ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9708

Internet Message Format | 1997-08-30 | 74KB

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun Control Research - Hard Data 1/2
Date: 04 Aug 1997 16:44:00 -0700


From the Heartland Institute (Palatine, IL)
.....http://www.heartland.org
1. There is no relationship between the number of privately owned guns and
the amount of violent crime in the United States.

Between 1973 and 1992, the number of privately owned firearms in the United
States increased 73 percent--from 122 million to nearly 222 million. The
number of privately owned handguns increased by 110 percent, from 37 million
to 78 million, and the rate of gun ownership increased by 45 percent. But
during this same period, the national homicide rate fell by nearly 10
percent.

Moreover, areas with relatively high gun ownership rates tend to report
relatively low violent crime rates, and vice versa.

2. There is no relationship between gun control laws and violent crime.

Studies purporting to show a negative relationship between gun control and
violent crime are plagued by serious methodological weaknesses, including the
failure to control for confounding factors, selective use of data, and
failure to measure the real impact of gun laws on the rate of gun ownership.
Criminologists Gary Kleck and E. Britt Patterson sought to overcome these
methodological weaknesses in a comprehensive 1993 study that covered all
forms of gun violence, encompassed every large city in the nation, and
assessed all major forms of gun control
in the U.S. All told, Kleck and Patterson analyzed the impact of 19 kinds of
gun control measures on six categories of violence. In ninety of the
resulting 102 relationships, gun control laws had no significant negative
effect on violence.

3. Are gun control laws effective?

Data from the City of Chicago cast further doubt on the effectiveness of gun
control
laws. The City of Chicago's 1982 gun control ordinance is one of the most
restrictive gun control measures in the country. Still, data compiled every
year by the Chicago Police Department show that the number of murders in the
city ebbs and flows with little respect for gun control laws. For example,
the number of murders in the city started falling before passage of the
city's 1982 gun control ordinance. Five years later, the number of murders in
the city began to climb steadily. By gun control's tenth anniversary in 1992,
the number of murders in the city was back where it had
been a decade before gun control.

4. Why do gun control laws fail?

First, by focusing almost exclusively on handguns, gun control laws encourage
the substitution of other weapons. These may be much more deadly (as are
shoulder weapons) or more likely to result in injury if the victim resists
(as are knives). So long as the underlying motivation to do harm is present,
gun control laws can affect only the choice of weapon, sometimes with deadly
results.

Second, most handgun violence is perpetrated by criminals who, due to
previous run-ins with the law, are already forbidden by law to possess
firearms, and who face serious punishment for the crimes they commit.
Controlling the behavior of this cohort through additional gun control
legislation is nearly hopeless.

Third, gun control laws are more likely to disarm the general public than the
criminal element. Most criminals acquire their guns on the illegal market,
where background checks and waiting periods are not enforced, and they are
willing to pay a higher price for a gun because they plan to use it. The
law-abiding majority, on the other hand, is more likely to postpone
purchasing a firearm if gun control laws make the purchase less convenient or
more expensive. Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria described the end
result over 200 years ago: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . .
disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit
crimes. . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for
the assailants."

5. What do we do about crime and violence?

As David Kopel has written, "We are now reaping the consequences of 30 years
spent talking about guns rather than doing something effective about poverty
and hopelessness." As long as some people have little or nothing to lose by
spending their lives in crime, dispositions to violence will persist--and
increasingly strict gun controls will do little if anything to improve
matters.

Millions of Americans in the poorest neighborhoods of large and medium-sized
cities are caught in the scissors of poor employment prospects (due to
low-quality schools, welfare dependency, family disintegration, etc.) and
growing opportunities in the illegal drug trade, resulting from the nation's
ever-more-vigorous War on Drugs. All too often, crime appears to be a wise
choice.

The upward spiral of violence in our large and medium-sized cities will
persist until we start thinking about how to strengthen families, foster
individual responsibility, and repair the educational institutions of inner
cities. ####




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: More on Australia     1/2
Date: 04 Aug 1997 16:44:00 -0700


Forwarded on Mon, 28 Jul 1997 by Patricia Neill <[e-mail]>

Folks, this is Mike Johnson with Mike Johnson News. Here's an excellent post
on what's happening Down Under, and what the Aussies are doing about their
gun grab. Very interesting. Thanks Mike for asking, and for posting the
Tasmania First reply.
Patty

I have continued digging around to find out what is happening in Australia.
One gentleman that I got into a message exchange with is the Secretary of
the Tasmanian Firearms Owners Association. Some of the comments that he had
to make were quite interesting. Especially the method that they have chosen
to try to deal with the problem peacefully, as apparently things have not
yet reached the point over there that revolt is needed. The message that
I sent to the gentleman initially reads as follows:

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

Over here in America we're getting all kinds of rumors as to what the
situation with regards to privately owned firearms is in the great land
down under. Stories of door to door search and seizure operations and
confiscations of firearms in your part of the world have been reported.

Quite simply, I would like to know what, if anything, is actually going
on. Is there anything especially heinous happening? Or will that not be
clear until the latest amnesty runs out? Speaking of which, when will
the amnesty run out as I have heard several different dates mentioned?
Is there anything that you think you could use our admittedly limited
ability to help you all on?

One of the reasons that I'm especially curious as to all this is that I
have actually had the opportunity to have visited Tasmania. I enjoyed the
few days that I got to spend there. I liked the scenery, the friendliness
of the natives, and the excellence of the local brews <g>. I'd hate to
think that anything especially obnoxious was happening to you all.

Eagerly and curiously awaiting a reply.

- Mike Johnson

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

Mike, thanks for your firearms situation query. Rumours are the very
devil. I suggest you check out the Sporting Shooters Association of
Australia Web Site at http://www.ssaa.org.au which covers all Australia.
I am secretary of the Tasmanian Firearms Owners Association with our own
small web site at http://globec.com.au/~owend. We have started up a
political party the "Tasmania First party" as lobbying now seems to be
almost totally non-productive. I have added an attachment in rich text
format that is the Presidents Report after NINE months of the party's
existence. Going into politics seems to be the answer in Tasmania at
least. Nil Corborundum Barstardum
John Presser

John C Presser
1 Forensic Biology Section
Government Analytical & Forensic Laboratory,
20 St Johns Ave, New Town, Tasmania 7008, Australia
e-mail [e-mail]
phone [phone], fax [phone]

2 Secretary, Tasmanian Firearms Owners Association
PO Box 229, Glenorchy, Tasmania 7010, Australia
email [e-mail], phone [phone], fax [phone]
http:/www.vision.net.au/~njessup/tfoa/tfoahome.html

3 President, Tasmania First Party
PO Box 608, Glenorchy, Tasmania 7010, Australia
email [e-mail], phone [phone], fax [phone]

4 Aust Disputed Paternity & Forensic Science Laboratory Consultancy Services
GPO Box 1384, Hobart 7001, Australia
email [e-mail], phone [phone]

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

Presidents Report 1996 - 1997
28/6/97

From State registration in September 1996, Tasmania First has been the
fastest growing political party in Australia, ever. As of yesterday,
the party has Federal Registration. This is only the beginning for
Tasmania First and an auspicious beginning it is.

This great party arose from the State and Federal government dictatorship
over firearms laws in 1996. Our lobbyists were pointedly ignored and
demonised. When we threatened to go political, we were told "you have not
got the nouse to get together and form a political party, despite your
seven city block rally numbers". Later we were told "you will not last
6 months". Well it is now twelve months and Tasmania First is going from
strength to strength.

There are many good people who are intimidated by the prospect of being
part of a political party. Let me assure you Tasmania First is in good
hands and the task of putting our members into Parliament in both Houses
can be accomplished. One of the major reasons we can do this is the huge
decline in party member support for Labor and especially for the Liberal
party. There is a vast political desert out there just waiting for Tasmania
First to step out and occupy. We do not have to push any party aside,
the ground is empty!





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun Control Research - Hard Data 2/2
Date: 04 Aug 1997 16:44:00 -0700


NRA-ILA FAX ALERT
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

Vol. 4, No. 31, August 1, 1997

AMERICA DESERVES HONEST RESEARCHERS

Too often, biased researchers use federal tax dollars to finance their
"studies" which are then formulated into research propaganda purportedly
justifying more "gun control." Pro-gun, freshman Congressman Robert Aderholt
(R-AL) wants to hold these researchers accountable for the claims they make
by requiring anyone seeking public funding for their research to publish a
disclosure plan for the release of the data used in their studies. This
week, NRA-ILA's goal of trying to reform the status quo which allows
taxpayer-funded researchers to shield the data they collect at taxpayers
expense from independent review suffered a setback.

As you know, there is a committed group of anti-gun researchers working with,
and funded by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control who have
made a practice of refusing to release the data on which they base what are,
invariably, anti-gun conclusions. This week, Aderholt was unsuccessful in
attaching an amendment to the House Appropriations Treasury Postal bill to
require that all public researchers release their data within 90 days of
first public use of the results. Most taxpayers would be surprised to know
that such data is not made routinely available to others for corroboration
and re-analysis despite the fact that according to a recent Roper poll, more
than 80% of the public supports such review.

Readers of this alert may remember that after University of Chicago Professor
John Lott's ground-breaking study on the positive crime-reducing effects of
state right to carry laws, his study came under heavy scrutiny by the
anti-Second Amendment and anti-self defense community. Lott made all research
data available to anyone interested, and while no other study on the subject
has been as thoroughly analyzed, Lott's results remain solidly affirmed. It
should be noted that while honest researchers such as Dr. Lott welcome such
scrutiny, others, particularly those who appear to be trying to further a
politically-motivated agenda, do not. For instance, one anti-gun researcher,
Arthur Kellerman of Emory University, has used more than 2 million dollars of
public funds over the last several years, yet took more than three years to
release data for one of his more controversial studies, despite the repeated
attempts by both Members of Congress and the research community alike to gain
access to his data.

NRA-ILA will continue working with other like-minded groups to make a
research disclosure policy the rule, and we need your help. We ask that you
contact House Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Livingston (R-LA) and
ranking member David Obey (D-WI) and ask them to support this much needed,
common sense reform. Also, please call your U.S. Congressman at (202)
224-3121 and suggest that this matter deserves congressional scrutiny, and
that the "Disclosure of Certain Federally-Sponsored Research," should be
considered. Remember: the public's right-to-know is essential for good
government.

Yours in Freedom,

<[e-mail]>
Running with the pack!!

Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~alphashewolf

FREEDOM'S VOICE: http://www.proaxis.com/~alphashewolf/free.htm
GUARDIANS' CORNER: http://www.proaxis.com/~alphashewolf/guard.htm
===================================
QUOTE: "Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is
force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

-- George Washington
===================================
QUOTE: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government
has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it
becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."

-- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: More on Australia     2/2
Date: 04 Aug 1997 16:44:00 -0700


If we had an election now, how many seats would Tasmania First win?
Polls tell us, that up to eleven seats of the 35 in the Tasmanian House
of Assembly would be ours. The voting intention return in the Tasmanian
Firearms Owners "Facts & Furphies" V4/1 shows the strength of the
firearms owners vote. The recent Legislative Council election for Derwent
also indicates about 10 seats.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Will Frank on his
showing in Derwent and to thank those party members who helped in Will's
campaign. I think it would be appropriate to ask Will to address us
briefly this evening on the experience he has gained from contesting
the Legislative Council seat of Derwent.

What does 10 Tasmania First seats mean? It means that our original plan
based on the premise we would be a minority party holding the balance of
power, need revision. The likely makeup of the Lower House is 10 Liberal,
10 Labor, 4 Greens and 11 Tasmania First. A majority of 18 is required
to govern. Therefore, as in New Zealand, Tasmania First must consider a
coalition government with one of the major parties. We must also consider
requests from existing parliamentarians who might want to join Tasmania
First. We would benefit from their political experience.

The distribution of our members across Tasmania is as follows:
    Lyons        30%
    Bass        21%
    Denison        19%
    Franklin    18%
    Braddon        12%

Many times we have all heard the words "If Tasmania First produces sound
policies, I will vote for your candidates". The area of policy development
is of critical importance to the success of Tasmania First. We now have
a booklet of policies for consideration. At this point, I would like to
thank David Pickford for his considerable input as chairman of our policy
committee. Our thanks also to Peter Stokes for the production of the
Tasmania First policy booklet.

One of the more difficult tasks assigned to me as President during our
first year was to organize indemnity insurance. This has now been achieved.
The only hiccup is that any public street rally undertaken by Tasmania
First must have prior approval from the insurers. A new constitution for
Tasmania First has now been drafted with the assistance of a party member
who is a solicitor. This document will be presented for approval to this AGM.

It is imperative that Tasmania First be seen to be more than a copy of
the existing political parties of the old mould. As Harry Evans, the
Clerk of the Australian Senate has said, "The need for reform is not
so much in the institutions of Government as in political parties.
Political parties have become narrowly based, factionalised, undemocratic
oligarchies controlled by too few people, closed to public view but
open to manipulation and outright corruption."

Remember the 18th century American proverb "the restraint of government
is the true liberty and freedom of the people." Remember also "when the
government fears the people you have freedom, when the people fear the
government you have tyranny."

What we are seeing today is the revolt of the neglected. Ordinary
Australians now realise that the country has been led to a series
of dead-ends. They are now in revolt against the political class,
whatever its party appearance. Mr. Howard, and before him Mr. Keating
have at various times claimed that "the settings are now right" to
give us a drop in unemployment a year from now. These statements have
been made so often, that they are no longer believed.

Despite the fact that we have the most efficient farmers in the world,
the agricultural sector is still losing money. Small country towns are
collapsing, and 30 families shut the farm gate for the last time, EVERY
WEEK.

21,000 bankruptcies are forecast for 1996/97, up from the 17,340 for 1995/96.

The harsh truth is that the central idea is all wrong. Our established
political parties are captives of the same deflationary economic theory,
which after the speculative mania of the late 1920's, multiplied the
unnecessary miseries of the Great Depression of the 1930's.

This same blind ideology operates today, through:-

the credit monopoly of the private banks,
the balancing of government budgets by selling off every marketable public
utility, and cutting vital government services, most cruelly demonstrated
in the ever growing queues for hospital beds,
by continuous "downsizing" in staff numbers and reductions in real wages
for the ordinary worker.

It is time we "downsized" the established political parties.

The trouble with Mr Howard's "settings" and they would be Labor's were
they in office, is that for 15 years they have been made in the interests
of the wrong people. Not for the ordinary Australian, but for the foreign
investors. That is the core of the matter. Without a radical change of
direction, the Australia we know is doomed.

I urge you to vote for all Tasmania First candidates on your ballot paper
before any other candidates.

I implore you to support the Tasmania First Party. We will lead this
State out of the wilderness with a government that is:-

OF the everyday people of Tasmania
FOR the everyday people of Tasmania
BY the everyday people of Tasmania.




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: AT&T + Benton Foundation = Gun Control
Date: 04 Aug 1997 22:50:00 -0700


On Mon, 4 Aug 1997 22:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Steve <[e-mail]>
sent the following:

I used to work for Charles Benton -- of Benton Foundation fame, but NOT for
their Leftist Foundation. He is the son of the late Senator Benton, dead for
some time now. Charles' wife, Marjorie Benton, is the main contact as far as
I know. She's was/is the political activist, anyway. If you want to make a
graeter impact, you might consider writing to her directly at her home in
Evanston, IL (Sheridan Place, as I recall -- but look it up in 847 directory
assistance). Or, find the Benton Foundation web page and send a letter to
her at that address. A well done letter is worth 100 marginal ones.

Best to ya'll

Steve
=======================================
Forwarded Message:

AT&T has joined the "Anti-Gun Lobby"; Americas largest and most wealthy long
distance carrier has donated THREE MILLION DOLLARS to help fund the Anti-Gun
wackos who would take away the rights afforded us by people with more brains
then them.

Maybe it's time to "reach out and touch" the dolts at AT&T to let them know
that you are not behind their efforts. Let them know that passage of
restrictive legislation will not effect "bad guys"

AT&T is linked to the countrys # 1 group of anti gun wackos at HCI (handgun
control Inc) as well as The Benton Foundation. Their primary target is
private gun ownership.

Ads promoting the program are paid for by AT&T and are headlined:

"We're Fighting for the Children" ...

I guess they will be using bows and arrows -- just dropped my AT&T service.

They can be reached at http://www.kidscampaign.org -- tell 'em what you think
about their efforts.




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Cook's Town Meetings
Date: 05 Aug 1997 08:46:12 -0600


On Wed, 30 Jul 1997,  DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]> posted:

>### -- 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.

Prior obligatons will keep me from attending the "crime" meeting.
Anyone planning on going and asking Ortega some tough questions about
officer "throw em on the ground first and ask questions later" Bell?



--

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.

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the
 state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please.
 [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the
 measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army,
 and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." -- Aristotle.
 Quoted by John Trenchard and Walter Moyle "An Argument Shewing, That a
 Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely
 Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy" [London, 1697]



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Unconstitutional Theories "Justifying" Federal Gun Control 2/2
Date: 07 Aug 1997 13:27:00 -0700


It is important to understand that the word regulate was
applied to commerce in the sense of making regular rather
than controlling. In an early case where the Commerce Clause
was at issue, Justice Marshall in the Gibbons steamboat case,
noted that had the Clause been intended to affect all economic
activity, it would not have been included in the enumerated,
or limited, powers section of Article One Section 8. Thus,
the Commerce Clause affects interstate trade which involves
more than one state. The idea was that Virginia could not tax
Maryland tobacco to the point that it was kept out of its
Commonwealth, and similarly, so that Maryland could not do
the same.

Justice Thomas put it this way in his Lopez opinion: "...the
power to regulate `commerce' can by no means encompass authority
over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the
Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty
to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite
properly leaves such matters to the individual States,
notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate
commerce."

Thomas went on to explain that, as an enumerated power, the
Commerce Clause of Article I Section 8 cannot be used to
justify a universal police power of the federal government:

    After all, if Congress may regulate all matters
    that substantially affect commerce, there is no
    need for the Constitution to specify that Congress
    may enact bankruptcy laws, cl. 4, or coin money and
    fix the standard of weights and measures, cl. 5,
    or punish counterfeiters of United States coin and
    securities....

Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, Sec. 8 (including
portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage
if Congress had been given authority over matters that
substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation
of cl. 3 that makes the rest of Sect. 8 superfluous simply
cannot be correct.

To put it another way, the Court is now saying that they
believe that the Tenth Amendment has to be observed. As Joe
Sobran put it in a column in The Washington Times (May 30,
1995): "From now on, the court will be debating basic
principles. The federal government will have to walk through
the metal detector of the 10th Amendment."

In the Wickard case, the Supreme Court agreed with the argument
that even though farmer Filburn's wheat was not purchased nor
sold in interstate commerce, the very fact that he did not enter
interstate commerce negatively affected interstate commerce. With
this totalitarian view of the reach of government, there was no
limit to what the federal government could do. In many areas of
social life, using this distorted interpretation of the Commerce
Clause, Congress stepped up its suffocation of many kinds of
private activity. Firearms were no exception.

Finally, in the 1995 Lopez decision, the Court has begun to
return to constitutional government. Lopez was arrested at a
Texas school for having a gun and thus violating the federal
prohibition on having a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.
The Court held that whatever the policy merits of the measure,
the Congress had no authority to enact such a law.

(Regarding the policy issue, the most constitutionally
consistent approach would be to make it illegal to have a
gun at a school for the purpose of committing a violent crime.
This would put the burden on the criminal by, in effect, adding
an additional penalty to whatever other violent crime was
committed. The burden would not go on the decent people, such
as students who target practice with teams, parents who are
going to or from hunting, and teachers and other adults who
have a concealed carry permit for self-defense. Such a policy
also assumes that criminals will violate any law that we pass,
so the law should target only criminal behavior, and not
criminalize good behavior.)

A proper understanding of the Commerce Clause indicates that
the most the federal government can do in the firearms area is
to keep one state from using taxation to adversely treat
firearms which are made in another state and are for sale in
the first state. As Justice Thomas put it in his opinion
concurring with the majority in the Lopez case, the central
issue of the wrong turn by the Court over the last 50 years
was not being addressed head-on in Lopez, but it needs to
be soon.

If the Court were to be consistently constitutional, all federal
gun control legislation, starting with Roosevelt's 1934
National Firearms Act, would be thrown out. This could actually
happen in view of the five federal courts which have now held
another federal gun control law to be unconstitutional on
similar grounds to that of Lopez. Five sheriffs have sued
successfully under the Tenth Amendment holding that Washington
had no authority to force them to carry out a background
check under the Brady Law. This argument points right back to
Article I Section 8 where we have already found that there
is no authority given to the federal government for gun
control legislation.

If the United States is to return to a lawful, constitutional
national government, one of the sure signs of that return will
be the removal of the decades-long imposition of federal
gun laws.

****************************************************************
Chris W. Stark
Gun Owners of America - Texas Representative
e-mail: [e-mail]

Visit our Web Page at: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gunowner

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

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
their future security."

John Hancock, Author - The Declaration of Independence, January 18, 1777

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and
go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New
subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the
World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to [e-mail] and
on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe






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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Unconstitutional Theories "Justifying" Federal Gun Control 1/2
Date: 07 Aug 1997 13:27:00 -0700


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

   Unconstitutional Theories "Justifying" Federal Gun Control

                              by
                          Larry Pratt
                       Executive Director
                      Gun Owners of America

Much of this century has been a time when the federal government
has ignored the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution.
Recent cases decided by the by the Supreme Court indicate that
the Justices are beginning to once again take the Constitution
and their oath of office seriously. As Justice Clarence Thomas
put it in the recent Lopez case, "our case law has drifted far
from the original understanding ..." of the Constitution.

While there were wrong turns before this century, much of the
unconstitutional rule from Washington dates back to the
Great Depression and its war on crime and war on the bank
crisis. There were many unconstitutional theories of
government pursued to justify the power grab by Washington.
One of the theories was to run an end run around constitutional
limitations by entering into a treaty that would require
passage of legislation accomplishing what, without the treaty,
would have been unconstitutional.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration was an
active participant in the Disarmament Conference of 1934.
Roosevelt sought Senate ratification of an Arms Traffic
Convention but was unsuccessful. Had the treaty been
ratified, Roosevelt would have obtained the alleged authority
to have Congress infringe on the right to keep and bear
arms pursuant to the treaty powers of Article VI, paragraph 2.

Roosevelt then shifted to the unconstitutional, non-existent
doctrine of emergency powers to justify enactment of gun
control at the federal level. Calling for a War on Crime and
Gangsters, Roosevelt persuaded Congress to pass a series of
bills federalizing various crimes and compelling the registration
of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and rifles. The formula
"War on Whatever" became a decades long federal government weapon
for usurping powers not delegated to it.

Nowhere does the Constitution give the President or the Congress
the power to federalize state crimes or enact gun control
legislation -- not even in a national emergency. One reads
the Constitution in vain for such a delegation of authority by
"We, the People" through the several states. Very instructive
on this point are the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were
written by Thomas Jefferson.

The federal government in 1798 enacted a law making it illegal
to criticize a federal official (the Sedition Act). Kentucky
and Virginia passed resolutions declaring that the national
law was unenforceable in their states.

These are among the arguments that Jefferson made in the
Kentucky resolutions:

    ...whensoever the general government assumes
    undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative,
    void, and of no force: ...that the government
    created by this compact was not made the exclusive
    or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated
    to itself;...each party has an equal right to judge
    for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode
    and measure of redress.

Jefferson went on to spell out that the only powers to punish
crime delegated to the federal government were 1) treason,
2) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the
United States, 3) piracies and 4) offenses against the law of
nations. In this context, Jefferson cited the Tenth Amendment
as providing a limit to any expansion of authority for punishing
crime by the federal government. He quoted it verbatim in the
Kentucky resolutions: "the powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Jefferson addressed an argument in the Kentucky Resolutions that
we still hear to this day. Namely, that Congress has the
authority to pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper
for doing whatever it does. Jefferson described this abuse of
the "necessary and proper" clause as going,

    to the destruction of all limits prescribed to
    their power by the Constitution: that words meant
    by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the
    execution of limited powers, ought not to be so
    construed as themselves to give unlimited powers,
    nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole
    residue of that instrument...

A parallel argument is derived from the "supremacy" clause
of Article VI. This clause makes treaties and laws passed by
Congress the supreme law of the land. Jefferson is pointing
out that the federal government is not empowered to take the
limited powers it has been granted and convert them to
unlimited powers that would destroy the nature of the
Constitution. Similarly, the "general welfare" clause in
Article I, Section 8 can hardly be a grant of unlimited power
of action for the Congress since the section is one limiting
the powers of Congress. Jefferson made this particular argument
in his opinion against the national bank in 1791.

It is the Commerce Clause that has become the most popular
pillar of unconstitutional authority for federal gun control.
It is interesting to note that in the early part of the
twentieth century it was considered necessary to amend
the Constitution to ban alcoholic beverages. After the
bloating of the Commerce Clause to justify federal involvement
in anything and everything following the key 1946 Supreme Court
decision Wickard v Filburn, it was not felt to be necessary to
amend the constitution to infringe something specifically named
and protected -- like arms -- in the Constitution.





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Anti-Gun Conference
Date: 07 Aug 1997 13:27:00 -0700


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

Is this a nefarious convention that we pro-second amendment
folks should be aware of and pay attention to before it is
too late?  Well, whats a little chicannery among gun-grabbers?

Found this on a anti-gun web-site [not given - Scott].  This
according to the web-site is their intention for their meeting
as you see it here.

4th Annual Citizens' Conference to Stop Gun Violence

September 12, 13, 1997
Washington, DC

Convened by
The Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence
The Episcopal Diocese of Washington
The Violence Policy Center

Americans are uniting to reduce gun violence. Across the country, there
is a growing grassroots movement consisting of diverse groups of people
working to reduce firearm death and injury. This conference is the only
national meeting that has as its focus the needs of grassroots activists
and provides an opportunity for concerned citizens to learn from one
another about successful initiatives and programs that reduce gun violence.

1997 Objectives

1. Education

Seminars are tailored to meet the needs of the most seasoned activists
as well as those new to the movement. Seminar topics will include: basic
statistics, important publications and resources that every advocate
should have, the true meaning of the Second Amendment, the rudiments of
firearm technology, and current federal and state legislation. Also, gun
violence prevention activists will learn about pro-gun organizations and
the links between the gun culture and the militia movement.

2. Organizing Techniques

After becoming familiar with gun violence issues, activists need to
organize. Seminars will instruct participants how to start an
organization, the fundamentals of organizing, and fundraising.

3. Successful Initiatives

Once organized, activists can pursue successful initiatives. The
conference will teach proven strategies which activists can replicate,
such as anti-violence initiatives which involve young people, and
efforts to hold the gun industry accountable through firearm litigation.

Tentative Schedule

Friday, September 12
8:00AM - 12:00PM Registration
9:00 - 10:00AM Keynote Address
10:30AM - 12:00PM Choice of Seminar
12:30 - 2:00PM Lunch
2:30 - 4:00PM Choice of Seminar
4:30 - 6:00PM Choice of Seminar
6:30- 8:00 Dinner - Keynote by Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of
Masachusetts (invited)

Saturday, September 13
8:00 - 11:30AM Registration
9:00 - 10:00AM Keynote by Ellen Miller of Public Campaign
10:15 - 11:45AM Networking and Exchange of Materials
12:00 - 1:30PM Lunch - Keynote on Firearms Litigation by A. Kennon Goff
III, Esq., Chairman, Association of Trial Lawyers of America Defective
Firearm and Ammunition Subgroup
2:00 - 3:30PM Choice of Seminar
3:45 - 5:15PM Choice of Seminar
5:30 - 6:30PM Closing Remarks

Seminar Topics (Partial List)

The Second Amendment
Anti-Violence Programs for Young People
Gun Shows: Tupperware Parties for Criminals
Help For Survivors: The Role of Victims in Advocacy
The Gun Lobby: Who, What, Where, and Why
Federal and State Legislation
Concealed-Carry Laws: So What Is the Evidence?
Fund-raising
Hands Without Guns, a Youth Anti-Violence Program
How to Start Your Own Nonprofit
Beginning Organizing
Guns 101
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Firearm Statistics,
Publications, and Resources, But Didn't Know Who to Ask
Firearms Litigation
Gun Culture and Its Links to the Militia Movement
The Nexus Between the International Small Arms Trade and Gun Violence in
the U.S.

Featured Speakers

Addison K. Goff, Goff & Goff
A. Kennon Goff, Goff & Goff
Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates
Scott Carpenter, Peace Action of Washington
Sue Glick, Violence Policy Center
Natalie Goldring, British American Security Information Council
Dennis Henigan, Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
Josh Horwitz, Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence
John Johnson, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence
JoAnn Karn, Hands Without Guns
Robin Katcher, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Dan Kotowski, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University and Northwestern/University of
Chicago Poverty Center
Ellen Miller, Public Campaign
Luis Montes, Teens on Target
Kristen Rand, Violence Policy Center
Michael Robbins, Help for Survivors
Andres Soto, Pacific Center for Violence Prevention
Anja Speerforck, Social Action Leadership School
Joe Sudbay, Handgun Control, Inc.
Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center
Tom Vanden Berk, Help For Survivors
Garen Wintemute, Violence Prevention Research Program, University of
California at Davis

Conference Registration Information

Please Register before September 5, 1997. A registration form must be
completed for each participant.

If you have any questions about registration or would like more
information about the conference, please call Desmond Riley at
202-530-5888 ext. 24.

Fees

The conference registration fee is $80.00 per person. The fee includes
lunch of Friday and Saturday, dinner on Friday, and all conference
materials. Please register before September 5, 1997.

Please send your completed registration with a check or money order
payable to:

The Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence
1000 16th St. NW
Suite 603
Washington, DC 20036

Scholarships

Requests for scholarship assistance to attend the conference will be
considered if submitted in writing to the Educational Fund by August 15,
1997. For more information, please call Desmond Riley at 202-530-5888
ext. 24.

If you are unable to attend, but wish to make a tax-deductible donation
to the conference's scholarship fund, please make your check payable to
the Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence and send to the address
listed above.

Hotel Accommodations

The 4th Annual Citizens' Conference to Stop Gun Violence will be held at
the Holiday Inn on Capitol Hill, 415 New Jersey Avenue NW, Washington DC
20001.

Reservations must be made through the hotel. Please call (800)-638-1116
or (202)-638-1616 and mention you are attending the 4th Annual Citizens'
Conference to Stop Gun Violence.




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  New FCO on the way soon, but meanwhile... -Forwarded
Date: 08 Aug 1997 13:11:15 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id DAA07117; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 03:08:49 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id EAA23971; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 04:51:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma023943; Fri Aug  8 04:50:25 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: Firearms Coalition Online

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

See an important new development in the NRA controversy at

                http://www.crl.com/~cknox/nra.html

Do you expect your NRA officers and directors to disclose their
financial dealings with NRA and its vendors?  They won't unless you
make'em!  This is the most important change to the Bylaws in ten
years.  Sign and turn in by September 20.  Instructions on the
petition.

Chris

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBM+rUriGz4I2lBJDFAQE/KAP9E90hS+PANzrx6t7XxmJ7sJPmfKKO+AiL
xXhxbxKYabRO5xkbp+d3Als76EKaY9mJCLETDFl0OW+N35SDJnUE8ZMEQ9GA12c5
phhCx+8big06QKlwjBIXBfF/VAIS/PldZNwnOsSflh5TILxhIpc03R3ZD6gAOrSK
rlTAKKjiHW0=
=nxCh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
    To receive the Online Firearms Coalition Bulletin send mail to
    [e-mail] containing in the message body:
                    subscribe fco <Your Name>
              Coming soon! http://www.nealknox.com
               http://www.crl.com/~cknox/fco.html




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Dear Ms. Metaska: -Forwarded
Date: 11 Aug 1997 15:46:22 -0700

Received: from THIOKOL.COM by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id IAA09467; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:36:51 -0600
Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM
    with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:41:44 -0600
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1

Dear Ms. Metaska:

Dear Tanya Metaska:

This letter is to protest NRAs approval of the inclusion of a
requirement for firearms dealers to offer trigger locks at their place
of business in S. 10, the Juvenile Justice Bill.  You even called this a
victory that the bill was passed without any anti-gun amendments.
True, it was a compromise to avoid a more egregious abuse of my
rights by Sen. Kohl, but once again you have compromised my rights.
Please understand that Americans want the government out of their
lives, not a series of compromises that erode our civil rights.

We need a NRA that has the courage to stand up and say that what is
happening is wrong, and the American people deserve and demand
better.  We need a NRA that will take a firm stand against bills that
are wrong.  Instead of just trying to tame down bad bills, we need a
NRA to insist that bills return freedom to Americans, that put control
on the Federal government.  We need a NRA that honestly represents
his constituents.

Individuals and groups that believe only they know how to "make the
world safer for children" or how to preserve  a minor subset of an
obscure, insignificant rodent, year after year propose and vote for
legislation that ignores our civil rights and restricts our liberties.
These bills generally start off asking for extensive and wide ranging
reforms and restrictions.  When these bills are proposed NRA
negotiates and compromises, and by the end of the day only a portion
of the original bill passed, we only lost a few liberties.

However, the next day guess who is at it again?  The same "we know
best" crowd with another bill - only bigger, and more invasive.  Again
our NRA negotiates and compromises, and by the end of the day only
a portion of the original bill passed, we only lost a few more liberties.
Day after day this process continues and after a number of years the
small losses of freedoms turn into an avalanche of repression.

Instead of our NRA negotiating and compromising with unlawful and
unconstitutional proposals, why aren't these bills and their
supporters laughed off Capitol Hill?  Why are they taken seriously?

In the future please consider NRA members, your constituents, and
uphold your oath to defend the Constitution rather than allowing it to
be whittled away by small compromise after small compromise.

Sincerely,

Neil. Sagers

1205 North Quincy Avenue, #2
Ogden, Utah  84404




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Carjacking law in LA
Date: 14 Aug 1997 14:23:12 -0600


Of interest to some, I'd guess.

From the Desnews:

      Louisiana law says it's OK to gun down carjackers
      [Image]
      [Image]

      [Image]
      Last updated 08/14/1997, 12:01 a.m. MDT

      Associated Press

            NEW ORLEANS ù A motorist confronted by a carjacker can
      legally kill the attacker under a new Louisiana law taking
      effect this week.
            The "Shoot the Carjacker" law makes such a killing
      justifiable homicide.
            The measure drew scant opposition as it moved through
      the Legislature earlier this year. The final vote in the state
      House was 93-3; the Senate passed it 34-0.
            It was sponsored by state Rep. Emile "Peppi" Bruneau of
      New Orleans, which was hit by a rash of carjackings in late
      1996 and early 1997, many committed by gangs who stole
      vehicles to go on robbery sprees.
            Among the victims was Erika Schwarz, the 1996 Miss
      Louisiana and the first runner-up in the Miss America pageant.
      Her car was taken by a gunman who accosted her as she pulled
      into her driveway last December. The vehicle was found after
      police received an anonymous tip.
            Under the measure, which takes effect Friday, the person
      who does the killing would have to be inside the car being
      carjacked and would have to reasonably believe the alleged
      intruder was attempting to use force.
            The intended carjacking victim also would have to hold a
      permit for a concealed handgun.
            The number of people applying for gun permits is far
      below original estimates, state police said last week.
            State police expected 40,000 people to seek the
      statewide permits. But only 6,500 people had applied and 5,800
      had been awarded since the state began issuing the permits 10
      months ago.
      [Image]
      [Image]
and the Tribune:

 [Image] [Image]       Thursday, August 14, 1997       [Image] [Image]

           Louisiana Motorists Get License to Kill Carjackers

 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
     BATON ROUGE, La. --
 Motorists who fear their lives are in danger will be able to kill
 carjackers under a Louisiana law that takes effect Friday.
     All states have some sort of law that allows self-defense, but
 the Louisiana measure appears to be the first to focus specifically
 on carjacking, legislators said. The law was passed by the
 Legislature in June.
     The license to kill is drawing fire from critics.
     ``Essentially, it's just a law that allows you to kill car
 thieves,'' said Bert Garraway of the public defender office in Baton
 Rouge. ``As is usually the case, the Legislature overreacted.''
     Proponents say the law is needed.
     ``We had three cases where victims of violent incidents were
 charged initially for defending themselves,'' said Sandy Krasnoff,
 director of the advocacy group Victims and Citizens Against Crime.
 ``Victims should not be hassled by the legal system -- if they manage
 to live through it.''
     A young advertising executive was raped and killed in a
 carjacking in New Orleans just before Mardi Gras this year.
     Businesses in the French Quarter put signs in their windows
 saying ``Crime and noise are killing the Quarter.''
     The new law permits motorists to use deadly force. It doesn't
 specify what means they may use. But because of the popularity of
 guns in Louisiana, the measure became known as the ``Shoot the
 Carjacker'' law.
     Rep. Peppi Bruneau, the New Orleans Republican who drafted the
 bill, noted that the burden is on the carjack victim to prove that he
 or she has been threatened with bodily harm.



               [Image] [Thursday Navigation Bar] [Image]

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

--

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: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  DISARM REGULATORS
Date: 18 Aug 1997 17:48:57 -0700

                 Heads Up
   A Weekly edition of News from around our country
          August 15, 1997   #48

      by:  Doug Fiedor    [e-mail]
  Previous Editions at:  http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
DISARM REGULATORS
    When an old friend, who is a career federal  bureaucrat above
the "GS" level, called one afternoon  last week to chit-chat, I should have
realized there may  have also been an ulterior motive.  He was, after all,
calling from work.  About ten minutes into the  conversation he asked
why this publication is so hard on  the people working for the federal
regulatory agencies.
    'Because they are there, and should not be,'  I wanted to answer.
 But I did not.  Instead, I played  the game, began my own opening gambit,
and turned it  around so he was on the defensive.
    "How many search warrants did your agency  serve these past
few weeks?" I eventually asked.
    "A few," he reluctantly answered.
    "How many with guns drawn and agents looking  and acting like a
SWAT team?" I then inquired.
    "That is for the protection of  the agents. . . . . ."  he tried to jive
me.
    Uh huh.  Sure.
    Lately, even FEMA and EPA started doing that.   Where once,
regulators came in dressed in normal business  attire, now they bring a
"team" wearing bullet proof  vests and brandishing military-style guns.
    Reports are that a FEMA team "raided" a county  flood
management office recently, vested and guns at the  ready.  They even
brought along a search warrant.  Except  that the only thing on the
warrant was the judges  signature and the word "sealed."  They
confiscated box- loads of public documents -- documents that were
always  available for anyone in the world to walk in and read.   And, of
course, they terrified (or is it terrorized?) the  staff working the office in
the process.
    Same with the EPA.  Nowadays, if they visit a  business
suspected of spilling hazardous materials, they  often bring along a
SWAT team and act like they're going  after a gang of armed bank
robbers.  Just a few years  ago, that type of thing was handled by one
man carrying  nothing more ominous than a notebook.
    This is called lack of respect.  It's the "them"  against "us"
mentality.  Each year, the federal government  ramps-up the aggression
level.  Today, many federal  regulators act like they have absolutely no
respect for  the American public.  Sure, they are not all like that --  yet.
But, how many of these reports do we need before  we voters start
putting pressure on elected officials to  get them stopped?
    IRS used a SWAT team to "take over" a day care  center, kids and
all.  FDA brought along a SWAT team  to "raid" a vitamin store.  The BLM
brought an armed  posse to confront two hunters.  Fish and Wildlife
delivered a SWAT team by armed military choppers.  Yet,  in none of
these cases was any wrongdoing ever proven.
    The problem is, neither was any of these agencies  punished for
use of excessive force (or stupidity!).   Clearly, these people are out of
control.
    It's our fault, too.  These are, after all, public  servants.
Therefore, we can, with a little effort, have  them fired.  Federal
agencies like FEMA, EPA, BLM and  OSHA do not need guns.  There are
only a few real federal  police agencies:  Marshals, DEA, FBI and BATF
immediately  come to mind.  These other agencies are only regulatory
and tax collection agencies.
    Worse yet, for the most part, these armed  regulators are people
with no firearms training.  Police  academies last at least ten or twelve
weeks.  Many of the  armed federal bureaucrats confronting American
citizens  do not even have ten or twelve minutes firearms or police
training.  In fact, some of them never even had a firearms  safety course.
 Yet, in some cases, they're carrying fully  automatic weapons.  This is
not good!
    For the safety of the American public, all federal  regulatory
agencies should be completely disarmed.




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [LP RELEASE: Texas & Ruby Ridge Killings]
Date: 19 Aug 1997 11:02:57 -0600


Of some interest to some here....

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
For release: August 19, 1997
For additional information:
George Getz, Deputy Director of Communications
Phone: [phone] Ext. 222
E-Mail: [e-mail]


Bring Marine and FBI killers to justice,
demands outraged Libertarian Party

        WASHINGTON, DC -- It's now legal for Marines to use high-powered M-16
assault rifles to kill American high school students and for FBI sharpshooters
to gun down mothers holding their infant daughters -- without worrying about
any criminal penalties, the Libertarian Party charged today.

        "In America today, your innocence is no guarantee that you won't be
killed by your own government," said the party's national chairman, Steve
Dasbach. "And incontrovertible proof of guilt is no guarantee that military
personnel or FBI agents will be charged with any crime."

        Dasbach's comments were part of an outpouring of outrage that followed
the decision late last week by a grand jury in Texas not to prosecute a Marine
corporal who shot dead an 18-year-old high school student, and by the Justice
Department not to file charges against four FBI agents involved in the killing
of Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992.

        "These two decisions show that the government is more concerned about
protecting the military and the FBI from justice than protecting innocent
civilians from death," charged Dasbach.

        The two cases -- while separated by five years and involving different
government agencies -- are graphic examples of why so many Americans fear
their government, said Dasbach.

        In Redford, Texas, Esequiel Hernandez, Jr. -- a "shy, hard-working"
young man, according to neighbors -- was gunned down by a four-man squad of
U.S. Marines in May as he grazed his herd of 45 goats on his family's farm. He
was the first American killed by U.S. soldiers on U.S. soil as part of the War
on Drugs.

        The grand jury ruled that the Marines were acting in self-defense when
they shot Hernandez -- despite overwhelming evidence that the high school
sophomore never saw the camouflaged Marines in the first place.

        "This grand jury has sent a deadly message: Anything goes in the War
on Drugs," said Dasbach. "This so-called war has become a military shooting
war -- with M-16 assault rifles pointed directly at American citizens."

        The grand jury's ruling caused a firestorm of criticism; charges of a
military cover-up; and demands for a Justice Department investigation because
of numerous inconsistencies in the "official" version of the events.

        The military claims that Hernandez opened fire with his antique .22
rifle on the four Marines, who were lurking in the scrub brush while on a
covert drug-surveillance mission.

        In response, they stalked Hernandez for several hundred yards, and
Marine Corporal Clemente Banuelos killed him with a single shot from a
high-powered M-16 assault rifle. According to Texas Rangers, Hernandez was
shot in the side, while facing away from the Marines.

        Hernandez lay bleeding -- his red blood pouring into the dusty gray
hillside near the Rio Grande River -- for 22 minutes before the Marines called
for emergency aid. The young victim had never been suspected of or arrested
for any criminal or drug-related activity.

        After the shooting, the Pentagon pulled 240 military personnel from
the border area, and said the policy of using the U.S. military in covert
anti-drug efforts on American soil was "under review."

        "Was the military upset over the death of an innocent civilian?" asked
Dasbach. "No. The Pentagon was concerned because the Marines might face
criminal penalties for gunning down a high school student."

        In fact, after the grand jury was convened, Pentagon spokesman Navy
Lt. Cmdr. Scott Campbell complained that counter-drug operations "are not fair
to the members of our armed forces," because it exposes them to "legal
liability."

        In response, the Pentagon said it will ask border states like Texas,
California, Arizona, and New Mexico to sign "status of forces" agreements with
the federal government, which limit U.S. troops' liability to local criminal
law. Such an agreement would be similar to those the U.S. government signs
with foreign nations where American troops are stationed.

        The case involving the FBI dates back to 1992 -- to the bloody
shootout at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, between the FBI and white separatist Randy
Weaver. During that standoff, an FBI sharpshooter killed Vicki Weaver as she
stood in the doorway of their mountain cabin, holding her 11-month-old
daughter in her arms.

        After Randy Weaver surrendered, FBI officials destroyed documents that
detailed the bureau's unorthodox "shoot to kill" orders, and one agent
currently faces jail time for that cover-up.

        But the Justice Department ruled last week that it would not bring
criminal charges against four other senior FBI officials, and ruled that the
FBI gunman who fired the fatal bullet did not commit a "civil rights"
violation by killing Vicki Weaver.

        "No wonder Americans are so concerned about violent crime," said
Dasbach. "They see criminals in our Armed Forces and in the FBI committing
murder and walking away without punishment -- while their victims lie in their
graves.

        "But Esequiel Hernandez, Jr. and Vicki Weaver aren't the only victims
here. The belief that in America, justice will prevail has also been mortally
wounded. The only cure: For the judicial system to take immediate steps to
bring the killers of these innocent Americans to justice," he said.

        In addition, Dasbach said the federal government should immediately
demilitarize the War on Drugs, to make sure that another Redford, Texas-style
killing does not occur. Specifically, he recommended:

        * Decommission the 8,000 military personnel and thousands of National
Guard troops who are participating in anti-drug missions on U.S. soil, or
reassign them to national defense tasks.

        * Immediately terminate all military spending on the War on Drugs.

        * Demilitarize the U.S./Mexico border.

        * File criminal negligence charges against the military commanders who
sent heavily armed, poorly trained Marines onto private property, putting
American civilians at risk of death.

        "By taking these steps, some good can come from the tragic death of
Esequiel Hernandez, Jr.," said Dasbach. "The U.S. government can use this
opportunity to stop waging war against its own citizens -- and, instead, wage
a war for justice."

        #       #       #
----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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.

 LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL - This phrase, denoting the whole thing, the
 entirety of it all, is an old expression, used as early as the American
 Revolutionary War. It comes from the three principle parts of a [muzzle
 loading] firearm: the barrel, "the pipe down which the bullets are
 fired," the lock, "the firing mechanism," and the stock, "the wooden
 handle to which the other parts are attached." Together, lock, stock and
 barrel referred to the entire gun and the phrase are now used to suggest
 the whole of anything. -- M.T. Wyllyamz; 1992; published by Price,
 Stern, Sloan, Los Angeles.



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Washington Times Editorial: "That's No Justice"]
Date: 21 Aug 1997 11:33:39 -0600


Of some interest...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

The Washington Times Opinion
August 20, 1997

EDITORIAL
That's no Justice

If one private citizen had set up another on weapons-possession charges,
sent him the wrong court date to appear, shot his 14-year-old son in
the back and killed him, and gunned down his wife as she stood in the
doorway holding a baby, one would expect law-enforcement officials to
take it pretty seriously. And so, no doubt, they would. When the feds
themselves pull the trigger, however, it's a whole other story.

Last week, the Justice Department announced it was dropping its
investigation into the shooting deaths of a Ruby Ridge, Idaho,
woman and her 14-year-old son without filing any charges against
the federal agents who took part in the fatal siege. U.S. Attorney
Michael Stiles, who led a 2-year inquiry into the 1992 shootings,
said in a statement there was insufficient evidence to warrant
criminal or civil charges in the case. The announcement was carefully
timed for a late-summer Friday afternoon when no one was around to
hear it, which is one measure of the agency's confidence in it.

The Justice Department hastened to add that subjects of the
investigation would still be exposed to internal "discipline," as if
to show that the rule of law somehow still applies to the people
entrusted to enforce it. Please. The family members who died hadn't
been charged, much less convicted of any crime. Could anyone but a
government sniper acting on government orders get away with killing
them and face only "discipline?"

The trouble started when federal officials tried to turn a man
named Randall Weaver into an informant on a fringe political group
with which they thought he had some connection. They pressed him
repeatedly to sell them an illegal, sawed-off shotgun, and when
finally he did, they charged him with federal gun crimes. The feds
thought Mr. Weaver would cooperate with their undercover campaign and
turn informant, but he refused and was charged.

Problem was that the feds sent him the wrong court date. When
Mr. Weaver didn't show up, they spent the next year and a half
preparing for an assault on his Idaho cabin. Approaching the Weaver
family cabin in August 1992, U.S. marshals stumbled on 14-year-old
Sammy Weaver's dog and killed it. Sammy, not realizing who the
marshals were, fired in their direction and ran. In the ensuing gun
fight, one of the marshals shot Sammy in the back, killing him. A
Weaver family friend returned fire, killing Marshal William Degan.

In came the FBI, which promptly shot Randy Weaver as he went to
see his son's body. Operating on illegal and unconstitutional
"shoot-on-sight" orders, an FBI sniper, Lon Horiuchi, then shot Mrs.
Weaver in the head as she stood in the doorway holding her infant
child.

Since that time, Randy Weaver and friend Kevin Harris have been
acquitted on all federal murder charges. The federal judge
presiding over the Weaver case blasted the FBI for its "callous
disregard for the rights of the defendants and the interests of
justice." The federal government has also settled a civil suit
filed by Randy Weaver and his daughters by paying them $3.1 million.
To date the only federal official prosecuted for what happened is
FBI official Michael Kahoe, who pleaded guilty to obstructing
justice after the fact by destroying key documents. That's it.

FBI Director Louis Freeh has acknowledged that the Weaver case
was a waste of time and resources from the beginning. Ultimately,
of course, it turned out to be much worse. Some may downplay what
happened to the Weavers because the reclusive family allegedly had
odd political and religious ideas. But odd ideas are not a capital
offense or crime here. Not yet anyway.

The more serious concern is that there is a two-tiered system
of justice evolving in this country -- one for the governed and
another for their governors. That's an idea more repellent than
anything Randy Weaver could have imagined. By its inaction, the
Justice Department is making that idea a reality.

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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 supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
 other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the
 plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.
 The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be
 preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike;
 but since some others them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one
 half the world deprived of the use of them; ... the weak will become the
 prey to the strong." -- Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56
 (1775).



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: PLEASE FORWARD TO AUSTRALIA
Date: 30 Aug 1997 21:47:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Paul Mitchell, private attorney general on behalf of the People of
the United States of America, makes this unsolicited recommendation
to the People of Australia, jointly and severally, to entertain an
immediate and unconditional moratorium on the surrender of all
firearms, until such time as a lawful national referendum can be
scheduled, and implemented, on the question now before you.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Mitchell

Counselor at Law, federal witness,
and private attorney general

At 12:03 PM 8/30/97 -0400, you wrote:

Dear Fellow Patriot:

I have tried to limit my e-mails recently to only items which pertain to
the main thrust of The American Resistance Movement, with the IRS being
the starting point.  However, I am making an exception due to the
significance of this information.

I recently wrote to an Austrailian on my mailing list asking for an "on
the scene account" of what was going on in Australia with gun control.
His account shows that the Australians have guts and there is going to
be a showdown as early as October 1, 1997 if the Police go door to door
as they have promised to do.  The writer says that only 5% of the guns
have been bought back, turned in, etc. in some of the states.

Notice where the money comes from to buy the guns: The criminal government
raises taxes (stealing it from everybody) and then pays gun owners SEVERAL
TIMES what the guns are worth.  We need to study the history of gun control
in Australia so that we can avoid further infringements here!

Here is the information:

Terry,

Thanks for assistance. Here's the scoop on Australian gun control.

The Australian Federal Government as you know mandated a turn-in of any
semi-automatic shoulder weapon (all semi rifles and shotguns) and banned pump
shotguns as well. To assure greater compliance, the Feds here created an
elaborate "buy-back" scheme that allocated millions of dollars to fund the
buy-back. To generate the funds, the Feds increased the tax levy that
individuals pay for the Federal health care benefit by 1%.  Gun owners have
been offered several times what their guns are worth to assure greater
compliance. So, if you own a FAL pattern rifle (commonly made here at the
government "Lithgow" arsenal for the Australian army and called SLR's or
L1A1's), you'd be offered $2500 for this rifle. I had considered buying one,
but the same rifle is selling in the U.S. for about $700. Even parts for
banned weapons are fetching considerable sums. In addition, the Fed here is
offering complete amnesty to anyone turning in previously banned or
unregistered firearms. Large numbers of machine guns and semi-auto rifles,
previously illegal are coming out of hiding. The money offered is
irresistable to many.

However, the scheme has been rated an overall failure, and has many nervous
as to what the next step will be. Here's why......

Several Australian states didn't require gun registration over the previous
years. States such as New South Wales and Queensland registered the gun owner
and not the weapons he or she purchased. In these states, the numbers of
banned weapons sold is known, but not to whom. THERE ARE NO FEDERAL GUN
CONTROL RECORDS HERE, gun registration and licensing had always been
controlled by the individual states. The numbers of banned weapons being
turned in in those states which didn't have gun registration records has been
DISMAL.  There are no official estimates, but many gun stores estimate
that the turn-in of banned weapons is probably less than 5%.

The reason why this concerns many is due to what the government is pondering
as their "next step." Several states have openly stated that door-to-door gun
round-ups are next. The policemen (whom I come here to train) are extremely
concerned about this, as many are openly sympathetic regarding the rights of
gun owners and believe the gun laws are absurd.  Deadlines for the turn-in
vary from state to state, but the last deadline appears to be the one set
by the state of West Australia, which is October 1st, 1997. What each state
government does from then is open to speculation, but many believe the
Federal government will be publicity sensitive to any major upheaval prior
to the 2000 Olympic Games being held in Sydney.

There is word that New Zealand is considering a similar gun buy-back scheme
that will be patterned after the Australian model.

Stay tuned...

=====

CONGRESS NEEDS TO KNOW NOW THAT WE WILL BE EVEN LESS COOPERATIVE THAN THE
AUSTRALIANS.

IF THEY TRY TO TAKE OUR GUNS THERE WILL BE MASSIVE RESISTANCE AND MAJOR LOSS
OF LIFE.

COULD THIS EVER BE JUSTIFIED AS MAKING US SAFER?

Terry W. Stough
http://members.aol.com/TWStough/main.htm The American Resistance Movement
[phone]

======
Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     [phone]: machine; fax: [phone]: 24-hour/day-night
email:   <[e-mail]>       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
         Tucson, Arizona state       : state zone,  not the federal zone
         Postal Zone 85719/tdc       : USPS delays first class w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.