the database can be
backed up to a disk and imported into another database like FoxPro or Dbase
III or IV very easily. The database can also be imported into a spreadsheet
like Lotus 123 or Excel. This type of database translation is done everyday.

Now the program documentation warns that the CLEO's should pay particular
close attention to both federal and state laws governing what records that
they are allow to keep in the FIST database. They instruct the CLEO's on the
program's provides features for purging personal information like the name,
address and serial numbers of the applicant. However, the documentation also
points out that the purge options allows for overriding the purge feature.
In fact the default option is No purging allowed.
                                   [Image]

The Justice Department requires that the information they require be
reported at the end of each month. The program's report screen makes that
easy.
                                   [Image]

All the CLEO has to do is select the proper button and he has information on
the purshaser of either handgun, rifles and shotguns and those persons who
have a concealed weapons purmit. That information is printed out on a easy
to read form that can be filed with othe inforamtion that any governmental
agency is collecting.
                                   [Image]

During the Democratic National Convention President Clinton allow Sarah
Brady to give a prime time speech touting the so-called success of the Brady
Law which she claimed was designed to keep guns out of the hands of
criminals. What most Americans don t know is that once instant check goes
into effect in 1998 the purpose of Brady could be used to eventually keep
guns out of the hands of everyone by registering everyone who purchases a
handgun, rifle and shotgun and who obtain concealed weapons permits in a
computerized database like FIST . The most difficult problem with a gun ban
is locating the firearms. FIST could solve that problem. As Charles Morgan,
a director of the ACLU's Washington D.C. office has been quoted as saying
"That even if he is in agreement with the National Rifle Association, the
only purpose of registration is for confiscation by one administration or
another."

During the recent presidentail campaigns,Clinton has repeadly said that he
wants to expand upon the Brady law. Bob Dole is proud of the fact that he
engineered the deal attaching his instant criminal background check to the
Brady law. Bob Dole was responsible for allowing Brady to clear the Senate
by claiming a "deal" to reopen the law in the next session of the Congress.
He kept that promise like he kept his promise to schedule a vote on the
repeal of the assault weapons ban.

The instant check provisions in Brady could be our down fall. We have this
instant check provision becasue former executive vice president Warrin
Cassidy and former ILA executive director Jim Baker agreed to Brady with
this provision in place. In February of 1994 the NRA board of directors,
realizing that instant check could be used to register gun owners, passed a
resolution instructing ILA not to enter into any instant check systems,
unfortunally that call was not heeded in Pennsylvania.

Soon the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of
the Brady law under the 10th amendment. David T. Hardy, the attorney
representing sheriff John Mack from Arizona, will argue the case. We have
provided him with a copy of the FIST program. Hopefully it will be a help to
this case and the end to this very bad legislation.

President Clinton has made gun control an issue in this year s election for
President. Bob Dole has distanced himself from gun owners with his statement
against the repeal of the semiautomatic ban, and that could have been a
factor in him loosing the presidential race. As a result we had only one
choice at our disposal to protect our right to private ownership of firearms
and that was to elect a pro-gun Congress and hopefully we have accomplished.
But it doesn't mean that we stop. We must be involved every day if we are to
protect our liberties.

--------------467D3FDA7112--




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: GOA Alert-- UT 07/30/97
Date: 31 Jul 1997 11:32:00 -0700


------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

I am forwarding the following from the Gun Owners of America, because
it concerns our very own Merrill Cook.

Jim Elwell

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
http://www.gunowners.org

Rep. Cook To Hold Town Hall Meetings
     -- Time to get him on board as a cosponsor

July 30, 1997

Representative Merril Cook, Republican from the 2nd District, will
be holding three town hall meetings during the first week of
August.

It is important that the interests of gun owners be represented at
these meetings. In a Republican-controlled Congress wherein Newt
Gingrich once promised that no gun control legislation would move
while he was Speaker, we have seen some of the worst gun bans in
recent memory become law while pro-gun bills languish in committee.

Rep. Cook is a part of that problem, as he has yet to cosponsor
three major pro-gun initiatives:

   * H.R. 27 (Bartlett), The Citizen's Self-Defense Act of 1997 --
     affirms the right to self-defense with a firearm;

   * H.R. 1009 (Chenoweth), The States' Rights and Second and Tenth
     Amendment Restoration Act of 1997 -- the only bill to
     completely repeal the Lautenberg gun ban;

   * H. R. 1147 (Paul), The Second Amendment Restoration Act of
     1997 -- repeals the semi-auto ban.

Gaining cosponsors is necessary to force reluctant committees to
pass bills to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Merril Cook has a
GOA rating of 'B' -- he should be expected to cosponsor the above
pro-gun bills.

ACTION:

   * Attend one or more of the town meetings if you possibly can.
     Ask Rep. Cook why he hasn't cosponsored the above pro-gun
     legislation. Ask him why the Republican Congress appears
     unwilling to face the anti-gunners on principle. Generally,
     it is wisest when contacting your legislator to bring up only
     one piece of legislation at a time. If during the meeting you
     are only able to address a single bill, please mention H.R. 1009,
     which currently has the most momentum of the three.

   * Please let GOA know via fax, e-mail, or telephone if you
     attend a meeting. We would also appreciate hearing what Rep.
     Cook has to say when he answers your questions. Note: a common
     refrain is that legislators view Rep. Bob Barr's half-baked
     "fix" as the leading Lautenberg repeal bill. If you hear that,
     remind Rep. Cook that Chenoweth's bill (H.R. 1009) has a far
     greater number  of cosponsors. It is the House Leadership which
     favors the Barr bill, and you elected Rep. Cook to protect your
     rights, not to become a toady of the Beltway Brotherhood.

   * If there is no way you can attend a meeting, help till the
     soil for those who can by contacting Rep. Cook so that your
     gun rights will be on his mind as he meets with constituents.

     Contact info for Rep. Cook:

       [phone] (voice)
       [phone] (fax)
       [e-mail] (e-mail)

MEETING SCHEDULE:

August 4 at 7:00 PM MTN
Sandy City Hall
10000 Centennial Parkway, Room 211
Sandy, UT

August 5 at 7:00 PM MTN
Salt Lake Comm. College
Technology Bldg Auditorium
4600 S. Redwood Road
Salt Lake City, UT

August 6 at 7:00 PM MTN
Salt County Government Center
Council Chamber Room
2001 S. State St.
Salt Lake City, UT

********************************************************************
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: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Sen. Bennett
Date: 31 Jul 1997 18:01:17 -0700

Empowerment Television

Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, providing analysis of the campaign
finance hearings being aired gavel-to-gavel on NET, shared some insight
into Wednesday's testimony from Michael Cardozo, of the Presidential
Legal Expense Trust.  Klayman clarified, "Let's go back to the inception of
what's going on.  From the very beginning of the Clinton administration,
it's looking for a way to reach out to lobbyists, influence peddlers, and
anyone else to make money - personal enrichment.
 And that's what this is about, because these aren't campaign
contributions.  These are moneys that are coming in directly into an
account.  So, what the Clintons did?they set up a trust?.Now there was
never any precedent to set up a trust like this before, in the 218-year
history of the United States.  No President had ever gone out to the
American people,  [and] held out his hand for money?.We (Judicial
Watch) challenged this trust.  We brought a lawsuit.  And what we said
was, these trustees, all of them together, constitute an advisory
committee, kind of like the Hillary Clinton task force.  And this should be
opened up for full disclosure, because the opportunity for abuse is great.
Meanwhile, the trust had said that they were legitimate, that they could
do this because they were a governmental operation, not private, but
governmental.  And that Presidents are allowed, in their official duties, to
accept gifts, like from Affairs of State?.So they justified the existence of
this trust by saying it was governmental, or public interest.  You heard it
with Mr. Cardozo, that in fact this was a public purpose because 'we
were sparing the President time from having to raise the money himself.'
The court, in looking at the argument, found that serious ethical and legal
questions were involved.  But they couldn't reach this activity, because
in the course of the case the trustees argued the exact opposite!  They
said, 'Well, it's not governmental, it's a private activity.  Just getting money
for the President.'  And the judge dismissed the case on that
basis?.Now, what happened is this.
Charlie Trie comes in with all this money, and Cardozo and some of the
trustees run over to the White House.  Now Cardozo was asked months
ago on "This Week With David Brinkley," 'Why is it you were at the White
House if you're claiming this is a private activity?  Why are you in the
White House with White House employees, paid for by taxpayers'-Sam
Donaldson asked this-and he (Cardozo) said, 'Oh, because, in fact, this
is in the public interest, it's a governmental activity.'  We have that video!
You see, so he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.  You've got a
very clever individual here, who is simply not honest.  Plain and simple,
this guy is dishonest."
Contact:  Judicial Watch  202. 646.5167
*       Senator Bennett's Statements Inconsistent
Following the completion of today's Senate campaign fund-raising
hearings, aired live and in full by NET,  Larry Klayman of Judicial
Watch commented, "Senator Bennett, while making some rather bizarre
statements, actually summed it up well?.He showed how this worked
into a web.  Why would the President issue a letter dealing with,
perhaps, the most secret information that the United States could hold --
whether or not it was planning to go to war over the Straits of Taiwan,
or over
Taiwan, with Communist China -- in close proximity to the time that
Charlie Trie made these donations to the President's legal defense fund?
 That letter having been written by the National Security Council and
Anthony Lake, then his National Security Advisor, you can only assume
that Charlie Trie was an agent of Mr. Ng, who was the benefactor of this
money.  And Mr. Ng, as we know, is tied in with Communist Chinese
organizations.  So, two and two equals four.  Senator Bennett was right.
 Where Senator Bennett was 'out to lunch' completely?was that he came
back and he said, 'Well, I've listened to you, Mr. Cardozo, and I think
you're telling the truth.  And you're completely exonerated.  This trust
fund did nothing wrong.'  Senator Bennett does not know the law!  I
mean, that was a shocking, disgraceful display of a US Senator here.
This is a violation of the law, what they were doing?.You can't solicit
moneys on behalf of the President of the United States.  Mr. Cardozo is
not to be congratulated.  Mr. Cardozo is to be thrown in jail!"
Contact:  Judicial Watch  202.646.5167
PROGRAMMING NOTE:  NET continues its live gavel-to-gavel coverage of
the
Senate hearings on political fund-raising at 10 a.m. ET / 7 a.m. PT
Thursday, hosted by "Morning Watch's" Marianne Fogelson and Tom
Fitton doing political commentary, with legal analysis provided by Larry
Klayman of Judicial Watch.  NET's viewer call-in number is
800-5000-NET.
************************************
You can call his office and Larry Klayman will be glad to send any and all
a copy of the specific laws that are being broken.With Larry
Klayman's permission NET has been showing clips from the taped
depositions of the 30 or so clinton goons,including John Huang's.

==========================================================================
This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If
you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to
[e-mail].  In the message body put:
unsubscribe cas






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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  SAFAN NO. 580.  Militias: Initiating Contact - [From the
Date: 31 Jul 1997 18:14:40 -0700

Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA01540; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 08:35:17 -0600
Received: (from root@localhost)
      by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0)
      id JAA07634;
      Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:56:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

     @@@@
   @ O  O  @
 @ (    >    ) @          STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!!!
       \   0  /          SAFAN Internet Newsletter, No. 580, July 31, 1997
        /      \
           *
FYI:
MILITIAS: INITIATING CONTACT
by James E. Duffy and Alan C. Brantley, M.A.
FBI Web page:  www.fbi.gov/leb/july975.htm

Proactive dialogue with certain types of militia groups may help law
enforcement agencies diffuse tensions and avert potential flash points.

Special Agent Duffy serves with the Critical Incident Response Group's Crisis
Management Unit at the FBI Academy. Special Agent Brantley serves with the
Profiling and Behavioral Assessment Unit at the FBI Academy.

The growth of the organized militia movement represents one of the most
significant social trends of the 1990s. This significance is due less to the
actual size of the movement-by all measures, militia membership remains an
almost imperceptible percentage of the population-than it is to the potential
for
death and destruction emanating from the most radical elements of the
movement.

Few Americans knew of the militia movement or antigovernment extremists
until the morning of April 19, 1995, when a bomb blast destroyed the Alfred
P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Although no
apparent direct connection exists between members of any militia
group and the bombing, those arrested held and expressed views
espoused by some militia groups. Following the bombing, television,
newspaper, and magazine features presented in-depth-if somewhat alarmist-
expose of the militia movement and the beliefs and values of militia members.


While the intense scrutiny given the militia movement during the past few
years
has served to educate the public, as well as police officials, about the
funda-
mental beliefs and motivations of militia groups, this scrutiny also has
served
to raise as many questions as it has answered.

     What specific factors have fueled the growth of the militia movement?
     What immediate aims do militia groups wish to achieve?
     Are militia leaders primarily driven by defensive or aggressive
philosophies?
     What explains the suspicion and distrust many militia members apparently

           feel toward law enforcement?

Of course, such questions can only be answered with any degree of accuracy
by militia members themselves. So, to move beyond a surface understanding
of the militia movement, logic dictates that law enforcement agencies go
to the source, local militia leaders, to learn more detailed information.

This suggestion is not as impudent as it might first appear. In fact, as part
of
a broad-based effort to establish positive contacts between law enforcement
agencies and local militia groups, simply establishing a dialogue with
militia
leaders can go a long way to removing some of the mystery that provides
fertile ground for the suspicion and distrust that exist in both camps. This
article first summarizes what is known about the militia movement and then
suggests a
strategy that law enforcement agencies can use to initiate constructive
dialogue
with militia groups that have not demonstrated a propensity for
aggressiveness
and violence. The article also includes a threat assessment typology recently

developed by the FBI to assist agencies in determining the threat level posed

by individual militia groups.

MILITIA MEMBERSHIP

Most militia organization members are white males who range in age from the
early 20s to the mid-50s. The majority of militia members appear to be
attracted
to the movement because of gun control issues, as epitomized by the Brady
Law, which established a 5-day waiting period prior to the purchase of a
handgun, and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which
limited the sale of various assault-style weapons. Many militia members
believe
that these legislative initiatives represent a government conspiracy to
disarm the
populace and ultimately abolish the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The

federal government's role in confrontations with the Branch Davidians near
Waco, Texas, and Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, have further fueled
conspiratorial beliefs that the government is becoming more tyrannical and
attempting to reverse constitutional guarantees.

Militia members generally maintain strong Christian beliefs and justify their

actions by claiming to be ardent defenders of the Constitution. They often
compare
the American Colonial period (1607-1783) to their present existence by
relating
significant Colonial dates and events to lend historical weight to their own
beliefs
and actions. Many militias claim to represent the ideological legacy of the
founding fathers tracing their core beliefs to select writings and speeches
that
predate the Revolutionary War. Colonists at that time rebelled against the
tyranny of King George III and what they saw as the British government's
practice of oppression and unjust taxation. Various present-day militias
pattern
their actions on what they believe their ideological ancestors would do if
they
were alive today.

Using their interpretation of constitutional rights and privileges as their
calling,
militia members and antigovernment extremists have challenged federal and
state laws and questioned the authority of elected officials to govern, tax,
and maintain order. In doing so, they have created concerns for law
enforcement
and public officials who come into contact with them. Still, many militia
members and individuals who espouse antigovernment beliefs remain law-
abiding citizens and do not advocate terrorist acts. Many organized militias
have, in fact, condemned the Oklahoma City bombing and have stated that
those responsible for the attack do not represent the philosophy and goals of

today's militia groups.

Clearly, elements of the militia movement represent a threat to law enforce-
ment and to the general public. At the same time, the militia movement is far

from the monolithic terrorist conspiracy that some media accounts have
portrayed it to be.

     How can law enforcement agencies determine which groups represent more
          of a threat than others?
     How can agency commanders assess the specific beliefs and philosophies
          of the groups they may encounter in their own jurisdictions?

In many cases, all they need to do is ask.

INITIATING DIALOGUE

Law enforcement officials should make proactive contacts with local militia
leaders so that the two sides can voice their concerns and discuss relevant
issues in a nonconfrontational way. Agency executives can establish the
initial
contact simply by calling the local militia leadership and arranging an
informal
meeting at a mutually agreeable location. By talking, law enforcement
officials allow militia representatives to assess the character of the
officers
apart from the positions they hold.

Nonconfrontational dialogue also allows for a moderation of any negative
stereotypes that militia members might hold toward law enforcement officers.
Conversely, such contact should allow law enforcement representatives the
chance to gauge and assess the true, or at least unprovoked, nature of
the militia leaders.

After making the initial contact, a law enforcement agency should be in a
position to arrange for future meetings, especially if a troubling issue
arises or
a crisis appears imminent. When each side realizes that the other is not as
threatening or unreasonable as originally believed, nonconfrontational
contacts
will reduce anxiety levels and the potential for misunderstanding. At times
of
impending crisis, established contacts will keep open the avenues of communi-
cation, enhancing the opportunities for affected parties to understand the
issues and to resolve trouble in a peaceful manner. Such rational problem-
solving strategies greatly increase the likelihood of achieving agreement
between two groups whose goals may appear to be at cross purposes but,
in reality, may be quite similar.

Making Contact

Since the Oklahoma City bombing, a growing number of law enforcement
officials have established regular contacts with militia leaders in their
jurisdictions. These contacts have improved understanding and promoted
ongoing relationships between leaders of both groups. Contacts with militia
groups should be made by ranking departmental personnel who are in a
position to speak with authority for the agency. Ideally, the agency's
commanding officer should meet with the militia group's leader, as the two
can
best represent the goals, objectives, and legal positions of their respective
organizations.

Historically, militia groups have placed more trust in county sheriffs'
offices
than in other law enforcement agencies, whether they are federal, state, or
city.
Law enforcement agencies at any level that previously have established
contacts with local militia leaders should assist other agencies attempting
to do so. In
this way, law enforcement invokes a unified presence and demonstrates its
ability to work together without territorial conflict, a strength militia
leaders will
notice.

Of course, law enforcement officials should take appropriate strategic
precautions when meeting with militia groups. They should advise their
agencies of the time and location of any meetings and should make sure
meetings take place in areas that afford safety and security.

Nature of Contacts

Law enforcement agencies should not use contacts with militia groups as a
way to gain or confirm intelligence information. Law enforcement
possesses many ways to obtain intelligence and should not risk inflaming
the suspicions of militia leaders by asking probing questions. Likewise, law
enforcement representatives should not volunteer any sensitive information to

militia representatives, as such disclosures may expose sources or
investigative techniques. During the initial meeting, law enforcement repre-
sentatives should set a conversational tone that will lead to an open
discussion
of issues important to both sides. The goal is to establish an ongoing
relationship.

During a recent incident in Louisiana involving a barricaded subject with
militia connections, the value of a pre-established dialogue became apparent.

As the incident unfolded, local militia leaders reached out to their law
enforce-
ment contacts to verify the information they received from various sources.
Because law enforcement officials previously had established trust
with militia leaders, the police were able to dispel false information being
publicly conveyed by the subject. The subject eventually surrendered
peacefully
to the FBI and local law enforcement officials. Pre-established contacts
allowed law enforcement to provide local militia leaders the facts
surrounding
the incident and to quell the misinformation and rumors that had spread
through elements of the militia community.

ASSESSING THE THREAT

Law enforcement agencies must exercise caution before initiating contact with

militia groups. Because different groups operating within the same geographic

area may pose widely varying degrees of threats, law enforcement officials
should assess the threat level of a militia before attempting to make
contact.
In most cases, it is unadvisable to attempt proactive contact with groups
that
openly advocate violence toward law enforcement or other public agencies. To
assist agencies in gauging the threat level posed by militia groups, special
agents in the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group developed the Militia
Threat Assessment Typology. 1 Law enforcement agencies can use the
typology to help determine which groups should and should not be contacted
on a proactive basis.

Within the typology, category I groups represent the least threat to law
enforcement agencies; category IV groups represent the greatest threat.
Generally, only militia groups in categories I and II should be considered
candidates for proactive contact. Given the type of criminal activity,
threatening behavior, and paranoia exhibited by members of category III and
IV militia
groups, law enforcement officials should refrain from attempting to establish

contact with leaders of these groups.

SAFEGUARDING INVESTIGATIONS

Before law enforcement officials attempt to make contact with leaders of any
militia group, they should consult with other agencies that also may have an
investigative interest. This allows agencies the opportunity to report the
status
of their activities and provide information that could prevent a
well-intentioned
contact from having a negative impact on ongoing investigations.

CONCLUSION

Communication represents a key component to successful policing. Initiating
and maintaining dialogue with the less dangerous elements of the
militia movement enable law enforcement agencies to establish communi-
cation with militias on constructive, nonconfrontational terms. With
communication established, agencies and militia leaders can discuss issues
openly and avert potential problems. If crises do develop, law enforcement
commanders can use pre-established contacts to reach out to militia leaders
and diffuse tensions. As a growing number of agencies have learned, the best
time to begin talking is before trouble erupts.

Endnote
The Militia Threat Assessment Typology was developed by Special Agent
Alan C. Brantley and former Special Agent Gregory Cooper of the FBI's
Critical
Incident Response Group, Quantico, VA. The typology is based on the agents'
experience and research into militia groups. For more information concerning
the Militia Threat Assessment Typology, contact the authors at the FBI
Academy, Quantico, VA 22135.

The Militia Threat Assessment Typology Category I Militia Groups
#  Conduct paramilitary training
#  Base their organizational philosophies on antigovernment rhetoric
#  Maintain a primarily defensive philosophical posture. Plans for violent
action
    are contingent upon perceived government provocation
#  Engage in no known criminal activity.

Category II Militia Groups
#  Conduct paramilitary training
#  Base their organizational philosophies on antigovernment rhetoric
#  Maintain a primarily defensive philosophical posture. Plans for violent
action
    are contingent upon perceived government provocation
#  Engage in criminal activity to acquire weapons and explosives.
    Criminal activity may range from minor firearms violations, e.g., illicit

    weapons sales and transfer, to illegal firearms modifications and
property
    crimes.

Category III Militia Groups
#  Conduct paramilitary training
#  Base their organizational philosophies on extreme antigovernment
    rhetoric, denoting deep suspicion and paranoia. Group may direct
    threats toward specific individuals or institutional targets
#  Maintain a primarily defensive philosophical posture. Plans for violent
action
    are contingent upon perceived government provocation, but response plans
    are highly detailed and may include an escalation of overt acts beyond
    planning, such as testing explosive devices, gathering intelligence, and

    identifying/conducting surveillance of potential targets
#  Engage in criminal activity, ranging from property crimes to crimes of
     interpersonal violence, e.g., resisting arrest, armed robberies,
burglaries,
     and attempts to provoke confrontations with government officials.

Category IV Militia Groups
#  Demonstrate many of the same traits and characteristics as category III
    groups but are likely to be smaller, more isolated cells or fringe groups

    whose members have grown frustrated with their peers' unwillingness to
    pursue a more aggressive strategy. Unlike militias in the other
categories,
    category IV groups often maintain an openly offensive, rather than
    defensive, posture
#  May grow out of other less threatening militia groups or may evolve
    independently from any other group associations
#  Often attract individuals with frank mental disorders. These individuals
    may either act alone or with a small number of associates who share
similar
    paranoid/disordered beliefs
#  Plot and engage in serious criminal activity, e.g., homicide, bombings,
and
    other acts of a terrorist nature.

                                            \\\\|////
                                          ( o  o )
                              --oO0o------U------oO0o---
     "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."  Thomas Jefferson
   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      SAFAN %Dot Bibee  ([e-mail])  Ph/FAX [phone]
      SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on http://feustel.mixi.net
                          and http://members.aol.com/Safan1
   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  PENNSYLVANIA ACT 17/66
Date: 31 Jul 1997 18:49:28 -0700


NRA MEMBER IS LATEST VICTIM OF ILA'S
          SUPPORT OF PENNSYLVANIA ACT 17/66


                        By Michael J. Slavonic, Jr.
                   Chairman, Legislative Committee
                Allegheny County Sportsmen's League

Opponents of Pennsylvania Act17 have pointed out  many  flaws  in the
new gun law. We have warned that there may folowing a number of
inocent victims as a result of unintended consequences  hidden in   the
law,  and  law  abiding  gun  owners  may  loose  their constituional
rights forever. For example in a  letter  from  the
Bureau  of  Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Act 17/66 prohibits law-
abiding gun owners in Pennsylvania  from  purchasing  rifles  and
shotgun in other states under the Volkmer-McClure revision to the federal
Gun Control Act. But none so horrible as a member of  the
NRA,  a  law-abiding gun owner, having his gun confiscated by the
government without having violated any federal or state law.

First let me ask if this sounds like a typical  Pennsylvania  gun owner.
He  is a law abiding citizen, married with two children.
Owns several semi-automatic  handguns  and  rifles,  all  legally
acquired.  Possess  a  valid  license  to carry which he acquired after a
criminal records check was  performed  by  the  Sheriff's department.
May  hunt  but  mostly  target shoots, and considers himself a modest
gun collector. Last but not least  a  member  in good standing of the
National Rifle Association of America.

Sounds like someone you know? It sounds like a lot  of  people  I know.

Now imagine that such a person and his wife begin  to  have  some
marital  difficulties.  It could be over money, she feels you are spending
too much time  in  the  office,  you  don't  pay  enough attention  to her
and the kids. You want to get a new car and she wants to redecorate
the house. You  both  find  it  difficult  to agree  very  much at this time,
so you believe that your marriage may in trouble. So, in order to settle
things down you both agree to a separation with the hope of work things
out.

Sounds like a scenario that is played out all over Pennsylvania.

Imagine further, that during this separation  troubles  you,  and for  the
first time you have one too many in the privacy of your own home. You
lay down to sleep it off. You  forget  to  set  the alarm  clock,  and  you
fall in to such a sound sleep you fail to get up for work the next day.  In
fact you  fail  to  answer  the phone  when  your  boss  calls to find out
why you are not coming into work.  Concerned that you may be having a
 medical  problem, your  boss  calls  the paramedics. For some reason
the paramedics call the police.

The police arrive at you home backed-up by several  other  police
officers  who  are all over you lawn.  They pound on your door to awake
you and demand entrance.  They  enter  the  apartment  pre- warned
that  you  have  guns, and based on hear-say information, that you may
be capable of harming  yourself  and  they  handcuff you.  You  haven't
broken any laws, but they feel they need to do something after this  big
show.  They  confiscate  all  of  your firearms,  and  escort  you  out  of
your house and involuntarily commit you to the psychiatric ward of a
local hospital,  charging that  you  are  unable  to care for yourself. You
are kept at the hospital for three days and released. The  medical
experts  find nothing  wrong  with  you,  and  declare  you are not a
threat to yourself or anyone else. You attempt to recover your firearms
and the police say no. You will have to get an attorney, and have the
court mandate the return of you guns. You are not prepared to for what
you are now about to go through.

Sounds farfetched? You say this could never  happen  in  a  state like
Pennsylvania where you have a Constitutional provision that clearly
spells out that you  have  a  constitutionally  protected right  to  own
firearms? That the National Rifle Association, the premier organization
which  exists  to  fight  to  protect  your constitutional  right  to  firearm
ownership, is represented by a instate paid  employee  of  the  NRA
Institute  for  Legislative
Action.  That  this  constant vigil would not allow such a law to pass  in
the  Pennsylvania  General  Assembly  without  vigorous opposition.  A
law  allowing  the  government to confiscate your firearms, without you
having committed  a  felony,  or  for  that matter any violation of the law?
Well you are wrong;

The above scenario actually happened, and recently played out  in the
Pittsburgh Court of Common Pleas. If the Judge David Cercone, the
presiding Judge in this case is correct,  amendments  to  the
Pennsylvania  Uniform  Firearms  Act  in ACT 17, supported by the
Pennsylvania office of NRA -ILA  does  give  the  government  the right
to  confiscate  your  firearms.  They can do so if you are involuntarily
committed to a mental institution and not seen by a physician  within  two
hours, where a determination must be made that you are not a threat to
anyone. If that does not happen  you will  automatically  be  prohibit  from
purchasing and owning any firearm for at least five years. Then, and
only  then,  you  will have  to petition the courts to grant you relief from
disability.
This folks is retroactive thanks to your friends in  the  General
Assembly,  and  those  great  lobbyist  of  the  major  sportsmen
organizations.

This nightmare actual happened to Russell  Laing  of  Pittsburgh, and the
following is from actual court records.

Russell Laing is no crack-pot, he is a graduate of the University of
Pittsburgh   and   holds   a   masters  degree  in  Business
Administration. He is a senior executive with a large  Pittsburgh
Business  firm.  He  is  a  gun  owner who owns 10 semi-automatic
firearms and less than 900 rounds of ammunition. No more guns and
ammunition  than  owned  by  most  average  hunters, shooters and
probably, much less than the average gun collector. Certainly not the
"veritable  arsenal  of  firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition"
as  described  by  the  Allegheny  County   District
Attorney's  office.  He  has been married to the same woman since
1979 and has two children. And last but not least, he is a member in
good standing of the National Rifle Association of America.

His  crime  was  that  because   of,   what   appeared   to   be,
irreconcilable  differences  in  their marriage Mr.  Laing's wife took their
children and left him. His employer  seeing  that  the seperation  was
having  a  negative impact on his work suggested that he get counseling
during this difficult time in his life and he  agreed.  Instead of helping, the
counceling just added to his problems.

It was during a telephone conversation to Mr. Laing's  home  that the
counselor  Russell  was working with heard a clicking noise.
She questioned what the noise was and Mr. Laing responded that he
was cleaning one of his guns. She told him not to do that, and he agreed.
 She then reached for  another  phone  and  notified  the police.  The
police  came  to his home escorted him to Allegheny
General, and confiscated his firearms. Mr. Laing was  immediately
released  after  it  was obvious that this was an overreaction on the part
of the counselor, and the police returned his firearms.

A second incident occurred when Mr. Laing, still  unable  to  get his
family  life  back together had one too many. Because he was not
accustomed to consuming this level of alcohol, he fell asleep forgetting
to  set  his  alarm  for  work the next day. The next morning, April 12,
1996, concerned that he had  not  arrived  for work  as  usual,  his  boss
 call  the  West Deer Paramedics. The
Paramedics call the West Deer Police and the  Police  arrived  at the
house  supported  by an army of other officer who positioned
themselves all over his lawn, and demanded entry into his  house.
The  police pre-warned that he had firearms, and concerned he may
harm himself "involuntarily admitted  (him)  to  the  psychiatric unit  of
Allegheny  Valley  Hospital  [and was d]ischarged after three days."
according to court  records.  Since  the  physicians attending him found
nothing wrong with Mr. Laing he was released.
He returned to the police station and requested the return of his firearm
collection. This time the West Deer Police insisted that he get a court
order before they would allow their return.

=============Continued in part 2/2================

Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:
        http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

To leave the Hunting listserv list, send a message with SIGNOFF
HUNTING in the *body* to   [e-mail]




--------------- MESSAGE firearms-alert.v001.n283.2 ---------------

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

    Also from rec.hunting; second half of previous.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Newsgroups: rec.hunting

Chris Barnes, our esteemed moderator, has approved me posting this in
two parts because it is too long to post in one part.

=================Posting continues================

Mr. Laing hired Allegheny County Sportsmen's League counsel,  and
NRA  referral,  attorney  Rob  Keenan.  Mr. Keenan filed a motion before
Judge David Cercone on August 5 1996 for the return of the seized
property.  On  September  4,  1996, the court conducted a hearing on the
Motion for "Return of Seized Property". The matter was   continued
pending  a  court  ordered  further  psychiatric evaluation of Mr.  Laing.

On December 3, 1996, the court conducted another hearing  on  the prior
 motion for Return of Seized Property. Mr. Keenan sited Dr.
Paul  Bernstein,  the  Director  of  Pennsylvania   Psychological
Services   and   Associate  Professor  at  Duquesne  University's
Graduate School of Counseling, Psychology, and Special Education.
Dr.  Bernstein  gave Mr. Laing the Minnesota Mutiphasic Inventory
Test, a test given to police, and concluded: "With  a  reasonable degree
of  psychological certainty, Mr.  Laing, at this time, is free of emotional
dysfunction. As such, he is  not  a  danger  to himself  nor  a  threat  to
others."  On  December 3, 1996 Judge
Cercone granted Mr. Keenan's motion and ordered, "that  the  West
Deer  Township  Police are to release to Petitioner Russell Laing the
following property which was  seized  by  them  in  April  of
1996:" However, that did not end Mr. Laing's nightmare.

Allegheny County Deputy District Attorneys  office  responded  by filing
a  "Motion for Reconsideration" arguing that "The court's order of
December 3, 1996  is  improper  and  should  be  vacated because  Mr.
Laing,  as  a  result of having been involuntarily committed to a mental
institution under Section 302 of the Mental
Health Procedures Act, 50 P.S. sub-section 7302, is not permitted by
Pennsylvania law or Federal Law to possess firearms,  firearms
accessories, or ammunition. The applicable Pennsylvania statue is
Section 6105 ( c)(4)." (This is a provision  added  from  H.B.  7
(2/95)  of the much heralded revision to the Pennsylvania Uniform
Firearms Act that has been receiving such glowing praise  by  the
supporters of this foolish compromise.)

Based on that motion for reconsideration Judge  Cercone  reversed his
December  3, 1996 order, and on December 19, 1996 ruled that his
previous order be vacated,  disallowing  the  return  of  Mr.
Laing's  firearms. The Judge then ordered another hearing held on
January 13, 1997 for the defendant to be able  to  argue  against the
District Attorney's motion for Reconsideration. Unfortunately the trap had
be laid.

Official records of correspondences between the  Court,  District
Attorney and Attorney Rob Keenan tell much of the story. The D.A.
argued  that  simply  based  on  the  fact  that  Mr.  Laing  was
involuntarily   committed   to   a   mental   institution   under
Pennsylvania's new gun law, Mr.  Laing would be  prohibited  from
possessing  a  firearm under "relevant parts of section 922(g) of the Gun
Control Act 0f 1968, which "provide that  [i]t  shall  be unlawful  for  any
person...who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has
been committed to a mental  institution...to receive any firearm or
ammunition...."

Mr. Keenan responded that "First, Section 6105(c)(4) is ambiguous at
best  when  it  uses  the  undefined  phrase,  involuntarily committed to a
mental institution.'  Clearly,  the  present  case involved  neither
commitment' nor adjudication' because there was no evidence  of  any
proceeding  after  which  notice  was  ever provided  to  the
Pennsylvania  State Police pursuant to Section
6111.1(f) of the Uniform Firearms Act."

Regarding the DA's argument that Mr. Laing violated federal  law,
Mr.   Keenan wrote, "Next, other jurisdictions have held that the initial or
emergency evaluations (analogous to such  examinations under  Section
302  of  the Mental Health procedures Act, do not constitute involuntary
commitment' under  either  the  applicable
Federal   statute   (18   U.S.C.A.    subsection922(g)   or   the
Pennsylvania     parallel     statute     (18     Pa.      C.S.A.
subsection6105(f)(4)."

The District Attorney responded that if an  individual  has  been
"adjudicated  as  an  incompetent  or  who has been involuntarily
committed  to  a  mental  institution  for  inpatient  care   and treatment
under section 302, 303, or 304.... that individual may not possess
firearms." The District Attorney continued, "Since  a commitment  under
Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act does not require a
judicial determination of incompetence, it  is clear   that   the  Legislature
did  not  intend  that  judicial proceedings be a prerequisite to a finding
that  the  individual had been involuntarily committed.' (emphasis added)

Thanks to the  Pennsylvania  office  of  the  NRA  Institute  for
Legislative Action Pennsylvanian's can loose their constitutional right to
firearms ownership because, in approving ACT 17  it  was not
demanded  that  the  Legislature provide protection for law- abiding
citizens from being involuntarily committed  with  having the  right  to  a
judicial  proceedings  before a finding that a
"commitment" had occurred.

On February 10, 1997 Judge Cercone ruled that  "We  believe  that
pursuant  to  Pennsylvania  law,  a  detention  of  an individual pursuant
to subsection 302 of the Mental  Health  Procedures  Act constitutes  an
involuntary  commitment.  This  commitment  thus triggers the provisions
of 18 U.S.C. subsection 922(g)(4),  which makes  it  unlawful  for  any
person who has been committed to a mental institution  to  possess  a
firearm.  Thus,  absent  some evidence  that Petitioner has successfully
availed himself of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. subsection 925(c), we are
constrained  to deny  his petition for the return of the property seized
from his home by the West Deer Police."

Both Mr. Laing and Mr. Keenan are outraged at this  ruling,  they have
appealed Judge Cercone's ruling in order to avoid having Mr.
Laing's firearm collection destroyed.

Mr. Laing is a victim. He is a victim of the urge  to  compromise the rights
of the individual gun owner in Pennsylvania in rush to implement an
unwise instant criminal background check system  for the  purchase of
both handguns and long guns. In exchange for the instant check system
NRA-ILA signed off on reinforcing that  fact that the State of
Pennsylvania can maintain a state system of gun registration, while
rightly prohibiting it to local government.

This rush to implement this unwise instant check system  resulted in
accepting provisions in the new law that allowed the state to confiscate
the firearms of  anyone  who  has  been  involuntarily committed  to  a
mental  institution based on hear-say evidence.
This new provision was agreed to without providing  any  language that
would,  at  least,  give  any  person the right to judicial proceedings that
could have protected Mr. Laing from loosing  his right  to  own firearms
for the rest of his life. This is exactly what happened to Russell Laing,
and this is what  can  happen  to you if this is allowed to continue.

The Allegheny County Sportsmen's League (ACSL)  became  aware  of
these  provisions  when  it  was  introduced  as  HB-7, which was
patterned after the Legislative Recommendation" coming out of the
Select  Committee  to  Investigate the Use of Automatic and Semi-
Automatic  firearms.  This  select  committee  first  raised  the spectra  of
involuntary  commitment being a disqualifying factor for the ownership of
guns. The ACSL  also  opposed  Sen.  Vincent
Fumo's  subsequent  legislation  (S.B.  6)  introduced in January
1995, for similar language. However the language now  present  in the
law came from Rep. Robert Godshall's H.B. 7, which was hailed as  the
sportsmen's  compromise  by   the   supports   of   this legislation.  It was
HB 7 that served as the basic language which later became ACT 17/66. It
is Act 17/66 that gives the government the  authority to ban Russell's
guns. We let our concerns be know to both the NRA and the
Pennsylvania House of  Representative  of our   opposition  to  any  form
of  language  contained  in  the
Legislative Recommendations, but our concerns  would  not  to  be
addressed.

Working  with  the  Pennsylvania   Sportsmen's   Association   we
attempted   to   publicize  the  problems  in  ACT  17  regarding
"involuntary commitment" and wanted to have changes made  to  the law
 requiring  that  a  person  have  the  right  to  a judicial procedure  before
 determination  can   be   made   whether   his confinement  could  be
considered a "commitment". Our suggestion were not included in
"technical amendments" offered by NRA-ILA in
1995.

After passage of ACT 17 1st Vice President of the NRA  Neal  Knox
joined us in speaking out against NRA-ILA's support of ACT 17. He wrote
in Shotgun News that ILA was wrong in supporting  this  new law.

To add insult to injury,  our  sportsmen  professional  lobbyists failed  to
stop an amendment to the Mental Health Procedures Act making the ban
on firearm ownership for any person  involuntarily committed  to a mental
institution retroactive. Senate Bill 1555, printer's No. 2150 reads that
"county mental  health  and  mental retardation  administrators  shall
notify the Pennsylvania State
Police  of  the  identity  of  any  individual  who,  before  the effective
date  of this Act, had been adjudicated incompetent or had been
involuntarily committed  to  a  mental  institution  for inpatient care
treatment under this act or had been involuntarily treated as described in
18. PA.C.S. subsection 6105 (4)."  You do not  have  to have been found
to have been declared mentally ill, just that you have been involuntarily
committed is reason  enough for you to loose your guns.

The Allegheny County  Sportsmen's  League  and  the  Pennsylvania
Sportsmen's  Association  have  already  begun  work  to  develop
language to hopefully find a solution  to  this  serious  problem with  Act
17/66.  The  solution  will not be easy because of the sensitivity of this
issue. It should not have  been  included  in the original version of the
new law. In fact much of this new law was a mistake.

Brenda L. Bernard
6228 W. Weston Drive
Crystal River, FL  34429
[phone]

----- End of forwarded message from Joseph Olson -----

Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:
        http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/

To leave the Hunting listserv list, send a message with SIGNOFF
HUNTING in the *body* to   [e-mail]





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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  You cowards, you gun haters, you don't deserve to live in
Date: 31 Jul 1997 19:18:47 -0700

Received: from ez0.ezlink.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id OAA01046; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:53:15 -0600
Received: (from list@localhost)
          by ez0.ezlink.com (8.8.5/8.8.4)
      id OAA28854; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:46:01 -0600
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:46:01 -0600
X-Sender: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <v02130503b0055250cc57@[192.9.150.95]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail]
Resent-Message-ID: <"p2vuP2.0.O27.oVwtp"@ez0.ezlink.com>
Resent-From: [e-mail]
X-Mailing-List: <[e-mail]> archive/latest/342
X-Loop: [e-mail]
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [e-mail]


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED AUG. 10, 1997
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    'You cowards, you gun haters, you don't deserve to live in America'

    Aaron Zelman, founder of the Milwaukee-based Jews for the Preservation
of Firearms Ownership, interviews Theodore Haas, a former prisoner of the
infamous Dachau concentration camp (space allows selected excerpts, only):

  Q.) How did you end up at Dachau? How old were you?

  A.) November 9th, 1938 was Kristalnacht -- The Night of Broken Glass, the
night synagogues were ransacked and burned, Jewish-owned shops destroyed.
... I was arrested Nov. 10, "for my own personal security."

  I was 21 years old. My parents were arrested and ultimately died in a
concentration camp in France. I was released from Dachau in 1941, under the
condition that I leave Germany immediately. This was common procedure
before the "Final Solution. ..."

  Q.) You mentioned you were shot and stabbed several times. Were these
experiments, punishment or torture?

  A.) They were punishment. I very often, in a fit of temper, acted "while
the brain was not in gear." The sorry results were two 9mm bullets in my
knees. Fortunately, one of the prisoners had a fingernail file and was able
to dig the slugs out. ...

  Q.) What was the routine like at Dachau?

  A.) Three times a day, we were counted. We had to carry the dead to the
square. Each time, we had to stand at attention in all kinds of weather. We
stood wearing next to nothing, had weak bladders, while our tormentors had
sheepskin coats and felt boots. The bastards really enjoyed watching us
suffer. I remember how the guards had a good laugh when one of them
"accidentally" let loose with a machine gun, killing about 30 prisoners.

  Q.) Did the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, "If only we were armed
before, we would not be here now"?

  A.) Many, many times. Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a
black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to
be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun.
The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What
fools we were.

  It truly frightens me to see how the government, media, and some police
groups in America are pushing for the same mindset. In my opinion, the
people of America had better start asking and demanding answers to some
hard questions about firearms ownership, especially "If the government does
not trust me to own firearms, why or how can the people be expected to
trust the government?"

  There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved
if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well
armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a
gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is
a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took up 10
handguns and made as**s out of the Nazis.

  Q.) Do you think American society has enough stability that Jews and
other minorities are safe from severe persecution?

  A.) No. I think there is more anti-Semitism in America (some of it caused
by leftist Jewish politicians and organizations who promote gun control
schemes) than there was in Germany. ...

  I perceive America as a very unstable society, due to social tinkering of
the Kennedy/Metzenbaum-type politicians. When I first came to this
wonderful country after World War II, America was vibrant, dynamic and
promising society. There really was an American dream, attainable by those
who wanted to work. Now, due to the curse of liberalism, America is in a
period of moral decline. ...

  Q.) What message do you have for ultra-liberal organizations and
individuals who want America disarmed?

  A.) Their ignorance is pitiful -- their lives have been too easy. Had
they experienced Dachau, they would have a better idea of how precious
freedom is. These leftists should leave America. These Sarah Brady types
must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry,
that a dictatorship has not yet happened in America. These anti-gun fools
are more dangerous to liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.

  Q.) Some concentration camp survivors are opposed to gun ownership. What
message would you like to share with them?

  A.) I would like to say, "You cowards; you gun haters, you don't deserve
to live in America. Go live in the Soviet Union, if you love gun control so
damned much." It was the stupidity of these naive fools that aided and
abetted Hitler's goons. Anti-gun ownership Holocaust survivors insult the
memories of all those that needlessly perished for lack of being able to
adequately defend themselves. ... Every Jew should be armed to the teeth,
as should every American. ...

  Membership in Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is $20 per
year. The full Theodore Haas interview is available for $1.50 at 2872 S.
Wentworth Ave., Milwaukee, Wisc. 53207; or call 414-769-0760.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail]. The web
site for the Suprynowicz column is http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/.

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking."







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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cook's Town Meetings
Date: 30 Jul 1997 10:53:34 -0600

DAVID SAGERS wrote:
>
> Cook Calls Utahns to Meetings
>
>
>
> ### Rep. Merrill Cook, R-Utah, has scheduled three town meetings in
> Salt Lake County next week to answer questions and listen to
> constituent concerns about transportation, housing and crime.
> ### Local experts will be on hand for each meeting.
> ### -- The crime meeting is from 7 to 8:30 p.m. Aug. 6 at the Salt Lake
> County Commission Chambers, 2001 S. State St., North Building.
> Panelists include Salt Lake County Sheriff Aaron Kennard and Salt Lake
> City Police Chief Ruben Ortega.

Ok...I'll bite.
"The crime meeting"
....does this mean 'the meeting is a crime'?
....dya think they'll talk about 'crimes committed by police in the
    name of law'?
....Yeah, right...Ortega- a local expert.... ;)
....'Spose that the "local experts" will announce that in conjuction
     with the right honorable Rep. Cook, they are requesting the Utah
     State Legislature and the Congress of the United States drop the
     requirement for citizens to beg the gummint for a gun permit.  That
     in order to curb crime, all non-felons should have the right to
     'keep and bear arms'.  That 'gun control is nothing more than
     government sanctioned murder, rape and assault' and that as they
     are all 'servents of the people' they can no longer abide being
     accomplices.  That they have all three taken an oath to uphold and
     protect the constitution and can not in good conscience(sp)
continue
     to infringe the people's rights.  That 'no-knock warrants' are not
     the price of freedom and will no longer be used in Utah. ?  heh

BTW-any of y'all going?  Gonna carry?  (Cook thinks it's alright that
he be protected from y'all gun totin wingnuts)
--
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