ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9709

Internet Message Format | 1997-09-30 | 321KB

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Gun Accidents down
Date: 02 Sep 1997 15:46:09 -0600


Look at <http://www.desnews.com/newwir/no0147ul.htm> for an article on
the decline of gun accidents and the rise in gun ownership.

--

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 proper means of increasing the love we bear our native country is
 to reside some time in a foreign one." -- William Shenstone



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Trib Editorial - Police & Assault Weapons
Date: 03 Sep 1997 07:45:28 -0700

Wednesday, September 3, 1997


Fearful Reaction

### This disturbing incident surrounding Detective Robert Idle's
attempted murder is unsettling -- not just because of the violence or
implements of that murderous brutality, but also the reactions hitting
our law-enforcement community.

### As both a military combat veteran and a former lawman, I have to
take issue with the response caused by Det. Idle's assault. More
semand/or full-automatic ``assault rifles'' is not the answer. In my
day, I have faced enemies armed with SKS rifles and AK-47s, as well as
12-gauge riot guns and any assortment of weapons. I have witnessed
first-hand what a 20-, 30 or 40-round magazine of spent ammo can do.
It's devastating.

### The problem is, in the heat of a firefight, when you dump off that
much ammo, there's always strays, ricochets and rounds missing the
target. Where do these deviate rounds end up? Well, most do no harm.
But some will inevitably end up in some innocent bystanders, their
homes, cars or God knows where. This isn't worth the risk.

### In my day, both in the military and police work, we practiced,
practiced, practiced to pick our targets, aim precisely, and hit the
target with the fewest rounds of ammo spent. We did not ``spray away
and pray,'' which seems to be the errant wisdom behind this move to arm
law-enforcement officers with assault weapons. Isn't this how the arms
race started? What's next? Crew-served, belt-fed machine guns, light
armored vehicles, or maybe gunships?

### A well-trained officer with a semi-automatic sidearm can outshoot
a punk gang-banger any day. But yes, fear is a motivator . . . just the
worse type of motivator.
### DAVID CHANDLER
### Salt Lake City




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Our Very Own KGB?
Date: 03 Sep 1997 08:30:00 -0700


From http://net.fcref.org/pwcomm/pwc1997/pwc0828.htm

OUR VERY OWN KGB?"
08-28-97

By Paul Weyrich

I am indebted to Sarah Foster of WorldNET Daily, a publication of the
Western Journalism Center in California, for compiling some data about
the growing use of lethal weapons by various federal agencies.

These agencies are beginning to use their firepower against American
citizens as they are tasked with enforcing the many new federal laws
which have been enacted, federalizing crimes which heretofore have been
handled locally.

Foster estimates the number of heavily-armed federal agents at some
60,000 and even provides a convenient list of agencies which have more
than 25 personnel under arms. As Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America
exclaimed when he was told the number: "Good grief, that's a standing
army. It's outrageous."

These federal agents have been trained to enforce the more than 3,000
criminal laws and the hundreds of thousands of federal regulations
which now carry criminal penalties. This is why the U.S. Park Service
now has military-style helicopters and trained snipers which they turn
on unsuspecting citizens. One 15-year-old girl, Crystal Graybeel, was
sleeping late in her cabin, according to Foster, when federal agents
wearing ski masks and armed with machine guns raided the place she was
staying on Santa Cruz Island off of the California coast. Although she
had nothing to do with the purpose for the raid, she was handcuffed and
kept in custody for more than two hours. Most of the island is already
owned by the government, but there is one remaining privately held piece
of property, a 6,500-acre bow-and-arrow hunting ranch. It seems that
the Park Service suspected that Chumash Indian graves which were on
the private property were being raided for human remains and artifacts.
Caretakers who have been charged with this crime have vehemently denied
it, but, meanwhile, those who happened to be there on January 14th of
this year were subjected to armed U.S. agents training their guns on
U.S. citizens. Maria Daily, the president of the Santa Cruz Island
Foundation, put it this way: "It saddens me that the Park Service
resorted to Ruby Ridge tactics. This incident crosses the line."

The founders of this constitutional republic never intended for the
United States to have a federal police force to deal with domestic
matters. Yes, we had armed forces and even armed border patrols, but
these troops were for the purpose of keeping our potential foreign
enemies at bay.

In the past, when federal agencies needed to enforce a federal law,
they simply contacted the local authorities, who examined the situation.
If the local sheriff felt the matter was sufficiently serious, he would
obtain a warrant and execute the search or initiate the arrest. Increasingly,
however, local authorities have resisted federal orders which they feel
are unjust. So the federal government has decided to build its own
domestic army to override local authorities. In many cases these federal
agents operate on their own initiative, without obtaining proper warrants.

In short, we are on our way to building the sort of internal police force
which the Communist authorities were noted for. As many of the internal
police forces in former Communist nations are being disbanded and laws are
being passed to prevent such forces from ever being assembled again, our
internal police force is just beginning to gain momentum. Indeed, many of
these different agencies are coordinating their efforts so they can plan
and execute raids together. The number of trained armed federal agents has
increased by 12,000 over the past decade, but in 1996 alone 2,436 were added.

Where is the constitutional authority for all of this? When has Congress
specifically authorized such a national police force? Who is providing the
constitutional guidelines for these armed agents? Who is training them on
what is and is not permissible? Are we not at the point where Ruby Ridge
cases will become routine in America?

Whatever the facts of the matter, the tragic death of an American goat
herder, killed by Marine snipers last May on the Texas-Mexico border,
shows the need for better training and better control.

The improper exercise of force by federal agents is a matter which cries
out for examination. As Lisa Dean pointed out on a recent edition of our
program "Endangered Liberties" (which airs Thursdays at 9 p.m. Eastern,
6 p.m. Pacific), each of these incidents is looked at as a disconnected
matter, when collectively such abuses of power constitute a gross violation
of constitutional authority. We join her in calling for Congressional field
hearings to examine this issue. Let those who have been victimized by
federal agents come forth to testify. I believe the American people would
be shocked to learn the truth.

For most of our life as an independent nation, the United States managed
to enforce federal laws perfectly well without a domestic army. Even the
FBI, which built an excellent reputation for doing federal law enforcement
work, was very, very careful -- until just recently -- to avoid any
situation where local law enforcement officials were overridden. In fact,
much of what the FBI accomplished was with the cooperation of local and
state officials. Now the agency operates more and more independently.
Combined with the drastic increase in other federal agents, this new
method of operating around and outside of the local law enforcement
structure constitutes a grave danger to our constitutional form of
government. Congressman Bill McCollum of Florida has asked the GAO for
a series of reports on the increased use of federal agents for federal
law enforcement. The next logical step for McCollum would be to take
his Committee on the road to conduct field hearings on exactly what is
happening in the real world. Never mind what Louis Freeh and all of the
others in charge of these domestic troops claim is happening. We must
hear from the citizens who know the truth. Field hearings should begin
as soon as it is possible to organize them, and you can assist by
demanding of the Congress that this be done.





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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: `48 Hours' to Air Documentary on Utah Militia
Date: 03 Sep 1997 11:23:01 -0600

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------18E41516343A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.sltrib.com/090397/food_and/2123.htm

--------------18E41516343A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="2123.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="2123.htm"

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]      Wednesday, September 3, 1997     [Image] [Image]

             `48 Hours' to Air Documentary on Utah Militia

 BY KINNEY LITTLEFIELD
 THE ORANGE COUNTY
 REGISTER

     They call themselves VJs -- though they're not MTV video jocks.
 They're the young video journalists of Broadcast News Networks in New
 York City.
     They're a new breed of scrappy reporters who shoot their subjects
 with small, silent digital video cameras, letting events play out
 naturally, breaking barriers between subject and viewer -- blending
 themselves into stories.
     At 9 p.m. today you'll see their hip handiwork on CBS's ``48
 Hours'' (on KUTV-Channel 2) in a telling one-hour documentary called
 ``Birth of a Militia.'' An expanded three-hour version will air Oct.
 31 as part of the documentary series ``I Witness'' on CBS cable
 channel Eye on People.
     ``Birth of a Militia'' explores the lives of a small group of
 armed white racists in La Verkin, Utah, who call themselves the Rocky
 Mountain Militia. The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there are
 about 380 such militias in the U.S.
     This ``Militia'' is also about Sheriff Glenwood Humphries, who
 tracks the militia, and BNN VJs Amanda Pike, Craig Santy and Lara
 Hughey, who spent six weeks shooting the sheriff and militia leaders
 Johnny Bangerter and David Dalby, their friends and families, earlier
 this year.
     ``This new technology is an equalizer,'' Pike, 26, said recently
 from New York of her guerrilla-style Sony VX 1000 camera. Diminutive
 digital video equipment has been available in the U.S. for about a
 year and a half.
     ``Sure we changed the story some by being there, but not nearly
 as much as a traditional news crew with lights and a sound man,''
 Pike said.
     ``With digital you don't need a lot of money. You don't need
 physical strength or several crew members to help you. The camera is
 an idiot camera. All you need is the passion for the story.''
     You see Pike's passion early on in ``Militia,'' when Humphries
 suddenly, inexplicably, asks her on-camera if she wants to shoot his
 gun. Pike, who has never fired a gun before, hands Humphries her
 camera so he can tape her shooting. It's the ultimate TV news
 turnabout, a daring one.
     ``We knew we wanted to be very honest about showing what we do to
 get the story, to demystify it,'' Pike said. ``We just didn't know
 how we would do it until that moment with the sheriff. When I handed
 him the camera a lot of power went with it.''
     As the program progresses Dalby and Bangerter talk about their
 white racist, survivalist and anti-government philosophies. They
 recruit new members. They order uniforms. They eye the skies for
 spying FBI helicopters and play with their kids. We see them get ever
 more paranoid about a perceived impending raid by federal agents.
 Dalby kicks the VJs out of his house as he packs to move his family
 to an isolated secret location -- which he later lets the VJs visit.
     ``First there was distrust that the media would distort their
 message, then it became `You guys aren't media, you're federal agents
 poised to take us down,' '' Pike said. ``Then we were the media
 again. It was a fine line, keeping our distance and sanity yet not
 burning our relationship. It was a delicate balance.''
     The Rocky Mountain Militia wanted only one thing from BNN. All
 participating BNN crew would have to be white.
     Over six weeks white VJs Pike, Santy and Hughey shot about 150
 hours of video, working with a production assistant and an editor
 ensconced in a makeshift ``war room'' in La Verkin. The VJs thought
 militia members would be reluctant to express racism on camera. They
 were wrong.
     In a chilling on-camera scene, Bangerter's youngest sister Mary
 Lynn Seamens, traveling in a limo to appear on ``Geraldo'' with their
 mother, unflinchingly tells the unsuspecting driver ``We support like
 local militias and things, and uh -- we're racists.''
     ``They really wanted to say it, to hammer their philosophy
 home,'' Pike said. ``But the most interesting moments came when
 philosophy time was over. We tried to keep the cameras rolling as
 much as possible. When David's daughter asks `What's that, Daddy?'
 and he says `Oh those are Bible study tapes and those are bullets' --
 we could never have scripted it.
     ``Digital technology lets subjects get closer to you. When they
 forgot we were there we had those intimate moments.''
     Actually, this off-the-cuff intimacy, shot verite style with
 jerky camera moves, looks no different than ``Homicide'' or ``NYPD
 Blue.'' Except it's real.
     Today's broadcast is also a smart cross-promotion for the ``I
 Witness'' series which debuted Aug. 22. As part of the plug, ``48
 Hours'' host Dan Rather repeatedly stress how young the BNN VJs are.
 BNN boasts about 30 staff, most in their 20s or 30s.
     ``Well, that means we get paid a lot less,'' Pike said, only
 half-joking. Born in San Diego, Pike graduated from Columbia
 University in 1995 with a master's in broadcast journalism.
     ``I guess we probably do bring a different kind of energy to the
 show being younger.''



              [Image] [Wednesday Navigation Bar]  [Image]

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

 ⌐ 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.

--------------18E41516343A--




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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Sheriff Kennard's Editorial
Date: 04 Sep 1997 07:29:11 -0700

Thursday, September 04, 1997

Sheriff: Deputies Must Be Equipped With Semiautomatic Rifles


###
### The position of some, including The Tribune (editorial, Aug. 19),
that the recent attack on a police officer by gang members might not
warrant increased firepower in the hands of police is not only
disturbing, it is ludicrous.

### Across the nation, we have seen police officers outgunned by
gang members. Many remember the recent incident in Los Angeles when
patrol officers had to procure semiautomatic rifles from a local sporting
goods store to meet a threat from well-armed bank robbers. We have
known for about two years now that gang members possess assault
weapons.  If citizens distrust their police officers to the point of
preferring that gang members have firearms far superior to that of the
police, as insinuated in the Tribune editorial, then I fear that our
community-wide resolve to handle this significant public threat is greatly
crippled.

### As sheriff, I have been tracking the propensity for gang violence
against police officers for several years. My effort for the last two
years to procure military semiautomatic rifles for my deputies so that
they are not severely outgunned is a calculated response to the types of

threats our dedicated officers are routinely facing on the streets. It
is not a mere ``reaction'' to this most recent violent assault on
Detective Idle.

### More than 100 of my deputies have carried semiautomatic rifles on
duty for almost two years. Not one negative incident has resulted. To
the contrary, the presence of those firearms has often had a calming
effect and has neutralized numerous situations where violence would
have otherwise resulted. Our brave men and women protecting our
community deserve support and they deserve proper equipment capable
of meeting the threat they face every day on the street.

### The efficacy of semiautomatic rifles is well-proven. A well-placed
round from a rifle in the hands of a fully trained deputy is safer than
shotgun rounds. And when equipped with rifles, deputies are better able
to hold perimeters when shots have been fired by bandits. This
capability is vital for deputies forced to hold bandits at bay until the
arrival of tactical units.

### As a police administrator, I would feel derelict in my duties to you
and my deputies if I failed to properly equip and train deputies to
respond to the threats against them and you. I too believe in prevention
programs that divert kids from gangs. My record more than proves that.
But I also believe in answering the present threat waged by the
well-armed hoodlums already on the streets of the Salt Lake Valley.

### AARON D. KENNARD
### Salt Lake County Sheriff




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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: goose population
Date: 04 Sep 1997 09:50:21 -0600

> >------Begin forward message-------------------------
> >
> >From: [e-mail] (Rob Brannon)
> >Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:15:00 -0500
> >Subject: goose population
> >
> >
MSGID: 176:200/0 8B593CD9
> >
> >
> >Heard something really amazing the other day on National Propaganda
> >Radio.
> >
> >It seems that the goose population at their summer feeding grounds
> >in Canada has risen to the point that the geese are over-grazing
> >the plant life and are about to destroy the local ecology.
> >
> >A spokesman for Ducks Unlimited basically said, (not an exact quote)
> >"Great, this is what we wanted, now it is time to expand seasons
> >and bag limits, hunters can take care of the goose over-population."
> >
> >Then they had a bimbo from the Humane Society of the United States,
> >(not to be confused with the Humane Society, a legitimate organization)
> >who said that hunting was "just too cruel" a way to control the geese.
> >
> >Her "solution" was for the government to NAPALM the goose flocks
> >on the ground!
> >
> >Yum-yummy!  Anyone for roast goose, with that piquant hint of gasoline?
> >
> >Rob
> >
> >
> > * OLX 2.1 * We can save the seals if we all club together.
> >
> >
> >--- WM v3.11/92-0211
> > * Origin: PRN/CENTRAL  (176:200/0)
> >
> >--
> > (Rob Brannon)
> > AirPower Services BBS - [phone] - [e-mail]
> > Interested in Firearms, RKBA, Airguns, the Shooting Sports?
> >------End forward message---------------------------
> >
> >
> >



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Fwd: Sheriff Throws Feds Out of County -Forwarded
Date: 04 Sep 1997 15:17:37 -0700

Received: from dns1.webbernet.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id NAA00966; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:18:15 -0600
Received: from default (pon-mi7-57.ix.netcom.com [205.184.190.185])
    by dns1.webbernet.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA15320;
    Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:17:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"

>From: [e-mail]

>Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:24:52 -0400 (EDT)

>Subject: Fwd: Sheriff Throws Feds Out of County

>

>

>---------------------

>Forwarded message:

>From:    [e-mail] (jlbtexas)

>Reply-to:    [e-mail]

>To:    [e-mail] (Bob Huddleston)

>Date: 97-08-18 20:20:44 EDT

>

><<snip

>

>Some excellent news from Wyoming.  I'll keep you all updated on

>how this proceeds.

>

>PAC

>

>

>SHERIFF BOOTS FEDS FROM HIS COUNTY

>by Phil Hamby

>

>Knoxville Journal, August 7-13, 1997 pA1 and A6

>

>(http://www.knoxnews.to) Ph [phone] FAX 0858

>

>Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming, said this week

>that as a result of Case #96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court,

>District of Wyoming, he how has a written policy that forbids

>federal officials from entering his county and exercising

>authority over county residents unless he is notified first of

>their intentions.

>

>After explaining their mission, Mattis said he grants them

>permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating

>within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth

>in the U.S.  Constitution.

>

>The sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only.

>When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the

>Feds, he quickly and confidently replied, "None whatsoever."

>He explained by saying, "They know they do not have jurisdiction

>in my county unless I grant it to them."

>

>Mattis clarified his position by saying the federal court had

>ruled then state of Wyoming is a sovereign state and the state

>constitution plainly states that a county sheriff is the top law

>enforcement official in the county.

>

>Additionally, Sheriff Mattis contends that the U.S.

>Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the

>geographic territories where the federal government has

>jurisdiction.  Amendment X, he said, states that "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."

>

>Therefore, Mattis thoroughly believes the Feds have very limited

>powers in any state unless the local high-sheriff allows them to

>exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides.

>

>"Put another way," Mattis said, "if the sheriff doesn't want the

>Feds in his county, he has the constitutional power and right to

>keep them out or ask them to leave."

>

>Accompanied with other legal interpretations Mattis stands on

>the definition of the world "sovereign," which is defined by

>Webster's as "paramount, supreme.  Having supreme rank or power.

>Independent:  a sovereign State."

>

>Mattis said he grew weary of the Feds coming into his county and

>running rough-shod over county residents: i.e., illegally

>searching, seizing property, confiscating bank accounts,

>restricting the free use of private lands and other abuses,

>without a valid warrant and without first following due process

>of law as guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.

>

>As long as Mattis remains sheriff he says he will continue to

>see to it that the citizens of his county get their day in

>court.

>

>Mattis went on to say that, to his knowledge, even the IRS has

>not attempted to seize any citizen's real property, bank account

>or any other private-owned possessions since he ran the Feds out

>of his county.

>

>Sheriff Mattis emphasized that he is not a radical man.  He said

>he is only dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of

>the citizens of his county.

>

>He added that ordinary citizens are not the only ones bound by

>and expected to obey laws.  Elected officials and government

>employees at all levels of government are also bound by and

>should be expected to obey certain laws.

>

>As long as Sheriff Mattis is the high-sheriff of Big Horn

>County, he seems determined to make sure private citizens and

>government officials alike act within the law and their

>designated powers.

>

>Sheriff Mattis came across as a soft-spoken, polite man whose

>only interest is protecting the citizens he was elected to

>serve.  That being the case, he might be the sheriff for as long

>as he wants to be.

>

>Sheriff Mattis is hopeful that other sheriffs will assume the

>same stance.

>

>c. 1997 The Knoxville Journal

>

>--

>

>Steve Washam        Walla Walla, Washington        [e-mail]

>-----------------------------------------------------------------

>

>    Children in Cheyenne [are] taught in their schools,

>    Believe in the Country, don't break any rules.

>    But the TV is on and they know something's wrong.

>    Someone must tell them to keep pushing on.

>

>    Can you hear me Wyoming?

>    -- YOU are the Country;

>    -- YOU are the Nation;

>    -- YOU will survive!

>

>    Can you hear me Wyoming?

>    -- YOU are the Country;

>    -- YOU are the Nation;

>    -- YOU will survive!

>

>    as sung by John Stewart and John Denver

>

><<snip

>

>=====================================================================

>===

>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.

>=====================================================================

>===

>[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]

>

>

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>--------------

>To subscribe or unsubscribe, email

>[e-mail] with the message:

>  subscribe ignition-point

>         or

> unsubscribe ignition-point

>  http://ic.net/~celano/ip/

>

>

>

>

Please visit http://www.prospectorsbanqueclub.com

         and http://www.eagleflt.com


 To receive posts from this list send an E-MAIL to me with the word

"subscribe" in the subject box.

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

          EAGLEFLIGHT

        ///,       <color><param>8080,0000,0000</param> ////

</color>        \  /,      /  >.             David E. Rydel

         \  /,   _/  /.                  *****

          \_  /_/   /.        United States Theatre Command

           \__/_   <<               Voice-248-391-0798

           /<<<<<< \_\_                Fax-248-391-6785

          /,)^>>_._ \             Alt.Fax-248-391-3528

          (/   \\ /\\\           E-MAIL: [e-mail]

                // ````

 ==============((`=============================================
         A VOICE OF THE MILITIAS IN NORTH AMERICA AMERICA




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Trade Freedom for Security and Have Neither
Date: 06 Sep 1997 22:50:00 -0700


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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JON E. DOUGHERTY
USA FEATURES MEDIA CO.

TRADE FREEDOM FOR SECURITY AND HAVE NEITHER

SEPTEMBER 1--Thanks to the promises of their socialist parliament,
Australians will henceforth be the most safest people in the western
world, because they have elected to give up their guns in exchange
for "security." Already the cries for parity have come from other
western nations, most notably from anti-gunners here in the states,
as justification for a policy they have long supported: The incredibly
naive concept that without guns, a society suffers from violent crime
no more.

And here I am, without a sizable parcel of swampland to sell to these
people.

Australians, used to much more civilized behavior than the pandering
US courts can provide for Americans, were justifiably shocked last year
when a madman with "military-style" weapons attacked tourists in Port
Arthur, killing and wounding many before doing himself in after the
spree had ended. Since that abomination, Aussie leftists have been
ceaselessly shrieking for state-imposed gun bans, stricter gun licensing
requirements and universal gun registration, even though there certainly
was no 'epidemic' of gun violence in that country, and even though most
Australians didn't ask for, and don't want, these kinds of control.
Unlike the states, Australia is mostly rural, and there men really do
need guns to help protect themselves from the harsh predatory environment
and to help supplant sparse law enforcement representation. But again,
with no epidemic of this kind of violence, many westerners have been
unable to find the justification for this kind of panic legislation,
other than to toss in a few wild theories about global gun control.

There has been oft-spirited debate about why private citizens need to
be so heavily armed in this post-modern age, when so many governments
are "willing" to provide 'security' for them. And on the surface, this
concept seems civil and understandable. But the concept is deceptive,
because the amount of violence in a society has never had anything to do
with the kind of weapons that are available to the populace. The root
causes of violence stem from a breakdown in societal norms, a loss of
respect for life, immorality, and a crumbling judicial system incapable
of exacting like punishment for like crimes. It doesn't matter if there
are no guns allowed in the hands of private citizens; if Fred gets ticked
off enough at his neighbor Ed, he'll just as easily beat him to death
with a rake if he means to kill him. Guns are, for most murderers,
a matter of convenience, but restricting their availability will not
substantially reduce the violence. To do that, we must radically change
our atttudes towards each other, and change the ways in which we seek
to resolve our differences.

Standing in the way of such sanity are abberancies like gun control.
These days the anti-gun issue argument goes something like this: In
America, where there are, comparably, relatively few restrictions on
gun ownership, there is also epidemic violent crime. On the other hand,
in nations where there is strict gun control, there is also much less
violence. From this fact--not many deny it as fact--statists glean
the conclusion that if only they could limit the number of firearms
in private hands, violence would disappear and everyone would live in
peace and harmony. It is just this sort of unrealistic demoguogery that
has prevented honest debate, critical thinking and problem solving in
this--and many other--important social issues. Tell that to the Russians,
where the violent crime rate has quadrupled with no legal gun ownership.
Tell that to Haitians, Somalians, Bosnians or even the English.

No one, from liberal statists to the staunchest law enforcement
advocates, can provide this kind of utopian security guarantee. Only
God can do that, and when He sends Jesus back to earth then we'll have
the peace and harmony envisioned by the utopians that has otherwise
remained elusive to mortal Man. Until then, we are forced to accept the
realities of human behavior, and one of those realities is that human
beings are sometimes mean, violent and forceful, as well as unreasoned.

For that reason, it has never made any sense whatsoever to abrogate
the responsibility to protect yourself to anyone other than yourself.
The ultimate breach of personal responsibility is the person who leaves
himself and his family at the mercy of a detached statist regime, to
provide that which cannot be guaranteed and to promise that which the
state has no right to promise. It is an 'inalienable' right, this right
to self-preservation, and no amount of liberal posturing can change
this unmalleable constant.

And guns accomplish this need. If we were advanced enough to have them,
then everyone would want laser pistols to protect themselves; if we
still had fourteenth century technology, then folks would have swords
and bows to protect themselves. People use the customary means available
to defend themselves, so this attack on 'guns' as the root of our
violence does nothing except deceivingly shift the blame to inanimate
objects while ignoring the underlying social causes of violence.

We have a couple of choices. As Americans, we can follow Australia's
example, or we can address the root causes of violence in our society.

First of all, we can come to terms with the reality that we have
had a serious debasement of human behavior, restraint, and dialogue
fomenting for many years. Next, we can finally accept the fact that
we have lowered our expectations of the courts to a level that cannot
achieve justice any longer. And we can stop trying to find a plethora
of excuses to justify bad behavior. The reality is, there will always
be a fraction of people who just don't fit into civilized society, no
matter what weapons you ban or how strictly you impose punishment on
criminals. The catch is deciding how best to handle them so that society
benefits, instead of formulating policies that allow politicians to
pander for votes and expand their power.

In the past, 'swift and sure' punishment for vile social behavior
worked. Short of that, the ideal that we must trade freedoms for
security will gain us neither, and it will only worsen both the violent
crime situation and the government's trend towards even more statism,
as the nation's social condition decays beyond all control. That's not
a conspiracy theory, that's evolutionary history. The Australians are
about to learn it. ***

Jon Dougherty is the associate producer of The Derry Brownfield Show,
a nationally syndicated talk radio program, and editor of the internet
newspaper, USA Journal Online. http://www.usajournal.com

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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: andelain <[e-mail]>
Subject: University
Date: 08 Sep 1997 11:06:39 -0600 (MDT)


Hi,




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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Customer Support
Date: 08 Sep 1997 13:17:33 -0600

I KNOW this is off-topic, but I just can't resist!

Sarah


>Subject: Customer Support
>
>Actual dialog of a former Wordperfect Customer Support employee:
>
>"Ridge Hall computer assistant; may I help you?"
>"Yes, well, I'm having trouble with WordPerfect."
>"What sort of trouble?"
>"Well, I was just typing along, and all of a sudden the words went
>away.",
>"Went away?"
>"They disappeared."
>"Hmm. So what does your screen look like now?"
>"Nothing."
>"Nothing?"
>"It's blank; it won't accept anything when I type."
>"Are you still in WordPerfect, or did you get out?"
>"How do I tell?"
>"Can you see the C:\ prompt on the screen?"
>"What's a sea-prompt?"
>"Never mind. Can you move the cursor around on the screen?"
>"There isn't any cursor: I told you, it won't accept anything I type."
>"Does your monitor have a power indicator?"
>"What's a monitor?"
>"It's the thing with the screen on it that looks like a TV.
>Does it have a little light that tells you when it's on?"
>"I don't know."
>"Well, then look on the back of the monitor and find where the power cord
>goes into it. Can you see that?"
>"Yes, I think so."
>"Great! Follow the cord to the plug, and tell me if it's plugged into the
>wall."
>"Yes, it is."
>"When you were behind the monitor, did you notice that  there were two
>cables plugged into the back of it, not just one?"
>"No."
>"Well, there are. I need you to look back there again and find the other
>cable."
>"Okay, here it is."
>"Follow it for me, and tell me if it's plugged securely into the back of
>your computer."
>"I can't reach."
>"Uh huh. Well, can you see if it is?"
>"No."
>"Even if you maybe put your knee on something and lean way over?"
>"Oh, it's not because I don't have the right angle-it's because
>it'sdark."
>"Dark?"
>"Yes-the office light is off, and the only light I have is coming in from
>the window."
>"Well, turn on the office light then."
>"I can't."
>"No? Why not?"
>"Because there's a power outage."
>"A power  ...  A power outage?  Aha!  Okay, we've got it licked now. Do
>you still have the boxes and manuals and packing stuff your computer came
> in?"
>"Well, yes, I keep them in the closet."
>"Good! Go get them, and unplug your system and pack it up just like it
>was when you got it. Then take it back to the store you bought it from."
>"Really? Is it that bad?"
>"Yes, I'm afraid it is."
>"Well, all right then, I suppose. What do I tell them?"
>"Tell them you're too stupid to own a computer."
>
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>              Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum,
>             Indiana's Fully Informed Jury Association, Inc.
>                            http://www.drtavel.com/
>                       *************************
>                    Not a high-tech law firm brochure.
>       Dr. Tavel's Self Help Clinic and Sovereign Law Library
>        promotes "action that raises the cost of state violence
>             for its perpetrators (and) that lays the basis for
>                 institutional change " -- Noam Chomsky
>
>              "The law should surely be accessible at all times
>                      and to everyone"  --  Franz Kafka
>
>              For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D.
>                      **************************
>                                Updated Daily by
>      The OtherOne Computer Consulting International, Ltd.
>         http://www.drtavel.com/TOOCCI.html
>                            mailto:[e-mail]
>    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Letter from Senator Ed Kennedy, & Sarah Brady 2/2
Date: 09 Sep 1997 06:11:00 -0700


************* Beginning of Sarah Brady letter ***************
MEMORANDUM
TO: Every American Concerned About Gun Violence
FROM: Sarah Brady, Chair
SUBJECT: The Difference YOU Can Make
__________________________________________________________________

All across the nation, candidates who stood up for strong,
sensible gun laws were elected or reelected last fall.

Which means that this fall, when Congress returns from its summer
recess with time to consider new legislation . . .

. . . Handgun Control, Inc. faces a rare opportunity.

And we must seize it!

But we need you behind us.

Because HCI, the citizens' force for safer, saner gun control laws,
has launched the biggest mobilization and most intense campaign ever
to protect public safety.

    HCI has launched THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN. As part of this
    Campaign, we will propose the boldest, most comprehensive
    package of common-sense gun laws ever presented to Congress
    and the Administration.

But we will come up against extreme opposition. With all of
their money, the gun lobby is very influential in Washington.

For this reason, it is critical that we confront Congress and
the gun lobby with the most important winning tool we possess:
a strong, united voice.

We must tell Congress -- as loudly as we can -- that Americans
will not stand for gun violence any longer.

To do this, we need your help at once.

    I am urging you to join Handgun Control, Inc. today --
    while the opportunity is so great -- so that your voice can
    help make THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN a success.

What is THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN? It is HCI's innovative,
common-sense approach to ending gun violence and saving lives
through tougher gun safety and gun trafficking legislation.

You see, gun trafficking and the lack of gun industry regulation are
the two biggest problems Americans face in the fight for public safety.

And while we've already achieved some success -- with the Brady Law
and the assault weapons ban -- our current laws need to be strengthened.

For example, did you know that the Brady Law -- which applies to
handgun purchases at gun stores -- doesn't cover private sales? In
other words, in most states, private citizens can sell a gun to
anyone, without a background check and without a waiting period.

    THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN will . . . extend the Brady Law to
    cover private sales.

Did you know that professional gun runners and their straw
purchasers can legally buy 10, 20, or even 30 guns at one time?
To make matters even worse, records of these handgun purchases
must be destroyed within 20 days!

    THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN will . . . take the demonstrated
    success of Virginia's One-Handgun-A-Month law and extend
    it nationwide and end the required destruction of handgun
    purchase records after 20 days.

Did you know more regulations apply to common household appliances than
to handguns? Handgun manufacturing regulations could save untold lives,
especially those of children who play with a gun they think is empty.

    THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGH will . . . require magazine-
    loading handguns to have a magazine safety, which would
    prevent the gun from firing the bullet left in the
    chamber when the magazine is unloaded.

Did you know that in our society that requires drivers', fishing and
even dog licenses, we do not require the purchaser of a deadly weapon
to prove knowledge about its safe use? Nor do we require that guns be
registered to assist law enforcement in tracking guns used in crimes.

    THE SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN will . . . require licensing
    to assure proper use and safety. It will also require
    registration of handgun transfers so law enforcement can
    track down guns used in crimes.

As you can see, all four of these common-sense objectives are
within reach. With your help we can create a safe America.

And we need your help because of the fundamental rule of politics:
there is strength in numbers.

Whenever I'm talking with an elected official about gun control
issues -- no matter if it's about keeping the ban on assault
weapons, licensing of handgun purchasers or better regulation of
gun dealers -- the bottom-line question I hear is always the same:

"How many people are behind you on this issue?"

And that's why I'm urging you to add your voice to ours. Your
participation will make a difference.

With your new member contribution of $15, $20, $35 or more . . .

    You can help us fight for sensible gun laws.

Your financial support will help us sustain a dedicated and effective
staff that works to convince politicians in Washington and in state
capitols that gun laws are essential to protect the public's safety.

    You can be a powerful force for gun control.

Because of the NRA's political clout, many legislators are wary
of voting for gun control -- even when confronted with the
shocking facts about gun violence in America. That's why a vital
part of our work is keeping you informed about issues in Congress
and mobilizing our membership to help fight for stronger gun laws.

    You can stand up, be counted and make a difference!

Just take a moment right now to fill out and return the enclosed
Membership Acceptance Reply with your check today. That way, the
next time a politician asks me how many people really support THE
SAFE AMERICA CAMPAIGN, I can include you in that number!

Together, we can make America a safer place to live and raise our
families. Together, we can stop the killing. Please join us today!

Sarah.


End of BEST-RKBA Digest 291
***************************






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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Letter from Senator Ed Kennedy, & Sarah Brady 1/2
Date: 09 Sep 1997 06:11:00 -0700


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

BEST-RKBA Digest 291



Hi;
Supposedly the following two letters have been sent out to a number of
registered Democrats across the country. They were sent out by our
beloved Senator Ed Kennedy. The first was sent out on his congressional
stationary and Sarah Brady's letter is on HCI letter head. As we used
to say in the Navy, "This is no-s*#t."

Please SPREAD THE WORD.

Enjoy.
John W.

********* Beginning of Letter from Senator Ed Kennedy ***********
Dear Friend;

As you know, my family has suffered the personal nightmare of gun
violence. We have known the dark days of senseless violence and
terror that can shatter the finest hopes and dreams.

Sadly, my family's experience is not unique. And that is why I am
writing to you today.

Hundreds of thousands of families across our nation have had their
lives torn apart by gun violence. And each day, another 105 more
Americans die from gunshot wounds.

When will it stop? What will it take before we are finally ready to
take real steps to halt the arms race in our neighborhoods and deal
with the epidemic of gun violence that is devastating our society?

What will it take?

I believe the answer, quite simply is you.

Please let me explain.

Throughout my years of service in the United States Senate, I have
always been a strong champion of gun control. The battle has never
been easy, but today it is more difficult than ever before.

That's because the National Rifle Association is such a huge
obstacle to responsible and lifesaving gun control legislation --
the NRA is one of the biggest, most highly organized, best-financed
special interest groups on Capitol Hill. They have vast influence.

One organization that I respect a great deal has made a real
difference in countering the NRA's warped agenda: Handgun Control, Inc.

Handgun Control has repeatedly shown that concerned Americans like
you can fight back. You can overcome the NRA's multi-million-dollar
lobbying assault. You can put sensible gun laws on the statute books.

I know you can because Handgun jControl members made all the
difference in our successful seven-year battle to enact the Brady Law.
This sensible law, which I am proud to have co-sponsored in the Senate,
mandates a national waiting period and background check for handgun
buyers. And it's working! According to statistics collected by state
and local law enforcement departments, during the Brady Law's first
three-plus years, background checks prevented an estimated 250,000
convicted felons and other ineligible people from purchasing guns.

Handgun Control members also won a major victory for our safety in
1994 with the enactment of a ban on the importation and manufacture
of assault weapons -- the military-style rifles, pistols and magazine
clips whose pervasive availability has turned our schoolyards, our
streets and our neighborhoods into battlefields.

And now, Handgun Control has launched The Safe America Campaign --
the most ambitious gun control and community safety package since
the Brady Law. I intend to support it strongly. But we're in a
difficult battle. Because the National Rifle Association, the gun
industry and pro-gun members of Congress will pull out all the stops
to block these lifesaving, common-sense gun control initiatives.

Despite the fact that you and the vast majority of Americans
support sensible gun control measures, your voices may not be
heard loud and clear enough in Washington.

But you can make your voice heard.

I can't emphasize strongly enough how important it is for
Congress to learn where you stand when important gun control
issues are debated and critical votes are cast.

And that is why I urge you to make sure your voice is
heard by becoming a member of Handgun Control, Inc. today.

Without the involvement of concerned Americans like you, the NRA may
very well triumph. They will undo all the progress we have made --
and they will block passage of new laws that are urgently needed to
reduce gun violence in your community and across America.

The enclosed memo from my good friend Sarah Brady, the Chair of
Handgun, Inc., explains their work in more detail. Sarah also tells
you how to join this most effective citizens' movement and help
make America a safer place for all of us.

I urge you to add your voice to Handgun Control's today. You can make
a lifesaving difference in our country's future. So please act now.

Sincerely;
{signed}
Edward M. Kennedy

P.S. Through the efforts of Handgun Control, Inc., we can reach
     the critical mass of public support needed to protect the
     achievements already in the statute books and enact the new
     gun control legislation that's so urgently needed.

     Please, stand with us today!




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI)'s new web site
Date: 10 Sep 1997 08:16:00 -0700


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

Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI)'s new web site.
Also HCI's addresses, phone #'s, and FAX #'s.

Backwards HCI finally makes it to the cyber-age.
Who knows?  Maybe Charles Schumer will even have an e-mail address
by the end of the century.
Anyway, hold your nose and take a look.
If you come away with images of Nazi Germany in the 1930's, you are not alone.

http://www.handguncontrol.org/index.htm


Washington Office

    1225 Eye Street NW
    Suite 1100
    Washington, DC 20005-3991

    HCI telephone: [phone]
    HCI fax: [phone]

    CPHV telephone: [phone]
    CPHV fax: [phone]

    Communications fax: [phone]
    202-842-7610

Handgun Control, Inc. and Center to Prevent Handgun Violence

    LA office
    10951 W. Pico Boulevard, Suite 100
    Los Angeles, CA 90064
    HCI telephone: [phone]
    CPHV telephone: [phone]
    HCI/CPHV fax: [phone]

    San Francisco office
    268 Bush Street, Box 555
    San Francisco, CA 94108
    HCI/CPHV telephone: [phone]
    HCI/CPHV fax: [phone]

    San Diego Office
    705 12th Avenue
    San Diego, CA 92101
    HCI/CPHV telephone: [phone]
    HCI/CPHV fax: [phone]

    Chicago Office
    11 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2302
    Chicago, IL 60603
    telephone: [phone]
    fax: [phone]

"To Flame or Not to Flame, That is the Question."
or is it...."Last One On the HCI Internet Enemies List is a Rotten Egg."  ":~)
Mick

******************************************************************
Michael Moxley               The Patriot:
[e-mail]      http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6627/
***************************Live Free or Die!***************************





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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Column, Sept. 12 (LONGISH)]
Date: 10 Sep 1997 10:05:16 -0600


Thought this might be of some interest...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 12, 1997
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Good cop, bad cop

    As Internet encryption advocate Robert Costner of Electronic Frontiers
Georgia (http://www.efga.org/) recently asked his e-mail correspondents,
"Would you store a key to your house at the local police station, just in
case any government agency ... wanted to search your home, without a court
ordered search warrant, whether you were home or not?

  "Would you feel better if the key to your house was kept at a local bank,
but available to the government within two hours, seven days a week, 24
hours per day, and the bank was forbidden by law from telling you that the
government had your house key?

  "What would you do if such a bill was in congress right now? ..."

  It is. The personal "effects" targeted this time are our computer files,
telephone calls, and e-mail communications, thanks to the latest revisions
to Senate Bill 909, "The Secure Public Networks Act of 1997."

  Initially the bill in question -- sponsored by Republican Sen. John
McCain of Arizona -- stipulated the congressional intent was to outlaw the
use of sophisticated devices to scramble Internet communications only for
the purpose of concealing crimes, that Congress in no way intended to
outlaw the transmission of coded messages between otherwise law-abiding
Americans.

  But a new version of the bill's Section 105, appearing Aug. 28 and
supported by FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, would in effect require Internet
Service Providers to  decode users' messages upon court demand -- a
function they would be able to perform because, under the new version of
the law, those using encryption to make their messages unintelligible to
third parties would now be required to store "escrow keys" capable of
decoding their messages with a "trusted third party" such as the local
bank.

  The sale, distribution, or importation of encryption programs without
such a government-accessible "keyhole" would, of course, be made illegal,
as of January 1999.

  Chief federal internal security officer Freeh contends his revision only
reflects "the legitimate needs of law enforcement," of course.

  Mr. Costner responds: "Indeed, one can offer many arguments as to why a
government would be better off without encryption being held by its
citizens. Just think what a different world we would live in if early
American crypto had not been possible.  Remember Paul Revere's secret key
implementation of 'One if by land, two if by sea?' "

  But in a pleasant surprise, Vice President Al Gore on Sept. 9 reaffirmed
the Clinton administration's policy against restricting the domestic sale
of high-tech computer privacy devices.

  "The administration's position has not changed on encryption," Gore told
the Software Publishers Association.

  Until Mr. Freeh's initiative a week ago, official U.S. policy had opposed
restrictions on the sale of data-scrambling software within the United
States, though the administration does regulate exports of encryption
devices, actually labeling such export products "munitions" based on their
presumed usefulness to foreign armies and terrorist groups.

  Vice President Gore didn't specifically mention Freeh's proposal on Sept.
9. But White House aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The
Associated Press the vice president's brief comment was intended to respond
to Director Freeh and "show that for now the administration is not changing
its position on the sale of encryption devices in the United States."

  Last December a new administration plan took effect, giving U.S.
companies more freedom to export high-tech encryption devices, but
insisting manufacturers first guarantee that G-men -- upon court order --
would be able to crack the codes and intercept the communications.

  Will U.S. firms find it a crippling restriction when they try to enter
international markets with "privacy" programs to which everyone knows the
FBI and CIA already hold the secret keys?

  Probably.

  But the larger risk here is the spread of such an attractive tool for
government snooping back into the domestic arena.

  If it were up to Judge Freeh, private letters dropped in the mailbox on
the corner would have to be sealed in transparent envelopes, "to make it
easier for us to check."

  Assurances that the administration is not going along with Director Freeh
"for now" are welcome, though I can't help but wonder why Director Freeh
was permitted to float such a balloon in the first place, except to see
whether it might fly unopposed.

  This is a dangerous dalliance with the mindset of the police state. The
federal government shouldn't be opening our mail -- electronic or
otherwise.

  If that means a few "dangerous conspirators" are allowed to move their
earnings around without telling the IRS, so be it. Because the only
alternative is the "safety" of a nation with a cop listening on every
phone.

  No thanks.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail]. The web
site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The
column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media
Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]


"A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police
state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall
not be infringed."



----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 rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine.
 Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
 -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-Gun Group Gives Utah a `D' for Safety
Date: 10 Sep 1997 10:51:18 -0600

>Subject: Anti-Gun Group Gives Utah a `D' for Safety
>
>http://www.sltrib.com/091097/utah/3365.htm
>
>>                                 [Image]
>>  [Image] [Image]     Wednesday, September 10, 1997     [Image] [Image]
>>
>>                Anti-Gun Group Gives Utah a `D' for Safety
>>
>>  BY ROBERT BRYSON
>>  THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
>>      Utah earned a ``D'' from Handgun Control Inc., a Washington,
>>  D.C., gun-control lobbying group, on how the state protects children
>>  from gun violence and accidents.
>>      Grades were based on whether concealed handguns are allowed and
>>  if training is required for them; if there are laws against juveniles
>>  possessing or selling handguns; if adults are required to keep
>>  firearms out of the reach of children; and whether state law can
>>  override strict city or county ordinances regarding firearms.
>>      ``Utah has some of the weakest laws in the nation regarding
>>  concealed weapons, and training and gets an ``F'' there,'' said Jake
>>  Tapper, spokesman for Handgun Control Inc.
>>      The organization has 400,000 members and is headed by Sarah
>>  Brady. Her husband, James Brady, who was President Reagan's press
>>  secretary, was wounded and disabled by gunfire in an attack on the
>>  president.
>>      Tapper also said that other states earned higher grades because
>>  police are in charge of issuing concealed-weapon permits.
>>      Utah legislators changed the law in 1995, granting the ability to
>>  get a permit to nearly any applicant who does not have a felony
>>  conviction. Some 14,000 Utahns now hold the permits, issued by the
>>  Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification. In the past, police oversaw
>>  the permits and applicants had to show why it was necessary.
>>      Utah does not allow juveniles to own or sell firearms, but lacks
>>  laws requiring adults to keep firearms out of children's reach. Utah
>>  also does not allow cities or counties to enact stricter gun laws
>>  than those of the state.
>>      ``There were 36 Utah children that were dead from firearms in
>>  1994, the latest statistics from the National Center for Health
>>  Statistics,'' Tapper said. The Utah Department of Health in 1995
>>  documented two accidental deaths from guns by youths under 19, and 34
>>  suicides.
>>      ``No state got an A,'' he added, noting California, New Jersey,
>>  Connecticut and Iowa earned ``B'' grades. Utah's neighboring states,
>>  Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Colorado earned ``D'' or ``C''
>>  rankings from the organization.
>>      ``We are tough graders when it comes to children's safety
>>  regarding guns,'' he said.
>>      Education officials in Utah are concerned over gun safety, says
>>  Michelle Bues, a staff attorney with the State office of Education.
>>      ``We have concerns about concealed weapons in schools, and are
>>  working on a bill to be introduced in the Utah Legislature,'' she
>>  said. Gun advocates say they can carry firearms to school, but
>>  educators say they are not allowed without permission of school
>>  officials.
>>      ``The goal is to make our schools safer,'' said Bues.
>>      The ``D'' does not surprise Steve Gunn of Utahns Against Gun
>>  Violence.
>>      ``That is where I would have ranked Utah,'' he said. His
>>  organization is working on the proposed legislation with State Office
>>  of Education officials.
>>      Gun-rights advocates question Handgun Control Inc.'s grades and
>>  findings.
>>      ``Concealed-weapon permits have nothing to do with children,''
>>  said Joe Venus Jr., publisher of American Gun Review, based in
>>  Murray.
>>      Janalee Tobias of Women Against Gun Control says Handgun
>>  Control's efforts are misguided.
>>      ``They like to give grades and get people concerned. They need to
>>  separate the issues, and we need to work more on gun safety,'' she
>>  said.
>>
>>
>>
>>               [Image] [Wednesday Navigation Bar]  [Image]
>>
>>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  ) 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: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: HAND-LOADING GOOD-BYE
Date: 12 Sep 1997 14:19:45 -0600

>Subject: HAND-LOADING GOOD-BYE
>
>
>> S.O.D.F. NEWS ALERT
>>   N.Y. Democrat Representative, Louise Slaughter has sponsored a bill that
>>requires hobbyists to be fingerprinted, photographed and obtain a license to
>>by or keep 5 pounds of gunpowder.
>>  The "Bombing Prevention Act" calls for a permit and a fee of $100 and
would
>>be valid for three years.  It would mandate background checks similar to the
>>'Brady' law.
>>
>>---Source- The Columbus Dispatch  (9/7/97)
>

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

A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police
state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall
not be infringed.




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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Handgun Restrictions May Get Tougher
Date: 12 Sep 1997 14:25:45 -0600

>Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:57:54 -0600
>From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>Organization: The Righter
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I)
>To: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>, Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Handgun Restrictions May Get Tougher
>
>http://www.sltrib.com/091297/utah/3651.htm
>
>>                                 [Image]
>>  [Image] [Image]       Friday, September 12, 1997      [Image] [Image]
>>
>>                   Handgun Restrictions May Get Tougher
>>
>>  BY VINCE HORIUCHI
>>  THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
>>      Since 1994, more than 2 percent of Utahns who tried to buy a
>>  handgun were stopped after undergoing a mandatory criminal background
>>  check, about the same as the national rate.
>>      Nationally, 2.2 percent, or 173,000 buyers, were rejected of the
>>  more than 7.7 million who applied to purchase a handgun, according to
>>  the U.S. Justice Department.
>>      And restrictions to buy guns are likely to get tougher. Starting
>>  in November 1998, anyone buying any type of gun from a licensed
>>  dealer, including long guns such as hunting rifles, must undergo a
>>  criminal background check. The federal law -- which affects every
>>  state -- is a provision of the Brady gun-control law.
>>      In Utah, 115,328 people applied to buy a handgun from a federally
>>  licensed firearms dealer since the law went into effect in February
>>  1994. Of those, 2,323 were rejected, according to the Bureau of
>>  Criminal Identification (BCI), which performs the background checks.
>>      Though the state law has successfully blocked the sale of
>>  handguns to many people who are wanted by the law or who have
>>  criminal histories, gun-control advocates say the state statute is
>>  too weak.
>>      The law states that only licensed gun dealers must check out
>>  prospective buyers. One-time gun sellers -- such as those who want to
>>  sell a family gun -- are under no such requirement.
>>      ``That's a very large loophole in the existing law,'' said Steve
>>  Gunn of Utahns Against Gun Violence. ``People can buy firearms almost
>>  of any kind through nondealers and therefore escape the requirement
>>  for a background check.''
>>      But Elwood Powell of the Utah Shooting Sports Council said the
>>  law is adequate as long it does not require a waiting period.
>>      ``They have done an extraordinary job in doing computer checks,
>>  at least with handguns,'' Powell said about the agency conducting
>>  background checks.
>>      In Utah since 1994, 1,289 people were stopped from buying a
>>  handgun because they had a felony record, 772 for being a fugitive
>>  from justice, 152 for having a record of domestic violence and 110
>>  for being the subject of a protective order.
>>      On average, the state received 2,780 applications to buy a
>>  handgun each month, while 62 were denied. ``It follows the same
>>  pattern from month to month,'' said Todd Peterson, supervisor of the
>>  firearms section of BCI.
>>      In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a major provision in
>>  the federal Brady gun-control law that forced states to conduct
>>  criminal background checks on firearm purchasers.
>>      The court said it is unconstitutional for the federal government
>>  to order state governments to fund and operate crime-check systems to
>>  enforce a federal law.
>>      But Utah elected to retain its law requiring a background check
>>  because officials are convinced it weeds out those who should not
>>  have guns.
>>      In November 1998, another fight in the gun-control issue is
>>  likely to erupt, however. A new federal computer crime-check system
>>  will be operational, and all states will be required to check
>>  criminal backgrounds of the buyers for all firearms -- including long
>>  guns. Because the federal computer system can be used, the Supreme
>>  Court ruling means states would be forced to comply.
>>      Thus, anyone who buys any kind of firearm from a licensed dealer
>>  in Utah after November 1998 would be required to undergo a background
>>  check.
>>      ``It's becoming more and more intrusive,'' said Powell. ``The
>>  design is to make it so difficult for someone to purchase firearms
>>  that they don't even want to try anymore.''
>>      But Gunn of Utahns Against Gun Violence insists that it makes
>>  sense to restrict the sales of all guns, adding, ``We should be
>>  consistent.''
>>
>>
>>
>>                 [Image] [Friday Navigation Bar] [Image]
>>
>>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  ) 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.
>
>
Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185
http://www.therighter.com

A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police
state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall
not be infringed.




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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: This could be a SPAM...
Date: 12 Sep 1997 14:44:10 -0600

Hi all!

Guess what?  The Utah Shooting Sports Council is holding a membership drive!

Do you want CCW's to be made illegal again?
Do you want to be able to carry into private businesses, hospitals,
schools, etc?
Would you like Vermont-style carry?
Should you be exempt from civil liability if you shoot a burglar in your
own home?
Would you like reciprocity increased?
Do you think the University of Utah should be allowed to ban legal
concealed carry?

These are just a few of the issues that will be confronting us during the 1998
legislative session.  Last session Rob Bishop (the ONLY full-time pro-gun
lobbyist on the Hill!) did a fantastic job!  But the anti-gunners are
well-funded,
and will never rest until all of us have been disarmed, so the battle is
starting
anew.  Rob can't do his job, and USSC can't do theirs, without -guess what! -
MONEY!

If you care about your gun rights, PLEASE join!

Membership is $20 for an individual, $35 for a family, and $250 for
businesses.
Donations are welcome if you don't want to "join" an organization.
Dues and donations are NOT tax-exempt.

The address is:
Utah Shooting Sports Council
PO Box 1175
Layton, UT 84041-6975

You can also join at the Crossroads of the West Gun show next weekend.

PLEASE copy or mention this note when/if you join.  I'm doing an informal
study of the effectiveness of the internet for gun-rights supporters.

PLEASE NOTE:  This message is the _sole responsibility of the author_.
USSC does NOT know I'm sending it, and my only affilitaion with
USSC is as an ordinary dues-paying member.  Please feel free to forward
this to anyone else you know who may be interested.

Thanks for your support!

Sarah


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

A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police
state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall
not be infringed.




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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gun Rights Forces Outgunned on TV
Date: 13 Sep 1997 17:01:17 -0600

This article is best viewed on the Web, but for those of you who don't
have access, I'm including the entire article.

Sarah

>http://www.mrc.org/mrc/mediawatch/1997/mw0797st.html
>
>>                                [Image]
>>
>>           From the July 1997 MediaWatch
>>           Study
>>
>>           Networks Use First Amendment Rights to Promote
>>           Opponents of Second Amendment Rights
>>           Gun Rights Forces Outgunned on TV
>>
>>           Network reporters feared a wave of         [Image]
>>           criminals storming gun stores when the
>>           Supreme Court struck down portions of the Brady
>>           Bill as unconstitutional. On the June 27 CBS
>>           Evening News, Jim Stewart left viewers with this
>>           fearful conclusion: "No matter who does the
>>           checking, supporters of the Brady law say one
>>           lesson from this is very clear. If no background
>>           check is done anyone can walk into a gun store and
>>           purchase a weapon, including the nearly quarter of
>>           a million felons who tried to and were turned away
>>           the four years the Brady law was in effect."
>>
>>                Stewart neglected the National Rifle
>>           Association's view that the 250,000 number is
>>           completely exaggerated, especially considering
>>           that only 20 states are still subject to the Brady
>>           law, and there are only "three individuals who've
>>           seen the inside of a prison cell under the Brady
>>           Act."
>>
>>                To examine if CBS's tone reflected how the
>>           networks covered the gun control debate,
>>           MediaWatch analysts reviewed every gun control
>>           policy story on four evening shows (ABC's World
>>           News Tonight, CBS Evening News, CNN's The World
>>           Today, and NBC Nightly News) and three morning
>>           broadcasts (ABC's Good Morning America, CBS This
>>           Morning, and NBC's Today) from July 1, 1995
>>           through June 30, 1997. In 244 gun policy stories,
>>           those favoring gun control outnumbered stories
>>           opposing gun control by 157 to 10, or a ratio of
>>           almost 16 to 1 (77 were neutral). Talking heads
>>           were slightly more balanced: gun control advocates
>>           outumbered gun-rights spokesmen 165 to 110 (40
>>           were neutral).
>>
>>                Story Angle. Analysts counted the number of
>>           pro- and anti- gun control statements by reporters
>>           in each story. Pieces with a disparity of greater
>>           than 1.5 to 1 were categorized as either for or
>>           against gun control. Stories closer than the ratio
>>           were deemed neutral. Among statements recorded as
>>           pro-gun control: violent crime occurs because of
>>           guns, not criminals, and gun control prevents
>>           crime. Categorized as arguments against gun
>>           control: gun control would not reduce crime; that
>>           criminals, not guns are the problem; Americans
>>           have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms;
>>           right-to-carry concealed weapons laws caused a
>>           drop in crime. The finding that the story-angle
>>           numbers are much more lopsided than the
>>           talking-head contrast reveals that the reporters'
>>           own statements have a demonstrable pro-gun control
>>           spin.
>>
>>                Evening News. Gun rights advocates were
>>           treated like clay pigeons in a skeet-shooting
>>           contest. Out of 103 evening news segments, pro-gun
>>           control stories outnumbered anti-gun control
>>           stories by 70 to 6, along with 27 neutral reports.
>>           ABC was the most slanted (29 pro-gun control to
>>           five anti-, only six neutral), followed by CNN
>>           (17-1, and only six neutral). NBC reporters
>>           promoted gun control in 13 (60 percent) of 22 gun
>>           segments. CBS had the highest percentage of
>>           balanced stories but still advocated gun control
>>           in 11 (65 percent) of 17 gun control-related
>>           segments, to six neutral stories and zero opposing
>>           segments.
>>
>>                Pro-gun control talking heads were televised
>>           99 times on evening shows, to just 67 anti-gun
>>           control spokesmen and 24 neutral soundbites. Once
>>           again ABC (35-20, five neutral) led the way in
>>           pushing for gun control, followed by CBS (24-13,
>>           six neutral). CNN (16-13, four neutral) NBC
>>           (24-21, and nine neutral) came closest to balance.
>>
>>                Morning Shows. In 141 morning-show    [Image]
>>           gun policy segments, stories loaded in
>>           favor of gun control outnumbered stories opposing
>>           gun control 87 to 4. (Fifty were neutral.) ABC's
>>           advocacy against gun owners carried over to Good
>>           Morning America (36 pro-gun control stories, zero
>>           opposed, 16 neutral). NBC came next (35-3, with 20
>>           neutral). CBS set their sights against gun owners
>>           in 16 stories, but came closest to balance with 14
>>           neutral segments (but only one story favoring gun
>>           rights).
>>
>>                The talking head count on morning shows also
>>           followed the pro-gun control trend: 66 pro-gun
>>           control to 43 against and 16 neutral. Again, ABC
>>           had the largest slant (26-15, and eight neutral),
>>           followed by NBC (23-12, six neutral). CBS's
>>           talking heads came out almost even: 17 in favor of
>>           gun control, 16 opposed and two neutral.
>>
>>                Guests. The morning shows were also far more
>>           likely to invite gun control spokesmen like Sarah
>>           Brady than 2nd Amendment defenders like the NRA's
>>           Tanya Metaksa. Pro-gun control spokesmen were able
>>           to advocate their side three times more than the
>>           anti-gun control speakers: 37 to just 12
>>           opponents, and four neutral spokesmen. On NBC,
>>           advocates overwhelmed opponents 19 to 3, with no
>>           neutral observers, followed by ABC (6-3, one
>>           neutral) and CBS (12-6, three neutral).
>>
>>                Network guest bookers and reporters fell over
>>           themselves to feature anti-gun rights
>>           Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). On the
>>           November 6, 1996 Today Katie Couric asked: "What
>>           do you think the lesson is for the National Rifle
>>           Association? Of course, one of the cornerstones of
>>           your campaign was to maintain the ban on assault
>>           weapons in this country."
>>
>>                That same day on Good Morning America, Joan
>>           Lunden also enthusiastically welcomed the gun
>>           rights opponent: "McCarthy turned her rage over
>>           the availability of assault weapons into political
>>           activism and last night this ultimate outsider, a
>>           former nurse and homemaker, defeated incumbent
>>           Daniel Frisa and Carolyn McCarthy joins me now.
>>           Good morning. Congratulations! What are your
>>           thoughts as you sit there? I mean, a little fear,
>>           excitement? Hopes? What are your thoughts?" She
>>           added: "Sounds like you really educated yourself,
>>           too. Are you at all daunted by this task that lies
>>           before you?"
>>
>>                At the end of the interview, Lunden cheered
>>           on McCarthy's anti- gun crusade: Well, we wish you
>>           the very, very best of luck and congratulations to
>>           you." Would Lunden and Couric have wished luck to
>>           a Congressman desiring to place restrictions on
>>           the First Amendment? Apparently network reporters
>>           regard some constitutional rights as more sacred
>>           than others.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                  Other features in the July MediaWatch
>>
>>                                 [Image]
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>             MediaWatch Archives   HOME   MRC News Division
>
>



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Please cross-post this
Date: 13 Sep 1997 17:05:36 -0600

>                  *** Cross-post freely  ***
>
>
>Last year the Suffolk County, N.Y. legislature passed a law,
>County Law 678-96, requiring the police department to issue
>pistol licenses only with those restrictions specifically
>spelled out in the penal code, meaning none.  The SCPD no
>longer has the authority to place any arbitary restrictions
>upon any license.
>
>Police commissioner Gallagher has refused to implement this.
>The Suffolk Police Department's web page is located at:
>
>http://www.nais.com/clients/scpd/
>
>I suggested to other New York activists that pro-gun messages
>be left on their web site's guestbook.  No rude, crude, or
>disgusting messages were posted.  In response to this, their
>webmaster Lawrence Scharf ([e-mail]) has been deleting
>all messages which make reference to 678-96 and has begun to
>post blatantly false information on the county's pistol
>licensing procedure.
>
>I am asking for help from pro-gun activists from the country
>to please visit the SCPD's homepage and leave a polite message
>requsting commissioner Gallagher implement 678-96 and for the
>SCPD to stop censoring their web page.
>
>
>Jacob J. Rieper
>Compuserve: [e-mail]
>Internet: V$[e-mail]
>NY RKBA: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1976/lrn.htm
>
>"Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum
>est." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca




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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Court Rule Proposed Changes]
Date: 14 Sep 1997 14:56:45 -0600


Not directly related, but likely of interest to some here...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Utah Code and Court Rules Update from
Code-Co's Internet Access to Utah Law
http://www.code-co.com/utah
=====================================

Topic: Proposed Changes to Various Utah Court Rules.
URL: http://www.code-co.com/utah/court/p91297/index.htm

At the above address you will find proposed changes to various court rules.
The Administrative Office of the Courts has released the proposed changes
to request COMMENT. (How to give any comment you have is found on web
site.) The following sets of rules are affected by the proposed changes:

  Rules of Civil Procedure
  Rules of Criminal Procedure
  Rules of Appellate Procedure
  Rules of Juvenile Procedure
  Code of Judicial Administrations

The changes are shown in typical legislative style. Material that is
proposed to be added is underlined and italic. Material that is proposed to
be stricken out is bracketed and struck through.

Hope you find this useful.

Byron Harward
Webmaster
Code-Co Law Publishers

Note: You receive this email either because you are a subscriber to our
service or because you registered as an interested user and asked for a
free password to try our service.  If you would prefer not to receive these
updates, please reply to this email with "Remove from updates" in the
subject field. We will immediately remove you from the update list.

----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 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: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: S&W as the "Gatekeeper" & "Keeper of the Key"
Date: 15 Sep 1997 13:10:12 -0600

>-----------------From S&W Website----------------------
>
>August 1997
>
>SMITH & WESSON HANDGUNS TO COME WITH MASTER LOCK GUN LOCK
>
>
>Smith & Wesson, the worlds leading manufacturer of handguns for sporting,
>law enforcement and military use, announces that beginning September 2, all
>Smith & Wesson handguns sold for commercial distribution will be shipped
>from the factory with a Master Lock Gun Lock.
>
>Ken Jorgensen, Smith & Wesson's Public Relations Manager states, "Smith &
>Wesson recognizes that with our rights comes responsibility. We believe
>that it is common sense for Smith & Wesson to encourage gun owners to
>utilize the full range of firearms safety precautions and procedures
>available to them. These certainly include basic firearms safety training
>and measures that that can help prevent unauthorized access to firearms.
>While we recognize that mo single safety device or solution will apply
>universally to all gun owners, we believe that the inclusionof the Master
>Lock Gun Lock with Smith & Wesson handguns reflect our commiment to the
>concept of responsibility."
>
>This partnership with Master Lock, the world's best known name in locking
>devices is a natural for Smith & Wesson. Both American based companies are
>leaders in their respective industries and our combined knowledge of
>firearms and security devices will be of mutual benefit to our customers.
>
>Consumers that wish to purchase either duplicate locks keyed the same for
>use on other firearms they own or additional keys may do so through the
>Smith & Wesson Customer Support Center (800-331-0852, Ext.2904).
>
>For More Information, Call Our Customer Service: 1-800-826-5481
>
        Smith & Wesson
        2100 Roosevelt Avenue
        Springfield, MA 01102
        [phone]
        Customer Support: [e-mail]
        URL: http://www.smith-wesson.com

Well, no.  Smith and Wesson can't take responsibility for me or anyone
else, unless they choose to stop manufacturing firearms.  Only _individuals_
can be responsible for themselves or their children.

So, S&W thinks I'm too irresponsible to keep a firearm safe myself, and
too stupid to make my own decisions.
S&W thinks they have the right to _force_ me to buy a "Master Lock",
even if my children are adults!
S&W maybe even wants me to get killed trying to remove the lock while
someone attacks me.

S&W has sold out.  They think that if they feed the crocodile, it will eat
them last.  They're too stupid to realize they'll still get eaten!

I'm really fond of my S&W pistol, but you can bet I won't ever buy
another one.

Let Smith & Wesson know how YOU feel about their new trigger lock
program!

Sarah


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185

http://www.therighter.com

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
-Winston Churchill



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Heston/NRA Against NRA Bylaws and Militias
Date: 17 Sep 1997 10:09:46 -0600

>Tonight on CSPAN-2 I happened to watch a few minutes of NRA Executive Vice
President Charlton
>Heston's performance before the National Press Club.  I only saw a few
minutes of the question
>and answer session.  One question was, essentially, the following:  What
support or involvement
>does the NRA have with "paramilitary" groups?"  Mr. Heston's response, and
I believe I have the
>quote accurate, having written it down as it happened (I may be off a word
or two, the essence
>of the quote is as follows; transcripts can be obtained by calling 1 (888)
343-1940):  "The NRA
>has never had any involvement with any militia group, nor does it approve
of them."
>
>Ahem.
>
>The Bylaws of the NRA state, in pertinent part:
>
>Article II
>
>The purposes and objectives of the National Rifle Association of America are:
>
>1.  To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,
especially with reference to
>the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by
such Constitution to
>acquire, possess, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the
right to use arms, in
>order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their
legitimate individual rights
>of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well
as to serve
>effectively in the appropriate MILITIA for the common defense of the
Republic and the individual
>liberty of its citizens;
>
>. . .
>
>3.  To train members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, the
MILIIA, and people of
>good repute in marksmanship and in the safe handling and efficient use of
small arms;
>
>(emphasis added by capitalization).
>
>This is now the second time in two weeks that I've seen an official
spokesman of the NRA say
>this.  The other was Steve Helsley, who was quoted by the Los Angeles
Times as having said
>essentially the same thing.
>
>Thought you'd like to know.
>
>
>Daniel J. Schultz
>President and Co-founder
>The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society
>18034 Ventura Boulevard, No. 329
>Encino, CA 91316
>[phone]
>http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/law_menu.html
>
>For a complimentary copy of the LSAS newsletter, The Liberty Pole,
>please call us or send an e-mail.


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185

http://www.therighter.com

I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.
Margaret Thatcher (b. 1925)





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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rights vs. Social Utility, By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
Date: 17 Sep 1997 10:59:03 -0600

Hi!
I can't remember if I sent this out already.  If I did, apologies for
the "re-run"!

Sarah


>Subject: Rights vs. Social Utility, By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
>
>http://webley.zq.com/tle/le970801-06.html
>
>>
>>   T   ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>   H                     THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
>>   E                     Number 32, August 1, 1997
>>       ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>   L
>>   I                      Rights vs. Social Utility
>>   B
>>   E                      By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
>>   R                       [e-mail]
>>   T
>>   A        Special to The Libertarian Enterprise
>>   R
>>   I                 I recently received an e-mail from some gun
>>   A        rights advocates which proposed the following:
>>   N
>>                 1. The Constitution is the standard
>>   E             argument for the right to keep and bear
>>   N             arms.
>>   T             2. "Joe and Jane Sixpack", not to mention
>>   E             "Joseph and Janet Champagne", don't think
>>   R             the Constitution matters.
>>   P             3. Scholars such as Kleck, Kates, and Lott
>>   R             have demonstrated that firearms ownership
>>   I             has social utility.
>>   S             4. Therefore, we should abandon the Second
>>   E             Amendment as the basis of our arguments and
>>                 attempt to persuade the public to accept
>>                 gun ownership on emotional terms as having
>>   I             "social utility".
>>   s
>>   s                 My response follows.
>>   u                 It is true that "Joe and Jane Sixpack" don't
>>   e        care a bit about the Constitution. It is sad, but
>>            true, that most of the justices don't either. But
>>   32       think about what you're proposing. Do you really want
>>            to concede, a priori, that the Constitution is
>>            irrelevant, that all that matters is "social
>>            utility"? Do you want to change the rules of
>>            engagement so that pragmatism trumps rights? If you
>>            do so, I maintain that the battle, and the war, are
>>            irrevocably lost.
>>                     Rights are unchanging and immutable, because
>>            they are of nature, or God, if you're so inclined.
>>            "Social utility" is so inconstant and capricious as
>>            to be virtually meaningless. 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 lawless and rebellious
>>            colonists. It was of equally great social utility for
>>            Hitler to disarm Jews and anyone else who didn't
>>            support him. The current administration thinks it is
>>            social utility to label any and all dissenters
>>            "terrorists", and then to deprive them of all rights,
>>            harass, disarm, and imprison them. Is that really
>>            what you want?
>>                     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 it 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 inflict its will on any other
>>            individual or group by force.
>>                     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. But the enemy, and its ministry of propaganda,
>>            the media, are infinitely better at playing it, and
>>            have infinitely more resources, than the right to
>>            keep and bear arms movement ever will. Never, ever
>>            agree to play by the enemy's rules!
>>                     While it's true, as was stated in the
>>            letter, that the law rarely establishes norms but
>>            rather follows cultural norms, this is no argument
>>            for basing laws on opinion polls and then trying to
>>            influence the polls. It's bad enough that Congress
>>            operates that way.
>>                     Perhaps I'm confused, but 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 all need to reevaluate what we're doing and
>>            why.
>>                     Remember that Prime Minister Tony Blair
>>            admitted openly that the disarmament of British
>>            subjects had nothing to do with safety and everything
>>            to do with eliminating the influence of the "American
>>            gun culture". He was successful, and the vast
>>            majority of British "sheeple" happily agreed to be
>>            disarmed, foolishly believing that they were creating
>>            a "safer society".
>>                     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, gunowners 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.
>>                     Legislation is meaningless. The Constitution
>>            is all the "legislation" we need. What we must do is
>>            to reclaim our rights regardless of what Congress
>>            does or does not do. An unconstitutional law is no
>>            law at all.
>>                     We do need to educate the people, but not to
>>            accept the social utility of firearms. Those who
>>            would be citizens of a free state must be educated to
>>            understand the concepts of individual rights,
>>            responsibilities and liberties. Any other path is
>>            tyranny. Any other path is doomed.
>>
>>            Sarah Thompson is a writer, physician, ex-activist
>>            and self-proclaimed pot-stirrer. She has written on
>>            topics including the Constitution (particularly the
>>            Second Amendment), activism, Waco, Jews and firearms,
>>            and is currently working on her first novel. Sarah is
>>            also Director of Women's Affairs for Doctors for
>>            Integrity in Policy Research and has testified and
>>            lectured on the social utility of firearms. She lives
>>            in Sandy, UT with her husband and two cats.
>>




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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: UofU students?
Date: 17 Sep 1997 14:32:29 -0600

Hey,

Are you, or do you know any University of Utah students who
have a CCW and aren't afraid of a little fun?

Thanks

Will



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Fwd: Heston/NRA Against NRA Bylaws and Militias
Date: 17 Sep 1997 16:44:36 -0700

Received: from mailhost.NRA.org by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id PAA06922; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:39:09 -0600
Received: from wbg-va4-06.ix.netcom.com (wbg-va4-06.ix.netcom.com [205.184.195.134]) by mailhost.NRA.org (8.6.11/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA15854 for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:34:49 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: NRA Institute for Legislative Action
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NC320  (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

DAVID SAGERS wrote:
>
> FYI
> Received: from mail.xmission.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
>         id KAA06721; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:14:37 -0600
> Received: from domo by mail.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.62 #4)
>         id 0xBMqt-0000Ha-00; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:21:19 -0600
> Received: from mars.aros.net [207.173.16.20]
>         by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.62 #4)
>         id 0xBMqh-0000Fx-00; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:21:07 -0600
> Received: from sarahtho (dm1-11.slc.aros.net [207.173.25.12])
>           by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP
>           id KAA14684; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:06:51 -0600 (MDT)
> Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> X-Sender: [e-mail]
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:09:46 -0600
> To: [e-mail]
> From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Fwd: Heston/NRA Against NRA Bylaws and Militias
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Sender: [e-mail]
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
>
> >Tonight on CSPAN-2 I happened to watch a few minutes of NRA Executive Vice
> President Charlton
> >Heston's performance before the National Press Club.  I only saw a few
> minutes of the question
> >and answer session.  One question was, essentially, the following:  What
> support or involvement
> >does the NRA have with "paramilitary" groups?"  Mr. Heston's response, and
> I believe I have the
> >quote accurate, having written it down as it happened (I may be off a word
> or two, the essence
> >of the quote is as follows; transcripts can be obtained by calling 1 (888)
> 343-1940):  "The NRA
> >has never had any involvement with any militia group, nor does it approve
> of them."
> >
> >Ahem.
> >
> >The Bylaws of the NRA state, in pertinent part:
> >
> >Article II
> >
> >The purposes and objectives of the National Rifle Association of America are:
> >
> >1.  To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,
> especially with reference to
> >the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by
> such Constitution to
> >acquire, possess, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the
> right to use arms, in
> >order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their
> legitimate individual rights
> >of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well
> as to serve
> >effectively in the appropriate MILITIA for the common defense of the
> Republic and the individual
> >liberty of its citizens;
> >
> >. . .
> >
> >3.  To train members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, the
> MILIIA, and people of
> >good repute in marksmanship and in the safe handling and efficient use of
> small arms;
> >
> >(emphasis added by capitalization).
> >
> >This is now the second time in two weeks that I've seen an official
> spokesman of the NRA say
> >this.  The other was Steve Helsley, who was quoted by the Los Angeles
> Times as having said
> >essentially the same thing.
> >
> >Thought you'd like to know.
> >
> >
> >Daniel J. Schultz
> >President and Co-founder
> >The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society
> >18034 Ventura Boulevard, No. 329
> >Encino, CA 91316
> >[phone]
> >http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/law_menu.html
> >
> >For a complimentary copy of the LSAS newsletter, The Liberty Pole,
> >please call us or send an e-mail.
>
> Sarah Thompson, M.D.
> PO Box 1185
> Sandy, UT 84091-1185
>
> http://www.therighter.com
>
> I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.
> Margaret Thatcher (b. 1925)


Thank you for forwarding this message regarding Mr. Heston's recent
appearance.  It looks like, however, this is an issue being
misinterpreted.  What Mr. Heston was undoubtedly referring to was the
NRA Policy Statement on Extremist Organizations and Militia Groups,
which has been our view since 1964, and was unanimously reaffirmed by
NRA's Board of Directors in 1995.  I have included this statement in
hopes that it will help to clarify any confusion.

Sincerely,

Anthony Roulette

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

Policy Statement of the National Rifle Association on
          Extremist Organizations and Militia Groups

Appointed by NRA President Tom Washington at the February 4-5,
1995, Board of Directors Meeting, the Special Task Force to Review
Militia Policy unanimously recommended reaffirmation of NRA's pre-
existing policies and position.  Following its report and
subsequent review by the Legislative Policy Committee on May 18,
1995 at the NRA Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, the Committee
voted unanimously to recommend reaffirmation of NRA's pre-existing
policies and position.  Brought before the membership at the Annual
Meeting of Members, with over 1,500 members assembled, the
resolution to reaffirm NRA's pre-existing policy on extremist
organizations adopted in 1964, and its 1994 statement on militias,
was adopted. There were three dissenting votes.  The Board of
Directors, at their meeting on Tuesday, May 23, 1995, reaffirmed
the following policy by unanimous vote:

WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association of
America gathered at its Annual Meeting on May 22-23, 1995 in
Phoenix, Arizona, desires to reaffirm its policy on extremist
organizations adopted in 1964, and its 1994 statement on militias,
therefore;

BE IT REAFFIRMED AND RESOLVED THAT:

       The NRA vehemently disavows any connection with, or tacit
approval of, any club or individual which advocates (1) the
overthrow of duly constituted government authority, (2) subversive
activities directed at any government, (3) the establishment or
maintenance of private armies or group violence.

       The NRA does not approve or support any group activities that
properly belong to the national defense or the police.

       The NRA does not approve or support any group that by force,
violence, or subversion seeks to overthrow the Government and take
the law into its own hands, or that endorses or espouses doctrines
of operation in an extralegal manner.

       The NRA stands squarely on the premise that the ownership of
firearms must not be denied American citizens of good repute so
long as the firearms are used for lawful purposes.

       The NRA has insisted, does insist, and will continue to insist
on the traditional right of American citizens to own and use
firearms for lawful purposes.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

       Although the NRA has not been involved in the formation of any
citizen militia units, neither has the NRA discouraged, nor would
NRA contemplate discouraging, exercise of any constitutional right.

       The NRA strongly supports the Constitution of the United
States, and the Second Amendment to that document, which guarantee
the right of citizens to participate in militias for proper, lawful
and constitutional purposes.

       FURTHER, it is the NRA's view, based on law (Article I,
section 8 of the U.S. Constitution; Title 10, U.S. Code, Section
311(a)), court precedents, and legal and historical interpretation,
that all able-bodied persons, explicitly those between the ages of
17 and 45, are members of the Federal unorganized militia, except
members of the organized state guards (for example, State Defense
Forces which exist in about two dozen states), the National Guards
of the various states (which also serve as a part of the National
Guard of the United States, a military reserve subject to
nationalization by the President of the United States), and certain
government officials.  An "organized citizen militia" must be
created under the constitution itself and/or the laws of a state.

       Title 10, U.S.C., clearly affirms the existence of the citizen
militia; it is little changed since the original Militia Act of
1792 (except for the addition in this century of recognition of the
third type of militia, the Federally supported National Guard, in
addition to the enrolled and unenrolled militia).

       Further, the individual right to own firearms is guaranteed by
the Constitution, but the right to own firearms is not at all
dependent upon the militia clause.  The militia clause of the
Second Amendment merely adds to the reason for the right, which is
a common law right rooted in the right of protection of self,
family and community.

       The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to arms;
participation in a citizen militia organization does not make that
right more valid nor any stronger.

                           - end -

NRA-ILA Grassroots Division

E-mail: [e-mail]

National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia  22030
[phone]
http://www.nra.org






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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Column, Sept. 16
Date: 17 Sep 1997 10:23:00 -0700


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

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 16, 1997
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
'To secure the blessings of liberty'

It was 210 years ago -- Sept. 17, 1787 -- that the delegates of the 12
states, gathered in Philadelphia, signed the new Constitution, "to secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Rhode Island boycotted the proceedings, concerned that a gathering
purportedly called to "fine-tune" the existing Articles of Confederation
might become a runaway convention, succumbing to the siren song of big-
government advocates like Alexander Hamilton of New York, who favored a
unified treasury and central state bank, the better to fund the standing
military which he saw as necessary for the nation to fulfill its
territorial "manifest destiny" and take its place at the council tables
of the great nations.

The skeptics were largely correct. But the bargain was struck, upon the
promise that a Bill of Rights (more accurately, a Bill of Prohibitions on
government action) would be added, a promise duly kept on Dec. 15, 1791.

The federalists argued themselves hoarse that their "weak" federal
government, fenced in by the very act of itemizing each and every one
of its "few" powers in Article I, Section 8, could never get away with
attempting to disarm free citizens, never institute bug-worship as a
state religion, never allow anyone to be imprisoned without trial by
a randomly-selected jury ... nothing like that.

The Constitution did let slavery stand in the Southern states.

The proper remedy to that was the 13th Amendment, but it was to come only
after the erosion of many of the very rights the Union was established to
protect (the tyrant Lincoln introducing the first unconstitutional income
tax, the first mandatory conscription into the army, etc.), all admirably
detailed by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel in his recent history of the failed War
of Secession, "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men."

Still, the notion of a limited federal government, master only in foreign
relations and national defense, deferring to the states or the citizens in
most other matters, held on valiantly for more than a century, crafting an
example of relative liberty and domestic tranquility to which the peoples
of the world still look with envy and awe.

Until the rise of the "Progressive era" in 1912, of course ... followed
by the Farley-Roosevelt "New Deal."

Suddenly, the Federal Reserve system gave Washington City the centralized
control over banking envisioned, lo those 125 years before, by the
Hamiltonians. The popular election of senators permanently weakened
oversight by the state legislatures that had previously appointed that
house, while a newly-authorized federal income tax finally realized the
dreams of the collectivists -- direct transfers of income from the
undeserving rich to the wide-mouthed, braying poor, warehoused on the
welfare state's new plantations.

The founders rightly suspected Congress would continually seek to expand
its power, but assumed General Washington's firm veto pen and John Jay's
strict reading of Article I Section 8 would suffice to nip such wacky
adventures in the bud.

Yet now the foxes guard the henhouse. When was the last time our high
court -- so considerate of the government's endless new-made list of
"compelling interests" in keeping us all well-burped and diapered -- ruled
an entire federal department unconstitutional ... ordered its functionaries
discharged, its headquarters leveled?

There are hopeful signs. In its recent decisions throwing out parts of
the "Brady Bill" gun-owner registration scheme along with "Gun-Free School
Zones," the Supreme Court for the first time in 60 years seems to
acknowledge the Tenth Amendment still exists ... that there may be /some/
limit to endless expansion of power to regulate "interstate commerce."

Though there's little evidence the bureaucrats, in their hubris, yet
understand they cannot protect every field mouse, shield every self-
anointed victim from having his feelings hurt, make every product "safe."

Pleasant-sounding goals. But in pursuing these goals, the lunging,
unwieldy juggernaut of government inevitably tramples and destroys
more than it "protects."

And these are not the purposes for which we establish governments, anyway.
As every American knows, all men are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, and it is to secure these /rights/ that governments are
instituted among men.

The chroniclers give her no first name, but report that Mrs. Powel asked
President Franklin (duly elected President of the sovereign Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania) upon his emergence from the hall, what his convention
had given us ... a monarchy, or a Republic?

"A republic, madam," Mr. Franklin wisely answered, "if you can keep it."

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail]. The web
site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The
column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media
Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.

***

Vin Suprynowicz, [e-mail]

"A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police
state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall
not be infringed."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Heston/NRA Against NRA Bylaws and Militias
Date: 18 Sep 1997 01:03:17 -0600

In the interests of fairness and allowing all points of view
to be heard, I am forwarding this response to the previous
post written by Dan Schultz of the Lawyer's Second
Amendment Society.  The following was sent to me by
Paul H. Blackman, Ph.D., research director for NRA-ILA.

Sarah

>From: [e-mail]
>Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:29:26 -0500 (CDT)
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Heston/NRA Against NRA Bylaws and Militias
>X-Mailer: NETCOMplete v3.20, from NETCOM On-Line Communications, Inc.
>
>I asked around, and the only person I found who was
>at the press club did not hear Heston indicate NRA
>opposition to or disapproval of them, while blaming
>the media for painting the picture of the NRA as tied
>to them.
>The NRA's general policy is that we oppose crime and
>violence, and neither support nor oppose the formation
>of militias so long as they are not for violent or
>criminal purposes.
>If Heston said we never had anything to do with them,
>it would be a slight exaggeration.  Mrs. Metaksa met
>with one or two members of the Michigan militia once,
>each expressed their views, and that was that.  Since
>they are generally not interested in national
>political lobbying and electioneering, and it's kind
>of a specialty of ours, it seemed unlikely either
>would benefit from ties to the other.
>
>PHB
>
>



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SL Tribune -- Stupid Gun-Grabber Opinion
Date: 18 Sep 1997 04:18:00 -0600

>
>http://www.sltrib.com/97/sep/091797/opinion/opinion.htm
>
>>            [Opinion]
>>
>>                Wednesday, September 17, 1997
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>                     Heston's Amendment
>>
>>
>>      Charlton Heston must have come down from the
>>  mountaintop, because there was nothing terribly lofty
>>  about his ode to the Second Amendment last week in an
>>  appearance before the National Press Club in Washington.
>>
>>      Embarking on his mission, as first vice president of
>>  the National Rifle Association, to restore respect for
>>  the right to keep and bear arms, Heston insisted that it
>>  is ``America's first freedom, the one that protects all
>>  the others,'' and he criticized the media for attempting
>>  to erode it.
>>      Hey, don't blame the media; check with the federal
>>  courts, which have never viewed the Second Amendment in
>>  quite the same way that Heston does.
>>      The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads,
>>  ``A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
>>  security of a free State, the right of the people to
>>  keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' Contrary
>>  to Heston and the NRA, federal courts have not
>>  interpreted these words to mean an individual guarantee
>>  to keep and bear arms.
>>      It seems the courts have not been able to ignore the
>>  first part of the amendment the way NRA types prefer to
>>  do. Previous rulings reflect a belief that the founders
>>  intended the right to bear arms to exist within the
>>  context of organized state militias, the predecessors of
>>  the National Guard. Those who disagree with this
>>  interpretation contend that the founders' meaning of
>>  ``militia'' included all men, thus conferring a general
>>  right to bear arms.
>>      Even if that version were to be accepted, then what
>>  should be made of that unavoidable qualifier, ``well
>>  regulated''? If the militia is to include the general
>>  populace, then it should be ``well regulated'' by laws
>>  that aim to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous
>>  individuals in this modern society -- laws like the
>>  Brady Act.
>>      It is ironic that, in the same month that Heston was
>>  making his bombastic bow, the Justice Department issued
>>  statistics on the effectiveness of the Brady Act through
>>  its first three years -- from March 1994 through 1996.
>>      They revealed that the background checks mandated by
>>  the federal Brady law, or state versions thereof,
>>  produced 173,000 rejections of potential handgun buyers.
>>  That included about 70,000 rejections in 1996, of which
>>  68 percent were due to a felony conviction or felony
>>  indictment. It obviously fits the definition of ``well
>>  regulated'' that such people be denied access to
>>  firearms.
>>      Of course, in a nation in which there are 40,000
>>  firearm deaths per year, gun-control advocates make the
>>  case that firearms are not ``well regulated'' enough.
>>  They could also note that, as stated in the preamble,
>>  the Constitution was established in order to ``insure
>>  domestic Tranquility'' and ``promote the general
>>  Welfare.'' Heston might consider the primacy of those
>>  principles the next time he is tempted to wax eloquent
>>  on the Second Amendment.
>>
>>
>>                 [Wednesday Navigation Bar]
>>      --------------------------------------------------
>> ) 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: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Gun Ban for State Employees
Date: 19 Sep 1997 10:56:16 -0600


From today's front page of the Tribune.  It seems that the State now
considers Guns to be a public health hazard and even the Utah Shooting
Sports Council has no problems with the State violating basic rights.
I agree that with most employers, you abide their rules or "take a
hike."  But the State has always been more restricted than private
employers.  And should be.  I was just getting ready to send the USSC
a membership check.  In light of these comments, I may have to wait
and see how they handle things this year before I support them.

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]       Friday, September 19, 1997      [Image] [Image]

                   Gun Ban In Place for State Workers

 BY DAN HARRIE
 ⌐ 1997, THE SALT LAKE
 TRIBUNE


     While the Utah Legislature steadfastly blocks attempts to ban
 firearms in government buildings, Gov. Mike Leavitt's administration
 has prohibited state employees from carrying weapons in the
 workplace.
     A state worker recently was temporarily suspended without pay for
 violating the ban, which was quietly imposed by rule last year
 despite its apparent conflict with state law.
     The law states that a citizen's concealed-weapon license is valid
 ``without restriction'' in Utah, except for in airports, courts and
 corrections facilities.
     ``I know challenging this [rule], I would have won, but I don't
 have the resources to do it,'' said the employee, who carries a
 handgun for protection. ``Unless you fight it in court, there's not
 much you can do.''
     Even top administration officials responsible for the rule
 concede it may violate Utah's strict anti-gun-control laws.
     ``We knew when we wrote the rule that there was a conflict with
 the statute,'' Human Resource Management Director Karen Suzuki-Okabe
 said Thursday. ``But we felt that the bigger and more compelling
 issue was to provide a safe work environment.''
     Tell that to local government officials, some of whom say Utah's
 gun laws appear to prohibit them from adopting any rules restricting
 firearms.
     Salt Lake City, for instance, has no prohibition against
 employees packing legally licensed guns.
     ``No one has considered it because of the state law,'' said
 assistant city attorney Steve Allred.
     ``It's somewhat odd the state would feel the need to impose such
 a rule but would preclude local government from doing so,'' he added.

     The gun-advocacy group that usually jumps on any perceived
 infringement of Second Amendment rights is staying out of this fight.

     ``They can impose as an employer any restrictions they want,''
 said Utah Shooting Sports Council President Elwood Powell. ``If you
 want to work for your employer, you can do what he wants you to do or
 you can take a hike.''
     On the other hand, Powell insists that if an employer prevents a
 worker from carrying a firearm, the employer becomes legally liable
 for a worker's injury or death at the hands of an assailant.
     ``If you're going to deny them a right, you have to provide them
 a tradeoff. The tradeoff here is you agree to protect them,'' Powell
 said.
     Leavitt declined comment on the no-guns rule. Spokeswoman Vicki
 Varela said the comments of Suzuki-Okabe would stand as the
 administration response.
     The rule contained under the ``employee conduct'' section of
 state regulations states: ``Employees shall not carry firearms in any
 facility owned or operated by the state, or in any state vehicle, or
 at any time or any place while on state business.''
     Exceptions are granted to sworn peace officers, others whose jobs
 require firearms, legislative and judicial employees,
 higher-education staff members and elected officials.
     Proposed by Leavitt's staff and Cabinet, the rule received lots
 of private debate within the administration hierarchy before adoption
 in 1996.
     The 1995 Legislature had stripped cities and counties of the
 authority to enact ordinances or rules restricting firearms and eased
 the process for obtaining a concealed-weapons permit, at the same
 time making that license valid anywhere in Utah ``without
 restriction.''
     Cabinet officials realized that imposing a rule that appeared to
 conflict with the law was a politically sticky issue, but went ahead
 with the new policy, anyway.
     ``This was not something that was done cavalierly,'' Suzuki-Okabe
 said.
     The questions of legality were known from the outset and pointed
 out by then-Public Safety Commissioner Doug Bodrero and Leavitt's
 attorney Robin Riggs, she said.
     ``We knew that when we did it,'' Suzuki-Okabe said. ``The
 Legislature gets real mad at us when we do this, so I'm going to take
 some real heat on this one.''
     She said the primary concern was providing a safe workplace.
     ``From a common-sense standpoint it makes sense not to have
 people bring weapons on the work site,'' she said.
     ``We don't allow people to smoke in public buildings now
 basically because it presents a health hazard to other employees,''
 said Richard McDonald, Human Resource Management deputy director.
 ``But it's OK to bring a gun in -- that's not a public health
 hazard?''



                [Image] [Friday Navigation Bar] [Image]

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

 ⌐ 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.


--

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: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gun Ban for State Employees
Date: 19 Sep 1997 18:33:49 -0600

At 10:56 AM 9/19/97 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>From today's front page of the Tribune.  It seems that the State now
>considers Guns to be a public health hazard and even the Utah Shooting
>Sports Council has no problems with the State violating basic rights.
>I agree that with most employers, you abide their rules or "take a
>hike."  But the State has always been more restricted than private
>employers.  And should be.  I was just getting ready to send the USSC
>a membership check.  In light of these comments, I may have to wait
>and see how they handle things this year before I support them.
>

I agree with Charles and want to apologize for my previous post
encouraging people to join USSC.  Had I known that Mr. Powell
was going to make such ill-advised comments, I would not have
done so.  For the governor to openly flaut state law is unforgiveable.
For him to exempt the very University personnel who are disarming
students is also unforgiveable.

Since USSC is the only "pro-gun"(?) lobbying group in the state, I would
suggest that people let them know their opinions on this matter.  If
they realize they are losing potential supporters such as Mr. Hardy,
maybe they'll see the light.

Apologies again if I misled anyone.

Sarah



Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185

[e-mail]

The proclamation and repetition of first principles is a constant feature
of life in our democracy. Active adherence to these principles, however,
has always been considered un-American. We recipients of the boon of
liberty have always been ready, when faced with discomfort, to discard
any and all first principles of liberty, and, further, to indict those who do
not freely join with us in happily arrogating those principles.
David Mamet (b. 1947)



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Forwarded from "Great" Britain
Date: 19 Sep 1997 11:49:00 -0700


    [e-mail], [e-mail]

Yup, a guy can see why those colonists did what they did 220+ years ago...

- Monte


Well, the fateful moment has come to tell about my hand-in, at West
Mids police HQ.

I actually didn't think I would ever be writing this, as I had no intent
of handing my guns in.  I wanted my day in court.  Unfortunately, my
FAC expires on 26th September so all that would have happened would be
a conviction for failure to renew my FAC, which seemed rather trivial.
(Handguns become prohibited on 30th September).

It just wouldn't have the same impact on a jury, I think.

I nearly killed myself getting my spare safe out of the loft.  Thing
almost hit me on the head.

I weighed down my Toyota and drove it all down there, left hand Galco
shoulder holster, a variety of mag pouches, a heap of brass, a state-
of-the-1987-art IPSC racegun, a clapped out SIG-Sauer P220, two rusty
safes, etc.  Basically a heap of rubbish, worth about three grand.  To
think I am going to get paid for all this junk.

They sat me down in the press room and went through it all, took about
half an hour, they weren't happy that all my brass was under Option C
(valued) because they would have to put it in store.  Everything under
Option C was put into a big West Mids Police evidence bag and my FAC
number was stuck onto it.  My guns were put in Bianchi bluebags, as were
the mags.  I didn't hand in any mags with my SIG-Sauer P220-1, and they
wrote that down on the valuation.  Likewise they reduced the number
of CZ-75 mags by one because they included one as part of the gun.

All of the Option A and B (listed values) stuff was thrown into a big
burlap bag.

The PC doing the paperwork gave me my copy back, which has "customer's
copy" printed across it.  I opined: "Oh, so I'm a _customer_ am I?"

"Yeah, pretty bizarre terminology.  Maybe you'll get your guns back
if you're lucky." he responded.

After it was all done, my firearm licensing officer sat me down
at the back of the room to go through my renewal.  He called in another
PC and pulled out a questionnaire identical to the referee forms I had
refused to complete because that law isn't effective yet.

We went through what kind of guns I had applied for authority for, why
I needed them and so on.  The Section 1 shotgun caused some confusion,
as they wanted to know where I would shoot it.  I mentioned that I
was a member of the NRA, member of the UKPSA and they responded they
needed to see proof of membership.  I had my NRA card on me, and
promised to send them photocopies of the rest.  They also wanted me
to name specifically what kind of shotgun I was going to get, pump
or semi, presumably because they didn't want me going out to get
a coach gun.  In the end I told them I was getting a Benelli M3
Super 90, (the truth) which is selective action anyway.

They weren't too happy about the slug.  I have only applied for
authority for 50 rounds, and told them I would only be using it at
certain competitions.  The PC who usually deals with me seemed happy
to take my UKPSA membership as being good enough reason, but the
other PC wanted me to name at least one place I would be using it
regularly.  I eventually thought up the Shooter's Rights Association
range, as I am a life member.  "Oh, Jock, didn't we get some memo or
something from Dyfed Powys about them?"
   "Yeah, what's that chappies name? Er..."
   "Richard Law?" I ventured.
   "Yeah, better not use the SRA as a good reason, mate."

The other PC started making some bizarre statements about how 12g
slug would destroy target frames, what kind of backstop they had, while
my local PC sat and rolled his eyes.  Then the other PC said: "You
know, some of our officers went deaf shooting those things."  At
which point my local firearm officer nearly burst out laughing.

We went through various other questions on the form, and I could tell
my local PC was getting brassed off with the whole deal:
   "Oh, here's another bloody stupid question, 'Describe your
friends and associates'.  Well, better not put Richard Law down."

In the end, he basically said: "What this boils down to mate, is are
you going to shoot a bunch of people in a school?  No?  Didn't think
so."  And he got up and went off in a huff.  The other PC was a bit
taken aback but after conferring with my local PC they said they would
have my renewal through on time and would trust me to send in my
UKPSA membership details.

I did get the impression that they were probably being a bit more
suspicious about me than is usual, basically because of all the hassle
I've been giving them everytime they screw up.

Anyway, I have to say I am feeling a bit despondent.

A line out of the Bible has been running through my mind since all
this started: "And the Lord said unto Satan: 'Man does not live by
bread alone'." Luke 4:4  (Not bad for an atheist, eh?)

And that seems to sum up the problem with what the Government is
trying to force everyone in this country to do: be one homogenous mass
of mediocre weak-minded people who are easily directed at the whim of
the Government.  If you don't like soccer, watch TV and drink at the
pub as your primary hobbies, you're "strange" and sooner or later
you're going to be marginalised and discriminated against.  You must
only eat bread.  Anything else, you're a weirdo and God help you.

The concept of Liberty is totally supressed.  You can sit and argue
what Liberty is all day and night, suffice to say it has an ineffable
quality and you're certain of one thing about it: you know when you've
lost it.

On the way out of the police station, I walked past the Assistant
Chief Constable, giving an interview outside because we were using
the Press room.  I didn't catch all of it, but I caught "Armed Response
teams deployed... earlier today."

So it seems the gun ban is working wonderfully.

Steve.

- Monte

  ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oh Lord, lead us into Your Glory - bathe us in the holy & pure
     light of Your Spirit; let Your righteous fire burn away all
     that is in us that is not of You, so that we might worship
     the Living God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength.
                                Amen.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------

                         The Idaho Observer
                 http://www.proliberty.com/observer




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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Making Necessary Noise
Date: 22 Sep 1997 16:02:24 -0600

Highly recommended!  - Sarah

>The following article appears in the Fall/Winter 1997 issue of the
>Loompanics Unlimited catalog supplement.  I offer it here as a think piece.
> I'm not sure the solutions it proposes are the best ones; they are
>certainly not for everyone.  I *am* sure -- as a lot more of us are
>realizing -- that we have exhausted the possibilities of working within the
>system. It isn't hard to see that we're in the process of moving to a new
>stage of freedom fighting.  If this essay encourages anyone to think about
>where and *how* to draw a personal line in the sand, it will have done its
>job. (That's the job it did for me as I wrote it.) Thanks for taking the
>time to consider it.  --CW
>
>-----
>
>MAKING NECESSARY NOISE
>By Claire Wolfe
>
>I'm coming to a conclusion I don't like at all.  I've been edging toward it
>for several years, hating it all the way.  But no matter how much I sniff
>around the idea, turn it upside down, examine it from all angles or peek
>into its dark interior, I can't say it's wrong.  Increasingly, I'm
>convinced it may be both right and necessary -- even though it could rip
>apart the lives of a lot of good people.
>
>Before I get to that dangerous conclusion, let me show you one example of
>what brought me to it.
>
>Start with a question:
>
>How many Americans resist filing federal income tax returns?
>
>The official estimate from the IRS is five to 10 million.  IRS bureaucrats
>admit privately the number may be as high as 35 million.  Either way, a
>great many Americans say, "To hell with the federal government!" on April
>15.  And good for them.
>
>Let's take the very lowest figure: five million.  Let us further assume
>that 80 percent of those non-filers are simply
>procrastinators-non-ideological  folks who just don't get around to sending
>in the forms.
>
>That still means _one million Americans_ are risking their lives, their
>fortunes and their sacred honor each year by consciously saying, "I refuse
>to submit."
>
>The actual numbers are certainly larger -- giving us an awesome force on
>the side of individual liberty.
>
>I often think, "That corrupt, doddering old system, simply _can't_ hold up
>under this resistance."  But look at the real world.  What has that huge,
>stubborn force accomplished?
>
>Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.
>
>RESISTING IN A WHISPER
>
>Oh, yes, those who consciously resist the income tax, invasive drug laws,
>abstruse "regulations," or other forms of arbitrary authority have
>accomplished a lot on a personal level.  Every act of independence is
>beneficial to the spirit.  That's important.  Very.  But is it enough?
>
>Five or 35 million Americans resisting tax laws...40, 50,60 or 80 million
>Americans resisting drug laws...and countless Americans resisting the very
>concept of excessive law...has had _no_ positive impact on the country as a
>whole.  It hasn't changed _anything_ for the better.
>
>The tax system hasn't collapsed.  The income tax hasn't been repealed-as it
>should have.
>
>In the 1920s and 30s, America's casual scorning of the Volstead Act
>(Prohibition) caused that pointless law to be tossed in history's garbage
>can.  But the modern Prohibition against drugs-of-choice hasn't ended
>because millions are resisting it.  Indeed, more -- and worse -- drug laws
>are being passed every day.
>
>Across the country, despite our scorn, new regulations are being
>promulgated, more police agencies are being created, enlarged and armed,
>and more innocents are dying or being terrorized in the name of "law."
>
>How can this be?  How can millions of people be saying NO to bad government
>-- and not being heard?
>
>Well, one reason we're not being heard is that we're whispering.
>
>RESISTING WITH A SHOUT
>
>My dangerous conclusion is this:  We must not only resist bad laws with all
>our strength, but we must resist publicly, loudly and articulately.  Some
>of us will be able to do this merely by advocating resistance in the
>abstract, as a matter of moral and historical right.  Some of us will need
>to publicize our own, personal, principled resistance.  Some of us may need
>to go so far as to stand in the public square and visibly disobey whatever
>damned law plagues us.  All three of these courses could be hazardous to
>our health.
>
>Nevertheless, we must make noise, make news and make a bloody nuisance of
>ourselves. We may need to get ourselves arrested, and ultimately may have
>to throw ourselves in front of tanks and machine guns, if it comes to that.
>
>We need to send a message to the world so loud it can't be ignored, even if
>some of us must die to do it.
>
>STANDING ON PRINCIPLE
>
>We have been quiet for a very good reason: because the government, media
>and in many cases our family and neighbors, regard principled resistance as
>criminal.  We fear both their opinions and the dire consequences of
>breaking the law.
>
>We must now turn that around.  We must proclaim that resistance to bad laws
>is _right_.  We must tell the world that we are not criminals, but fine,
>independent people of exactly the kind the country most needs.
>
>Others are, of course, free to disagree with our viewpoint.  But we
>ourselves must stop buying into the criminal paradigm, even subconsciously.
> We must proudly claim a new paradigm.  We must make it clear that
>resistance is a matter of principle-and that we will never yield to unjust
>laws no matter who threatens us, no matter how dire the threat.
>
>RESISTING THE IDEA OF PUBLIC RESISTANCE
>
>Never have I been more in conflict with myself over an issue.  I've spent a
>whole lifetime seeking privacy.  I hate the idea of making public noise.
>I've spent a lifetime seeking beauty and peace, and I hate the idea of
>being dragged off to some dismal jail, or seeing my friends dragged there.
>
>I also realize full well that what I'm proposing _is_ dangerous.
>
>In the past, I've warned readers never to trust anyone who urges them to
>commit criminal acts.  Those arm-twisters are usually cops or informants.
>That goes double for anyone urging you to take the extra risk of "coming
>out of the closet" with public resistance.  Don't trust them.
>
>Don't trust me.  And certainly _never_ do anything because some writer or
>orator says it might be a good idea.
>
>I'm not asking to be trusted or followed; I'm just asking you to hear and
>decide for yourself whether my conclusion is correct.  If you have an
>effective idea and less dangerous idea for regaining freedom, I implore you
>to propose it and put it into action.
>
>THE SCENARIO: ALTERING HISTORY
>
>What could happen to us if we make an issue of our resistance?  We could be
>arrested, prosecuted, jailed, demonized, laughed at, fired from jobs,
>shunned, fined, and our homes and possessions could be seized even if no
>charges are ever brought against us.  Penalties are becoming more
>draconian.  Federal penalties are increasingly being heaped atop state
>punishments.  "Coming out" as resisters may inspire compulsive control
>freaks to take special pains to "get" and punish us.  Some resisters will
>be made examples of, in the worst way.
>
>It's bad.  Let's never minimize what we might face.  But the growing
>ruthlessness of government is all the more reason we must shout our
>objections.
>
>An analogy:
>
>Hitler began his persecution of the Jews with measures that, in contrast to
>the eventual horror, look mild.  He first required Jews to wear yellow
>stars.  They complied.  He began confiscating their property.  They hid
>possessions, sneaked them out of the country, bribed officials or simply
>surrendered.  He walled them in ghettos.  Some went; some fled.  He finally
>herded them into boxcars to their final destination.
>
>All along, some resisted, some complied, just as we are doing now.  But
>almost universally, whatever their actions, they remained quiet.  Their
>"good German" (and "good" Polish and "good" other) neighbors were also
>silent about the outrages taking place in front of them.  Some gentiles hid
>and helped the Jews.  But they didn't speak up.  No one made a public,
>moral cause of resistance.   Of course, people were terrified of Hitler.
>And of course, it was unpopular to defend the Jews, who had been even more
>successfully demonized than tax resisters, militia members and drug users
>have been in modern America.  The media and public institutions were firmly
>on the side of the Nazis, just as they are on the side of big government
>today.  All very familiar.
>
>Had a significant minority resisted Hitler -- vehemently, adamantly, loudly
>resisted -- many of them would have been killed.  But they might have
>roused the conscience of the world.  They might have shown Hitler there was
>a barrier he could not cross.  They might have prevented the far worse
>slaughter that their silence allowed.  We don't really know what _could_
>have happened, had people had the courage both to resist and speak.  We
>only know what _did_ happen when they failed to do so.  None of these hopes
>ever had a chance.  People didn't take the risk, and the ultimate fate
>befell them.
>
>Silence is not safety.  Silence, in fact, implies consent.
>
>Which is worse: suffering now in defense of principle, or suffering later
>as the citizen of a tyrannical state?
>
>HOW BAD CAN IT GET?
>
>I don't know that it will ever get so bad here that freedom-loving people
>will be rounded up and sent to concentration camps.  It's possible.  I do
>know the future looks bad, very bad, for freedom.
>
>What's _certain_ is that, in the words of abolitionist Frederick Douglass,
>"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact
>amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these
>will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both.
>The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they
>oppress."
>
>Or, in the more modern words of Dilbert, "The more crap you put up with,
>the more crap you are going to get."
>
>Again, silence implies consent.  Silence is "putting up with it" even when
>we  silently disobey.
>
>WHY MAKE NOISE NOW?
>
>Many of us have become accustomed to living free in spite of the "law."  A
>few years ago, even last year, I would have said, "Hell, why paint a target
>on your backside by going public with resistance?"  But the situation has
>changed.
>
>In the last couple of years, Congress has laid the groundwork for the kind
>of totalitarian citizen-tracking systems that have been long-rumored and
>long dreaded.  As you read this, bureaucrats are building the computer
>systems, sending out the forms, writing the regulations and installing the
>machinery that will be used to make you a slave, pure and simple.
>
>A pair of examples:
>
>* Your drivers license was turned into a de facto national ID card.  (Check
>it out: Public Law 104-208.)
>
>* Congress passed and Donna Shalala began sending out the forms for the
>"New Hires" database.  It's worse than it sounds.  (Check it out: Public
>Law 104-193, then get your hands on one of the forms.)
>
>There's more.  A lot more.  Research for yourself and see how your life
>will be curtailed...will be _owned_...if you let these things happen.
>
>Silent resistance doesn't stop bad law making.  It actually encourages it,
>as legislatures pass more and more bad laws in an attempt to curb
>disobedience.  How many more rotten laws are we going to take before we put
>a stop to this pernicious escalation of tyranny?
>
>WHAT, SPECIFICALLY, SHOULD WE DO?
>
>Specifically you should do only what your own wisdom dictates.  Always.
>I'll mention only a few places to start and some cautions to keep in mind.
>
>Frankly, some of this information is milder than what really needs to be
>said.  But free speech protections extend only so far.
>
>* Pick one or two laws that you especially oppose.  Make sure you fully
>understand, and can calmly, lucidly articulate, the principles behind your
>opposition.
>
>* Speak up every chance you get.  In every forum you can find.  Newspapers.
> Public meetings.  Neighborhood gatherings.  Don't just speak against the
>law.  Speak on behalf of the right of resistance.
>
>* Creatively defy bad law.  Folks who plant hemp in the courthouse garden
>or pay their taxes in pennies may get useful publicity.
>
>* Utilize the mainstream media where you can.  But when biased reporting or
>no reporting is all you can expect, let it go.  Put your energies elsewhere.
>
>* Find every available form of alternative media, from the Internet to the
>walls of public restrooms, and use it.  (For instance, you can paste
>stickers in restroom stalls with three or four lines explaining why a law
>is wrong and reminding people defiance is an American tradition.)
>
>* Be flexible.  Tactics must change as situations do.
>
>* If there is enough community support to make it effective, shun employees
>of unjust agencies.  Render their lives as uncomfortable as possible.  And
>don't let them or yourself off with the old excuse that they're just the
>ordinary people doing their jobs. The engineers who drove the trains to the
>concentration camps were "ordinary."  So were the guards.  We usually have
>no access to their masters, but we can reach the masters through the
>employees.  When masters no longer have minions do to their bidding, how
>can they enforce tyranny?
>
>* Never go against your conscience, no matter what the consequences.
>
>* Make it clear to everyone that you will not yield to mere force or terror
>tactics.
>
>* Remember: the first and loudest to speak will become targets.  This whole
>thing is going to work only if 1) a few people can make a big enough
>impression to change the conscience of the nation or 2) so many people
>rebel that the justice system overloads.
>
>* Realize that there is a fine line between publicizing principled
>resistance and foolishly blabbing private matters.  You'll have to find
>your own place to draw that line, and even if you draw it perfectly, you're
>still in danger.
>
>* If you are announcing resistance to either tax or drug laws, understand
>that you are especially vulnerable.  Under seizure laws, your property can
>become booty for a pirate agency; and enforcers offer cash bounties to
>anyone who will snitch on you.
>
>* If you have the slightest doubt about the wisdom on this strategy, or
>about your own willingness to walk through hell for the cause of freedom,
>DON'T DO IT.
>
>* Finally, remember the man who stood alone before the tank in Tienanmen
>Square.  His "victory" was equivocal; the tank backed off, but the
>protesters were ultimately slaughtered.  Yet his image still touches the
>conscience of the world.  It will, ultimately, make a difference.
>
>We must never violate principles.  We must never initiate violence.  And we
>should never harm the innocent.  But at some point, unless government backs
>off, we will have to stop being nice.  I don't recommend it.  I merely
>predict it.
>
>ONLY IDIOTS HEED CALLS TO ACTION FROM "KEYBOARD REVOLUTIONARIES."
>
>A couple of months ago, I read an essay in which some self-proclaimed
>"patriot," (Call him John Brown.), ranted that it was time to start "taking
>out" government officials.  Furthermore, he raved, anybody who didn't
>immediately rush out and start killing feds was a coward and a hypocrite.
>
>John Brown himself, of course, wasn't about to go out and start bumping
>people off.  Nooooo, he was much more comfortable in the role of
>"inspirational leader" behind his keyboard.  Since no rash of fed-killings
>followed his exhortation, most readers must have realized old John himself
>was either a total fool, a hypocrite or an agent provocateur.
>
>I may be a fool.  And I may be accused of a lot of other things for writing
>this article.  But I won't be a hypocrite.  Here's where I stand:
>
>I resist the income tax.  Haven't filed in years.  Never will, even if the
>IRS throws me in jail or in the gutter after taking everything I own.
>(They won't get much; I've made myself poor, and therefore a smaller
>target.  If the IRS bothers me, their motive will be purely political.)
>
>And when my state passes the enabling legislation to put the Big Brother
>drivers license into effect here -- when government and businesses require
>my "verified social security number" and biometric "security features" as a
>condition for dealing with them -- I'll go elsewhere, thanks.
>
>Plenty of my acquaintances already refuse to get regular drivers licenses.
>Maybe they can teach us all a thing or two about the much more complicated
>problem of surviving without the national ID license.  In any case, I plan
>to become the damnedest, finest outlaw I can be when, "Citizen!  Your
>papers please!" becomes an American reality.
>
>Unlike John Brown, I'm not urging you to break the law.  You're already
>breaking it just by living.  If you value personal freedom, you're probably
>breaking laws and regulations more often than Bill Clinton breaks wind.
>
>I _am_ urging you to claim resistance as your right -- and as a necessity
>if we are to remain free.
>
>                    # # #
>
>(c) 1997 Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely granted, as long as the
>article is reprinted in full and accompanied by this copyright statement.
>
>For information about books and catalogs from Loompanics Unlimited, write
>to them at P.O. Box 1197, Port Townsend 98368 or check out their web site
>at http://www.loompanics.com.
>
>
>
>-----
>
>I have some sad news for you -- the Big Boys will have contempt for you
>whether you rebel or submit.  Better, then, to rebel.  I say it's TIME the
>rabble were roused.
>--Jim Goad, *The Redneck Manifesto*
>
>



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: CCW Article in the Tribune
Date: 22 Sep 1997 18:54:00 -0600


From Today's Tribune:

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]       Monday, September 22, 1997      [Image] [Image]

               Rush to Obtain Concealed-Gun Permits Peaks

 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
     OGDEN -- The rush to
 get a concealed weapon permit has peaked, but not before the number
 of Utahns legally carrying concealed handguns increased tenfold since
 the state eased the permit process 27 months ago.
     Police are quick to point out they haven't recorded a
 corresponding increase in incidents involving people with concealed
 weapons -- an argument used by opponents of loosening requirements to
 carry a hidden handgun.
     ``It hasn't bothered police officers a bit, especially in the
 West, where just about everyone owns guns anyway,'' said Sgt. Klint
 Anderson, spokesman for the Weber County Sheriff's Office. ``It's the
 illegally held gun that gets you.''
     Officials at the state Bureau of Criminal Identification said the
 18,000 permit holders statewide represent a cross section of the
 state's population, ranging from teachers to bank presidents to
 bikers.
     Men hold more permits than women and senior citizens are more
 likely to legally carry a concealed weapon than younger citizens.
     ``It's the people who feel the most threatened by today's
 society,'' Anderson said.
     The 18,000 represent just 0.009 percent of Utah's 2 million
 residents.
     Before the Legislature no longer required a permit holder to have
 a valid reason for carrying a concealed weapon, 1,789 people had
 permits.
     After May 1995, when the change took effect, the state was
 deluged with about 1,000 applications a month.
     That number has been declining for the past six months. The 316
 permits issued in July was the lowest month since May 1995.
     Despite the tenfold increase over the past two years, Anderson
 said he is surprised the numbers are not higher.
     ``There are far more than 18,000 people in Utah with strong
 feelings about the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms,'' he said.
     Officers and agents doubt many permit holders even carry their
 guns much of the time.



                [Image] [Monday Navigation Bar] [Image]

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

 ⌐ 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.


--

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.

"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius,
 power and magic in it." -- Goethe



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "If government bureaucrats  like  guns  that much..."
Date: 23 Sep 1997 13:31:38 -0600

>Date:          Sun, 21 Sep 1997 12:20:48 -0500
>From:          Washington Weekly <[e-mail]>
>Subject:       A Federal Police Force is Unconstitutional - Rep. Paul
>
>
>
>           A FEDERAL POLICE FORCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
>Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, House of Representatives - September 17, 1997
>
>
>Mr.  Speaker,  earlier  this  year,   another   Member   severely
>criticized  me  on  the  House floor for declaring on C-SPAN that
>indeed many Americans justifiably feared  their  own  government.
>This  fear has come from the police state mentality that prompted
>Ruby Ridge, Waco and many other episodes  of  an  errant  Federal
>Government.
>
>Under the constitution, there was never meant  to  be  a  Federal
>police  force. Even an FBI limited only to investigations was not
>accepted until this century. Yet today,  fueled  by  the  Federal
>Government's  misdirected war on drugs, radical environmentalism,
>and the aggressive behavior of the nanny state, we have witnessed
>the  massive  buildup  of  a  virtual  army  of  armed regulators
>prowling the States where  they  have  no  legal  authority.  The
>sacrifice  of  individual responsibility and the concept of local
>government by the majority of American citizens has permitted the
>army of bureaucrats to thrive.
>
>We have depended on government for so much for so long that we as
>people have become less vigilant of our liberties. As long as the
>government  provides  largesse  for  the  majority,  the  special
>interest  lobbyists will succeed in continuing the redistribution
>of welfare programs that occupies most of Congress's  legislative
>time.
>
>Wealth is limited, yet demands are unlimited.  A  welfare  system
>inevitably diminishes production and shrinks the economic pie. As
>this occurs, anger among the competing special  interests  grows.
>While Congress and the people concentrate on material welfare and
>its equal redistribution, the principals of liberty are  ignored,
>and freedom is undermined.
>
>More immediate, the  enforcement  of  the  interventionist  state
>requires  a  growing  army of bureaucrats. Since groups demanding
>special favors from the Federal Government must abuse the  rights
>and  property  of  those  who produce wealth and cherish liberty,
>real resentment is directed at the agents who come to eat out our
>substance.  The  natural  consequence is for the intruders to arm
>themselves  to  protect  against  angry  victims  of   government
>intrusion.
>
>Thanks to a recent article  by  Joseph  Farah,  director  of  the
>Western  Journalism  Center  of  Sacramento, CA, appearing in the
>Houston Chronicle, the surge  in  the  number  of  armed  Federal
>bureaucrats  has  been brought to our attention. Farah points out
>that in  1996  alone,  at  least  2,439  new  Federal  cops  were
>authorized  to  carry firearms. That takes the total up to nearly
>60,000. Farah points  out  that  these  cops  were  not  only  in
>agencies  like  the  FBI,  but  include  the  EPA,  U.S. Fish and
>Wildlife, and the Army Corps of Engineers.  Even  Bruce  Babbitt,
>according  to  Farah, wants to arm the Bureau of Land Management.
>Farah logically asks, 'When will  the  NEA  have  its  armed  art
>cops?' This is a dangerous trend.
>
>It is ironic that the proliferation of guns in the hands  of  the
>bureaucrats is pushed by the antigun fanatics who hate the second
>amendment and would disarm every  law-abiding  American  citizen.
>Yes, we need gun control. We need to disarm our bureaucrats, then
>abolish the agencies. If government bureaucrats  like  guns  that
>much, let them seek work with the NRA.
>
>Force and intimidation are the  tools  of  tyrants.  Intimidation
>with government guns, the threat of imprisonment, and the fear of
>harassment by government agents puts  fear  into  the  hearts  of
>millions  of  Americans.  Four  days  after Paula Jones refused a
>settlement in her celebrated suit, she received notice  that  she
>and  her  husband  would be audited for 1995 taxes. Since 1994 is
>the current audit year for the IRS, the  administration's  denial
>that  the  audit  is  related  to the suit is suspect, to say the
>least.
>
>Even if it is coincidental, do not try to convince  the  American
>people. Most Americans, justifiably cynical and untrusting toward
>the Federal Government, know the evidence exists that  since  the
>1970's  both  Republican  and Democratic administrations have not
>hesitated to intimidate their political enemies with  IRS  audits
>and regulatory harassment.
>
>Even though the average IRS agent  does  not  carry  a  gun,  the
>threat  of  incarceration and seizure of property is backed up by
>many guns. All government  power  is  ultimately  gun  power  and
>serves  the  interests  of those who despise or do not comprehend
>the principles of liberty. The gun in the  hands  of  law-abiding
>citizens   serves  to  hold  in  check  arrogant  and  aggressive
>government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite.
>The founders of this country fully understood this fact.
>
>
>
>
>  Published in the Sep. 22, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly
>  Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
>          Reposting permitted with this message intact
>
>
>



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Regarding Insta-Check
Date: 23 Sep 1997 14:05:12 -0600

>TJ's got mine, several times over. He definitely needs to hear from
>others , not just me and Frank. Come on guys/gals, how much do you value
>your 2A? Let TJ hear from YOU. Maybe *together* we can get NRA on the
>RIGHT track.
>
>Nancy
(Note: Mr. Johnston can be reached at: [e-mail] - Sarah)
>===================================================================
>Frank & Dianne wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Johnston evidently seeks our responses, so let's not let him down.
>>
>> QUESTION: If the ultimate and noble goal is "preclud(ing) 'bad guys' from
>> buying guns", does the NRA support an "Insta-check" system for private
party
>> transactions, as well as retail purchases? If not, *why not*?
>>
>> Godspeed and stay free,
>> Frank
>> ---------------------
>> Forwarded message:
>> Subj:    Re: Regarding Insta-Check
>> Date:    97-09-20 04:16:42 EDT
>> From:    TJJOHNSTN
>> To:      A3foldcord
>>
>> In a message dated 97-09-18 16:31:54 EDT, you write:
>>
>> << The laws which are *currently in place* have done *nothing* to prevent
>> illegal behavior so far. What makes you think that penalties for abusing
>> Insta-Check will somehow prevent *that* from happening? >>
>>
>> Frank: good question. We can look at the lack of prosecution from the
heinous
>> Waco and Ruby Ridge atrocities, and realize that just because it's illegal
>> doesn't mean that governmental agencies won't keep records of firearms
>> transactions.
>>
>> To address this, during the discussion at the Legislative Policy Committee
>> event, NRA Board Member Bob Corbin brought up this issue and recommended
that
>> the law allow for CIVIL procedures. This would allow citizens to bring
>> punitive civil suits against agencies who violate the record keeping
>> prohibition.
>>
>> The goal is to create a mechanism that will preclude "bad guys" from buying
>> guns. In a practical sense, this means that we need a regulatory agency to
>> compose a list of bad guys and provide a means to check this list
whenever a
>> firearm is purchased. Faced with these parameters, the NRA is currently
>> researching the various alternatives to achieve the goal and protect our
>> freedoms.
>>
>> Any practical suggestions to present? I'll be addressing this issue
again at
>> the winter Board meeting.
>>
>> TJ Johnston
>> NRA Board of Directors
>
>
Dear Mr. Johnston:

Insta-Check is an evil idea; it amounts to a central firearms registry, which
amounts to federal gun confiscation.

While the idea of allowing civil suits against agencies that violate
registration
laws SOUNDS good, in practice it's unworkable.  Civil suits cost thousands
of dollars; when they're against the government, probably millions.  They
can take years to decades to win.  And anyway, what good is a suit going to
do anyone, once they've disarmed us all?

We don't need checks.  We certainly don't need another regulatory agency.
And a list of "bad guys" is totally unworkable.  Who defines "bad guy"?
Will my name be on the list because I got a speeding ticket 15 years ago?
Or because I openly oppose the current administration?  Because I spanked
a child?  Because I bathed my cat without his written consent?  Because I
oppose the war on drugs?  Because I own an "assault weapon"?  Because I
belong to a minority religion?  As long as an oppressive government can
define who is "bad", NO ONE BUT THE GOVERNMENT will be allowed
to be armed.

Practical solutions?  Sure.  It's called Vermont-style carry, it's prescribed
by the Constitution, and it WORKS.  Nothing else is acceptable.

Sincerely,
Sarah Thompson, M.D.



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Charlton Heston's Crusade To Save The Second Amendment
Date: 23 Sep 1997 15:02:10 -0600

Forwarded at the request of Mr. Fezell - Sarah

>From: "Howard J.  Fezell, Esq." <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Charlton Heston's Crusade To Save The Second Amendment
>Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 18:40:31 -0400

>Dear Dr. Thompson:
>
>If you are still a member of the NRA and have received your September issue
>of the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN you will note that the renowned actor, Charlton
>Heston, has graciously agreed to lead a "crusade" to save the Second
>Amendment.
>
>The Heston Campaign is nothing more than an exercise in building a "cult of
>personality".  The ultimate goal is to make the NRA so dependent upon his
>good graces that its Board of Directors will become even more irrelevant
>than they already are.  If the Board does not go along with what Mr. Heston
>(and the P.R. firm that handles him) wants he can then threaten to "resign"
>and leave the NRA high and dry.
>
>As a Director of the NRA I consider it the height of insanity that any
>organization would tie its fortunes to the image of a single person.  I
>have the greatest respect for Mr. Heston as an actor.  However, in the real
>world, one has got to do more than read lines others have written for you.
>
>Naturally, Mr. Heston's P.R. pitch asks members to either renew their
>memberships or to make a special contribution.
>
>Before I send any more $$$ to either the NRA or NRA/ILA -- I (as a director
>of the NRA) would like to have answers to the following questions:
>
>#1    Since January, 1996, a group known as Unified Sportsmen Of Florida, Inc.
>(USF) has been     getting monthly checks averaging $10,000.00.  Was NRA/ILA
>aware that the NRA President,     Marion Hammer, received monetary
>compensation from this group?
>
>#2    Since NRA/ILA has funded Unified Sportsmen Of Florida, has NRA President
>Marion Hammer received any monetary compensation from USF?
>
>#3    In May of 1997 NRA/ILA cut Unified Sportsmen Of Florida two checks:  one
>for $10,000 and another for $70,000.  Why?
>
>#4    Has Unified Sportsmen Of Florida ever been asked to account for how they
>spent the money?
>
>As soon as I get answers to these questions, I will pass them along.  Until
>then, hang on to your checkbooks.
>
>Please forward this e-mail to your other pro-Second Amendment contacts
>regardless of whether they may be NRA members.
>
>Howard Fezell




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Time to Fight Back.
Date: 22 Sep 1997 20:18:00 -0700


From The Lawyers' Second Amendment Society...

Dear fellow pro-Second Amendment activists:

Those of you in California know we played out AB 23 (the "assault weapons"
expansion) to a draw (for now) and we lost on SB 500 (so-called "Saturday
Night Special" ban), and several other unconstitutional, anti-gun and anti-
self-defense bills. We are now reduced to begging the governor to save us
from our own elected representatives.

While it is still of the utmost importance that we continue to write, fax
and call the governor and prevail upon him to veto those bills which got
through, we must begin to fight back. Now.

Here's the proposal. Our people, especially those in the Member's Councils,
are already in the "letter-writing mode." We have been tying up the Legisla-
ture's and governor's phone lines, and filling up their mail bags, for several
months. We need to keep up the barrage, but direct it at a new target.

And we just happen to have the perfect target. As you probably know, several
weeks ago the major newspapers in California ran a coordinated, anti-gun
editorial/news article (what's the difference?) blitz timed to coincide
with the Legislature's consideration of AB 23, SB 500 and other anti-gun
bills. We cannot fight back directly against the newspapers, but we can
take some action which will get their attention. Specifically, a concerted,
state-wide (or even national) campaign directed against one of their major
advertisers, with the possibility of reducing their ad revenues, may do
the trick.

The target: Big 5 Sporting Goods.

Big 5 does a major business in California, as well as in Arizona, Idaho,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas and Washington. It advertises in all major
newspapers in California (and, presumably in the other states as well).
Ironically, Big 5 caters to hand gunners, target shooters and hunters, at
the same time it is giving its advertising dollars to newspapers which are
editorializing that the private ownership of most firearms should be banned.
Indeed, many of the firearms, and much of the ammunition, Big 5 sells would
be banned or severely restricted if the newspaper editors got their way!

The Campaign: A letter-writing and telephone campaign directed to Big 5 to
implore it reduce or cease advertising in any newspapers which editorialize
against our right to self defense. This is not a boycott. Boycotts are only
effective if hundreds of thousands or millions participate. Rather, we are
capitalizing on the idea that retailers abhor negative press, are in a
fiercely competitive business, and are very sensitive to their customer's
whims. The theory is to direct several hundred, and hopefully thousand,
well-written letters all to the president of Big 5. Letters should politely
make the following points:

(1) As a Big 5 customer and gunowner, the writer is very displeased to see
Big 5 spending its ad money on The Los Angeles Times [or other anti-gun
newspaper] which has repeatedly gone on record as opposing the right of self-
defense, and of poor people to purchase firearms to protect their families;

(2) Big 5 is thereby opposing the writer's constitutional right to defend
himself/herself and his/her family;

(3) If Big 5 continues to support anti-self-defense newspapers, the writer
will stop patronizing Big 5, and will tell all of his/her friends and family
to do the same.

(4) Remind Big 5 that as shooting enthusiasts, there are plenty of other
retailers out there who would love to do business with gun owners.

(5) A [legitimate] return address.

Write Big 5 at:

Mr. Steve Miller, President
United Merchandising Corp.
Big 5 Sporting Goods
P.O. Box 92088
Los Angeles, CA 90009

Or telephone him at: [phone]

For this campaign to be effective, we will need every Member's Council,
every pro-gun organization and every activist in California and the Western
U.S. to participate.

Remember: be polite, do not threaten and remind him you spend $$$ on
firearms. That's a language Mr. Miller will understand!

Final note: this project is a grassroots effort, and it is _not_ sponsored
by any Members Council or other organization.

Now let's get to work and fire off those letters and calls!




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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: (Fwd from Paul Blackmun) Re:  theory that Aussies are nuts]
Date: 24 Sep 1997 13:32:05 -0600

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA04309; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:22:23 -0600
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from [198.81.228.1] by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA1864226420; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:17:09 -0600
Received: from wanderer.ssiinc.com (wanderer.ssiinc.com [198.81.228.1]) by wanderer.ssiinc.com (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id MAA15906; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas


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

Date sent:      Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:03:02 -0500 (CDT)


  INTERNET:[e-mail]

The Geelong Advertiser 11/9/97

The number of Victorians murdered with
firearms has almost trebled since the
introduction of tighter gun laws.

Fourteen homicide victims were killed
through gun use between January and August
this year compared to five people during
the same period last year, the Victorian
police figures have revealed.

But a State Government spokeswoman dismissed
any suggestion that the tighter gun laws were
not working and said that inferences drawn by
linking them to increased gun deaths would
be unfounded.

Anne Standford, press secretary for Police
Minister Bill McGrath, said the tighter gun
control laws were not framed with the specific
expectation that gun related deaths would decline.

"In an ideal world, yes, but we don't
live in Utopia," Ms Stanford said.

"the whole purpose of the changes to
firearm laws...it is not about shooters'
rights to have firearms, it is about their
rights to the types of firearms, high-powered
semi-automatics," she said.




"George promised to be good;                  Eugene Volokh
 but it is easy for little monkeys            UCLA Law School
 to forget."                                  405 Hilgard Ave.
 Complete Adventures of Curious George p.14   L.A., CA 90095





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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Union Fights Gun Ban for State Workers
Date: 24 Sep 1997 15:55:07 -0600

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------37181A097C0E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.sltrib.com/97/sep/092397/utah/5499.htm

--------------37181A097C0E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="5499.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="5499.htm"

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]      Tuesday, September 23, 1997      [Image] [Image]

                 Union Fights Gun Ban for State Workers

 BY DAN HARRIE
 THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE


     A public employees union and a lawmaker who sponsored Utah's
 wide-open gun laws are protesting a rule prohibiting state workers
 from packing firearms in the workplace or on the job.
     The Utah Public Employees Association claims the rule -- used
 recently to suspend one worker -- is discriminatory and at odds with
 state law.
     ``The [UPEA] board, while not endorsing weapon possession in the
 workplace, instructed UPEA staff to strongly object to the passage of
 rules which are known to conflict with state statute,'' union
 spokesman Eric Isom said Monday.
     The UPEA has 7,200 members, including about 5,200 of the state's
 17,000 employees.
     At its monthly meeting Saturday, the 11-person board directed
 that a letter of protest be sent to Human Resource Management
 Director Karen Suzuki-Okabe, and that all rules be scrutinized for
 conformance with state law.
     Suzuki-Okabe conceded in an interview last week with The Salt
 Lake Tribune that members of Gov. Mike Leavitt's Cabinet knew when
 they first pushed for it in 1995 that the gun-banning employee rule
 conflicted with statute. ``But we felt that the bigger and more
 compelling issue was to provide a safe work environment.''
     The rule was adopted in 1996 despite a law passed by the 1995
 Legislature that makes concealed-weapons permits valid throughout the
 state ``without restriction'' except in airports, jails, prisons and
 courts.
     Isom said the issue has hit a ``hot button'' because it treats
 state employees differently from other citizens.
     ``As it stands now, it's not fair to state employees,'' he said.
     Suzuki-Okabe declined comment Monday, saying she would wait to
 see the UPEA letter before responding to it.
     But in an earlier interview, she said top administration
 officials -- including then Leavitt chief of staff Charlie Johnson --
 imposed the firearms-prohibition despite its questionable legality.
     ``The Legislature gets real mad at us when we do this, so I'm
 going to take some real heat on this one,'' Suzuki-Okabe said.
     She is correct.
     State Sen. Michael Waddoups sponsored Utah's concealed gun laws.
     He blasted the state rule as ``crazy. . . . It's like painting a
 target on all of our employees.''
     The Taylorsville Republican added, ``I see it as an invitation to
 somebody coming in and shooting up a state office.''
     Waddoups said he had been informed the administration was
 considering such a rule, but was not aware it had been imposed until
 now.
     The senator said he recognizes the legal right of private
 business to exclude weapons from their premises and the ability of
 employers to prohibit workers from carrying guns on the job.
     ``The state executive branch isn't exactly what I consider a
 private employer. They should be leading out in following state
 law,'' he said. ``I'd have to say that showed a lack of wisdom on
 someone's part.''
     But another legislator involved in crafting Utah gun laws said he
 is comfortable with the restriction against armed state employees.
     ``I don't see where the problem is because the employer has the
 right to say when their employees can carry a gun and where they can
 carry it,'' said Sen. Alarik Myrin, R-Altamont.
     Myrin pointed out that many oil and gas companies in his eastern
 Utah district have similar policies. ``The companies tell them to
 leave their guns at home.''



               [Image] [Tuesday Navigation Bar]  [Image]

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

 ⌐ 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.

--------------37181A097C0E--




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: A Federal Police Force is Unconstitutional - Rep. Paul
Date: 24 Sep 1997 07:50:00 -0700



           A FEDERAL POLICE FORCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, House of Representatives - September 17, 1997

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, another Member severely
criticized me on the House floor for declaring on C-SPAN that
indeed many Americans justifiably feared their own government.
This fear has come from the police state mentality that prompted
Ruby Ridge, Waco and many other episodes of an errant Federal
Government.

Under the constitution, there was never meant to be a Federal
police force.  Even an FBI limited only to investigations was not
accepted until this century.  Yet today, fueled by the Federal
Government's misdirected war on drugs, radical environmentalism,
and the aggressive behavior of the nanny state, we have witnessed
the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators
prowling the States where they have no legal authority.  The
sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local
government by the majority of American citizens has permitted the
army of bureaucrats to thrive.

We have depended on government for so much for so long that we as
people have become less vigilant of our liberties.  As long as the
government provides largesse for the majority, the special
interest lobbyists will succeed in continuing the redistribution
of welfare programs that occupies most of Congress's legislative
time.

Wealth is limited, yet demands are unlimited.  A welfare system
inevitably diminishes production and shrinks the economic pie.  As
this occurs, anger among the competing special interests grows.
While Congress and the people concentrate on material welfare and
its equal redistribution, the principals of liberty are ignored,
and freedom is undermined.

More immediate, the enforcement of the interventionist state
requires a growing army of bureaucrats.  Since groups demanding
special favors from the Federal Government must abuse the rights
and property of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty,
real resentment is directed at the agents who come to eat out our
substance.  The natural consequence is for the intruders to arm
themselves to protect against angry victims of government
intrusion.

Thanks to a recent article by Joseph Farah, director of the
Western Journalism Center of Sacramento, CA, appearing in the
Houston Chronicle, the surge in the number of armed Federal
bureaucrats has been brought to our attention.  Farah points out
that in 1996 alone, at least 2,439 new Federal cops were
authorized to carry firearms.  That takes the total up to nearly
60,000.  Farah points out that these cops were not only in
agencies like the FBI, but include the EPA, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife, and the Army Corps of Engineers.  Even Bruce Babbitt,
according to Farah, wants to arm the Bureau of Land Management.
Farah logically asks, 'When will the NEA have its armed art
cops?' This is a dangerous trend.

It is ironic that the proliferation of guns in the hands of the
bureaucrats is pushed by the antigun fanatics who hate the second
amendment and would disarm every law-abiding American citizen.
Yes, we need gun control.  We need to disarm our bureaucrats, then
abolish the agencies.  If government bureaucrats like guns that
much, let them seek work with the NRA.

Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  Intimidation
with government guns, the threat of imprisonment, and the fear of
harassment by government agents puts fear into the hearts of
millions of Americans.  Four days after Paula Jones refused a
settlement in her celebrated suit, she received notice that she
and her husband would be audited for 1995 taxes.  Since 1994 is
the current audit year for the IRS, the administration's denial
that the audit is related to the suit is suspect, to say the
least.

Even if it is coincidental, do not try to convince the American
people.  Most Americans, justifiably cynical and untrusting toward
the Federal Government, know the evidence exists that since the
1970's both Republican and Democratic administrations have not
hesitated to intimidate their political enemies with IRS audits
and regulatory harassment.

Even though the average IRS agent does not carry a gun, the
threat of incarceration and seizure of property is backed up by
many guns.  All government power is ultimately gun power and
serves the interests of those who despise or do not comprehend
the principles of liberty.  The gun in the hands of law-abiding
citizens serves to hold in check arrogant and aggressive
government.  Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite.
The founders of this country fully understood this fact.

Published in the Sep. 22, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly
Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com)
Reposting permitted with this message intact




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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Our Assault Press
Date: 25 Sep 1997 14:01:22 -0600

Apologies for the formatting...it showed up in my mail this way.
What is Fish and Wildlife doing with "a stockpile of weapons,
a caravan of trucks and an airplane"?
How long till CNN equips its reporters with assault weapons,
black helicopters and ninja suits?
Sarah


>>Lawsuit Claims Press Violated Fourth Amendment Rights
>>
>>               By KEVIN HELLIKER
>>               Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>>
>>               JORDAN, Mont. -- Paul Berger had no criminal
>>               record, no history of violence, had never threatened the
>>               government. He was 72 years old and sick with
>>               debilitating emphysema.
>>
>>               Yet when federal agents got a warrant to search his
>>               ranch four years ago, they assembled a force large
>>               enough to take on Rambo. At dawn, 21 men converged
>>               on the Berger ranch. They had a stockpile of weapons,
>>               a caravan of trucks and an airplane.
>>
>>               Their suspicions: that Mr. Berger had poisoned eagles
>>               preying on his sheep.
>>
>>               The allegations came from three former employees who
>>               hadn't worked at the ranch in years. So why the need
>>               for this extraordinary show of force by the U.S. Fish and
>>               Wildlife Service? Because, the Bergers and their allies
>>               assert, it made for good television.
>>
>>               Stealth Tactics
>>
>>               Unbeknown to Mr. Berger, the Fish and Wildlife agents
>>               who served the warrant that morning were wearing
>>               wires. But instead of feeding a government recorder,
>>               they fed a Cable News Network tape. And three of the
>>               men who spent 10 hours scurrying around his ranch that
>>               day, dressed in the same street clothes as federal
>>agents,
>>               didn't belong to the government at all: They worked for
>>               CNN, the news network of Time Warner Inc.'s Turner
>>               Broadcasting unit.
>>
>>               "This was a case where government agents became
>>               reporters and reporters became government agents,"
>>               asserts Henry Rossbacher, an attorney for Mr. Berger,
>>               noting the CNN reporters hid their identities until they
>>               were ferreted out by a local law-enforcement officer
>>               who had nothing to do with the raid.
>>
>>               Mr. Berger was eventually charged with poisoning
>>               eagles -- a charge a jury rejected in 1993, largely
>>               because two extensive government searches of his
>>               75,000-acre ranch turned up no poisoned-eagle
>>               carcasses. Instead, jurors found him guilty of lacing two
>>               sheep carcasses with poison, a misdemeanor for which
>>               he was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and perform 40
>>               hours of community-service work.
>>
>>               But the story isn't over. In a lawsuit filed in U.S.
>>District
>>               Court in Billings, Mr. Berger and his wife are charging
>>               that the federal government and CNN violated the
>>               couple's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable
>>               search and seizure. The suit notes that the warrant
>>didn't
>>               even mention CNN, let alone sanction its presence at
>>               the search. Consequently, the Bergers contend, CNN is
>>               guilty of trespassing, and the video it gathered
>>represents
>>               an illegal seizure.
>>
>>               Both CNN and federal authorities, in court papers filed
>>               in response to the Bergers' suit, deny they acted
>>               improperly or illegally. Among its many defenses, CNN
>>               is arguing that federal agents, "as possessors in control
>>               of the property," had authority to allow the network in,
>>               irrespective of any rights the Bergers claim. At the same
>>               time, CNN claims a constitutional right for itself:
>>               "Investigative journalism is an important part of today's
>>               television market and entitled to all the safeguards of
>>the
>>               First Amendment," the network says.
>>
>>               Troubling Issues
>>
>>               Yet beyond the legalities, the case raises ethical issues
>>               for the press, particularly at a time when news shows
>>               profiling law enforcement are proliferating, and
>>reporters
>>               are increasingly eager to ride along on the execution of
>>               search warrants. While a reporter's presence could
>>               work to a suspect's benefit -- by keeping investigators
>>               from becoming abusive or bearing witness to a police
>>               failure to find incriminating evidence -- critics worry
>>that
>>               it more often than not inspires uncivil police theatrics.
>>               The allure of access often tempts the media into deals
>>               that give the authorities substantial power to shape both
>>               the content and timing of stories.
>>
>>               The Bergers and their supporters, in fact, are convinced
>>               that the final CNN story on the raid -- which portrayed
>>               it as a stunning success despite Mr. Berger's acquittal
>>--
>>               was foreordained by CNN's cozy arrangement with the
>>               feds. Whether true or not, what is clear is that in the
>>               Berger case, if investigators had abused or even shot
>>               Mr. Berger, CNN couldn't have rushed that footage to
>>               air: It had signed an agreement that effectively gave the
>>               federal government control over when -- if ever -- the
>>               network was free to show video from the search. "This
>>               agreement severely restricted any news releases without
>>               the consent of the U.S. Attorney," John J. Doggett III,
>>               the Fish and Wildlife chief of law enforcement, said in a
>>               letter to Montanans outraged by the search. CNN and
>>               federal authorities decline to comment beyond their
>>               response to the Berger suit.
>>
>>               Mixed Opinions
>>
>>               The Berger case is hardly the first time that news-media
>>               piggybacking on search warrants has caused an uproar
>>               over police tactics or press behavior, or ended up in
>>               court. Of the federal-court rulings to date, many have
>>               been contradictory and the issue seems bound to end up
>>               before the U.S. Supreme Court.
>>
>>               Consider a 1992 New York case, when Secret Service
>>               agents searching the home of Babatunde Ayeni, a
>>               suspected credit-card swindler, approached his wife and
>>               four-year-old son. The agents snatched a magazine the
>>               woman was holding and ordered them to look into the
>>               camera of a crew from CBS's "Street Stories" that had
>>               been invited along. (CBS never ran the footage.)
>>
>>               Mr. Ayeni sued, and federal courts sided with him, a
>>               U.S. District Court judge in New York ruling that CBS
>>               "had no greater right than that of a thief to be in the
>>               home." When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
>>               Circuit upheld the ruling, both CBS and the Secret
>>               Service settled with the plaintiffs out of court.
>>
>>               In the Berger case, however, the U.S. District Court in
>>               Billings granted CNN's motion to dismiss the suit on the
>>               grounds that the warrant gave agents the authority to
>>               invite CNN along. The Bergers appealed and the case,
>>               first filed in 1994, now stands before the Ninth Circuit
>>               Court of Appeals.
>>
>>               But even some media allies worry that the press may be
>>               on shaky ground when it comes to asserting a
>>               constitutional right to invade private property.
>>
>>               "To persuade the U.S. Supreme Court that there's a
>>               First Amendment right to trespass will take some real
>>               persuasiveness," says Floyd Abrams, a leading
>>               media-rights attorney.
>>
>>               Valid Issue
>>
>>               No one suggests that the poisoning of eagles isn't a
>>               serious issue or a good story. In the early 1990s, Fish
>>               and Wildlife officials began cracking down on the illegal
>>               practice by ranchers of spiking sheep carcasses with
>>               poison to kill predators. Although typically meant to
>>kill
>>               coyotes (which annually wipe out nearly 5% of the
>>               nation's sheep flock), the poison kills whatever feeds on
>>               the carcasses. Hundreds of eagles a year, including
>>               endangered bald eagles, die that way.
>>
>>               To bring attention to the problem, Fish and Wildlife
>>               officials courted publicity. In 1993, after the
>>appearance
>>               of a number of newspaper articles on the subject, CNN
>>               came calling, saying it wanted to air a documentary on
>>               poisoned eagles.
>>
>>               Later, explaining in an interview with CNN why he
>>               wanted the network along on the Berger search,
>>               Assistant U.S. Attorney Kris McLean said it was
>>               "motivated by the prosecutor's self-interest in getting
>>the
>>               word out to other people that might be contemplating
>>               these crimes ... that if you get caught, there are going
>>to
>>               be serious consequences."
>>
>>               The CNN invitation required federal officials to
>>sacrifice
>>               more than Mr. Berger's privacy. The signed agreement
>>               violates a Department of Justice policy manual on search
>>               and arrest warrants that says, "No advance information
>>               will be provided to the news media ... nor shall news
>>               media representatives be solicited or invited to be
>>               present."
>>
>>               Before the Berger raid, Fish and Wildlife agents had
>>               routinely invited county sheriffs to participate in raids
>>or
>>               even in investigations. But Charles Phipps, the local
>>               sheriff in the Bergers' area, wasn't told of the Berger
>>               raid.
>>
>>               Now, Mr. Phipps suspects federal agents feared he
>>               would do exactly what he did: Receiving a call from the
>>               Bergers, he arrived at their ranch around 10 a.m. and
>>               was startled to find so large a group milling about.
>>               Inquiring into everyone's identity, he learned about the
>>               presence of the three CNN employees. Determining that
>>               the search warrant didn't include them and that Mr.
>>               Berger didn't know they were there, he ordered them off
>>               the ranch. "They packed up and drove off and acted like
>>               they obeyed," he says. "But later I found out they
>>didn't.
>>               They just joined some investigators out in the field."
>>
>>               Camera Angle
>>
>>               Out there in the fields with CNN was Mr. McLean,
>>               whose presence ran contrary to an unwritten but widely
>>               acknowledged Justice Department practice that
>>               discourages prosecutors from participating in searches.
>>               "We don't want the person prosecuting the case to
>>               become a witness -- which going along on a search can
>>               do," says Nancy Needles, executive assistant U.S.
>>               attorney in Chicago, explaining why prosecutors in her
>>               office don't do it. If a prosecutor did go along -- and
>>               conceivably circumstances could warrant it -- "you
>>               would certainly want him to identify himself," adds Ms.
>>               Needles. In this case, Mr. McLean wore a cap
>>               inscribed with "ATF" -- for the federal bureau of
>>               Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms -- and, according to the
>>               Bergers' attorneys, never identified himself.
>>
>>               In the view of these lawyers, Mr. McLean came along
>>               to give sound bites to CNN. Although the outcome of
>>               the raid was far from certain, he stood in the Montana
>>               wilds and gazed into the CNN camera, saying, "It's not
>>               right that a few select people, like this case, can
>>deprive
>>               the rest of us from seeing a bald eagle swooping down
>>               and taking a salmon out of a stream." Mr. McLean
>>               declined to comment for this article.
>>
>>               Undercover Tactics
>>
>>               For its part, CNN appeared eager from the outset to
>>               keep its presence on the ranch a secret. At a planning
>>               meeting the night before the raid, CNN reporter Jack
>>               Hamann discussed how to hide from Mr. Berger the
>>               identity of the CNN crew, according to court
>>               documents.
>>
>>               Early in the search, the sight of Mr. Hamann with a
>>               camera prompted Mr. Berger to ask, "What are you
>>               doing there?" But Mr. Hamann neither answered the
>>               question nor identified himself. Mr. Hamann also
>>               declined to comment.
>>
>>               The opportunity to participate in the raid clearly
>>               appealed to Mr. Hamann, the host of a CNN show
>>               called "Earth Matters." In an internal CNN story
>>               proposal written a week before federal agents sought
>>               the Berger search warrant, Mr. Hamann wrote, "We
>>               have exclusive access to what promises to be a major
>>               coyote/eagle poisoning case." In the document, which is
>>               now part of the court record, Mr. Hamann proposed to
>>               follow the federal agents as they found "what is
>>               supposed to be a huge cache of illegal poisons" and "the
>>               rancher's graveyard of eagles."
>>
>>               The morning of the raid, the parade of government
>>               vehicles tooling down dirt roads unaccustomed to much
>>               traffic was so extraordinary that a neighbor seeing it
>>               called Mr. Berger to warn him it might be headed his
>>               way. Mr. Berger climbed in his truck and drove out to
>>               meet it. The top-ranking Fish and Wildlife agent, Joel
>>               Scrafford, told Mr. Berger about the warrant and
>>               promised that while searching the ranch, the agents
>>               would treat him the way they would want to be treated.
>>               Mr. Scrafford didn't mention that he was wired by
>>               CNN, or the presence of the CNN employees.
>>
>>               Mr. Berger cooperated. He confessed on camera to
>>               having spiked some sheep carcasses for the purpose of
>>               killing coyotes, which he said take as many as 400 of his
>>               5,000 sheep a year. While conceding that some eagles
>>               might have fed off the poisoned carcasses, he denied the
>>               presence of an eagle burial ground or that he had ever
>>               shot an eagle.
>>
>>               During the 10-hour aerial and ground search,
>>               investigators found no poisoned eagles, no "graveyard of
>>               eagles" nor any "huge cache" of illegal poisons. What
>>               they did find, over an area bigger than many small
>>               towns, were two sheep carcasses laced with a poison.
>>               Nearby they found the carcasses of a skunk, a hawk
>>               and a gull that had fed off the poisoned sheep. Two
>>               dead eagles, found elsewhere on the property, had no
>>               traces of poison in them.
>>
>>               Instead of bringing charges, federal agents returned a
>>               month later (without CNN) and conducted a massive
>>               aerial search of the ranch. It turned up nothing.
>>
>>               Despite that, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Montana
>>               proceeded to charge Mr. Berger with killing 17 eagles,
>>               based on the testimony of the former employees, and
>>               with illegally spiking the sheep carcasses. In the middle
>>               of a four-day trial in August, prosecutors reduced the
>>               number of alleged eagles killed to one. But in the end,
>>               the jury acquitted him of all but the carcass-spiking
>>               misdemeanor.
>>
>>               Airing the Story
>>
>>               Barring another investigation of Mr. Berger by the feds,
>>               the completion of the trial meant that CNN was now
>>               free under its contract with the U.S. Attorney's Office
>>to
>>               air its program. One view, held by many Montanans,
>>               was that the case had been an expensive and
>>               embarrassing bust: After all, the feds had spent months
>>               and thousands of dollars and netted only a misdemeanor
>>               conviction. Moreover, CNN was aware of at least one
>>               major government miscue -- the federal warrant
>>               specifically excluded the Bergers' house from search, yet
>>               a CNN transcript, based upon its videotaped footage,
>>               showed that agents withheld this knowledge from Mr.
>>               Berger and entered his house first thing.
>>
>>               But the government forces seemed confident that they
>>               would like the CNN show. Before it ran in October
>>               1993, the lead Fish and Wildlife investigator in the
>>case,
>>               Rod Hanlon, sent a letter to "all participants in the
>>Paul
>>               Berger eagle-poisoning investigation" announcing the
>>               dates and times of the CNN program, court documents
>>               later showed. While lamenting the unsatisfactory
>>               outcome of the criminal trial, Mr. Hanlon stated in the
>>               letter that "the Paul Bergers and non-believers of the
>>               world will have a chance to see and hear the truth
>>               through the CNN video, not just in Sand Springs,
>>               Montana, but the whole WORLD." Mr. Hanlon
>>               declined to comment on the Berger case.
>>
>>               Called "Ring of Death," the 12-minute CNN program
>>               portrayed the raid of the Berger ranch as a big success.
>>               It quoted investigators as saying that the evidence
>>               discovered confirmed their worst suspicions. Its taped
>>               quotes from Mr. Berger gave the impression he was
>>               confessing to killing eagles. As for why the jury
>>acquitted
>>               Mr. Berger on the eagle-poisoning counts, Mr. Hamann
>>               talked on the show about how Western juries and
>>               judges are sympathetic to ranchers. He never mentioned
>>               during the program that the investigators failed to find
>>               any poisoned eagles on the ranch.
>>
>>               CNN could also have embarrassed Mr. McLean, the
>>               prosecutor, by quoting from his closing argument in the
>>               criminal trial. To explain to jurors why investigators
>>had
>>               refused to let neighbors comfort the elderly Bergers
>>               during the 10-hour search, Mr. McLean declared:
>>               "Neighbors are not allowed in when you are executing a
>>               federal search warrant. My wife wouldn't be allowed in.
>>               You don't want anybody else running around." What he
>>               hadn't mentioned -- and the judge didn't allow jurors to
>>               know -- was that three CNN employees were his
>>               guests.
>>
>Brian Wilson
>"Power corrupts; absolute power is kinda neat!"
>Talk Show Host/Author
>"the little black book on WHITEWATER"
>
>
>



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: C-NEWS: Time For Some Gun Owner "Reciprocity" -Forwarded
Date: 25 Sep 1997 14:25:23 -0600

>Multi-State Rallying Call:
>                   Time For Some Gun Owner "Reciprocity"
>
>                 Gun Owners of America E-mail/FAX Alert
>             8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
>                                703-321-8585
>
>
>September 19, 1997
>
>Dear GOA Supporter:
>
>Your fellow gun owners in California could use a helping hand right now.
>An anti-gun legislature heavily weighted with "idealistic" freshmen has
>dropped a slew of gun bans on the desk of California Governor Pete
>Wilson. Included are some of the most sweeping and blatantly
>unconstitutional restrictions ever passed by a state legislature.
>
>** You can make a difference because Pete Wilson is more Politician than
>Governor! **
>
>You must urge Gov. Wilson to veto these anti-gun bills. This alert is
>being sent to subscribers in states which will have an early impact on
>the 2000 presidential election -- as well as to our many California
>supporters. It is no secret that Pete Wilson has long harbored
>presidential ambitions; he will probably seek the Republican nomination
>in 2000.
>
>Whenever a politician aspires to higher office, he starts paying more
>attention to "prospective constituents" and "voting blocks". This is an
>excellent chance to convince Gov. Wilson that gun owners are vocal and
>committed -- moreover, the political situation means that non-residents
>can tip the scales and help prevent California from becoming almost as
>restrictive as Washington, D.C.
>
>Of course, California gun owners need to speak up as well -- Governor
>Wilson must be convinced to veto the following bills:
>
>     SB 500. This monstrosity would ban every firearm the anti-gun
>bureaucrats decree from on high as being "non-sporting" in nature.
>
>     SB 513. Hayden's one-handgun-a-month. Weakened, but still deadly.
>
>     AB 304. This bill would disarm all concealed carry permit holders
>when they are merely passengers in a vehicle.
>
>     AB 488. A nasty little aspect of this bill is that it is basically
>the same as SB 500, except that it exempts "cowboy-style" handguns -- in
>the hopes that Gov. Wilson will sign the lesser of two evils.
>
>     AB 491. Unfairly subjects adult gun owners to prosecution when a
>juvenile removes a firearm from one's premises. The previous juvenile age
>was set at 14 or under; this bill increases the age to 16.
>
>     AB 991. All new California residents would have to comply with the
>state's myriad handgun restrictions within a mere 60 days of setting foot
>on California soil.
>
>     AB 1221. Currently, many types of ammunition are available only to
>those 18 years of age or older. This bill hikes the disarmament to all
>who are under 21, and thus strips the right of self-defense from 18-21
>year olds.
>
>As you can see, were California to adopt these measures atop what is
>already one of the most restrictive firearms codes in the country,
>millions of law-abiding residents would be denied their rights as
>guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Please take a few moments to come to
>the aid of these endangered citizens by contacting Gov. Wilson. A sample
>non-resident letter is included after the contact information. If you
>live in California, help those who are helping you by helping yourself.
>
>Governor Pete Wilson
>State Capitol Building
>Sacramento, CA 95814
>Ph: 916-445-2841
>Fx: 916-445-4633
>E-mail: No direct address, but an official feedback form located at
>http://www.ca.gov/t/governor/mail.html is open to all.
>
>Webnote: The sample letter below is intended for use by residents of AK,
>AZ, GA, IA, LA, NH, and SC.
Sarah note:  The sample letter works just fine if you delete the first
sentence
of paragraph 2.
>-------------
>
>The Honorable Pete Wilson State Capitol Building
>
>Dear Governor Wilson:
>
>I have watched with increasing dismay as the legislature has presented
>you with numerous bills of an unconstitutional and anti-gun nature. As a
>law-abiding gun owner, I resent the self-styled "moralism" of lawmakers
>who think that disarming those who respect the law will somehow protect
>us from those who do not. I urge you to uphold your oath to the
>Constitution and your responsibility to your constituents by vetoing any
>and all bills which infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
>
>You should know that I am a resident of __________, an early primary
>state. Why, then, do I care about whether you allow the citizens of
>California to fall prey to the anti-gunners? In addition to my heartfelt
>belief that we are all Americans and deserve the same protections
>wherever we go, the answer is that I recognize you are more than the
>Governor of California. You are a national figure, and as such must come
>to realize that gun owners are a vocal and politically active segment of
>our society. It is my considered opinion that no person who would deprive
>the People of the means to self-defense while our streets are rampant
>with criminal activity should assume the mantle of leadership.
>
>Please veto any and all bills which infringe upon the Second Amendment
>right to keep and bear arms.
>
>     Sincerely,
>
>     ___________________
>
>
>****************************************************************
>Chris W. Stark
>Gun Owners of America - Texas Representative
>e-mail: [e-mail]
>
>Visit our Web Page at: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gunowner
>
>Support "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
>Become a member of GOA TODAY!
>
>****************************************************************
>   "No class or group or party in Germany could escape its share
>of responsibility for the abandonment of the democratic Republic
>and the advent of Adolf Hitler. The cardinal error of the Germans
>who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it.
>....the 63% of the German people who expressed their opposition
>to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against
>a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them
>unless they united, HOWEVER TEMPORARY, to stamp it out."
>
> -William L. Shirer, author of "The rise and fall of the Third Reich"
>  p.259
>.....they who do not learn from History are DOOMED to repeat it!!
>-------
>To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message
>UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to [e-mail]. Contact
>[e-mail] if you have questions.




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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NRA Board Member Resigns (Russ Howard)
Date: 25 Sep 1997 14:32:47 -0600

>August 12, 1997
>
>
>Mrs. Marion Hammer
>President, The National Rifle Association of America
>
>Dear President Hammer:
>
>Being nominated and elected to serve on the Board of Directors of
>the National Rifle Association was a great honor.  Like most
>Directors, I've spent much of my life laboring for freedom and
>the right to keep and bear arms; rights our Founding Fathers
>tried to guarantee by the 2nd Amendment, and which I forever hold
>dear.
>
>Nonetheless, events of the past year have forced me to reassess
>my long-standing affiliation with the NRA.  Over the years, as
>we've continued losing our rights in California and elsewhere,
>activists have wondered why NRA is not more effective given the
>passionate belief in the right to arms held by NRA members, a
>large segment of the American public, and, presumably, the NRA
>Board.  Like most, I believed this could be accounted for by
>relatively benign factors such as institutional paralysis,
>bureaucratic incompetence, turf-protection, and the
>not-invented-here syndrome.  I now know otherwise.  Those factors
>are not insignificant, though there are many hard-working,
>competent people working for NRA.  Rather, as I've learned, NRA's
>ineffectiveness largely springs from an unholy alliance between
>NRA's senior paid staff (including you and other Board Members
>with undisclosed conflicts of interest), some of the vendors NRA
>does business with, and elements of the Republican Party, all
>with the acquiescence of a Board which has long shirked its moral
>and fiduciary duties.  Many members have suggested that there is
>anti-gun or other infiltration at play.  While such a cancer
>would not be inconsistent with the symptoms, I've seen no direct
>evidence of it.
>
>NRA has been bled by some of its vendors and their self-serving
>advice.  The lack of competitive bidding makes the US Government
>look responsible by comparison. The PR firm used by NRA, Tony
>Makris' Ackerman-McQueen/Mercury Group, is an example.  They've
>been with NRA for some 20 years, and recently had an
>$80,000-a-month basic retainer proposal on the table.  Few
>companies would keep a PR firm that long, let alone one that
>would help senior staff wage war on Board Members. One of the
>leverage strategies used by "Ak-Mac" is to spend millions of
>NRA's dollars turning NRA officers into celebrities, who in turn
>protect Ak-Mac.  Hence your effort to keep the management audit
>away from Ak-Mac even before it started.
>
>Those who question the Ak-Mac status quo are subjected to the
>vilest of personal attacks.  For example, when former President
>Tom Washington wanted to look at your finances, and Ak-Mac's, he
>was smeared.  Apparently, Charleton Heston, NRA's new 1st VP,
>neither requests nor receives compensation from NRA.  But it's
>well known that he works with NRA through Tony
>Makris/Ak-Mac/Mercury and that much of their pay is for making
>him available to NRA.  When they're threatened they play the
>Heston card.  For example, as you know, Mr. Heston threatened to
>resign from NRA unless Chief Kayne Robinson was elected 2nd VP in
>Dallas.  Though Mr. Heston is probably sincerely acting on
>misinformation spoon fed to him by Mr. Makris and others, the
>threat to Ak-Mac is the real reason Mr. Heston was ushered in,
>not fear of "extremists."
>
>A strange hypocrisy drenched the interviews in the wake of  his
>coronation.  The same Charleton Heston so fond of clenching a gun
>and uttering the ominous threat to law enforcement officers,
>"from my cold dead hands," touted the virtues of "mainstream"
>over so-called "extremist" gun owners, later following up with
>sound bites like "AK-47s are entirely inappropriate for civilian
>ownership".  In Seattle, he was flanked on one side by Director
>Sandra Froman, a one-time cover-girl for Machine Gun News who
>refers to her machine guns as "my babies."  He was also flanked
>by Director Manny Fernandez, who pleaded guilty in the face of
>illegal machine gun possession charges.  I have no problem with
>machine guns; they're within the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
>But I've never owned one, nor have I endorsed killing police
>officers who come to confiscate our guns, should it ever come to
>that.  The only thing I've advocated is political action.  So who
>are the "extremists" here?  You pushed Mr. Heston for 1st VP and
>Mr. Fernandez for the nominating committee, and kept Ms. Froman
>in charge of grassroots, hardly because they're "moderates,"
>rather because they were part of your coup de etat.
>
>By labeling former 1st VP Neal Knox and the reform camp
>"extremists," you and your fellow Machine Gun Moderates rendered
>less viable some of the core 2nd Amendment beliefs held by Mr.
>Knox and the reform camp - beliefs you supposedly hold.  If
>indeed you hold them, then you trashed your own beliefs for
>personal gain.  How many Directors and others with a hand in your
>coup de etat have personal, financial, or political conflicts of
>interest?  How many are directly or indirectly getting paid by
>NRA?
>
>As for the role of neo-conservative and Republican elements in
>this unholy alliance, it's easy to understand why they protect
>NRA's failed leadership: They want our money, our A-ratings, our
>endorsements, and our grassroots support, but they don't want to
>make the tough votes required to earn them.  So they applaud
>Wayne LaPierre's "mainstream" positions like federally mandated
>instacheck - the same Wayne LaPierre who himself was widely
>denounced as an extremist for referring to federal officers as
>"jackbooted thugs"!  Writer David Brock, admitted repentant
>political hit man for the right, made it clear that protecting
>the Republican Party was a prime motive for his American
>Spectator piece which smeared the NRA reform camp (note that
>letters to the Spectator exposing the smear were never printed -
>so much for accuracy and fairness in the neo-con media).  That's
>why NRA leaders are so opposed to putting an end to ILA's
>penchant for giving A ratings to legislators who vote for gun
>control.  Republican politicos were mobilized out of fear that
>straw man Neal Knox and other reform-minded Directors would end
>their free ride.  Never mind that NRA would be far more effective
>once it was no longer married to one party and began seriously
>enticing Democrats and disciplining sellout Republicans.  Your
>word was given in September, 1996 that the motion to stop ILA
>from giving A's to legislators who trample on gun rights would
>come before the Board for a vote in May.  It did not, but you
>publicly committed in May to bring it up in September.  You've
>frequently broken your word before, and I expect you'll break it
>this time.  I urge Directors to hold you to it and pass the
>motion.
>
>Like others, I got heavily involved in 1989 largely because NRA
>had effectively abandoned California.  A focused five-year
>struggle ended with the political demise of our two
>highest-profile gun grabbers, setting an example for other
>legislators that dammed up the torrent for three years.  But such
>examples don't last forever.  Legislators forget, especially when
>they see NRA leadership attempting to destroy those who set the
>example, and NRA never followed up with the no-compromise
>dealing, serious organizing, and contingency planning we'd hoped
>for.  So we're back where we were in 1989, only worse.  A slate
>of anti-gun-rights bills is moving that makes Roos-Roberti look
>tame.  As generally happens with California gun control laws, if
>any of these bills pass, the enemy will be emboldened and rights
>will be threatened across the country.
>
>And yet, NRA is once again running from California.  Mr. Heston's
>candidacy was sold to members on the promise that he could open
>any political door, yet he apparently hasn't lifted a finger to
>save his home state (by contrast, Neal Knox, a Maryland resident,
>flew to Sacramento with some activists who had asked for his
>help, including former Roberti Recall Chair Bill Dominguez and
>Santa Barbara NRA Members Council President Larry Rankin).  When
>asked what the plan to save California was, Tanya Metaksa,
>Executive Director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action,
>said "we're looking for one." I believe NRA leadership has
>decided to sell out on the "assault weapon" issue, and is
>preparing to sell out California, as quietly as possible to
>preserve the "Winning Team" fiction.  A high-profile defense has
>the potential downside of a high-profile loss - unacceptable for
>an ILA that blows members' money to shower them with glossy
>4-page "ILA Victory" brochures touting ILA's "success rates."
>Like a district attorney who excessively plea bargains to
>maintain a high conviction rate, ILA's statistics are bolstered
>by supporting anti-gun candidates, pushing unnecessarily
>compromised legislation, and ignoring legislative losses.  The
>pattern is unsettling: Giving A's to legislators who voted for
>the assault weapon ban then pushing a go-nowhere vote to pacify
>members; Mr. Heston's attacks on Ak-47s and so-called
>"extremists," and his failure to act in his home state; ILA's
>pressuring of grassroots into fundraising and NRA Board politics
>when they should be focused on action; the non-plan for
>California.  But perhaps Mr. Heston will make a cameo appearance
>after all.  Perhaps he's waiting for bills to reach the governor,
>then he'll ask for a veto.  It's never worked before with this or
>any other Republican governor here, despite all the free money,
>endorsements, and support we give Republicans.  We'll see.
>
>The unholy alliance of NRA leaders, vendors, and Republican
>elements is the reason why NRA is declining in stature.  It was
>used by you, President Hammer, and by others in leadership, to
>protect the status quo, and with it your power, positions and
>financial self-dealing from reform.  To hide your unwholesome
>goals, motives, and tactics, you preemptively accused others of
>having them - a page out of the Clinton-Goebbels-Lenin play books
>and a transparently hypocritical ploy you've long put to great
>use.  Your coconspirators accused Neal Knox of attempting a coup
>de etat and a corporate takeover.  The only corporate takeover I
>know of was by Ak-Mac, which can write its own ticket now:  They
>have you, 1st VP Heston, 2nd VP Robinson, EVP LaPierre, and
>others, all in place and in pocket.  Mr. Knox and other reformers
>were accused of wanting jobs, diverting attention from the fact
>that many Directors had personal, financial, and political
>incentives to preserve the status quo (e.g., your undisclosed
>$10,000 a month; how much is it now?)  Mr. Knox was also accused
>of using Machiavellian tactics to control the Board.  If that
>were true, your "Winning Team" wouldn't be in power today.  Fact
>is, Mr. Knox used his influence to help get the "Winning Team"
>and most of its supporters onto the Board and into the positions
>they used to betray him.  And, as you know too well, Machiavelli
>would never have allowed your coup to succeed.  Compared to Mr.
>Knox's influence, you run the Board like a concentration camp
>commandant, trying to break prisoners by taking away their
>privileges.  For starters, those who opposed the status quo
>generally got a powerless committee assignment or none at all.
>And Neal Knox has never stooped to the kind of lying smear
>campaign which your "Winning Team" so zealously carried out.
>
>As you know, in just one year you've appointed 3 Finance
>Committee Chairs.  Rick Carone, one of the two most qualified
>chairs in NRA's history, resigned because of the Board's
>unwillingness to deal with you.  Then you fired Donna Bianchi for
>exercising her conscience and running against Wayne LaPierre's
>mismanagement.  Now we have Mr. Sigler, who with all due respect,
>is unqualified for the position compared to his predecessors -
>including former Coors Chief Max Goodwin - all of whom sounded
>the alarm on NRA's financial position ($50 million in the red,
>$300 million spent without proper authorization, D credit rating,
>unqualified management, etc., etc., etc.).  As to the rest of the
>Committee, you replaced most of the experienced members with
>generally unqualified people (one publicly admitted she knows
>nothing about finance), increasing the Board's liability.
>Considering that the Finance Committee has a lot of power, small
>wonder why you're now making more appointments based on cronyism
>and political allegiance rather than ability.
>
>Then we have Sue King as Chair of the Ethics Committee: the fox
>in charge of the hen house.  I have first hand knowledge of her
>involvement in the smear campaign.  She violated her oath and the
>Board's trust by libeling me after I had answered questions about
>my FPPC case in the confidence of executive session.  If anyone's
>unethical it's Sue King.  Likewise, Ms. King's control of
>publications is shockingly without merit and appears to be for
>the sole purpose of consolidating power by controlling future
>Board elections through the magazines.  That is, unless you're
>giving her credit for something the rest of us don't know about.
>The vicious (and, of course, anonymous) "COUP DE ETAT NEWS,"
>perhaps?
>
>Jeff Cooper is one of the most renowned firearms instructors in
>the world.  Your bizarre purge of Mr. Cooper from Education and
>Training proves that the "Winning Team" put its coup de etat, and
>the indulgence of your petty vindictiveness, ahead of the good of
>the NRA.  Is Mr. Cooper an extremist?  Accomplished instructors
>TJ Johnston and Leroy Pyle were also purged.  By acquiescing to
>your whimsical purge of the most qualified committee members, by
>general inaction, and through bad faith, Board Members are
>putting their personal assets at risk to lawsuits, as
>malfeasance, misfeasance and dereliction of duty are reportedly
>not covered by NRA's Director insurance, which is nominal in any
>case compared to the potential claims.
>
>Looking back, ignorance was bliss.  I wish I didn't know what I
>know today.  Not that ignorance is an excuse.  But with graduate
>degrees from UCLA specializing in economics, finance, and
>accounting, a decade in the financial industry, and my
>participation in an internal study of NRA finances, I could
>hardly claim ignorance of the financial atrocities committed by
>NRA leaders with members money and the consent of an
>irresponsible board.  NRA's liabilities are dreadful, and I
>cannot stand by while Officers and past Presidents explain away
>NRA's moral obligations to its members.  Quoting Wayne Stump's
>resignation earlier this year - "the Board did nothing."  At
>least I tried, as did others, to perform my fiduciary duty.  But
>I can tell you it's no fun being sued for a large amount of
>money, even if you think you're in the right.  I've enough
>liability on my plate to last a lifetime.  I'm not taking on any
>more, certainly not for an institution corrupted by its own power
>and money.
>
>When a minority of the Board tried to exercise their moral and
>fiduciary duty to the members, they were not answered by a
>reasoned defense of NRA's leadership.  The response by staff
>officers, vendors, neo-cons, and certain Board members, was to
>create a smokescreen by smearing those Directors who had been
>tasked by the Board to conduct a special review of NRA finances
>and management.  By tolerating, encouraging, and participating in
>the smear, you have irrevocably lowered the standards of the
>Board.  Any Director is now fair game, even those who deemed
>themselves non-aligned in the recent conflict.  I urge them to
>prepare themselves.  It's hard to convey a true feeling for what
>it's like to see fabricated stories told about yourself in a
>national magazine, then see ILA immediately hire - as an apparent
>pay-off - those who smeared you (e.g., Paul Pain).  That's how
>much top staff thinks of the Board.  The old saw that NRA eats
>its young came only too true in my case. In under a month I went
>from a standing ovation by the Board to the realization of how
>expendable I was in the "Winning Team's" power game, even after
>the bullets I took for them and the cause.
>
>The struggle for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is
>at the core of a fundamental struggle for freedom that began in
>ancient times and will surely persist into the distant ages to
>come.  This struggle is political, though it has not always
>been.  Like diplomacy, the politics of such a struggle is an
>extension of war by other means, though perhaps further removed.
>In any conflict, if those on the front lines cannot trust and
>rely on the honor of their comrades, the cause is doomed.  While
>there are many good and honorable people on the Board with
>various stands on the current power struggle, there are some who
>cannot be trusted and are without honor.  The most recent proof
>of this is your own slander, telling Board members that I cashed
>my management review consulting check and left 1st Union Bank
>with hundred dollar bills stuffed in my pockets.  In fact, on the
>advice of Judge Paul Heath Till, I wired the money to California
>so I could avoid the clearing delay (and the risk of a stop
>payment - that's right, I don't trust you), and pay my attorney
>who faced a hearing just days later.  But then you knew that, of
>course.  Just another in your long string of lies.
>
>President Hammer, with victory under your belt and ruthless
>consolidation of power underway, with control of the magazines
>and millions in image-building expenditures to keep members
>barraged with fairy tales, and with NRA's powerful lobbying and
>PR cannons now turned on many of those who helped build them, I'm
>sure you're confident of a place in the constellation of NRA
>leaders.  History, on the other hand, favors the truth.
>
>I got into this cause 20 years ago to do my part for my country
>because I never had to go to war, unlike my father, Rick Carone,
>General Foss, Col. Brown, Jeff Cooper, Wes Grogan, Jerry Allen,
>Jim Fotis, Jim Land, Bob Kramer, and many others who risked the
>ultimate price for our freedom.  I'd like to continue to serve,
>but for many reasons I simply cannot.  I took my Board position
>seriously.  Members trusted me and I repaid them by performing my
>moral and fiduciary duty.  Even in better times an NRA without
>major problems would require a major commitment from a diligent
>Director.  But considering the shape NRA is in, the "Winning
>Team's" eagerness to destroy the reputations of Directors who
>perform their fiduciary duty and refuse to tow your party line,
>the oppression of the FPPC, and other factors, it is
>all-consuming.  I paid my dues and then some.  My conscience is
>clear.  As of today, the voluntary portion of my tour of
>political duty for NRA is over.  I hereby resign from the Board
>of Directors of the National Rifle Association.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>
>C. Russell Howard
>
>cc:    T. Makris, Chairman        1st Vice President C. Heston        NRA
>Secretary J. Land
>    The Board of Directors        2nd Vice President K. Robinson
>--
>*********************************************************************
> The Paul Revere Network
>http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html
>              >>> Subscribe to the PRNet mail list <<<
>Email to:[e-mail], in body:SUBSCRIBE PRN <your name>
>*********************************************************************
>
>------End forward message---------------------------
>
>
>__________________
>Robert P. Firriolo
>
>****************************************************************
>                     Don't Tread on Me!
>
>"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the
>people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped."
>
>                     - Alexander Hamilton
>                       The Federalist Papers - Number 29
>*****************************************************************
>
>------End forward message---------------------------
>
>
>



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Msg fm the Board
Date: 25 Sep 1997 14:38:05 -0600

Last note I sent, TJ wanted to "hear from us".
Let's hope he still does!!!
Sarah

>From: Brian Wilson <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Msg fm the Board
>
>A note from a membeof the Board...
>Note sentence 3, 2 graph...
>BW
>
>
>>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>>From: [e-mail]
>>Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 04:19:37 -0400 (EDT)
>>To: [e-mail]
>>Subject: Re: Instant check
>>
>>In a message dated 97-09-23 22:37:59 EDT, you write:
>>
>><< If we agree that the 2nd Amendment says my right to own a weapon "shall
>> not be infringed", do we mutually agree on the meaning of "infringed"? >>
>>
>>Brian: we lost that right about sixty years ago. You must admit that what is
>>left today is a highly regulated privilege. The average voter (educated in
>>our public schools) has no concept of limited government and absolute
rights.
>>Until we educate them and get them involved, we will continue to lose
more of
>>our freedoms.
>>
>>Just in the same manner of gradualism, we must slowly and incrementally work
>>to win back that right. Part of that incrementalism is to carefully show
>>everyone that arming citizens reduces crime. To do that, we have to bite our
>>tongue and suffer through unConstitutional regulations and beg for
>>permission. The Lott study now documents our progress. Now we have to
>>continue the process of educating our elected officials, our neighbors, and
>>the media. Simply declaring our rights doesn't get it done.
>>
>>The people living in your neighborhood, who have been brainwashed by what
>>they read in the newspaper and what they see on tv, generally don't agree
>>with us that American citizens should have an unrestricted freedom to own
>>firearms. Until they do, we won't have a "right" in the true sense. Shouting
>>about rights and demanding unalienable freedoms will get us nothing but
>>ignored.
>>
>>TJ Johnston
>>NRA Board of Directors
>>
>>
>Brian Wilson
>"Power corrupts; absolute power is kinda neat!"
>Talk Show Host/Author
>"the little black book on WHITEWATER"
>
>
>



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA Board Member Resigns (Russ Howard) 1/3
Date: 26 Sep 1997 08:53:00 -0700


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

August 12, 1997

Mrs. Marion Hammer
President, The National Rifle Association of America

Dear President Hammer:

Being nominated and elected to serve on the Board of Directors of
the National Rifle Association was a great honor. Like most Directors,
I've spent much of my life laboring for freedom and the right to keep
and bear arms; rights our Founding Fathers tried to guarantee by the
2nd Amendment, and which I forever hold dear.

Nonetheless, events of the past year have forced me to reassess my
long-standing affiliation with the NRA. Over the years, as we've
continued losing our rights in California and elsewhere, activists
have wondered why NRA is not more effective given the passionate
belief in the right to arms held by NRA members, a large segment
of the American public, and, presumably, the NRA Board. Like most,
I believed this could be accounted for by relatively benign factors
such as institutional paralysis, bureaucratic incompetence,
turf-protection, and the not-invented-here syndrome. I now know
otherwise. Those factors are not insignificant, though there are
many hard-working, competent people working for NRA. Rather, as
I've learned, NRA's ineffectiveness largely springs from an unholy
alliance between NRA's senior paid staff (including you and other
Board Members with undisclosed conflicts of interest), some of the
vendors NRA does business with, and elements of the Republican Party,
all with the acquiescence of a Board which has long shirked its moral
and fiduciary duties. Many members have suggested that there is anti-
gun or other infiltration at play. While such a cancer would not be
inconsistent with the symptoms, I've seen no direct evidence of it.

NRA has been bled by some of its vendors and their self-serving advice.
The lack of competitive bidding makes the US Government look responsible
by comparison. The PR firm used by NRA, Tony Makris' Ackerman-McQueen/
Mercury Group, is an example. They've been with NRA for some 20 years,
and recently had an $80,000-a-month basic retainer proposal on the table.
Few companies would keep a PR firm that long, let alone one that would
help senior staff wage war on Board Members. One of the leverage
strategies used by "Ak-Mac" is to spend millions of NRA's dollars
turning NRA officers into celebrities, who in turn protect Ak-Mac.
Hence your effort to keep the management audit away from Ak-Mac even
before it started.

Those who question the Ak-Mac status quo are subjected to the
vilest of personal attacks. For example, when former President Tom
Washington wanted to look at your finances, and Ak-Mac's, he was
smeared. Apparently, Charleton Heston, NRA's new 1st VP, neither
requests nor receives compensation from NRA. But it's well known
that he works with NRA through Tony Makris/Ak-Mac/Mercury and that
much of their pay is for making him available to NRA. When they're
threatened they play the Heston card. For example, as you know, Mr.
Heston threatened to resign from NRA unless Chief Kayne Robinson was
elected 2nd VP in Dallas. Though Mr. Heston is probably sincerely
acting on misinformation spoon fed to him by Mr. Makris and others,
the threat to Ak-Mac is the real reason Mr. Heston was ushered in,
not fear of "extremists."

A strange hypocrisy drenched the interviews in the wake of his
coronation. The same Charleton Heston so fond of clenching a gun
and uttering the ominous threat to law enforcement officers,
"from my cold dead hands," touted the virtues of "mainstream"
over so-called "extremist" gun owners, later following up with
sound bites like "AK-47s are entirely inappropriate for civilian
ownership". In Seattle, he was flanked on one side by Director
Sandra Froman, a one-time cover-girl for Machine Gun News who
refers to her machine guns as "my babies." He was also flanked
by Director Manny Fernandez, who pleaded guilty in the face of
illegal machine gun possession charges. I have no problem with
machine guns; they're within the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
But I've never owned one, nor have I endorsed killing police
officers who come to confiscate our guns, should it ever come to
that. The only thing I've advocated is political action. So who
are the "extremists" here? You pushed Mr. Heston for 1st VP and
Mr. Fernandez for the nominating committee, and kept Ms. Froman
in charge of grassroots, hardly because they're "moderates,"
rather because they were part of your coup de etat.

By labeling former 1st VP Neal Knox and the reform camp "extremists,"
you and your fellow Machine Gun Moderates rendered less viable some
of the core 2nd Amendment beliefs held by Mr. Knox and the reform
camp - beliefs you supposedly hold. If indeed you hold them, then
you trashed your own beliefs for personal gain. How many Directors
and others with a hand in your coup de etat have personal, financial,
or political conflicts of interest? How many are directly or
indirectly getting paid by NRA?

As for the role of neo-conservative and Republican elements in
this unholy alliance, it's easy to understand why they protect
NRA's failed leadership: They want our money, our A-ratings, our
endorsements, and our grassroots support, but they don't want to
make the tough votes required to earn them. So they applaud
Wayne LaPierre's "mainstream" positions like federally mandated
instacheck - the same Wayne LaPierre who himself was widely
denounced as an extremist for referring to federal officers as
"jackbooted thugs"! Writer David Brock, admitted repentant
political hit man for the right, made it clear that protecting
the Republican Party was a prime motive for his American
Spectator piece which smeared the NRA reform camp (note that
letters to the Spectator exposing the smear were never printed -
so much for accuracy and fairness in the neo-con media). That's
why NRA leaders are so opposed to putting an end to ILA's
penchant for giving A ratings to legislators who vote for gun
control. Republican politicos were mobilized out of fear that
straw man Neal Knox and other reform-minded Directors would end
their free ride. Never mind that NRA would be far more effective
once it was no longer married to one party and began seriously
enticing Democrats and disciplining sellout Republicans. Your
word was given in September, 1996 that the motion to stop ILA
from giving A's to legislators who trample on gun rights would
come before the Board for a vote in May. It did not, but you
publicly committed in May to bring it up in September. You've
frequently broken your word before, and I expect you'll break it
this time. I urge Directors to hold you to it and pass the motion.





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA Board Member Resigns (Russ Howard) 2/3
Date: 26 Sep 1997 08:53:00 -0700


Like others, I got heavily involved in 1989 largely because NRA had
effectively abandoned California. A focused five-year struggle ended
with the political demise of our two highest-profile gun grabbers,
setting an example for other legislators that dammed up the torrent
for three years. But such examples don't last forever. Legislators
forget, especially when they see NRA leadership attempting to destroy
those who set the example, and NRA never followed up with the no-
compromise dealing, serious organizing, and contingency planning we'd
hoped for. So we're back where we were in 1989, only worse. A slate
of anti-gun-rights bills is moving that makes Roos-Roberti look tame.
As generally happens with California gun control laws, if any of
these bills pass, the enemy will be emboldened and rights will be
threatened across the country.

And yet, NRA is once again running from California. Mr. Heston's
candidacy was sold to members on the promise that he could open
any political door, yet he apparently hasn't lifted a finger to
save his home state (by contrast, Neal Knox, a Maryland resident,
flew to Sacramento with some activists who had asked for his
help, including former Roberti Recall Chair Bill Dominguez and
Santa Barbara NRA Members Council President Larry Rankin). When
asked what the plan to save California was, Tanya Metaksa,
Executive Director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action,
said "we're looking for one." I believe NRA leadership has
decided to sell out on the "assault weapon" issue, and is
preparing to sell out California, as quietly as possible to
preserve the "Winning Team" fiction. A high-profile defense has
the potential downside of a high-profile loss - unacceptable for
an ILA that blows members' money to shower them with glossy
4-page "ILA Victory" brochures touting ILA's "success rates."
Like a district attorney who excessively plea bargains to
maintain a high conviction rate, ILA's statistics are bolstered
by supporting anti-gun candidates, pushing unnecessarily
compromised legislation, and ignoring legislative losses. The
pattern is unsettling: Giving A's to legislators who voted for
the assault weapon ban then pushing a go-nowhere vote to pacify
members; Mr. Heston's attacks on AK-47s and so-called
"extremists," and his failure to act in his home state; ILA's
pressuring of grassroots into fundraising and NRA Board politics
when they should be focused on action; the non-plan for
California. But perhaps Mr. Heston will make a cameo appearance
after all. Perhaps he's waiting for bills to reach the governor,
then he'll ask for a veto. It's never worked before with this or
any other Republican governor here, despite all the free money,
endorsements, and support we give Republicans. We'll see.

The unholy alliance of NRA leaders, vendors, and Republican
elements is the reason why NRA is declining in stature. It was
used by you, President Hammer, and by others in leadership, to
protect the status quo, and with it your power, positions and
financial self-dealing from reform. To hide your unwholesome
goals, motives, and tactics, you preemptively accused others of
having them - a page out of the Clinton-Goebbels-Lenin play books
and a transparently hypocritical ploy you've long put to great
use. Your coconspirators accused Neal Knox of attempting a coup
de etat and a corporate takeover. The only corporate takeover I
know of was by Ak-Mac, which can write its own ticket now: They
have you, 1st VP Heston, 2nd VP Robinson, EVP LaPierre, and
others, all in place and in pocket. Mr. Knox and other reformers
were accused of wanting jobs, diverting attention from the fact
that many Directors had personal, financial, and political
incentives to preserve the status quo (e.g., your undisclosed
$10,000 a month; how much is it now?) Mr. Knox was also accused
of using Machiavellian tactics to control the Board. If that
were true, your "Winning Team" wouldn't be in power today. Fact
is, Mr. Knox used his influence to help get the "Winning Team"
and most of its supporters onto the Board and into the positions
they used to betray him. And, as you know too well, Machiavelli
would never have allowed your coup to succeed. Compared to Mr.
Knox's influence, you run the Board like a concentration camp
commandant, trying to break prisoners by taking away their
privileges. For starters, those who opposed the status quo
generally got a powerless committee assignment or none at all.
And Neal Knox has never stooped to the kind of lying smear
campaign which your "Winning Team" so zealously carried out.

As you know, in just one year you've appointed 3 Finance
Committee Chairs. Rick Carone, one of the two most qualified
chairs in NRA's history, resigned because of the Board's
unwillingness to deal with you. Then you fired Donna Bianchi for
exercising her conscience and running against Wayne LaPierre's
mismanagement. Now we have Mr. Sigler, who with all due respect,
is unqualified for the position compared to his predecessors -
including former Coors Chief Max Goodwin - all of whom sounded
the alarm on NRA's financial position ($50 million in the red,
$300 million spent without proper authorization, D credit rating,
unqualified management, etc., etc., etc.). As to the rest of the
Committee, you replaced most of the experienced members with
generally unqualified people (one publicly admitted she knows
nothing about finance), increasing the Board's liability.
Considering that the Finance Committee has a lot of power, small
wonder why you're now making more appointments based on cronyism
and political allegiance rather than ability.

Then we have Sue King as Chair of the Ethics Committee: the fox
in charge of the hen house. I have first hand knowledge of her
involvement in the smear campaign. She violated her oath and the
Board's trust by libeling me after I had answered questions about
my FPPC case in the confidence of executive session. If anyone's
unethical it's Sue King. Likewise, Ms. King's control of publications
is shockingly without merit and appears to be for the sole purpose
of consolidating power by controlling future Board elections
through the magazines. That is, unless you're giving her credit
for something the rest of us don't know about. The vicious (and,
of course, anonymous) "COUP DE ETAT NEWS," perhaps?





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA Board Member Resigns (Russ Howard) 3/3
Date: 26 Sep 1997 08:53:00 -0700


Jeff Cooper is one of the most renowned firearms instructors in
the world. Your bizarre purge of Mr. Cooper from Education and
Training proves that the "Winning Team" put its coup de etat, and
the indulgence of your petty vindictiveness, ahead of the good of
the NRA. Is Mr. Cooper an extremist? Accomplished instructors
TJ Johnston and Leroy Pyle were also purged. By acquiescing to
your whimsical purge of the most qualified committee members, by
general inaction, and through bad faith, Board Members are putting
their personal assets at risk to lawsuits, as malfeasance,
misfeasance and dereliction of duty are reportedly not covered
by NRA's Director insurance, which is nominal in any case compared
to the potential claims.

Looking back, ignorance was bliss. I wish I didn't know what I
know today. Not that ignorance is an excuse. But with graduate
degrees from UCLA specializing in economics, finance, and
accounting, a decade in the financial industry, and my
participation in an internal study of NRA finances, I could
hardly claim ignorance of the financial atrocities committed by
NRA leaders with members' money and the consent of an irresponsible
board. NRA's liabilities are dreadful, and I cannot stand by while
Officers and past Presidents explain away NRA's moral obligations
to its members. Quoting Wayne Stump's resignation earlier this
year - "the Board did nothing." At least I tried, as did others,
to perform my fiduciary duty. But I can tell you it's no fun being
sued for a large amount of money, even if you think you're in the
right. I've enough liability on my plate to last a lifetime. I'm
not taking on any more, certainly not for an institution corrupted
by its own power and money.

When a minority of the Board tried to exercise their moral and
fiduciary duty to the members, they were not answered by a
reasoned defense of NRA's leadership. The response by staff
officers, vendors, neo-cons, and certain Board members, was to
create a smokescreen by smearing those Directors who had been
tasked by the Board to conduct a special review of NRA finances
and management. By tolerating, encouraging, and participating in
the smear, you have irrevocably lowered the standards of the
Board. Any Director is now fair game, even those who deemed
themselves non-aligned in the recent conflict. I urge them to
prepare themselves. It's hard to convey a true feeling for what
it's like to see fabricated stories told about yourself in a
national magazine, then see ILA immediately hire - as an apparent
pay-off - those who smeared you (e.g., Paul Pain). That's how
much top staff thinks of the Board. The old saw that NRA eats
its young came only too true in my case. In under a month I went
from a standing ovation by the Board to the realization of how
expendable I was in the "Winning Team's" power game, even after
the bullets I took for them and the cause.

The struggle for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is
at the core of a fundamental struggle for freedom that began in
ancient times and will surely persist into the distant ages to
come. This struggle is political, though it has not always
been. Like diplomacy, the politics of such a struggle is an
extension of war by other means, though perhaps further removed.
In any conflict, if those on the front lines cannot trust and
rely on the honor of their comrades, the cause is doomed. While
there are many good and honorable people on the Board with
various stands on the current power struggle, there are some who
cannot be trusted and are without honor. The most recent proof
of this is your own slander, telling Board members that I cashed
my management review consulting check and left 1st Union Bank
with hundred dollar bills stuffed in my pockets. In fact, on the
advice of Judge Paul Heath Till, I wired the money to California
so I could avoid the clearing delay (and the risk of a stop
payment - that's right, I don't trust you), and pay my attorney
who faced a hearing just days later. But then you knew that, of
course. Just another in your long string of lies.

President Hammer, with victory under your belt and ruthless
consolidation of power underway, with control of the magazines
and millions in image-building expenditures to keep members
barraged with fairy tales, and with NRA's powerful lobbying and
PR cannons now turned on many of those who helped build them, I'm
sure you're confident of a place in the constellation of NRA
leaders. History, on the other hand, favors the truth.

I got into this cause 20 years ago to do my part for my country
because I never had to go to war, unlike my father, Rick Carone,
General Foss, Col. Brown, Jeff Cooper, Wes Grogan, Jerry Allen,
Jim Fotis, Jim Land, Bob Kramer, and many others who risked the
ultimate price for our freedom. I'd like to continue to serve,
but for many reasons I simply cannot. I took my Board position
seriously. Members trusted me and I repaid them by performing my
moral and fiduciary duty. Even in better times an NRA without
major problems would require a major commitment from a diligent
Director. But considering the shape NRA is in, the "Winning
Team's" eagerness to destroy the reputations of Directors who
perform their fiduciary duty and refuse to tow your party line,
the oppression of the FPPC, and other factors, it is
all-consuming. I paid my dues and then some. My conscience is
clear. As of today, the voluntary portion of my tour of
political duty for NRA is over. I hereby resign from the Board
of Directors of the National Rifle Association.

Sincerely,
C. Russell Howard

cc: T. Makris, Chairman
    1st Vice President C. Heston
    2nd Vice President K. Robinson
    NRA Secretary J. Land
    The Board of Directors
--
*********************************************************************
 The Paul Revere Network
http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html
>>> Subscribe to the PRNet mail list <<<
Email to:[e-mail], in body:SUBSCRIBE PRN <your name>
*********************************************************************




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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: C-NEWS: VANGUARD:  A Sea of Flames -Forwarded
Date: 26 Sep 1997 10:32:30 -0600

>                           A SEA OF FLAMES
>                          26 September 1997
>
>                    Copyright 1997, Rod D. Martin
>
>                    "Vanguard of the Revolution"
>
>           http://members.aol.com/RodDMartin/vanguard.htm
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, the enigmatic Kim Jong Il, "Dear Leader" and son of the
>three-years dead Stalinist dictator Kim Il Sung, was finally nominated to
>the post of General Secretary of the Workers' Party, the North Korean
>Communists.  This potentially answered the question of who exactly runs
>North Korea; it did not give anyone comfort.
>
>Kim Il Jong has never met a Westerner.  He has never been outside North
>Korea.  He has lived all his life in the personality cult of his father,
>the first and to this day only dictator and the man who launched the
>Korean War.  Western ears have heard him speak precisely one sentence.
>
>It is fitting, if disconcerting, that he lead North Korea.
>
>North Korea stands on alert, ready to invade and destroy the South.  This
>much we know.  Among multiple defectors in the past year, two come from
>the country's highest ranks:  former politburo member Hwang Jang-yop, the
>architect of North Korea's autarky and the highest ranking defector ever;
>and Chang Sung-gil, North Korea's ambassador to Egypt and the man who ran
>his country's highly profitable Middle East arms trade.  Both confirm:
>the invasion is only a matter of time, possibly as early as this fall.
>
>North Korea openly threatens to turn Seoul, the capital of its southern
>neighbor and our close ally, "into a sea of flame."  According to U.S.
>intelligence sources and the two defectors, North Korea has stockpiled at
>least three nuclear weapons, as well as innumerable chemical and
>biological ones, for the campaign to "liberate" the South.  The North
>trumpets its plan to "annihilate" the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in
>South Korea, as well as attack Japan, Okinawa, Guam, and even the United
>States.
>
>Why Korea, and why now?  In short, North Korea is not only bankrupt, but
>starving as well.  It's famine becomes more acute by the day; and like
>all famines in Communist countries before it, it touches the well-fed and
>supplied North Korean armed forces not at all.  North Korea is
>increasingly an army in search of a nation, and the nation is has is
>dying.  The Party faces a simple choice:  collapse into chaos, or reach
>out and grasp the dangling, sumptuous fruit just across the DMZ.
>
>But is that fruit within its reach?  Yes.  Today, what is certainly the
>world's most dangerous nation faces 700,000 South Korean and 37,000 U.S.
>soldiers with an army of 1.1 million, confined in a truly tiny space.  Of
>these, no less than 100,000 are commandos, the largest Special Forces in
>the world.  North Korea's generals believe they can use this force to
>conquer the South in a high-intensity 7-20 day campaign, completing the
>job before heavy U.S. reinforcements can arrive.
>
>Two hundred Scud-B and Frog missiles would blanket the ten U.S. and South
>Korean airfields with chemical weapons, while the large but antiquated
>North Korean air force would throw itself at the same targets in a
>suicide run.  The 100,000 commandos would strike these airfields and
>various other command centers by sea as well as by air from a fleet of
>300 AN-2 transports, utterly invisible to radar due to their fabric skin.
> Seoul's millions would be forced to flee their city ablaze on the very
>first day, and the world's number three military would race down the
>peninsula even as it neutralized bases in Japan and Okinawa, either by
>intimidation or direct attack.
>
>The U.S. Army took nearly six months to deploy for Desert Storm.  Today
>it has radically less to fight with, further away from the scene.
>
>What is Bill Clinton's response to this potential nuclear war?
>Appeasement on a scale not seen since Munich.  After pressing South Korea
>and Japan into four-power talks that serve only to dignify the brutal
>Pyongyang regime, Clinton is actually giving the North two American
>nuclear reactors, as well as vast quantities of food and fuel oil.  Note
>that none of this supply effort has gone to aid the population; it has
>stocked the military we face.  The price of this outlandish aid?  Vague
>promises from North Korea's shadowy leadership that they will halt
>further nuclear weapons production.  Needless to say, the North Korean
>reactors continue to run.
>
>When contrasted with America's crushing embargo of Iraq, this approach is
>simply astounding; yet as in Haiti, Bill Clinton likes being tough with
>enemies who can't fight back.  North Korea, a dire and imminent threat,
>is treated in a manner that would make Chamberlain blush, showing the
>world precisely what this administration is made of.
>
>If war is to be averted, Pyongyang must be shown that war will not pay.
>Aid must be cut off at once:  North Korea must be forced to spend down
>its six-month war reserve of food, oil and spare parts.  Armor and other
>heavy weapons must be prepositioned close enough to the Korean peninsula
>to drastically cut the time needed to deploy a full scale army.  Above
>all, North Korea must be told in no uncertain terms that on day-one of
>any conflict, it will face the maximum force available to the United
>States in defense of South Korea.  Let them determine for themselves just
>what that might be.
>
>Appeasement has never worked.  Isolated, starving countries with big
>armies have never failed to exploit weakness.  And Bill Clinton has never
>shown courage.  May God help us all.
>
>Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 26 September 1997
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>    To receive Vanguard of the Revolution via email send a
>    note to [e-mail] with the subject heading:
>        subscribe vanguard your name
>      To unsubscribe, send a note to the same address with the
>            subject heading:  remove vanguard your name
>      WWW: http://members.aol.com/roddmartin/vanguard.htm
>    For Syndication Information please contact:
>       Email: [e-mail]
>       FAX: [phone]
>       Smail:
>        Rod D. Martin
>        Vanguard of the Revolution
>        P. O. Box 1022
>        Arkadelphia, AR 71923-1022
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message
>UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to [e-mail]. Contact
>[e-mail] if you have questions.
>
>
>
>------End forward message---------------------------
>
>
>



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Not on the evening news...
Date: 26 Sep 1997 12:38:37 -0600

Well, golly gee!  I guess I'm just one of those "elitist extremists" who can't
"trust the elected government and the Supreme Court to make decisions".

Sarah


>>FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist
>>(09/25/97; 4:30 p.m. EDT)
>>By David Braun, TechWire
>>
>>MONTREAL -- Extremist positions on electronic encryption are not only
>>threatening to normal law enforcement, but they are also elitist and
>>nondemocratic, said Alan McDonald, a senior counsel member with the
>>Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the International Conference on
>>Privacy
>>in Montreal on Thursday.
>>
>>Addressing a workshop on how far society should go in trading off
>>privacy for effective law enforcement, McDonald said privacy activists
>>had fought any balance in proposed encryption legislation.
>>
>>"Such absolute positions threaten not only electronic searches but also
>>conventional searches for data that has been encrypted," McDonald said.
>>
>>Absolute positions on privacy were "pernicious on several levels,"
>>McDonald added.
>>
>>The absolute positions "handcuffed" law enforcement while also raising
>>rights for citizens to levels that were unreasonable and that would have
>>been foreign to the nation's founding fathers. Extreme privacy positions
>>were ultimately elitist and nondemocratic in that they presumed the
>>views of a knowing privacy cognoscenti should pre-empt the views of the
>>nation's elected officials and the Supreme Court, McDonald said.
>>
>>McDonald's statements came a day after a key committee of the U.S. House
>>of Representatives rejected an FBI-supported proposal that would have
>>compelled the makers of encryption products to include features that
>>would enable law enforcement agencies to gain immediate and, if
>>necessary, covert access to unscramble any coded data.
>>
>>Extremists presumed that the citizens could not trust the elected
>>government and the Supreme Court to make decisions or to correct
>>mistakes if any are made, McDonald said.
>>
>>"Based on a theory of potential government abuse, important tools
>>commonly used are to be restricted or embargoed," McDonald said.
>>
>>McDonald said efforts in the United States to enhance effective law
>>enforcement search and seizure capabilities had proceeded without
>>harming legitimate privacy concerns.
>>
>>In the area of electronic surveillance, McDonald said, privacy
>>enhancements had frequently received treatment "superior to that
>>required under our Constitution."
>>
>>With minor exceptions, neither the laws nor the cases decided regarding
>>effective law enforcement or privacy had come about with the view that
>>either were absolute in their nature, McDonald said. Law enforcement
>>measures had been tempered by considerations of personal privacy, and
>>privacy laws had been balanced with effective law enforcement.
>>
>>Notwithstanding the substantial threats posed by national and
>>international organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorists, the United
>>States had remained true to its Constitutional moorings, and its
>>commitment to a system of ordered liberties, McDonald said.
>>
>>"When people don't know much about electronic surveillance, they are
>>fearful of it. But when they know Congress passed laws and the Supreme
>>Court reviewed them and that there are numerous constraints and
>>procedures, then it makes sense to them. It seems
>>rational and balanced," McDonald said.
>>
>Brian Wilson
>"Power corrupts; absolute power is kinda neat!"
>Talk Show Host/Author
>"the little black book on WHITEWATER"

Sarah Thompson, M.D.
PO Box 1185
Sandy, UT 84091-1185

http://www.therighter.com

Louis Freeh:  The BEST argument for encryption.
Get YOUR copy of PGP now - before it becomes illegal!



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: R2A! S10  ALERT
Date: 27 Sep 1997 15:18:27 -0600

>> ALERT!   ALERT!   ALERT!   ALERT!   ALERT!   ALERT!   ALERT!
>>
>> The NRA is distributing pre-printed post cards in its October
>> members publications, expressing "concern" over U.S. Senate Bill
>> S.10.  These post cards are wishy-washy and ambiguous in the way
>> they deal with this totally anti-gun bill.
>>
>> DO NOT RETURN THEM WITHOUT MODIFYING THEM TO MAKE A STRONGER
>> STATEMENT!
>>
>> As delivered, they read:
>> *************************************************************
>> Dear Senator:
>>
>>      In the near future, you will be voting on, S.10, the
>> Juvenile Justice Reform Act.  I agree that we need to get serious
>> about how we deal with violent young criminals.  At the same
>> time, however, I am concerned that some Senators will use S.10 as
>> a vehicle by which to pass more of their gun control agenda.
>>
>>      I respectfully ask that you oppose, and ask your colleagues
>> to oppose, all efforts that seek to further burden and harass
>> law-abiding American gun owners.  Gun control in America has a
>> long history of failure.  It is no solution to out crime problem.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> ************************************************************
>>
>> This is incredibly non-committal, to go to the trouble of having
>> members waste their postage.  Exactly what sort of deal does the
>> ILA intend to make with our Senators, that they need to allow so
>> much wiggle-room?
>>
>> A modification of the cards before mailing is recommended.
>> Following is one recommended example:
>>
>> *************************************************************
>> Dear Senator:    OPPOSE S.10!  IT IS GUN CONTROL AS WRITTEN!
>>
>>      In the near future, you will be voting on, S.10, the
>> Juvenile Justice Reform Act.  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.  At the same
>> time, however, I am concerned that some Senators will use S.10 as
>> a vehicle by which to pass more of their gun control agenda.
>> PLEASE OPPOSE S.10 OUTRIGHT!
>>
>>      I respectfully ask that you oppose, and ask your colleagues
>> to oppose, all efforts that seek to further burden and harass
>> law-abiding American gun owners.  Gun control in America has a
>> long history of failure.  It is no solution to out crime problem.
>>
>> Sincerely,                    P.S.  IGNORE THE NRA/ILA!
>>                                     KILL S.10 OUTRIGHT!
>> ************************************************************
>>
>> You may use your own imagination, to make the cards stronger yet.
>> For example, you may wish to cross out "respectfully ask" and
>> change it to DEMAND.
>>
>> Make the changes in bold lettering, for example, with a felt-tip
>> pen.  Also, bend the cards in the middle so that they will not
>> lay flat in a heap of received mail; if they stand out from the
>> pile, they are more likely to get read immediately.
>>
>> PLEASE DON'T IGNORE THIS!  We MUST NOT jump on the "get tough on
>> juvenile crime bandwagon.  In some states, (e.g., Pennsylvania)
>> there already is legislation that would OUTLAW people under 18
>> from possessing firearms unless engaged in organized or licensed
>> activities -- the great American tradition of kids shooting at
>> cans down by the railroad tracks will become a Juvenile Crime,
>> and with present trends, it will be a crime that could disbar
>> them from owning guns for the rest of their lives!
>>
>> THOUSANDS of uninformed NRA members are going to witlessly mail
>> in these cards.  YOU must be heard, giving a hard core opinion!
>>
>> --Andy
>>
>> PLEASE CROSS-POST OR RE-POST AS APPROPRIATE!
>
>



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The SL Trib Misinformed Opinion
Date: 27 Sep 1997 15:42:59 -0600


>http://www.sltrib.com/092697/opinion/opinion.htm
>
>>
>>                  Friday, September 26, 1997
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>                   Guv Needs Guts on Guns
>>
>>
>>      If Gov. Leavitt feels so strongly about the
>>  inadequacy of the state's 1995 concealed-carry law that
>>  he would defy it with a no-guns rule for state
>>  employees, then he ought to be able to lend his
>>  estimable political clout to the movement to change the
>>  law next year.
>>      As reported in The Tribune last week, the Leavitt
>>  administration last year enacted a rule barring state
>>  employees, with a few exceptions, from carrying
>>  concealed weapons in state facilities or state vehicles.
>>  The rule seems to contradict the 1995 state law that
>>  made it easier for Utah gun owners to obtain
>>  concealed-weapon permits; that law states that such
>>  permits are valid ``without restriction.''
>>      Of course, the governor is right in principle. His
>>  administration's no-guns-in-the-workplace rule expresses
>>  the conviction that unknown numbers of the state's
>>  17,000 employees reporting to work with a concealed
>>  weapon is an unsettling prospect that would make most
>>  employees feel less safe, not more so.
>>      State Sen. Michael Waddoups, who pushed the
>>  unfortunate '95 law, naturally disagrees. He described
>>  the Leavitt rule as ``an invitation to somebody coming
>>  in and shooting up a state office.'' This is
>>  conventional pro-gun paranoia, which ignores the
>>  alternative deterrent -- beefed-up security.
>>      In Waddoups' doomsday scenario, there is simply no
>>  assurance that the presence of a couple of
>>  concealed-weapon permit holders would defuse the
>>  situation, nor is there any reason to believe that such
>>  freelance ``deterrence'' would be preferable to
>>  tightened security measures. In any event, it is logical
>>  that employers, private or public, should have the
>>  authority to choose which level of security to enforce
>>  in their workplace.
>>      The problem, though, is the 1995 law. It was so
>>  sloppily conceived that it has already had to be amended
>>  to clarify that concealed weapons are not allowed in
>>  correctional facilities or airport secure areas. And
>>  last year, protests came from various corners that the
>>  law should be clarified to disallow concealed weapons in
>>  churches, schools, universities, and private businesses
>>  that don't want them.
>>      But the reaction last session by the Legislature to
>>  this groundswell was irresponsible silence. The governor
>>  must not allow the legislators to be that negligent
>>  again in 1998.
>>      Gov. Leavitt should expend some of that mighty
>>  political capital of his on ensuring that the law is
>>  changed next year. With his no-guns rule for state
>>  employees, he has already made his position clear: He
>>  believes concealed weapons should not be permitted
>>  ``without restriction.'' The only question now is
>>  whether he has the courage to make a public fight of it
>>  in the Legislature with the pro-gun conservatives of his
>>  own party. He should not shrink from it.
>>
>>
>>                   [Friday Navigation Bar]
>>      --------------------------------------------------
>> ) 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: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: S.L., Davis Residents Tell State Employees: Leave Your Guns
Date: 29 Sep 1997 23:13:12 -0600

I'd suggest writing to the Tribune ([e-mail]) or to Mr. Harrie
([e-mail]) and requesting to know the exact wording of the
questions and the interview protocol.  We all know polls can be intentionally
or unintentionally biased.  It seems that the Trib has moved beyond
mis-reporting the news, misinforming its readers with its editorials and
is now actually CREATING anti-gun news.

Sarah


>Subject: S.L., Davis Residents Tell State Employees: Leave Your Guns Home
>
>http://www.sltrib.com/092997/utah/6595.htm
>
>>
>>        Monday, September 29, 1997
>>
>>     S.L., Davis Residents Tell State Employees: Leave Your Guns Home
>>
>>  BY DAN HARRIE
>>  ) 1997, THE SALT LAKE
>>  TRIBUNE
>>      A regulation banning state workers from carrying concealed
>>  weapons on the job may run afoul of Utah law, but it is wildly
>>  popular.
>>      Nearly three in four residents of Salt Lake and Davis counties
>>  oppose non-law-enforcement state employees being allowed to pack
>>  firearms in the workplace, according to a new poll conducted for The
>>  Salt Lake Tribune. Only 22 percent favor permitting public employees
>>  carrying concealed weapons on the job.
>>      Five percent said they had no opinion.
>>      The poll conducted last week by Valley Research surveyed more
>>  than 1,000 adults in Salt Lake and Davis counties. The margin of
>>  error was plus or minus 3.2 percent.
>>      Women were somewhat more adamant than men in opposing an armed
>>  state work force, with 82 percent siding with the ban. Three in every
>>  five men were opposed.
>>      The issue of public employees carrying weapons was highlighted by
>>  the recent suspension of a state worker for violating the
>>  little-publicized rule. The employee had a valid concealed-weapons
>>  permit. It was believed to be the first disciplinary action under the
>>  1996 rule.
>>      Officials in the administration of Gov. Mike Leavitt knew the
>>  regulation might be at odds with state law, which states that
>>  concealed-weapons permits are valid ``without restriction.'' But
>>  Human Resource Management Director Karen Suzuki-Okabe said the rule
>>  was imposed after lengthy consideration by the Cabinet because of an
>>  overriding concern to provide employees a safe working environment.
>>      Suzuki-Okabe said she was not surprised by the poll because of
>>  the public's ``tremendous fear'' of violence.
>>      The Utah Public Employees Association -- representing about 5,200
>>  state workers -- has protested the no-guns rule, arguing that it is
>>  discriminatory and in conflict with statute.
>>
>>
>>                 [Image] [Monday Navigation Bar] [Image]
>>
>>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  ) 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: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Running Utes
Date: 29 Sep 1997 23:20:48 -0600

>Subject: The Running Utes
>
>http://www.sltrib.com/092997/PUBLIC_F/6481.htm
>
>>
>>         Monday, September 29, 1997
>>
>>                             The Running Utes
>>
>>      I would like to
>>  thank the University of Utah for clearly stating its policy that
>>  students may not possess firearms, other weapons, or chemicals such
>>  as pepper spray on campus. I appreciate knowing that the regents
>>  would prefer that female, disabled, older, or weaker students be
>>  mugged, raped or killed rather than lawfully defend themselves.
>>      I also appreciate knowing that these public servants feel they
>>  can ignore both the Utah Constitution and the state pre-emption law
>>  with impunity, and that not a single ``legal scholar'' at the law
>>  school has raised any objection.
>>      Finally, I would like to thank the university for giving a whole
>>  new meaning to the term ``Running Utes.''
>>      SARAH THOMPSON
>>      Sandy
>>
>>
>>
>>                 [Image] [Monday Navigation Bar] [Image]
>>
>>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  ) 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: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Congressman Merrill Cook on Lautenberg
Date: 29 Sep 1997 23:35:16 -0600

I received the following letter from freshman Congressman
Merrill Cook today.  Rep. Cook started out being mostly
anti-gun, so this IS progress for him.  However, it appears
that he still could use some education, particularly with
respect to the Constitution which he took an oath to
uphold.  Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

Sarah


Merrill Cook
2nd District, Utah
1431 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

125 South State Street, Suite 2311
SLC, Ut. 84138
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
September 25, 1997



Ms. Sarah Thompson

Dear Ms. Thompson:

Thank you for contacting my office with your support to overturn
the Lautenberg Amendment.

I cannot support the Lautenberg Amendment as it was passed because
it is retroactive in its application.  I believe making new laws retroactive
is wrong and directly violates the Constitution.  I fully support the right
to own a gun, but only if it is used in a responsible and legal manner.  It
is
often unfortunately true that having a gun in a home where domestic
violence occurs increases the chances that the gun will be used, often with
tragic and preventable consequences.  People who believe violence is the
answer to family disputes deserve to be deprived of the means of inflicting
harm.  If a person receives prior notice that any future convictions for
misdemeanors related to domestic violence will result in his gun being taken,
and he nevertheless continues to commit acts of domestic violence, I believe
it is not unreasonable to take his guns away.  There is simply no excuse for
assaulting one's family members.  If a person does so even after having been
warned, then he has proven he cannot act responsibly, and the family should
be protected from the potential danger created by guns in the home.  I would
also hope that he would learn to solve his problems not by further violence
but by obtaining counseling from his church or a professional counselor.

I believe the right to bear arms is an important constitutional right.
Like all
freedoms and rights, however, it is not unlimited and must be used
responsibly.

Sincerely,

Merrill Cook
Member of Congress

MC/msm




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

From: Andelain <[e-mail]>
Subject: KSL 1160 @ 12:30 today
Date: 30 Sep 1997 12:10:07 -0600

Hayall,

Thought ya might like a laff...

I just got off the fone with a reporter from KSL radio where
I stuttered and stumbled through my objections to the UofU
gun policy.  If they're able to get any legible bits, they'll
run them at 12:30 today and "throughout the afternoon".

Somebody who can put two words or more together might want
to call and clarify.

Will



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: When the BATF comes a-callin' 3/4
Date: 30 Sep 1997 11:36:00 -0700


authority to conduct an inspection or investigation, but
he has no right to do it in tandem with a BATF compliance
inspection. You should require other inspectors or
investigators to get in line so that you can deal with
them at a separate time. If they refuse to leave, call
the sheriff and swear out a trespassing complaint. If a
BATF special agent, a firearms specialist from BATF's
Technology Branch in Washington (part of the criminal
enforcement branch), or other criminal law enforcement
type is present, this is not an ordinary compliance
inspection and you should immediately terminate it,direct
the individuals to leave and contact legal counsel.

BATF inspectors can inspect at any time during your listed
business hours, without prior notice or appointment. If they
do not give you advance notice then restrict their inspection
activities to your listed hours. If you are subjected to an
unannounced inspection, be on guard. You may be under suspicion
or you may be dealing with one of the cop wannabes. If the
inspector has the courtesy to advise you ahead of time of an
intended inspection you are free to, and should, accommodate
the time, date and hours of inspection to the inspector's
convenience. You should never consent to more than one
compliance inspection in any twelve-month period. Require
BATF to obtain an inspection warrant and immediately seek
legal counsel.

Under general principles of law a compliance inspection must be
"reasonable" in terms of time, duration, scope, number of
inspectors, lack of disruption to your business, etc. If the
inspector is reasonable and professional, you should be too.
The process does not have to be adversarial or antagonistic.
If the inspector is not reasonable or professional, keep in
mind that your license does not require you to talk to him,
or to provide him access to your copy machine, rest room, etc.
If you are dealing with an idiot, remember RULE ONE -- and let
him bring his own copy machine. Also remember that he has
no right to use your electricity.

The inspector is legally entitled to inspect all your required
records, your business premises, and your firearms inventory.
He is legally entitled to inspect nothing else. You should not
permit inspection of non-required records unless there is a
satisfactory explanation of why it is desired (such as inspecting a
purchase or sale invoice for the correct serial number where the bound
book and the Form 4473 show different serial numbers for the same
firearm).

You should not permit inspection of non-business portions of the
premises when your home is the licensed premises. (When your business
is conducted from your home, you should carefully delineate that
portion dedicated to the firearms business and confine the business
strictly to that portion of the premises.)

You should accommodate the inspector by making copies of any
records desired (within reason). Never permit original records
(or firearms or other property) to be removed from the premises
without a summons, subpoena or court order, and without seeking
legal counsel. The inspector has no power of seizure and may
attempt to bluff his way into removing original records or may
try to obtain your consent. Do not be bluffed and do not
consent. Inspections should be conducted on your premises.
(If you store firearms off premises, the inspector is also
entitled to inspect such storage facilities.)

A compliance inspection of a special occupational taxpayer will
begin with the inspector attempting to reconcile his NFA Branch
printout of Title II firearms shown as registered to you in
BATF's records with the actual Title II firearms in your
possession. He will be unable to do so because of the abysmal
state of the national registry. Have mercy on him and help BATF
untangle its records. Try to refrain from thinking about whose
records and recordkeeping should really be under audit here.
The inspector will also likely need your technical expertise
in identifying anything more esoteric than a rifle, pistol or
shotgun. Try to conceal your contempt for a "federal firearms
inspector" who probably doesn't know a wipe from a baffle, or
a lightning link from a drop-in sear, and who may think a
Mauser broomhandle is something used by a German hausfrau.

If you are a firearms manufacturer or importer, an inspector
may plan to conduct an excise tax audit at the same time as a
compliance inspection. The authority for these two types of
inspections/audits derive from entirely different legal
authorities and they involve entirely separate legal
considerations. You should insist that either the audit
or the inspection be conducted first and separately. The
reasons are expanded on under Paragraph 5, below.

Curio and relic (collector) licensees have the legal option of
bringing their records and firearms to the nearest designated
BATF office for a compliance inspection. Although I am
unaware of any compliance inspection of a collector, this
is an option to be considered seriously.

The simple truth is that you never want a BATF employee in
your home if it can be avoided.

In summary, the firearms regulatory process does not assume you
are a criminal, but rather seeks to ensure that dealers generally are
complying with the requirements of the law. If bona fide, the process
does not require invocation of your various rights to notice, counsel,
warning, non-self-incrimination, etc., which all come into play when
you are the target of a criminal investigation. Unfortunately, BATF
sometimes attempts to avoid these constitutional "inconveniences" by
illegally using the access of civil inspectors to further a criminal
investigation without alerting the targeted dealer. You should never
cooperate in such a subterfuge.

The Excise Tax Audit.

If you are simply a dealer in firearms or ammunition, you will
have no occasion to undergo an excise tax audit. However, if you
manufacture or import firearms or ammunition you are subject to audit
by the regulatory enforcement branch of BATF.

The manufacturers excise tax on firearms and ammunition is one
of the most complex and least understood federal tax statutes. It is
said that only three people in the world completely understand it. One
is dead, one went mad trying to explain it, and modesty prevents me
from naming the third. Suffice to say, however, that BATF, which
acquired jurisdiction over the tax from IRS in 1991, is hopelessly
inept in administering it.

An excise tax audit is governed by the general principles of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and not the National Firearms
Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968.

You are required to maintain the same records any other
taxpayer/return filer is required to maintain: whatever
records are necessary to support the figures on your return.
There are no records specifically required by law to be
maintained such as those required of dealers by the Gun
Control Act. And, absent tax fraud or evasion, there are
no criminal penalties for failing to maintain such records.
Therefore, the only penalty for failing to keep excise tax
records, or to produce them, is that BATF could choose to
treat all your sales as taxable events.

As a practical matter a logbook of operable Title I firearms
manufactured by you plus any BATF Forms 2 (Title II firearms
manufactured by you), and a file of BATF Forms 6A, operable
firearms imported by you, accompanied by your bound book
showing the same firearms sold by you and sales invoices




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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: When the BATF comes a-callin' 4/4
Date: 30 Sep 1997 11:36:00 -0700


showing the sale price, would be all the records required
for a proper excise tax audit (in addition, perhaps to your
retained copies of excise tax returns filed). You should
decline to produce any other records for an excise tax
audit unless you have an alternative pricing issue under the
excise tax regulations or tax-exempt sales (to a government
entity, the military, or for export).

You should also be aware that the definition of firearm under the
excise tax statute is different from other statutory definitions of
"firearm." Excise taxable firearms are only those complete portable
firearms which go bang.

The tax does not apply to crew-served weapons, silencers, frames or
receivers, conversion kits, parts, most destructive devices, etc.,
etc. The tax only becomes due on a sale or its commercial equivalent.
A transfer of a complete Title II firearm which goes bang is not
always a sale and does not always trigger the excise tax. Even when it
is a sale, it is not taxable if the Title II transfer tax is being
paid (a Form 4 transfer). There is also no excise tax due on the
manufacture or importation and sale of blank ammunition. I cover these
points because BATF inspectors are generally excise-tax illiterate and
much excise tax is asserted and collected which is not legally due and
owing. If you are a firearms manufacturer or exporter, you should have
competent tax counsel.

The Raid.

This is an event which means you are in deep, serious. It is the
execution of a judicially-issued search and seizure warrant (and
occasionally also an arrest warrant) by BATF special agents,
frequently accompanied by agents of other federal or local agencies,
on premises owned, occupied or inhabited by you.

When a raid team shows up at your premises and announces (usually by
breaking down your door, sometimes by killing your dogs and throwing
flash bang grenades at your women and children) that they have a
federal search warrant, you must instantly do several things. You must
first of all mentally assimilate the fact that they are law officers
rather than a rampaging motorcycle gang (which they often resemble in
both appearance and behavior). Having identified them as law rather
than outlaw, you must freeze in place in a non-threatening posture and
attempt to stabilize the situation until some of their law-enforcement
adrenalin (the most dangerous drug on the street) has bled off. If
only a search warrant is involved, you must then recover your wits
sufficiently to do the following:

(A) Try to note and record the identities of as many participants as
    possible, by name, agency, badge number, and physical description.

(B) Ask for a copy of the warrant.

(C) Disable -- not unplug, disable -- your telephones and fax machines.

(D) Gather your family, children and pets and leave the premises.

(E) Call your lawyer.

You may be prevented from doing some or all of the above things
by legally illiterate agents, but that will simply lay the
foundation for your own day in court.

A federal search warrant authorizes only the search of a
specified premises and only the seizure of specifically
described items. Corollary to the execution of a warrant,
the law permits the agents to make a forcible entry if that
becomes necessary after knocking and announcing their identity
and purpose, to control the premises, and to take reasonable
precautions for their own safety -- such as a pat down for
weapons of those persons present and assigning an agent to
watch over and accompany anyone moving about on the premises.
The law authorizes the agents to prevent the destruction of
evidence or contraband and it protects them against being
assaulted or interfered with. It is a serious federal crime
to assault a federal officer or to obstruct execution of the
warrant. Don't turn a possible later indictment into a sure
one. Never assist the raiding party in locating the items
described in the warrant. They have the right to search, but
not the right to find. Do not open locked compartments, safes
or rooms for them or provide them with keys or combinations.
Do not talk to the raiding officers other than to request
identification and a copy of the warrant. Resist the compulsion
to show what a good guy you are; these are not your friends and
they are not there to help you.

A search warrant does not authorize agents to arrest you or
anyone else on the premises (although assaulting the agents
or forcibly interfering with the execution of the warrant will
justify a warrantless arrest) and it does not authorize them to
handcuff you, restrict you to a particular place or prevent you
from leaving.

You have a perfect right to leave the premises and should do so
immediately. If you are physically prevented from leaving, you
have just been falsely arrested in violation of the Fourth
Amendment and will have your recovery later in court as well
as taking some of the other retaliatory measures promised above.
You must get yourself and your family out of the house for
several reasons:

(A) to avoid the personal insult, humiliation, provocation
    and indignities which many agents seem to enjoy;

(B) to avoid a potential life-threatening situation; and

(C) to avoid creating evidence against yourself (RULE ONE). There
    is no useful purpose your remaining on the premises can serve;
    if the agents are going to plant evidence or destroy property,
    they will do it whether or not you are present.

You will need as much information about identities, badge numbers and
descriptions as you can manage in the minutes before you leave. These
will be useful later when you assert or defend your rights. But they
are not a reason to delay leaving the premises promptly. You are
legally entitled to a copy of the warrant, but do not remain on the
premises if you are refused.

You should disable your telephones and fax machines before
leaving in order to prevent the agents from illegally seizing
evidence (calls and faxes) which might come in while they
are on the premises. Such items did not exist when the warrant
was signed and cannot possibly be covered by the warrant. Their
seizure will probably therefore be illegal; but it is better to
prevent such seizures from even happening. If you are physically
prevented from disabling your own property, go somewhere else
and place incoming calls to all your lines and keep the circuits
open.

Now, call your lawyer.


The author is a retired U.S. Department of Justice lawyer and
a retired colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve practicing firearms law
in Greensboro, NC. He is a 1959 graduate of the University of Kentucky
and a 1962 graduate of the UK College of Law, where he was Note Editor
of the Kentucky Law Journal.

****************************************************************
* Liberty is NEVER an option ... only a condition to be lost!  *
* http://www.jbs.org                                           *
****************************************************************
* Roger Cravens, SYSOP                                         *
* South East Signals Intelligence Group BBS: [phone]    *
* Atlanta, GA                                                  *
****************************************************************
* Signals Intelligence: "... and the truth will set you free"! *
****************************************************************





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: When the BATF comes a-callin' 2/4
Date: 30 Sep 1997 11:36:00 -0700


the law of the state where the recording is taking place. You should
never record a conversation (telephone or otherwise) where no one
present knows of the interception.

This is a felony violation of the federal wiretapping statute,
and you are creating the very evidence needed to prove it.
You can, of course, legally tape-record any transaction in
any jurisdiction when all parties are aware of the taping.
Any such tape should itself reflect that all present are
aware of the taping. You should never knowingly consent to
your own interview or conversation being tape recorded without
making a tape of your own. More important, the taping of
your interview is a strong signal to invoke RULE ONE and
immediately seek legal counsel.

The Third-Party Inquiry.

A third-party inquiry is broader than a simple tracing inquiry,
but otherwise involves the same principles and recommended
reactions. It could be a telephone call, but will ordinarily
be a personal visit by one or more special agents who are
after more detailed information than just the acquisition
and disposition of one or more firearms which have passed
into or through your inventory. All other factors remain
the same and your responses should be the same as for the
in-person tracing inquiry.

Needless to say, if the inquiry is not about a third-party
transaction but rather is directed solely at you, invoke RULE
ONE and seek legal counsel immediately.

Remember, refusing to talk to federal criminal investigators and
seeking legal counsel are not admissions of guilt or signs of a guilty
conscience. They are manifestations that you are an American citizen
aware of your legal rights and an individual who will not be bullied,
coerced or frightened into giving up those rights. The agents already
believe you are guilty; their job is to prove it. Your job is to avoid
helping them prove it.

The Undercover Solicitation.

This may be a contact by BATF which, if you are fortunate, you
never learn was made. It is a sad fact that a high percentage
of non-violent federal gun crimes committed in the United States
(perhaps even a majority) are manufactured by BATF -- crimes
that would never have occurred but for the fact of an offer
from or solicitation by a BATF informant or undercover agent
to an unwitting citizen. Technically, most of these
BATF-sponsored offenses do not rise to legal entrapment.
But they would never have happened if BATF had not planted
the idea and created the opportunity. This is done for the
simplest and ugliest of all bureaucratic reasons: agent and
agency self-preservation and budget and case statistics.

Sometimes you will know you are being shopped -- perhaps by
recognizing the agent or perhaps by the sheer stupidity of
the approach. You are probably also being recorded,possibly
even videotaped. Your response should be precisely the same
whether it ultimately turns out that you were speaking to a
government microphone or to the village idiot. You should
firmly, but not politely, advise the proponent that what
he/she is proposing is illegal and that he/she is no longer
welcome on your premises or at your table. Then remember RULE
ONE. Do not engage in a discussion of the law or alternative
solutions to the "customer's" proposal; terminate the
conversation. Politeness is not called for when someone is
either intentionally or ignorantly soliciting you to commit
a federal felony. And your politeness on a federal tape
recording in a subsequent criminal prosecution can often
be construed as acquiescence in or lack of strong feeling
about committing a crime.

Some of my bolder clients, who are truly tired of being harassed this
way, are fully prepared to make a citizen's arrest in such circumstances
and then call the local sheriff to come collect the offender (attempts
and solicitations to commit an offense are also crimes under federal
and state law). If this appeals to you, make sure first that the law
of your state permits a citizen's arrest. Know the amount of legal
force you can use to effect such an arrest. Then cuff the son of a
bitch and give him a taste of what he's probably trying to do to you.

A criminal solicitation by someone you've known for years, and
who you know cannot be an agent, is especially dangerous. It
probably means that your acquaintance has gotten his own tail
in a crack and is now making cases for BATF in an attempt to
lighten his own load. Finally, bear in mind that an undercover
approach may be made by a female agent or by a mixed couple.

The Compliance Inspection.

Compliance inspections are conducted by inspectors of the
regulatory enforcement branch of BATF. These individuals have
no criminal law enforcement authority -- or training (although
they have recently been issued badges, perhaps in an effort to
bolster morale or create an appearance of authority for low-paid
personnel). Theoretically, inspectors are charged with the civil and
regulatory aspects of firearms law. They do not have the power of
arrest or the authority to serve subpoenas or warrants. Nor may they
make seizures of any kind. I say "theoretically" because in some
recent instances inspectors have been observed accompanying special
agents on raids and even illegally carrying firearms. In short, there
are some cop wannabes among the inspector force whose intrinsic
suspicion of firearms dealers as criminals must be guarded against.

The legally-authorized purpose of compliance inspections
(and pre-licensing inspections) is to ensure that the firearms
statutes are generally being complied with by the firearms
industry. The true job of inspectors is to spot and correct
discrepancies in compliance with federal firearms statutes,
to establish the qualifications of license applicants, and
to enforce and collect the excise tax on the manufacture and
importation of firearms. If an inspector discovers evidence
of a criminal violation he is supposed to make a referral to
the criminal enforcement branch of BATF (the special agents).

As a licensee you are required to display your license on your
licensed premises, to maintain certain required books and records
accurately, and to submit to a compliance inspection of your licensed
premises, your inventory and your required records as often as once
annually.

The only firearms records which you are required by law to
maintain, and to submit for inspection, are an acquisition and
disposition book (your bound book), original BATF Forms 4473,
Firearms Transaction Record for each firearm sold, original
BATF Forms 5300.35 Statement of Intent to Obtain a Handgun(s)
(the Brady Act form), and your retained copies (copy 4) of
BATF Forms 3310.4, Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition
of Pistols and Revolvers for each multiple sale of handguns.
Special occupational taxpayers may also be required to produce
their Forms 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 for firearms on hand. There may
be additional state law records required of a dealer, but
BATF has no jurisdiction over these records and arguably no
jurisdiction to inspect them.

When a BATF inspector shows up for a compliance inspection,
require credentials to be displayed by everyone present and
note the full name of the inspector(s) in writing. Never
permit a special agent or a state or local or non-BATF
federal official to participate in a compliance inspection.
These individuals have no authority under the inspection
laws, and are there for some different (and more ominous)
reason. A state official might have independent state-law





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: When the BATF comes a-callin' 1/4
Date: 30 Sep 1997 11:36:00 -0700



WHEN THE BATF COMES A-CALLIN'
by James H. Jeffries, III

"There is no wholly satisfactory substitute for brains,
but silence does pretty well." --Anonymous

PROBABLY one of the least favorite events for any Federal
Firearms Licensee (hereafter "FFL") is a visit from the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereafter "BATF").
This can occur in one of at least six very different ways
and your legal rights and recommended responses vary
accordingly.

For purposes of the following discussion I will assume that
you are a law-abiding licensed dealer or collector who tries
to comply honestly with the federal firearms laws. If some
of the discussion below seems excessively cautious, or even
hostile to BATF, it is based on real world experience with
an agency which has been found by Congress, by various federal
judges and juries, by other federal and local law enforcement
agencies, and even by some Presidents to be inept, indifferent
to citizens' rights, and capable of the most outrageous abuses
of the law.

BATF operates under the rationale of requiring you to comply
with the law. I operate under the rationale of requiring BATF
to comply with the law. I required this of BATF as a federal
prosecutor for almost 30 years, and I require it as a private
citizen and as a lawyer. You should require it as an FFL.

A non-licensee has no legal duty whatsoever to talk to or
otherwise cooperate with a BATF agent (or any other governmental
official). It is a sad commentary on our times and the state of
our federal government (and especially BATF) that the appropriate
legal advice from a defense lawyer to a non-licensee confronted by a
federal or state law enforcement officer can be capsulized in a single
sentence called RULE ONE: Silence is golden; or what part of "no"
don't you understand? If you are an FFL, however, additional
considerations come into play.

The Tracing Center Inquiry.

Most active dealers have had a telephone call from BATF's Tracing
Center at some time or other inquiring about the disposition of a
firearm whose serial number traces to the dealer. This is usually an
inquiry concerning a third party and does not implicate the dealer. It
should normally occur during your listed business hours, although
emergency traces in high-profile matters could occur at any time of
the day or night. These inquiries are authorized by law in official
criminal investigations and as a licensee you have a statutory duty to
cooperate by furnishing the requested information.

Be aware, however, that the Tracing Center is a part of BATF's
criminal enforcement apparatus whose function (and principal
interest) is to put people (including firearms dealers) in jail.
You should always obtain the full name and telephone number of
the caller and note it in writing. An entry in your bound book
alongside the entry for the firearm involved would not be
inappropriate. If in doubt about the caller's identity, you
should terminate the call and call back before giving any
information. Cooperation would include supplying copies of
any related documents. Never surrender an original document
or legally-possessed firearm (or other property for that
matter) except in response to a summons, subpoena, or court
order, and then only after obtaining legal advice.

When faced with the prospect of providing information to the
government, keep in mind that there are only two legal options:
silence or complete truthfulness. Lying (even by partial truths
or literal but misleading true answers) is never an option. A
false statement to a federal officer in his official capacity
is a felony akin to perjury, and usually much easier to prosecute and
prove than the matter being investigated. If you cannot speak
truthfully without incriminating yourself or injuring your legal
interests, then remember RULE ONE.

If the inquiry is about a Title II firearm, you should attempt to
determine if the trace was initiated by local law enforcement. If it
was, you should remind the caller that the information requested is
privileged tax information and that it is a federal felony for BATF to
disclose the information outside the agency. Your interest in this
aspect is that you do not wish to aid and abet the commission of a
felony -- even one committed by a federal official.

Occasionally a tracing inquiry will be made in person by one
or more special agents. They are, of course, purely criminal
investigators whose only function (and interest) is to put
people (including firearms dealers) in jail. Write down the
names and badge numbers of all present. If anyone present is
not a BATF special agent, inquire why that person is present
(and later note the response in writing). If there is more
than one agent, inquire why. If anyone refuses to display
official identification direct them to immediately leave the
premises. If they refuse, call the local sheriff or police and
make a trespassing complaint.

Do not allow anyone to search your records, premises or inventory for
the information or items being sought. You or your employee do the
searching, retrieving and copying. The same rules apply with respect
to refusing to turn over original documents or items of personal
property. If an agent should physically insist on taking custody of an
original record or legally-possessed firearm or other item of
property, resist verbally and vigorously, but not physically. Advise
him calmly that your first call after he leaves will be to your lawyer
and his first call will be to the Inspector General of the Treasury
Department.

Successive calls will then also be made to BATF's Office of
Internal Affairs, the agent's SAC (Special Agent in Charge),
the United States Attorney, the FBI and the sheriff -- the
latter three to report the theft of your property by a federal
agent. Then do it. In short, if an agent is stupid enough to
violate your Fourth Amendment right to be secure in your
papers and effects in front of God and everybody, then he
needs to have his whole day ruined.

A tracing inquiry is usually directed at a third party recipient of a
firearm which has passed through your hands at some point and
generally is not targeted at you. However, if you sense that the
inquiry is, in fact, targeted at you, you should immediately terminate
the inquiry, ask the agents to leave the premises (after which they
are legally trespassers), request them to put their inquiry in
writing, and seek legal counsel. Remember RULE ONE.

Failure to cooperate in a tracing request can put your license at
risk, but loss of a license (or the expense of defending it) compares
very favorably with a prison sentence (or the cost of defending a
criminal indictment). And your license is not realistically at risk if
BATF is trying to further a criminal investigation of you through a
pretext tracing inquiry. The majority of all inmates talk their way
into prison; you have no legal obligation to help put yourself there.
This type of confrontation is an IQ test. Don't flunk it; remember
RULE ONE.

Clients occasionally inquire about tape-recording their telephone or
in-person conversations with BATF employees (and others). This is
legal under federal law so long as one party to the conversation (you)
knows of the interception. However, state laws vary on the issue and
you should be certain that such consensual recording is legal under





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: VETO MESSAGE: From Governor Pete Wilson 9/26/97
Date: 30 Sep 1997 12:20:00 -0700


Forwarded message:

http://www.capitolalert.com/calert/current/veto_msg/sb500_vm.htm

VETO MESSAGE
September 26, 1997
From Governor Pete Wilson
To the members of the California Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 500 without my signature.

SB 500 is a bill that purports to protect gun users against
shoddy guns. It is essentially offered as consumer protection.
But the vast majority of the proponents of SB 500 who have
urged me to sign it have done so because of their passionate
hope and belief that it will instead protect potential victims
against whom the proscribed guns might otherwise be used.

Common sense dictates that the best way to prevent gun crimes is
by first removing from society the criminals who use guns in the
commission of a crime. That is why yesterday I signed into law
Assembly Bill 4, the so-called 10-20-Life bill. It will add to the
sentence for a felony conviction 10 years if the felon draws a gun,
20 years if he fires it, and 25 years to life if he shoots a victim.

With all respect to the good intentions of its author and proponents
of Senate Bill 500, I am convinced that vigorous enforcement of the
10-20-Life law will provide the people of California with far more
protection against gun violence and crime than Senate Bill 500.

I fully expect that 10-20-Life will have the same kind of deterrent
effect on gun crimes as the "Three Strikes Law" has had on serious
and violent crime in general. It will persuade violent but rational
criminals to avoid the risk of California's long, minimum sentences
by departing, our state for more lenient if not greener pastures.

Regrettably, the proponents of SB 500 cannot make the same claim.

To the contrary, not only does SB 500 fail to keep guns out of
the hands of criminals, it will deprive law-abiding, legitimate
gun users of the needed protection of handguns - the same handguns
used by thousands of peace officers as regular service and back-up
guns. These weapons would - in a private citizen's hands - be caught
in a net cast much too wide by SB 500.

Proponents assert that "junk guns" costing as little as $35 are the
weapons of choice of gang members and are used with disproportionate
frequency to inflict harm upon Californians. They reason that SB 500,
by its elimination of "crummy little handguns," will profoundly reduce
gun crimes by effectively disarming thousands of low-budget gang
members. Sadly, the facts - as reported by major police departments
- pointedly contradict these assumptions: the Los Angeles Sheriffs
Department reports that of the total guns seized by the Department in
one year, only 16 percent were "Saturday Night Specials," or junk guns.
The experience of the San Diego Police Department is essentially the
same. They report a 14 1/2 percent incidence of inexpensive guns while
the California Department of Justice reports a statewide rate in the
10-13 percent range. The fact is that gang members and professional
criminals prefer and use higher quality, more expensive guns.

Moreover, SB 500 - notwithstanding its having been intensely marketed
to the contrary - is not limited to cheap, junk guns. It includes in
its prohibition highly reliable, high quality weapons made by the most
respected names in gun-making - Colt, Browning, Smith and Wesson,
Beretta, Ruger - and used by peace officers as their service or back-up
weapons. This fact has provoked opposition to SB 500 from the San Diego
Peace Officers Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of
California the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the Los
Angeles Police Protective League, and numerous individual officers.
The City and County of San Diego have both rejected local ordinances
based on the language of SB 500.

As it was finally amended, in reaction to increased opposition from
police organizations, SB 500 seeks to exempt peace officers from
its provisions. That is a wise change, but not one which provides
any comfort to a woman living alone, or to any other citizen who
realistically must depend upon himself or herself for protection.

In short, SB 500 seeks to achieve gun control in the guise of
consumer protection of gun users. But rather than protect either
gun owners as consumers or the public as potential victims,
SB 500 is far more likely to deprive those who must defend
themselves against crime of an important means of doing so.

AS the Governor of this state, I have seen far too much suffering
caused by guns ending lives tragically, abruptly and all too early
- be it by drive-by shootings, home invasions or hold-ups in
supermarket parking lots. I can personally attest to that kind
of bereavement. My mother was left fatherless, my grandmother
widowed, by a gun-wielding thug.

However, I will not support a measure that fails the basic test
of protecting the innocent. Ultimately, the real test applied by
the bill is whether or not the weapon is readily concealable.

If so, it is adjudged by SB 500 to be "non-sporting" and is
therefore prohibited. By this definition and test, all handguns
- except, ironically, the largest and deadliest - are included
in the ban. The clear if unstated premise of this test is that
handguns that are concealable can have no sporting purpose and
therefore no valid purpose. This flawed logic ignores reality:
it ignores the obvious fact that millions of law-abiding
Californians - including a growing number of women - have felt
the need to own concealable weapons not for sport but to protect
themselves, their families, and their property.

As much as I deplore the necessity, I cannot in good conscience
deny them that protection if they choose it.

Cordially,

PETE WILSON
<@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><   <@{{><

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

The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert
that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it
by themselves;that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed
and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion,
freedom of property, and freedom of press."

--Thomas Jefferson

"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't."





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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Gun Control Works In Australia
Date: 30 Sep 1997 21:52:00 -0700



Australia Turns in 600,000 Firearms

By ROHAN SULLIVAN Associated Press Writer

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) -- Shocked by the worst massacre in its
modern history, Australia has taken a giant step toward disarming
itself -- turning in 600,000 firearms under a police buy-back program.

While some gun owners claim the program will have little or no effect
on violent crime, anti-gun groups point to the huge piles of weapons
that have been collected and destroyed by police as tangible proof
that Australians are safer.

Since Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 people on the island of Tasmania
17 months ago, states joined together to outlaw some types of firearms,
including rapid-fire hunting rifles and pump-action shotguns used widely
to kill rabbits and kangaroos.

The states then offered gun owners cash and immunity from prosecution
to turn in their illegal weapons.

Since the buy-back deal went into effect, the government has paid almost
$225 million in compensation for arms, Attorney General Daryl Williams
said Tuesday, one day before the program was to end.

In addition to rapid-fire rifles and shotguns, a wide variety of
previously illegal weapons were handed in, including Uzi pistols, World
War II-era machine guns and M-60s, officials said. One woman turned in
a fully operational anti-aircraft gun that was sitting in her backyard.
Another person handed in helicopter-mounted cannons.

The buy-back program provided a nationwide picture of Australia's
private arsenal for the first time. Figures showed 1.2 million
licensed Australians held 2.5 million firearms, campaign manager
Leonie Kennedy told The Associated Press.

Despite claims by the government and anti-gun groups, gun advocates
said the overall number of firearms had been reduced by only about
100,000 because they claimed as many as half of those who turned
in their guns used the compensation to buy a legal firearm.

``Gun owners are not giving up shooting,'' said Keith Tidswell,
national director of the Sporting Shooters' Association.

Kennedy warned that owners caught with illegal guns faced fines
of up to $37,500.

Tighter licensing and storage requirements also instituted since
the shootings will mean a significant reduction in the number of
deaths caused by firearms - now about 500 a year nationally, said
Roland Browne, head of the National Coalition for Gun Control.

``We cannot eliminate gun abuse as a problem. What we can do is
minimize it and the best way to do that is to restrict availability,''
he said. Bryant, 29, is serving a life sentence after pleading guilty
in November to the killings. Eighteen people were also wounded in the
April 28, 1996, shootings.

Y-09-30-97 1510EDT