ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9802

Internet Message Format | 1998-02-27 | 573KB

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Feb. 8 coilumn -- GOA]
Date: 02 Feb 1998 10:55:31 -0700


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 8, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Second Amendment: changing of the guard

    Last time, we were discussing the "take-the-best-available-compromise,"
defeatist attitude of the nation's largest gun control organization, the
National Rifle Association.

  Their lighter, leaner competition for gun owner support, Gun Owners of
America, prefers a more high-pressure approach, putting the fire to the
feet of lawmakers to make sure they know that a vote against gun rights
will cost them their next election ... just as Bill Clinton acknowledged
that the gun rights vote cost the Democratic Party its control of Congress
in 1994.

  In a 1968 edition of the NRA's magazine, "The American Rifleman,"
Associate Editor Alan C. Webber responded to then-timely criticism by U.S.
Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., who said "I think it is a terrible indictment
of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any
legislation to ban and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this
country."

  To this, Mr. Webber reports NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
responded with a ringing endorsement of the 1968 Gun Control Act. "The
National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun
control legislation since its very inception in 1871," Mr. Orth proclaimed.
"The duty of Congress is clear. It should act now to pass legislation that
will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons
adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles, from obtaining
firearms through the mails."

  One will remember that the way the 1968 law accomplished that, was by banning
EVERYONE but an ever-shrinking pool of federally licensed gun dealers from
"obtaining firearms through the mails"! Sort of like "getting drunks off the
road," by banning cars and trucks!

  "The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has
consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse
of guns, without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and
collectors," concludes editor Webber.

  What an interesting list. Do you see "militiamen" in there? I don't. Does
the Second Amendment say anything about duck-hunting?

  The Brits, who have just finished banning all private ownership of
handguns, insist THEY still protect the "rights of law-abiding hunters,
target shooters, and collectors," too.

  If you have an English country estate, you can still own a
richly-engraved, $5,000 bird gun. If you like to target shoot, you may fire
pellet guns or even .22s at your registered club ... so long as you leave
the weapon locked up there when you go home. And "collectors" are still
presumably welcome to own as many guns as they want ... from the flintlock
era or earlier.

  Gee, that'll put them in great shape the next time the Germans or French
come storming the beaches. Which is precisely why OUR Second Amendment
talks exclusively about the needs of "the militia."

  Meantime, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agents holding a panel discussion
for an audience of mostly gun store owners at this week's SHOT Outdoor
Trades show, here in Las Vegas, declared that the way they interpret the
"permanent replacement Brady Bill" due to go into effect in November of
1998 -- the one the NRA favors due to its promised "insta-Check" capability
-- will call for a "Brady check" and permanent record of every LONG GUN
purchase, as well.

  The NRA operates, in effect, as nothing but a public relations outreach
arm for the Republican Party, tasked to convince gun rights advocates that
the GOP is their only hope.

  But Newt Gingrich promised us that if only we would elect a GOP majority
to Congress there would be "no more gun control passed" on his watch,
didn't he?

  Mind you, that's a pretty modest promise, compared to the Libertarian Party
platform plank on guns, which calls for ALL existing gun control laws to be
immediately REPEALED.

   But not only have Mr. Gingrich's Republicans failed to repeal the major
federal gun control acts of 1933 and 1968, not only have they failed to
repeal the Brady Bill and the Feinstein-Schumer "assault weapons ban" (as
they promised), but they actually ENACTED the so-called Anti-Terrorism Bill
with the Lautenberg Amendment, which retroactively strips police and many
other citizens of their gun rights based on any prior domestic misdemeanor
convictions (shouting at your kids).

   And then, not satisfied, they went on to pass the "Gun Free School Zone
Act" ... TWICE!

  Putting him to the test of fire, I asked Larry Pratt of GOA last week
whether he would favor allowing a 17-year-old girl to walk into a hardware
store, buy and take home a belt-fed .30-caliber machine gun, without
signing her name, showing any ID, or applying for any kind of government
"permit."

   "Well, that's the way it would have been in 1933, before the National
Firearms Act, wouldn't it?" he asked.

  "Is that a yes?" I asked back.

   Mr. Pratt, in front of a sizeable public gathering at the San Remo Hotel
and Casino, said "Yes."

  And that's why I think we're about to see a changing of the guard when it
comes to gun-rights lobbying, from the arthritic and the defeated, to the
aggressive, the fearless, and the principled.

  Congressman Ron Paul, R-Tex., has called Gun Owners of America "the only
no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." With a fraction of the NRA's
manpower, membership or budget, GOA has defeated powerful state legislative
committee chairmen (in Ohio) who were foolish enough to support more gun
control, and has helped elect congressmen like Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland,
currently sponsor of HR27, the Citizens Self-Defense Act, which would
"protect the right to obtain ... and to use firearms in defense of self,
family or home."

  Unless they change their stripes with fearsome speed, I fear the NRA and
their hog-trough affiliate, the Republican Party as we've known it, are
headed for the elephant's graveyard, and soon.

  On the other hand, if Gun Owners of America sold stock, I'd be buying.

Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at [e-mail].

***



Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."    -- Samuel Adams




----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.

"25 states allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street
with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US
murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"
     - Andrew Ford

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Knife control in Japan
Date: 02 Feb 1998 13:24:32 -0700


Wonder how long before we import this...

[Image]
[Image]

      [Image]

      Japanese seek knife ban for minors
      [Image]
      [Image]

      [Image]
      Last updated 02/02/1998, 09:13 a.m. MT

            TOKYO (Reuters) ù Japanese police said Monday they want to ban
      the sales of knives to minors in the wake of two violent stabbings by
      junior high school boys.
            The move comes after a series of crimes involving teenagers with
      knives came under intense media scrutiny due to Japan's skyrocketing
      youth crime statistics.
            Police have asked all knife stores and outdoor goods shops to
      stop selling knives to minors.
            No Japanese laws set age limits for knife sales, so compliance
      is voluntary.
            Earlier on Monday, police arrested a 15-year-old Japanese boy
      for attacking a policeman with a knife in downtown Tokyo in an attempt
      to steal his gun, police said.
            The boy, whose name was withheld because he is a minor, attacked
      officer Yoshinari Yasuda, 54, who was patrolling on a bicycle, a
      spokesman for the Tokyo metropolitan police said.
            The boy was arrested on charges of attempted murder and robbery.
      He told police he wanted to try shooting a gun.
            Yasuda and the youth suffered minor injuries in the scuffle,
      police said.
            Japan has an enviably low crime rate but in the past two years
      has seen the number of crimes committed by those under 18 increase by
      158 percent.
            Violent crimes committed by minors have also risen, alarming
      parents and educators.
            Last week, a 13-year-old Japanese boy stabbed a woman teacher to
      death after she asked him why he was late for her English class.
            A few days after that incident, a 16-year-old senior high school
      boy allegedly used a knife to assault a 16-year-old girl in class at
      the same school, slightly injuring the classmate, police said.
            Linking all of these crimes is the weapon used ù a butterfly
      knife ù and the claims by the boys that they carried the knives for
      self-protection.
            The handle of a butterfly knife divides in two and can be
      pivoted to cover the blade. The weapon gained national prominence when
      a popular actor Takuya Kimura, playing a tough in a top-rated drama
      series, brandished the blade in fights.
            Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto told reporters he did
      not know why the boys used the knives in attacks.
      [Image]
      [Image]

      Return to front page
[Image]


--

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

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Drs. and guns
Date: 02 Feb 1998 16:28:19 -0700


From the Tribune

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]        Monday, February 2, 1998       [Image] [Image]

                  Surgeons See Gun Wounds As Epidemic

 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


     PHILADELPHIA -- William Schwab hasn't ever gone to war, but the
 51-year-old surgeon says he sometimes thinks he is in one.
     ``We average about 500 gunshot wounds a year,'' said Schwab,
 chief of critical care and trauma for the Hospital of the University
 of Pennsylvania.
     ``I trained in the U.S. Navy during Vietnam, and it's similar,''
 he said. ``Think of the phrase `incoming wounded.' That's what it's
 like.''
     A survey published in Sunday's issue of the Annals of Internal
 Medicine finds that 87 percent of surgeons and 94 percent of
 internists across the country believe it's time to consider gunshot
 wounds a public-health epidemic -- akin to AIDS, alcoholism and
 tobacco use.
     Doctors should play a more active role in trying to prevent the
 injuries, an accompanying position paper says, whether it's
 supporting more stringent gun-control legislation or simply taking
 time to counsel patients.
     The position paper predicted that bullets will kill more people
 than automobile accidents by 2003.
     The authors also noted that more teens today die from gunshot
 wounds than from all natural causes combined, and that firearms in
 the home make homicide three times more likely.
     ``Do you have a gun in the house? Is it loaded? And did you know
 suicide can go up five-fold when you have one around that is loaded?
 Those are the kinds of questions doctors should start asking and
 telling their patients,'' said Frank Davidoff, an internist and
 editor of the journal, published by the Philadelphia-based American
 College of Physicians.
     The survey involved 915 doctors who answered 55 questions,
 including the extent of their personal and medical experience with
 firearms and their opinions on public policy.
     Less than 20 percent of the surgeons and internists reported
 discussing firearm ownership or storage with their patients.
     The survey showed that 64 percent of the surgeons and 84 percent
 of the internists said they thought stronger measures were needed to
 reduce gun-related deaths, which reached 39,720 in 1994. That
 includes 13,593 slayings and 20,540 suicides, the journal said.
     ``If this was any other disease, if this was a virus, the public
 would be demanding a cure,'' said Schwab, who co-wrote the journal's
 article about the survey. ``They'd want something done about it. The
 problem is nobody is willing to come out and say `This is a
 public-health emergency' '' as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
 did with AIDS, he said.
     The doctors who said they didn't believe gunshot wounds were a
 health epidemic tended to be older men who work in smaller cities.



                [Image] [Monday Navigation Bar] [Image]

                                [Image]

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

 ⌐ Copyright 1998, 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.

"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was
 landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms -- never -- never -
 - NEVER! You cannot conquer America." -- William Pitt, Earl of Chatham
 Speech in the House of Lords November 18, 1777

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Important Senate Votes -Forwarded
Date: 03 Feb 1998 18:42:20 -0700

Received: from gunowners.org (207-172-57-222.s222.tnt2.ann.erols.com [207.172.57.222])
    by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07158;
    Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:34:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Gun Owners of America's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

             Two Important Senate Votes Coming Soon

                    by Gun Owners of America
      8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA  22151
             [phone], http://www.gunowners.org
                       (February 3, 1998)

Clinton's Anti-gun Choice for Surgeon General

  The Senate will soon be resuming its consideration of Dr.
David Satcher for Surgeon General.  Dr. Satcher, who heads up
the virulently anti-gun Centers for Disease Control (CDC), was
nominated by President Clinton last year to take on the "Top
Doc" position.

  Under Satcher's watch, the CDC, along with its subordinate
agencies and grantees, has regularly used its position to
tarnish gun rights.  Satcher's hired guns have called firearms
a "virus that must be eradicated" and stated that such weapons
should be viewed as cigarettes:  "dirty, deadly and banned."

  Gun owners should register their opposition to Dr. Satcher
for Surgeon General by calling their Senators at
1-800-522-6721 or 202-224-3121.


Restrictions on Gun Owners' Speech

  The Senate is also soon expected to begin debating so-called
"campaign finance" legislation.  The legislation your Senators
will be voting on would seriously hamper (if not prevent) the
ability of gun groups and other political organizations to
publish the anti-gun records of incumbents.

  In reality, this legislation is "Incumbent Protection"
masquerading as campaign finance "reform."  Consider how
these bills (S. 25 and H.R. 493) will seriously prevent gun
owners from removing anti-gun politicians from Congress:


  Analysis of Free Speech Restrictions in "Incumbent Protection"
                             Bills

 1. Regulate GOA's Communications.  As introduced, both the
  House and Senate bills would seriously hinder the ability of
  groups to help pro-gun candidates and to educate pro-gun
  voters.  If a group like GOA had ever communicated with a
  candidate or his campaign at any time, it could possibly be
  barred from making independent expenditures (mailings,
  advertisements, etc.) on behalf of that candidate (section
  251, H.R. 493).  Both bills would also regulate GOA's
  educating of voters:  GOA mailings which ask recipients to
  contact their congressman, and which cost in excess of
  $10,000, would have to be registered (sec. 241, S. 25; sec.
  254 H.R. 493) -- and could even be outlawed.

 2. Slash the Political Power of the Pro-Gun Movement.  S. 25
  would ban political action committee (PAC) contributions to
  federal candidates (section 201).  For Second Amendment
  groups, this ban on PACs -- coupled with the elimination of
  independent expenditures -- would outlaw virtually any
  involvement in the national political process.  Incumbents are
  handed over $5 million of taxpayer funds to conduct their
  operations (including their pro rata share of the general
  operations of Congress).  Used effectively, these resources
  can be channeled into a formidable reelection effort.  Without
  seed money from PACs, challengers will find it considerably
  more difficult to take on this type of taxpayer-financed
  publicity machine.

 3. Insulate Anti-gun Incumbents.  Because incumbents already
  have strong name recognition -- and because pro-gun groups
  would be prohibited from being active in the political process
  -- it would be virtually impossible to attempt to remove
  congressmen for their anti-gun votes.  The media would, of
  course, be free to continue its anti-gun drum beat.  The
  result is that a pro-gun vote would politically jeopardize an
  incumbent's political career, while an anti-gun vote would
  enhance it.  How long would the manufacture, importation, sale
  and ownership of firearms in America continue under this
  system?

   HERE'S WHAT TO DO:

 * Contact your Senators (1-800-522-6721 or 202-224-3121) and
  urge them to oppose S. 25.  When the Senate voted on these
  restrictions in October, the anti-gunners only mustered 53
  votes -- which was seven votes short of killing the
  filibuster.

 * Gun owners should also focus on the eight Republicans who
  voted for the anti-gun bill:  Chafee (R-RI), Collins (R-ME),
  Hutchinson (R-AR) [Note:  he later asked GOA to "call off the
  dogs" and then switched his vote], Jeffords (R-VT), McCain
  (R-AZ), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA) and Thompson (R-TN).

 *  Keep on the look out:  There may very well be a "compromise"
  bill that, while scaled back in some respects, will still ban
  or limit a lot of political activity in which citizens
  currently engage.  Ask your Senators not to settle for any
  compromises that would limit your 1st Amendment rights, or the
  rights of those groups (like GOA) that represent you.


***********************************************************
Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of
getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider
joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service
is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume
is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week
indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward
this notice) to [e-mail] and include your
state of residence in either the subject line or the body.




-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  RNC AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Date: 03 Feb 1998 18:57:18 -0700

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

Got an invitation in the mail to join the Republican Senatorial Inner
Circle ($1000 a pop). I called and let them know that I can not support
them until they repeal Brady, semi-auto ban, lautenberg, kohl, 68 GCA
etc.

I also reminded them that lautenberg and kohl passed on their watch.
They also brought us Dole for President.

The person I spoke to said "You have to remember that when the
Second Amendment was written the Militia was the means of defense". I
corrected him that the Second Amendment pertains to the individual
citizen and not the national guard. I suggested he read the "Federalist
Papers". The Second Amendment means the same as when James
Madison wrote it, it has never been changed.

Call and let them know what you think.  800-877-6773 it is their dime.

Maybe we can get the god owful party to see the light, but don't hold
your breath.

Please circulate.

Howard Last



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Digest ca-firearms.v001.n556 -Forwarded
Date: 03 Feb 1998 19:03:13 -0700

Received: (from root@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id XAA02571 for [e-mail]; Mon, 2 Feb 1998 23:02:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
BestServHost: lists.best.com
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]


-------------- BEGIN ca-firearms.v001.n556 --------------

    001 - Mike Van Pelt <mvp@netcom - Goobernatorial musings
    002 - "Mike Schrader" <bay2a@we - Fw: : Time to Write (fwd)
    003 - "Mike Schrader" <bay2a@we - Fw: Per minute local access calls charges -Reply
    004 - "jmarch" <jmarch@ricochet - Fw: SSL February '98 Schedule
    005 - Stuart Mac Tavish <stuart - Another shot fron the Times
    006 - [e-mail] - Another article on anti-gun med article
    007 - JM <[e-mail]>     - Re: Another shot fron the Times
    008 - Bruce Erickson  <be1@ElSe - Republican Senatorial Inner Circle
    009 - Bruce Erickson  <be1@ElSe - Re: various Lungren threads
    010 - "Mike Schrader" <bay2a@we - Fw: HB  1181

--------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.1 ---------------

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've never paid much attention to the Democrat side of things,
since that odds I'd be voting for any of that gang of "simps and
ninnies, lava-lamp liberals and condo-pinks, spoiled twerps, and
ratchet-jawed purveyors of monkey-doodle and baked wind" generally
range from nil to negative.

However, now that primaries are open, in addition to voting for whoever
is running against Duh Lungren, I get to pick my "favorite" among the
candidates in the Democrat primary.

Are there any likely prospects there?  Which one of them is the
least anti-Bill-of-Rights?  Maybe even one I'd feel right about
voting for a Democrat in the general election, for the first
time in my life?


(Appolgies to any pro-RKBA Democrats out there, but that P. J.
O'Rourke slam at the American Liberal has always tickled me...)

--
"A clown is a warrior who fights gloom."       | Mike Van Pelt
             -  Red Skelton                    | [e-mail]
                                               | KE6BVH


--------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.2 ---------------

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If you haven't emailed the FCC on this you have less than 2 weeks to do so.

----------
> From: Bill Maggiora <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Barry Jacobson-home
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: : Time to Write (fwd)
> Date: Friday, January 09, 1998 9:11 PM
>
> Hi:
>
> I have seen at least one newspaper mention of this.  I think that all
> of us that use e-mail should be interested.  I agree with the author,
> it should not matter whether you use your flat rate local calls for
> voice or computer connections.   This is a very unfortunate scheme to
> shake the public down.
>
> Bill Maggiora
> -----------------
> > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:43:01 -0600 (CST)
> > From: Richard Ippolito <[e-mail]>
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Time to Write
> >
> > This was forwarded to me but for some reason since it has attachments,
I
> > am not able to just forward:
> > Text:
> > "Apparently the $12-$21 base charges you get each month from the
> > telephone
> > company aren't enough to keep those nice dividends flowing out to the
> > stockholders. They are now attempting to charge you extra if you are
> > connected to the Internet. Personnally, I fail to see the difference
be-
> > tween unlimited use of my phone for local calls and unlimited use for
any
> > other reason, but the Bells smell bid bucks. Read the following and act
> > on
> > it. You may save yourself a pile of cash if the FCC votes NO..
> > Suject: FCC TO IMPOSE PER MIN CHARGES...
> > Richard Causey wrote:
> > I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter
currently
> > under review by the FCC.  Your local telephone company has filed a
> > proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet
> > service.  They contend that your usage has or will hinder the operation
> > of
> > the telephone network.  It is my belief that internet usage will
diminish
> > if users were required to pay additional per minute charges.  The FCC
has
> > created an e-mail box for your comments, responses must be received by
> > February 13, 1998.  Send your comments to [e-mail] and tell them
what
> > you think.  Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying
to
> > sneak it in just under the wire for litigation.  Let everyone you know
> > hear this one.  Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of."
> >
> > Richard Ippolito  Colonel USA (Ret)
> > Asst Dean, School of Nursing, Cunningham 717
> > [phone]  fax [phone]
> >
> > --------- End forwarded message ----------


--------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.3 ---------------

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I got this response back from the FCC site, apparently the per minute
charges are not going to happen, so never mind.

----------
> From: ISP <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Per minute local access calls charges -Reply
> Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 2:21 AM
>
> This is an automated response to the message you sent to [e-mail].  We
established this mailbox for informal comments about usage of the public
switched telephone network by Internet access and information service
providers for a proceeding on this matter in 1997.
>
> If you are responding to a message stating that local phone companies
have asked the FCC for permission to impose per-minute charges for Internet
access, please be aware that this information is out of date.  The FCC
decided in May 1997 NOT to allow imposition of interstate access charges on
Internet service providers. There is no comment period currently open in
this proceeding.
>
> More information on Access Charges and the ISP proceeding is available at
<http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html>
>
> Look for more features and announcements on our Web site,
<http://www.fcc.gov/>, in the future!
>
> updated 1/6/98


--------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.4 ---------------

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Here's Dale's latest schedule...you'll probably see me at the minimag class
the 15th.

Jim March

-----Original Message-----


>   SAFE & SECURE LIFESTYLES
> Self-Defense Workshops with Dale & Teri Seago
>     at Jackson Arms, 710 Dubuque Avenue, So. San Francisco
>    FEBRUARY, 1998 SCHEDULE
>
>We're offering 3 workshops this month, but please note that one of them
>is NOT being held at Jackson Arms. Selection of specific workshops for
>each month is largely request-driven: If a lot of people ask us for a
>particular kind of training, it gets moved to the "front burner".
>
>"ENLIGHTENED SELF-DEFENSE":
>
> This workshop applies traditional feudal-era Japanese short-
>stick techniques to the "Mini-Mag" and similar metal-bodied small flash-
>lights. The methods are significantly different from those used for the
>more familiar "kubotan", and they feature striking, nerve-pressure, and
>grappling/joint-lock applications. No martial-art experience is necessary,
>and the small flashlight can be legally carried anywhere. (Cost: $55)
>
> SUNDAY, February 15, 10:00 AM - 4:30 PM
>
>"KEYS TO SELF-DEFENSE":
>
> A feudal-era chain weapon, often called a *manrikigusari* or
>"ten thousand power chain", was (according to legend) developed for the
>purpose of subduing swordsmen without breaking edicts against shedding
>blood on palace grounds. There is nothing mythical or legendary about
>the techniques, which are real and powerfully effective. We show you
>how to apply them with a long "key-chain" - legal to carry anywhere -
>for striking, trapping, joint-locking, choking, and throwing attackers.
>This workshop will be held at a South Bay corporate location, NOT Jackson
>Arms. (Cost: $55)
>
> SUNDAY, February 22, 10:00 AM - 4:30 PM
>
>HANDGUN DISARMING & RETENTION, LEVEL I (CIVILIAN):
>
> Many handgun owners seem to think, "If a 'bad guy' tried to
>snatch MY gun, I'd just shoot him". . .and some who thought so have
>been murdered with their own weapons. Hard-core felons spend a lot of
>prison training time perfecting such career-enhancing skills as disarm-
>ing arresting police officers. We begin this class by showing you how
>easy it is to take away a handgun; then we teach you how to counter dis-
>arming attempts. This is a truly sensible form of gun control - and as
>the anti-self-defense lobby says, "If it saves just one life, it's worth
it!"
>(Cost: $75)
>
> SUNDAY, February 28, 10:00 AM - 4:30 PM
>
>To register, call [phone], or e-mail <[e-mail]>. . .and
>visit our website at http://www.asiapac.com/freedom/ssl!
>
>



--------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.5 ---------------

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

Mondays Los Angeles Times has an editorial calling for "Greater Gun =
Safety, Now". It starts by bitching that guns aren't even regulated by =
the Consumer Product Safety Commission and ends calling for Congress to =
"do the right thing this time" when Senators Boxer & Feinstein =
reintroduce safety equipment legislation. In the middle it claims that =
"sensitive trigger mechanisms are one problem" in accidental shootings. =
"Make triggers harder to squeeze so small children can't fire the =
weapon. Required built in trigger locks and an indicator that shows =
whether a bullet is chambered." I guess the Times anti gun barrage will =
never end. Nor will they ever understand. The above suggestion would =
surely disarm my mother with severe arthritis in her hands. But then =
that's the point I guess.=20

Stuart =20



--------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.6 ---------------

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This is a blurb on the just published anti-gun article in the
"Annals of Internal Medicine".  Note: no mention of the number
of lives saved or property protected with guns.  None of the
benefits, just the cost.


Gunshot wounds should be considered an epidemic like AIDS, surgeons
say

Copyright 1998 The Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (February 1, 1998 6:49 p.m. EST) -- A survey published in
Sunday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine finds that 87
percent of surgeons and 94 percent of internists across the country
believe it's time to consider gunshot wounds a public health epidemic
-- akin to AIDS, alcoholism and tobacco use.

For example, William Schwab hasn't ever gone to war, but the
51-year-old surgeon says he sometimes thinks he's in one.

"We average about 500 gunshot wounds a year," said Schwab, chief of
critical care and trauma for the Hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania.

"I trained in the U.S. Navy during Vietnam, and it's similar," he
said.  "Think of the phrase 'incoming wounded.' That's what it's
like."

Doctors should play a more active role in trying to prevent the
injuries, an accompanying position paper says, whether it's supporting
more stringent gun-control legislation or simply taking time to
counsel patients.

The position paper predicted that bullets will kill more people than
automobile accidents by 2003.

The authors also noted that more teens today die from gunshot wounds
than from all natural causes combined, and that firearms in the home
make homicide three times more likely.

"Do you have a gun in the house? Is it loaded? And did you know
suicide can go up five-fold when you have one around that is loaded?
Those are the kinds of questions doctors should start asking and
telling their patients," said Frank Davidoff, an internist and editor
of the journal, published by the Philadelphia-based American College
of Physicians.

The survey involved 915 doctors who answered 55 questions, including
the extent of their personal and medical experience with firearms and
their opinions on public policy.

Less than 20 percent of the surgeons and internists reported
discussing firearm ownership or storage with their patients.

The survey showed that 64 percent of the surgeons and 84 percent of
the internists said they thought stronger measures were needed to
reduce gun-related deaths, which reached 39,720 in 1994. That includes
13,593 slayings and 20,540 suicides, the journal said.

The accompanying position paper noted that annual firearm-related
deaths increased by more than 60 percent from 1968 to 1994.

"If this was any other disease, if this was a virus, the public would
be demanding a cure," said Schwab, who co-wrote the journal's article
about the survey. "They'd want something done about it. The problem is
nobody is willing to come out and say 'This is a public health
emergency"' as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop did with AIDS,
he said.

The doctors who said they didn't believe gunshot wounds were a health
epidemic tended to be older men who work in smaller cities.

-- By By TOM RAGAN, Associated Press Writer


--------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.7 ---------------

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Stuart Mac Tavish wrote:

> ...In the middle it claims that
> "sensitive trigger mechanisms are one problem" in accidental shootings.
> "Make triggers harder to squeeze so small children can't fire the
> weapon. Required built in trigger locks and an indicator that shows
> whether a bullet is chambered." I guess the Times anti gun barrage will
> never end. Nor will they ever understand. The above suggestion would
> surely disarm my mother with severe arthritis in her hands. But then
> that's the point I guess.

    Not to mention the fact that a heavy trigger pull makes guns
significantly less accurate!  And that a bullet-in-the-chamber indicator
will result in people forgetting one of the most basic rules of gun
safety (which, of course, is treat all guns as if they're loaded).  I am
convinced that no one on the editorial staff of the Times understands guns
to even the slightest degree.  They certainly don't understand gun safety
or that the way to reduce accidental shootings is to educate gun owners.

    John

__________________________________________________________________
 [e-mail]      Gun Law Press      John F Machtinger, Esq.
__________________________________________________________________





--------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.8 ---------------


FWD without further comment.

----- Begin Included Message -----

From [e-mail] Mon Feb  2 15:01:58 1998
X-Sender: barbb@Delta
Cc: Joe Horn <[e-mail]>, Keeva Segal <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [e-mail]
Content-Length: 1414
X-Lines: 34

Howard sent this along -- I haven't verified it, so I'm including his
address in case anyone wants to check in with him. Posted FYI. Interesting
comment about the relevance of the Second Amendment today from the person
who answered the phone - certainly fits in with the backpedalling the
Republicans have been doing since we gave them Congress in '94.

Barb

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

Got an invitation in the mail to join the Republican Senatorial Inner
Circle ($1000 a pop). I called and let them know that I can not support
them until they repeal Brady, semi-auto ban, lautenberg, kohl, 68 GCA etc.
I also reminded them that lautenberg and kohl passed on their watch. They
also brought us Dole for President.

The person I spoke to said "You have to remember that when the Second
Amendment was written the Militia was the means of defense". I corrected
him that the Second Amendment pertains to the individual citizen and not
the national guard. I suggested he read the "Federalist Papers". The
Second Amendment means the same as when James Madison wrote it, it has
never been changed.

Call and let them know what you think.  800-877-6773 it is their dime.

Maybe we can get the god owful party to see the light, but don't hold your
breath.

Please circulate.

Howard Last


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



--------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.9 ---------------


 >
 >
 > Concerning the various threads all revolving around the topic
 > of "doing" something to stop Lungren -- it's pointless.  Dan Lungren
 > is going to be the next governor of California and you can take that
 > to the bank.  Accordingly, each person can act as their conscience directs.
 >
 > Vote Libertarian if you want, knowing in this election Lungren will
 > win anyway, thus making a pro-RKBA, pro-liberty statement.
 >
[snip]

I've heard rumors that Lungren expects gun owners to vote in his favor.
This means there is nothing to be gained by "liberalizing" (making more
free) his agenda for guns.  If we actually do vote for him as-is, there
is no reason for him, or any other politicritter, to pay attention to us.
We will makes ourselves irrelevent to the political process.  Vote for
Lungren and place your stamp of approval on gun bans.

 >
 > So vote for Lungren or not as you like, but don't kid yourself about
 > being able to keep him out of the governor's mansion.

Then we are no worse off voting for the Lib but we can be measured.
We will be a known quantity that can be courted by political hopefulls.

 >
 > -Dorr H. Clark
 >


Bruce Erickson


--------------- MESSAGE ca-firearms.v001.n556.10 ---------------

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm not posting this because of the Colorado AW bill, though it's argument
is useful, but for the piece on the moral imperative of self defense that
follows.
Mike S

----------
> From: Patricia Fosness <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: HB  1181
> Date: Monday, February 02, 1998 8:15 PM
>
> Posted to rkba-co by Patricia Fosness <[e-mail]>
> -----------------------
> The following is the item I sent to members of the judiciary committee.
Due
> to work conflicts (I *just* started a new job) I am unable to attend the
> hearings in person:
>
> Dear Representative xxxx:
>
> I understand that HB 1181, Concerning the Prohibition of Assault Weapons
in
> the State of Colorado, is being brought before the committee for review
this
> week.   Please take time to consider the following  brief essay regarding
> gun confiscation in respect to the moral obligation to obey the law.   If
> the proposed Act becomes law, and there is non-violent civil disobedience
to
> the law (i.e. failure to comply by revoking one's firearms), what is the
> next step?  Will agents of the court be sent to people's homes to
confiscate
> weapons, and if so, will they do so in open daylight, or, thinking that
> there is a danger, use surreptitious means which would expose them and
the
> people they plan to serve to a risk of armed violence?  In short, who is
> going to bell the cat?  In the case of this proposed legislation, it
appears
> that the cure is clearly worse than the disease.
>
> Obviously, you are concerned about violence in our society.  I venture to
> guess that any sane person is.  But when addressing solutions, please
> consider the ramifications of what may, on the surface, look like a good
> idea.  At this point, I wish to register my strong disagreement with any
gun
> ban, and in the current case, HB 1181.
>
> GUN CONFISCATION LAWS AND MORAL OBLIGATION
> By Patricia Fosness
>
> With gun confiscation becoming a more likely reality, we are faced with
the
> difficult question:  What should an individual do if their legally owned
> firearm(s) become the object of a new ban.   The choices are either to
> ignore the law and hope not to get caught, to comply with the law and
turn
> one's property over to the authorities, or to conscientiously disobey the
> law as an act of civil disobedience.   Clearly, each individual must
follow
> his or her own moral compass when making such a decision.
Unfortunately,
> the problems that arise when wrestling with such a decision are
substantial,
> particularly when there is a very real potential for violent consequences
to
> be realized as a result of making a choice not in keeping with the
> institutions chartered with enforcing the law.
>
> As a philosophy major in the '60s, I had the opportunity to explore at
> length the problems involved with legal and moral obligation,
particularly
> when those obligations conflicted with each other.  Some would say that
in
> all cases, there is a moral obligation to obey the law, but, to quote
from a
> paper in my archives: "Disobeying the law is often - even usually -
wrong;
> but this is so largely because the illegal is usually restricted to the
> immoral and because morally right conduct is still less often illegal.
But
> we must always be sensitive to the fact that this has not always been the
> case, it is not now always the case and need not always be the case in
the
> future.  And undo concentration upon what is wrong with disobeying the
law
> rather than upon the wrong which the law seeks to prevent can seriously
> weaken and misdirect that awareness."  From "The Obligation to Obey the
Law"
> by Richard A. Wasserstrom, printed in the UCLA Law Review Vol 10, May
1963.
>
> Recent firearms seizures purport to provide for the greater good by
removing
> deadly weapons from members of society.  The fallacy here lies with the
fact
> that firearms will still remain in the hands of those who are chartered
to
> use same by the government, hence not all firearms will be removed from
> society.  Those who are predisposed to obtain them through the black
market,
> theft or other means will continue to be able to do so.  The very serious
> question then becomes:  Is society better off by disarming those who have
> owned firearms for defensive purposes, while being unable protect those
> people from others who could obtain and use such arms for aggression
against
> the disarmed population?  The obvious answer is "no".  Indeed, it is
natural
> to suspect the motives of those who, retaining their arms either
personally
> or through their agents, would take action to disarm a population of
people
> who own arms for the sole purpose of defense.
>
> The argument goes further:
>
> "The principal thrust of [the above] argument is to deny government the
> moral authority to require someone to give up his ability to defend
himself
> when government does not agree to provide protection in return. That is,
it
> suggests that laws prohibiting citizens from using arms to defend
themselves
> are immoral because there is in fact no social contract. The argument is,
> however, faulty to the extent that it suggests that, if government did
> assume an obligation to protect each individual, it could rightfully
require
> its citizens to abandon their right to self-protection. Social contract
> theorists like Hobbes and Locke held the right to life to be irreducible
and
> inalienable; government could not require men to trade or abandon the
right
> to defend themselves. As Hobbes said, "A covenant not to defend myselfe
from
> force, by force, is alwayes voyd." See Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
(Cambridge:
> Cambridge University Press, 1991),p. 98. The absurdity of such a "trade"
is
> apparent if one merely follows it through. Suppose government did assume
an
> obligation to protect me and then asked me for my arms, so that I could
not
> adequately defend myself. If government then failed in its duty so that I
> was killed by a criminal, the result would be that my estate would have a
> lawsuit for monetary damages against the government. I would hardly
believe
> that in trading my life (i.e., my right to continue my life by defending
it)
> for money damages for my heirs I had made an equal exchange. The more
> radical argument, based on the right to life, is that government has no
> right to deprive its citizens of the means with which to defend
themselves
> regardless of whether or not it assumes an obligation to protect each
> separate individual."  From: Cato Policy Analysis No. 284 October 22,
1997
> FIGHTING BACK   Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun  by
> Jeffrey R. Snyder  footnote 42.
>
> Clearly, firearms confiscation laws (and, by extension, gun registration
> laws which could provide information to those who would divest others of
> their arms) bring moral and legal obligation into conflict.  By obeying
the
> law and divesting oneself of defensive arms, one reinforces actions that,
in
> the long run, are likely to lead to a great injustice by creating an
> environment where only the predators will have strength of arms.  In this
> case, is civil disobedience not merely justified, but indeed a moral
imperative?
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Pat Fosness
> NRA certified instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history
> will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the
> blackest" -  Mahatma Ghandi  - 1927
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in
> compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107,
> "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching"
>
>
> For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
> [e-mail]
> with the word Help in the body of the message


--------------- END ca-firearms.v001.n556 ---------------



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Possibly of interest....
Date: 04 Feb 1998 16:11:11 -0700

Hi!  I thought you might be interested in the following.....

Would you like another take on the guns and bigotry issue?
Are you interested in the subject of Jews and firearms?
Would you like to see a truly awful photo of me?

If so, check out this week's Salt Lake City Weekly, http://www.slweekly.com
 You'll need to click on "Politics" and then "City Beat".  The article
itself is entitled "More Shots on Gun Bigotry" and was written by Ben
Fulton.  Considering the City Weekly's consistently liberal, anti-gun
stance, I think they did a reasonably fair job of addressing the issue,
even if they did invoke the "experts" at HCI.  Thanks, Ben!

If you have comments , they may be sent to [e-mail]

This article was inspired by an Op Ed I wrote for the Independence
Institute, http://i2i.org.  Special thanks to David Kopel and the folks at
the Independence Intitute for their support and for distributing the Op Ed
throughout Utah.

Sarah Thompson


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://www.therighter.com (under construction!)

New!  The Righter's weekly column with supplemental mail list.
To subscribe send a message to: [e-mail] with the
message subscribe righter-list in the BODY of the message.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: SB23 negligent storage of a firearm
Date: 04 Feb 1998 18:03:58 -0700


SB23 Negligent Storage of a Firearm is scheduled to be heard Tomorrow
at 3:00pm room 403 State Capital by the Senate Transportation and
Public Safety Standing Committee.

Please connact as many of the following as possible and voice
opposition to this bill.

Members are:

Sen. L. Alma Mansell, Chair
6995 Union Park Ctr. #100
Midvale, Utah 84047
H-942-6019 O-567-4200 FAX-567-4201

Sen. George Mantes
185 North Main Suite 201
Tooele, Utah 84074
H-882-4856 SLC-531-8157

Sen. Ed P. Mayne
5044 West Bannock Circle
West Valley City, Utah 84120
H-968-7756 O-972-2771 FAX-972-9344

Sen. David H. Steele
3376 West 400 North
West Point, Utah 84015
H-825-3033 O-546-7347
email:[e-mail]

Sen. Nathan C. Tanner
6225 Woodland Drive
Ogden, Utah 84403
H-479-6442 O-442-3678 FAX-442-5061

Sen. Michael Waddoups
2005 W 5620 S
Salt Lake City UT 84118
H 967-0225 O 355-1136

--

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.

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for
 the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
 resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government. --
 Thomas Jefferson, June 1776

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Guns and Bigots
Date: 05 Feb 1998 14:30:43 -0700

Quite a few people who saw the article in the Salt Lake City Weekly have
written asking to see the original Op Ed that "inspired" the article.  (If
you couldn't find the article it's because the SLCW changed the website
back to the Jan. 29 issue.  The issue with the article is dated Feb. 5, so
it should be back up sometime Thursday.)  Hard copies will of course be
available for those in the SLC area.

This Op Ed was distributed to all daily and weekly papers in Utah.  If
you're in Utah, please keep an eye out, and let me know if it appears in
your local paper.  Thanks!

Apologies to those of you who may be receiving duplicates.  And thanks
again to David Kopel at the Independence Institute and Ben Fulton at the
City Weekly.

The Op Ed follows.....

Sarah



Guns and Bigots
By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that Rob Bishop, Chairman of the
Utah Republican Party and lobbyist for the Utah Shooting Sports Council,
stated that school officials and business owners who wish to exclude
residents carrying licensed weapons are "bigots in the mold of former
southern governors who denied blacks entry into state schools."

The editors of the Salt Lake City Tribune responded that Bishop's analogy
is a "silly comparison".  They further alleged that "the presence of guns
in inappropriate public places can reduce safety of the surroundings" and
that Bishop was battling statistics, not prejudice.

The Tribune is wrong on all points. Rob Bishop is exactly on target when he
states that gun owners are contending with prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance.

The Tribune shows its ignorance by claiming that Bishop is battling
statistics when those statistics actually support his position.  Scholarly
research shows that concealed carry decreases violent crime, and the
presence of guns increases the safety of the surroundings. Since Utah's
concealed carry law was passed in 1995, violent crime in Utah has decreased.

This finding is entirely predictable, according to the most comprehensive
study of concealed carry, conducted by the University of Chicago's John
Lott. Professor Lott found that in the years following enactment of
concealed carry, violent crime falls six to eight percent.

Everyone, including gun carriers, benefits from concealed carry. Because
criminals are unable to tell which persons are carrying firearms, they are
less willing to attack any given person.  The presence of people carrying
firearms thus protects the general public, the children, and even the
anti-gun bigots.  Persons who accept the responsibility for the defense of
themselves, their families, and even total strangers, should be honored,
not shunned.  Only criminals have anything to fear from an armed populace.

Utah's handgun carry permit holders are extremely law-abiding. The record
since the 1995 handgun carry law went into effect shows that handgun permit
holders are good citizens, who pose no threat to anyone other than violent
predators.

Unfounded claims that law-abiding gunowners threaten the safety of society
are similar to Hitler's unfounded claims that Jews carried diseases and
threatened the public health. These malicious claims form a damning
indictment of Gov. Leavitt and other government officials who seek to
prohibit the exercise of constitutional rights in public places.

Although the Tribune would have us believe that prejudice applies only to
skin color, prejudice is defined as "An adverse judgment or opinion formed
beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts."  The Tribune,
Gov. Leavitt and officials at the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City
School Board have all declared their anti-gun position "without knowledge
or examination of the facts."  Those facts prove that Utah's licensed gun
carriers are law-abiding; and Mr. Bishop is precisely correct in calling
anti-gun bigots by their proper name.

The real issue is trust.  If the editors of the Tribune do not trust their
readers with firearms, why should their readers trust them to provide
accurate and unbiased news?  If Gov. Leavitt does not trust his
constituents with firearms, why should they trust him to spend their money,
uphold the Constitution, or direct the national guard?  If the officials at
the University of Utah do not trust their adult students and faculty with
firearms, why should anyone trust them to provide sound education?  If
certain law enforcement officers do not trust citizens with firearms, why
should citizens trust them to uphold the law?  If my clergyman cannot trust
me with a mere pistol, why should I entrust him with my soul?

The governor, state and local officials, academicians, and attorneys all
claim they have the right to openly flout both state law and the state
constitution because it is "the right thing to do." How hypocritical of
them to break the law because of their own bigotry towards a group of
law-abiding citizens! The lawbreakers in government should realize that
their obvious contempt for the law serves as an odious example for the rest
of us.  Their illegal behavior cannot decrease crime; it can only encourage
lawlessness.

Dr. Sarah Thompson, of Sandy, UT wrote this op-ed for the Independence
Institute, a think tank in Golden, Colorado. http://i2i.org.




-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Guns and Bigots]
Date: 05 Feb 1998 14:37:09 -0700


Of interest to some...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Quite a few people who saw the article in the Salt Lake City Weekly have
written asking to see the original Op Ed that "inspired" the article.  (If
you couldn't find the article it's because the SLCW changed the website
back to the Jan. 29 issue.  The issue with the article is dated Feb. 5, so
it should be back up sometime Thursday.)  Hard copies will of course be
available for those in the SLC area.

This Op Ed was distributed to all daily and weekly papers in Utah.  If
you're in Utah, please keep an eye out, and let me know if it appears in
your local paper.  Thanks!

Apologies to those of you who may be receiving duplicates.  And thanks
again to David Kopel at the Independence Institute and Ben Fulton at the
City Weekly.

The Op Ed follows.....

Sarah



Guns and Bigots
By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that Rob Bishop, Chairman of the
Utah Republican Party and lobbyist for the Utah Shooting Sports Council,
stated that school officials and business owners who wish to exclude
residents carrying licensed weapons are "bigots in the mold of former
southern governors who denied blacks entry into state schools."

The editors of the Salt Lake City Tribune responded that Bishop's analogy
is a "silly comparison".  They further alleged that "the presence of guns
in inappropriate public places can reduce safety of the surroundings" and
that Bishop was battling statistics, not prejudice.

The Tribune is wrong on all points. Rob Bishop is exactly on target when he
states that gun owners are contending with prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance.

The Tribune shows its ignorance by claiming that Bishop is battling
statistics when those statistics actually support his position.  Scholarly
research shows that concealed carry decreases violent crime, and the
presence of guns increases the safety of the surroundings. Since Utah's
concealed carry law was passed in 1995, violent crime in Utah has decreased.

This finding is entirely predictable, according to the most comprehensive
study of concealed carry, conducted by the University of Chicago's John
Lott. Professor Lott found that in the years following enactment of
concealed carry, violent crime falls six to eight percent.

Everyone, including gun carriers, benefits from concealed carry. Because
criminals are unable to tell which persons are carrying firearms, they are
less willing to attack any given person.  The presence of people carrying
firearms thus protects the general public, the children, and even the
anti-gun bigots.  Persons who accept the responsibility for the defense of
themselves, their families, and even total strangers, should be honored,
not shunned.  Only criminals have anything to fear from an armed populace.

Utah's handgun carry permit holders are extremely law-abiding. The record
since the 1995 handgun carry law went into effect shows that handgun permit
holders are good citizens, who pose no threat to anyone other than violent
predators.

Unfounded claims that law-abiding gunowners threaten the safety of society
are similar to Hitler's unfounded claims that Jews carried diseases and
threatened the public health. These malicious claims form a damning
indictment of Gov. Leavitt and other government officials who seek to
prohibit the exercise of constitutional rights in public places.

Although the Tribune would have us believe that prejudice applies only to
skin color, prejudice is defined as "An adverse judgment or opinion formed
beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts."  The Tribune,
Gov. Leavitt and officials at the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City
School Board have all declared their anti-gun position "without knowledge
or examination of the facts."  Those facts prove that Utah's licensed gun
carriers are law-abiding; and Mr. Bishop is precisely correct in calling
anti-gun bigots by their proper name.

The real issue is trust.  If the editors of the Tribune do not trust their
readers with firearms, why should their readers trust them to provide
accurate and unbiased news?  If Gov. Leavitt does not trust his
constituents with firearms, why should they trust him to spend their money,
uphold the Constitution, or direct the national guard?  If the officials at
the University of Utah do not trust their adult students and faculty with
firearms, why should anyone trust them to provide sound education?  If
certain law enforcement officers do not trust citizens with firearms, why
should citizens trust them to uphold the law?  If my clergyman cannot trust
me with a mere pistol, why should I entrust him with my soul?

The governor, state and local officials, academicians, and attorneys all
claim they have the right to openly flout both state law and the state
constitution because it is "the right thing to do." How hypocritical of
them to break the law because of their own bigotry towards a group of
law-abiding citizens! The lawbreakers in government should realize that
their obvious contempt for the law serves as an odious example for the rest
of us.  Their illegal behavior cannot decrease crime; it can only encourage
lawlessness.

Dr. Sarah Thompson, of Sandy, UT wrote this op-ed for the Independence
Institute, a think tank in Golden, Colorado. http://i2i.org.




-


----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.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who
 approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
 downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." --
 Patrick Henry, speaking to the Virginia convention for the ratification
 of the constitution on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms.

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SB23 is DEAD
Date: 05 Feb 1998 22:44:28 -0700

At 06:03 PM 2/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>SB23 Negligent Storage of a Firearm is scheduled to be heard Tomorrow
>at 3:00pm room 403 State Capital by the Senate Transportation and
>Public Safety Standing Committee.
>
>Please connact as many of the following as possible and voice
>opposition to this bill.


Since I haven't seen it posted yet:

SB 23 was defeated in committee today, and is dead for this session.

Way to go, troops!

Sarah


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
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: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them"
Date: 06 Feb 1998 07:20:00 -0700


NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them"
(high capacity semi-automatic rifles)

by ORAL DECKARD
The Vigo Examiner

I just got off the phone with the NRA (The Powerful gun Lobby.) I was told
repeatedly that "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity
semi-automatic rifles).

Usually I get calls from The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms. And every time they call I ask them "What does the Second
Amendment say?" And every time, without fail, they are taken by surprise,
and stammer out bits of it, and fail. When pressed, they say something
along the lines of "Well, I can't recite it word for word."

And I always reply, "Why not? It's really not very long. And this is your
job. You want me to give you money to defend the Second Amendment, and you
don't even know what it says?"

Sometimes they hang up on me at that point, and sometimes they continue
trying to save face. Then there are some that aren't even embarrassed.

This one started as a routine phone solicitation. But as usual I decided to
have a little fun with the poor fellow. He told me that my NRA membership
had lapsed, and that he would just reinstate it. I replied "No, I support
the Second Amendment."

There was a long pause. Then he began again to sign me up again. So I
clarified. "I dropped out of the NRA because I support the Second Amendment
and the NRA does not. I prefer the Gun Owners of America ([e-mail])
and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. (Against-
[e-mail])

He asked "Are you aware that Charlton Heston has taken control of the NRA?"
Now it was getting serious. I answered "Yes, and he went on TV and
announced that there was no need for anyone to own an AK-47."

I thought I was being clear, but obviously not clear enough, as he took
that as a good thing.

So I asked "What does the Second Amendment say." He replied "The right to
keep guns and stuff. I don't know it word for word."

So I simply told him what it says: "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."

I then asked him what that meant. He said that when the Second Amendment
was first drafted it was necessary to hunt for food. But now we could buy
instant food.

A few months ago I got a call from an NRA solicitor trying to get my wife
signed back up. The next day when I reported that he had said no one needed
high capacity semi-automatic rifles I was challenged to identify him.
Unfortunately I had failed to get his name. But not this time.

So I asked for his name, and was told "Richard Kuhlman." He even spelled it
for me. I asked "OK, this is the evening shift of February 4th, where are
you calling from." He answered "Wichita Kansas."

As a double check, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, I asked "Is
there any need to protect assault high capacity semi-automatic rifles?" He
answered "We would like to keep them for matches and things, but they don't
have to have those big magazines, and only if they were used just for that
purpose. We want to be reasonable."

I then asked if I could speak to his supervisor.

His supervisor was Mario. Just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, I
introduced myself as a reporter for the Vigo Examiner, explained Richard
Kuhlman and myself were just discussing the need to protect high capacity
semi-automatic rifles, and asked "What's your take on it?"

He asked "You want my opinion, or the NRA's opinion?" I answered "Both." So
he explained that all the high capacity semi-automatic rifles were imported
from foreign countries, and "we are trying to get rid of them."

Again, I went for a repeat, just to make sure. I asked "Are you saying the
NRA is to trying to get rid of high capacity semiautomatic rifles ?"

He didn't hesitate. He said "Yes, our purpose is to get rid of them."

So I thanked him and told him my story would be out tomorrow (Feb. 5th,
1998)

So what could I conclude from this? Every time I have an NRA solicitor on
the phone I am told that they don't support the Second Amendment, and now,
that their PURPOSE is to GET RID OF a whole class of firearms, the class of
firearms the Second Amendment was specifically enacted to protect.

Even when I was insistent, to the point of being rude, that I objected to
their selling out the Second Amendment, they either didn't get it, or were
determined that the Second Amendment is to be abandoned. They both seemed
to be genuinely embarrassed by the Second Amendment. This time I didn't get
it just from the solicitor, but also from his supervisor. And not just his
opinion, but as he stated it, the opinion of the NRA.

So there it is folks. You can either support the Constitution, or you can
support the NRA, but you cannot support the Constitution THROUGH the NRA.

Long ago I gave up my NRA phone card. A couple months ago I let my NRA
membership lapse. Now, I look in my wallet and find there, still, an NRA
VISA. Well, that one is the walking dead.

One of the men said Wayne Lapierre said we didn't want to lose members over
a gun. It looks like the NRA, which has been accused over the years of
refusing to compromise, has just compromised, big time. When you give up a
right, in order to be "reasonable", just how reasonable will you ultimately
have to become?

In 1992-1993 I spent six months in Sweden. The folks there bragged that
they could own any kind of gun they wanted, as long as it didn't hold over
two shots. They were reasonable.

And when you decide you cannot give up any more, on what solid ground will
you now brace your feet?

Having conceded to the elimination of one class of firearm, there is now no
solid position from which the NRA can defend any firearm. That defense must
now rest with those who have not compromised the Constitution. After
Norville Chamberlain announced "Peace in our time", it then fell to Winston
Churchill to defend England.

Will appeasement defend a few "sporting" rifles? The NRA is betting the
Constitution on it. Now is the time for all good men (and ladies) to get
off the fence. Which side will you come down on? Either you are loyal to
the Constitution, or you are disloyal. The NRA doesn't seem too proud of
our Constitution.
Copyright (C) 1998, The Vigo Examiner
All are free to republish at will this intact document.
http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: SB23 is DEAD
Date: 06 Feb 1998 10:49:11 -0700


Who voted which way?  It is a good idea to thank those
who voted our way.

On Thu, 05 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>At 06:03 PM 2/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>SB23 Negligent Storage of a Firearm is scheduled to be heard Tomorrow
>>at 3:00pm room 403 State Capital by the Senate Transportation and
>>Public Safety Standing Committee.
>>
>>Please connact as many of the following as possible and voice
>>opposition to this bill.
>
>
>Since I haven't seen it posted yet:
>
>SB 23 was defeated in committee today, and is dead for this session.
>
>Way to go, troops!
>
>Sarah
>
>
>Sarah Thompson, M.D.
>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.
>
>-
>
>


--

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.

"Courage is resistance of fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear." -
 - Mark Twain

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hatch's Hyprocrisy
Date: 06 Feb 1998 18:14:41 -0700

Thought y'all might like this bit of cognitive dissonance from our own
senior senator.

Contrast this with S. 10...........

Sarah

               REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
                                   of the
                         COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            UNITED STATES SENATE
                          NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
                       Second Session, February 1982

                           Senate Document 2807

                       PREFACE by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch
       Chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the
                    Constitution, from the State of Utah

     "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
     people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when
     young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to
     the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of
     Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the
     Bill of Rights.)

     "The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who
     is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia
     Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

     "The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over
     the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the
     military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which
     are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the
     governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James
     Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper
     No. 26.)

     "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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

     In my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I
     have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility
     shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and
     commentators. James Madison would be startled to hear that his
     recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the
     House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate, has
     since been construed in but a single, and most ambiguous Supreme
     Court decision, whereas his proposals for freedom of religion,
     which he made reluctantly out of fear that they would be rejected
     or narrowed beyond use, and those for freedom of assembly, which
     passed only after a lengthy and bitter debate, are the subject of
     scores of detailed and favorable decisions. Thomas Jefferson, who
     kept a veritable armory of pistols, rifles and shotguns at
     Monticello, and advised his nephew to forsake other sports in
     favor of hunting, would be astounded to hear supposed civil
     libertarians claim firearm ownership should be restricted. Samuel
     Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that
     the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the
     people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from
     keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear that his native
     state today imposes a year's sentence, without probation or
     parole, for carrying a firearm without a police permit.

     This is not to imply that courts have totally ignored the impact
     of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. No fewer than
     twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have recognized
     an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of
     these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or
     regulations which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances,
     courts or commentators have sought, for reasons only tangentially
     related to constitutional history, to construe this right out of
     existence. They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of
     the people" mean "a right of the state"--apparently overlooking
     the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth
     Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free
     from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an
     individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim
     that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This
     not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right
     of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment
     protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend
     instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of
     a "well regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the
     right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard.
     Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term
     "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and
     that the Congress has established the present National Guard
     under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it
     was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

     When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a
     Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison
     did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a
     pamphlet listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and
     sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital
     proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not
     distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the
     Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates.
     Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the
     people to keep and bear arms shall not be 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."

     In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia
     clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The
     proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the
     interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was
     removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained
     that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse
     everyone from military service.

     The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A
     well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a
     free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
     not be infringed.:" In this form it was submitted into the
     Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the
     process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one,
     for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have
     limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the
     common defense".

     The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in
     giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George
     Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in
     1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American
     law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the
     subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree,
     and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second
     Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their
     condition or degree, as is the case in the British government."
     William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in
     Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment: "The
     prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a
     rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to
     disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made
     under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in
     blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this
     amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." The
     Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker
     and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas
     Jefferson. Their views are those of contemporaries of Jefferson,
     Madison and others, and are entitled to special weight. A few
     years later, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the
     Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the
     palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred
     tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should
     it come to pass. [45]

     Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports
     the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an
     individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress
     defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every
     free adult male in the United States. These persons were
     obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of
     ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally,
     remained in effect into the early years of the present century as
     a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population
     of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that
     when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had
     reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace
     capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what
     is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an
     armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time
     considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia,
     appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of
     individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as
     citizens and owners of firearms.

     If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of
     legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of
     examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they
     cannot do so after a century and a half of trying--that they must
     sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the
     1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939
     period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in
     1965-1976--establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable
     failure of gun laws to control serious crime.

     Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the
     Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort
     to study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over
     the right to keep and bear arms. Utilizing the research
     capabilities of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the
     resources of the Library of Congress, and the assistance of
     constitutional scholars such as Mary Kaaren Jolly, Steven
     Halbrook, and David T. Hardy, the subcommittee has managed to
     uncover information on the right to keep and bear arms which
     documents quite clearly its status as a major individual right of
     American citizens. We did not guess at the purpose of the British
     1689 Declaration of Rights; we located the Journals of the House
     of Commons and private notes of the Declaration's sponsors, now
     dead for two centuries. We did not make suppositions as to
     colonial interpretations of that Declaration's right to keep
     arms; we examined colonial newspapers which discussed it. We did
     not speculate as to the intent of the framers of the second
     amendment; we examined James Madison's drafts for it, his
     handwritten outlines of speeches upon the Bill of Rights, and
     discussions of the second amendment by early scholars who were
     personal friends of Madison, Jefferson, and Washington while
     these still lived. What the Subcommittee on the Constitution
     uncovered was clear--and long lost--proof that the second
     amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right
     of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful
     manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.
     The summary of our research and findings form the first portion
     of this report.

     In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete
     picture, we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this
     recognition of freedoms to submit their views. The statements of
     two associations who replied are reproduced here following the
     report of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee also invited
     statements by Messrs. Halbrook and Hardy, and by the National
     Rifle Association, whose statements likewise follow our report.

     When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I
     hoped that I would be able to assist in the protection of the
     constitutional rights of American citizens, rights which have too
     often been eroded in the belief that government could be relied
     upon for quick solutions to difficult problems.

     Both as an American citizen and as a United States Senator I
     repudiate this view. I likewise repudiate the approach of those
     who believe to solve American problems you simply become
     something other than American. To my mind, the uniqueness of our
     free institutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast
     freedoms unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to
     resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors
     forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and
     rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free
     institutions, and established their identity as a free nation,
     they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to
     record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full
     amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right
     to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my
     chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern
     itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right
     most valued by free men.

     Orrin G. Hatch
     Chairman
     Subcommittee on the Constitution
     January 20, 1982


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Response to Morris Dees' remarks at Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church 1/2
Date: 06 Feb 1998 18:27:00 -0700


    [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail], [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]

As many of you have probably already heard, Morris Dees (everybody's
favorite alleged homosexual pedophile) appeared at Bryn Mawr Presbyterian
Church (outside Philadelphia) on the evening of February 2, 1998.

This guy can draw a crowd, er, should I say flock?

Many of you may not be aware of this, but there was an article in
"Modern Maturity" magazine about Morris Dees a few months back, written
by none other than Col. David Hackworth. Hmmmm....so I read it. With
that in mind, I went in with a somewhat open (but skeptical) mind.

Well, he was already blabbing when I arrived, and I had to sit way
up in the choir loft with some individuals who I knew were affiliated
with the Unorganized Militia of Pennsylvania, since they had parked
right next to me, and we walked in together.

Among Mr. Dees remarks were the usual, nebulous "right-wing" paranoia,
and his not-very-well-defined opinions about the "danger from the right",
blah, blah, blah.

Well, as he was wrapping up his remarks, a few people started gathering
up scraps of paper from the audience. These scraps of paper contained
questions from members of the audience, and several individuals, at least
one of whom was with the Philadelphia Inquirer, busily sorted through
the questions, deciding on which questions would be asked of Mr. Dees.

I must mention here that many public-forum appearances such as these
sometimes are reduced to shouting matches when taking questions directly
from the audience, and I suppose this might have been done to help
maintain some sense of order, but the first time I saw this technique
used was among a Russian audience, I am somewhat suspicious whenever
I see this technique used.

Some of the questions were asked of Mr. Dees, and he replied to them.

Among his remarks were the following (I took some notes):

In reference to Ruby Ridge:

Dees stated that nobody really knew about Ruby Ridge until after the
Oklahoma Federal Building explosion. (Oh, really?) Didn't CBS make a
made-for-TV movie about it, starring Randy Quaid and Laura Dern? (Yeah,
I guess nobody knew about it). Let me say that I knew about Ruby Ridge
as it was happening, and read MANY news stories off the AP wire that
were never published. It was immediately obvious that the media was
trying to keep the lid on it. Gee, maybe THAT'S WHY so few people were
aware of what was initially going on during that dark chapter in law
enforcement history.

Dees went on to say how Weaver's baby was killed by federal agents
while being held by her mother standing in the cabin doorway.

THE BABY WAS NOT KILLED. Vicky Weaver was killed while HOLDING
the baby (Elishiba).

Dees then mentioned about Samuel Weaver, neglecting to mention that
he was only 13 years old, and was shot five times in the back!

In reference to Neo-Nazi "skinhead" types:

The next topic was some K.K.K. guy (former Texas "Grand Dragon") he had
been spying on, named Louis Bean (Beam?). I'm not familiar with this man's
name. Dees admitted that they (I guess that means the Southern Poverty Law
Center, or their affiliate "KlanWatch") had planted a hidden microphone in
the building that was to house a meeting of several K.K.K.-type dudes.
One might wonder if the microphone eavesdropping was accompanied by a
warrant? Probably not, unless there were law enforcement people involved,
and this technicality was noticeably absent from Mr. Dees' comments.

In reference to the "patriot-militia movement":

Mr. Dees stated (correctly) that the vast majority of people calling
themselves "militia groups" are not really anything more than disgruntled
citizens who have an axe to grind with corrupt government, and they get
together to discuss political issues, influence elections, etc., and he
certainly agrees that they have a right to do that under our DEMOCRACY
(...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...).

Mr. Dees also stated that in the first years of our country's history,
there was no standing national army (he is correct), and that each state
had its own militia (right again). He then went on to say that after the
Constitution was written ("right here in Philadelphia"), the militias
were replaced by a national army. Wrong.

Many of the combatants in the Civil War were state militia volunteers.
In fact, the National Rifle Assiciation was formed after the Civil War
(1878) by former Civil War officers, to provide civilian marksmanship
training to the state militia volunteers, in the event that they were
ever again called into federal service (indeed, they were during World
War I, World War II, and the Korean War, mostly to guard factories
producing military items).

Dees then went on to discuss the danger of militias as "private armies",
and cited two examples in history "right here in Pennsylvania". He then
mentioned the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion. (Shay's Rebellion
took place in Massachusetts).



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Response to Morris Dees' remarks at Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church 2/2
Date: 06 Feb 1998 18:27:00 -0700


Next, Mr. Dees went on to illustrate exactly how ignorant he is of the
2nd Amendment. Any of you who have read the Bill of Rights (the first
ten amendments to the Constitution), knows that the 2nd Amendment is the
simplest of all amendments, consisting of only one single sentence. Mr.
Dees couldn't even remember the whole sentence, but instead concentrated
on the "well-regulated militia" clause at the beginning. He claims that
the National Guard is the "militia", and that the "right to bear arms"
is a "collective right", not an individual right. He then said that
the Supreme Court had decided that it wasn't an individual right.

Well, the National Guard didn't come into existance until 1903, so I am
reasonably confident that the people who wrote the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights didn't have that in mind. And the Supreme Court ruled in
July, 1996 (I believe) that "the people" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment
were the same "people" mentioned in the preamble, and anywhere else the
phrase "the people" was used in the Constitution.

In reference to Carol Howe and Andy Strassmeir:

I don't know how this happened, but a question got through about Carol
Howe and Andreas Strassmeir. Mr. Dees' reply was that anybody concerned
about that should "get a life". Thoughout his remarks, Mr. Dees constantly
championed the ATF and the FBI, and thought they were doing such a
wonderful job with the OKC bombing, etc., but was then noticeably silent
about why the Oklahoma Grand Jury has been able to come up with so much
additional evidence after the "largest investigation in FBI history".

In reference to the biggest threat in America today:

He also mentioned that the biggest danger to this country today was the
"Christian Coalition". Now, I have to say that I have met many people who
call themselves "Christians", and some of them have a pretty screwy agenda.
But, regardless of what you think about that remark, keep in mind that
Morris Dees made this remark in a PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, and received a
STANDING OVATION. One may wonder (and rightly so) why the fiduciaries
of this institution allow their facility to be used for this purpose.

After the whole thing was over, and the crowd was milling toward the
exits, several small discussion groups formed. As I was passing one of
these groups, I heard a man trying to explain to an elderly couple why
4,800 pounds of Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil was incapable of destroying
24"-diameter steel-reinforced concrete columns from 16 feet away. I
happen to agree with that assessment (and so do a dozen or so explosive
experts, including retired Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, and
several independent studies conducted by the Air Force), so I stopped
to listen to this. It soon drew others, and the whole thing degraded
into a shouting match about abortion (as usually happens). At that,
everybody was asked to leave.

While walking back to my vehicle, I saw crowds of elderly people
(some probably Alzheimer's patients) piling onto busses to take them
back to the rest home. With that, I couldn't help but wonder if there
was anything that they would not have applauded to, if they saw the
person next to them doing it.

Then I started to think about the demographics of the crowd, and how few
of them ever use the Internet, etc. Probably none of them are reading this.

In summary, let me just say that Mr. Dees comes across as a well-meaning,
soft-spoken bleeding-heart attorney, championing the rights of the under-
privileged. That is, if you're either incredibly ignorant or simply
incapable of thinking for yourself. The impression I got was that Mr. Dees
is somewhat cleverly manipulating these people by telling half-truths and
outright falsehoods, for who-knows-what-agenda. Among his remarks earlier
in the speech, he discussed how Hitler had manipulated the emotions of
his audiences, and then proceeded to do the same thing.

He stated very clearly that the "white anglo-types" would be a minority
in the United States by the year 2050, and that they would have to share
their economic and political power. I think most of us realize that, and
I don't really have a problem with it. What I do object to, however, and
I think most people do, is that I don't want to be held responsible for
supporting couch-potatoes (regardless of their color or national origin),
whose only redeeming quality is producing another generation of couch-
potatoes, who will live off my taxpayer dollars until they are old enough
to rob me. Now I have a problem with that. Does that make me a racist
or a neo-Nazi? I don't think so, but then again, Mr. Dees probably has
different criteria for defining what I am.

I can recognize blatant propaganda when I see it, and I think Mr. Dees
does well in front of an ignorant crowd, especially when he has liberal
newspaper editors sifting through the written questions ahead of time.
What I would really like to see would be Mr. Dees debating someone like,
oh, let's see.................

Ralph Epperson?


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  CONFIRMATION OF DR. DAVID SATCHER
Date: 09 Feb 1998 08:51:55 -0700

Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
Satcher is one of the chief proponents of "guns as health problem /
disease / epidemic."  He currently runs the CDC.  Enough said.

Time for gun owners on this list to call the senators below and tell
them why Satcher should NOT be confirmed.

Forwarded message:

Do not Continue unless you have a strong stomach!


Children's Defense Fund Update
February 6,1998

 --- URGE CONFIRMATION OF DR. DAVID SATCHER ---

The United States Senate will vote on Tuesday, February 10th, on
whether to end debate on the confirmation of David Satcher, M.D., to
be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.  60 votes are necessary to
end Senate debate and thus allow a confirmation vote.

Please contact Senators Shelby (AL), Specter (PA), Hutchison (TX),
Hatch (UT),  D'Amato (NY), Bond (MO), G. Smith (WA), McCain (AZ), and
Stevens (AK)  and urge them to vote to end the Senate debate on the
nomination and  to support confirmation of Dr. Satcher (U.S. Capitol
Switchboard #:  202/224-3121).

As Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr.
Satcher has been a champion of efforts to immunize America's children,
resulting in the best immunization levels in the history of the United
States.

--------- End forwarded message ----------
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available
at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are found in the group
NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those
without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files at this
site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>] and the
requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs.
********************


For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
[e-mail] with the word Help in the body of the
message

Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id VAA14125; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:13:25 -0700
Received: (qmail 30863 invoked by uid 516); 9 Feb 1998 04:19:42 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 30104 invoked from network); 9 Feb 1998 04:18:48 -0000
Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 1998 04:18:47 -0000
Received: from mail2.rockymtn.net (ns2.rockymtn.net [166.93.8.2])
    by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA19481;
    Sun, 8 Feb 1998 23:18:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 166-93-76-227.rmi.net (166-93-76-227.rmi.net [166.93.76.227])
    by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.5/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA12562;
    Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:03:41 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
>Satcher is one of the chief proponents of "guns as health problem /
>disease / epidemic."  He currently runs the CDC.  Enough said.
>
>Time for gun owners on this list to call the senators below and tell
>them why Satcher should NOT be confirmed.
>
>Forwarded message:
>> From: "CDFupdate" <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Children's Defense Fund Update
>> February 6,1998
>
>> --- URGE CONFIRMATION OF DR. DAVID SATCHER ---
>>
>> The United States Senate will vote on Tuesday, February 10th, on
>> whether to end debate on the confirmation of David Satcher, M.D., to
>> be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S.
>> Department of Health and Human Services.  60 votes are necessary to
>> end Senate debate and thus allow a confirmation vote.  Please contact
>> Senators Shelby (AL), Specter (PA), Hutchison (TX), Hatch (UT),
>> D'Amato (NY), Bond (MO), G. Smith (WA), McCain (AZ), and Stevens (AK)
>> and urge them to vote to end the Senate debate on the nomination and
>> to support confirmation of Dr. Satcher (U.S. Capitol Switchboard #:
>> 202/224-3121).  As Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
>> Prevention, Dr. Satcher has been a champion of efforts to immunize
>> America's children, resulting in the best immunization levels in the
>> history of the United States.
>--
>
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the
heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files
at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>]
and the requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs.
********************


For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
[e-mail]
with the word Help in the body of the message


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Jackson; Wy -Forwarded
Date: 09 Feb 1998 08:53:05 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id VAA14141; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 21:46:26 -0700
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA26175; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 23:51:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma025936; Sun Feb  8 23:51:21 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

>From: [e-mail] (K. L. Wandell)
>
>Maybe there'sa ray of hope out there ....
>
>whw
>
>==========================================================================
>The following is an indication that hunting is not dying, as the anti's
>would like us to believe;
>
>Seventy youngsters were given the chance to hunt elk, or receive a free
>$1000 mountain bike offered by the Fund for Animals. All seventy kids
>chose
>the elk hunt. The anti-hunting group tried to entice the 12 to 17 year
>olds
>with bikes if they would turn in their National Elk Refuge special youth
>hunting permits, and promise to not hunt any more in 1997.Several kids
>cited the role of the hunter in wildlife management as reason to hunt
>over
>receiving a new bike. The goal of the hunt was to reduce the Elk herd to
>7,500 animals. More than 12,000 elk wintered on the range in 1996.
>
>Source: Hunter Education Journal, winter 1998.
>
>
>Bob Hancock
>Eldorado MC
>
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the
heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files
at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>]
and the requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs.
********************



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Des News editorial
Date: 09 Feb 1998 13:38:14 -0700


From Sunday's Deseret News.  My letter to the ediotr follows.  I
encourage others to respond.  Feel free to use any ideas in my letter
but please change wording enough to make it look original.

[Image]
[Image]

      [Image]

      Pass concealed weapons bill
      [Image]
      [Image]

      [Image]
      Last updated 02/08/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT

      Deseret News editorial

            Utahns have long valued the right to bear arms. They also ought
      to value the right private property owners and educators have to keep
      arms away.
            Utah Senate President Lane Beattie is expected to introduce a
      measure soon that would allow church leaders, private property owners
      and public school officials to ban concealed weapon permit holders
      from bringing firearms into their buildings.
            Lawmakers, who have waited far too long to act on this issue,
      ought to move quickly to pass the bill. Not only would it be the right
      thing to do, it would be the logical thing to do. A Deseret News poll
      shows that 88 percent of Utahns agree that churches should be able to
      keep concealed weapons out, while 89 percent believe public schools
      should do the same.
            Current laws have generated a lot of confusion. According to
      one, a citizen's concealed-weapon license is valid without restriction
      in Utah, except for airports, courts and correction facilities.
      According to another, weapons can't be carried on or near school
      property.
            The LDS Church issued a statement last year saying churches
      should be free from the cares of the world and that weapons don't
      belong.
            Some institutions, such as the University of Utah, already have
      instituted a ban on concealed weapons. Gun advocates have strongly
      opposed these bans, claiming they are illegal. Lawmakers need to put
      an end to the confusion.
            While gun lobbyists don't have a problem keeping weapons out of
      churches and private homes, they balk at extending the ban. They
      promise to fight any attempt to allow public school officials to ban
      permitted weapons from school buildings.
            Beattie says his bill would allow properly permitted gun owners
      to carry weapons into school driveways and parking lots, so they could
      drop off or pick up their children without having to leave the guns
      behind. But if permitees go out of their cars and into the schools,
      the guns would have to be locked in the vehicles.
            Despite pressure from gun lobbyists, who represent a vocal
      minority of Utahns, legislators need to listen to the majority of
      their constituents and pass a new and improved concealed weapons bill.
      [Image]
      [Image]

[ImageReturn to front page


Charles Hardy
xxxxx
xxx SLC, UT xxxx
588-7200   day

Feb. 9, 1998

Dear Editor

I'm appalled at your editorial of Sunday, Feb. 8 (Pass concealed
weapons bill.)  I do commend you for correctly recognizing the rights
of citizens to both carry guns (bear arms) and to restrict access to
their private (which includes church owned) property.  However,
nowhere in either the U.S. or the Utah Constitutions can I find any
enumerated rights of "educators" to "keep [legally carried firearms]
away" from publicly owned and operated schools.  Whether law abiding
adults should be stripped of their means of self-defense simply
because they have legitimate business at one of those schools is a
topic for reasoned debate.

Most distressing is your call to blindly support a bill that has not
even been drafted yet.  I'm sure Senate President Lane Beattie has
good intentions.  And Utah's concealed weapons law propably could
stand some clarification to make clear the rights of private property
owners.  But as with all legislation, "the devil is in the detail."

It is one thing to support certain changes to the law and to encourage
those changes be made.  It is quite another to suggest a specific
piece of legislation should be supported without even reading
it--indeed when it is not even in existance to be read.  I sincerely
hope you would not be so lax in your calls to support or oppose
specific legislation in other emotional areas such as environmental
preservation, tax reform, or affirmitive action.

Your editorial was sloppy and shows you are as caught up in the
emotions of this issue as any un-informed individual might be.  I pray
our legislation will subject any and every specific piece of
legislation, regardless of the topic it addresses, to much more
thorough reading, research, and thought than you have this particular,
yet unwritten bill.

Sincerely


Charles Hardy


--

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.

"Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for "stricter
 gun control" cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds. I have
 nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom
 I have come in contact over the past years. They are, for the most part,
 sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to
 reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized
 person must share. I have, however, come to be convinced that they are
 barking up the wrong tree." -- James Wright (scholarly research who
 collaborates with Peter Rossi)

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Judges Opinion re NRA
Date: 09 Feb 1998 15:01:09 -0700

If you're anything like me, your mailbox has been deluged in recent weeks
with allegations and couter-allegations about the NRA and its Board of
Directors elections.  I don't follow these discussions, nor do I get
involved.  I'm not a member of the NRA, I can't vote, and so it's really
not my business.  I will not publicly endorse or oppose any candidates.

What follows however, is a decision from the Supreme Court of New York
which, as far as I can interpret, means that the elections will be
conducted in a fair manner, according to the NRA's own bylaws.  I consider
such a decision important and newsworthy.  Whatever one thinks of the NRA
and/or its board members and officers, I would hope we can agree that fair
elections are essential.

Because the court opinion is a bit difficult to read, I asked a few of the
plaintiffs to provide me with a short summary of what the court opinion
means.  Howard Fezell was kind enough to provide the summary which follows
the opinion.  Because Mr. Fezell is one of the plaintiffs, his analysis of
the bill should be considered in that light.
He also included a request for funds to support the lawsuit, which I have
deleted because it is not appropriate to the purpose of this column.  If
you're interested in making a donation, please contact Mr. Fezell directly.

Sarah Thompson


SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY : IAS PART 10
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

HOWARD J. FEZELL, JOHN C. KRULL, JERRY          Index No. 600211/98-001
L. ALLEN, FRANK M. SAWBERGER, LARRY
R. RANKIN, JOHN GUEST, WILLIAM DOMINGUEZ,              cal. #5 - 1/26/98
EFF KNOX, KIM STOLFER, JOHN H. TRENTES,
Plaintiffs,

            -against-

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

BEATRICE SHAINSWIT, J.:

Plaintiffs move, pursuant to CPLR 6301 and 6311, for an order
preliminarily enjoining defendant National Rifle Association of America
(NRA) from printing any type of designation in the 1998 Ballot Issue
of the NRA'S three official journals, and on the official ballot of the
NRA, as to whether a candidate for election to the Board of Directors of
the NRA (the Board) was nominated by petition of NRA members or by the
present Boards Nominating Committee in any form, including paid
advertisements.

Plaintiffs contend that such designation would be in violation of
Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the NRA'S bylaws, and that the NRA'S
actions in printing said designations will deny plaintiffs a fair corporate
election. Defendant NRA cross-moves to dismiss the complaint, pursuant
to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Pursuant to Article VIII of the NRA bylaws, a candidate for election to
the Board can be nominated either by the Nominating Committee or by
members petition.  The incumbent Board elects the members of the
Nominating Committee.  The NRA conducts the Board election by paper
ballot, sent by U.S. mail to the eligible voting members of the NRA at
least 15 days prior to the Annual Meeting of Members.  It has been the
practice of the NRA to send the ballot for the Board election to the
eligible voting members as part of the Ballot Issue of the three
official journals of the NRA (American Rifleman, American Guardian, and
American Hunter).  This year, the 1998 Ballot Issue will be the March
issue of the official journals.  Plaintiffs rely on Article VIII,
Section 3(e) of the NRA bylaws, which states in bold italic typeface:
In both the official journal and on the official ballot, no persons
nominated by petition nor by the Nominating Committee shall be so
designated.

(Id. at p. 33).
According to plaintiffs, Article VIII, Section 3(e) was actually adopted
in 1979, following the amendment of the bylaws in 1977 to allow, for the
first time, candidates to be nominated by members petition, if said
petition is signed by 250 members eligible to vote.  This 1977 amendment
had also provided as follows:

In addition to the persons selected by the Nominating Committee in
accordance with Section 3(c) of this Article, the Nominating Committee
shall cause the names and biographical sketches of persons nominated by
petition to be published in the official journal; however, in both the
official journal and on the official ballot, persons nominated by
petition shall be so designated.

(Land 1/23/98 Aff., Ex. A; emphasis added).  In the 1978 and 1979 Board
elections, candidates for election were designated, in the biographical
sketches in the official journals and on the official ballot, as having
been nominated by the Nominating Committee, with a "1" next to their
names, and as having been nominated by petition, with a "2" next to
their names. Plaintiffs contend that it was the experience in the 1978
and 1979 NRA Board elections that the Nominating Committee candidates
had an advantage over the petition candidates because the members tended
to vote for the candidates designated as Committee candidates. Allegedly
in direct response to the experience of these two elections, the bylaws
were amended to prohibit any designations in the official journals and
on the official ballot.

On December 19, 1997, NRA Director Ronin Colman sent a letter to NRA
Secretary Edward J. Land, Jr., requesting that the report of the NRA
Nominating Committee not be printed in the 1998 Ballot Issue of the
official journals.  Secretary Land denied the request on the ground that
the Nominating Committee Report has been published continuously in the
Official Journal since 1985, pursuant to a Board resolution adopted in
September of 1984.

Plaintiffs argue that since, pursuant to Article XV, Section 5, the
provisions of Article VIII, Section 3(e) cannot be repealed or amended
by Board action, the Board policy of printing the Nominating Committees
report constitutes a violation of the NRA bylaws.

Plaintiff Howard J. Fezell was nominated to be a candidate for election
to the Board of Directors of the NRA by members petition.  On December
17, 1997, he wrote a letter to Secretary Land requesting that any
designation as to the manner in which plaintiff Fezell was nominated as
a candidate be removed from his biography to be published in the Ballot
Issue of the official journals. He further requested that the NRA notify
all candidates whose biographical sketches contain any reference to the
method of their nomination that such designations are not permitted by
Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the bylaws.  Lastly, he sought an
assurance that the report of the Nominating Committee listing that
committees nominees would not be printed in the 1998 Ballot Issue of the
official journals. When plaintiff Fezell received no response to his
letter, this action was commenced. The remaining plaintiffs were
nominated to be candidates for election to the Board by members petition
in the Fall of 1997, and are all presently candidates for the 1998
election. The complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) a request for
judicial oversight of enforcement of corporate bylaws pursuant to
Not-for-Profit corporation Law (N-PCL) 618; and (2) breach of fiduciary
duty by the officers and Board of the NRA. Plaintiffs seek preliminary
injunctive relief, attorneys fees and costs.

The NRA opposes the motion and cross-moves for dismissal of the
complaint. It contends that publication of the report of the Nominating
Committee in the official journals does not violate Article VIII,
Section 3(e) of the bylaws. This is because it would not constitute a
designation within the meaning of the bylaws; rather the word designated
in Article VIII, Section 3(e) was adopted only to end the numerical
designation (1, 2, or both) of the method of designation in both the
official ballot and the biographical sketches. This numerical
designation was allegedly disfavored by the NRA membership because they
felt that voters were casting their vote based simply upon a number "1"
or "2" next to the candidates name, and that the voters should take the
time to read the candidates biographical sketch for a more informed
vote. Defendant NRA further contends that the biographical sketches in
the 1980 election, the first to follow the adoption of Article VIII,
Section 3(e), contained words stating the method of nomination of
individual nominees. Individual nominees were able to state, nominated
by Nominating Committee, without running afoul of Article VIII, Section
3(e), because the prohibition against being designated was well
understood to apply only to the numerical designations that first
implemented the amendment allowing nomination by members petition.
Finally, defendant points out that the report of the Nominating
Committee has been published in every succeeding official journal
since 1985 without protest.

The NRA relies, inter alia, on the following documentary evidence: (a)
a copy of plaintiff Fezell's biographical sketch for the 1994 Board
election in which he described himself as a Committee nominee; (b) a
copy of the biographical sketch of Francis Winters for the 1993 Board
election, in which he described himself as both a petition and Committee
candidate; and (c) the 1980 biographical sketches for the election of
directors, showing that many of the candidates chose to reveal how they
were nominated.

DISCUSSION

Defendants Cross Motion to Dismiss Defendant NRA cross-moves to dismiss
the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), for failure to state a cause
of action. The first cause of action states a cause of action pursuant
to N-PCL 618, which empowers the Supreme Court to intervene in and
oversee elections for the Board of Directors of a not-for-profit
corporation as justice may require.  (see, Sun Wei Assn. v. Wong, 222
AD2d 203 [1st Dept 1995]; see also, Ohrbach v. Kirkeby, 3 AD2d 269, 272
[1st Dept 1957] [court issued a preliminary injunction to postpone
election of directors]).

The second cause of action properly states a cause of action for breach
of fiduciary duty by the present NRA Board as a result of its alleged
purposeful and willful violation of Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the
NRA bylaws and by impeding plaintiffs right to a fair corporate election
(see, N-PCL 102[a][2], 602, 717; see also, Fitzgerald v. The National
Rifle Association of America, 383 F.Supp 162, 165 [SDNY 1974]).
Defendant argues that the intent behind the adoption of Article VIII,
Section 3(e) was only to eliminate the 1, 2 numerical designation
system, and that this intent is unequivocally established based on the
documentary evidence it has submitted, and thus that the complaint
should be dismissed, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1).

The rules of contract interpretation are generally applicable to the
interpretation of corporate bylaws (14 NY Jur 2d, Business
Relationships, contract is to be interpreted to give effect to the
intention of the parties as expressed in the unequivocal language
employed (Bread v. Insurance Co. of North America, 46 NY2d 351, 355
[1978]; American Express Bank Ltd. v. Uniroyal, 164 AD2d 275, 277 [1st
Dept 1990]). It is well settled law of this State that courts may not
fashion a new contract under the guise of contract construction (Slatt
v. Slatt, 64 NY2d 966, 967 [1985]; see also, 85th Street Rest. Corp. v.
Sanders, 194 AD2d 324, 326 [1st Dept 1993]).

As the Court of Appeals explained in W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v.
Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 (1990), when parties set down their
agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule
be enforced according to its terms. Evidence outside the four corners of
the document as to what was really intended but unstated or misstated is
generally inadmissible to add to or vary the writing. (Citations omitted.)

Likewise, the conduct of the parties over the intervening years to
ascertain their intent with respect to a contract provision is only
relevant if the contract provision is ambiguous, of doubtful meaning, or
where there is claimed waiver (Slatt v. Slatt, supra, 67 NY2d, at 967
[citation omitted]).

Based upon the foregoing principles of law, the court can reach only one
conclusion with respect to the bylaw at issue. It says what it says in
very unambiguous terms, i.e., that no person nominated by petition or by
Nominating Committee shall be so designated in both the official
journals of the NRA or on the official ballot. Defendants interpretation
of the bylaw as only prohibiting the 1, 2 numerical designation system
utilized for the 1978 and 1979 Board elections might be reasonable if
the bylaw had prohibited designation of candidates on the official
ballot only, thereby forcing voting members of the NRA to read the
biographical sketches published in the official journals to learn how a
candidate had been nominated. But it is not so limited; rather, it
clearly and unequivocally says that candidates cannot be so designated
in both the official journal and on the official ballot. Therefore,
defendant's evidence of a different intent behind adoption of the bylaw
in 1979 and its subsequent interpretation by NRA Boards, members, and
candidates for the past 20 years is inadmissible.

Preliminary Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary
injunction must be granted. Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood of
success on the merits, irreparable harm absent the grant of an
injunction, and a balancing of equities in their favor (W. T. Grant Co.
v. Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517 [1981]).

As to the merits of the case, the language of Article VIII, Section
3(e) of the NRA bylaws is unambiguous and supports plaintiffs claim that
the present Board is presently about to disseminate election materials,
the content of which clearly violates Article VIII, Section 3(e) of the
associations bylaws.

The second prong of the test is also easily met since plaintiffs, as
petition candidates for election to the NRA Board, will suffer immediate
and irreparable injury if this Court does not grant them temporary
injunctive relief.

Lastly, the balance of equities favors the plaintiffs because,
regardless of past construction by NRA Boards, members and candidates,
plaintiffs, as duly-nominated candidates for election to the NRA Board,
are entitled to participate in an election conducted in the manner
chosen by the members of the NRA as expressed in the unambiguous
language of its bylaws. The fact that plaintiff Fezell and others
described themselves as Nominating Committee candidates in earlier
elections should not defeat plaintiffs request for preliminary
injunctive relief.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary
injunction is granted and the parties are directed to settle an order on
one days notice directly to Chambers, accompanied by affidavits
addressed to the amount of the undertaking to be set by the court.
Defendants cross motion for dismissal of the complaint is denied.

Dated: February 5, 1998

ENTER:

___________________________________________
J.S.C.


Dear Sarah:

Having had a decent night's sleep, I can elaborate a bit more on what
happened in court New York.

As you know, candidates for N.R.A. board are either nominated by the
Nominating Committee or by petition.  An N.R.A. Bylaw (enacted by the
members themselves) expressly prohibits any designation in the
Rifleman/Hunter/Guardian of how a candidate was nominated.

The Nominating Committee was STACKED in favor of Hammer/LaPierre & Co.
N.R.A. management was INTENT ON VIOLATING the Bylaw prohibition against
making any mention in the official journal of how candidates were
nominated.  Among other things, they would have published in or near the
ballot a full page containing nothing but the Nominating Committee Report.
This would have given candiates mentioned in that report an unfair
advantage over people, like myself and the other plaintiffs, who were
nominated by petition.

We sued ONLY BECAUSE:

"plaintiffs, as duly-nominated candidates for election to the NRA Board,
are entitled to participate in an election conducted in the manner chosen
by the membes of the NRA as
expressed in the unambiguous language of its bylaws."  (This is what the
judge said we have a right to.)

THE ONLY WAY TO INSURE A FAIR ELECTION WAS TO GO TO COURT.


Yours for the 2nd Amendment...

Howard Fezell
2nd Amendment Home Page
http://www.2ndAmendment.net
e-mail:  [e-mail]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Legislative Email Addresses
Date: 09 Feb 1998 16:27:49 -0700


For those who would like to contact their State legislators via
email, the house lists representative's email addresses at
<http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/html/email.htm>.

The senate roster is at <http://www.senate.le.state.ut.us/roster.htm>.
It lists only a few email addresses.  However, I'm told that with a
few exceptions, almost all legislators have email--at least during the
session.

Every email I've seen so far is of the form
<[e-mail]> with preferredinitallastname
truncated to a maximum of 8 characters.  Preferred initial is the
initial of their preferred name.  This is usually their first name,
but sometimes a middle name.  For example, Senator L. Alma Mansell's
email is <[e-mail]> (preferred name Al) while Sen Craig
A. Peterson's email is <[e-mail]> (username limited to
8 characters).

I don't know how often they read their email, but the server will
bounce bad addresses back to you, so with a little trial and error,
you should at least be able to send a message to a valid address.

I've made a point to individually address the salution to each
recipient so that things don't look like some kind of spam.  I also
include my home address and phone with each email.

My last email to the 11 members of one house committee brought
responses from 3 members--all of whom agreed to one degree or another
with my position.

--

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.

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

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Gun Control Poll -Forwarded
Date: 10 Feb 1998 12:09:23 -0700

Received: (qmail 12985 invoked by uid 516); 10 Feb 1998 03:51:22 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 12542 invoked from network); 10 Feb 1998 03:50:40 -0000
Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 1998 03:50:40 -0000
Received: from mail2.rockymtn.net (ns2.rockymtn.net [166.93.8.2])
    by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA00064;
    Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:50:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 166-93-76-194.rmi.net (166-93-76-194.rmi.net [166.93.76.194])
    by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.5/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA08125;
    Mon, 9 Feb 1998 20:34:48 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>From: [e-mail]
>Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:57:14
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Gun Control Poll
>
>
>
>Found this website (E-Poll) which is conducting a poll on gun control - notably
>the Washington I-676 style proposals. I voted today - and joined a 70+%
>majority which favors "our" viewpoint.
>
>The website is:
>
>http://www.epoll.com/left.html
>
>Select the topic from that page (they will request some basic demographic
>info)
>
>Go and vote!
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
>
>
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the
heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files
at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>]
and the requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs.
********************


For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
[e-mail]
with the word Help in the body of the message


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Satcher Nomination -Forwarded
Date: 10 Feb 1998 13:26:55 -0700

Feb 10, 1998

The noon news is reporting that David Satcher has been confirmed as
Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.

As head of the CDC, Dr. Satcher has been overseer of studies of little
scientific merit which were passed off as legitimate in order to convince
the public that private possession of firearms should be prohibited.

Dr. Satcher prostituted his office to put out government sponsored
propaganda for the Clinton administration.  Such a willingness to produce
pseudo-scientific propaganda does not demonstrate the type of integrity
Americans need and expect from physicians and especially not from the
highest public health official in the nation.

Nineteen Republican Senators voted for Dr. Satcher, including Utah's
very own "Friend of Ted" Sen. Hatch.  (I confirmed Hatch's vote with his
office.)
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id JAA05224 for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:55:28 -0700
Received: from gw1.thiokol.com by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com via smap (3.2)
    id xma005196; Mon, 9 Feb 98 09:55:01 -0700
Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM
    with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:55:30 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1

Senator Orrin Hatch

February 9, 1998


Dear Senator Hatch:

This letter is to ask that you please vote no
on the confirmation of David Satcher, M.D.,
to be Surgeon General and Assistant
Secretary for Health at the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.

As head of the CDC, Dr. Satcher has been
overseer of studies of little scientific merit
which were passed off as legitimate in
order to convince the public that private
possession of firearms should be
prohibited.  In short, Dr. Satcher has
prostituted his office to put out government
sponsored propaganda for the Clinton
administration.  Such a willingness to
produce pseudo-scientific propaganda does
not demonstrate the type of integrity
Americans need and expect from physicians
and especially not from the highest public
health official in the nation.  Please do what
you can to stop the nomination of Dr.
Satcher.



Neil Sagers
1205 North Quincy Ave., #2
Ogden, UT 84404



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [LP RELEASE: Deadbeat Dad Database]
Date: 10 Feb 1998 15:06:37 -0700


Likely of some interest....

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Why the "Deadbeat Dad" database should
scare you -- even if you're not a deadbeat

        WASHINGTON, DC -- Bad news about the new "deadbeat dads" law: Your
name will soon be entered into a massive government database, even if you're
not a deadbeat -- and even if you're not a dad.

        That's because a new law compels every employer in the USA to help the
federal government build a massive new database to enforce child-support
payment laws: The New Hires Directory.

        "The first words you may hear the next time you apply for a job are:
Your papers, please," said Libertarian Party Chairman Steve Dasbach.
"Politicians who claimed they only want to track deadbeat dads are compiling a
database to allow them to track every American worker.

        "Just like in totalitarian societies, government bureaucrats will soon
have the power to deny you a job, and the ability to monitor your income,
assets, and debts."

        The New Hires Directory was mandated by the Welfare Reform Act of
1996, and compels employers to report the name, address, Social Security
number, and wages of every new worker to the state within 20 days.

        States then send the data to the federal government, which matches
names against its "deadbeat dads database" -- a list of every parent
nationwide who owes child support.

        "Federal bureaucrats will have the ability to track every American
from job to job, deny jobs to people who fall behind in child support
payments, and even share information with other government agencies," Dasbach
said.

        But those aren't the only reasons why this law should make you nervous
-- even if you're not a deadbeat dad, said Dasbach. In addition:

        * Such mammoth government databases are reprehensible in a free
society.

        "Americans who have never committed a crime shouldn't have to supply
personal data to politicians for any reason whatsoever, and they certainly
shouldn't have to receive government clearance to get a job," he said.

         Noting that the law authorizes child support agencies to share the
database with the Social Security Administration, the Justice Department, and
even the IRS, Dasbach asked, "Why would politicians who steal each other's FBI
files even hesitate to trample the privacy rights of ordinary Americans?"

        * It's another "just-in-case-you-commit-a-crime" law.

        "Like the new federally mandated fingerprint law, politicians are
demanding to enter your personal data into their computer, just in case you
commit a crime," Dasbach said.

        Every time a New Yorker changes jobs, for example, the State
Department of Family Assistance informs the new employer about the worker's
child support obligations -- even if the parent has never missed a payment.
One bureaucrat bragged that "we don't give them an opportunity to become
deadbeats."

        "This law turns the presumption of innocence on its head and forces
every American to prove their innocence to politicians, bureaucrats, and
computers -- every time they get a new job," Dasbach said.

         * The government will inevitably expand the scope of the legislation.


        "Does anyone really believe that federal bureaucrats will use this
database only to track down deadbeat dads?" Dasbach asked. "If history is any
guide, this system will soon include information on gun ownership, education
records, medical histories, and anything else that prying politicians want to
know about you."

        * Your personal financial data may soon be available to credit bureaus
and other non-governmental agencies.

        Privacy expert Robert Gellman points out that private detectives
already pay police and child welfare workers to illegally supply criminal,
medical, and credit records, and warns that information in the New Hires
Directory will become just as accessible.

        But the primary reason to oppose this new database, said Dasbach, is
because "the government has become so large and intrusive that soon our only
protection against it may be the information that it doesn't have. If
politicians really cared at all about protecting privacy, they would abolish
existing databases -- rather than creating new ones."

        #       #       #


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

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC and Legislative update
Date: 10 Feb 1998 19:38:10 -0700

The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at
the Salt Palace.  Elections were held for the new (effective immediately)
Board of Trustees.

The members of the new Board are (alphabetically):
Jerry Dickson   (Secretary-Treasurer)
Doug Henrichsen
Elwood Powell  (Chairman)
Shirley Spain  (Vice Chair)
Bob Templeton
Sarah Thompson
Joe Venus

Advisory board members are:
Bryan Lindsey
John Spangler
(and maybe others of whom I'm not aware)


The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info
made public.  Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse
their open-door policy.  All of us are VERY busy right now.

Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), [e-mail]
Elwood Powell,  426-8274 or 583-2882 (w), 364-0412 (h),
73214,[e-mail]
Shirley Spain, 963-0784, [e-mail]
Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w)
Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, [e-mail]  (I prefer e-mail to phone
calls when possible).

Also, please remember that there is an excellent daily legislative update
available by phone, 24 hrs a day, at
[phone].  PLEASE check that number before calling Board members with
questions about legislation.

If you'd like to receive e-mail alerts, please write to [e-mail]
If you'd like to be on the fax alert list, please fax your info to
801-963-1913.

I will do my best to post updates to this list as well.

SB 57, introduced by Senate President Lane Beattie was released today, and
can be found at:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1998/bills/sbillint/SB0057.htm
My understanding, (although I haven't thoroughly read the bill yet), is
that it will gut our concealed carry system.

Once I have a chance to read it thoroughly, an update/analysis will follow.
 This bill has a good chance of being passed unless WE let legislators know
that we'll remember their votes come November.

More to come.....

Sarah Thompson


Sarah Thompson, M.D.
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: Religious freedom
Date: 10 Feb 1998 22:11:53 -0700

[e-mail]

Dear Editor:

Your editorial (2/8) urging support for Senate President Lane Beattie's SB
57 is both irresponsible and reprehensible.

Beattie's bill would not, as you falsely inform your readers, "allow church
leaders, private property owners and public school officials to ban
concealed weapon permit holders from bringing firearms into their
buildings."  It would absolutely _prohibit_ the possession of firearms on
these premises, and the churches and private property owners would have no
discretion whatsoever.  Prohibition is not the same thing as choice.

This mistake is quite understandable since you both wrote and published
your editorial days before the actual text of the legislation was
available.  While you are entitled to your opinions, I wish you would have
the journalistic integrity to base your opinions on facts and not rumors.

Both Utah and the LDS Church have long been known for their religious
tolerance and adherence to the principle of separation of Church and State.
 This is a worthy tradition, which should be held sacred.

Beattie's bill would set a heinous precedent for intrusion of the state
into church matters.  If the state may prohibit firearms from the premises
of a house of worship regardless of the wishes of the religion or clergy
involved, all religious freedom is endangered.  If the state may force a
church to ban guns, what is to stop it from banning sacramental wine, or
requiring that Muslims wear shoes during prayer?  What is to stop it from
mandating birth control or equal religious standing for homosexuals?

If a house of worship wishes to ban guns, or even require guns, let it do
so on its own authority.  Religious practices are not the domain of the state.

All Utahns who support religious freedom should vigorously oppose SB 57.

Sarah Thompson, M.D.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update
Date: 11 Feb 1998 11:17:24 -0700


On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at
>the Salt Palace.  Elections were held for the new (effective immediately)
>Board of Trustees.
>

I wish the USSC well.  However, given their prior comments supporting
the UofUs ban on guns and their close affiliation with the NRA, I had
to let my membership lapse.  If the new board members can provide some
proof that they are at least as concerned about my right to own
and carry guns for personal and family defense as they are about
my ability to hunt, I may reconsider my position.

Re the NRA, I repost an earlier message from Scott.

NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them"
(high capacity semi-automatic rifles)

by ORAL DECKARD
The Vigo Examiner

I just got off the phone with the NRA (The Powerful gun Lobby.) I was told
repeatedly that "Our purpose is to get rid of them" (high capacity
semi-automatic rifles).

Usually I get calls from The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms. And every time they call I ask them "What does the Second
Amendment say?" And every time, without fail, they are taken by surprise,
and stammer out bits of it, and fail. When pressed, they say something
along the lines of "Well, I can't recite it word for word."

And I always reply, "Why not? It's really not very long. And this is your
job. You want me to give you money to defend the Second Amendment, and you
don't even know what it says?"

Sometimes they hang up on me at that point, and sometimes they continue
trying to save face. Then there are some that aren't even embarrassed.

This one started as a routine phone solicitation. But as usual I decided to
have a little fun with the poor fellow. He told me that my NRA membership
had lapsed, and that he would just reinstate it. I replied "No, I support
the Second Amendment."

There was a long pause. Then he began again to sign me up again. So I
clarified. "I dropped out of the NRA because I support the Second Amendment
and the NRA does not. I prefer the Gun Owners of America ([e-mail])
and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. (Against-
[e-mail])

He asked "Are you aware that Charlton Heston has taken control of the NRA?"
Now it was getting serious. I answered "Yes, and he went on TV and
announced that there was no need for anyone to own an AK-47."

I thought I was being clear, but obviously not clear enough, as he took
that as a good thing.

So I asked "What does the Second Amendment say." He replied "The right to
keep guns and stuff. I don't know it word for word."

So I simply told him what it says: "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."

I then asked him what that meant. He said that when the Second Amendment
was first drafted it was necessary to hunt for food. But now we could buy
instant food.

A few months ago I got a call from an NRA solicitor trying to get my wife
signed back up. The next day when I reported that he had said no one needed
high capacity semi-automatic rifles I was challenged to identify him.
Unfortunately I had failed to get his name. But not this time.

So I asked for his name, and was told "Richard Kuhlman." He even spelled it
for me. I asked "OK, this is the evening shift of February 4th, where are
you calling from." He answered "Wichita Kansas."

As a double check, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, I asked "Is
there any need to protect assault high capacity semi-automatic rifles?" He
answered "We would like to keep them for matches and things, but they don't
have to have those big magazines, and only if they were used just for that
purpose. We want to be reasonable."

I then asked if I could speak to his supervisor.

His supervisor was Mario. Just to be sure there was no misunderstanding, I
introduced myself as a reporter for the Vigo Examiner, explained Richard
Kuhlman and myself were just discussing the need to protect high capacity
semi-automatic rifles, and asked "What's your take on it?"

He asked "You want my opinion, or the NRA's opinion?" I answered "Both." So
he explained that all the high capacity semi-automatic rifles were imported
from foreign countries, and "we are trying to get rid of them."

Again, I went for a repeat, just to make sure. I asked "Are you saying the
NRA is to trying to get rid of high capacity semiautomatic rifles ?"

He didn't hesitate. He said "Yes, our purpose is to get rid of them."

So I thanked him and told him my story would be out tomorrow (Feb. 5th,
1998)

So what could I conclude from this? Every time I have an NRA solicitor on
the phone I am told that they don't support the Second Amendment, and now,
that their PURPOSE is to GET RID OF a whole class of firearms, the class of
firearms the Second Amendment was specifically enacted to protect.

Even when I was insistent, to the point of being rude, that I objected to
their selling out the Second Amendment, they either didn't get it, or were
determined that the Second Amendment is to be abandoned. They both seemed
to be genuinely embarrassed by the Second Amendment. This time I didn't get
it just from the solicitor, but also from his supervisor. And not just his
opinion, but as he stated it, the opinion of the NRA.

So there it is folks. You can either support the Constitution, or you can
support the NRA, but you cannot support the Constitution THROUGH the NRA.

Long ago I gave up my NRA phone card. A couple months ago I let my NRA
membership lapse. Now, I look in my wallet and find there, still, an NRA
VISA. Well, that one is the walking dead.

One of the men said Wayne Lapierre said we didn't want to lose members over
a gun. It looks like the NRA, which has been accused over the years of
refusing to compromise, has just compromised, big time. When you give up a
right, in order to be "reasonable", just how reasonable will you ultimately
have to become?

In 1992-1993 I spent six months in Sweden. The folks there bragged that
they could own any kind of gun they wanted, as long as it didn't hold over
two shots. They were reasonable.

And when you decide you cannot give up any more, on what solid ground will
you now brace your feet?

Having conceded to the elimination of one class of firearm, there is now no
solid position from which the NRA can defend any firearm. That defense must
now rest with those who have not compromised the Constitution. After
Norville Chamberlain announced "Peace in our time", it then fell to Winston
Churchill to defend England.

Will appeasement defend a few "sporting" rifles? The NRA is betting the
Constitution on it. Now is the time for all good men (and ladies) to get
off the fence. Which side will you come down on? Either you are loyal to
the Constitution, or you are disloyal. The NRA doesn't seem too proud of
our Constitution.
Copyright (C) 1998, The Vigo Examiner
All are free to republish at will this intact document.
http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com

--

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

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: KWUN Wednesday]
Date: 11 Feb 1998 11:19:13 -0700


Likely of interest to some here...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

At 10:00 AM, [Jim Dexter, State Chair of the Utah Libertarian Party's]
guest will be Arnold J. Gaunt of FEAR who will talk about the horrors
of Utah civil asset forfeiture laws. Arnold is also a NRA Director
nominee and if elected wants to help force all the weak-kneed
compromisers off the NRA board.

Tell all your business-owning friends and associates to tune in at 11:00, because we're
going to take a break from politics to disucss effective marketing techniques for
businesses with Kathy Weaver Mickelsen of AdVise. Kathy is also a Seventh-Day Adventist
whose church, thanks to Waco, is all too keenly aware of the gov'ts ability to attack
religion.

Hey I gotta get a commercial in somewhere. The state chair compensation is all negative
financially. ;-)


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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Quotas at UHP?
Date: 11 Feb 1998 12:49:15 -0700


Not directly related, but maybe of some interest...

From today's Rolly & Wells in the Tribune.

QUOTAS OR NO QUOTAS?
      Recently, we told you about a
  letter of reprimand Utah Highway Patrol Trooper John Davis received from his sergeant, Roger
  Cutler, in the UHP Kane County Division.
      Part of the reprimand was for failing to get enough DUI arrests, noting: ``As of today you have
  arrested four DUIs. This, as you know, is sub-standard as by the end of the month you should be
  at seven.''
      Highway Patrol spokesman Verdi White told us Cutler merely had used a poor choice of words
  to convey his concerns about Davis' performance. White said the patrol does not have DUI
  quotas.
      Au contraire.
      We have heard from several troopers who say, yes, in some areas the patrol does have DUI
  quotas and they sent us documentation to prove it.
      The formal evaluation criteria for Salt Lake County lists several objectives, including DUI
  arrests, which troopers need to be in line for favorable transfers, promotions and merit pay
  increases.
      It requires a minimum of 12 DUI arrests per year for a ``fair'' evaluation and 14 per year for a
  ``good'' evaluation.
      A 15-year trooper in Moab was suspended in December for falsifying DUI reports. The
  troopers said there is no excuse for falsifying a report. But he was pressured to meet his quota.
      Three years ago, House Speaker Mel Brown, R-Midvale, supported a bill to remove quotas.
  But UHP officials persuaded him to drop the legislation if they agreed to voluntarily remove
  quotas.
      White says in Salt Lake County the written standards are not strictly enforced. He conceded
  the requirements may vary in other counties.

--

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.

"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
 Luke 22:36

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update
Date: 11 Feb 1998 12:57:47 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:
>
> >The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at
> >the Salt Palace.  Elections were held for the new (effective immediately)
> >Board of Trustees.
> >
>
> I wish the USSC well.  However, given their prior comments supporting
> the UofUs ban on guns and their close affiliation with the NRA, I had
> to let my membership lapse.  If the new board members can provide some
> proof that they are at least as concerned about my right to own
> and carry guns for personal and family defense as they are about
> my ability to hunt, I may reconsider my position.
>

I believe this might address your concerns regarding how one member of
the board views concept of gun bans, the NRA, family/personal defense
etc.  (all in one letter!  Good job Sarah!)
                                                                July 8,
1997

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

Dear Ms. Hammer and Mr. LaPierre,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will not register my guns, my ammunition, myself, or my family.  I
will not consent to background checks, especially when performed by a
fascist government. I will not ask permission from anyone to do what is
right.

When you decide to stop selling our birthright,
When you decide to stop supporting permits,
When you proclaim that each and every one of us is innocent until proven
guilty;
that we need not subject ourselves to ôbackground checksö, registration
or
bureaucracy,
When you refuse to tolerate evil,
When you are willing to call evil by its rightful name,
When you are willing to call genocide by its rightful name,
When you stop distracting yourselves and others with peripheral issues,
When you learn that a compromise with the devil is no compromise at all,
Then, and only then, will you have my support.

Until that time, may your chains rest lightly.

Sincerely,


Sarah B. Thompson, M.D.

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


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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update
Date: 11 Feb 1998 13:39:54 -0700


On Wed, 11 Feb 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>I believe this might address your concerns regarding how one member of
>the board views concept of gun bans, the NRA, family/personal defense
>etc.  (all in one letter!  Good job Sarah!)
>                                                                July 8,

I think I've seen this letter before.  I've never had any concerns of
Sarah's position on the ROCG.  (I prefer to use "own and carry guns"
rather than "keep and bear arms" since it removes any ambiguity over
what I mean.)  As soon as you can show me similar letters from the
rest (or even a super-majority) of the newly elected board members, my
real concerns with the USSC will begin to diminish.  A chang in name
away from shooting sports and towards the real purpose of the 2nd amd
would be a huge step in the right direction as well.  GOA and JPFO
both name it like it is--guns.  Not sports, or duck hunting, or even
just rifles, but all guns.


--

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.

"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
 Luke 22:36

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update
Date: 11 Feb 1998 14:27:46 -0700

At 11:17 AM 2/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:
>
>>The Utah Shooting Sports Council had its annual meeting Saturday evening at
>>the Salt Palace.  Elections were held for the new (effective immediately)
>>Board of Trustees.
>>
>
>I wish the USSC well.  However, given their prior comments supporting
>the UofUs ban on guns and their close affiliation with the NRA, I had
>to let my membership lapse.  If the new board members can provide some
>proof that they are at least as concerned about my right to own
>and carry guns for personal and family defense as they are about
>my ability to hunt, I may reconsider my position.


Dear Charles,

Your concerns are certainly justified.  That's exactly WHY I posted contact
info.  The Board can't possibly represent gun owners' interests if they
have no idea of what you want.  Tell them - not the mail list!
And for the record, USSC is independent, and NOT a branch of  the NRA,
although they've historically had strong ties.

As far as the NRA goes, I'm not a member, and my opposition to their
policies of appeasement is generally well known.  However, fair is fair.
Many, if not most, of the people who bothered to show up at the USSC
meeting identified themselves as NRA members.  Where were all the people
who would like to be totally independent and/or affiliate with other
pro-gun groups?

On a more practical level, the NRA has contributed money to USSC.  The gun
owners of this state have, for the most part, contributed nothing
financially to local efforts.

Three of the Board members (Shirley Spain, Joe Venus, and myself) openly
advertised ourselves as "Absolutely No Compromise" candidates.  We were
elected, so I assume that point of view has a good bit of support.  (That
doesn't mean the other board members are pro-compromise, only that they
didn't mention their positions in their platforms.)

Personally, I don't really care whether you or anyone else joins USSC.
This isn't about USSC.  It goes beyond gun rights.  The First Amendment is
under direct assault; the state now is claiming that it has an absolute
right to dictate to a church what it may or may not allow.  The Second
Amendment is under direct assault as well, since the state also claims it
has a right to restrict firearms from both pubic and private places.  And
the Fourth Amendment is under attack because the state believes it may
dictate what you must do in the sanctity of your own home.  THAT's what
matters to me.  That _should_ matter to every Utahn whether or not they
even own a gun.

And for that matter, since the last I heard, you are an officer of the
Libertarian Party of Utah, just where does that "Party of Principle" stand
on these flagrant desecrations of the Constitution and individual liberty?

I'm pulling out all the stops to defeat this bill.  I will vote against any
compromise.  I don't honestly expect to succeed, but I'll go down trying.
That's all I can do.  If Utahns as a people don't care, then they deserve
whatever they get.

As my friend Brenda says:  "All those in favor of gun control, please do
nothing."

Sarah Thompson
(speaking for myself only)


"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely
believe they are free."                            ...Goethe

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update
Date: 11 Feb 1998 15:29:40 -0700


On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>Your concerns are certainly justified.  That's exactly WHY I posted contact
>info.  The Board can't possibly represent gun owners' interests if they
>have no idea of what you want.  Tell them - not the mail list!
>And for the record, USSC is independent, and NOT a branch of  the NRA,
>although they've historically had strong ties.

I will contact them as time permits, though I don't expect them to pay
too much credence to a non-member.  The previous board didn't pay me
any credence when I was a member.  As a newly elected board member,
feel free to pass along my comments as a past and potential future
member.  Maybe the fact that I was once a dues paying member, but felt
morally required to quit support over NRA-like compromises will help
convince the current board to take a no compromise approach.

And lest there be any confusion, I did not mean to imply the USSC was
a branch of the NRA, only that they had close ties.

>
>As far as the NRA goes, I'm not a member, and my opposition to their
>policies of appeasement is generally well known.  However, fair is fair.
>Many, if not most, of the people who bothered to show up at the USSC
>meeting identified themselves as NRA members.  Where were all the people
>who would like to be totally independent and/or affiliate with other
>pro-gun groups?

Not being a member, I was not elligble to attend.  Given past history
I'm currently unwilling to lend financial support by joining.  That
could change depending on how the USSC handles this issue.  As a
current board member you would seem to be in a fine position to
distance the USSC from the NRA and their tactics and forming closer
alliances with GOA and JPFO.

>
>On a more practical level, the NRA has contributed money to USSC.  The gun
>owners of this state have, for the most part, contributed nothing
>financially to local efforts.

I certainely hope you are not suggesting that the USSC's policy's are
for sale to the highest bidder.  It seems that if the NRA wants to
offer money for items the USSC supports, USSC is free to accept it,
but should not allow the NRA to dictate policy.

Maybe the fact that the NRA offers money and local gun owners such as
myself have not should be viewed of an indication of whose policies
were represented by past board members.  I'll lend financial support
when an organization reflects my views.  Not before because I can't
afford to offer enough to get any organization to change their views
based on my money.   Can the NRA?

I think you are opposed to CCW permits--prefering Vermont style carry.
Do you intend to lobby in that direction, or will the NRA's grand plan
for nationwide reciprocity (with its national data base) be USSC
policy?

>
>Three of the Board members (Shirley Spain, Joe Venus, and myself) openly
>advertised ourselves as "Absolutely No Compromise" candidates.  We were
>elected, so I assume that point of view has a good bit of support.  (That
>doesn't mean the other board members are pro-compromise, only that they
>didn't mention their positions in their platforms.)
>

Three is a good start.  As a board member, perhaps you could let us
potential members know where the others purport to stand and, most
importantly, how board votes stack up to what has been said.


>Personally, I don't really care whether you or anyone else joins USSC.
>This isn't about USSC.  It goes beyond gun rights.  The First Amendment is
>under direct assault; the state now is claiming that it has an absolute
>right to dictate to a church what it may or may not allow.  The Second
>Amendment is under direct assault as well, since the state also claims it
>has a right to restrict firearms from both pubic and private places.  And
>the Fourth Amendment is under attack because the state believes it may
>dictate what you must do in the sanctity of your own home.  THAT's what
>matters to me.  That _should_ matter to every Utahn whether or not they
>even own a gun.
>

I agree the bill, if passed would be a huge blow to current CCW
permits.  I've already written a letter that will be sent to the
members of the Senate committee who end up hearing the bill asking
them to oppose the bill.  However, honesty and credibility require us
to not report the bill to be more than it is.

I read the text of the bill this morning.  A church or private
property owner may, contrary to what you post and sent to the DesNews,
grant permission for the carry of concealed weapons on their property
if they so choose.  I'll forward a copy of the relveant section, if
you'd like.  However, unless they do grant permission, the CCW permit
is void and it is an infraction to CCW--unless specific notice of
prohibition has been given in which case it is a misdemeanor.

So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private
property owners is not correct.


>And for that matter, since the last I heard, you are an officer of the
>Libertarian Party of Utah, just where does that "Party of Principle" stand
>on these flagrant desecrations of the Constitution and individual liberty?

I am not empowered to offer official party position on any topic.  And
since even you have apparantly not had time to fully read and digest
this bill yet, you certainely don't expect the State chair and State
Executive Committee of the LPUtah to have had time to read it and
issue official position.  I will make enquiry and relay the answer
back to you and the list.

I can state the LPUtah firmly supports the right to own and carry guns
without asking govt permission.

The sticky thing about an issue like this is that to officially oppose
a bill affecting CCW is to at least tacitly support the CCW system.
As an individual, I am willing to do that at times.  This is one of
them since gutting the CCW will make itthat much harder to ever move
from an "unrestricted" CCW towards a Vermont style carry.  How an
organization reacts, may be different than how individuals within that
organization react, however.

--

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.

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will
 convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would
 do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon
 Baines Johnson, former Senator and President.

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update
Date: 11 Feb 1998 16:21:48 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:
>

> >Personally, I don't really care whether you or anyone else joins USSC.
> >This isn't about USSC.  It goes beyond gun rights.  The First Amendment is
> >under direct assault; the state now is claiming that it has an absolute
> >right to dictate to a church what it may or may not allow.  The Second
> >Amendment is under direct assault as well, since the state also claims it
> >has a right to restrict firearms from both pubic and private places.  And
> >the Fourth Amendment is under attack because the state believes it may
> >dictate what you must do in the sanctity of your own home.  THAT's what
> >matters to me.  That _should_ matter to every Utahn whether or not they
> >even own a gun.
> >
>
> I agree the bill, if passed would be a huge blow to current CCW
> permits.  I've already written a letter that will be sent to the
> members of the Senate committee who end up hearing the bill asking
> them to oppose the bill.  However, honesty and credibility require us
> to not report the bill to be more than it is.
>
> I read the text of the bill this morning.  A church or private
> property owner may, contrary to what you post and sent to the DesNews,
> grant permission for the carry of concealed weapons on their property
> if they so choose.  I'll forward a copy of the relveant section, if
> you'd like.  However, unless they do grant permission, the CCW permit
> is void and it is an infraction to CCW--unless specific notice of
> prohibition has been given in which case it is a misdemeanor.
>
Actually, the bill states that "prior permission is a defense to
prosecution".
Not "defense to police surrounding the premises, kicking the doors in,
killing the dogs, shooting the hell out of the place, possibly killing
your neighbors children, you, your family,etc., arresting your butt,
confiscating your house, property, guns, etc."  For it to be a defense
against prosecution merely means that they _may_ decide to release
you _after_ all of the above has happened.

If that pig Beattie wanted to "fix" the ccw law and affirm that the
church had "property" rights, (even tho they steal my tax subsidy), all
he had to put in the bill was "the church _may_ prohibit".  And it's
not just about CCW, as she said.  The prohibition is by default.  It
is a dictation by the State that in order to _not_ suppress the free
exercise of civil liberties, the church or property owner _must_ take
time and money consuming action.  This is in fact a mandate on the
church.  If that isn't plain....

> So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private
> property owners is not correct.
>
see above.
Also, as it's written, I have to carry a note signed by me granting me
permission to carry on my own property...not a dictation?

So, to my reading....dictating what a church _must_ do <- 1st Amend.
banning guns anywhere <- 2nd amend
being "unsecure" in my house <- 4th amend

> I am not empowered to offer official party position on any topic.  And
> since even you have apparantly not had time to fully read and digest
> this bill yet, you certainely don't expect the State chair and State
> Executive Committee of the LPUtah to have had time to read it and
> issue official position.  I will make enquiry and relay the answer
> back to you and the list.
Having read and digested the bill, I find it packaged evil.  Legally,
morally, ethically and strategically.  The "chips" he's withheld, the
exceptions he's not mentioned, the sneaky little things he's done are
abominable.


[derant]

Will

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update
Date: 11 Feb 1998 16:37:41 -0700


On Wed, 11 Feb 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>Actually, the bill states that "prior permission is a defense to
>prosecution".
>Not "defense to police surrounding the premises, kicking the doors in,
>killing the dogs, shooting the hell out of the place, possibly killing
>your neighbors children, you, your family,etc., arresting your butt,
>confiscating your house, property, guns, etc."  For it to be a defense
>against prosecution merely means that they _may_ decide to release
>you _after_ all of the above has happened.

I am not well enough versed in legal phrases to contend with your
assertion.  It may well be accurate.  But I don't know.

>
>If that pig Beattie wanted to "fix" the ccw law and affirm that the
>church had "property" rights, (even tho they steal my tax subsidy), all
>he had to put in the bill was "the church _may_ prohibit".  And it's
>not just about CCW, as she said.  The prohibition is by default.  It
>is a dictation by the State that in order to _not_ suppress the free
>exercise of civil liberties, the church or property owner _must_ take
>time and money consuming action.

I agree absolutely.  (Except the part about "stealing tax subsidy"
which is too far afield from this list's charter to even begin to
delve into.)  I doubt that many of us would have any problem with
churches and other private property being explicity allowed to
prohibit guns.  After all, if the LDS church can legally keep you out
of their temples based on your most private of affairs, they can keep
you out for any, or even no reason, including what you may be wearing
or carrying at the time.  Ditto for churches, synagouges (sp?), and
mosques.

>This is in fact a mandate on the
>church.  If that isn't plain....

It is a mandate only if the church wants to allow concealed carry.  I
don't like it any more than you do--probably less since I happen to
attend a church that has made it very clear it isn't going to give
permission to CCW.  But I don't think it is quite the absolute mandate
that Sarah made it out to be in her post or letter to the editor
where, at least by my reading, it appeared she was saying the church
could not allow CCW even if the wanted to.

To use her example of shoes and wine, the law would read something
like, no one may consume alcohol or remove their shoes on church
premisses unless the church allows them to do so.  I'd say an
invitation from the priest to partake the sacramental wine is a pretty
good indication he's granted me permission to drink alcoholic
beverages (at least the sac wine) in his church. No?

>
>> So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private
>> property owners is not correct.
>>
>see above.
>Also, as it's written, I have to carry a note signed by me granting me
>permission to carry on my own property...not a dictation?

Hyperbole may be useful for arguing at times.  But I nothing says you
have to have written permission.  Only prior permission.  Clearly, if
you have any reason to think the person granting permission may
later lie, you would be well served to have it in writing.  But
unless you have multiple personalities, I think you should be safe
vouching for the fact that you gave yourself and family permission
to CCW.

From the bill:   76-10-531. Restricting dangerous weapons in private residences -- Defense -- Penalty.

                                             - 15 -


1        (1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm pursuant to Title 53,
2    Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, may not knowingly or intentionally:
3        (a) transport a dangerous weapon into a private residence; or
4        (b) enter or remain in a private residence while in possession of a dangerous weapon.
5        (2) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person had prior permission
6    to possess the dangerous weapon in or to transport it into the private residence of:
7        (a) the owner, lessee, or person with lawful right of possession of the private residence;
8    or
9        (b) a person with apparent authority to act for the person in Subsection (2)(a).
10        (3) A violation of this section is a class C misdemeanor.

>Having read and digested the bill, I find it packaged evil.  Legally,
>morally, ethically and strategically.  The "chips" he's withheld, the
>exceptions he's not mentioned, the sneaky little things he's done are
>abominable.
>

I don't disagree with this assesment of the bill.  Even more troubling
to me than the churches or private homes, which I can avoid if I so
choose, is his inclusion of schools and their grounds (1000' from any
school, pre-school, or day care facility) for "enhanced penalties" for
any offense involving a gun.  So now my class A misdemeanor technical
offense becomse a class C felony just because it occurred within
2 city blocks of a school, day-care, or pre-school.

--

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.

"What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and
 long lost - proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was
 intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and
 carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family,
 and his freedoms." -- Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the
 Constitution - Preface, "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms"

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update
Date: 11 Feb 1998 16:41:04 -0700

At 03:29 PM 2/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I will contact them as time permits, though I don't expect them to pay
>too much credence to a non-member.  The previous board didn't pay me
>any credence when I was a member.  As a newly elected board member,
>feel free to pass along my comments as a past and potential future
>member.  Maybe the fact that I was once a dues paying member, but felt
>morally required to quit support over NRA-like compromises will help
>convince the current board to take a no compromise approach.
    I think the majority of members of this board are willing to listen.

>And lest there be any confusion, I did not mean to imply the USSC was
>a branch of the NRA, only that they had close ties.
    Nor did I mean to imply that you said so.  I was just clarifying.

>Not being a member, I was not elligble to attend.  Given past history
>I'm currently unwilling to lend financial support by joining.  That
>could change depending on how the USSC handles this issue.  As a
>current board member you would seem to be in a fine position to
>distance the USSC from the NRA and their tactics and forming closer
>alliances with GOA and JPFO.
    Actually, the meeting was open to the public.  Anyone may attend, anyone
may speak, although of course only members may vote.  Even Board Meetings
are open to the public, although the Board may elect to close a meeting
when discussing sensitive matters.  If you're interested in attending, let
me know.  Meetings are every Monday evening during the legislative session.

>I certainely hope you are not suggesting that the USSC's policy's are
>for sale to the highest bidder.  It seems that if the NRA wants to
>offer money for items the USSC supports, USSC is free to accept it,
>but should not allow the NRA to dictate policy.
    The only people who set policy are the Board of Trustees.  I'm not for
sale, which I think you already know.  I honestly don't think any of the
others are either.  But when the choice is to shut down or accept NRA
money, I can understand that some people would choose to accept the money,
even if it does have strings attached.  I'm not one of them, and if we
don't get anything going this session, I'm perfectly willing to let USSC
fold and let gun owners fend for themselves.

>I think you are opposed to CCW permits--prefering Vermont style carry.
>Do you intend to lobby in that direction, or will the NRA's grand plan
>for nationwide reciprocity (with its national data base) be USSC
>policy?
    I am indeed opposed to CCW.  I will lobby in that direction, but I do not
expect any other Board members to support that idea.   I could be wrong,
and at any rate I'll do my best to persuade them.  I don't know the
position of other members on national reciprocity, but I oppose it.
>
>Three is a good start.  As a board member, perhaps you could let us
>potential members know where the others purport to stand and, most
>importantly, how board votes stack up to what has been said.
    And maybe you potential members could let the board members know what you
require in order to feel comfortable supporting the organization.  It makes
more sense to be proactive than to rant at them _after_ they make a
decision you don't like.

>I agree the bill, if passed would be a huge blow to current CCW
>permits.  I've already written a letter that will be sent to the
>members of the Senate committee who end up hearing the bill asking
>them to oppose the bill.  However, honesty and credibility require us
>to not report the bill to be more than it is.
>
>I read the text of the bill this morning.  A church or private
>property owner may, contrary to what you post and sent to the DesNews,
>grant permission for the carry of concealed weapons on their property
>if they so choose.  I'll forward a copy of the relveant section, if
>you'd like.  However, unless they do grant permission, the CCW permit
>is void and it is an infraction to CCW--unless specific notice of
>prohibition has been given in which case it is a misdemeanor.
>
>So to say the State is absolutely dictating to churches and private
>property owners is not correct.

I believe you are mistaken about  that.  The relevant section of the bill
states:
   76-10-530. Restricting dangerous weapons in a house of worship --
Defense -- Penalty.
13        (1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed
firearm pursuant to Title 53,
14    Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed Weapon Act, may not knowingly or
intentionally:
15        (a) transport a dangerous weapon into a house of worship; or
16        (b) enter or remain in a house of worship while in possession of
a dangerous weapon.
17        (2) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the
person had permission of the
18    church or organization operating the house of worship to possess the
dangerous weapon in or to
19    transport it into the house of worship.

"Defense to prosecution" means you can be arrested, charged, your weapons
confiscated, and only after you've hired an attorney and gone to court (at
a cost of thousands of dollars) may you present the "defense" that you
"had permission".  Then you get to go to court to get your permit back and
again to get your weapons back.
Since Utah is moving away from jury trials for misdemeanors, your "defense"
may be entirely worthless.  When members of a church are subject to being
arrested in a church for behavior "permitted" by that church, not only is
there no religious freedom, you're living in a police state.

>>And for that matter, since the last I heard, you are an officer of the
>>Libertarian Party of Utah, just where does that "Party of Principle" stand
>>on these flagrant desecrations of the Constitution and individual liberty?
>
>I am not empowered to offer official party position on any topic.  And
>since even you have apparantly not had time to fully read and digest
>this bill yet, you certainely don't expect the State chair and State
>Executive Committee of the LPUtah to have had time to read it and
>issue official position.  I will make enquiry and relay the answer
>back to you and the list.
    I've virtually memorized the bill, actually.  But I would appreciate
knowing the LPU's position on this bill when the SEC has had time to review
it fully.

>I can state the LPUtah firmly supports the right to own and carry guns
>without asking govt permission.
    I don't remember hearing a position on the "Safe Storage Bill", which was
heard in committee last week either......

>The sticky thing about an issue like this is that to officially oppose
>a bill affecting CCW is to at least tacitly support the CCW system.
>As an individual, I am willing to do that at times.  This is one of
>them since gutting the CCW will make itthat much harder to ever move
>from an "unrestricted" CCW towards a Vermont style carry.  How an
>organization reacts, may be different than how individuals within that
>organization react, however.
    Agreed.  Since it appears the majority of gunowners support CCW, I'm
willing to work to preserve it until I have the opportunity to introduce
legislation to restore unrestricted, unlicensed, unpermitted carry.  That
is my own, public, individual stance on the issue, and reflects how I will
vote.   I can only speak for myself and not the board as a whole.

Sarah Thompson

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update
Date: 11 Feb 1998 17:19:33 -0700


On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>    Actually, the meeting was open to the public.  Anyone may attend, anyone
>may speak, although of course only members may vote.  Even Board Meetings
>are open to the public, although the Board may elect to close a meeting
>when discussing sensitive matters.  If you're interested in attending, let
>me know.  Meetings are every Monday evening during the legislative session.

It may be worthwile for me to attend a few and see just what kind of
organization the USSC is these days.  I joined not knowing the close
ties to the NRA existed; was quite concerned over some corresponedence
I had with prior board members; and decided just a few months ago that
it was not good use of my very limited time or money.  Maybe that has
changed.  I owe it to myself to know for sure.  Please pass along the
relevenat info.

>    I am indeed opposed to CCW.  I will lobby in that direction, but I do not
>expect any other Board members to support that idea.   I could be wrong,
>and at any rate I'll do my best to persuade them.  I don't know the
>position of other members on national reciprocity, but I oppose it.

I'm starting to get nervous again.  Any group of people who do not
understand the simple language of the 2nd amd and support prior
restraint cannot fully support my rights.  I will accept political
realities if people are fundamentally in agreement that CCW is a
necessary evil.  But if they support CCW as legitimate, there isn't
much hope for any kind of offense in the legislation.  They will be in
constant defense mode because they already have everything they want.

How many board members would be willing to support legislation
removing SS numbers or some other info like work, residence history or
the letters of reference from the current permit application?  How
many would be willing to support legislation requiring that
fingerprints be submitted to the FBI in such a way that they cannot
keep names on file of gun owners and that the DPS destroy certain info
once a background check is done?  I would consider those to be
reasonable steps towards Vermont carry.  But I've never met anyone on
any gun org board except maybe you who would support them.

>    And maybe you potential members could let the board members know what you
>require in order to feel comfortable supporting the organization.  It makes
>more sense to be proactive than to rant at them _after_ they make a
>decision you don't like.

Consider my above paragraph a short list of actions that would win me
over very quickly.  I sent a fairly long letter containing numerous
pro-active ideas to one board member (maybe the chair) shortly after I
first joined a couple years back.  Never got one response.  Figured
it was all too radical for the duck hunters.

>"Defense to prosecution" means you can be arrested, charged, your weapons
>confiscated, and only after you've hired an attorney and gone to court (at
>a cost of thousands of dollars) may you present the "defense" that you
>"had permission".  Then you get to go to court to get your permit back and
>again to get your weapons back.

If that is true, it is a great point to argue to the legislature.
This bill clearly goes way too far is not about "restoring" private
property rights which have never been challenged (anyone even think
about suing Blockbustr Video?  Or did we just take our business
elsewhere?), it is about gutting the system.

>    I've virtually memorized the bill, actually.  But I would appreciate
>knowing the LPU's position on this bill when the SEC has had time to review
>it fully.
>

I'll get it to you as soon as I know it.

>    I don't remember hearing a position on the "Safe Storage Bill", which was
>heard in committee last week either......

I don't believe we issued one.  I personnally contacted every member
of the committee by email and phone oppossing the bill. I also made
use of the LPUtah mailing list to notify party members as to the
intent and status of the bill so they could take action as they saw
fit.

Our chair did attend some meeting recently and point out that all gun
control laws in this country had come from the Ds and Rs.  Rob Bishop
was in attendance and openly disputed that claim.  Who does Mr.
Bishop think proposed and passed our gun control laws?  Independants?

Much to the consternation of many people, the LPUtah is not a single
issue political party.  We can no more issue official positions on
every gun bill that comes up than we can issue official positions on
every bill having to do with taxes, assett forfeiture, search and
seizure, eminent domain, school vouchers, ballott access, and a
thousand and one other issues which the legislature tackles every
year.

Our platform and positions on the issue of guns is very clear.

I am unaware of ANY political party that even attempts to issue
official statements on individual legislation except in rare cases.
That isn't the role of political parties.  It is the role of special
interest groups like USSC.

>    Agreed.  Since it appears the majority of gunowners support CCW, I'm
>willing to work to preserve it until I have the opportunity to introduce
>legislation to restore unrestricted, unlicensed, unpermitted carry.  That
>is my own, public, individual stance on the issue, and reflects how I will
>vote.   I can only speak for myself and not the board as a whole.

Understood.  I would hope CCW provides a history of benefits to draw
on and a change in mindset where people get used to guns being
carried.  Realize there are mid steps between what we have now and
Vermont carry that may make for more feasible legislation
as stepping stones.

--

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.

"What the subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear - and
 long lost - proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was
 intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and
 carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family,
 and his freedoms." -- Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Subcommittee on the
 Constitution - Preface, "The Right To Keep And Bear Arms"

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Denny's policy, offical
Date: 11 Feb 1998 17:54:13 -0700

I have not verified this personally....

Sarah

>----Forwarded Message(s)----
>
> #: 23412 S0/CompuServe Mail  [MAIL]
>     11-Feb-98 17:45 EST
> Sb: Denny's policy, offical
> Fm: Charles W. Parrott/FL [72350,70]
> To: Paul Gallant/NY [70274,1222]
>
>All,
>
>Just got a call from Mr. Don Spice of Denny's - this is official, Denny's
>policy regarding the signs is, the signs will NOT go up or be taken down if
>they did go up.  Mr. Spice was very concerned that they offended so many
>people and that was not Denny's intention.  I told Mr. Spice that I would
>spread the word that Denny's has no intention of infringing on the rights of
>law-abiding citizens.  Please remove any Denny's boycott posts and pass the
>word.  Mark one up for responsible law-abiding citizens!
>
>Regards,
>
>Charlie
>
>
>
>----End Forwarded Message(s)----
>
>

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Denny's: Follow-Up -Forwarded
Date: 12 Feb 1998 08:13:26 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA11523; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:58:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma011177; Thu Feb 12 09:57:25 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

FROM Charles W. Parrott/FL,
<[e-mail]>

Denny's has been swamped with calls, letters and faxes
from their customers expressing their displeasure over
the no gun signs their were going to put up
on their restaurants.  Denny's toll free-number has
been working overtime handling these calls!

I have been discussing this issue with Mr. Don Spice,
Operations Manager for Denny's.  I had requested that
Mr. Spice call me and advise me what the
official decision of Denny's would be in regards to
these signs.  Mr. Spice called me this evening
(Wed., Feb. 11) and advised me that Denny's would not
put up the signs. This is the official word from Denny's,
so we can all go into a Denny's and enjoy the fine food
they serve. I like to thank all of you for responding to
this Denny's alert and contacting them. And I'd like to
thank Mr. Don Spice, Mr. John Romandetti, CEO of Denny's
and the Advantica Restaurant Group, owner of Denny's.

Here's one more request:  please contact Denny's at
their toll free number, 1-800-733-6697 and thank them
for not infringing on the rights of law-abiding
citizens.  Or you can fax Denny's at 1-864-597-8099
and thank Mr. Romandetti and Mr. Spice for acting in
accordance with the wishes of law-abiding gun
owners. It is important that we put out these brush
fires as they occur, for if we let just one business get
away with this, then a lot more will bow to
the political pressure being put on law-abiding gun
owners in the on going effort to disarm American citizens.
Thanks again for your excellent and timely response
to the alert!

Regards,

Charlie - SFFO (South Florida Firearms Owners)


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Junk that bear spray
Date: 12 Feb 1998 10:44:42 -0700


Of interest to any who travel in bear country and think chemical spray
is any kind of substitute for a good firearm.

From today's Tribune.

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]      Thursday, February 12, 1998      [Image] [Image]

           Spray Repellent Attracts Bears If Used Incorrectly

 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
     ANCHORAGE, Alaska --
 It's the kind of
 discovery that makes bear country veterans shudder: Turns out the
 pepper spray hikers count on for bear protection can actually attract
 the beasts.
     U.S. Geological Survey researcher Tom Smith discovered the
 attraction in November while working on the Kulik River in Katmai
 National Park and Preserve, about 240 miles southwest of Anchorage.
     Smith was there to record brown bear activity around salmon
 streams, but became suspicious about the link between the powerful
 red pepper extract and bears when he saw a bear rolling on a rope
 sprayed more than a week earlier.
     Intrigued, Smith jumped from his observation post and sprayed the
 beach with repellent. Several bears approached and began rolling in
 the red pepper extract.
     ``It's a 500-pound cat with a ball of catnip,'' is how he
 describes the scene.
     For Alaskans who enjoy hiking, or anyone else who spends a lot of
 time in bear country, this isn't good news. The pepper spray is
 considered by many to be a good alternative to carrying a powerful
 shotgun or rifle, and tests have shown that it will stop a charging
 bear if it's sprayed in the bear's eyes, nose and mouth.
     More troubling, Smith said, is the risk that a can of spray
 that's been used may have enough residue on it to attract bears.



               [Image] [Thursday Navigation Bar] [Image]

                                [Image]

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

 ⌐ Copyright 1998, 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 peacefully to assemble for lawful purposes
 existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United
 States. In fact, it is and always has been one of the attributes of a
 free government. It `derives its source,' to use the language of Chief
 Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v Ogden, 9 Wheat., 211, `from those laws
 whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.'
 It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right
 granted to the people by the Constitution... The second and tenth counts
 are equally defective. The right there specified is that of `bearing
 arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the
 constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependant upon that instrument
 for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not
 infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not
 be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no
 other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government..."
 UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK; 92 US 542; (1875)

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy) (by way of "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>)
Subject: Re: USSC and Legislative update
Date: 12 Feb 1998 16:16:25 -0700

Charles Hardy accidentally forgot to copy this to the list, and requested
that I forward it.
Sarah

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>    I'd love to have you attend, and I'm sure your input would be valuable.
>I'll send you the info as soon as I have a definite location for Monday's
>meeting.  They're usually in Kaysville, which is a nuisance, at least for me.

I look foward to it.  Thank you.


>    If you, or anyone else on this list, would like to submit questions to
>board members, please send them to me in some form that I can easily print
>out (e-mail text is fine), and I'll be happy to pass them on.  I obviously
>can't force anyone to respond, but I'll relay the request.


Ok, here goes.  Ten easy questions (some multi-part) and an optional
comment in case they want to add something about which I didn't ask in
email format.  You may want to add some blank lines between these to
make it easier to answer on the same sheet as the question.  Please
don't help them with answers or info except as noted or pressure them
into answering.  How many will take the time to answer (about 20
minutes tops is all it should take for reasonably complete responses)
is almost as important to me as what they answer.  Answers, or lack
thereof, to the first 10 questions will be made available to at least
this email list.  Comments under number 11 will be kept private if
they request.  They can relay answer through you or send directly to
me at <[e-mail]>.

1-Do you support and believe in my right to own firearms for defense
of self and loved ones?

2-Do you believe in and support my right to publicly carry firearms for
defense of self and loved ones?

3-Does the 2nd amd to the U.S. Constitution GRANT an individual right
to own and carry guns, does it recognize a pre-esting right to do so,
or does it serve some other function?

4-Does the 1st amd to the U.S. Constitution GRANT an individual right
to print newspapers and worship, does it recognize a pre-existing
right to do so, or does it serve some other function?

4-Do you believe there is a difference between a right and a privlege?
4a-If so, what is the difference and how do I most easily tell one from
the other?

5-Does the current Utah State CCW permit system grant a right to carry
guns, or does it merely bestow a privlege to do so?

6-Do you believe residents of the State of Utah should have to obtain
a permit before exercising their 2nd amd rights to own and carry guns?

7-Do you believe the residents of the State of Utah should have to
obtain a permit before exercising their 1st amd rights to print/read
newspapers or attend church?

8-If there is a difference between your answer to question 6 and your answer
to question 7, please explain the difference.

9-What is "Vermont Style Carry"?

(If you are not familiar with the term "Vermont Style Carry" you may
ask Sarah before answering number 10, but please do not change answer
to number 9.)

10-Political "realities" aside, are you in favor of Utah adopting
"Vermont Style Carry"?
10a-Why or why not?
10b-If yes, what specific steps (changes to current system) do you
support or propose to move us in that direction.

11(optional)-Any other comments?



>I really have no desire to argue with Charles.  I know him to be a staunch
>supporter of gun rights.  I don't want to argue with anyone else on this
>list either.  If I have to argue with people, I'd prefer to save my energy
>for arguing with Robert Steiner and Lane Beattie.

Agreed.  And I hope I've not been perceived as argumenative.  I just
want to make sure the facts are all on the table.

>
>My point is simply that
>1) In my opinion SB 57 is dangerously bad legislation that needs to be
>opposed.  We need to stick together on this.

Agreed.

>and
>2) With three vocally "no compromise" Board members,  there is now an
>opportunity for similarly minded gun owners to influence the direction and
>policies of USSC.
>

I hope so and look forward to seeing the attitude of current members towards
Vermont style carry.


>The rest is up to all of you.
>
>I apologize for any part I played in turning this into a somewhat hostile
>discussion.  That was never my intent.
>I hope that we can work together as friends and colleagues to restore, or
>at least maintain, our rights and liberty.

I perceived no hostility.  My apologies if anyone has found cause to take
offense at my best assessment of the situation.

--

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

"Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time
 that men have died to win them." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Legislative ALERT!!!!
Date: 12 Feb 1998 20:24:30 -0700


    ******* PLEASE CROSS-POST AND DISTRIBUTE********

HELP DEFEAT SB 57!!!

Last night the Board of Trustees of the Utah Shooting Sports Council (USSC)
held an emergency meeting to decide what to do about SB 57, Concealed
Firearms Amendments, introduced by Senate President Lane Beattie.

This is a bad bill for many reasons:
First of all, contrary to the title of the bill, it is NOT only about
concealed weapons.  The bill refers to "dangerous weapons".  This  includes
concealed pistols, of course, but also includes knives, long guns, and
virtually anything else that can cause bodily injury.

1. It prohibits firearms (and dangerous weapons) on church (or other house
of worship) property, regardless of the wishes of that particular church.
a) This sets a dangerous precedent of allowing the State to dictate to a
church or religion what it is or is not allowed to do.  It is not the
business of the state to dictate religious practices.
b) The "defense to prosecution" clause is essentially meaningless.  It
provides that the police may enter a church, haul you out in handcuffs,
(shoot you if you resist or if they're particularly worried about your
gun), arrest you, book you, and humiliate you - EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE
PERMISSION OF THE CHURCH.  Assuming you survive the process, you then have
to hire and pay defense counsel, and only at your trial may you present
your "defense" that you had "permission".  And then you still have to go
back to court to try to get your seized weapon returned and your permit
reinstated.  (This is the legal opinion of Board Chair and legal counsel
Elwood Powell.)
c) The bill mandates that each church have a policy on firearms.  If a
church wishes to allow, or even encourage, members to carry, it must
maintain a database of who carries, and who has permission to do so, and
must issue statements of permission.  Thus the state is forcing churches to
do additional work and act as _de facto_ police.
d) This bill disproportionately affects those people who live in high crime
neighborhoods, especially those who must walk  to services, and may
actually deter people from attending church.

2.The bill  mandates that a no one may carry a firearm (or dangerous
weapon)  into a private residence, again regardless of the wishes of the
owner.  It is not the business of the state to tell a homeowner what he may
do in his own home!  (There isn't even an exclusion for the homeowner!)
a) The same "defense to prosecution" problem exists.
b) This is a gross violation of the privacy of firearms owners.  The
essence of concealed carry is CONCEALED.  If you have to tell everyone you
know that you're carrying, any benefit of concealment disappears.  If
criminals know you are carrying (especially for women who carry in purses),
you become an excellent target for an ambush.  In addition, since firearms
owners often collect firearms, if criminals know you are carrying, they may
target your house for a burglary.  And remember that YOU may be held liable
for what's done with your stolen firearm!
c) This bill presumes that law abiding gun owners with CCW's are so
dangerous that they must announce their presence before entering a private
residence.  Not even convicted felons or sex offenders are required to do
this.  Are gun owners lower than child molesters or more dangerous than
convicted rapists and murderers?

3. This bill prohibits firearms (and dangerous weapons)  from the premises
of schools.
a) By declaring schools to be off-limits to responsible gun owners, schools
are advertising that they are easy and safe targets for criminals who want
to murder children, or even for student gang-bangers.  For example, in
Pearl, MI, the student who gunned down several of his fellow students was
stopped only by a teacher who kept a firearm in his car.
b) By prohibiting firearms teachers are also identified as easy targets.
This is especially true for female teachers and those teachers who work
with "troubled" youth.  Their jobs are hard enough and there is no reason
to deny them the right to self-defense.
c) Schools are public property, owned by the people, and thus may not
infringe the rights of the public; they do not have private property rights.
d) Private schools are also forced to ban guns which IS a violation of
their private property rights.
e) School is defined vaguely enough that it could conceivably be construed
to include everything from universities to home schools.

Because of the above, the Board of USSC voted unanimously to oppose the
bill in its entirety and to work for its defeat, rather than attempt any
compromise or amendment.

And now the ALERT!!!!

As Senate President, Lane Beattie wields a lot of power.  So it's going to
take a very concerted effort to get this bill defeated or withdrawn.

1) PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR AND LET HIM/HER KNOW THAT YOU OPPOSE
THIS BILL, AND WOULD LIKE IT DEFEATED, NOT AMENDED.
     If you don't know who your Senator is, call 468-3427.  (They can also
tell you who your Representative is.)  If you go to
http://www.senate.le.state.ut.us/ you can look under "District Map" to
locate your Senator and under "Roster" to find contact information.  Some
of the Senators have e-mail, but not all of them check it regularly.  You
can leave a message for any Senator at 801-538-1035.  You can fax
Democratic Senators at 801-538-1449, and Republican Senators at 801-538-1414.
    A brief follow-up contact can be helpful to remind your Senator of the
issue and emphsize your interest.  For example if your Senator says he
hasn't read the bill, you might ask if he would do so and offer to call in
a day or two to get his opinion.  However, NEVER harrass legislators!  They
are extremely overworked, and we can best help them by providing concise
and clear information.  ALWAYS be polite and respectful, even if you
disagree, and always thank your legislator for taking the time to listen to
you and consider your thoughts.

2) WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER.  Your letter does
not have to be polished or eloquent, although it's great if it is.  What
counts is the NUMBER of letters expressing a particular viewpoint that the
newspaper receives.  The more letters they receive, the more likely they
are to print some of them.  Because there is a lag in getting letters
printed, the sooner you send one, the better.  Choose one or two of the
"talking points" outlined above, and briefly state your concerns and why
you feel the bill should be defeated.  Use plain language and try to keep
it simple and short - about 100-150 words.

3)PASS THIS ALERT ON TO AS MANY INTERESTED PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.  Take it to
shooting clubs and ranges, firearms stores and dealers, other firearms
owners, and anyone else you know who cares about our Constitution.  This is
not the time to be shy!

Thanks for your assistance!

Sarah Thompson
and the USSC Board of Trustees

To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to:
[e-mail]
In the SUBJECT of the message put:
SUBSCRIBE USSC



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Horiuchi's trial; update -Forwarded
Date: 13 Feb 1998 08:13:27 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA18952; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:38:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma018783; Thu Feb 12 19:37:09 1998
Message-Id: <v01530502b108a917719d@[206.163.4.164]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

>***As Idaho Trial Date Nears, FBI Sharpshooter's Lawyers Argue for
>***Immunity in Weaver Case
>***By George Lardner Jr.
>***Washington Post Staff Writer
>***Tuesday, February 10, 1998; Page A05
>
>
> FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi's lawyers, with backing from the
> Justice Department, launched an all-out effort yesterday to
> prevent his impending involuntary manslaughter trial in Idaho for
> killing Vicki Weaver in the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge.
>
> In motions filed in Federal court in Boise, Horiuchi's attorneys
> said he was acting "within the scope of his authority as a federal
> officer" when the shot he fired "unintentionally struck and killed"
> the wife of white separatist Randy Weaver. Horiuchi was among
> dozens of federal agents who surrounded Weaver's remote cabin
> in August 1992 in an attempt to arrest Weaver on an illegal
> weapons charge.
>
> Asking that the charge be dismissed, the FBI agent's
> government-paid defense team argued that Horiuchi is entitled to
> immunity from state prosecution under the Constitution's
> Supremacy Clause and that neither he nor his family "should be
> subjected to the ordeal of a criminal trial."
>
> The special prosecutor for Boundary County, Stephen Yagman,
> said he was confident the defense effort would be rejected and
> that the trial would go forward. He maintained that the immunity
> issue is subordinate to the question of whether excessive force
> was used and that is a question for the jury to decide.
>
> U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge set March 10 as a trial date, but
> a long delay may be in store. The Justice Department in a separate
> filing outlined plans for a prolonged pretrial battle that would
> require state prosecutors to make an evidentiary showing
> rebutting Horiuchi's immunity claim. Should Horiuchi lose that
> fight, Justice Department lawyers maintained in a supporting
> memo that he would be entitled to file an interlocutory, pretrial
> appeal.
>
> Citing what it said was a relevant 1984 case in California, the
> memo said Horiuchi's claim to immunity is based "on the right not
> to be tried if it is to be upheld at all."
>
> Yagman countered with a motion asking Lodge to hold that
> Horiuchi is "not entitled to the immunity defense at all." At the
> time Vicki Weaver was killed, Yagman said, "Idaho state law
> regarding the unlawful taking of a human life clearly was
> established and so too was the law of the land with respect to the
> use of deadly force by police."
>
> The Los Angeles-based civil rights lawyer, appointed by Boundary
> County authorities, told a reporter that the Justice Department had
> "no legal authority" to intrude in the case at this point and that he
> would ask the judge to strike the government memo.
>
> In their pleadings, Horiuchi's lawyers said the sharpshooter was
> aiming at Kevin Harris, a Weaver family friend, and that he acted
> without malice toward Vicki Weaver. At most, they said, the
> state's case rests on "gross negligence," and "not the malice
> necessary" to deny Horiuchi immunity.
>
> They also asked that the trial be moved out of Idaho because of
> "widespread and highly damaging" pretrial publicity, including
> remarks by Yagman that it would be "a trial of the FBI . . . and of
> Attorney General Janet Reno."
>
> Yagman said Horiuchi "waived any right" to have the trial moved
> again after succeeding last month in having it moved from state
> court in Boundary County to federal court in Boise. He said it was
> "very unfortunate that when the federal government carries out
> business in a state and then they do something allegedly wrong in
> that state, they don't trust the people of that state to judge it."
>=============================================
>
> The POLITICAL DIGEST is essentially an Internet "Clipping
>Service." We gather many "Political News Articles" and "Political
>Columns and Editorials" that are on the Internet and combine them into
>one text file, just as a "Clipping Service" does for people with
>"Hard Copies" of newspapers. We do NOT charge for the material.
>
>NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
>is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
>in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
>
> TPD (THE POLITICAL DIGEST) which contains political
>articles only and will average about 200 K. Cost is $90.00 per year.
>
> TPDL (THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE) which will average
>about 50 K and will be selected articles out of the TPD & TPDP.
>
> TPDP (THE POLITICAL DIGEST PLUS) which is all
>Commentary's and Editorials from all over the nation, plus selected
>other articles that we find interesting. This will average about
>250K. TPDP costs $90.00 per year.
>
> TPDXTRA (THE POLITICAL DIGEST XTRA) which is FREE
>but sent out on an infrequent basis. It contains things too large
>for TPDL and doesn't fit into TPD & TPDP very well.
>Usually TPDXTRA will contain only one item.
>
> To subscribe to TPD and/or TPDP mail Cash, Check, or money
>order to:
> Wayne Mann
> 1079 Farroll
> Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420-4136





-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shameful Legislation ALERT!
Date: 13 Feb 1998 15:38:39 -0700

        *****PLEASE CROSS-POST AND DISTRIBUTE!!******

Do you get upset that your elected representatives routinely violate their
oaths of office and fail to uphold the Constitution?

Well, your legislators have come up with a perfect solution - no more oaths
of office, and no more guilt about violating them!

This piece of legislative garbage was passed _unanimously_ in committee and
is now on the consent calendar, which virtually guarantees a vote without
debate.  The legislative review found nothing unconstitutional at all about
this!

If you think that this is maybe not the ideal solution, make sure you let
your representatives know - NOW!   You can find out who your representative
is, and how to contact him/her at
http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/house.htm.  Or you can call the House
directly at 538-1029 and leave a message.

Thanks to Arnold Gaunt for the heads up!

Sarah Thompson
(speaking for myself only)


>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:01:02 -0800
>From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>Organization: XMission
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I)
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Shameful Legislation
>
>This bill, by Rep. Koehn, is disgraceful in my view and worthy of
>repudiation.  It removes present appropriate criminal sanctions for
>failing to commit to the Constitution and creates a new civil process
>that places the burden on citizens.  It may have to become a subject of
>a resolution at the next URP convention if it passes.  I'd rather that
>this not happen.  Call your Representatives now and urge them to bury
>this contemptible legislation.
>
>http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1998/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0328.htm
>
>

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Denny's
Date: 13 Feb 1998 18:50:00 -0700


Very ambiguous wording. Is the word 'NOT' included in the alternative?
The technical interpretation is that the signs will NOT be taken down.
If Denny's funds anti-gun groups, that is good reason to continue the
boycott. I still abstain from HP computer equipment for that reason.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Cc: [e-mail]

Quote: "this is official, Denny's policy regarding the signs is, the
signs will NOT go up or be taken down if they did go up." End quote.

Sorry folks, we don't see this as anything other than a compromise
situation. Nothing was won here. They, Denny's, has not rescinded an
anti-gun policy; all they've done is what the quote says about their
SIGNS; to wit: 'If the sign is up, we leave it up. However, we agree not
to put up any more signs.' How trite that _official_ policy is. At best
that's being disingenuous.

Denny's has not changed its negative corporate policy towards guns. In
fact, they danced aground the Mulberry bush with this in a _successful_
attempt to mollify gun owners. This is not a victory in our eyes.

We, in California, will continue to boycott Denny's until they sign on
board the Constitution in support of the Bill of Rights and cease
presenting the antis with checks for their agenda, and not a moment
sooner.

Someone out there is not doing their homework on who's supporting whom.
Plus they're signaling victory when the battle continues to be in
jeopardy on a larger front with this company.

Follow the money, ladies, follow the money.

Karen (Li) West



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Loose gun-control law leaves cities unarmed
Date: 15 Feb 1998 01:09:55 -0700

As usual, they can't even get their facts straight.....


>Subject: Loose gun-control law leaves cities unarmed
>
>http://www.desnews.com/newcit/sa14diwa.htm
>
>>From the Deseret News, Feb. 14, 1998
>>
>>       Loose gun-control law leaves cities unarmed
>>       [Image]
>>       State says gun isn't 'loaded' till you pull trigger
>>       [Image]
>>
>>       [Image]
>>       Last updated 02/14/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT
>>
>>       By Alan Edwards
>>       Deseret News staff writer
>>
>>             Want to pack heat into City Hall? Feel free  it's perfectly
>>       legal.
>>             Even if you have bullets in your gun, you can waltz with
perfect
>>       confidence right through the doors of, say, the Salt Lake City-County
>>       Building, stroll past the signs declaring "Loaded firearms prohibited
>>       in this building," tip your hat to the ominous-looking, but in this
>>       case, helpless uniformed guards, and sit yourself down in City
Council
>>       chambers with a smile on your face.
>>             The most inconvenience your .45 might create, for you
anyway, is
>>       poking you in the leg when you sit down.
>>             You might think a gun with bullets in it would be a "loaded"
gun
>>       prohibited by the signs, but, legally, you would be wrong. According
>>       to state law a gun isn't considered loaded unless it takes only one
>>       physical action  namely, pulling the trigger  to discharge it. If
>>       the bullet isn't in the chamber and you have to cock the gun before
>>       pulling the trigger, it isn't loaded.
>>             State law prohibits firearms  loaded or not  in certain
places
>>       such as airports and schools. But municipal buildings aren't
included,
>>       and cities can't do anything about it.
>>             That's something Salt Lake City Attorney Roger Cutler isn't too
>>       happy about.
>>             "The proper role of cities is to provide refuge," he said in a
>>       speech Wednesday at the University of Utah Hinckley Institute.
"Cities
>>       should be able to deal with these issues."
>>             Even though Utah municipalities are charged with regulating the
>>       "health, safety and welfare" of their residents, their power to
>>       regulate firearms was largely taken away in 1994 by the Legislature.
>>       After a rash of shooting incidents in 1993, Salt Lake City enacted an
>>       ordinance much like the yet-to-come federal Brady Bill that imposed a
>>       mandatory background check on 18- to 25-year-olds trying to buy guns.
>>             The ordinance survived a court challenge, but the Legislature
>>       overrode the courts and took the cities' power away, placing the bulk
>>       of firearm regulatory power in the hands of the state.
>>             Now, Cutler said, cities can do nothing but sit back and hope
>>       some crazy doesn't take advantage of the loose laws.
>>             "We can say they can't discharge a firearm within city limits,
>>       and we can exclude 'loaded' firearms, but we can't regulate
>>       possession," he said. "We've been pre-empted."
>>             The high bench that Salt Lake City Council members sit behind
>>       has reinforced steel embedded in it, just in case somebody who
happens
>>       to have a gun on him decides he'd like to take a potshot at them.
>>       Judges don't have to deal with that  unlike cities, they legally can
>>       have metal detectors at the doors of their courtrooms.
>>             Let us go back to the late 1800s, Cutler says. Place: some wild
>>       and woolly frontier town  Abilene, say, or Dodge City. Situation: a
>>       clan of tough hombres armed to the teeth has pulled up to city
limits,
>>       determined to free their younger brother who's cooling his heels in
>>       jail after a brawl in the local saloon.
>>             The steely eyed local sheriff, standing alone in the dusty
>>       street, meets the crowd. One hand is on his pearl-handled six-gun,
and
>>       the other is pointing to the sign:
>>             "Check your guns."
>>             There is a moment of dangerous tension. The sheriff and clan
>>       leader face off, eyes narrowing, hands at the ready. The hot, still
>>       air crackles with deadly energy.
>>             Finally, the clan leader smiles, moves his hand away from his
>>       gun, and relaxes. He unbuckles his gun belt, motions his boys to do
>>       the same, and they ride into town for a drink.
>>             "The sheriff is a hero, right?" asks Cutler. He made his city a
>>       safer place. So why, in a supposedly more civilized world, has that
>>       authority been taken away?
>>             "We ought to be providing the means to local governments to
>>       achieve their objectives and not micromanaging their affairs," Cutler
>>       said. "There is a great deal of micromanaging done by the state."
>>             Cutler partly blames local governments for the situation. Many
>>       city officials don't "stake out their turf," and they accept state
>>       interference without protest.
>>             However it is regulated, by city or state, gun control is a
>>       guaranteed emotional issue in Utah. Some residents are wedded to
their
>>       guns the way others are wedded to their cars.
>>             As the bumper sticker says, "You can take my gun away when you
>>       pry it from my cold, dead fingers."
>>       [Image]
>>       [Image]
>>
>>       Return to front page
>> [Image]
>
>

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Oppose HB 328
Date: 16 Feb 1998 15:07:16 -0700

The following letter was sent to the Salt Lake Tribune, [e-mail]
If you agree, please send your own letter.
Please also contact your Representative, and particularly Speaker of the
House Mel Brown.  He can best be reached by e-mail at [e-mail]

Thanks!
Sarah

Oppose HB 328

Rep. Susan Koehn and the members of the House Government Operations
Committee apparently believe that an oath of office is merely a formality.
They unanimously passed Koehn's HB 328, which removes criminal sanctions
for a legislator who refuses or neglects to take and file an oath of
office.  If this bill passes, a legislator may willfully refuse to take his
oath of office, and the only recourse available to citizens will be to file
a civil suit at their own expense.  This is exactly the same as declaring
that murder is illegal, but their are no criminal penalties for committing
murder, so the victim's family must file a suit in civil court to seek
restitution.

In this case it is the Constitution being murdered.  The United States
Constitution and the Utah Constitution are the two documents by which all
laws must be judged.  They are the foundations of our way of life.  Any
legislator who is not willing to pledge to uphold these sacred documents,
and do so with pride, does not deserve to serve the people of Utah.

Any legislator who votes for this bill is pubicly stating  that he or she
has no respect for our Constitution.  Citizens would do well to remember
these votes come November.

Sarah Thompson, M.D.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Legal opinion on UofU weapons ban
Date: 17 Feb 1998 10:25:41 -0700


This is good news if we can now make the gov and UofU abide by it and
keep the legislature from caving to the media's and Gov. Mikey's
paranoid fantasies and making changes.



From <http://www.le.state.ut.us/>

A legislative legal opinion on the possession of concealed weapons in
state buldings and at the University of Utah was presented to the
Executive Offices, Criminal Justice, and Legislature Appropriations
Subcommittee, Monday, February 16.  The opinion, prepared at the
request of Co-chairs, Senator Michael Waddoups and Representative
Blake D. Chard, addresses the authority of the Department of Human
Resource Management and the University of Utah to restrict the
possession of firearms.

                          FORMAL OPINION No. 98-01


TO: Senator Michael G. Waddoups
Representative Blake D. Chard
Co-chairs, Subcommittee of Executive Offices, Criminal Justice, and the
Legislature

FROM: M. Gay Taylor, General Counsel
Tani Pack Downing, Associate General Counsel

DATE: February 16, 1998

SUBJECT: Regulation of Firearms



This formal legal opinion is in response to your letter of February 3, 1998.
For your convenience, the legal opinion includes: (1) an executive summary;
(2) a review of the relevant law; and (3) the analysis of how the relevant
law applies to the specific questions raised in your letter.
                            I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

QUESTION 1: Is the University of Utah ("University") policy prohibiting
students and faculty from possessing firearms on University premises, unless
authorized by the University, contrary to Utah law?

ANSWER 1: Yes.

QUESTION 2: Is the Department of Human Resource Management ("DHRM") rule(1)
prohibiting state employees from carrying firearms in state facilities,
state vehicles, or at any time while on state business, contrary to Utah
law?

ANSWER 2: Yes.

                              II. RELEVANT LAW

A. Constitutional Grant of Authority to Define Lawful Use of Firearms.

Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, which addresses the right to
bear arms, specifically grants to the Legislature the power to define the
lawful use of firearms. It provides:

The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and
defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for
other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall
prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.(2)

B. Legislature's Exercise of the Authority to Define the Lawful Use of
Firearms.

The Legislature has exercised its authority to define the lawful use of
firearms through the adoption of a comprehensive statutory framework
governing weapons. The Legislature expressly states that key to the exercise
of its constitutional authority is the adoption of uniform laws. Section
76-10-501 provides:

(1)(a) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally
protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws
throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law . . . .

(b) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its
political subdivisions and municipalities. . . .(3)

C. Limited Delegation by the Legislature of the Regulation of Firearms.

The Legislature provides for the delegation of the regulation of firearms in
only very limited circumstances where the delegation is express, stating
that:

Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States
or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:

(i) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, transporting, or keeping
any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle
under his control; or

(ii) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess,
transport, or keep a firearm.

(b) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its
political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate
firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature
specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities. Unless
specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority may
not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to
firearms."(4)

This statute demonstrates the Legislature's clear intent to maintain for
itself the exclusive authority to regulate in the area of weapons, except
where the Legislature formally acts to delegate that authority.

We are aware of only limited circumstances where the Legislature through
statute has specifically delegated rulemaking authority regarding weapons to
any agency or political subdivision. For example, the commissioner of the
Department of Public Safety may issue rules to administer the Concealed
Weapon Act.(5) A second example permits certain persons to make rules that
address training and requalification requirements in addition to concealed
firearm permit requirements.(6)

1. Limits on Administrative Rulemaking. Although in general the Legislature
may delegate some legislative power to political subdivisions or agencies
through statute,(7) rulemaking authority delegated to administrative
agencies or political subdivisions is limited and defined by the statute
conferring the power.(8) Therefore, under general principles governing
delegation of rulemaking authority, in the absence of a specific authority
to regulate use of firearms, an agency or political subdivision does not
have the power to issue rules related to the use of firearms.

Moreover, in the case of regulating firearms, general rules of statutory
construction negate the argument that general rulemaking authority allows an
agency or political subdivision to regulate use of firearms. Under rules of
statutory construction, a specific statute will govern over a general
statute.(9) Although both the University and DHRM have been given general
rulemaking authority, these general grants of authority do not mention the
regulation of firearms. In contrast, the Utah Constitution provides that the
Legislature shall "define the lawful use of

arms."(10) It has done so in Section 76-10-501 which has "reserved to the
state"(11), and specifically to the Legislature, the authority to regulate
firearms. Thus, the specific reservation of firearm regulation in Section
76-10-501 governs over the general statutes granting general rulemaking
authority to the University and to DHRM.

2. State Preemption of the Regulations of Firearms.(12) By reserving to the
Legislature all authority to regulate firearms unless the Legislature
"specifically" delegates this authority, the Legislature preempts regulation
by other governmental entities.(13) As illustrated by recent legislative
action, the Legislature is aware of and has sought to protect this
preemption. In the 1995 bill that amended Section 76-10-501,(14) the long
title stated that the bill was "AN ACT . . . PROVIDING STATE PREEMPTION OF
WEAPONS AREA."(15)

The Legislature has preempted the weapons area by prescribing: (a) where and
when a person is restricted from possessing(16) a firearm; (b) where and
when a person may not be restricted from possessing a firearm; and (c) the
criteria necessary for a person to carry a concealed firearm with a valid
permit.

a. Where and when a person is restricted from possessing a firearm. The
Legislature has addressed restrictions on the possession of firearms in two
ways: those that apply specifically to concealed firearm permit holders, and
those that apply to persons other than concealed firearm permit holders.

We will first address restrictions the Legislature has placed on concealed
firearm permit holders. Reading Sections 53-5-704 and 53-5-710 as a whole,
the Legislature evidences its intent that a concealed permit holder be able
to carry a concealed firearm except in the areas in which the Legislature
specifically indicates a restriction. The relevant portion of Section
53-5-704 provides that the "permit is valid throughout the state, without
restriction." Section 53-5-710 states:

A person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm may not carry a
concealed firearm in the following locations:

(1) any secure area prescribed in Section 76-10-523.5 in which firearms are
prohibited and notice of the prohibition posted; and

(2) in any airport secure area as provided in Section 76-10-529.(17)

In the provisions of the secure areas and airport statutes referred to in
Section 53-5-710, the Legislature specifically states that even a person
licensed to carry a concealed firearm is subject to the firearm restrictions
contained in those sections.(18)

For persons other than concealed firearm permit holders, the Legislature
specifically provides other firearm prohibitions when it considers them
necessary. For example, the Legislature prohibits firearms in areas, such as
"on or about school premises"(19) and, if the firearm is loaded, in a
vehicle, on a public street, or in a posted prohibited area.(20) Although
the Legislature provides a general prohibition on firearms in these areas,
the Legislature specifically exempts concealed firearm permit holders from
the restriction.(21) These sections again illustrate that the Legislature,
when it considers necessary, provides specific restrictions on where and
when a firearm can be possessed by a person, including a person with a
permit to carry a concealed firearm.

b. Where and when a person may not be restricted from possessing a firearm.
In exercising its preemption of the weapon area, the Legislature also
specifically indicates where and when a person may not be restricted from
possessing a firearm except by specific statute. Section 76-10-501 provides:

(1)(a) . . . . Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of
the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:

(i) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, transporting, or keeping
any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle
under his control; or

(ii) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess,
transport, or keep a firearm. . . . .(22)

Section 76-10-501 addresses generally where firearms cannot be restricted
unless specifically provided by state law. In addition, the Legislature has
stated that concealed firearm permit holders be permitted to carry their
concealed firearms "throughout the state, without restriction"(23) except in
the areas the Legislature listed in Section 53-5-710. Those statutes create
a specific acknowledgment of protection for a permit holder to carry a
concealed firearm that cannot be overcome without specific authorization
from or restriction by the Legislature.

c. The criteria necessary for a person to a obtain a permit and carry a
concealed firearm. In the Concealed Weapon Act,(24) the Legislature
established specific criteria necessary for a person to obtain a permit to
carry a concealed firearm. The Legislature did not provide or allow for the
addition of any additional criteria by an agency or political subdivision
without specific legislative authorization. This evidences the Legislature's
intent that the criteria in the Concealed Weapon Act be exclusive. In the
absence of any legislative delegation to an agency or political subdivision
to add additional criteria for the right to carry a concealed firearm, any
attempt to do so by an agency or political subdivision is invalid.

Therefore, in order for an agency or political subdivision to regulate the
use of firearms, there must be specific legislative grant of authority that
does not contravene areas preempted by legislative action. Applying these
principles to the University policy and DHRM rule shows that the
prohibitions on firearms enacted by these entities are contrary to state
law.

                                III. ANALYSIS

A. The University of Utah policy which prohibits students and faculty from
possessing firearms on University premises, unless authorized by the
University, is contrary to Utah law.

The Board of Trustees of the University, in policy 8-10, provides that
students will be "subject to disciplinary action" for "possession or use on
University premises or at University activities of any firearm or other
dangerous weapon . . . unless such possession or use has been authorized by
the University."(25) On October 10, 1997, Interim President Jerilyn S.
McIntyre issued a memorandum "extending the prohibition on the possession or
use on campus of any firearm or other dangerous weapon to all University
employees, including faculty."(26) These prohibitions are contrary to Utah
law in two respects: (1) the Legislature has not delegated specific
rulemaking authority to the University to regulate firearms; and (2) the
University policy is preempted by the Legislature's regulation of firearms.

1. The Legislature has not delegated specific authority to the University to
regulate firearms. Subsection 76-10-501(1)(b) requires that in order for a
political subdivision to regulate the use of firearms, the Legislature must
expressly allow for the regulation by statute.(27) Under Subsection
53B-3-106(2), "institutions of higher education are 'political subdivisions'
and the board of the institutions is a 'local authority.'"(28) Therefore, as
a political subdivision, the University can only issue a policy regulating
the use of firearms if the University is expressly authorized by the
Legislature to take such action.

To our knowledge, the University has cited no statutes authorizing it to
promulgate its weapons policy for students. In extending the weapons
prohibition to the faculty, Interim President McIntyre relied on Section
53B-2-106 as the authority to make such a rule.(29) Section 53B-2-106 is
general in nature -- only granting rulemaking authority to the president of
each institution for the administration and operation of the institution.
Because Section 53B-2-106 contains no specific grant of authority to
regulate weapons on campus, it does not authorize this University policy. We
know of no other statute that authorizes the University to regulate firearms
and therefore any attempt to do so is contrary to Utah law.

2. The University policy is preempted by the Legislature's regulation of
firearms. The Legislature preempts the conduct addressed by the University
policy by prescribing: (a) where and when a person is restricted from
possessing a firearm; (b) where and when a person may not be restricted from
possessing a firearm; and (c) the criteria necessary for person to carry a
concealed firearm with a valid permit.

a. Where and when a person is restricted from possessing a firearm. The
Legislature has specifically provided by statute that a firearm may not be
possessed on or about school premises, except by certain individuals
specifically exempted by the section.(30) Although the definition of a
school may extend to colleges and universities as a postsecondary
institution,(31) the University policy is unenforceable because the
University attempts to regulate the possession of a firearm on or about
school premises beyond what the Legislature provided in statute.(32)
Further, the University's extension of its firearm restrictions to persons
with a license to carry a concealed firearm directly contravenes the
Legislature's express exemption for permit holders on or about school
premises.(33)

b. Where and when a person may not be restricted from possessing a firearm.
Subsection 76-10-501(1)(a)(i) provides that a citizen cannot be "prohibited
from owning, possessing, purchasing, transporting, or keeping any firearm at
his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle under his
control."(34) The University policy prohibits possession of a firearm on
University premises. Thus, it attempts to prohibit firearms in student
residences and in vehicles on campus. This prohibition is directly contrary
to Subsection 76-10-501(1)(a)(i).

Additionally, unless specifically restricted by statute, the Legislature has
stated that a concealed firearm permit is "valid throughout the state
without restriction."(35) Section 53-5-710 lists where a permit holder may
not carry a firearm, and state university property is not included in that
list. Further, the Legislature specifically exempted concealed firearm
permit holders from the prohibition of possessing a firearm on or about
school premises.(36) Therefore, the University's attempt to prohibit
concealed firearm permit holders from carrying a firearm at the University
directly contravenes the Legislature's express exemption for permit holders.

c. The criteria necessary for a person to a obtain a permit and carry a
concealed firearm. The Legislature has provided an exclusive list of
criteria for a concealed firearm permit holder to obtain a permit to carry a
concealed firearm.(37) The Legislature has not authorized a political
subdivision to add to this list. Therefore, because the University has no
specific authority to make rules concerning firearms, it lacks authority to
impose additional requirements on concealed weapon holders to seek
authorization from the University to carry their firearms on campus.
Examples of additional requirements included in the University policy that
are invalid include: the requirement that in order for a person to possess a
firearm "such possession or use [has to be] authorized by the
University";(38) the subsequent statement that authorization to possess a
firearm on campus will only be given "if the individual is an off-duty
police officer or if the individual has received threats on his/her life and
has obtained a protective order";(39) and the requirements that a person
must "hold the appropriate license or permit, undergo a criminal background
check, and provide appropriate training certification."(40)

B. The Department of Human Resource Management rule prohibiting state
employees from carrying firearms in state facilities, state vehicles, or at
any time while on state business, is contrary to Utah law.

In November 1995, DHRM promulgated R477-9-1(5), which provides that
"[e]mployees 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."(41) The rule provides an exception for sworn officers and
employees whose assigned duties require them to use a firearm. An employee
who violates the prohibition is subject to disciplinary action. The DHRM
rule is contrary to Utah law in two respects: (1) the Legislature has not
delegated specific rulemaking authority to the DHRM to regulate firearms;
and (2) the rule is preempted by the Legislature's regulation of firearms.

1. DHRM does not have the authority to regulate the use of firearms.
Consistent with the analysis applied to the University under Section
III.A.1. of this legal opinion, in the absence of a specific statutory grant
of authority, an agency may not regulate the use of firearms. When DHRM
enacted R477-9-1(5), it cited Section 67-19-6 as its statutory grant of
authority to make the rule.(42) Section 67-19-6 requires the director of
DHRM to "develop, implement, and administer a statewide program of personnel
management for state employees" and authorizes the director to "adopt rules
for personnel management according to the procedures of Title 63, Chapter
46a, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act."(43) This statute gives no specific
authority to DHRM to regulate weapons.

When later asked for a statutory basis for the rule, the Governor's General
Counsel referred to Sections 34A-2-301 and 67-19-18, each dealing with
workplace safety.(44) These sections merely address an employer's
obligations to maintain a safe place of employment and do not grant specific
authority to DHRM or to the governor to regulate weapons.(45)

The statutes cited by DHRM and the Governor's General Counsel do not give a
specific grant of authority to DHRM to regulate firearms. We know of no
statute authorizing DHRM to regulate use of firearms, and therefore DHRM may
not regulate the use of firearms.

2. The DHRM rule is preempted by the Legislature's regulation of firearms.
Following the analysis applied to the University under Section III.A.2. of
this legal opinion, the rule is preempted by the Legislature's action
prescribing: (a) where and when a person is restricted from possessing a
firearm; and (b) where and when a person may not be restricted from
possessing a firearm.(46)

a. Where and when a person is restricted from possessing a firearm. As
outlined earlier, concealed weapon permits are "valid throughout the state,
without restriction"(47) except where the Legislature has expressly
restricted the possession of a firearm. The Legislature has listed(48) two
specifically designated locations where permit holders may not carry their
firearms -- in "secured areas"(49) and in "airport secured areas."(50) State
building and vehicles are not "secured areas" as provided in these sections.
Therefore, any attempt by DHRM to prevent concealed weapon permit holders
from carrying their weapon in these areas is an unauthorized attempt to
regulate firearms.

b. Where and when a person may not be restricted from possessing a firearm.
The DHRM rule directly contravenes the Legislature's directive that a
citizen cannot be prohibited from possessing any firearm at his "place of .
. . business, or in any vehicle under his control."(51) "Place of business"
is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as a place "where one carries on his
business or employment." Thus, a state employee cannot be prohibited from
possessing a firearm at his place of business even if it is a state owned
building or facility. Additionally, a state employee cannot be prohibited
from possessing a firearm in a state vehicle if the vehicle is under the
employee's control.(52) Thus, the DHRM rule is invalid because it is in
direct conflict with the Legislature's statutory directive that a person not
be prohibited from possessing a firearm at his residence, business, or in a
vehicle under his control.

Regarding a person licensed to carry a concealed permit, unless specifically
restricted by statute, the Legislature has stated that a concealed firearm
permit be "valid throughout the state, without restriction."(53) The
Legislature has listed restrictions on a concealed firearm permit holder's
ability to carry a concealed firearm in Section 53-5-710. The Legislature
did not restrict in that list an employee who is a concealed firearm permit
holder from possessing a firearm in state buildings or facilities, a state
vehicle, or while on state business. Therefore, DHRM's attempt to prohibit a
concealed firearm permit holder from carrying a firearm in a state building
or facility, a state vehicle, or while on state business directly
contravenes the Legislature's statutory directives and is invalid.


                               IV. CONCLUSION

The Utah Constitution grants power only to the Legislature to define the
lawful use of arms. The Legislature has exercised this power
comprehensively, delegating the right to regulate the use of firearms in
only limited situations. Thus, the Legislature has preempted regulation by
an agency or political subdivision that is not expressly permitted by
statute. Because the Legislature has not delegated any authority to the
University or to DHRM to regulate firearms, their attempt to do so through
the University policy and the DHRM rule are contrary to state law.

Consistent with your February 3, 1998 request, this legal opinion addresses
only whether the University policy and the DHRM rule are contrary to state
law. This opinion does not address the public policy issues related to
prohibiting the possession of firearms in the areas specified by the policy
and rule in question. However, as this legal opinion makes clear, if there
are any changes to be made in the policies pertaining to the lawful use of
arms, those decisions rest squarely with the Legislature.

1. Although your letter indicated that the "governor has prohibited state
employees from the possession of weapons in state buildings," the
prohibition was derived from the rule promulgated by DHRM.

2. Utah Const. art. I, º 6 (emphasis added).

3. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-501 (Supp. 1997) (emphasis added). Unless the
context indicates otherwise, any reference to a "section" in the text of
this legal opinion is to a section of the Utah Code Annotated (1953).

4. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-501(1) (Supp. 1997) (emphasis added).

5. Utah Code Ann. º 53-5-704(12) (Supp. 1997).

6. See Utah Code Ann. º 53-5-711 (Supp. 1997). The statute permits
rulemaking by: the Board of Pardons and Paroles for its members; the
Judicial Council for judges; and the district attorney, the county attorney
in a county not in a prosecution district, the attorney general, or the city
attorney by policy for prosecutors under their jurisdiction.

7. See, 2 Am Jur 2d Administrative Law º 152 (1994).

8. See, Id.

9. See, Sutherland Stat Const º 40.02 (5th ed. 1993).

10. Utah Const. art. I, º 6.

11. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-501 (1997).

12. In State v. Hutchinson, 624 P.2d 1116, 1121 (Utah 1980), the Utah
Supreme Court stated that "an ordinance is invalid if it intrudes into an
area which the Legislature has preempted by comprehensive legislation
intended to blanket a particular field." Preemption also applies to areas
such as this where "the nature of the subject matter itself requires uniform
state regulation." Id. at 1127.

13. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-501 (1997).

14. See H.B. 54, 49th Leg., Gen. Sess., 1995 Utah Laws.

15. Id.

16. For purposes of this legal opinion, the term "possessing" encompasses
the following terms used in Subsection 76-10-501(1)(a)(i), "owning,
possessing, purchasing, transporting, or keeping."

17. Utah Code Ann. º 53-5-710 (Supp. 1997).

18. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-523.5 (1997) states "[a]ny person, including a
person licensed to carry a concealed firearm . . . shall comply with any
rule established for secure facilities" (emphasis added). Utah Code Ann. º
76-10-529 states "[w]ithin a secure area of any airport . . . a person,
including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm, is guilty of"
(emphasis added).

19. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-505.5 (Supp. 1997) states that " [a] person may
not possess any . . . firearm . . . on or about school premises." "On or
about school premises" as defined by Section 76-3-203.2 includes in or on
the grounds of any public or private elementary, secondary, vocational, or
postsecondary school or institution. No definition exists in the code for
"postsecondary school or institution"; however "postsecondary education" is
defined in Section 53B-5-103 as "education or educational services offered
primarily to persons who have completed or terminated their secondary or
high school education or who are beyond the age of compulsory school
attendance." Utah Code Ann. º 53B-5-103 (1994). Although not entirely clear,
it seems possible that the prohibition on firearms may extend to
universities. Regardless, in Section 76-10-505.5 the Legislature
specifically provides an exemption for concealed permit holders to the
firearm prohibition on or about school premises.

20. See, Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-505 (1995).

21. See, Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-505.5(3) (Supp. 1997); see also, Utah Code
Ann. º 76-10-523(2) (Supp. 1997).

22. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-501 (Supp. 1997).

23. Utah Code Ann. º 53-5-704(1) (1994).

24. Utah Code Ann., Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7 (1994 and Supp. 1997).

25. University of Utah Policy and Procedures Manual; Policy: 8-10, Rev.: 3
(July 14, 1993). In addition to addressing possession on campus, the
University policy covers University activities. University activities may
take place off of the university campus. Extending the university policy to
these settings heightens the likelihood that the policy is contrary to state
law because of the breadth of its impact.

26. Memorandum of Interim President Jerilyn S. McIntyre, October 10, 1997.
For purposes of this legal opinion, the term "University policy" includes
both policy 8-10 and the memorandum issued by Interim President McIntyre.

27. Subsection 76-10-501(1)(b) provides that "unless specifically authorized
by the Legislature by statute, a local authority may not enact or enforce
any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms." Utah Code Ann. º
76-10-501(1)(b) (Supp. 1997).

28. Utah Code Ann. º 53B-3-106(2) (1997). As used hereinafter in this legal
opinion, the term "political subdivision" includes the board of the
institution which is a "local authority."

29. See, Memorandum of Interim President Jerilyn S. McIntyre, October 30,
1997.

30. See, Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-505.5 (Supp. 1997).

31. Supra, at note 19 discussion.

32. See, Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-505.5 (Supp. 1997).

33. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-505.5(3) (Supp. 1997).

34. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-501(1)(a)(i) (Supp. 1997).

35. Utah Code Ann. º 53-5-704(1) (1997).

36. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-505.5(3) (Supp. 1997).

37. See, Utah Code Ann. ºº 53-5-704 and 53-5-710 (Supp. 1997).

38. University of Utah Policy and Procedures Manual, Policy: 8-10, Rev.: 3
(July 14, 1997).

39. Memorandum of Interim President Jerilyn S. McIntyre, October 10, 1997.

40. Id.

41. Utah Admin. R477-9 (1995).

42. Id.

43. Utah Code Ann. º 67-19-6 (1996).

44. See, Minutes of the Administrative Rules Review Committee, 51st Leg.,
November 3, 1997.

45. See, Utah Code Ann. º 34A-2-301(1)(a)-(b) (1997) and º 67-19-18(4)
(1996). DHRM has proffered no evidence that the rule is necessary for it to
maintain a safe work environment.

46. Because the DHRM rule did not impose additional criteria for the
possession of firearms, the criteria portion of the preemption analysis
applied to the University is not applicable to DHRM.

47. Utah Code Ann. º 53-5-704(1) (Supp. 1997). The Governor's General
Counsel has suggested the phrase "[a concealed weapon] permit is valid
throughout the state, without restriction" means that the permit may be
taken anywhere, without restraint; however, the possession of the concealed
weapon may be further restricted. This interpretation seems to be an
artificially strict reading of the statute and contradicts legislative
action in Section 53-5-710 which gives the exclusive list of locations where
"[a] person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm may not carry a
concealed firearm . . . ." Utah Code Ann. º 53-5-710 (Supp. 1997).

48. Utah Code Ann. º 53-5-710 (Supp. 1997).

49. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-523.5 (Supp. 1997).

50. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-529 (Supp. 1997).

51. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-501(1)(a)(i) (Supp. 1997). In addition to
prohibiting the possession of a firearm in a state building or facility or
in a state vehicle, the DHRM rule prohibits a state employee from possessing
a firearm "while on state business." Utah Admin. R477-9 (1995). With the
advent of telecommuting, this rule may prohibit a state employee from
possessing a firearm at his own residence "while on state business." This
application clearly contradicts Section 76-10-501. The breadth of this rule
heightens the possibility that it prohibits the legitimate possession of a
firearm in a manner contrary to the Legislature's specific directives.

52. Utah Code Ann. º 76-10-501(1)(a)(i) (Supp. 1997)

53. Utah Code Ann. º 53-5-704(1) (Supp. 1997).



--

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: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Gov. Mikey's General Counsel's thoughts
Date: 17 Feb 1998 11:02:19 -0700


In case you didn't make it through the footnootes, this one is
quite telling.  From my original post:

47. Utah Code Ann. =A7 53-5-704(1) (Supp. 1997). The Governor's
General Counsel has suggested the phrase "[a concealed weapon] permit
is valid throughout the state, without restriction" means that the
permit may be taken anywhere, without restraint; however, the
possession of the concealed weapon may be further restricted. This
interpretation seems to be an artificially strict reading of the
statute and contradicts legislative action in Section 53-5-710 which
gives the exclusive list of locations where "[a] person with a permit
to carry a concealed firearm may not carry a concealed firearm
. . . ."

This is unbelieveable.  Anyone who thinks Leavitt is a friend of gun
owners or our rights had better re-read that.  Anybody who would hold
or request such an opinion will twist or ignore the law to their
liking.  His counsel actually thinks the permit itself can be taken
anywhere (I'm so glad I won't go to jail for possessing a concealed
PIECE OF PAPER!!)  but the gun authorized by the permit can be further
restricted.  It's no wonder these people have such a hard time
understanding "shall not be infringed" and don't know the differerence
between "use" and simple possession.

Article I, Section 6 of Utah Constitution:

The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and
defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for
other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall
prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

It seems to me the legislature can define lawful use, but is not
granted the power to define, regulate, or infringe ownership or
possession (keep and bear).  Even our current CCW permit process is an
infringment of our rights to own and possess guns.  Only a politician,
or a judge, could ever confuse simple possession with actual use of
any item.

--

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

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

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gov. Mikey's General Counsel's thoughts
Date: 17 Feb 1998 12:33:54 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
> It's no wonder these people have such a hard time
> understanding "shall not be infringed" and don't know the differerence
> between "use" and simple possession.
>
> Article I, Section 6 of Utah Constitution:
>
> The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and
> defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for
> other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall
> prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.
>
> It seems to me the legislature can define lawful use, but is not
> granted the power to define, regulate, or infringe ownership or
> possession (keep and bear).  Even our current CCW permit process is an
> infringment of our rights to own and possess guns.  Only a politician,
> or a judge, could ever confuse simple possession with actual use of
> any item.
>

Well....

The Oxford English Dictonary does include "use" in the definition for
"bear"
and "keep" if I remember right.  And "carry" is also included in "bear"
and
"use".  So, in that sense A1-6 is pretty meaningless.  (i.e. the right
to
use shall not be infringed...but legislature shall regulate lawful
use..)

Conceptually you are correct.

Regarding Millenium Mike, you are so very correct.  Remember that we had
to pull that embarrassment stunt to get him to sign the dang CCW bill.
He's a pod people, he talks like a "conservative" but walks, quacks and
flies like a whole different bird.  (not that conservative means
anything
other than more "fascist" in one direction than a liberal...)

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: LEGISLATIVE ALERT!!  HB 343
Date: 17 Feb 1998 17:10:38 -0700

HB 343, Nuisance Code Amendments - Shooting Ranges will be heard by the
House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Feb. 19.  The committee meeting is
from 8-9:30 AM, in Room 223 at the State Capitol.

HB 343 is a shooting range protection bill.  It prohibits local governments
from passing ordinances to shut down or harass already existing shooting
ranges, provides that individuals who use shooting ranges assume all
reasonable risks, and limits the use of nuisance actions for "noise
pollution".

The text of the bill can be found at
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1998/bills/hbillint/HB0343.htm.

The League of Cities and Towns plans to oppose this bill.

The Board of Trustees of USSC recommend the following:

ACTIONS:
1)  If possible, please attend the Committee hearing.  We need to pack the
room!  If you would like to testify, please get there early and notify
Committee Chair Lamont Tyler, or the secretary.  The bill is currently
listed as first on the agenda.

2) Please contact members of the House Judiciary Committee and urge them to
SUPPORT HB 343.
         A. Lamont Tyler, Chair
    Greg J. Curtis, Vice Chair
    Katherine Bryson
    Bill Hickman
    Keele Johnson
    Swen Nielsen
    Tammy J. Rowan
    Glenn L. Way
    Patrice Arent
    John B. Arrington
    Loretta Baca

To leave a message for Representatives, call 538-1029 or [phone].
Other contact information is available at
http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/html/members.htm

Thank you for your support!

Sarah Thompson
for the Board of Trustees

As always, comments may be directed to any of the Board members listed below.
Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse
their open-door policy.  All of us are VERY busy right now.

Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), [e-mail]
Elwood Powell,  426-8274 or 583-2882 (w), 364-0412 (h),
    [e-mail]
Shirley Spain, 963-0784, [e-mail]
Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w)
Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, [e-mail]  (I prefer e-mail to phone
calls when possible).
Joe Venus, 571-2223

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Communication with Legislators
Date: 17 Feb 1998 18:20:34 -0700


I received a very nice email today from one of our legislators.  I've
removed all identifying references and pass along the remaining
transcript to illustrate that there is benefit to taking the time to
let elected officials know where you stand and to enlighten them or
politely correct them wrt laws or bills.

Don't assume a legislator knows the law any better than you do.
Especially if you are talking about your "pet" area and you've read up
on it recently.  They are as busy or more than the rest of us and
don't go around reading current statute just for fun.

All, or nearlly all, legislators have their home numbers listed on the
State legislative pages and are good about taking a few minutes to
talk on the phone.  I've had several nice conversations with
legislators and highly reccomend you take the time to call them when a
bill is of particular concern.

This exchange started with me contacting this particular legislator
concerning a particular bill concerning CCW.  His response first,
followed by my response. His final message is first is last.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
On Thu, 05 Feb 1998,   posted:

Dear Mr. Hardy:

Thanks for the obvious reasoning and long thought on the subject of gun rights.

I appreciate your concern.  I too, have thought a great deal about
this.  I am convinced, after [much thought and experience], that there
are times when "reasonable" restrictions are appropriate.  The problem
is, I haven't been able to yet determine the best way to define those.
Maybe I never will, so in the mean time it's probably best to leave
things alone.

Briefly, though, let me give you an example of one of the problem
areas I've identified.  I have an 18 year old [child] who is eligible
to obtain a concealed weapons permit.  [S/He] is also still a senior
in high school.  If [s/he] were to obtain a permit, should [s/he] be
allowed to take [a] handgun to school?  My personal opinion to that is
NO.

As you eloquently stated, there's not much happening to give us cause
to act immediately on this.  Perhaps there is value in being pro
active, but certainly not rash.

Thanks again for your comments.  That's what make this process work.

Sincerely,

[name deleted]

>> Charles Hardy <[e-mail]> 02/06 4:49 PM  posted>>>

Dear [name deleted]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and raising the issues of primary
and secondary schools.  [some deleted]

Your concern about high school seniors carrying guns into schools
under the privleges of state issued CCW permit might be valid, except
that Utah law does not allow a person to obtain a CCW permit until
they are 21 years of age, not at 18 as you feared.

I quote from Utah Code 53-5-704 as obtained at
<http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE53/htm/53_05033.htm>:

 53-5-704.  Division duties -- Permit to carry concealed firearm --
 Requirements for issuance -- Violation -- Denial, suspension, or
 revocation -- Appeal procedure.
      (1) The division or its designated agent shall issue a permit to
 carry a concealed firearm for lawful self defense to an applicant who
 is 21 years of age or older within 60 days after receiving an
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
 application and upon proof that the person applying is of good
 character. The permit is valid throughout the state, without
 restriction, for two years.

It seems pretty clear that our current CCW permits do not allow anyone
under age 21 to carry a concealed weapon.  Thus, any problem of
students carrying guns to school must be caused--and should therefore
logically be addressed--by something other than our CCW permit law.

I trust you have no opposition to adults (21 yrs+) exercising their
privleges under CCW permits while they are on public University or
College property?  Surely, a 22 year old woman poses no greater risk
to her fellow citizens and is no less a target of crime simply because
she is walking across University rather than city property?

I know you are very busy, and I don't want to infringe on your time.
But please let me briefly give you an example of one concern I have if
CCW permits are rendered invalid on school grounds.

In adittion to restricting law abiding adults when there is no
evidence at all to date they pose any danger, any prohibition of guns
in or around schools must be very carefully worded in light of the
Federal Gun Free Schools Act of 1995.  I've attached relevant portions
of this law below.  In summary, the Act makes it a crime for any
person who is not specifically authorized (via a State issued permit
that requires a background check) to posses a gun to be in possession
of a gun on or within 1000 feet of any school grounds.  1000 feet is
almost two city blocks!

If Utah's CCW permits are not valid on school grounds, a permit holder
who is otherwise legally in possession of his firearm, might possibly
be ruled (by an anti gun federal judge in Denver) in violation of this
Federal law simply by walking, jogging, or even driving within two
city blocks of any school--public, private, or parochial (and some
rumors suggest the BATF is also looking at interpreting this to
include home schools)--anywhere in the State.  I encourage you to
obtain a map of Salt Lake County that shows all schools.  Then shade
in those schools and two city blocks in each direction of each school
to see how much area could potentially make federal criminals of some
of our most law abiding citizens.

Thank you for your service in the legislature and your consideration
of these views.

Sincerely

Charles Hardy

[U.S. Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE deleted in repost]


<<<Final message>>>

Dear Charles:

You're absolutely right.  Thanks for your efforts and helpful understanding of
the issue.  I appreciate it.

I also know this is a delayed response, and for that I apologize.  It's been a
little crazy up here lately.

Sincerely,

[name deleted]

--

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.

"There are no victims, only volunteers. You volunteer by appearing uncertain
and afraid. You volunteer by being (as grass-eaters invariably are)
unprepared to deal with the dangers of life." - Cooper's Corner

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: SB57 Update
Date: 17 Feb 1998 21:08:13 -0700


SB57, Sen. President Beattie's bill that would effectively destroy the
CCW permit system was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee
today.  I had expected it to go to the Transportation and Public
Safety Committee as other related bills have.  I suspect the Judiciary
Committee is less favorable to guns, and being Senate President,
Beattie was able to direct it there.  He is one of the committee
members.  The sponsor of SB23, negligent storage of a firearm, Robert
Steiner is another member.  I assume those 2 will vote for it right
out of the box.  I have no idea where the other 4 members stand.

Contact info below:


Robert C. Steiner  (D)
80 North Wolcott
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103-4477
H-596-1213 O-328-883
[e-mail]

David L. Buhler  (R)
1436 South Yuma Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108
H-466-7140 O-355-5009 FAX-355-4008
[e-mail]

Craig L. Taylor (R)  (chair)
312 Oak Lane
Kaysville, Utah 84037
O-544-5909
[e-mail]

Lane Beattie (R)  (sponsor and senate pres)
1313 North 1100 West
West Bountiful, Utah 84087
H-292-7406 O-298-7000
email not listed but [e-mail] may reach him.

Lyle W. Hillyard (R) (Assistant Majority Whip)
175 East First North
Logan, Utah 84321
H-753-0043 O-752-2610
[e-mail]

Mike Dmitrich (D)
HC 65, Box 30
Altamont, Utah 84001-9703
H-454-3494
[e-mail]




--

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.

"25 states allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street
with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US
murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"
     - Andrew Ford

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  FW: Oppose HB 328 -Forwarded
Date: 18 Feb 1998 09:18:01 -0700

Received: from jserver.recovery-usa.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id JAA18623; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:03:18 -0700
Received: by jserver.recovery-usa.com from localhost
    (router,SLMail V2.6); Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:07:09 -0700
Received: by jserver.recovery-usa.com from David_Harmer.NTdomain
    (206.62.70.93::mail daemon; unverified,SLMail V2.6); Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:07:08 -0700
Received: by David_Harmer.NTdomain with Microsoft Mail
    id <01BD3B83.627F33E0@David_Harmer.NTdomain>; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 09:06:51 -0700
Message-ID: <01BD3B83.627F33E0@David_Harmer.NTdomain>
        "'Gaunt, Arnold'"
     <[e-mail]>,
        "'Harmer, Jonny'" <[e-mail]>,
        "'Harmer, Matt'" <[e-mail]>,
        "'Harmer, Miriam'" <[e-mail]>,
        "'Harmer, Wendy'" <[e-mail]>
        "'Jarrard, Jeff'"
     <[e-mail]>,
        "'Latham, Rob'" <[e-mail]>,
        "'Latham, Rob (work)'" <[e-mail]>,
        "'Poulter, Steve'" <[e-mail]>,
        "'Powers, Jason'" <[e-mail]>
        "'Salisbury, David'"
     <[e-mail]>,
        "'Simmons, Rob'" <[e-mail]>,
        "'Wells, Bob & Helen'" <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD3B83.62885BA0"


------ =_NextPart_000_01BD3B83.62885BA0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



-----Original Message-----
Sent:    Monday, February 16, 1998 3:07 PM

The following letter was sent to the Salt Lake Tribune, =
[e-mail] If you agree, please send your own letter. =20
Please also contact your Representative, and particularly Speaker of the
House Mel Brown.  He can best be reached by e-mail at =
[e-mail]
Thanks!
Sarah

Oppose HB 328
Rep. Susan Koehn and the members of the House Government Operations =
Committee apparently believe that an oath of office is merely a =
formality.  They unanimously passed Koehn's HB 328, which removes =
criminal sanctions for a legislator who refuses or neglects to take and =
file an oath of office.  If this bill passes, a legislator may willfully =
refuse to take his oath of office, and the only recourse available to =
citizens will be to file a civil suit at their own expense.  This is =
exactly the same as declaring that murder is illegal, but their are no =
criminal penalties for committing murder, so the victim's family must =
file a suit in civil court to seek restitution.
In this case it is the Constitution being murdered.  The United States =
Constitution and the Utah Constitution are the two documents by which =
all laws must be judged.  They are the foundations of our way of life.  =
Any legislator who is not willing to pledge to uphold these sacred =
documents, and do so with pride, does not deserve to serve the people of =
Utah.
Any legislator who votes for this bill is pubicly stating  that he or =
she has no respect for our Constitution.  Citizens would do well to =
remember these votes come November.
Sarah Thompson, M.D.



------ =_NextPart_000_01BD3B83.62885BA0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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------ =_NextPart_000_01BD3B83.62885BA0--



-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Communication with Legislators
Date: 18 Feb 1998 09:56:13 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> I received a very nice email today from one of our legislators.  I've
> removed all identifying references and pass along the remaining
> transcript to illustrate that there is benefit to taking the time to
> let elected officials know where you stand and to enlighten them or
> politely correct them wrt laws or bills.
>
hear hear....

As I understand it, the so-called "alternative" to SB57 was dealt
a major blow yesterday when the NRA sleaze wasn't able to meet
with one of the reps.

Herewith a response from another rep...and this guy's probably even
gonna get a small donation from me next time 'round. (in spite of some
of his other problems)

> Dear Mr. Thompson:
>
> I wish to share with you my feelings regarding SB 57.  I am happy to say that I
> do not support any legislation that will limit the rights of the gun owners.  I
> believe that the concealed weapons laws that are in place are fine.
>
> Sincerely,

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  HB 328
Date: 18 Feb 1998 09:45:25 -0700


It appears from the State legislature home page that the house passed
HB 328, these people must be eating prunes, they'll pass anything!

Contact your Senator.


----Original Message-----
Sent:    Monday, February 16, 1998 3:07 PM

The following letter was sent to the Salt Lake Tribune, =
[e-mail] If you agree, please send your own letter. =20
Please also contact your Representative, and particularly Speaker of the
House Mel Brown.  He can best be reached by e-mail at =
[e-mail]
Thanks!
Sarah

Oppose HB 328
Rep. Susan Koehn and the members of the House Government
Operations =
Committee apparently believe that an oath of office is merely a =
formality.  They unanimously passed Koehn's HB 328, which removes =
criminal sanctions for a legislator who refuses or neglects to take and =
file an oath of office.  If this bill passes, a legislator may willfully = refuse
to take his oath of office, and the only recourse available to = citizens
will be to file a civil suit at their own expense.  This is = exactly the same
as declaring that murder is illegal, but their are no = criminal penalties for
committing murder, so the victim's family must = file a suit in civil court to
seek restitution.
In this case it is the Constitution being murdered.  The United States =
Constitution and the Utah Constitution are the two documents by which =
all laws must be judged.  They are the foundations of our way of life.  =
Any legislator who is not willing to pledge to uphold these sacred =
documents, and do so with pride, does not deserve to serve the people
of =
Utah.
Any legislator who votes for this bill is publicly stating  that he or = she
has no respect for our Constitution.  Citizens would do well to =
remember these votes come November.
Sarah Thompson, M.D.


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Waco Update 02-18-98: The Konformist -Forwarded
Date: 18 Feb 1998 09:57:28 -0700

Received: (from root@localhost)
      by mrin53.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0)
      id KAA20511;
      Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:31:10 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <980218103110_1111084592@mrin53>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
    boundary="PART.BOUNDARY.0.25356.mrin53.887815870"


--PART.BOUNDARY.0.25356.mrin53.887815870
Content-ID: <0_25356_887815870@mrin53.222>
Content-type: text/plain

Waco Update 02-18-98: The Konformist

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.25356.mrin53.887815870
Content-ID: <0_25356_887815870@mrin53.223>
Content-type: text/plain;
    name="waco0218.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A Konformist Special
Waco Update 02-18-98

Subj:      SOME FACTS ON CLINTON'S WACO COVER-UP

FACT SHEET:
assembled by Carol Moore, author, The Davidian Massacre
CarolMoore@kreative. Net  202-635-3739
=0D
EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
IN THE 1993 WACO MASSACRE
=0D
          This sheet outlines just some of the evidence that President
Clinton, through his various appointees, intentionally obstructed
justice in covering up negligent and intentional homicide by federal
agents of 82 Branch Davidians--24 men, 35 women and 23 children.
Clinton's brutal comment April 20, 1993 is typical of a co-conspirator,
not a President: "I was, frankly, =D4surprised,' would be a mild word to
say, that anyone would suggest that the Attorney General should resign
because some religious fanatics murdered themselves."
=0D
**          One of the chief planners of the February 28, 1993 BATF raid
on the Branch Davidians was Bill Clinton's personal friend William
Buford, Special Agent in Charge of Little Rock BATF. According to a
March, 1993, Wall Street Journal article, the day after the February 28
raid, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman visited the injured
Buford in a Texas hospital and reported back to Clinton.  Congress never
asked Altman or Buford about what they discussed. Did President Bill
Clinton have foreknowledge of, or involvement in, the Waco raid which he
has not revealed?
=0D
**          During the siege against the Davidians news reporters
claimed that the White House was "micro-managing" the FBI's actions at
Waco.  However, during 1995 Congressional hearings former Associate
Attorney General Webster Hubbell denied he discussed the subject more
than once with President Clinton.  Attorney General Janet Reno initially
asserted Hubbell had spoken to Clinton on April 19th but withdrew her
statement when Clinton and Hubbell denied it.
=0D
*          An FBI report on White House counsel Vince Foster's suicide
revealed that his wife, Lisa, told the FBI that Foster felt responsible
for the deaths of the Davidians.  Lisa Foster must be quizzed about what
Vince Foster told her about his and the White House's involvement in the
Waco massacre.
          During the House Waco hearings the White House released
Foster's "Waco file" which contained only one memorandum. In August,
1997, journalist Ambrose Evans-Prichard revealed  Foster's former
executive assistant, Deborah Gorham, told the Senate Banking Committee
in June, 1997, that Foster kept a file on the Waco incident locked in an
office cabinet. Evidently Congress did not ask her if it contained more
than the one memorandum previously released to Congress.  Linda Tripp
was also a Foster aide.  What could she tell us about the White House's
involvement in Waco??
=0D
*           Confidential memoranda and handwritten notes presented
during the 1995 House Waco hearings revealed that the Treasury
Department, under pressure from the Justice Department and Webster
Hubbell, halted its post-February 28 shooting review investigation
because agents' stories "did not add up."  The Justice Department
protested that the interviews were generating "exculpatory" material
that could help the Davidian defendants at trial.  Webster Hubbell even
threatened to go to Bill Clinton if the Treasury Department did not
cooperate in the suppression of such exculpatory evidence.
          During the hearing, representatives quizzed defense attorneys
on this suppression of evidence.  However, Congress never asked Webster
Hubbell about his role in squelching these interviews.  And even though
Hubbell promised to produce his personal "Waco files" to Congress, he
did not do so.
=0D
*          On April 19, 1993, Reno and Hubbell sat in the FBI Operations
Center in Washington, D.C. for four hours watching the tank attack on
Mount Carmel.  Reno mentioned during the 1993 house hearings that she
talked to Clinton at 11:00 a.m. on April 19th, just before she left the
Operations Center.  Incredibly, Congress never asked her then, or during
1995 hearings, about the content of this conversation!  Did Clinton tell
her to press on with the attack?  Did he tell her to leave Webster
Hubbell in charge? What instructions did he give her??
=0D
          There is ample similar evidence of cover-up by the Clinton
White House and executive branch in both the 1993 and 1995 Congressional
"Waco" hearings, in the conduct of the Treasury and Justice Department
investigations into the massacre, and in the prosecution of Davidian
defendants.  Clinton's deliberate suppression of evidence and
obstruction of justice in the massacre of 82 civilians at Waco is a far
more heinous crime than that of asking an intern to lie under oath about
their sexual affair. A separate independent counsel must be appointed to
find evidence of negligent and intentional homicide of the Davidians and
of systematic cover-up of those crimes that goes all the way up to
President Clinton.
=0D
DON'T FORGET COMMITTEE FOR WACO JUSTICE DEMO IN D.C. 1/27/98
=0D
Demo at the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Congress, calling for the
impeachment of Waco co-conspirator President Bill Clinton and for the
end to the ongoing physical abuse by guards of Branch Davidian
Livingstone Fagan at U.S.P. Leavenworth.
=0D
 Demonstrators will gather at 12:00 p.m. at Bureau of Prisons
Headquarters, 320 1st Street, NW, at C Street. We will be available for
comments to the press at 12:30 p.m. and then will march to Independence
and New Jersey Avenues to demonstrate and leaflet Congressional members.
January 27th is both the first day of the 1998 session and the day
President Clinton is scheduled to give his State of the Union address.

Subj:      Waco Update--January 29, 1998

WACO UPDATE=D0JANUARY 29, 1998
Carol Moore
Member, Committee for Waco Justice
Author, The Davidian Massacre
=0D
GOOD NEWS FROM LIVINGSTONE FAGAN
          Yesterday I received a letter from Davidian prisoner
Livingstone Fagan reporting things have improved greatly for him at the
Special Housing Unit at USP Leavenworth.  (During November and December
1997 Leavenworth guards repeatedly beat him and locked him half naked in
freezing cells. They even hosed him down and turned an industrial fan on
him after he complained to outsiders about abuse of inmates in that
unit. For more information go to:
http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/cwj-update-98.html )
          Fagan writes:  "My thoughts have been of you, and of the
people who have taken the time and effort to write me. . .You might be
interested to know that 1/6/98 was the date I had an interview with an
official from the office of internal affairs.  A development arising
from the efforts of those good people mentioned above.
          "I think the way is now clear for my resuming writing.  I have
a lot of letters to catch up on.  Unfortunately, some of these were
confiscated along with other personal effects."
          On Fagan's refusal to release his Bureau of Prison (B.O.P.)
records to me, and at least one Senator who wrote on behalf of a
constituent, Fagan writes: "Past experience has taught me that these
people (B.O.P. administrators) are not interested in the truth of what's
going on.  Giving your consent for them to act on your behalf amounts to
a public relations exercise in the interest of the B.O.P.  I was not
content with having this dealt with administratively, rather =D4on the
ground.'  Where the reality is.  Perhaps the most substantial
development has been that of the interview with an official from the
office of internal affairs.  The effects have been noticeable, at least
with respect to the harassment."
          Fagan also notes: "You also expressed concern about people
thinking these things are made up.  I can understand the desire to think
that.  It relieves one of his/her responsibility to do anything about
it.  I'm reminded of a comic strip you once sent me of two prisoners
chained to a wall in their boxers.  The caption was, "It's no use
complaining. They'll only think you're trying to get something for
free."  It was for me (having experienced the reality) an indictment
against the ignorance and resulting insensibility of public perception.
Or at least the perception created by the Media.  There's a large class
of Americans who seem to take comfort in denying (by making light of)
the realities of what is going on.  This is a tragedy, considering it is
in their power to fix it..."
=0D
          So thanks again to all of those of you who took time to write
Warden Booker, BOP Director Kathleen Hawk, Representative McCollum,
etc.  Sometimes letter writing works!
          I don't know if letter writing campaign to the Supreme Court
would help the Davidian appeals.  But we should note than in mid-January
court proceedings regarding an Oregon SWAT team's no-knock search,
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said: "We all have in mind what happened at
Waco. We think we have some concerns here."
          Hopefully, the whole court will have more than mere "concerns"
when they hear the Branch Davidians' appeals sometime in the next year
or so.  Will they rule that trial Judge Walter J. Smith should have
allowed the jury to consider "self-defense" in the aiding and abetting
manslaughter charge? Will they rule that Davidians should not have been
found guilty of carrying a gun during the murder of federal agents=D0when=

they were found *innocent* of those murders? Will they rule that the
jury, not the judge, should have been responsible for finding them
innocent or guilty of carrying illegal weapons? Will they rule that
there is insufficient evidence against any of the Davidians?  Will they
demand the Davidians be re-tried by a fair and impartial judge=D0or even
that they should be freed immediately?  Seven Davidians still imprisoned
have received a total sentence of 235 years.  Will the Supreme Court
reverse this grave injustice?  Can we convince them to do so?
          For more information about the Branch Davidian prisoners go
to: http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/waco-prisoners.html
=0D
REPORT ON JANUARY 27TH COMMITTEE DEMONSTRATIONS
          On Tuesday, January 27th eight members of the Committee for
Waco Justice demonstrated as planned at the Bureau of Prisons
Headquarters and the U.S. Congress.  January 27th was both the first day
of the 1998 session and the day President Clinton gave his State of the
Union address.
          Before those demonstrations five of us went to the nearby U.S.
Court House where dozens of reporters and cameramen were reporting on
the Grand Jury looking into charges that President Clinton lied under
oath and encouraged Monica Lewinsky to do so. We figured we'd remind the
press that Clinton's obstruction of justice in the Waco massacre is a
lot more important than the current "crisis."
          Like many, I believe it will be at least some measure of
justice if it is proved Clinton urged a woman to lie to protect him from
losing a civil suit for sexual harassment and he is forced to resign.
Also, his fall may allow new evidence of his crimes against the Branch
Davidians finally to become public.  For evidence of Clinton's
obstruction of Justice at Waco go to:
http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/waco-clinton-impeach.html
          We carried our signs, "Clinton Obstructed Justice at Waco",
"Impeach the Liar", "Free the Branch Davidians", and "Impeach Clinton
for Waco Massacre" and chanted the last three slogans. A number of
television crews filmed and interviewed us and the footage may show up
somewhere someday.  One sarcastic reporter started asking one member
about the "conspiracy to kill Diana in the tunnel." We set him straight
about the seriousness of the government's unpunished massacre of
civilians at Waco=D0and reminded him it may have driven at least on
individual to kill another 168 people in Oklahoma City; he immediately
skulked away.
          Eight of us then protested at Bureau of Prisons while dozens
of police officers, guards and employees=D0and a poorly concealed video
camera=D0watched us.  The whole block heard our chants=D0also printed on
signs=D0"Warden Booker Control Your Guards =D0 Stop Beating Fagan", "BOP
Stop Abusing Fagan," "Free the Branch Davidians."  We took lots of
pictures, so we'll have them to send to present and future wardens of
any prison that starts mistreating Davidian prisoners.  Just to remind
them we are ready to make a fuss to protect the prisoners.
          To see some of the photographs, go to:
http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/impeach-demo-photos.html
          Finally, we spent another hour or so outside Congress,
distributing our Impeach Clinton-Free the Davidians press release=D0to
predictably mixed reactions.  One Republican operative boasted to some
Democratic big shots he ran into that he had "hired" us.  Lyndon
LaRouche followers were also distributing their literature=D0claiming tha=
t
Linda Tripp was a George Bush operative trying to discredit Clinton the
Great (with the help of the Queen of England, of course).  When a
Democrat later accused us of being LaRouchies, we set him straight:
"LaRouche is Clinton's biggest supporter!"
          Since we got there after the Congressmen had already gone into
Congress for the opening ceremonies (reminder, get there at 11:30 a.m.
next time) we only ran into to a few actual members. However, we did see
Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a very vocal critic of the government's
actions at Waco, across the street and chanted a few "Waco, Never Again"
just for him.
          Some people may scoff that these demos accomplish little.
But, like the butterfly that starts a hurricane, small efforts can have
large effects.  A few guilt trips levied at reporters, Bureau of Prison
employees and congressional aides and members may yet reap rewards.
Maybe one of them will even notice that we presented concrete evidence
Clinton obstructed justice at Waco and do something about it!!
=0D
TELL CLINTON TO FREE THE BRANCH DAVIDIANS
          Thinking that President Clinton might be resigning any day
now,  I sent him the following e-mail: "You know what the truth is and
you know you will be forced to resign.  If you do believe in God, think
about your moral soul and think about the 82 misguided but sincere
Davidians who died at Waco. (Note: I confess, I pandered to him. I guess
just writing to that man corrupts one!)  Then think of the seven
remaining Davidian prisoners and Pardon Them! Let this act of mercy be
the defining moment of your Presidency!!!
Renos Avraam, #60590-080
Brad Branch, #60536-080
Graeme Craddock #60593-080
Jaime Castillo, #60594-080
Livingstone Fagan, #60550-080
Paul Fatta, #61154-079
Kevin Whitecliff, #60537-080
(And while you are at it, Free Leonard Peltier, as well!!)
(End)
          It can't hurt for people to e-mail Clinton at
<[e-mail]>  and/or call him on the White House comment
line 202-456-1111 asking him to pardon the Davidians.  As he goes
through the crisis of having to recognize his own failings, if not his
crimes, perhaps he will look for some symbolic redemptive acts before
the inevitable resignation or impeachment.  (Assuming he doesn't just go
nuts and push the red button.)  Let's suggest that freeing the Davidians
be one of those acts!
          (For more information on Clinton's obstruction of justice in
the Waco Massacre go to:
http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/waco-clinton-impeach.html )
=0D
COMMITTEE SEEKS FUNDS FOR FEBRUARY 28 AND APRIL 19TH EFFORTS
          We thank all those who have helped us in the past, even as we
ask for a bit more help in 1998.  The Committee for Waco Justice has a
$100 debt it would like to pay off.  Plus we would like to place at
least a $200 advertisement in the Washington Times on each of these two
upcoming Fifth Year anniversaries of the massacres.  (And that will buy
just a three inch by two inch advertisement.)
          We may have some unexpected expenses for our April 19th
memorial on the Ellipse, south of the (Gore?) White House. Plus we would
appreciate contributions to help pay for postage and xeroxing for
materials we frequently send to the Davidian survivors and prisoners, as
well as to pay for collect phone calls from some of the prisoners.
          The Committee for Waco Justice's budget is less than $1,500 a
year, so we do not have a bank account.  Make checks to: Carol Moore,
P.O. Box 65518, Washington, D.C. 20035 202-635-3737. (For a list of
available materials and buttons and an order form go to:
http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/cwj-order-form.html
          In the alternative, you might want to help the Branch Davidian
survivors get ready for their April 19, 1998 memorial at Mount Carmel
outside Waco.  Also, if things go well at their next court hearing,
February 23rd, they may finally get official recognition of their
ownership of the Mount Carmel property, which will insure the Sheriff
evicts the aggressive squatters who have been there since shortly after
the fire and have threatened them with weapons.  Almost a dozen Davidian
survivors are interested in re-occupying Mount Carmel and beginning to
turn it into a fitting memorial.
          Send checks to: Mount Carmel Survivors Memorial Fund, Inc.,
Box 120, Axtell, TX 76624.  Also write for their price list of books,
videos and audiotapes about David Koresh and the destruction of their
community.
=0D
[e-mail]
=0D
http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/davidian-massacre.html

Subj:      Branch Davidians / Website information

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/3877/

[e-mail]

Uninvited imposters at site of Waco tragedy website.

The following is the text taken from the website at:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/3877/
It is the answer to the website: 'A brief stop at Mt. Carmel'
by Daniel Tobias. Daniel Tobias revisited the site and added
another section to his website titled 'Return to Mt. Carmel'.
People can access Mr. Tobias site from this site to compare
the information.

The following is the real story......
Return to Mount Carmel

(Going Back to the Scene of the Crime
just to find another crime taking place!)

It has been a couple of years since I last visited the site of the =

Branch Davidian tragedy of 1993, and I'd heard that some of the =

buildings I photographed had been burned down since, so I decided to =

check the place out again.....

Davidians don't like the name "compound" to describe their location =

(preferring to refer to it as their church and their home), but the =

squatters who have taken over the property seem to be exploiting the =

situation, and have 'Branch Davidian Compound' written on the sign at =

the front of the place, and also on the fraudulent admission pass they =

require! (Notice the hand written 1 in the line marked: party
of. Can this person write? Good thing he has a stamp for the date.)

Just how pathetic does it get? (picture)

These fraudulent passes are given after bullying a small 'recommended' =

donation from visitors, in an attempt to exploit the victims of the 1993 =

tragedy. It has been rumored that the money they fraudulently collect is =

used to buy beer as well as the enamel paint used to deface the property =

into looking more like a makeshift tourist attraction. A friend of mine =

visiting the site recently was approached by a surly man wanting her to =

pay the fee. He was angered when she refused, and she said he looked =

like he had not washed for weeks. Perhaps they should take some of that =

money they are stealing posing as Davidians, and buy some soap!!!

The buildings I saw last time have indeed been burned down. I had to =

wonder if the squatters who have invaded the property were the culprits. =

Now a trailer serves as the imposters "office". A man was there, who =

said he's the husband of the woman who used to live there (Amo Roden =

Drake), but he and his buddy (Charles Pace, another
uninvited squatter/imposter) ran her off the property and will not allow =

her back on! She is on a permanent vacation from the property. One of =

the buildings burnt down was her 'home', convenient huh?

In place of the old "museum" (that was burnt down by the =

squatter/imposters more than likely) was a new crude structure with =

various exhibits. One shows the cover of a book by Carol Moore and =

refers to it as "dishonest". Very likely this is because these squatters =

are NOT Branch Davidians and they dislike any attempt to
vindicate/free the Davidian prisoners, who if released would kick these =

imposters right off the property, as they should be!

This time, I went further onto the property, to look at what was left of =

the buildings, and to witness what further vandalism had occurred on the =

part of the uninvited squatters.

In between the front area and the building ruins, were many monuments =

and markers, including memorials to each person who died in the church =

in 1993, and a monument to "The Living Waters -- Branch of Righteousness =

-- This monument (pictured below) is dedicated to Christ the Word, the =

Branch of Righteousness" and was erected by the
squatter/imposter Charles Pace, who is convinced he is a prophet. =

ACTUALLY he wants to MAKE a PROFIT! One must wonder what David Koresh =

would think of these monuments and markers. As for myself, I hold the =

view that David would be disgusted, however he would expect this to =

happen!

The burned-out remains of a bus were out in the field, with a bathtub =

nearby. The imposter/squatters have dug up every available remaining =

ruin in order to use it in their exploitation of the Branch Davidians.

Parts from another bus were buried in the ground; this was the bus that =

was placed by Koresh as part of a storm shelter so his people could take =

refuge in it in case of a tornado.

Many places on the property had signs identifying things that visitors =

were being called attention to. These signs were also erected by the =

squatter/imposters, a result of their disgusting lack of respect and =

reverence, and completely geared towards soliciting money from =

unsuspecting visitors.

This is the remains of a swimming pool on the property. (picture)

As if the vandalism and destruction of the FBI was not enough...we found =

this vandalism on the corner of the swimming pool, which pointed the way =

to various spots that showed up in the media coverage of the Branch =

Davidian siege, somehow this is relevant to the squatter/imposters.

Further in and blocked off so the public cannot approach it, is a =

structure where Branch Davidian men would work on and refurbish cars. =

The imposter/squatters seem to be using this structure as a makeshift =

church. A further exploitation of the 'real' Branch Davidians.

The Branch Davidian property is being vandalized and exploited by =

squatters who do not mind if visitors think that they are the Branch =

Davidians. In fact, they deceitfully promote that false idea in the =

minds of visitors. They solicit 'donations' from visitors who think they =

are Branch Davidians, all the while they are slandering
and defaming David Koresh and the real Davidians.

This page was written as an answer to the original page created by =

Daniel Tobias. This was not meant as a disrespect to Mr. Tobias. All =

photos presented here were taken by Daniel Tobias who without realizing, =

thought that the Mt.Carmel property is being maintained by Branch =

Davidians. However, the property is being squatted by imposters seeking =

to PROFIT from the 1993 tragedy. This website was not written by Daniel =

Tobias.

Let all visitor's to the site BEWARE.

Another interesting note, one of the squatters is facing charges for =

threatening someone with a gun. =

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.25356.mrin53.887815870--



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Pro-gun Rep. Assaulted -Forwarded
Date: 18 Feb 1998 09:59:01 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id WAA19749; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:23:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma019560; Tue Feb 17 22:20:11 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

>Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 16:40:07 -0500
>From: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Pro-gun Rep. Assaulted
>
>Vermont Carry Bill Sponsor Assaulted By Anti-gun Legislator
>
>Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
>8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
>Phone: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
>http://www.gunowners.org
>
>Multi-state Alert: February 17, 1998
>
>
>Representative Lisa Lutz, the sponsor of the Vermont-style
>Carry Bill for New Mexico (HB 296) must be getting the
>attention of the enemy. While sitting in a House
>Appropriations Committee meeting on February 11th,
>Representative James G. Taylor, the anti-gun water boy for
>Speaker Raymond Sanchez, walked up behind her and slapped
>her on the back of the head!
>
>GOA's State and Local Affairs Director Dennis Fusaro, who
>witnessed the incident, was shocked. "What is this?" said
>Fusaro, "The New Mexico House, or Animal House?" Lutz asked
>Fusaro not to act on his first impulse and return the favor
>to Taylor. GOA members need not exercise similar restraint
>in expressing their (1st Amd) outrage at this kind of
>thuggery.
>
>
>When a Vermont-style carry law was introduced in Oregon, its
>sponsor, Representative Patti Milne, was verbally abused by
>anti-gun House Rep. George Eighmey.
>
>Oregon GOA members were alerted and flooded Eighmey with
>calls, faxes and E-mails. At the second hearing for the bill
>Eighmey publicly apologized and credited GOA members for
>"showing him the light."
>
>Taylor's physical abuse calls for no less of a response.
>Let's show Taylor the same light Oregon members showed
>Eighmey. Contact Taylor and Speaker Sanchez and tell them
>what you think of Taylor's outrageous behavior.
>
>The numbers for Rep. Taylor are:
>[phone]. (Legislature)
>[phone] (Buisiness)
>[phone] (Home)
>
>The numbers for Speaker Sanchez are:
>[phone] (Legislature)
>[phone] (Business)
>[phone] (Home)
>
>Both can be faxed at [phone]
>
>While you're at it, Contact Representative Lutz and let her
>know what a great job she's doing. Representative Lutz can be
>reached at: [phone]. Tell the Republican Leadership the
>same thing: [phone]/4757.
>
>You can and should call even if you don't live in New Mexico.
>New Mexico's Speaker needs to know the word is spreading to
>other states about the kind of nonsense he is letting happen.
>General Information Line is [phone].
>
>Any ?s Call GOA
>Guns Save Lives
>
>***********************************************************
>Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of
>getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider
>joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service
>is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume
>is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week
>indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward
>this notice) to [e-mail] and include your
>state of residence in either the subject line or the body.
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the
heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files
at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>]
and the requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
********************



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Careful when responding to "police" at door
Date: 18 Feb 1998 10:22:04 -0700


[Image]
[Image]

      [Image]

      Millcreek man shot in leg during break-in attempt
      [Image]
      [Image]

      [Image]
      Last updated 02/17/1998, 11:50 a.m. MT

            MILLCREEK ù A man was shot in the leg while three masked
      assailants tried to break into his house Monday night.
            Paramedics transported the man to Columbia-St. Mark's Hospital,
      where he was in good condition, said Salt Lake County sheriff's deputy
      Peggy Faulkner. His name was not released Monday night.
            The assailants knocked on the front door of the house, 1128 E.
      Elgin Ave. (3000 South), about 10:30 p.m. When no one answered the
      door, the assailants pounded on the back door.
            "They told the residents they were deputies from the sheriff's
      department," Faulkner said.
            The homeowners thought it was some friends playing a joke. Two
      men live in the house, Faulkner said. The residents opened the door
      and quickly closed it when they saw one man pointing a shotgun at
      them.
            The gunman took one shot through the door after it slammed shut,
      hitting one of the residents in the leg. No other shots were fired,
      Faulkner said.
            The other resident called 911, Faulkner said. The perpetrators
      ran down the street and sped off in a car after the homeowner told
      them police were on the way.
            Investigators weren't sure if the assailants picked the house at
      random, Faulkner said. The assailants were still at large Tuesday.
      [Image]
      [Image]

      Return to front page
[Image]


--

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

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: 1984?
Date: 18 Feb 1998 10:24:20 -0700


Several troubling items in this one...

Wonder if frequent trips to the range with scary looking guns qualifies
one for a police checkup...

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]      Wednesday, February 18, 1998     [Image] [Image]

                     Rolly & Wells: 1984 Revisited?

 By Paul Rolly and JoAnn
 Jacobsen-Wells

     1984 REVISITED?
     The Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office ran an ad in The Salt Lake
 Tribune Sunday with the title ``Big Crime Produces Big Wealth.''
     The ad listed a hot line residents may call anonymously about
 their neighbors if they notice strange visitors at unusual hours,
 suspicious stories about sources of income or jobs, lavish spending
 habits and working unusual hours.
     Sheriff's Sgt. Craig Watson said honest residents need not worry
 about unwarranted investigations. Watson, a narcotics investigator,
 said the department is going after the ``top of the food chain'' of
 drug traffickers, who usually pose as respectable, wealthy
 individuals. If a check shows the subject has a legitimate job, the
 investigation will end.
     But the ad ruffled some feathers, even among law enforcement,
 possibly because it came on the heels of an incident earlier this
 month when the Sheriff's Office checked license plates of cars parked
 at the South Jordan Library.
     Former Deputy Scott Miller, who plans to run for election against
 Sheriff Aaron Kennard, was holding a political meeting there.
     Among those checked: Two Granite School District undercover
 officers and a State Tax Commission investigator.
     Undersheriff Jim Bell, who asked for the investigation to find
 out who belonged to the license plates, said he made the inquiry
 because of an anonymous letter complaining of reckless driving in the
 area.
     But the timing of his inquiry means he would have had to receive
 that anonymous letter less than 24 hours from when the cars were in
 the area.

     BITE OUT OF CRIME
     Friday night, House Minority Leader Dave Jones and his wife,
 Cindy, were at Crossroads Plaza in Salt Lake City when they spotted a
 man attacking a woman near the basement rest-rooms. Jones, D-Salt
 Lake City, tackled the suspect, who was then arrested by his wife, a
 state correctional officer with the Domestic Violence Unit.

     CHECK THE FILE?
     William Flandro reported Jan. 10 to the West Valley City police
 that his 1989 Ford Probe was stolen. The car was placed on a national
 register of missing vehicles.
     Two days later, the Probe was found abandoned in the middle of
 the road in Spanish Fork Canyon by Utah Department of Motor Vehicles
 crews. UHP had it towed to an impound lot in Spanish Fork.
     No one notified Flandro or West Valley City detectives until
 Thursday, when Flandro received a letter from UHP stating his
 ``unclaimed vehicle'' had been in impound for a month and he owed
 $560.

     TRUCK DRIVERS BEWARE
     But diligent law enforcement may be seen in areas that attract
 federal dollars.
     We wrote last week about alleged quotas for DUIs being required
 of Utah Highway Patrol troopers, despite an official denial that
 quotas exist.
     There seems to be another area where quotas are required of UHP
 troopers.
     An Aug. 24, 1997, memo to UHP sergeants in the Salt Lake County
 district notes:
     ``The Federal Highway Administration has offered $81,000 to the
 Utah Highway Patrol for CDL [Commercial Driver's License]
 enforcement. Six dollars per CDL citation or warning will be given to
 the UHP. [Salt Lake County] has been tasked with 1,125 CDL citations
 or warnings. The following is a breakdown of our current stats on
 CDLs: Total [CDL tickets or warnings] as of Aug. 15 -- 490. Number
 needed by Sept. 30 -- 635. Number needed per trooper -- 15.''
     The memo did not address the question: What if truck drivers
 don't commit 635 offenses in the alloted time?



              [Image] [Wednesday Navigation Bar]  [Image]

                                [Image]

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

 ⌐ Copyright 1998, 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 prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule
 of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm
 the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
 general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of
 inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be
 appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered
 academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was
 offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States,
 by President Washington.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Sarah's Letter
Date: 18 Feb 1998 10:26:19 -0700


From today's DesNews...

Great letter Sarah.

[Image]
[Image]

      [Image]

      READERS' FORUM
      [Image]
      Firearms bill goes too far
      [Image]
      [Image]

      [Image]
      Last updated 02/18/1998, 10:02 a.m. MT

            Your editorial (Feb. 8) urging support for Senate President Lane
      Beattie's SB57 is both irresponsible and reprehensible.
            Beattie's bill would not, as you falsely inform your readers,
      "allow church leaders, private property owners and public school
      officials to ban concealed weapon permit holders from bringing
      firearms into their buildings." It would absolutely prohibit the
      possession of firearms on these premises, and the churches and private
      property owners would have no discretion whatsoever. Prohibition is
      not the same thing as choice.
            This mistake is quite understandable since you both wrote and
      published your editorial days before the actual text of the
      legislation was available. While you are entitled to your opinions, I
      wish you would have the journalistic integrity to base your opinions
      on facts and not rumors.
            Both Utah and the LDS Church have long been known for their
      religious tolerance and adherence to the principle of separation of
      church and state. This is a worthy tradition, which should be held
      sacred.
            Beattie's bill would set a heinous precedent for intrusion of
      the state into church matters. If the state may prohibit firearms from
      the premises of a house of worship regardless of the wishes of the
      religion or clergy involved, all religious freedom is endangered. If
      the state may force a church to ban guns, what is to stop it from
      banning sacramental wine or requiring that Muslims wear shoes during
      prayer? What is to stop it from mandating birth control or equal
      religious standing for homosexuals?
            If a house of worship wishes to ban guns or even require guns,
      let it do so on its own authority. Religious practices are not the
      domain of the state.
            All Utahns who support religious freedom should vigorously
      oppose SB57.

      Sarah Thompson
      Sandy
      [Image]
      [Image]

      Return to front page
[Image]


--

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

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Need Chris Kierst's email
Date: 18 Feb 1998 11:13:29 -0700


Chris, need to email you privately but have misplaced your address.

Please respond to <[e-mail]>.

Thanks.

--

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

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

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1984?
Date: 18 Feb 1998 11:35:19 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Several troubling items in this one...
>
> Wonder if frequent trips to the range with scary looking guns qualifies
> one for a police checkup...
>
>                                 [Image]
>  [Image] [Image]      Wednesday, February 18, 1998     [Image] [Image]
>
>                      Rolly & Wells: 1984 Revisited?
>
>  By Paul Rolly and JoAnn
>  Jacobsen-Wells
>
>      1984 REVISITED?
>      The Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office ran an ad in The Salt Lake
>  Tribune Sunday with the title ``Big Crime Produces Big Wealth.''
[snip]
>      Undersheriff Jim Bell, who asked for the investigation to find
>  out who belonged to the license plates, said he made the inquiry
>  because of an anonymous letter complaining of reckless driving in the
>  area.

Good ol' Bell...this is the same (sixties minutia) who said he'd
make you eat dirt then ask questions if he saw a suspicious bulge
in yer drawers.  Is anyone surprised that he'd be involved in
another form of "big bro" activity?  "By their fruits they
shall be known"  <-Someone who knows better, please correct this?

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: 1984?
Date: 18 Feb 1998 11:37:34 -0700


On Wed, 18 Feb 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>>      Undersheriff Jim Bell, who asked for the investigation to find
>>  out who belonged to the license plates, said he made the inquiry
>>  because of an anonymous letter complaining of reckless driving in the
>>  area.
>
>Good ol' Bell...this is the same (sixties minutia) who said he'd
>make you eat dirt then ask questions if he saw a suspicious bulge
>in yer drawers.  Is anyone surprised that he'd be involved in
>another form of "big bro" activity?  "By their fruits they
>shall be known"  <-Someone who knows better, please correct this?
>

OK, correction.  That was officer D.B. Bell of the SLC PD.

--

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

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

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1984?
Date: 18 Feb 1998 12:05:31 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Feb 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:
>
> >>      Undersheriff Jim Bell, who asked for the investigation to find
> >>  out who belonged to the license plates, said he made the inquiry
> >>  because of an anonymous letter complaining of reckless driving in the
> >>  area.
> >
> >Good ol' Bell...this is the same (sixties minutia) who said he'd
> >make you eat dirt then ask questions if he saw a suspicious bulge
> >in yer drawers.  Is anyone surprised that he'd be involved in
> >another form of "big bro" activity?  "By their fruits they
> >shall be known"  <-Someone who knows better, please correct this?
> >
>
> OK, correction.  That was officer D.B. Bell of the SLC PD.
>
er...

Yup
apologies to Undersheriff Bell for the mistaken ID.
> --
>

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: HB 328
Date: 18 Feb 1998 15:05:42 -0700

At 09:45 AM 2/18/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>It appears from the State legislature home page that the house passed
>HB 328, these people must be eating prunes, they'll pass anything!
>
>Contact your Senator.
>

The bill is now in Senate Judiciary.

Members are:
Craig Taylor, Chair
Lane Beattie
David Buhler
Mike Dmitrich
Lyle Hillyard
Robert Steiner

Messages may be left for Senators at 538-1035, or 800-953-8824.

Democrat fax: [phone]
Republican fax: [phone]

Please save these names and numbers because the same committee will be
hearing SB 57, Lane Beattie's gun control bill.  However, please DO NOT
include both issues in the same message, since HB 328 is really a
non-partisan issue, while gun control arouses strong feelings in this
committee.

Sarah Thompson
(for myself only)

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: SB57 Press Release]
Date: 18 Feb 1998 16:53:30 -0700


From the Utah-Libertarian Party concerning SB57.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    Government Wants To Make Criminals of Law-Abiding Citizens

  SALT LAKE CITY, UT -- If you want to reduce crime, let more people
carry more concealed weapons too more places, the Libertarian Party of
Utah said today, but if you want to turn law-abiding citizens into
criminals just pass Senate Bill 57, sponsored by Lane Beattie.

  "Mindless gun control is one of the best examples of government
enacting laws that force citizens to either to put themselves in
danger or become lawbreakers," proclaimed Jim Dexter, the party's
state chair. Libertarians oppose SB57 because it would make the
licensed possession of a concealed weapon illegal in houses of
worship, schools, and private residences.

  "New laws are entirely unnecessary," said Dexter, pointing out that
houses of worship and homeowners already have the right to ban or
prohibit concealed weapons from entering their property.  "The LDS
Church has correctly stated that concealed weapons in church are
'inappropriate'," Dexter noted, "and they could easily disfellowship
or excommunicate a violator of their internal policy if they felt it
was a real problem."

  "Perhaps the church authorities have forgotten the June 11, 1995
incident in a West Valley City wardhouse when a wife was kidnapped at
gun point by her estranged husband. The unarmed congregation could do
nothing to stop him."  Dexter said.

 "The inability to respond in kind also applies to the two recent
cases in our Utah government schools where children brought stolen
guns to school knowing no adult would be able to stop them because of
misguided school policy. And let's not forget the recent rash of armed
robberies on the U of U campus."

  "The effect of these bills would be to create areas where only
crimnals would be safe. People who live in high crime neighborhoods
would be forced to choose between meeting their spiritual needs and
protecting their lives. Co- eds would not be safe from rape on campus
and teachers would not be safe in classrooms," said Dexter.

  Libertarians also believe forcing churches to take a stand on
concealed carry is unconstitutional, as a separation of church and
state should allow houses of worship to set their own policies, free
from government coercion.  Dexter asks, "What good is a concealed
carry permit if you are not allowed to carry or turned into a criminal
for carrying? Trying to fix a law that's not broken is
silly. Legislation like this only serves to turn otherwise law-
abiding citizens into criminals."

  Dexter also said there is absolutely no proof that Utah's concealed
carry permit holders have posed the slightest risk to anyone's health,
safety or the public good under current law. Utah's violent crime rate
has dropped an average 8%, despite population increases, since Utah's
concealed carry law went into effect. This follows the pattern in
other states that have permitted their law-abiding citizens the right
of armed self-defense, according to recent studies from Professors
Lott and Mustard of the University of Chicago and from the Cato
Institute.

  Dexter said, "Restricting our right to carry concealed weapons and
the places we may carry them, is the equivalent of politicians
painting targets on our backs. Denying terrified Utahns the right to
carry a concealed weapon into well-publicized 'gun-free zones' is like
sentencing innocent people to death because they can't legally defend
themselves. When will our legislators learn that criminals don't obey
any laws . . . especially gun laws."

 Speaking of not obeying laws, the Libertarian Party of Utah urges the
legislature and law enforcement to require the governor and UofU
authorities to immediately cease their resistance to the concealed
carry laws and restore the basic right of self-defense to all
government workers, teachers and adult students. "If the chancellor or
the governor have to face criminal charges, so be it. We are a nation
of laws, not subject to the personal likes and dislikes of politicians
and/or academicians," said Dexter.

----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 American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." --
 Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924).

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: URGENT ALERT!  STOP SB 57!!
Date: 18 Feb 1998 20:12:40 -0700


    ************PLEASE CROSSPOST and DISTRIBUTE!!**************

Lane Beattie's SB 57, Concealed Firearms Amendments, has now been sent to
the Senate Judiciary Committee.  It is scheduled to be heard on Friday Feb.
20, at 8 AM, in Room 403 at the State Capitol.  This bill MUST be stopped!

IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NECESSARY!

1) PLEASE PLAN ON ATTENDING THE COMMITTEE HEARING!  I know most of you have
to work, but the bill is first on the agenda, so you can probably show up
before work.


2) PLEASE CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND ASK THEM TO
OPPOSE SB 57 and OPPOSE ANY AMENDMENTS.
Members of the committee are:

Sen. Craig Taylor - R, Chair, O-544-5909  No home number.  No personal fax.
 Email: [e-mail]

Sen. Lane Beattie - R, Sponsor of the bill and Senate President, H-292-7406
O-298-7000  No personal fax.  No email.

Sen. David Buhler - R, H-466-7140 O-355-5009 FAX-355-4008
Email: [e-mail]

Sen. Mike Dmitrich - D, H-637-0426 O-637-2875  No personal fax
Email: [e-mail]

Sen. Lyle Hillyard - R, Assistant Majority Whip, H-753-0043 O-752-2610,  No
personal fax.
Email: [e-mail]

Sen. Robert Steiner - D  H-596-1213 O-328-8831  No personal fax
Email: [e-mail]

Note:  All Senators can be reached at the Capitol at 801-538-1035 or
800-953-8824.
Faxes for Republicans can be sent to: 801-538-1414
Faxes for Democrats can be sent to: 801-538-1449


3) PLEASE CONTACT YOUR OWN STATE SENATOR AND LET HIM/HER KNOW THAT YOU
OPPOSE THIS BILL, AND WOULD LIKE IT DEFEATED, NOT AMENDED.
     If you don't know who your Senator is, call 468-3427.  (They can also
tell you who your Representative is.)  If you go to
http://www.senate.le.state.ut.us/ you can look under "District Map" to
locate your Senator and under "Roster" to find contact information.  Some
of the Senators have e-mail, but not all of them check it regularly.  You
can leave a message for any Senator at 801-538-1035, or 800-953-8824.  You
can fax Democratic Senators at 801-538-1449, and Republican Senators at
801-538-1414.


4) PLEASE FORWARD OR OTHERWISE DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYONE WHO
VALUES FIREARMS RIGHTS  OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN UTAH.


Thank you for your support.  This is the BIG ONE, so we need to work
together to protect our rights!

Following is USSC's analysis of the bill, as previously posted.

HELP DEFEAT SB 57!!!

SB 57, Concealed Firearms Amendments, introduced by Senate President Lane
Beattie
is a bad bill for many reasons:
First of all, contrary to the title of the bill, it is NOT only about
concealed weapons.  The bill refers to "dangerous weapons".  This includes
concealed pistols, of course, but also includes knives, long guns, and
virtually anything else that can cause bodily injury.

1. It prohibits firearms (and dangerous weapons) on church (or other house
of worship) property, regardless of the wishes of that particular church.
a) This sets a dangerous precedent of allowing the State to dictate to a
church or religion what it is or is not allowed to do.  It is not the
business of the state to dictate religious practices.
b) The "defense to prosecution" clause is essentially meaningless.  It
provides that  the police may enter a church, haul you out in handcuffs,
(shoot you if you resist or if they're particularly worried about your
gun), arrest you, book you, and humiliate you - EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE
PERMISSION OF THE CHURCH.  Assuming you survive the process, you then have
to hire and pay defense counsel, and only at your trial may you present
your "defense" that you had "permission".  And then you still have to go
back to court to try to get your seized weapon returned and your permit
reinstated.
c) The bill mandates that each church have a policy on firearms.  If a
church wishes to allow, or even encourage, members to carry, it must
maintain a database of who carries, and who has permission to do so, and
must issue statements of permission.  Thus the state is forcing churches to
do additional work and act as _de facto_ police.
d) This bill disproportionately affects those people who live in high crime
neighborhoods, especially those who must walk to services, and may actually
deter people from attending church.

2.The bill  mandates that a no one may carry a firearm (or dangerous
weapon)  into a private residence, again regardless of the wishes of the
owner.  It is not the business of the state to tell a homeowner what he may
do in his own home!  (There isn't even an exclusion for the homeowner!)
a) The same "defense to prosecution" problem exists.
b) This is a gross violation of the privacy of firearms owners.  The
essence of  concealed carry is CONCEALED.  If you have to tell everyone you
know that you're carrying, any benefit of concealment disappears.  If
criminals know you are carrying (especially for women who carry in purses),
you become an excellent target for an ambush.  In addition, since firearms
owners often collect firearms, if criminals know you are carrying, they may
target your house for a burglary.  And remember that YOU may be held liable
for what's done with your stolen firearm!
c) This bill presumes that law abiding gun owners with CCW's are so
dangerous  that they must announce their presence before entering a private
residence.  Not even convicted felons or sex offenders are required to do
this.  Are gun owners lower than child molesters or more dangerous than
convicted rapists and murderers?

3. This bill prohibits firearms (and dangerous weapons) from the premises
of schools.
a) By declaring schools to be off-limits to responsible gun owners, schools
are advertising that they are easy and safe targets for criminals who want
to murder children, or even for student gang-bangers.  For example, in
Pearl, MI, the student who gunned down several of his fellow students was
stopped only by a teacher who kept a firearm in his car.
b) By prohibiting firearms teachers are also identified as easy targets.
This is especially true for female teachers and those teachers who work
with "troubled" youth.  Their jobs are hard enough and there is no reason
to deny them the right to self-defense.
c) Schools are public property, owned by the people, and thus may not
infringe the rights of the public; they do not have private property rights.
d) Private schools are also forced to ban guns which IS a violation of
their private property rights.
e) School is defined vaguely enough that it could conceivably be construed
to include everything from universities to home schools.

THIS BILL MUST BE STOPPED!

Sarah Thompson
To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to:
[e-mail]
In the SUBJECT of the message put:
SUBSCRIBE USSC

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [SB57 Contact Info]
Date: 19 Feb 1998 18:26:43 -0700


I know this has gone out already, but here it is again in case you
want to try to phone, fax, or email any of the Senators on the
Judiciary Committee tonight or first thing Firday (Feb 20) morning
before they discuss SB57.

The hearing is scheduled for 8:00 am, RM 403, and is first on the
agenda.  Let's pack the room.


Contact info below:


Robert C. Steiner  (D)
80 North Wolcott
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103-4477
H-596-1213 O-328-883
[e-mail]

David L. Buhler  (R)
1436 South Yuma Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108
H-466-7140 O-355-5009 FAX-355-4008
[e-mail]

Craig L. Taylor (R)  (chair)
312 Oak Lane
Kaysville, Utah 84037
O-544-5909
[e-mail]

Lane Beattie (R)  (sponsor and senate pres)
1313 North 1100 West
West Bountiful, Utah 84087
H-292-7406 O-298-7000
email not listed but [e-mail] may reach him.

Lyle W. Hillyard (R) (Assistant Majority Whip)
175 East First North
Logan, Utah 84321
H-753-0043 O-752-2610
[e-mail]

Mike Dmitrich (D)
HC 65, Box 30
Altamont, Utah 84001-9703
H-454-3494
[e-mail]



--

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.

"He that violates his oath profanes the Divinity of faith itself." --
 Cicero (found on LA City Hall)

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: UofU Parking Spat
Date: 19 Feb 1998 18:50:00 -0700


This is the second article in the U POLICE REPORT in The Daily Utah
Chronicle, Friday, 13.February 1998 p3:

Feb. 11

Pigeonhole Principle Provokes Parkers' Passion
[headline written by Kevin Bergeson]

-- As on most mornings in the business parking lot,
several cars were competing for a select few open spots.

Two individuals came across the same open space; one had
been waiting "in line," and the other had stumbled across
it by chance. When the two simultaneously atttempted to
occupy the spot, tempers flared and gestures were exchanged.

After a heated exchange, the one who had been waiting
succeeded in claiming the spot. Feeling threatened by
the encounter, however, he wrote down the other car's
license plate number.

At this time, according to driver #1, the other driver
got out of his car and yelled, "Don't mess with me or
I'll put a bullet in your head."

Driver #1 then found an officer and made a report.

The officer remained by the vehicle, waiting for the
suspect to return. The officer did a quick background
check on the car and its owner, and discovered the
owner had a concealed weapons permit.

When the suspect returned, the officer confronted him
about the alleged verbal assault. The man admitted he
mentioning [sic] a bullet, but couldn't remember the
context.

He was given a misdemeanor citation for making threats.
[end]

The names of the writer, drivers and officer are not given.



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: VICTORY ALERT!!  SB 57 is DEAD!
Date: 20 Feb 1998 00:55:38 -0700

Apologies for this late message.  I just got home from my first evening out
in as long as I can remember. :)  What a GREAT surprise!

You've probably already heard by now, but just in case......

SB 57, Sen. Lane Beattie's draconian gun control bill is now DEAD!  It will
NOT be heard in committee Friday, or any other day this session, and you do
not need to attend the committee meeting.

In addition, the alternate bill discussed in a previous post is no longer
necessary and will not be further pursued.

YOU, all of you, deserve the credit for helping to preserve our gun rights.
 It was YOUR persistence and dedication, YOUR phone calls, faxes, e-mails,
and letters that finally persuaded Sen Beattie to withdraw the bill in the
face of overwhelming public opposition.  Working together, WE were able to
convince our legislators that the law abiding gun owners of Utah will not
allow their rights to be infringed.

No organization, and no lobbyist, can succeed without the support of its
members and friends, and I think I can safely speak for the rest of the
Board when I offer my heartfelt thanks to all of you.

Thanks also to our excellent lobbyist, Rob Bishop and to NRA liaison, Brian
Judy.

More thanks to:
The Utah Gun Rights Association
The Libertarian Party of Utah
Craig Fields and the folks at Gunowners of America for getting an alert out
in record time.
and of course my fellow Board members and Advisory Board members.


While I hate to be a party pooper, I do need to add that HB 343, the Range
Protection Bill, was killed by the House Judiciary Committee, on a 4-4
vote.  I don't yet have a vote report, but will get one to you as soon as I
have the information.

HAVE A VERY HAPPY WEEKEND!!!!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!

Sarah Thompson



To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to:
[e-mail]
In the SUBJECT of the message put:
SUBSCRIBE USSC

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  NRA fires telemarketer -Forwarded
Date: 20 Feb 1998 11:34:34 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id KAA19833; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:09:41 -0700
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA23578; Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:13:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma023384; Thu Feb 19 12:08:42 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

Forwarded by Michael P. Baker
Member, NRA BOD
Micanopy, FL

The following letter from Tanya K. Metaksa is in response to querys
about NRA's position on semi-auto firearms raised by recent erroneous
statements made by a contracted telephone solicitor.

        Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director
        NRA Institute for Legislative Action

Dear NRA Member:

Recently, there has been a rumor circulating about NRA-ILA's position
on the Clinton gun and magazine ban.  The rapid and widespread reach of
this erroneous information is clear evidence of the need to confirm,
with a reliable source, any questionable information obtained via the
Internet.  I thank you for taking the time to do just that by contacting
my office.

The basis for this rumor was a conversation between one particular
individual and a representative from a telemarketing firm contracted by
NRA for membership recruitment. Unfortunately, in his zeal to sign up a
new member, the telemarketer made several false statements to this
particular individual regarding our position on the Clinton gun and
magazine ban.  The telemarketing firm in question has been suspended
pending further review of their procedures.  Furthermore, the
telemarketer involved in this incident has been removed from our
account.

Let me assure you that NRA-ILA opposes the Clinton gun and magazine ban
and is committed to its full repeal.  We opposed this ban when it was
first introduced as stand-alone legislation; we opposed it being
attached to the rest of the 1994 Clinton crime bill; and we are still
opposed to the ban now that it is law.

Our efforts to defeat the ban in Congress are well-documented.  During
the summer of 1994, NRA-ILA led the charge against this ill-conceived
legislation.  We left no stone unturned, no option unused in our effort
to kill this bill.  When it became clear that despite our best efforts,
we did not have the votes to block its passage, we orchestrated the
legislative maneuver that stalled its passage for two weeks.
Unfortunately, with the vast resources of the United States Treasury at
his disposal, President Clinton was finally able to persuade enough
lawmakers to drop their opposition to his crime bill and force it
through Congress.

We did not give up, however.  That fall, we poured millions of dollars
into campaigns across the nation to defeat anti-gun politicians and
elect the most pro-gun Congress in decades.  President Clinton himself
"blamed" NRA for his party's decisive defeat in the 1994 elections, and
acknowledged during his State of the Union address in January the
politically devastating impact of his anti-gun policies.

In 1996, on a bi-partisan vote, the House of Representatives passed
overwhelmingly a full repeal of the Clinton gun and magazine ban.
Passage of this repeal was achieved only after months of hard work by
NRA-ILA to bring this legislation to the floor.  Unfortunately, the
Senate took no action on the repeal.

While we relentlessly exploited every legislative remedy at our
disposal, we simultaneously pursued this matter in the courts.  In 1995,
NRA filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan challenging the law.  When that suit was dismissed, NRA
appealed to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court.  Last November, that court
reinstated the challenge to the federal gun ban, and as I write to you
today, the staff of NRA's Office of General Counsel is busy preparing
their arguments in this case.

Clearly, an organization that supported the Clinton gun and magazine
ban would never go to such lengths to abolish it.  In fact, NRA has
invested more money and time in the effort to scrap the Clinton gun and
magazine ban than any other organization in the United States.  And I
would remind you that our battle against gun bans is by no means limited
to the Federal level.  Right now, in California, NRA is fighting a
semi-automatic ban that threatens to put law-abiding gun owners like you
and me in jail.

I hope this information puts to rest any concerns you may have had
about this matter.  Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you
ever have any questions about this or any other NRA-ILA policy.

            Sincerely,

            Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director
            NRA Institute for Legislative Action


I hope that this helps to put this issue to rest, so that we can all get
back to focusing on our primary concerns--defending the Second
Amendment.

Sincerely,

Anthony Roulette
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: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd from ca-liberty: Charlton Heston - Father of gun control!
Date: 20 Feb 1998 17:11:26 -0700

I haven't verified this.  It sounds plausible, but that doesn't mean it's
_true_.
I also think it's necessary to add that people DO change.  I was once an
advocate of gun control; it doesn't mean I am now.  OTOH, I haven't seen
any real evidence that Heston has had a change of heart.

Sarah

>>From: [e-mail]
>>Subject: Charlton Heston - Father of gun control!
>>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:10:29 EST
>>To: [e-mail]
>>
>>Did you see the posting on talk.politics.guns of a letter Heston signed in
>>1968 calling for national gun control?  Bad enough he's on the radio giving
>>away our assault weapon rights, now this....Heston is the father of gun
>>control!!!
>>
>>These letters are in the LBJ Library in Texas.  Transcribed word for word
>>below.
>>
>>(White House letterhead)
>>
>>June 20, 1968
>>Thursday, 8:00 p.m.
>>
>>FOR THE PRESIDENT
>>
>>FROM:  Joe Califano
>>
>>I thought you might be interested in the attached statement which Hugh
>O'Brien
>>read on the Joey Bishop Show last Tuesday.  This was a statement
>subscribed to
>>by Charlton Heston, Kirk Douglas, James Stewart and Gregory Peck and has
been
>>widely circulated throughout the country.
>>
>>The statement was prepared by Levinson and Middleton and was "slipped" to
>Hugh
>>O'Brien through Jack Valenti.
>>
>>Attachment
>>
>>
>>TWO WEEKS AGO, ROBERT F. KENNEDY BECAME ONE OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS STRUCK
>>DOWN BY AN ASSASSIN'S BULET.  SOMETIME TODAY, IN SOME CITY IN AMERICA, A GUN
>>SHOT WILL RING OUT AND SOMEONE ELSE WILL FALL DEAD OR WOUNDED.  THE VICTIM
>MAY
>>BE A PUBLIC LEADER OR A PRIVATE CITIZEN, BUT WHOEVER HE IS AND WHEREVER HE
>>FALLS, HE IS NOT ONLY THE VICTIM OF A GUNMAN -- HE IS THE VICTIM OF
>>INDIFFERENCE.
>>
>>THE TRAGEDY IS STARK AND REAL.  THE SCARS LAST FOREVER, AND THE ULTIMATE AND
>>SENSELESS HORROR IS THAT SO MUCH OF THIS SLAUGHTER COULD BE PREVENTED.  OUR
>>GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE SO LAX THAT ANYONE CAN BUY A WEAPON...THE MENTALLY ILL,
>>THE CRIMINAL, THE BOY TOO YOUNG TO BEAR RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNING A DEADLY
>>WEAPON.
>>
>>THE SOUND OF THAT GUNFIRE WILL ECHO AGAIN...TOMORROW, THE DAY AFER, AND ALL
>>THE DAYS TO FOLLOW UNLESS WE ACT!!!  6,500 PEOPLE ARE MURDERED EVERY YEAR
>WITH
>>FIREARMS IN THESE UNITED STATES.  THIS IS AN OUTRAGE AND WHEN IT IS COMPARED
>>WITH THE FAR, FAR LOWER RATES IN OTHER FREE COUNTRIES, IT IS INTOLERABLE.
>>
>>LIKE MOST AMERICANS, WE SHARE THE CONVICTION THAT STRONGER GUN CONTROL
>>LEGISLATION IS MANDATORY IN THIS TRAGIC SITUATION.  WE DO NOT SPEAK FROM
>>IGNORENCE OF FIREARMS.  THE FIVE OF US COUNT OURSELVES AMONG THE MILLIONS OF
>>AMERICANS WHO RESPECT THE PRIVILEGE OF OWNING GUNS AS SPORTSMEN OR AS
PRIVATE
>>COLLECTORS.  WE HAVE USED GUNS ALL OUR LIVES BUT THE PROPER USE OF GUNS IN
>>PRIVATE HANDS IS NOT TO KILL PEOPLE.
>>
>>THE CONGRESS HAS RECENTLY GIVEN US SOME PROTECTION AGAINST PISTOLS IN THE
>>WRONG HANDS, BUT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH...NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.  THE CARNAGE WILL
NOT
>>STOP UNTIL THERE IS EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE SALE OF RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS.
>>
>>           PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.
>>           MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.
>>           MEDGER EVERS WAS MURDERED BY A RIFLE.
>>
>>NOT LONG AGO, A DEMENTED SNIPER PERCHED ON A TOWER KILLED FOURTEEN PEOPLE IN
>>COLD BLOOD...BY A RIFLE.
>>
>>FOR MANY LONG MONTHS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ASKED THE
>>CONGRESS TO PASS SUCH A LAW, BUT THE CONGRESS WILL NOT LISTEN UNLESS YOU,
THE
>
>>VOTER, SPEAKS OUT...UNLESS THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY RISE UP AND DEMAND
>THAT
>>THE CONGRESS GIVE US A STRONG AND EFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL LAW.
>>
>>THE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED.  IN THE SENAT, IT IS S-3633.  IN THE
>>HOUSE IT IS HR-177735.
>>
>>THIS BILL IS NO MYSTERY.  LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT IT.  IT'S PURPOSE IS SIMPLE
>AND
>>DIRECT.  IT IS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE SPORTSMAN OF HIS HUNTING GUN, THE MARKSMAN
>>OF HIS TARGET RIFLE, NOR WOULD IT DENY TO ANY RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN HIS
>>CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM.  IT IS TO PREVENT THE MURDER OF
>>AMERICANS.  IT CONTAINS THREE SENSIBLE AND REALISTIC RULES.
>>
>>FIRST, IT WOULD OUTLAW THE MAIL ORDER SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES.  IF THIS
>>LAW WERE IN FORCE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IT MIGHT HAVE STOPPED LEE HARVEY OSWALD
>>FROM BUYING THE HIGH-POWERED RIFLE HE USED TO MURDER PRESIDENT JOHN F.
>>KENNEDY. EACH YEAR ON MILLION RIFLES ARE SOLD THROUGH THE MAILS.
>>
>>SECOND, IT WILL OUTLAW SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO MINORS -- PEOPLE TOO
>>YOUNG TO BEAR THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED IN THE HANDS OF A GUN OWNER.
>>
>>THIRD, IT WILL OUTLAW THE SALES OF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES TO STRANGERS.  PEOPLE
>>WHO DRIFT ACROSS STATE LINES, TOO OFTEN WITHOUT CREDENTIALS, BUY THESE
>>WEAPONS, AS EASILY AS THEY BUY CIGARETTES AND CANDY.  THE STATES WHICH HAVE
>>STRONG GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL BE PROTECTED.
>>
>>WE URGE YOU, AS  A RESPONSIBLE, SENSIBLE AND CONCERNED CITIZEN, TO WRITE OR
>>WIRE YOUR SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN IMMEDIATELY AND DEMAND THEY SUPPORT THESE
>>BILLS.  IN THE SENATE, IT IS BILL S-3633.  IN THE HOUSE OF
>REPRESENTATIVES, IT
>>IS BILL HR-17735.
>>
>>IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY...IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE...FOR THE COMMON
>SAFETY OF
>>US ALL...FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA, WE MUST ACT IS UP TO YOU...YOU ALONE AND
>>THE TIME IS NOW!
>>
>>CHARLTON HESTON, KIRK DOUGLAS, JAMES STEWART, GREGORY PECK, HUGH O'BRIEN
>>
>
>

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: University Police contact info
Date: 20 Feb 1998 19:01:00 -0700


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

> I would also want to read the report and make sure the fellow was
> actually a CCW permit holder rather than someone simply in possession
> of a concealed weapon.  Papers tend to make a habit of missing that
> subtle point when reporting on bad guys.

You could check with the University Police. (I think the officer who
mainly corresponds with the press is named Kevin Nollenberg.)
[Chronicle office phone # [phone]]

University Police phone numbers:
Building 301: 585-2677
Administration: 581-7619
Records: 585-3634
Investigations: 581-5460
Crime Prevention: 585-2677
Security Division: 581-8669


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Chronicle editorial
Date: 20 Feb 1998 19:01:00 -0700


Unsigned editorial: Reply to [e-mail] or drop off at
240 Union. Please include phone number for verification purposes.

http://chronicle.utah.edu/0dag/opinion/0298/1902perspec/1902house.html

DUC: Letters and Opinion

CHRONICLE EDITORIAL

Weapons on Campus? The Debate Goes On

It's another normal day on campus. You're walking through
the plaza by the Marriott Library and you notice somebody
carrying a shotgun at his side. You think it's odd, but
continue on. Suddenly you notice a rifle slung over the
shoulder of another student. Upon closer inspection, you see
noticeable bulges underneath students' jackets. It seems
everybody on campus has a weapon but you.

It may seem sensational, but just such a scenario is plausible.

There's a big hullabaloo brewing over the University of
Utah's and Governor Michael Leavitt's bans on weapons. The
U's ban prohibits weapons on campus and Leavitt's prohibits
state employees from packing heat in state buildings, state
cars or while on state business. Legislative lawyers and
some legislators say such bans are illegal.

Think about it, if the ban on campus is lifted, students
will get weapons just because they can. If there's no fear
of retribution, they'll flaunt them. Other students, fearing
the students who already have guns will get guns of their own.

Soon, large portions of the student population will be
packing heat. If someone has a weapon on their person, think
about what could happen if that person encounters somebody who
deftly maneuvers into a parking space before them. Think about
what could happen the next time tempers flare in the long
lines at the Student Services Building. It could get ugly.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) makes
employers responsible for providing safe work places, banning
weapons does just that. The university and the governor should
continue their policies until it's no longer possible, that is,
until the Legislature clarifies the laws to include the
university and state institutions as places where guns are
allowed, or until the courts rule the ban illegal.

The Chronicle feels the Legislature should leave the issue
alone and recognize the fact it's not healthy to have guns
everywhere you go, but its not likely that will happen.

If the University of Utah is serious about keeping the
gun ban on campus, it should propose legislation of its own
to ensure the ban will stay in place. Such a bill would
stand a good chance of passing. We have the support of the
governor and the attorney general, an odd couple, but
capable of garnering the support of legislators on both
sides of the aisle.

The Daily Utah Chronicle is an independent student newspaper.
Unsigned editorial reflect the majority view of the Chronicle
Editorial Board.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Fwd from ca-liberty: Charlton Heston - Father of gun control!
Date: 21 Feb 1998 07:31:00 -0700


On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 S. Thompson wrote:

>I haven't verified this.  It sounds plausible, but that doesn't mean it's
>_true_.
>I also think it's necessary to add that people DO change.  I was once an
>advocate of gun control; it doesn't mean I am now.  OTOH, I haven't seen
>any real evidence that Heston has had a change of heart.

[snip]

>>>GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE SO LAX THAT ANYONE CAN BUY A WEAPON...THE MENTALLY ILL,

Have you seen the Jan 26, 1998 NEWSWEEK? The cover story implies
we may all be a little crazy. Perhaps indicative of a design to bar
anyone from having a firearm except under direct federal supervision?
Also, why was that "letter" in all caps? Was it actually a telegram?
Were the spelling and grammatical errors in the original?

Copy to [e-mail]


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning
Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:26:39 -0700

Attached is a message about antigun public service announcements
running in Dallas.  In Utah these same TV  PSA are sponsored by IHC.

I wrote a letter to IHC's President - Scott Parker and copied VP of public
relations - John Taylor.  After a couple of weeks I called John Taylor to
discuss the PSA.

We discussed the actual numbers of accidential gun deaths and how the
PSA are misleading, if not deceptive.  I was basically patted on the head
and told I didn't know what I was talking about.  Later I received a letter
mostly saying that IHC was right and that my information was wrong.

It is time that we start criticising IHC for running anti gun ads that teach
kids dangerous and irresponsible gun handling practices.

These include how to break into a locked gun case, (use your dad's
birthday), showing kids that when they see a gun they should immediatly
pick it up, point it at the nearest person and pull the trigger.

I offered to give my Eddie Eagle video to IHC to use as a PSA, because it
teaches a much safer and smarter message to kids, "Stop, Don't touch,
Leave the area and teall an adault."  IHC was not interested.  Seems that
IHC is more interested in the political ageda than in providing a
responsible PSA.

I did find out that the IHC person pushing this campaign is a Mr. Bill
Barnes at Primary Children's Medical Center.

As suggested in the attached e-mail, it is time we find out more about this
and start the letter writing campaign.
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA21595; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma021547; Mon Feb 23 09:47:26 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

I just heard another PSA public service announcement by a group called
"Project Lifeline" on 1190AM IMUS in the morning 8am Dallas 2-23.
It had the sound of kids playing with a loaded handgun in the background
as a Woman Doctor talks about how: A gun is fired more times against a
love one or friend than an intruder. You are 43 more times to be injured
by a gun if you own one. Please if you own one remove the bullets and put
them in a safe place, better yet get rid of the gun. Then you here the
kids fussing over the gun and it discharges. Then she says before its to
late.

It is time we find out more about this and start the letter writing
campaign. Imus is one of the top rated shows in America. I think this is
only being aired in Dallas at this time.
Regards,
Paul Watson C.P.M., [e-mail]   Senior Buyer UTD
The University of Texas at Dallas ph# 972/883-2307,fax# [phone]





-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Love Libertarian Style
Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700


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

This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife
Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal.
handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed
me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife
on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic,
loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means
to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see
my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery
victim."

My friend then smiled and said my point was well taken but she herself
could never carry a gun for self-defense for fear a criminal may take
the gun away from her and use it on her because she wouldn't have the
nerve to pull the trigger and shoot anybody. I then told her, she could
go shooting with me and Lori and that once she became more familiar
with firearms she'd have more self-confidence and less to fear (just
like Lori) as Lori was once shy of guns but now wants to go shooting
all the time as Lori finds it not only relaxing but fun. Cat said she
would consider tagging along and for us to let her know next time we
go shooting.

Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion
and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think
that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for
self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody
into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such).

At any rate, until our friend works through her gun phobia, Lori
suggests, we get her some pepper spray for her upcoming birthday,
which makes me wonder... what good is pepper spray going to do, if
you're still too cared to squeeze the trigger? ;)

Unfortunately, our friend lives in a high crime area and works the
night shift and thus our concern. Nobody wants to see anybody become
a crime victim especially your friends but sometimes that's what it
takes for some people to learn the importance of self-preservation.

Next year, I'll send my wife flowers with a box of ammo.

Warmly,
Don



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [Fw: Hb-57 dead.  Guns or Games.  Food storage not allowed inIndonesia]
Date: 23 Feb 1998 09:51:58 -0700


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

----------
> From: Mike Megeath <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Hb-57 dead.  Guns or Games.  Food storage not allowed
inIndonesia
> Date: Friday, February 20, 1998 4:29 PM
>
>  You have probably heard by now that Sen Beattie
> withdrew SB-57.  Good news indeed.
>   You might like to know where this bill and those
> similar to it are pointed.  You will come to understand
> why Governor Leavitt quietly passed a no guns policy
> and why the U of Utah did likewise, although not so
> quietly.
>   Olympic rules require "gun free" zones.  In order to get
> the Olympics and perhaps even to hold the Olympics
> after they were awarded, local authorities have
> promised to make it so.   No guns at Olympic sites.
> The "without restriction" clause of current  CCW law is
> at odds with this.
>   We have yet to learn what constitutes an Olympic
> site.   Considering sites are widely dispersed, local
> officials might be required to insure gun free
> transportation zones and parking facilities.  Perhaps
> there can be no guns within a certain radius of a site.
>    Since we are talking about a lot of money to loose
> our elected officials are in a real bind.  Uphold the law
> or loose the Olympics.   I surmise pressure to kill CCW
> and  eliminate gun rights will build as the time for the
> games approach in 2002.   Our opponents will look for
> and perhaps "create" an "incident" to inflame the
> passions of the populace.   They may try to finesse the
> issue,  delaying a full hearing of restrictions until after
> the games are held, then admit they were wrong.
>    I think, as rights activists, we  must be on guard for
> such incidents and behavior.   We should use the
> games to  prove to the world that every human being
> has a right to keep and bare arms for defense of self,
> family, property or country without restriction.  More
> especially law abiding citizens.  We should give the
> world another shining light on a hill to better see truth
> and better  hear that immortal word, "freedom"
> shouted out by the  brave and  courageous people of
> Utah.
>    The "without restriction" clause of Utah's CCW  law is
> at odds with the Olympic Games rules for a  host city.
> Utah has the games, and now, our elected officials
> must keep their promise to the citizens of Utah or to
> the U.S. and World Olympic Committees.
>    Guns or Games what will it be?
>
>    That's my view.  I could be wrong.   I'd like to hear
> what you think.
>
-------
> Out of 2/20/98  "USA Today,"  Section B (Money), Page
> 1, Money Line.
> "Death Penalty.   Indonesians found guilty of hoarding
> any of the nine basic essential goods, such as rice or
> cooking oil, could face the death penalty, a
> spokesman for the country's Attorney  General said
> today.  Warehouses are also subject to more stringent
> rules.  The action was taken after shortages spurred
> rioting across the nation."
> Comment:  Corruption and official interference
> with the  economy.   These folks might send an
> Olympic team to Utah.
>
> Happy Birthday George.
>
> end.  =|:^#
----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 best that we can hope for concerning the people at large is that
 they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers at
 184-8)

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  RTR:Supreme Court Lets Stand Ruby Ridge Ruling  (fwd)
Date: 23 Feb 1998 15:18:11 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA24479; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:01:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma024340; Mon Feb 23 13:59:17 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list


Does this mean there really is a "legal over riding authority" could it be
the US constitution?=20

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


http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/top_stories/story.html?s=3Dn/reuters/9=
80223/news/stories/rubyridge_1.html

--

 Monday February 23 11:17 AM EST

 Supreme Court Lets Stand Ruby Ridge Ruling

 By Gail Appleson

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court Monday=20
let stand a ruling that said federal agents at the
 deadly seige at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 are not=20
immune from civil claims they lied about events at the
 shootout.

 This case stems from the fatal confrontation at the=20
home of white separatist Randy Weaver. The FBI's
 "shoot to kill" policy led to the death of Weaver's=20
wife and the serious wounding of his long-time
 friend, Kevin Harris.

 Harris sued 13 federal agents for their actions but=20
the agents moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging
 they were immune from such claims. The district court=20
denied the motion based on the Fourth Amendment,
 which prohibits unreasonable seizure.

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

 On Aug. 21, 1992, the agents entered Weaver's property=20
to serve an arrest warrant upon Weaver. Harris was
 then living on the Weaver property. Three agents had=20
confronted Harris, Weaver, Weaver's son Sammy, and
 the family dog at a road intersection near the Weaver=20
property.

 One of the agents shot and killed the dog and firing=20
erupted. Sammy and one of the agents were killed.
 Harris said he fired one or more shots but that they=20
were in self defense.

 Following the incident, Harris alleged that some of=20
the agents conspired to lie about events, including
 describing Harris as the initiator. A group of FBI=20
agents and marshals then created a special "shoot to
 kill" rule allowing them to shoot adults in the=20
vicinity.

 On Aug. 22, federal agents shot and wounded Weaver and=20
killed his wife. Harris was seriously injured when
 he was hit in the chest and arm. The standoff ended=20
nine days later when Weaver surrendered.

 Weaver and Harris were indicted for assaulting the=20
agents with a deadly weapon and for killing the agent,
 though they were later acquitted.

 Harris then sued the agents. Among his claims was that=20
his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. He
 argued that the agents' lie about his role in the first=20
shooting led him to be shot and almost killed in
 the second incident. The fabrications also led to his=20
arrest and wrongful prosecution.

 The agents argued that as law enforcement officers,=20
they had immunity from claims that they gave false
 testimony.

 The Ninth Circuit said that while immunity has been=20
granted to officers who testify during the trial
 stage of a proceeding, this was a difference case. It=20
held that the agents at Ruby Ridge functionally
 served as complaining witnesses who initiated Harris'=20
prosecution and as such were not entitled to
 immunity for their false statements.

 The court also said that the 13 defendants, working=20
together, created special rules that required FBI
 agents to "shoot on sight" in order to "kill." The=20
rules infringed on Harris' rights. The appeals court
 said there was no immunity for this as well or the=20
fact that Harris was shot without warning while he was
 retreating.
 -------------------------------------------------------- =20
Copyright =A9 1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.=20
Republication or redistribution of Reuters content
  is expressly prohibited without the prior written=20
consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any
               errors or delays in the content, or for=20
any actions taken in reliance thereon.




-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Political quote -Forwarded
Date: 23 Feb 1998 15:14:12 -0700

Received: from shire.coloc.XMISSION.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id ra511073; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:21:23 -0700
Received: from slc507.modem.xmission.com (W7RCP.pengar.com) [166.70.7.11]
    by hobbiton.shire.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0y71ZA-0006oC-00; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:21:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListMember: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]

The following quote was emailed to me by a friend.  It appeared in an
article about photocop.

"As representatives we are given the power to take people's money and
their rights."
 Rep.  Keele Johnson, R-Blanding

/Allen
--------
You're already a Libertarian in your heart, why not
at the voting booth?


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: URGENT ALERT! - RANGE PROTECTION
Date: 23 Feb 1998 15:58:32 -0700

URGENT ALERT!

SUBSTITUTE HB 343, a new range protection bill, will be heard in the House
Judiciary Committee at 8 AM tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 24.  The meeting will
be held in Room 223 at the State Capitol.

You may remember that last week the original HB 343 was defeated in
committee on a 4-4 vote.  (Not all members of the committe were present.)
Although I still don't have formal vote results, committeee members voting
AGAINST HB 343 were Nielsen, Rowan, Tyler, and possibly Arent.

The substitute bill is not available online as of this afternoon.  The new
bill, unlike the original version, does not deal with zoning issues.
Because the primary objection to the bill offered by the League of Cities
and Towns was that it removed too much discretion from local governments,
this bill should be more acceptable.

The new bill provide that:
1) Users of the range accept reasonable risks associated with using a
shooting range
2) Noise ordinances may not be used to shut down an existing range
3) Developers within roughly 1/4 mile of the range are required to inform
prospective buyers that they are in a shooting zone range.

ACTIONS:

1) If at all possible, please SHOW UP at the committee hearing tomorrow.
We had a good turnout last time, and I hate to ask people to take time to
attend yet again, but it is important that we fill the room one more time.
This bill is the ONLY item currently on the agenda, so it should be a quick
meeting.

2) Contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to
support this bill.  We have addressed their concerns and would like them to
reciprocate.  Reps. Arrington, Hickman, Keele Johnson, and possibly Curtis
supported the original, so please thank them for their support if you
contact them.  Members of the committee are:

         A. Lamont Tyler, Chair
    Greg J. Curtis, Vice Chair
    Katherine Bryson
    Bill Hickman
    Keele Johnson
    Swen Nielsen
    Tammy J. Rowan
    Glenn L. Way
    Patrice Arent
    John B. Arrington
    Loretta Baca

Individual contact information including e-mail can be found at
http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/html/members.htm

All Representatives can be contacted by phone at 801-538-1029 or 800-662-3367.

The fax for Republican Representatives is 801-538-1908 and for Democrats is
801-538-9505.


As always, thanks for your support and assistance.  The session is almost
over and YOU have done a great job!!

Sarah Thompson

As always, comments may be directed to any of the Board members listed below.

The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info
made public.  Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse
their open-door policy.  All of us are VERY busy right now.

Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), [e-mail]
Elwood Powell,  426-8274 or 583-2882 (w), 364-0412 (h),
    [e-mail]
Shirley Spain, 963-0784, [e-mail]
Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w)
Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, [e-mail]  (I prefer e-mail to phone
calls when possible).
Joe Venus, 571-2223



To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to:
[e-mail]
In the SUBJECT of the message put:
SUBSCRIBE USSC

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA fires telemarketer 2/2
Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700


NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them"
(high capacity semi-automatic rifles)

by ORAL DECKARD
The Vigo Examiner

I just got off the phone with the NRA (The Powerful gun Lobby.)
I was told repeatedly that "Our purpose is to get rid of them"
(high capacity semi-automatic rifles).

Usually I get calls from The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep
and Bear Arms. And every time they call I ask them "What does the
Second Amendment say?" And every time, without fail, they are taken by
surprise, and stammer out bits of it, and fail. When pressed, they say
something along the lines of "Well, I can't recite it word for word."

And I always reply, "Why not? It's really not very long. And this is
your job. You want me to give you money to defend the Second
Amendment, and you don't even know what it says?"

Sometimes they hang up on me at that point, and sometimes they
continue trying to save face. Then there are some that aren't even
embarrassed.

This one started as a routine phone solicitation. But as usual I
decided to have a little fun with the poor fellow. He told me that my
NRA membership had lapsed, and that he would just reinstate it. I
replied "No, I support the Second Amendment."

There was a long pause. Then he began again to sign me up again. So I
clarified. "I dropped out of the NRA because I support the Second
Amendment and the NRA does not. I prefer the Gun Owners of America
([e-mail]) and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership. (Against- [e-mail])

He asked "Are you aware that Charlton Heston has taken control of the
NRA?" Now it was getting serious. I answered "Yes, and he went on TV
and announced that there was no need for anyone to own an AK-47."

I thought I was being clear, but obviously not clear enough, as he
took that as a good thing.

So I asked "What does the Second Amendment say." He replied "The right
to keep guns and stuff. I don't know it word for word."

So I simply told him what it says: "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."

I then asked him what that meant. He said that when the Second
Amendment was first drafted it was necessary to hunt for food. But now
we could buy instant food.

A few months ago I got a call from an NRA solicitor trying to get my
wife signed back up. The next day when I reported that he had said no
one needed high capacity semi-automatic rifles I was challenged to
identify him. Unfortunately I had failed to get his name. But not
this time.

So I asked for his name, and was told "Richard Kuhlman." He even
spelled it for me. I asked "OK, this is the evening shift of February
4th, where are you calling from." He answered "Wichita Kansas."

As a double check, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, I
asked "Is there any need to protect assault high capacity
semi-automatic rifles?" He answered "We would like to keep them for
matches and things, but they don't have to have those big magazines,
and only if they were used just for that purpose. We want to be
reasonable."

I then asked if I could speak to his supervisor.

His supervisor was Mario. Just to be sure there was no
misunderstanding, I introduced myself as a reporter for the Vigo
Examiner, explained Richard Kuhlman and myself were just discussing
the need to protect high capacity semi-automatic rifles, and asked
"What's your take on it?"

He asked "You want my opinion, or the NRA's opinion?" I answered
"Both." So he explained that all the high capacity semi-automatic
rifles were imported from foreign countries, and "we are trying to get
rid of them."

Again, I went for a repeat, just to make sure. I asked "Are you saying
the NRA is to trying to get rid of high capacity semiautomatic rifles?"

He didn't hesitate. He said "Yes, our purpose is to get rid of them."

So I thanked him and told him my story would be out tomorrow
(Feb. 5th, 1998)

So what could I conclude from this? Every time I have an NRA solicitor
on the phone I am told that they don't support the Second Amendment,
and now, that their PURPOSE is to GET RID OF a whole class of
firearms, the class of firearms the Second Amendment was specifically
enacted to protect.

Even when I was insistent, to the point of being rude, that I objected
to their selling out the Second Amendment, they either didn't get it,
or were determined that the Second Amendment is to be abandoned. They
both seemed to be genuinely embarrassed by the Second Amendment. This
time I didn't get it just from the solicitor, but also from his
supervisor. And not just his opinion, but as he stated it, the opinion
of the NRA.

So there it is folks. You can either support the Constitution, or you
can support the NRA, but you cannot support the Constitution THROUGH
the NRA.

Long ago I gave up my NRA phone card. A couple months ago I let my NRA
membership lapse. Now, I look in my wallet and find there, still, an
NRA VISA. Well, that one is the walking dead.

One of the men said Wayne Lapierre said we didn't want to lose members
over a gun. It looks like the NRA, which has been accused over the
years of refusing to compromise, has just compromised, big time. When
you give up a right, in order to be "reasonable", just how reasonable
will you ultimately have to become?

In 1992-1993 I spent six months in Sweden. The folks there bragged
that they could own any kind of gun they wanted, as long as it didn't
hold over two shots. They were reasonable.

And when you decide you cannot give up any more, on what solid ground
will you now brace your feet?

Having conceded to the elimination of one class of firearm, there is
now no solid position from which the NRA can defend any firearm. That
defense must now rest with those who have not compromised the
Constitution. After Neville Chamberlain announced "Peace in our
time", it then fell to Winston Churchill to defend England.

Will appeasement defend a few "sporting" rifles? The NRA is betting
the Constitution on it. Now is the time for all good men (and ladies)
to get off the fence. Which side will you come down on? Either you are
loyal to the Constitution, or you are disloyal. The NRA doesn't seem
too proud of our Constitution.

Copyright (C) 1998, The Vigo Examiner All are free to republish at
will this intact document. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Guns for Olympic Games?
Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700


Is Mike Megeath's assertion that the Olympics require gun-free
zones correct?

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

You have probably heard by now that Sen Beattie withdrew SB-57.
Good news indeed.

You might like to know where this bill and those similar to it are
pointed. You will come to understand why Governor Leavitt quietly
passed a no guns policy and why the U of Utah did likewise, although
not so quietly.

Olympic rules require "gun free" zones. In order to get the Olympics
and perhaps even to hold the Olympics after they were awarded, local
authorities have promised to make it so. No guns at Olympic sites. The
"without restriction" clause of current CCW law is at odds with this.

We have yet to learn what constitutes an Olympic site. Considering
sites are widely dispersed, local officials might be required to
insure gun free transportation zones and parking facilities.
Perhaps there can be no guns within a certain radius of a site.

Since we are talking about a lot of money to lose our elected
officials are in a real bind. Uphold the law or lose the Olympics.
I surmise pressure to kill CCW and eliminate gun rights will build
as the time for the games approach in 2002. Our opponents will look
for and perhaps "create" an "incident" to inflame the passions of
the populace. They may try to finesse the issue, delaying a full
hearing of restrictions until after the games are held, then admit
they were wrong.

As rights activists, I think we must be on guard for such incidents
and behavior. We should use the games to prove to the world that every
human being has a right to keep and bear arms for defense of self,
family, property or country without restriction. More especially law-
abiding citizens. We should give the world another shining light on a
hill to better see truth and better hear that immortal word, "freedom"
shouted out by the brave and courageous people of Utah.

The "without restriction" clause of Utah's CCW law is at odds with
the Olympic Games rules for a host city. Utah has the games, and now,
our elected officials must keep their promise to the citizens of Utah
or to the U.S. and World Olympic Committees.

Guns or Games what will it be?

That's my view. I could be wrong. I'd like to hear what you think.


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Love Libertarian Style
Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:58:19 -0700

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:11:48 EST
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
>
> This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife
> Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal.
> handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed
> me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife
> on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic,
> loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means
> to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see
> my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery
> victim."
>
[snip]
> Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion
> and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think
> that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for
> self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody
> into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such).
[snip]
> Warmly,
> Don
>
> -

Indeed.

For her wedding present, I gave Sarah the first of her collection
of Glocks.  This one was her 19.  First shot, she put a hole in the
center
of the logo on a Pepsi can from about 15-20 feet.

I knew then I'd made the right choice.

Will

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA fires telemarketer 2/2
Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700


NRA: "Our purpose is to get rid of them"
(high capacity semi-automatic rifles)

by ORAL DECKARD
The Vigo Examiner

I just got off the phone with the NRA (The Powerful gun Lobby.)
I was told repeatedly that "Our purpose is to get rid of them"
(high capacity semi-automatic rifles).

Usually I get calls from The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep
and Bear Arms. And every time they call I ask them "What does the
Second Amendment say?" And every time, without fail, they are taken by
surprise, and stammer out bits of it, and fail. When pressed, they say
something along the lines of "Well, I can't recite it word for word."

And I always reply, "Why not? It's really not very long. And this is
your job. You want me to give you money to defend the Second
Amendment, and you don't even know what it says?"

Sometimes they hang up on me at that point, and sometimes they
continue trying to save face. Then there are some that aren't even
embarrassed.

This one started as a routine phone solicitation. But as usual I
decided to have a little fun with the poor fellow. He told me that my
NRA membership had lapsed, and that he would just reinstate it. I
replied "No, I support the Second Amendment."

There was a long pause. Then he began again to sign me up again. So I
clarified. "I dropped out of the NRA because I support the Second
Amendment and the NRA does not. I prefer the Gun Owners of America
([e-mail]) and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership. (Against- [e-mail])

He asked "Are you aware that Charlton Heston has taken control of the
NRA?" Now it was getting serious. I answered "Yes, and he went on TV
and announced that there was no need for anyone to own an AK-47."

I thought I was being clear, but obviously not clear enough, as he
took that as a good thing.

So I asked "What does the Second Amendment say." He replied "The right
to keep guns and stuff. I don't know it word for word."

So I simply told him what it says: "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."

I then asked him what that meant. He said that when the Second
Amendment was first drafted it was necessary to hunt for food. But now
we could buy instant food.

A few months ago I got a call from an NRA solicitor trying to get my
wife signed back up. The next day when I reported that he had said no
one needed high capacity semi-automatic rifles I was challenged to
identify him. Unfortunately I had failed to get his name. But not
this time.

So I asked for his name, and was told "Richard Kuhlman." He even
spelled it for me. I asked "OK, this is the evening shift of February
4th, where are you calling from." He answered "Wichita Kansas."

As a double check, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding, I
asked "Is there any need to protect assault high capacity
semi-automatic rifles?" He answered "We would like to keep them for
matches and things, but they don't have to have those big magazines,
and only if they were used just for that purpose. We want to be
reasonable."

I then asked if I could speak to his supervisor.

His supervisor was Mario. Just to be sure there was no
misunderstanding, I introduced myself as a reporter for the Vigo
Examiner, explained Richard Kuhlman and myself were just discussing
the need to protect high capacity semi-automatic rifles, and asked
"What's your take on it?"

He asked "You want my opinion, or the NRA's opinion?" I answered
"Both." So he explained that all the high capacity semi-automatic
rifles were imported from foreign countries, and "we are trying to get
rid of them."

Again, I went for a repeat, just to make sure. I asked "Are you saying
the NRA is to trying to get rid of high capacity semiautomatic rifles?"

He didn't hesitate. He said "Yes, our purpose is to get rid of them."

So I thanked him and told him my story would be out tomorrow
(Feb. 5th, 1998)

So what could I conclude from this? Every time I have an NRA solicitor
on the phone I am told that they don't support the Second Amendment,
and now, that their PURPOSE is to GET RID OF a whole class of
firearms, the class of firearms the Second Amendment was specifically
enacted to protect.

Even when I was insistent, to the point of being rude, that I objected
to their selling out the Second Amendment, they either didn't get it,
or were determined that the Second Amendment is to be abandoned. They
both seemed to be genuinely embarrassed by the Second Amendment. This
time I didn't get it just from the solicitor, but also from his
supervisor. And not just his opinion, but as he stated it, the opinion
of the NRA.

So there it is folks. You can either support the Constitution, or you
can support the NRA, but you cannot support the Constitution THROUGH
the NRA.

Long ago I gave up my NRA phone card. A couple months ago I let my NRA
membership lapse. Now, I look in my wallet and find there, still, an
NRA VISA. Well, that one is the walking dead.

One of the men said Wayne Lapierre said we didn't want to lose members
over a gun. It looks like the NRA, which has been accused over the
years of refusing to compromise, has just compromised, big time. When
you give up a right, in order to be "reasonable", just how reasonable
will you ultimately have to become?

In 1992-1993 I spent six months in Sweden. The folks there bragged
that they could own any kind of gun they wanted, as long as it didn't
hold over two shots. They were reasonable.

And when you decide you cannot give up any more, on what solid ground
will you now brace your feet?

Having conceded to the elimination of one class of firearm, there is
now no solid position from which the NRA can defend any firearm. That
defense must now rest with those who have not compromised the
Constitution. After Neville Chamberlain announced "Peace in our
time", it then fell to Winston Churchill to defend England.

Will appeasement defend a few "sporting" rifles? The NRA is betting
the Constitution on it. Now is the time for all good men (and ladies)
to get off the fence. Which side will you come down on? Either you are
loyal to the Constitution, or you are disloyal. The NRA doesn't seem
too proud of our Constitution.

Copyright (C) 1998, The Vigo Examiner All are free to republish at
will this intact document. http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA fires telemarketer 1/2
Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700


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

This is an important letter. However, it seems to me that overall the
incident was salutary. In her letter Metaksa suggests that the
Internet can be a source of unreliable information, and indeed it can
be (and how!). But, it turns out that the story told by The Vigo
Examiner was in the end accepted by NRA. What the Examiner said was
that one or more telemarketers had expressed views which are in effect
contrary to those of Constitutionalists, and contrary to those which
should be held by the NRA, an organization members pay to help support
the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The NRA in fact, through the
Internet rumor mill, was able to determine that there was a problem,
and to resolve that problem.

The larger implication of the Examiner's article, that the NRA itself
has a weak position, is false, according to Metaksa. But it is
nonetheless important for the NRA's marketing arms to be well-prepared
and to express the views of the organization, because when telemarketers
make calls, during those calls they _are_ NRA. The incident was salutary
because it helped NRA to realize that a problem existed and required
action, which they have taken.

>                 Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director
>                 NRA Institute for Legislative Action
> Dear NRA Member:
> Recently, there has been a rumor circulating about NRA-ILA's
> position on the Clinton gun and magazine ban.

It is perfectly natural for the recipient of a call to believe that
the contents of the call reflect the position of the organization.

> The rapid and widespread reach of this erroneous information is
> clear evidence of the need to confirm, with a reliable source, any
> questionable information obtained via the Internet.

The informational aspect of the Examiner's article was correct. The
telemarketer did reflect the position that various types of weapons
are not considered worthy of protection.

> I thank you for taking the time to do just that by contacting my
> office.

Upon receiving this information, people asked the NRA for follow-up.
Hardly a sign that the Internet is a bad resource.

> The basis for this rumor was a conversation between one particular
> individual and a representative from a telemarketing firm contracted
> by NRA for membership recruitment. Unfortunately, in his zeal to
> sign up a new member, the telemarketer made several false statements
> to this particular individual regarding our position on the Clinton
> gun and magazine ban. The telemarketing firm in question has been
> suspended pending further review of their procedures. Furthermore,
> the telemarketer involved in this incident has been removed from our
> account. [ ... ]

Thus confirming that the Examiner's information was reliable, and
important.

Below I reproduce the Examiner article. One detail which remains
unresolved is that the article makes reference to a pattern of similar
incidents.

Carl



-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Love Libertarian Style
Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:58:19 -0700

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:11:48 EST
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
>
> This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife
> Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal.
> handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed
> me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife
> on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic,
> loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means
> to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see
> my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery
> victim."
>
[snip]
> Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion
> and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think
> that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for
> self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody
> into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such).
[snip]
> Warmly,
> Don
>
> -

Indeed.

For her wedding present, I gave Sarah the first of her collection
of Glocks.  This one was her 19.  First shot, she put a hole in the
center
of the logo on a Pepsi can from about 15-20 feet.

I knew then I'd made the right choice.

Will

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning
Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:54:03 -0700


I hope I'm not seen as supporting anti-gun ads.  However, I don't
think the ads are as bad as has been suggested.

They are not aimed at kids, but at parents.  Kids don't need
instructions on how to break into the cheap 3 dial home lock box.  I'm
no genuis and by the time I was 11 or 12 I had long since figured out
that simply starting at 000 and counting my way up towards 999 would
open the box and give me the combo for future use with about 30 to 45
minutes of effort.

Neither, do I think, do they teach kids to pick up a gun and shoot--at
least far less than anything else portraying guns on TV does.  The
overall message is that to do so will get someone hurt.

The ads are aimed at parents.  And the message is simply, "Don't rely
on hiding places or simple lock devices to keep your children away
from your guns."  None of us here would disagree with that message.
They could be improved by adding the message that education
"gun-proofing" your child is as or more important than locks and
mechanical means of "child-proofing" your gun.  But as far as they go,
they are reasonably good and I think we discredit ourselves by
opposing them.  Offering the Eddie Eagle as an addittion (rather than
a substitue) which would be aimed at kids, is a good idea.

If you have kids and guns you need to, IMO, do two things.  1--teach
your child proper gun safety so that they are safe around your guns
and around any guns they may stumble across in someone else's home.
Even--or especially--those without guns need to do this as their child
are the ones who likely to be most intrigued by the mystique of guns.
2--physically secure your guns so that if your child EVER has friends
over they can not easily get into your guns if they have not been
properly trained.

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998,  DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]> posted:

>Attached is a message about antigun public service announcements
>running in Dallas.  In Utah these same TV  PSA are sponsored by IHC.
>
>I wrote a letter to IHC's President - Scott Parker and copied VP of public
>relations - John Taylor.  After a couple of weeks I called John Taylor to
>discuss the PSA.
>
>We discussed the actual numbers of accidential gun deaths and how the
>PSA are misleading, if not deceptive.  I was basically patted on the head
>and told I didn't know what I was talking about.  Later I received a letter
>mostly saying that IHC was right and that my information was wrong.
>
>It is time that we start criticising IHC for running anti gun ads that teach
>kids dangerous and irresponsible gun handling practices.
>
>These include how to break into a locked gun case, (use your dad's
>birthday), showing kids that when they see a gun they should immediatly
>pick it up, point it at the nearest person and pull the trigger.
>
>I offered to give my Eddie Eagle video to IHC to use as a PSA, because it
>teaches a much safer and smarter message to kids, "Stop, Don't touch,
>Leave the area and teall an adault."  IHC was not interested.  Seems that
>IHC is more interested in the political ageda than in providing a
>responsible PSA.
>
>I did find out that the IHC person pushing this campaign is a Mr. Bill
>Barnes at Primary Children's Medical Center.
>
>As suggested in the attached e-mail, it is time we find out more about this
>and start the letter writing campaign.
>Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA21595; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST)
>Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
>    id sma021547; Mon Feb 23 09:47:26 1998
>Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
>Errors-To: [e-mail]
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>Originator: [e-mail]
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Precedence: bulk
>From: <[e-mail]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
>Subject: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning Dallas
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
>
>I just heard another PSA public service announcement by a group called
>"Project Lifeline" on 1190AM IMUS in the morning 8am Dallas 2-23.
>It had the sound of kids playing with a loaded handgun in the background
>as a Woman Doctor talks about how: A gun is fired more times against a
>love one or friend than an intruder. You are 43 more times to be injured
>by a gun if you own one. Please if you own one remove the bullets and put
>them in a safe place, better yet get rid of the gun. Then you here the
>kids fussing over the gun and it discharges. Then she says before its to
>late.
>
>It is time we find out more about this and start the letter writing
>campaign. Imus is one of the top rated shows in America. I think this is
>only being aired in Dallas at this time.
>Regards,
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Watson C.P.M., [e-mail]   Senior Buyer UTD
>The University of Texas at Dallas ph# 972/883-2307,fax# [phone]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>-
>
>


--

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: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Love Libertarian Style
Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:58:19 -0700

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:11:48 EST
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
>
> This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife
> Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal.
> handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed
> me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife
> on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic,
> loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means
> to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see
> my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery
> victim."
>
[snip]
> Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion
> and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think
> that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for
> self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody
> into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such).
[snip]
> Warmly,
> Don
>
> -

Indeed.

For her wedding present, I gave Sarah the first of her collection
of Glocks.  This one was her 19.  First shot, she put a hole in the
center
of the logo on a Pepsi can from about 15-20 feet.

I knew then I'd made the right choice.

Will

-



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

From: "Michael J McPharlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: University Police contact info
Date: 23 Feb 1998 09:17:46 +700

> Subject:       University Police contact info
> From:          [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
> Date:          Fri, 20 Feb 98 19:01:00 -0700
> Organization:  Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA  801-281-8339
> Reply-to:      [e-mail]

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:16:21 -0700 (MST)
> From: T Bergeson <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Scott's Proof
>
> > I would also want to read the report and make sure the fellow was
> > actually a CCW permit holder rather than someone simply in possession
> > of a concealed weapon.  Papers tend to make a habit of missing that
> > subtle point when reporting on bad guys.
>
> You could check with the University Police. (I think the officer who
> mainly corresponds with the press is named Kevin Nollenberg.)
> [Chronicle office phone # [phone]]
>
> University Police phone numbers:
> --------------------------------
> Building 301: 585-2677
> Administration: 581-7619
> Records: 585-3634
> Investigations: 581-5460
> Crime Prevention: 585-2677
> Security Division: 581-8669
>


The man arrested was licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Detective Michael McPharlin
University of Utah Police
585-1202
[e-mail]

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Fwd: (from Sen. Ashcroft) Hatch's S-10 will go to the full
Date: 23 Feb 1998 08:47:57 -0700

             Senate -Forwarded

Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA19410; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:05:23 -0700
Received: (qmail 12988 invoked by uid 516); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:47 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 12961 invoked from network); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000
Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg1.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.11)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000
Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14])
    by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA14877;
    Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:50 -0700 (MST)
Received: from helmetfish ([166.93.69.112])
    by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA07693;
    Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:46 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Global Neighborhood Watch (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by "C. F. Inston" <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
Looks like the work on the Senate Judiciary committee didn't work to
kill S.10, time to work on our individual U.S. Senators now.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FWD %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
John Ashcroft wrote:
>
> Dear On-Line Friend:
>
> Thank you for sharing your ideas with me about juvenile
> justice. I am happy to report that the Senate Committee on the
> Judiciary, of which I am a member, favorably reported the Violent
> and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997, clearing it for
> consideration by the full Senate early in the new year.
>
>      The Committee recognizes that a traditional rehabilitative
> approach to juvenile justice has been ineffective and inadequate
> in trying to curb juvenile crime.  Data confirms this -- from
> 1985 to 1996, the number of persons under the age of 18 arrested
> for violent crimes rose by 75 percent.  Criminologists also
> expect the number of juvenile offenders to increase as the
> children of the baby boom generation reach the age at which they
> are most likely to commit crimes.
>
>      To counteract this trend, the Violent and Hardcore Juvenile
> Offender Act (S.10), which I sponsored, enables state and local
> governments to establish effective juvenile justice systems so
> that serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders can be
> identified, punished, and deterred.  The Judiciary Committee
> recognizes that an effective strategy to reducing violent
> juvenile crimes requires greater access to juvenile records and
> greater collection of data.  Currently, juvenile records are
> tightly controlled.  The police, school officials, and even
> judges are unable, in many cases, to obtain information about
> possible violent and repeat youth offenders.  Neither these
> juvenile offenders nor society is well served by this policy.
>
>      It is imperative that judges, educators, and law enforcement
> officers have accurate information about violent juveniles.  Many
> of these offenders move from county to county and from state to
> state in committing crimes.   Therefore, I have authored
> provisions in S.10 that encourages states to create and maintain
> criminal records on juveniles.  S.10 would encourage states to
> transmit juvenile criminal records, including fingerprints and
> photographs, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion
> into the national criminal identification data base.  Juvenile
> criminal records would then be made available to state and
> federal courts for purposes of sentencing juveniles.  These
> records would also be made available to law enforcement agencies
> and school officials.
>
>      Likewise, violent disabled students should be held
> accountable for their behavior, especially when the disability
> has no relationship to the violent behavior.   On June 4, 1997,
> the President signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act Amendments of 1997 (P.L. 105-17).  This legislation expands
> the authority of school officials to discipline students with
> disabilities.  Under prior law, violent children were not removed
> from the classroom until the dispute was resolved.  Now, a
> hearing officer can order a change in placement for no longer
> than 45 days if the child is considered to be of harm to himself
> or others.  The new law also subjects disabled students to the
> same discipline as a child without a disability if the child
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> carries a weapon to school or uses, possesses, or sells illegal
> drugs.
>
>      While I support tough action against juvenile offenders, I
> will not allow S.10 to be used as a means to expand gun control
> regulations.  Standing firm in my belief in the Second Amendment,
> I will continue to oppose misguided amendments to S.10 that
> infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear
> arms.  Restricting lawful firearm ownership will not stop crime.
>
>      Finally, let me stress that S.10 as it was voted out of the
> Judiciary Committee is not a perfect bill.  In particular, the
> bill does not do enough to ensure that the most violent juvenile
> criminals are treated as adults.  I plan to offer amendments on
> the Senate floor to ensure that those who commit adult crimes are
> sentenced as adults.
>
>      Once again, thank you for expressing your views.  If you
> have additional concerns, please feel free to contact my office.
>
>
>                         Sincerely,
>
>                         John Ashcroft
>                         www.senate.gov/~ashcroft

--
                Charles 'Chuck' Inston

 Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in
 compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107,
 "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching"


For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
[e-mail]
with the word Help in the body of the message


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Guns for Olympic Games?
Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700


Is Mike Megeath's assertion that the Olympics require gun-free
zones correct?

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

You have probably heard by now that Sen Beattie withdrew SB-57.
Good news indeed.

You might like to know where this bill and those similar to it are
pointed. You will come to understand why Governor Leavitt quietly
passed a no guns policy and why the U of Utah did likewise, although
not so quietly.

Olympic rules require "gun free" zones. In order to get the Olympics
and perhaps even to hold the Olympics after they were awarded, local
authorities have promised to make it so. No guns at Olympic sites. The
"without restriction" clause of current CCW law is at odds with this.

We have yet to learn what constitutes an Olympic site. Considering
sites are widely dispersed, local officials might be required to
insure gun free transportation zones and parking facilities.
Perhaps there can be no guns within a certain radius of a site.

Since we are talking about a lot of money to lose our elected
officials are in a real bind. Uphold the law or lose the Olympics.
I surmise pressure to kill CCW and eliminate gun rights will build
as the time for the games approach in 2002. Our opponents will look
for and perhaps "create" an "incident" to inflame the passions of
the populace. They may try to finesse the issue, delaying a full
hearing of restrictions until after the games are held, then admit
they were wrong.

As rights activists, I think we must be on guard for such incidents
and behavior. We should use the games to prove to the world that every
human being has a right to keep and bear arms for defense of self,
family, property or country without restriction. More especially law-
abiding citizens. We should give the world another shining light on a
hill to better see truth and better hear that immortal word, "freedom"
shouted out by the brave and courageous people of Utah.

The "without restriction" clause of Utah's CCW law is at odds with
the Olympic Games rules for a host city. Utah has the games, and now,
our elected officials must keep their promise to the citizens of Utah
or to the U.S. and World Olympic Committees.

Guns or Games what will it be?

That's my view. I could be wrong. I'd like to hear what you think.


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Love Libertarian Style
Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:58:19 -0700

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 16:11:48 EST
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
>
> This last week I was asked by a good friend what I bought my wife
> Lori for Valentines Day. I replied that I had bought her a 25cal.
> handgun with a laser sight at the gun show. My friend then informed
> me that a handgun is not a very romantic gift to be giving your wife
> on Valentines Day. To which I replied, "What could be more romantic,
> loving, and caring than giving those you love --the ways and means
> to protect themselves on Valentines Day? Certainly, I'd rather see
> my wife put a cap in some crooks butt than become a rape or robbery
> victim."
>
[snip]
> Nevertheless, I think a handgun is a very loving gift for any occasion
> and a very libertarian way to say, "I love you." Furthermore, I think
> that all women should carry a concealed weapon of some sort for
> self-defense and protection (although I wouldn't brow-beat anybody
> into doing so or recommend a law being passed to require such).
[snip]
> Warmly,
> Don
>
> -

Indeed.

For her wedding present, I gave Sarah the first of her collection
of Glocks.  This one was her 19.  First shot, she put a hole in the
center
of the logo on a Pepsi can from about 15-20 feet.

I knew then I'd made the right choice.

Will

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Fwd: (from Sen. Ashcroft) Hatch's S-10 will go to the full
Date: 23 Feb 1998 08:47:57 -0700

             Senate -Forwarded

Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id WAA19410; Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:05:23 -0700
Received: (qmail 12988 invoked by uid 516); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:47 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 12961 invoked from network); 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000
Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg1.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.11)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 1998 05:11:41 -0000
Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14])
    by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA14877;
    Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:50 -0700 (MST)
Received: from helmetfish ([166.93.69.112])
    by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA07693;
    Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:10:46 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Global Neighborhood Watch (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by "C. F. Inston" <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
Looks like the work on the Senate Judiciary committee didn't work to
kill S.10, time to work on our individual U.S. Senators now.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FWD %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
John Ashcroft wrote:
>
> Dear On-Line Friend:
>
> Thank you for sharing your ideas with me about juvenile
> justice. I am happy to report that the Senate Committee on the
> Judiciary, of which I am a member, favorably reported the Violent
> and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997, clearing it for
> consideration by the full Senate early in the new year.
>
>      The Committee recognizes that a traditional rehabilitative
> approach to juvenile justice has been ineffective and inadequate
> in trying to curb juvenile crime.  Data confirms this -- from
> 1985 to 1996, the number of persons under the age of 18 arrested
> for violent crimes rose by 75 percent.  Criminologists also
> expect the number of juvenile offenders to increase as the
> children of the baby boom generation reach the age at which they
> are most likely to commit crimes.
>
>      To counteract this trend, the Violent and Hardcore Juvenile
> Offender Act (S.10), which I sponsored, enables state and local
> governments to establish effective juvenile justice systems so
> that serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders can be
> identified, punished, and deterred.  The Judiciary Committee
> recognizes that an effective strategy to reducing violent
> juvenile crimes requires greater access to juvenile records and
> greater collection of data.  Currently, juvenile records are
> tightly controlled.  The police, school officials, and even
> judges are unable, in many cases, to obtain information about
> possible violent and repeat youth offenders.  Neither these
> juvenile offenders nor society is well served by this policy.
>
>      It is imperative that judges, educators, and law enforcement
> officers have accurate information about violent juveniles.  Many
> of these offenders move from county to county and from state to
> state in committing crimes.   Therefore, I have authored
> provisions in S.10 that encourages states to create and maintain
> criminal records on juveniles.  S.10 would encourage states to
> transmit juvenile criminal records, including fingerprints and
> photographs, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion
> into the national criminal identification data base.  Juvenile
> criminal records would then be made available to state and
> federal courts for purposes of sentencing juveniles.  These
> records would also be made available to law enforcement agencies
> and school officials.
>
>      Likewise, violent disabled students should be held
> accountable for their behavior, especially when the disability
> has no relationship to the violent behavior.   On June 4, 1997,
> the President signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education
> Act Amendments of 1997 (P.L. 105-17).  This legislation expands
> the authority of school officials to discipline students with
> disabilities.  Under prior law, violent children were not removed
> from the classroom until the dispute was resolved.  Now, a
> hearing officer can order a change in placement for no longer
> than 45 days if the child is considered to be of harm to himself
> or others.  The new law also subjects disabled students to the
> same discipline as a child without a disability if the child
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> carries a weapon to school or uses, possesses, or sells illegal
> drugs.
>
>      While I support tough action against juvenile offenders, I
> will not allow S.10 to be used as a means to expand gun control
> regulations.  Standing firm in my belief in the Second Amendment,
> I will continue to oppose misguided amendments to S.10 that
> infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear
> arms.  Restricting lawful firearm ownership will not stop crime.
>
>      Finally, let me stress that S.10 as it was voted out of the
> Judiciary Committee is not a perfect bill.  In particular, the
> bill does not do enough to ensure that the most violent juvenile
> criminals are treated as adults.  I plan to offer amendments on
> the Senate floor to ensure that those who commit adult crimes are
> sentenced as adults.
>
>      Once again, thank you for expressing your views.  If you
> have additional concerns, please feel free to contact my office.
>
>
>                         Sincerely,
>
>                         John Ashcroft
>                         www.senate.gov/~ashcroft

--
                Charles 'Chuck' Inston

 Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in
 compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107,
 "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching"


For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
[e-mail]
with the word Help in the body of the message


-



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

From: "Michael J McPharlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: University Police contact info
Date: 23 Feb 1998 09:17:46 +700

> Subject:       University Police contact info
> From:          [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
> Date:          Fri, 20 Feb 98 19:01:00 -0700
> Organization:  Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA  801-281-8339
> Reply-to:      [e-mail]

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 02:16:21 -0700 (MST)
> From: T Bergeson <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Scott's Proof
>
> > I would also want to read the report and make sure the fellow was
> > actually a CCW permit holder rather than someone simply in possession
> > of a concealed weapon.  Papers tend to make a habit of missing that
> > subtle point when reporting on bad guys.
>
> You could check with the University Police. (I think the officer who
> mainly corresponds with the press is named Kevin Nollenberg.)
> [Chronicle office phone # [phone]]
>
> University Police phone numbers:
> --------------------------------
> Building 301: 585-2677
> Administration: 581-7619
> Records: 585-3634
> Investigations: 581-5460
> Crime Prevention: 585-2677
> Security Division: 581-8669
>


The man arrested was licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Detective Michael McPharlin
University of Utah Police
585-1202
[e-mail]

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA fires telemarketer 1/2
Date: 23 Feb 1998 06:52:00 -0700


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

This is an important letter. However, it seems to me that overall the
incident was salutary. In her letter Metaksa suggests that the
Internet can be a source of unreliable information, and indeed it can
be (and how!). But, it turns out that the story told by The Vigo
Examiner was in the end accepted by NRA. What the Examiner said was
that one or more telemarketers had expressed views which are in effect
contrary to those of Constitutionalists, and contrary to those which
should be held by the NRA, an organization members pay to help support
the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The NRA in fact, through the
Internet rumor mill, was able to determine that there was a problem,
and to resolve that problem.

The larger implication of the Examiner's article, that the NRA itself
has a weak position, is false, according to Metaksa. But it is
nonetheless important for the NRA's marketing arms to be well-prepared
and to express the views of the organization, because when telemarketers
make calls, during those calls they _are_ NRA. The incident was salutary
because it helped NRA to realize that a problem existed and required
action, which they have taken.

>                 Tanya K. Metaksa, Executive Director
>                 NRA Institute for Legislative Action
> Dear NRA Member:
> Recently, there has been a rumor circulating about NRA-ILA's
> position on the Clinton gun and magazine ban.

It is perfectly natural for the recipient of a call to believe that
the contents of the call reflect the position of the organization.

> The rapid and widespread reach of this erroneous information is
> clear evidence of the need to confirm, with a reliable source, any
> questionable information obtained via the Internet.

The informational aspect of the Examiner's article was correct. The
telemarketer did reflect the position that various types of weapons
are not considered worthy of protection.

> I thank you for taking the time to do just that by contacting my
> office.

Upon receiving this information, people asked the NRA for follow-up.
Hardly a sign that the Internet is a bad resource.

> The basis for this rumor was a conversation between one particular
> individual and a representative from a telemarketing firm contracted
> by NRA for membership recruitment. Unfortunately, in his zeal to
> sign up a new member, the telemarketer made several false statements
> to this particular individual regarding our position on the Clinton
> gun and magazine ban. The telemarketing firm in question has been
> suspended pending further review of their procedures. Furthermore,
> the telemarketer involved in this incident has been removed from our
> account. [ ... ]

Thus confirming that the Examiner's information was reliable, and
important.

Below I reproduce the Examiner article. One detail which remains
unresolved is that the article makes reference to a pattern of similar
incidents.

Carl



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning
Date: 23 Feb 1998 11:54:03 -0700


I hope I'm not seen as supporting anti-gun ads.  However, I don't
think the ads are as bad as has been suggested.

They are not aimed at kids, but at parents.  Kids don't need
instructions on how to break into the cheap 3 dial home lock box.  I'm
no genuis and by the time I was 11 or 12 I had long since figured out
that simply starting at 000 and counting my way up towards 999 would
open the box and give me the combo for future use with about 30 to 45
minutes of effort.

Neither, do I think, do they teach kids to pick up a gun and shoot--at
least far less than anything else portraying guns on TV does.  The
overall message is that to do so will get someone hurt.

The ads are aimed at parents.  And the message is simply, "Don't rely
on hiding places or simple lock devices to keep your children away
from your guns."  None of us here would disagree with that message.
They could be improved by adding the message that education
"gun-proofing" your child is as or more important than locks and
mechanical means of "child-proofing" your gun.  But as far as they go,
they are reasonably good and I think we discredit ourselves by
opposing them.  Offering the Eddie Eagle as an addittion (rather than
a substitue) which would be aimed at kids, is a good idea.

If you have kids and guns you need to, IMO, do two things.  1--teach
your child proper gun safety so that they are safe around your guns
and around any guns they may stumble across in someone else's home.
Even--or especially--those without guns need to do this as their child
are the ones who likely to be most intrigued by the mystique of guns.
2--physically secure your guns so that if your child EVER has friends
over they can not easily get into your guns if they have not been
properly trained.

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998,  DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]> posted:

>Attached is a message about antigun public service announcements
>running in Dallas.  In Utah these same TV  PSA are sponsored by IHC.
>
>I wrote a letter to IHC's President - Scott Parker and copied VP of public
>relations - John Taylor.  After a couple of weeks I called John Taylor to
>discuss the PSA.
>
>We discussed the actual numbers of accidential gun deaths and how the
>PSA are misleading, if not deceptive.  I was basically patted on the head
>and told I didn't know what I was talking about.  Later I received a letter
>mostly saying that IHC was right and that my information was wrong.
>
>It is time that we start criticising IHC for running anti gun ads that teach
>kids dangerous and irresponsible gun handling practices.
>
>These include how to break into a locked gun case, (use your dad's
>birthday), showing kids that when they see a gun they should immediatly
>pick it up, point it at the nearest person and pull the trigger.
>
>I offered to give my Eddie Eagle video to IHC to use as a PSA, because it
>teaches a much safer and smarter message to kids, "Stop, Don't touch,
>Leave the area and teall an adault."  IHC was not interested.  Seems that
>IHC is more interested in the political ageda than in providing a
>responsible PSA.
>
>I did find out that the IHC person pushing this campaign is a Mr. Bill
>Barnes at Primary Children's Medical Center.
>
>As suggested in the attached e-mail, it is time we find out more about this
>and start the letter writing campaign.
>Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA21595; Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST)
>Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:48:34 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
>    id sma021547; Mon Feb 23 09:47:26 1998
>Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
>Errors-To: [e-mail]
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>Originator: [e-mail]
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Precedence: bulk
>From: <[e-mail]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
>Subject: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning Dallas
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list
>
>I just heard another PSA public service announcement by a group called
>"Project Lifeline" on 1190AM IMUS in the morning 8am Dallas 2-23.
>It had the sound of kids playing with a loaded handgun in the background
>as a Woman Doctor talks about how: A gun is fired more times against a
>love one or friend than an intruder. You are 43 more times to be injured
>by a gun if you own one. Please if you own one remove the bullets and put
>them in a safe place, better yet get rid of the gun. Then you here the
>kids fussing over the gun and it discharges. Then she says before its to
>late.
>
>It is time we find out more about this and start the letter writing
>campaign. Imus is one of the top rated shows in America. I think this is
>only being aired in Dallas at this time.
>Regards,
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Watson C.P.M., [e-mail]   Senior Buyer UTD
>The University of Texas at Dallas ph# 972/883-2307,fax# [phone]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>-
>
>


--

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: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: University Police contact info
Date: 24 Feb 1998 09:34:16 -0700

Michael J McPharlin wrote:
>
> > > I would also want to read the report and make sure the fellow was
> > > actually a CCW permit holder rather than someone simply in possession
> > > of a concealed weapon.  Papers tend to make a habit of missing that
> > > subtle point when reporting on bad guys.
> >
> > You could check with the University Police. (I think the officer who
> > mainly corresponds with the press is named Kevin Nollenberg.)
> > [Chronicle office phone # [phone]]
> >
>
> The man arrested was licensed to carry a concealed weapon.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Detective Michael McPharlin
> University of Utah Police
> 585-1202
> [e-mail]

Another question I have is whether or not this guy actually
_did_ anything.  I've heard that he asked a question.  That
sort of question gets asked every day on campus, usually by
rather large "sports stars" or packs of roving frat boys...

So, did a gun actually make an appearance?

Will

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  New Anti-Gun Organization -Forwarded
Date: 24 Feb 1998 14:41:42 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA12103; Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:18:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma011972; Tue Feb 24 15:16:58 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list


It is reported on the Nando News today that one of those wounded in the
shootings on the Empire State Building last year is forming a group whose
stated purpose is to end gun violence.  They apparently don't want to ban
guns, just fix it so that they all have combination locks on them.  Who
gets to have the combination isn't specified.  The name of the group is
"PAX," and the article is available at:

http://www.nando.net

It's either under the "Political" or "Nation" buttons.

The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other-
wise noted.  No-one else should be held responsible for what I think.

| D. N. Dickey               |  Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and |
| Research Associate         |  timidity, are no match for armed and       |
| Northern Illinois Univ.    |  resolute wickedness.                       |
| [e-mail]    |                       - W. S. Churchill     |
| **Finger for public key**  |                                             |


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Legislative ALERTS!!
Date: 24 Feb 1998 15:28:45 -0700

At the Board of Trustees meeting of USSC last night, the Board voted to
take official positions on several bills currently before the legislature.
None of these bills is specifically a firearms bill.  However, all of these
bills will ultimately affect firearms-related legislation.

HB 328 - Public Office Misconduct Amendments

This bill removes criminal sanctions for a legislator who refuses or
neglects to take and file an oath of office.  If this bill passes, a
legislator may willfully refuse to take his oath of office, and the only
recourse available to citizens will be to file a civil suit at their own
expense.   It is the opinion of the Board of USSC that any legislator who
is unwilling to take and file an oath stating that s/he will uphold the
Constitutions of the United States and Utah should not be allowed to serve
in public office.

This bill has already been passed by the House and the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and is now before the Senate.  PLEASE CONTACT SENATE PRESIDENT
LANE BEATTIE AS WELL AS YOU OWN SENATOR AND REQUEST THAT THIS BILL BE
DEFEATED.

Senators can be contacted at 801-538-1035 or 800-953-8824.  Additional
contact info can be found at: http://www.senate.le.state.ut.us/roster.htm


SB 182 - Restrictions on State and Local Governments Collecting Monies for
Groups

This bill would prohibit automatic payroll deductions (at government
expense) for contributions to labor organizations' political action funds,
and require that political action fund monies be kept in a separate fund
from labor organization dues.  This legislation would affect only
government employees, not private employees.  The Board of USSC believes
that it is improper for government funds to be expended to collect money
for political activities, and  that payroll deductions by  the government
may tend to exert a coercive force on public employees to contribute to
these funds.

This bill has been passed out of committee with amendments and is now
before the Senate.  PLEASE CONTACT YOUR OWN SENATOR AND REQUEST THAT S/HE
SUPPORT SB 182.  It is NOT necessary to contact Lane Beattie as he is a
co-sponsor of this bill, although it would be polite to thank him for his
support.  Contact information is listed above.


HB 304 - Initiative Process Amendments

This bill would make it more difficult for individuals or groups to have an
initiative submitted to the legislature by providing that the required
number of signatures be obtained from 20 (twenty) counties.  Current law
requires that the signatures be obtained from only 15 (fifteen) counties.
The opinion of the Board is that this bill will prevent the legislative
process from being sabotaged by an overload of frivolous initiatives (as
happens frequently in California) and that it will make it more difficult
for anti-gun initiatives (such as Washington's I-676) to be introduced in
Utah.

This bill has had a very stormy course in the legislature, but was
eventually passed by the House.  It is currently in the Senate Rules
Committee.  Until or unless it is released from Rules, NO ACTION is
necessary.  However, you may want to familiarize yourself with this bill in
case action does become necessary.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER REGARDING ANY OF THE ABOVE
BILLS WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED!


Please stay tuned for future updates on:
The draconian Federal S 10 which has finally been approved by committee and
sent to the U.S. Senate
The problematic provisions of the Brady Act National Instant Check system
scheduled to take effect in Novermber
Governor Leavitt's response to the opinion of the legislative general
counsel that his ban on concealed carry by public employees is illegal
under State law
USSC's upcoming seminar on how YOU can become a delegate to state or county
conventions
and more!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

As always, comments may be directed to any of the Board members listed below.

The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info
made public.  Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse
their open-door policy.  All of us are VERY busy right now.

Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), [e-mail]
Elwood Powell,  426-8274 or 583-2882 (h), 364-0412 (w),
    [e-mail]
Shirley Spain, 963-0784, [e-mail]
Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w)
Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, [e-mail]  (I prefer e-mail to phone
calls when possible).
Joe Venus, 571-2223


To subscribe to the USSC mail list, send a message to:
[e-mail]
In the SUBJECT of the message put:
SUBSCRIBE USSC

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  New anti-gun organization -Forwarded
Date: 24 Feb 1998 11:02:11 -0700

Received: (qmail 9419 invoked by uid 516); 22 Feb 1998 06:00:50 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 9384 invoked from network); 22 Feb 1998 06:00:42 -0000
Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (206.214.98.12)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 22 Feb 1998 06:00:42 -0000
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
      id AAA10413 for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 00:00:08 -0600 (CST)
Received: from den-co8-08.ix.netcom.com(204.31.232.72) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
    id rma010385; Sat Feb 21 23:59:59 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by Patricia Fosness <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
I guess this is bad news and good news.  The good news is that if they think
they need another one, the ones they have must be ineffective by their
standards.  I'd be particularly delighted if the groups started to vie for
power and began arguing between themselves.  Sure happens enough with *pro*
gun organizations.  The bad news follows in the post below:

>Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 13:39:34 -0500 (EST)
>From: [e-mail] (Mark C M)
>To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
>Subject: New anti-gun organization
>
>To All Concerned,
>
>Just heard on the local (NJ) radio station that Lousenberg,Schcumer, and
>the brady`s
>are launching a NEW anti-gun organization to be announced on monday
>2/23/98.
>Sorry i don`t have more details on it,  this is just a note to keep
>everyone on their
>respective toes!!! When i hear more i will post.
>
>Regards,
>  MC
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
>Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>
>
Regards,
Pat Fosness
NRA certified instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history
will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the
blackest" -  Mahatma Ghandi  - 1927
Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in
compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107,
"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching"


For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
[e-mail]
with the word Help in the body of the message


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  builders hardware -Forwarded
Date: 24 Feb 1998 11:04:18 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA22011; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:30:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma021960; Sat Feb 21 14:26:45 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

Forwarded message follows:

Howdy All. . .

  This was on another list. . .FYI. . . .

  Cas Gadomski
  Alaska

Some of you may remember a few weeks ago when I posted a message
regarding the Builder's Square/Hechinger Company merger. Well, I
just returned from my local Builders Square/HQ store, where I
posted yet another payment to my account. When I presented my check
to the clerk, she promptly returned it and informed me that I
failed to fill it out properly. I normally fill out the payment
checks to HRS. However, the clerk informed me that all future
checks must now be filled out the "Hechinger Company".

So, those of us who were holding out hopes that our favorite
"hardware store" may not be tied with anti-gun efforts can stop
holding out.

Therefore, I am re-issuing this informative post requesting,
suggesting and asking that all home-owners/gun owners begin an
official boycott of Builders' Square immediately.

Again, for those of you who are reading this for the first time,
the Hechinger Company, headed by anti-gunner John W. Hechinger,
bought out the Builder's Square name in September of 1997. All
Builder's Square stores now fly a green HQ banner above the
Builder's Square store logo.

According to the NRA, Hechinger is on a list of "the most prominent
national corporations and/or corporate heads that have used the
company name while actively supporting anti-gun proposals or
organizations. "

The complete listing can be obtained here:

http://www.nra.org/research/rianti.html

The address to the Hechinger Company is as follows:

Hechinger Company
John W. Hechinger, Chrm.
1616 McCormick Drive
Landover, MD  20785
[phone]
Lumber and building supply retailer

Just to be 100% certain, I called the telephone number above and
verified my findings. This is true my friends.

I am asking that anyone who picks up a hammer with the same hand
that he or she picks up a firearm, STOP BUYING FROM BUILDER'S
SQUARE immediately !

The next time that you need hardware supplies, I would like you to
think of other options, even if it means traveling a few miles
more. And, if you even get the urge to walk into a Builder's Square
to buy something, I suggest that you walk out, go to you car, fill
out a check payable to Handgun Control, Inc. and put it in the
mail. Because buying from Builder's Square is essentially the same
as lining HCI's pockets with your money.

Do you really want to pay someone to take your firearms from you ?
Most gun grabbers are willing to do it at their expense, Hechinger
wants you to pay for it ! Tell everyone that you know about this,
and write a letter to Hechinger telling him of your choice to shop
somewhere else.


Follow the money friends, follow the money.

Frank Finch
Canton, MI
******************
Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are
available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda  Latest additions are
found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the
heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send
[request index.txt] to [e-mail] and an index of the files
at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request <filename>]
and the requested file will be sent as a message.
Various shareware programs are archived at:
ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the
FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to [e-mail]
********************



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Antigun PSA from Barnes
Date: 24 Feb 1998 19:20:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Interesting! Bill Barnes used to the spokesman for UTA! That little
traitor! Gosh, I fought him when he was at UTA. Look like I'll be
fighting him now that he's at the hospital! I talked with him a couple of
months ago and he was excited to be working for the hospital because it was
such a worthwhile cause.

I think a great thing to do would be to get the anti-light rail crowd and
make an appointment to see him. What a shock he'd face! I think one of
the reasons he left the UTA was that he got sick of fighting the anti-light
rail people. If he thought the anti-light rail people were bad, wait till
he takes on the gun lobby!

He also is a convicted felon. He was caught last year voting twice.
That's a felony. I don't know if it's been taken off his record or not.
Maybe he's getting back at the gun lobby because now he can't own a gun!
What a little sneak!

Regards,

Janalee

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> To: [e-mail]
> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:26:39 -0700
> From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
> Subject: PSA Project LifeLine anti gun on 1190AM Imus in the Morning
> Dallas -Forwarded

> Attached is a message about antigun public service announcements
> running in Dallas. In Utah these same TV PSA are sponsored by IHC.

> I wrote a letter to IHC's President - Scott Parker and copied VP of
> public relations - John Taylor. After a couple of weeks I called John
> Taylor to discuss the PSA.

> We discussed the actual numbers of accidential gun deaths and how the
> PSA are misleading, if not deceptive. I was basically patted on the head
> and told I didn't know what I was talking about. Later I received a
> letter mostly saying that IHC was right and that my information was wrong.

> It is time that we start criticising IHC for running anti gun ads that
> teach kids dangerous and irresponsible gun handling practices.

> These include how to break into a locked gun case, (use your dad's
> birthday), showing kids that when they see a gun they should immediatly
> pick it up, point it at the nearest person and pull the trigger.

> I offered to give my Eddie Eagle video to IHC to use as a PSA, because it
> teaches a much safer and smarter message to kids, "Stop, Don't touch,
> Leave the area and teall an adault." IHC was not interested. Seems that
> IHC is more interested in the political ageda than in providing a
> responsible PSA.

> I did find out that the IHC person pushing this campaign is a Mr. Bill
> Barnes at Primary Children's Medical Center.

> As suggested in the attached e-mail, it is time we find out more about
> this and start the letter writing campaign.
[snip]


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: More from NRA
Date: 24 Feb 1998 19:53:00 -0700



scott,
below is an answer from the nra about your concerns with large capacity
auto
larry

----------
Thank you for your note regarding the misinformation that is currently
circulating on the Internet. While I have no idea as to whether Mr.
Decker is mistaken, or making this up, it would appear, at least, that
he already had a problem with NRA. Someone who was truly concerned,
like yourself, would have contacted NRA Headquarters to straighten
this out, like you did.

To set the record straight, let me assure you that NRA is still 100%
opposed to the ban on so-called assault weapons and high capacity
magazines. We support H.R. 1147, Rep. Ron Paul's (R-TX) bill to
repeal the '94 ban, and we are also involved with a legal challenge
to it.

I hope that this helps to ease your concerns, and we appreciate your
taking the time and trouble to ask for clarification. Had Mr. Deckard
bothered to do the same, we might have been able to avoid this
confusion. Perhaps he was not too concerned with the truth. We are,
however, and we will be sure to investigate his claims, to see if
there is a legitimate problem.

Sincerely,

Anthony Roulette
Larry S. Larsen
http://larsenfamily.com/russian_stove/
_=3D_____________________________!
 <|------=3D=3D(______)--------              |____|
  |/////_____________45 ACP___|___|
   \       /|(    )/
   /      /) ___|
  /     o/
 /       /
/o___/


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Utahns: Make Tone of 2002 Multicultural
Date: 25 Feb 1998 01:53:59 -0700

http://www.sltrib.com/98/feb/022498/utah/24682.htm

Hmmmm.....

No "sixguns".  No stagecoaches.  No rodeos.
But it's "multicultural".
Yeah, right.

Sarah
(proud member of the GUN culture)


>                                 [Image]
>  [Image] [Image]       Tuesday, February 24, 1998      [Image] [Image]
>
>                 Utahns: Make Tone of 2002 Multicultural
>
>  BY MARTIN RENZHOFER
>  THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
>
>
>      If the Atlanta
>  Summer Olympic Games
>  reeked of commercialism and the Winter Games in Nagano celebrated
>  traditional, spiritual values, what will Salt Lake City stand for in
>  2002?
>      ``It's going to be difficult, but I hope those in charge think in
>  terms of arts and ethnic cultures,'' said Linda Smith of Salt Lake
>  City's Repertory Dance Theatre, which sent four dancers to the
>  closing ceremonies. ``I'd hate for the opening and closing ceremonies
>  to look like halftime at the Orange Bowl.''
>      A clue of what's to come came during the Games' closing
>  ceremonies Sunday when Salt Lake City dancers posed with a colorful
>  banner of the 2002 snowflake-like logo while a Wild West stagecoach
>  roared through an inflatable Delicate Arch.
>      Utah's Winter Games, the first Olympiad of the new millennium,
>  offer the state a showcase for the world to see its rich history,
>  diverse cultures and progressive artistic visions.
>                              It is not an accident that its Olympic
>                          theme is ``Contrast, Culture and Courage.''
>      ``The theme we've chosen certainly leaves the door open for lots
>  of interesting interpretation,'' Smith said.
>      Japan gloried in its thousands of years of tradition. Its opening
>  ceremonies were dignified and spiritual. The closing of the Games
>  began the same way, but concluded with spectacular fireworks, lights
>  and banners, taiko drums and energetic dance and music.
>      It was not overstated.
>      ``I hope it's not time to dust off the six-shooters and start
>  living up to every stereotype the West has to offer,'' said Casey
>  Jarman of the Salt Lake City Arts Council after the Salt Lake portion
>  of the ceremonies. ``I didn't like the stagecoach. It was kind of
>  hoaky. But I liked the horses.''
>      Jarman favors including American Indian culture and showing
>  Utah's multicultural heritage.
>      ``We're not celebrating a rodeo,'' said Jarman. ``We have to
>  understand that it is a world event that celebrates the world, the
>  country, the region and the state. We're such a melting pot, much
>  different than Japan.''
>      Notes from a recent meeting of the Utah Cultural Alliance Forum
>  show its concerns for the 2002 Games as well as lessons learned from
>  Nagano's Games.
>      Among the greatest fears was that the effort to represent Utah
>  will not be all-inclusive -- that artistic and cultural offers might
>  be unbalanced, outweighed by history and conservative art.
>      The great hope was that the Games will leave a cultural legacy
>  beyond 2002.
>      ``You might be able to do that with music,'' said Joan Woodbury
>  of Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company. ``The [Mormon] Tabernacle Choir
>  should sing, but I'd like to see other choirs as well. And I'd love
>  to see dance people involved.''
>      Linda Smith, a native Utahn, said it is impossible to ignore
>  Utah's early settlers, and, most notably, the Mormon pioneers.
>      ``How could you avoid it?'' she said. ``It would be ridiculous to
>  deny any aspect of our history. It would be foolish. `Courage' would
>  typify that spirit more than any religious dogma.
>      ``On the other hand, I don't want to characterize the entire
>  state by one area. We need to put all of what Utah has to offer on
>  the table and see what's of value. We need to get rid of the politics
>  and paranoia.''
>      The Utah Cultural Alliance hopes that Olympic organizers will
>  invite open communication and accessibility.
>      ``I come from Living Traditions,'' said Jarman, referring to the
>  annual multicultural festival in Salt Lake. ``I would like to see
>  more American Indian tradition. It would show a deeper commitment to
>  our multicultural heritage. One should think how others around the
>  world will see us.''
>      Olympic organizers also must consider what images television will
>  broadcast. During the recent CBS coverage, quick pans of the closing
>  ceremonies were interrupted by several minutes of commercials.
>      Smith called it the Coca Cola culture.
>      ``I'm concerned about what the camera chooses to focus on,'' she
>  said. It's not fair.''
>      What about the impression that Utah and Salt Lake City make
>  beyond the scope of the Games?
>      ``I'm interested in what takes place culturally in the city for
>  two weeks,'' said Woodbury. ``Not only will people see the Games, but
>  also the opportunities Utah has to offer. What lasts is how people
>  respond. The Games happen every four years, but what we want to do is
>  leave a lasting impression on people.''
>
>
>                                              [PHOTO]
>
>                             Proud Utahns wait at the airport Monday to
>                                 welcome the Olympic flag. (Lynn R.
>                                   Johnson/The Salt Lake Tribune)
>
>   [1998 Winter Olympics]
>
>                [Image] [Tuesday Navigation Bar]  [Image]
>
>                                 [Image]
>
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  ) Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune
>
>  All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake
>  Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced
>  or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.
>            --------------------------------------------------
>      Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Antigun PSA from Barnes -Reply
Date: 25 Feb 1998 13:25:43 -0700

I have a copy of Eddie Eagle to give to Barnes.  Maybe we'll be surprised
and IHC will run a clipas a PSA.

Who knows Barnes well enough to make an appointment?


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! (fwd)
Date: 25 Feb 1998 20:03:00 -0700


I agree with Bart on this issue. I would urge the USSC Board
to reconsider its opinion endorsing HB 304.

Scott Bergeson

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
    [e-mail]

Thanks to Scott Bergeson for forwarding the USSC Legislative Alert
to the LP list server which stated:

>>HB 304 - Initiative Process Amendments
This bill would make it more difficult for individuals or groups to have
an initiative submitted to the legislature by providing that the required
number of signatures be obtained from 20 (twenty) counties. Current law
requires that the signatures be obtained from only 15 (fifteen) counties.
The opinion of the Board is that this bill will prevent the legislative
process from being sabotaged by an overload of frivolous initiatives (as
happens frequently in California) and that it will make it more difficult
for anti-gun initiatives (such as Washington's I-676) to be introduced in
Utah.<<

While I agree with USSC on everything else in this alert I must disagree
with their stand on HB304. Utah does not have an "overload of frivolous
initiatives" as California does. This part of their statement is simply
to stir up anti-California sentiments. Utah's initiative requirements
are already among the most difficult in the entire nation.

The important issue to USSC is that HB304 will make it "more difficult for
individuals or groups to have an initiative submitted to the legislature."

Unfortunately not just anti-gun initiatives, but ALL INITIATIVES would be
harder to bring to the Legislature or the voters. If this bill is defeated
I'm sure we would all willingly help USSC defeat anti-gun initiatives. I
certainly would. Passing HB304 is simply shooting ourselves in the foot
(pun intended) by making it harder to bring freedom oriented initiatives
to the ballot.

Bart Grant



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: USSC Legislative ALERTS!!
Date: 26 Feb 1998 07:56:00 -0700


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

Thank you Bart.  I totally agree.  Those of us who have worked on gathering
signatures knows how hard it is to do this.  I'm very concerned about this
bill.  Janalee


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! (fwd)
Date: 26 Feb 1998 10:29:45 -0700

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> I agree with Bart on this issue. I would urge the USSC Board
> to reconsider its opinion endorsing HB 304.
>
> Scott Bergeson
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:48:48 -0700
> From: Bart Grant <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>     [e-mail]
[snip]
>
> While I agree with USSC on everything else in this alert I must disagree
> with their stand on HB304. Utah does not have an "overload of frivolous
> initiatives" as California does. This part of their statement is simply
> to stir up anti-California sentiments. Utah's initiative requirements
> are already among the most difficult in the entire nation.
>
> The important issue to USSC is that HB304 will make it "more difficult for
> individuals or groups to have an initiative submitted to the legislature."
>
> Unfortunately not just anti-gun initiatives, but ALL INITIATIVES would be
> harder to bring to the Legislature or the voters. If this bill is defeated
> I'm sure we would all willingly help USSC defeat anti-gun initiatives. I
> certainly would. Passing HB304 is simply shooting ourselves in the foot
> (pun intended) by making it harder to bring freedom oriented initiatives
> to the ballot.
>
> Bart Grant
>

Yup,

For those of you who are counting....

There was one lone vote in opposition, for the above reasons.
Unfortunately, the person (Sarah) who cast that vote is no longer
allowed to report who voted which way.  The board voted 4-3 to not
allow any member of the board to publish who voted which way for
what reasons.  As stated, who votes which way is "not relevant",
if someone wants that information they can come to the meetings.
Mere moments after that vote, the same four who voted to not publish
got extremely exorcised that the Utah Legislature would vote to
abolish penalties for not filing an oath of office.  They "felt"
that this would remove any ability to hold a legislator "accountable"
for his/her actions.  No irony was perceived...

Will Thompson
-Hoping more non-compromisers show up and vote at the next USSC
elections.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! (fwd)
Date: 26 Feb 1998 10:43:03 -0700


Everytime I start to get anykind of good feeling about USSC, something
like this comes up.  I'm not a member and am not about to join at this
point.  I may join just soon enough to cast a vote next time.  How
long does one have to be a member to vote?

Seems to me somebody could do a great service to those of us in the
gun communtity and the members of USSC, by publishing who voted which
way and any reasons they can glean.  If the board wants to hide their
actions, maybe someone should be looking closer at what they do.
If nothing else, it will make it easier to vote for the right people
next time.


On Thu, 26 Feb 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>Yup,
>
>For those of you who are counting....
>
>There was one lone vote in opposition, for the above reasons.
>Unfortunately, the person (Sarah) who cast that vote is no longer
>allowed to report who voted which way.  The board voted 4-3 to not
>allow any member of the board to publish who voted which way for
>what reasons.  As stated, who votes which way is "not relevant",
>if someone wants that information they can come to the meetings.
>Mere moments after that vote, the same four who voted to not publish
>got extremely exorcised that the Utah Legislature would vote to
>abolish penalties for not filing an oath of office.  They "felt"
>that this would remove any ability to hold a legislator "accountable"
>for his/her actions.  No irony was perceived...
>
>Will Thompson
>-Hoping more non-compromisers show up and vote at the next USSC
>elections.
>


--

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.

"They have rights who dare maintain them." -- James Russell Lowell

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!! (fwd)
Date: 26 Feb 1998 13:51:50 -0700

At 10:43 AM 2/26/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Everytime I start to get anykind of good feeling about USSC, something
>like this comes up.  I'm not a member and am not about to join at this
>point.  I may join just soon enough to cast a vote next time.  How
>long does one have to be a member to vote?
>
>Seems to me somebody could do a great service to those of us in the
>gun communtity and the members of USSC, by publishing who voted which
>way and any reasons they can glean.  If the board wants to hide their
>actions, maybe someone should be looking closer at what they do.
>If nothing else, it will make it easier to vote for the right people
>next time.

I agree with you.

I haven't checked the bylaws, but at the last annual meeting people who
joined before the meeting were allowed to vote.

However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell
THEM.  Their contact information has been made public repeatedly.  In
addition, there are plans for a newsletter which I hope will allow for
letters from the public.

Yes it would be helpful if "somebody" published votes and reasons for those
votes.
And yes, it would be a good idea for "someone" to look more closely at what
the Board does.

The question is, are there any "somebodies" or "someones" out there willing
to do so?  Meetings are open to the public, and always have been.

Sarah
(for myself only)

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Sent to Sec.
Date: 26 Feb 1998 18:03:14 -0700


Received auto notification that the status of SB23, Negligent storage of
a firearm, had changed.  Change history is below.

Anyone know what the last item, today's update means, and is it cause
for concern?

-- S.B. 23   Negligent Storage of Loaded Firearm (Steiner, R.)

01/06/98 Number                                            LRGC
01/08/98 Bill Distributed                                  LRGC
01/19/98 Senate/read 1st (Introduced)                      SPRES
02/02/98 Senate/to Standing Committee                      SSTTPS
02/26/98 Senate/comm rpt sent to Senate Secretary          SSEC

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

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Feb. 26 column - Anthrax]
Date: 26 Feb 1998 23:41:16 -0700


The latest from Vin...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----


    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 26, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    The Great Las Vegas Anthrax Plot

    The news flashed around the world on Thursday, Feb. 19. I know, because
I started getting phone calls from New England, and e-mail from Asia ...
asking me if I'd broken out my gas masks.

  The news was accepted at face value in most places, too ... because it
was precisely what many folks had been led to expect.

  A pair of depraved white men -- one a former Mormon bishop and the other
(according to a hastily-drawn-up federal criminal complaint) a
"self-admitted member of the Aryan Nations (who) claims to have the rank of
Lieutenant-Colonel," had been busted by FBI agents and thrown in a Las
Vegas hoosegow, while the Mercedes-Benz they had been driving was carefully
shrink-wrapped in plastic and hauled away to a U.S. Army facility for
testing.

  Why?

  "These individuals posed a potential chemical and biological threat to
our community," Bobby Siller, head of the FBI's Las Vegas office, told
members of the working press at a Thursday morning press conference. A
"citizen informant (hereafter 'the source')" had telephoned the Las Vegas
offices of the FBI on Feb. 18 -- again according to the criminal complaint
-- to report that suspects Larry Wayne Harris, 46 (a licensed
microbiologist from Lancaster, Ohio), and William Job Leavitt, Jr., 47 (a
fire extinguisher manufacturer, owner of a pair of microbiological
laboratories, and former Mormon bishop from Logandale, Nevada) were in
possession of what Leavitt had reportedly described as "military grade"
anthrax in flight bags in the trunk of their Mercedes-Benz convertible.
Another source, spotted with Leavitt and Harris at the Gold Coast Hotel,
reportedly told the FBI that Harris held out a vial and stated there was
enough there to "wipe out the city."

  FBI Special Agent John W. Hawken further alleged in his Feb. 19 criminal
complaint -- this time citing no specific source -- that Harris, the Ohio
microbiologist, had "in the summer of 1997 ... told a group of plans to
place a 'globe' of bubonic plague toxins in a New York subway station,
where it could be broken by a passing subway train, causing hundreds of
thousands of deaths. Harris stated that the Iraqis would be blamed for that
event."


'Go write your own Civil Defense manual'

  But something about this one smelled wrong from the start. Defendant
Harris had appeared as a guest on Las Vegas-based radio talk shows within
the previous week, spouting his obsessive concern that the Iraqis were
preparing to launch precisely the kind of biological attack the FBI was
talking about, and that the United States was ill-prepared to defend
against any such attack.

  Patriot sources on the Internet (ever paranoid) immediately theorized
that the FBI had busted well-known gadfly Harris precisely to shift the
blame for any such attack -- considered all the more likely if Bill Clinton
proceeded with plans to renew bombing of Saddam Hussein -- onto the FBI's
favorite target, the gun-owning domestic patriot militias.

  Only a few minutes work were required for Las Vegas Review-Journal
columnist John L. Smith to download from the Internet and hand me the
opening section of Larry Wayne Harris' book, "Bacteriological Warfare: A
Major Threat to North America, What You and Your Family Can Do Defensively,
Before and After." (http://norden1.com/~hawkins/CIVIL.HTM)

  In it, Harris describes taking courses in advanced microbiology at Ohio
State University in 1991, and meeting there fellow student Miriam Arif,
daughter of a former Iraqi president. After the two became friends, Arif
reportedly told Harris in 1993 of the plans of Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria And
North Korea to respond to any future American interventions in their
regions by loosing germ warfare weapons in this country.

  It is agents of those nations that plan to release plague and anthrax
cultures in the subway systems of large American cities, according to
Harris' writings.

  Harris reports calling the FBI, and the CDC in both Atlanta and Fort
Collins. "I told them what Miriam had told me, and they responded that they
thought I had been watching too many science fiction movies."

  After repeatedly promising to send Harris a copy of the government
contingency plan to deal with such an attack, Harris writes that he was
finally told by exasperated spokesmen at the CDC that all such biological
civil defense planning had been scrapped in 1972. "They said if I were a
microbiologist and so concerned, why don't I go and write my own Civil
Defense manual and leave the CDC alone?"

  Would a man planning to kill thousands via a germ warfare attack, write
books and appear on the radio, drawing attention to himself by warning
Americans of how unprepared we are to deal with such an attack? What would
Harris' motive be, anyway? Might it not be possible that the FBI's sources
had misunderstood Harris' intense warnings about Miriam Arif, as threats he
himself was making?


Time machines and UFOs

  The possibility grew even stronger when it turned out FBI agent Hawken
had admitted in his initial criminal complaint that the FBI's main source
"has two felony convictions for conspiracy to commit extortion in 1981 and
1982."

  I have been unable to independently confirm that Ronald G. Rockwell --
since identified by numerous sources as the FBI's main informant -- was
indeed twice convicted on extortion counts. But Leavitt's attorney, Kirby
Wells, paints quite a picture of Rockwell, reporting that at a Feb. 14
meeting Rockwell offered to sell Leavitt more than just the machine Leavitt
wanted to conduct anthrax research.

  "He offered as part of the deal to turn over work on other projects,
including a time machine project and a UFO project," attorney Wells told
Review-Journal reporter Steve Friess on Feb. 23. "I questioned Bill about
whether it made sense to be negotiating with someone who professed to have
these kinds of projects."

  Eventually, Leavitt did reject Rockwell's demand that he buy a so-called
Rife Regenerator for $2 million, including a non-refundable $100,000
deposit. (The discredited Rife machine, which is supposed to cure illness
through radio waves, usually sells for $20,000.) Within days, the
disappointed Rockwell apparently telephoned the FBI to turn Leavitt and
Harris in.

  Paul Pantone, chief executive officer for research at Global
Environmental Energy Technology LLC, spent 15 minutes chatting with
Rockwell at a conference in Las Vegas last April, and pronounces the fellow
"a total fruitcake."

  "He said he can build flying saucers any size you want," said Pantone,
whose Utah company specializes in far more mundane mileage-boosting
automotive fuel processors. "He said he has a plane the size of a 747 that
extracts energy out of the air as it moves and flies for hours on one
gallon of gasoline. He has it hidden somewhere in Nevada. ... For the FBI
to even listen to this man, I'm appalled," Pantone told reporter Friess.


False alarm

  Businessman Leavitt was released from jail on Saturday, Feb. 21.
Scientists at the Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases
in Fort Detrick, Md. (where the Army stores precisely the kinds of toxic
agents which President Clinton brands other nations "terrorist" for
developing) had worked through the night analyzing the contents of the
Harris-Leavitt vials, and found them to contain exactly what the defendants
said they contained -- veterinary anthrax vaccine, incapable of forming
spores to spread the disease to either humans or animals.

  Informant Rockwell "wanted money up front, sight unseen, and when he
didn't get it ... he went to the FBI and made some outlandish statements,"
says Leavitt's other attorney, Lamond Mills. "That's their witness. And on
that, we've had worldwide news."

  After a final weekend FBI search of both defendants' homes to see if they
could find anything else to hold them on, all criminal charges against both
defendants were dropped on Monday, Feb. 23.

  Mind you, Ohioan Harris would appear to be several stops down the local
line toward Bonkersville, himself.  He signed a consent decree in 1995,
under which he is still on probation for fraudulently obtaining bubonic
plague toxins for his research. His book contains such  unattributed
nuggets as his rambling report that "The HIV (AIDS) virus ... was designed
to kill only Negro's (sic). The HIV virus was ... inoculated into Negro's
for their genocidal removal from Africa. The HIV virus was designed to use
an intermediate bacterial carrier, that was present in the Negro's body but
not present in Caucasians. This strategy has been extremely effective and
by some estimates the Negro population of Africa will soon be reduced to
below 5 million."

  Yeah, right.

  So: should police agents have had some serious questions for Messrs.
Harris and Leavitt? Of course. Should they have acquired warrants to seize
and test the material in question? OK; fine.

  But the broadest public response to this whole tempest in a teapot seems
to be that the FBI was justified in acting swiftly -- even if the tip
turned out to be wrong -- given the virulence of the agents the two men
supposedly possessed.

  I feel obliged to offer a somewhat different perspective.


Infiltrate the churches, shoot the dogs

  The FBI, as currently composed, is an illegal and unconstitutional
agency. The Constitution  grants the Congress no power to swear in any
federal political police force, the familiar German word for which is
"Gestapo."

  In recent years -- leaving aside its treatment of the presumably innocent
security guard Richard Jewel while the real perpetrators of Atlanta's
Olympic Park bombing walked away at their leisure -- this proud and
courageous agency stood in charge of the final, deadly, tank, machine gun,
and poison gas assault on the parishioners of the Mount Carmel Seventh Day
Adventist Church in Waco, Texas, which directly caused the deaths by fire
and poison gas of dozens of innocent women and children. (See it for
yourself, as filmed by federal government cameras: Order the video "Waco:
The Terms of Engagement," now nominated for an Academy Award as best
documentary, at $25 by dialing 1-800-771-2147, ext. 19.)

  Only a few months before, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, acting under FBI
orders, shot and killed the unarmed Vicky Weaver in the kitchen doorway of
her Idaho home as she held her baby in her arms. (The federal government is
still involved in procedural shenanigans to shield Horiuchi from facing the
criminal charges he so richly deserves for that little feat of
marksmanship.)

  The Weaver standoff started when federal agents approached and entrapped
Vicky Weaver's husband, Randy, in order to convince him to infiltrate and
snitch on parishioners of a nearby church. The Waco standoff started when
ATF agents turned down the Rev. David Koresh's invitation to come out and
inspect his parishioners' fully legal firearms "any time," preferring to
stage a big military-style raid for the TV cameras, shortly before their
next set of funding hearings in Washington.

  In both cases, the federals targeted churches. In both cases, the first
shots were fired by federal agents, killing their victims' dogs.

  But under our American system, it is (start ital)not(end ital) acceptable
to trash the First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights of the politically
unpopular few, in order to "protect the many" even from real threats ...
let alone trumped-up ones. If it were, the FBI would be justified in
sending SWAT teams into the homes of the 100 patriot militiamen and foreign
nationals which it judges most likely to cause trouble, with orders to
simply shoot them all through the head.

  Nevada has a State Police force. Las Vegas has its own, sizeable,
Metropolitan Police. Those agencies had sole jurisdiction in this case. All
law enforcement, under our constitutional system of government, is left to
local authority. (start ital)No(end ital) federal police force is
authorized.

  The safest thing for the liberties of the citizens of this republic would
be to disband the deadly, incompetent FBI, immediately. Failing that, this
homicidal gang should at least be restricted to what the "I" in its name
stands for, "Investigation" (keeping up to date with what's readily
available on talk radio and the Internet, for starters -- and perhaps
keeping running tabs on the credibility of such local snitches as Ronald G.
Rockwell, while they're at it.) When they feel an arrest is justified, they
should do just what everyone else does: Call the police.

  As goofy as Larry Wayne Harris may be, he has a point. If we keep
meddling in the affairs of nations that can't afford to build aircraft
carriers and nuclear bombers, they will eventually strike back in any way
they can ... quite possibly with such cheap, easy-to-employ weapons as germ
warfare and poison gas.

  (Calling them "terrorists" proves nothing. Generals Howe and Cornwallis
doubtless would have called the brigand Washington -- unwilling to line up
all his men across an open field and fight it out in a sporting manner -- a
"terrorist.")

  But instead of heeding such a sensible warning, the federals just arrest
the messenger.

  Anyone interested in disarming America's criminal element would do well
to start with the incompetent and counterproductive ATF and the FBI ...
auctioning off their Tommy guns and MP-5s to law-abiding private citizens,
who would then be in a much better position to drop by their offices
occasionally, "just to check."

  Then, if we're finally tired of making enemies overseas, comes the CIA.

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]

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."    -- Samuel Adams




----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.

God created all men equal.  Sam Colt made sure they remain that way.

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: USSC Legislative ALERTS!!
Date: 26 Feb 1998 21:17:00 -0700


On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy:

>However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM.

Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf
list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them
depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would
seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the
call. It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what
they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board
meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It
would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating
their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can
override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a
contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC
attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights
supporters in Utah?




-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!!
Date: 27 Feb 1998 01:22:32 -0700


Sarah posted contact info a while back.  I thought I had saved it, but
apparantly did not.  Sarah, would you be so good as to post that
again?

I should make everyone aware that in addition to Sarah, only one board
member has contacted me regarding the 10 questions I posted here and
which Sarah presented to the USSC board.  That response I considered
very positive.  I only wish the other board members had responed as
well, let alone at all.

Apparantly the board voted and decided that individual members would
only respond to the questions if they wanted to do so strictly as an
individual.  The board itself would respond by passing along some
formal positions adopted by the previous board.  I've not seen that
info yet but will pass it along if it ever shows up.

It seems the majority of board members do not want the USSC membership
or the gun owning non-members of this State to know their true
position on gun rights or even how they voted on any given issue.  So
far there are only 2 of the 7 members in whom I can place any
confidence.  I'm hoping based on what I've heard, there is a 3rd who
is ok, as well.  Three out of 7 may be a start, but at this point I'm
not prepared to offer my financial support.  I do plan to attend
meetings whenever possible which is going to be few and far between
since I'd have to leave work at a reasonable hour and fight commuter
traffic between SLC and Kaysville to get there.  Any meeting I attend
I will do my very best to record votes, etc and pass along.  I ask
others to do likewise.

Assuming it looks like there is hope, I will consider joining just
soon enough to vote in the next election and try to put the true
rights, no-compromise, respond to questions, not afraid to let their
views be known advocates in a majority.  For heaven sakes, even the
State legislators record votes and publish them on the internet for at
least committee business.  Of what are those 4 members of the USSC
board afraid?

Maybe if enough members keep track and let board members know which
votes will cause loss of support for them and/or lack of renewal and
if enough non-members let the board know exactly why we aren't members
yet, they will get the message and change their ways or will get off
the board and let someone who really values and understands rights do
the job they seem unwilling to do.  I fear too many are far too cozy
with the NRA.

And yes, I agree completely that it would behoov board members to at
least read this list, if not become active participants in it.  If
they want to claim to represent gun owners' interests in this State,
they should make at least as much effort to search out those interests
as gun owners make to make them known.

Accolades to Sarah for doing just that and much more.



On Thu, 26 Feb 98 21:17:00 -0700,  [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON) posted:

>
>On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy:
>
>>However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM.
>
>Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf
>list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them
>depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would
>seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the
>call. It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what
>they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board
>meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It
>would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating
>their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can
>override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a
>contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC
>attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights
>supporters in Utah?
>
>
>
>
>-
>
>


--

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.

"Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a
 few public officials." -- George Mason, Framer of the Declaration of
 Rights, Virginia, 1776, which became the basis for the U.S. Bill of
 Rights; 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC
Date: 27 Feb 1998 02:03:38 -0700

At 09:17 PM 2/26/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy:
>
>>However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM.
>
>Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf
>list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them
>depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would
>seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the
>call. It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what
>they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board
>meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It
>would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating
>their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can
>override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a
>contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC
>attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights
>supporters in Utah?

I'm the only Board (or Advisory Board) member of USSC who's subscribed to
utah-firearms.  Most, but not all, of the other members have e-mail
capabilities.  However, my impression is that not too many read e-mail with
any regularity or are very comfortable with computers.  I've posted the
e-mail addresses of all who were willing to make them available, so you can
e-mail at least those members.  But I suspect most of them do prefer
telephone contact.

As I understand the so-called "gag order", members may not _publish_
positions or votes.  (I don't have the exact language.)  I don't think
there's any prohibition against stating  one's position or vote.  But there
are huge gray areas such as private e-mail and public statements.

I can understand that the Board would not want internal discord aired
publicly - at least during the legislative session, when it's necessary for
the most part to present a united front.  (I'm not saying I agree or
disagree, but I do understand this point of view.)  However, I don't see
why that should preclude recording votes and publishing them immediately
after the session.

However, with the possible exception of during the legislative session, it
makes no sense to me to suppress one Constitutional right while fighting
for another.  The first and second amendments depend upon each other - as
do all our rights.

The problem is that the only people complaining are non-members.  The only
member who's let me know he has complaints is Will.  No Board member has
any obligation or mandate to represent anyone other than members, and I'm
not sure how many will be receptive to comments from non-members.

Certainly there's room for more than one gun rights organization in Utah.
There's already the Utah Gun Rights Association, the Utah Rifle and Pistol
Assoc. and a few more whose names don't immediately come to mind.  If
anyone wants to start a chapter of NRA, GOA, Brassroots, SAFE, CCRKBA or
even another independent organization, they're free to do so.  And if some
other organization can do a better job than USSC, more power to them!  I
might even join. <g>

But since I'm the only Board member here, complaining about USSC on u-f
isn't going to do any good.  If you want to tell anyone but me what you
think, you're going to have to do it their way, since I know of no way to
force anyone to subscribe to or read u-f.  (Not that I'd force anyone anyway!)

Contact info follows:

The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info
made public.  Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse
their open-door policy.

Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), [e-mail]
Elwood Powell,  426-8274 or 583-2882 (h), 364-0412 (w),
    [e-mail]
Shirley Spain, 963-0784, [e-mail]
Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w)
Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, [e-mail]
Joe Venus, 571-2223

Because of the confusion over whether comments via e-mail are permitted,
I'd suggest phone calls.

There are a lot of gun owners in Utah, and they have widely divergent
views.  Some are "no compromise" people.  Some only care about concealed
carry.  Some only care about hunting, or target shooting, or collecting.
Some are confrontational, and some prefer not to "make waves".  I don't
honestly think one organization can be everything to everyone.  OTOH, if we
split into too many factions, we're likely to end up with no voice at all.
I don't have any perfect, or even very good, ideas on how to solve this
problem.  But I am open to suggestions.

Sarah

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: USSC Contact Info
Date: 27 Feb 1998 06:45:00 -0700


On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:22:32 Charles Hardy asked:

>Sarah posted contact info a while back.  I thought I had saved it, but
>apparantly did not.  Sarah, would you be so good as to post that again?

I'm not Sarah, but here it is:

The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info
made public. Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse
their open-door policy. All of us are VERY busy right now.

Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), [e-mail]
Elwood Powell, 426-8274 or 583-2882 (h), 364-0412 (w),
[e-mail]
Shirley Spain, 963-0784, [e-mail]
Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (h), 546-2275 (w)
Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, [e-mail] (I prefer e-mail to phone
calls when possible).
Joe Venus, 571-2223



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  ACTION ALERT: "Anti " Article in LHJ -Forwarded
Date: 27 Feb 1998 10:07:27 -0700

Received: (qmail 19538 invoked by uid 516); 27 Feb 1998 03:17:58 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 19337 invoked from network); 27 Feb 1998 03:17:42 -0000
Received: from ocelot.avana.net (HELO Email.Avana.Net) (205.245.133.6)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 27 Feb 1998 03:17:42 -0000
Received: from tiger.avana.net (tiger.avana.net [205.245.133.2])
    by Email.Avana.Net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id LAA28908;
    Thu, 26 Feb 1998 11:27:56 -0500
Received: from nancys (atl867.avana.net [207.42.62.157])
    by tiger.avana.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA00415;
    Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:18:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Real Pro Second Amendment Activist Never Give Up.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
  [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by Nancy <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
        ACTION ALERT: "Anti" Article in Ladies Home Journal
  Date:
        Thu, 26 Feb 98 22:03:05 EST5EDT
  From:
        [e-mail] (Brenda Bernard )
    To:
        undisclosed-recipients:;


Dear Brother / Sister Shooters,

I just received information, from a sister shooter, about an article
appearing in the current "Ladies Home Journal, p. 28 praising women in
the
"war against guns".

The article highlights "Tina Johnstone" whose husband was gunned down by
a
criminal.  "Tina" is organizing a march on D.C. and wants to make a pile
of
several thousands of shoes of victims.  I am sure there will be many
shoes
thrown in there for the heck of it and the media will have a hay day
dramatically portraying all the shoes as being worn by victims.

You may want to visit a news stand and see the article for yourself
before
responding. It does not seem to be in their website publication.

"Tina Johnstone's" committee phone number is [phone].

Ladies Home Journal
125 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
E-mail:  [e-mail]
Website: http://www.lhj.com

Toll free: [phone]


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brenda Bernard (Ladybug)
P.O. Box 1997
Crystal River, FL  34423-1997
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Women AGAINST Gun Control  @ www.wagc.com
  GUNS GIVE WOMEN A FIGHTING CHANCE
      All THOSE IN FAVOR OF LOSING YOUR GUN RIGHTS, DO NOTHING


For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to:
[e-mail]
with the word Help in the body of the message


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC Legislative ALERTS!!
Date: 27 Feb 1998 11:22:17 -0700

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 S. Thompson replied to Charles Hardy:
>
> >However, the Board is not going to know what you think unless you tell THEM.
>
> Do any USSC Board members other than Dr. Sarah Thompson read the uf
> list? It would seem a good idea for them to do so. Or do most of them
> depend on people making telephone calls specially to them? That would
> seem rather inefficient for both the caller and the recipient of the
> call.
I have sent the last few of these to Shirley at AGR/UGRA with the
suggestion that she subscribe and "listen in" to our arguments and
suggestions.  I know she's busy but I've told here that this is
mostly a fairly low-volume mail list, maybe she'll have enough
spare time and energy to spend some of it with us.

> It certainly appears 4 of them don't want anyone to know what
> they think unless they make special trips to Kaysville to attend Board
> meetings every Monday. How can the other 3 be bound by that vote? It
> would appear a violation of free speech to gag Board members from stating
> their positions and votes on USSC actions, and while a contract can
> override constitutionally-secured rights, if the USSC imposes such a
> contract on its Board members this does not make support of the USSC
> attractive. Perhaps time to replace the USSC as the voice of gun rights
> supporters in Utah?

While I disagree vehemently with their stand, I can sort of understand
why they are taking it.  These guys, especially Bob, are all respected
"businessmen and pillars of the community" (gag) and if Dan Harrie or
Vince Horiuchi got hold of something they could use to embarrass them
or otherwise damage their reputation/business, you can bet they'd use
it in a heartbeat.  These guys are scared, with reason, I believe.  I
don't believe any of them except Sarah (and maybe Joe and Shirley, I
haven't asked them) have accepted that we've probably already lost the
war and _will_ lose it if we don't go on the offensive - hard and fast.
They're still proud of being "life members of NRA" as if that proves
how _staunchly_ they support the 2nd.

And as always....the target pistol shooters don't really care about
anything but "sporting use".  The hunters just want to be able to
keep the "ol' thuty-thuty".  The CCW'ers want a better/longer permit.
The collectors want the pre-paid (in rights) convenience of not
having to pay BCI every time they make a trade...meanwhile the few
of us who dispise CCW, who want a return to pre-NFA liberty, are
fighting our own absolutest battles...Yeah, I'm proud to be an
"extremest", but I also realize that I scare the bejeezus out of
guys like Bob Templeton.  Education is all I can try and offer them,
realizing that it's going to take even longer for them to (maybe)
come 'round than it did for me. (What with my pre-disposition to
fight authority)  So I'm going to stand out here, vent my frustrations
here and keep trying to get the "them" board members to see the
light...dunno what else to do...it's "them" who're going to have
to bring the hunters, paper punchers, and other factions with us
and we ain't gonna get that by slammin em down every time they
don't get it.  Sarah tells me that Jews put honey on the pages
of the Torah to get their children to read it and associate
"sweetness" with it...seems like a good idea...if only I can
keep from flippin my lid every time someone does something
"stupid"....

vent vent vent

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: steiner and beattie
Date: 27 Feb 1998 11:28:39 -0700

After that last bit....now I don't have time to look it
up....in this morning's Trib was a short article about
how Steiner and Beattie have teamed up (sort of like
putting two amoebas in a bowl...) to amend the bill
describing how one's CCW may be revoked, by adding the
church ban....(indeciperable, I know)

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: steiner and beattie
Date: 27 Feb 1998 11:34:11 -0700


Which section?  I can't find it.


On Fri, 27 Feb 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>After that last bit....now I don't have time to look it
>up....in this morning's Trib was a short article about
>how Steiner and Beattie have teamed up (sort of like
>putting two amoebas in a bowl...) to amend the bill
>describing how one's CCW may be revoked, by adding the
>church ban....(indeciperable, I know)
>
>-
>
>


--

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.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
 Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
 conscience; or to prevent *the people* of the United States who are
 peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..." -- Samuel Adams in
 arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published
 by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg. 86-87.

-



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

From: WILL THOMPSON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: steiner and beattie
Date: 27 Feb 1998 11:43:26 -0700

The legislative update section, bottom middle of the page in the print
version

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Gun Ban not dead yet!!
Date: 27 Feb 1998 12:27:45 -0700


From today's tribune, Legislative update section--"Briefs" article:

HB242 orignally only made some minor technical and clarifications on
how and when a CCW permit may be revoked and has sailed through thus
far.

GUN BILL NOT DEAD YET
     Legislation banning legally permitted concealed weapons in certain buildings is not dead yet.
     Democrats plan to amend a bill to prohibit weapons-permit holders
     from carrying their guns to church.

    ``It's one of the areas where there is a great deal of consensus. It's one thing that we can do,'' said
 Sen. Robert Steiner, D-Salt Lake City.
     Senate President Lane Beattie was planning to spearhead the move to ban concealed weapons in
 churches, private property and schools, but pulled out last week because of mounting legal questions
 about the move.
     But the West Bountiful Republican said he will vote for Steiner's amendment.
     Steiner said he will amend House Bill 242, which details circumstances when a
 concealed-weapons permit can be revoked.
     -- The Associated Press

--

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.

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic,
 and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it,
 without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." --
 James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46).

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Victims fight back (Tennessee Bill) -Forwarded
Date: 27 Feb 1998 12:56:08 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id GAA27338; Fri, 27 Feb 1998 06:58:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma027287; Fri Feb 27 06:57:21 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

Here is the text of the bill.  I am sending a copy to a Nebraska State Senator
for consideration.

Filed for intro on 01/21/98

                              SENATE BILL 2167 By

                                    Cohen

                                HOUSE BILL 2260

                                   By Buck

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6, to enact
the
"Victim and Citizen Criminal Apprehension and Protection Act of 1998"
authorizing the use of force
to apprehend certain suspected felons and for the protection of persons and
property from such
felons.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Victim and Citizen
Criminal
Apprehension and Protection Act of 1998".

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-11-621, is amended by
designating the
existing language as subsection (a) and by adding the following new subsections:

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a private citizen is
justified in threatening or using
all necessary force, including deadly force, to apprehend a person who is
committing or has
committed first or second degree murder, attempt to commit first or second
degree murder,
aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, rape, aggravated rape, or
rape of a child if the
citizen uses such force:

A) While the defendant is on the same property where the offense was committed
or attempted to be
committed or on any public property adjoining such property; and

B) During or in fresh pursuit of the person after commission or attempted
commission of the offense.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a private citizen present
in a motor vehicle is
justified in threatening or using all necessary force, including deadly force,
against a person whom one
reasonably believes is attempting to use unlawful force against such citizen
while committing or
attempting to commit the offense of carjacking.

(d) Any private citizen using deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon under
the circumstances set
out in subsection (b) or who uses deadly force pursuant to subsection (c) is
presumed to have been
put in reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to self
or others by such
offender and the use of deadly force is justified even though the person using
such force does not
retreat from the encounter.

(e) Any private citizen who uses force under the circumstances authorized by
subsections (b) or (c)
shall be absolutely immune from actual or punitive damages resulting from
property damage, injury or
death either accidentally or intentionally inflicted by such citizen upon the
person or persons who
committed or attempted to commit one or more of the enumerated offenses.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect on July 1, 1998, the public welfare
requiring it.

Return to Main Bill Index




-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Please oppose Steiner Amd to HB242 (LONG)
Date: 27 Feb 1998 15:06:10 -0700


Folks please pass this to all pro-gun people you know.

There will be no further committee hearing on HB242, the technical
changes to CCW recocation process bill that Steiner intends to amend
to prohibit guns in churches, schools, and private property.  It will
receive a full floor debate only.  Please contact your Senator
immediately and ask them to oppose Steiner's amendment and to kill the
entire bill if necessary to keep the amendment from passing.  Contact
info at <http://www.senate.le.state.ut.us/roster.htm>.  Messages can
also be left at [phone] and Faxes sent to [phone]
addressed to the Senator.

In addittion to contacting your own Senator, I have it on good
authority there are five Senators in a position to swing this who
could use a little extra attention from us.  I'm hoping we can
generate some calls, faxes, emails, or phone calls.  Email is
certainly the least painful way for most of us here to contact them,
but please also take the time to make a phone call or send a fax as I
have no idea if/how often these 5 read email.  Please contact
Sens. Beattie, Montgomery, Petersen, Howell and Jones and ask them to
oppose this amendment and to vote against the entire bill if
necessary.

Contact info below, followed by a couple of emails I've sent to
various legislators on this issue.  Feel free to use as much of
anything I've written as you feel is usefule, but please modify it
enough that it doesn't look like a form letter.  And remember, polite
but firm.

Lane Beattie (R) Sen. Pres.  (sponsor of SB57 which he withdrew over legal concerns)
313 North 1100 West        (has said he will support the amd.)
West Bountiful, Utah
84087 H-292-7406 O-298-7000
no email listed but try <[e-mail]>

Lorin V. Jones (R)
177 E Center St
Veyo UT 84782
H 574-2961
<[e-mail]>

Robert F. Montgomery (R)
1825 North Mountain Road
North Ogden, Utah 84414
H-782-1694
no email listed but try <[e-mail]>

Craig A. Peterson (R) Majority Leader
1687 North 200 West
Orem, Utah 84057
H-226-3236 O-756-8888
<[e-mail]>

Scott N. Howell (D) Minority Leader
9711 South 3725 East
Sandy, Utah 84092
H-943-5770 O-328-6643
<[e-mail]>



-----email I have sent to various legislators follows-----

Dear Senator

I'm writing to implore you to please oppose Sen. Steiner's amendment
to HB242 that would ban guns in churches, private homes, and schools.
I expect the language to do so will be virtually identical to the
languege used in SB57 and HB69.  Both of these bills have been
withdrawn due to legal questions and concerns--including concerns
about whether a CCW permit holder would now be in violation of the
Federal Gun Free School Zone Law simply by driving within two city
blocks of any school in the State.  Those questions and concerns still
remain.

HB242 has sailed through the House because it made only technical and
clarrification changes to the process of revoking a CCW permit.  A
major change to Utah's CCW laws should be allowed to sneak through the
process in the last week of the legislature.  Doing so not only passes
a bad bill, but subverts the deliberative process that should take
place.  I also so feel it violates the spirit of legislative rules
requiring bills to be filed by a certain date so that the legislature
may give them adequate research and debate and so the public has time
to let legislators know their feelings on the bill.

Please remember that the language used in SB57 and HB69 did not merely
"allow" churches and schools to ban guns if they wanted to.  It
outright banned guns with the only allowance being that prior
permission from someone authorized to control the property was a
"defense against prosecution."

If there is anything I can do to help defeat this amendment, including
contacting members of any committee that may hear the bill or nce
sitting" members of the legislature at large, please let me know.

Sincerely

Charles Hardy


Dear Sen.

I do not, nor have I ever possesed a State issued permit to carry a
concealed weapon.  My personal, professional, housing, and other
circumstances are such that I do not feel a need for such a permit.
However, I'm writing to urge you to please oppose SB57.  I believe
SB57 unnecessarily infringes on the right to worship and practice
religion, places clergy in an undesireable position between their
parishoners and the State, tramples on private property rights, and
may make federal criminals of some of our most law abiding citizens.

Further, while there has been much fuss and hysteria in the media, the
facts simply do not point to any problems involving law abiding adults
legally carrying concealed weapons for self defense anywhere within
the State.  In fact, there has been exactly one case involving a CCW
permitee reported in the media.  And even that permitee's most vocal
critics must admit, if they are honest, that his actions in firing
into a dirt bank, while possibly, technically illegal, did not pose a
threat to anyone's health or safety.

SB57 would make the licensed possesion of concealed weapon illegal in
houses of worship, private property and schools.  Obtaining the prior
permission of someone authorized to control access to the house of
worship, private property, or the school administrator would only be a
"defence against prosecution" under the changes made by SB57 and would
not prevent arrest and prosecution from occurring in the first place
according to at least one legal opinion I've read.

While some of the larger churches in the State have publicly stated
they do not feel firearms are appropriate in houses of worship, none
have gone so far as to actually prohibit their members from carrying a
licensed concealed weapon to church or to impose any penalties of
membership such as disfellowship or excommunication for doing so.
Instead, these churches have stated general principle and have left it
to the best judgement of individual members to determine if their
personal circumstances differ enough from the norm to warrant
possession of a weapon in church.  Why should the State legislature go
further in deciding what activities should be prohibited within a
house of worship than even churches themselves have gone?

More importantly, this bill ignores the very real possibility of
smaller, minority churches who may have absolutely no opposition to
their members providing for self-defense while in church buildings but
would rather not be forced to take a formal position and keep records
to allow their members who feel a need to do so.  Just a few months
ago a robbery was averted and lives potentially saved in Arizona when
a church member used a legally carried firearm to scare away an armed
intruder seeking the daily offering which was being counted.  If a
church wishes to prohibit weapons, they are and should be free to do
so.  But why should the State prohibit weapons inside churches and
then force a church to take a stated position in an area they would
rather leave to indiviual members?

In addition to ignoring the property rights of smaller, minority
churches, this bill places clergy in the undesirable position of
having to decide whether a congregation member caught with a licensed,
concealed weapon in church should face the wrath of the State.  In
every congregation there is sure to be at least one person vehemently
opposed to anyone carrying a gun for any reason regardless of what the
law says.  This one person could easily demand State action against
anyone suspected of carrying a concealed weapon.  Why should the State
force clergy to decide the issue of concealed weapons by placing them
in a position to avert or allow prosecution of a purely technical
offense?

I have felt no need to carry a gun to church.  But I recognize the
possibility that there are those who might.  Attending church does not
reduce the threat posed by violent ex-husbands.  Witnesses to crimes
should not be forced into deciding between fulfilling their spiritual
needs and protecting themselves against those who would rather they
keep quiet.  And parishoners, clergy, or staff in high crime
neighborhoods should not be limited to daylight hours for holding
church activities or attending to financial or other business on
church property.

Remember that in June of 1995, Lucinda Bonilla and her children were
abducted at gun point from a church in West Valley City by her
estranged husband while an unarmed congregation sat helpless to stop
him.  The husband, Raul Bonilla, violated numerous laws including,
among others, illegal discharge of a weapon, kidnapping, and attempted
murder of police officers.  Does anyone really think one more law
specifically outlawing guns in churches would have deterred him one
moment?  Such a law only guarantees that women married to abusive,
dangerous men will always be unarmed and defenseless while attending
church.

Criminals in Florida have taken to directing their actions against
tourist who they know are less likely to be armed and able to defend
themselves than Florida State residents who have been able to obtain
concealed weapons permits for a decade.  Do we really want to
advertise to Utah criminals that those attending any funtion in a
church, regardless of circumstance or time of day, are unarmed and
easy targets?  I can think of few scenarios more inviting to a stalker
than knowing his intended victim will be safely disarmed as she leaves
evening service or meetings at her chosen house of worship and makes
her way through the parking lot to her car.

I believe a better approach with regard to private property and houses
of worship is to allow owners to prohibit weapons if they choose, but
not create a crime nor impose a penalty unless the owner has taken
reasonable steps to inform visitors of the prohibition.  I believe
current law recognizes this right as evidenced by Blockbuster Video's
decision a couple of years ago to post their property as off limits to
guns.  No one challenged their right to do so.  However, CCW permitees
and others boycotted Blockbuster because of their decision.  I believe
partly because of the economic consequences of alienating some of
their customers, along with the realization that without metal
detectors and guards, any gun ban, regardless of the law, becomes
nothing more than an honor code which criminals disobey with impunity,
Blockbuster rescinded their policy and left the decision of whether or
not to carry a concealed weapon in the hands of Utah's responsible
adults where it belongs.

Finally, any prohibition of guns in or around schools must be very
carefully worded in light of the Federal Gun Free Schools Act of 1995.
I've attached relevant portions of this law below.   In summary, the
Act makes it a crime for any person who is not specifically authorized
to posses a gun (via a State issued permit that requires a background
check) to be in possession of a gun on or within 1000 feet of any
school grounds.  1000 feet is almost two city blocks!

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me if Utah's CCW permits are not
specifcally valid on school grounds, a permit holder who is otherwise
legally in possession of his firearm, might possibly be ruled (by an
anti-gun, federal judge in Denver) in violation of this Federal law
simply by walking, jogging, or even driving within two city blocks of
any school--public, private, pre-school, or parochial (and some rumors
suggest the BATF is also looking at interpreting this to include home
schools and even day-cares)--anywhere in the State.  I encourage you
to obtain a map of Salt Lake County that shows all schools.  Then
shade in those schools and two city blocks in each direction of each
school to see how much area could potentially make federal criminals
of some of our most law abiding citizens.  I do not think SB57 is
worded carefully enough to safeguard Utah's CCW permitees from federal
prosecution and should be opposed for that reason and the others
stated.

I remind you once again that there is absolutely no evidence that CCW
permitees have posed the slightest risk to anyone's health, safety, or
even public good order under current law.  A concealed weapon cannot
cause concern to others because, by definition, it is concealed.  In
fact, the best and most recent scholarly research on the subject of
concealed weapons by Prof. John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and
Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David
B. Mustard, graduate student at the Department of Economics, released
on July 26, 1996, shows allowing responsible adults to carry concealed
weapons for self defense results in dramatically lower rates of
violent crime.  I have enclosed the abstract below and encourage you
to read the full report at
<http://yoda.sscl.uwo.ca/~eric/cfa/Lott/guns.html>.  Lower crime rates
benefit not just permit holders.  Everyone enjoys a lower rate of
violent crime when adults are allowed to carry concealed weapons.
Because criminals do not know who is prepared to defend themselves and
who the unarmed, "safe" victims are, they are less likely to attack
ANYone.

Thank you for your service in the Senate.  I appreciate your time in
considering and responding to this letter so I may better know your
position on this issue and look forward to you putting reason and
rights above politics and media hype and voting no on SB57.


Sincerely

Charles Hardy

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


Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns

                                          John R. Lott, Jr.
                                           School of Law
                                        University of Chicago
                                        Chicago, Illinois 60637


                                         David B. Mustard
                                      Department of Economics
                                        University of Chicago
                                        Chicago, Illinois 60637

                                           July 26, 1996

* The authors would like to thank Gary Becker, Phil Cook, Clayton
Cramer, Gertrud Fremling, Ed Glaeser, Hide Ichimura, Don Kates, Gary
Kleck, David Kopel, William Landes, David McDowall, Derek Neal, Dan
Polsby, and Douglas Weil and the seminar participants at the
University of Chicago, American Law and Economics Association
Meetings, and the Western Economic Association Meetings for their
unusually helpful comments.



Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns

Abstract

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to
1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters
violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental
deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed
gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders;
4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults would have been
avoided yearly. On the other hand, consistent with the notion of
criminals responding to incentives, we find criminals substituting
into property crimes involving stealth and where the probabilities of
contact between the criminal and the victim are minimal. The largest
population counties where the deterrence effect on violent crimes is
greatest are where the substitution effect into property crimes is
highest. Concealed handguns also have their greatest deterrent effect
in the highest crime counties. Higher arrest and conviction rates
consistently and dramatically reduce the crime rate. Consistent with
other recent work (Lott, 1992b), the results imply that increasing the
arrest rate, independent of the probability of eventual conviction,
imposes a significant penalty on criminals. The estimated annual gain
from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion.



GUN FREE SCHOOL ACT OF 1995

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

    PART I - CRIMES

    CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS

-HEAD-

    Sec. 921. Definitions

(25) The term ''school zone'' means -

        (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private

      school; or

        (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a

      public, parochial or private school.


Sec. 922. Unlawful acts

(q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that -

[findings ommitted for brevity]

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to

    possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects

    interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual

    knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

      (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a

    firearm -

        (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

        (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do

      so by the State in which the school zone is located or a

      political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or

      political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains

      such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or

      political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified

      under law to receive the license;

        (iii) that is -

          (I) not loaded; and

          (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is

        on a motor vehicle;

        (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school

      in the school zone;

        (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into

      between a school in the school zone and the individual or an

      employer of the individual;

        (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official

      capacity; or

        (vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while

      traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to

      public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school

      premises is authorized by school authorities.

      (3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be

    unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for

    the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a

    firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or

    foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.

      (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm

    -

        (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

        (ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school

      zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;

        (iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered

      into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an

      employer of the individual; or

        (iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official

      capacity.

      (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting

    or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute

    establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.

Sec. 924. Penalties

(a)(4) Whoever violates section 922(q) shall be fined under this

    title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of

    imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run

    concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any

    other provision of law.  Except for the authorization of a term of

    imprisonment of not more than 5 years made in this paragraph, for

    the purpose of any other law a violation of section 922(q) shall be

    deemed to be a misdemeanor.





--

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.

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic,
 and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it,
 without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." --
 James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46).




-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FP- No Driver's License - No Gun!
Date: 27 Feb 1998 16:12:27 -0700

Thought this might be of interest.....

>SCAN THIS NEWS
>02/27/98
>
>[Forwarded Message]
>>One more bit of insanity from California. I have a friend who has an HK USP.
>>He recently bought a Sig 229 which was sent to a local FFL. When he went to
>>pick it up, the paperwork didn't clear because his Driver's License had
>>expired. He paid his renewal fee and received a valid temp license. However,
>>the CALIF DOJ says he can't get his gun until his new CA ID card arrives in
>>60 days.
>>
>>This may be off-topic, but I think this is outrageous. I understand why a
>>state needs to check a person's background (criminal record), but that can
>>be done with a Social Security number or his CA Driver's license number,
>>which is still on the books (and is currently valid though he hasn't
>>received his plastic card yet.)
>>
>>But what is the larger issue here?!
>>
>>When you think about this, what does a driver's license have to do with
>>firearms ownership? I don't mean to get political, but the Second Amendment
>>guarantees the right to bear arms to all citizens, not just those who have a
>>current, valid driver's license. Nobody had a driver's license when the Bill
>>of Rights was written.
>>
>>I can't believe that any jurisdiction deny firearms ownership to persons who
>>don't possess a driver's license. Imagine if CA said you can't go to the
>>church of your choice unless you are licensed to drive! Wouldn't we hear
>>some noice about that from our friendly liberals?
>>
>>Amazing and deeply disturbing.
>>
>>Paul McMenamin

>======================================================================
>  "ScanThis NewsLetter" from the "Fight the Fingerprint" Email List!
>======================================================================
>Web sites dedicated to fighting the National ID:
>
>{WA} http://home.earthlink.net/~idzrus/index.html
>{AL} http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml
>{GA} http://www.atlantainfoguide.com/repeal/
>
>Donnie Guthrie - Arrested for NOT showing SSN to the police.
>http://www.scott.net/~dg1/1.htm
>======================================================================
>                Reply to: [e-mail]
>  Type FP-JOIN in the SUBJECT to join, type FP-REMOVE to be removed.
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>           "ScanThis NewsLetter" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N.
>               SOVEREIGN CITIZENS AGAINST NUMBERING
>           Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page:
>            http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml
>                   http://www.networkusa.org
>======================================================================
>
>

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS 1/2
Date: 28 Feb 1998 07:58:00 -0700


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

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a108422.htm

Topic: UNITED NATIONS

GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS

THE WEEKLY STANDARD
FEBRUARY 23, 1998 RONALD BAILEY

THE UNITED NATIONS WANTS TO DISARM AMERICANS AND OTHER GUN OWNERS
AROUND THE WORLD. NO, THIS IS NOT SOME WILD CLAIM COOKED UP BY THE
FEVERED IMAGINATIONS OF MILITIA CRAZIES. For the past couple of years,
three different UN agencies -- the UN Disarmament Commission, the UN
panel of government experts on small arms, and the UN economic and
social council's commission on crime prevention and criminal justice --
have been holding meeting to devise policies to control light weapons.

Ostensibly, these agencies are hoping to limit the illicit
international trade in handguns, rifles, and other small arms.
perhaps not surprisingly, though, they have concluded that the way
to crack down on the illicit trade is to keep law-abiding people
from owning firearms. This, of course, mirrors the arguments of
gun-control advocates in the US, who it turns out are working
hand-in-glove with the UN bureaucrats on these intiatives. "THE
CONSTANT RHETORIC YOU HEAR IN THE UN IS THAT THE AVAILIBILITY OF
FIREARMS CAUSES CRIME," say Tom Mason of the NRA. Yet US studies
clearly show that states with the highest per capita gun ownership
-- Vermont for one -- generally have the lowest crime rates.

Now, it may be good thing to prevent weapons from flowing into
countries undergoing civil war -- Rwanda, say, or Bosnia -- but the
UN and gun-control advocates have misidentified the problem. Take
Afghanistan. That country is an armed camp not because some greedy
gun-runners sold weapons to Afghan citizens; it's an armed camp
because the governments of the USSR and US supplied armaments to
their respective allies in that country. Besides, guns didn't cause
the Afgan civil war, the soviet invasion did. And in most of the
world's civil conflicts today, the vast majority of the weapons are
supplied by governments pursuing what they believe to be their
interests. Hunters and sport shooters are simply not part of the
equation.

As creatures of government, UN functionaries do not accept or
respect the principle that gun ownership might be a citizen's
right. The 2nd amendment guarantee of an American citizen's right
to keep and bear arms is beyond fathoming by UN officials whose
governments essentially want to figure out how best to control
and disarm their citizens. "WE CONSIDER PERSONAL DEFENSE TO BE A
BASIC UNIVERSIAL RIGHT," SAID MASON. "THEY DO NOT." Instead, the
UN's gun-controllers argue that citizens should rely solely on their
governments for personal protection and blandly advise that "all
states should improve the safety and security of their societies,
so their citizens would not see the necessity to arm themselves."

The most troubling of the three initiatives is the UN "declaration
of principles for the regulation of firearms" being devised by the
commission on crime prevention and criminal justice. The working
draft declares that "no state can be left immune from the effect
of the lack or laxity of legislative and administrative controls
of other states. The absence of effective firearm regulation in
one member state can undermine not only the regulatory efforts
but also effective governance of other member states.

Decoding the UN-speak, the declaration is claiming that countries
which restrict the ownership of firearms are threatened by countries
in which citizens have a right to own guns. The implied solution is
global gun control -- international standards for the regulation of
firearms. Indeed, the draft declaration recommends: "The acquisition
and possession of firearms and ammunition would always require a
license granted by an authority. A system for firearm registration
to record information on serial number and other markings of the
firearms legally imported and sold to citizens, or reported
lost/stolen, should be domestically/internationally harmonized.
That is, there is a need for centralizing and computerization of
information in a standardized manner to facilitate further criminal
investigations and to determine the responsibility of owners."



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Antigun PSA from Barnes
Date: 28 Feb 1998 07:58:00 -0700


Reposted by permission

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

Scott,

I called Bill Barnes today and left a message.  I know him all too well
from debating him in light rail.  He's actually kinda nice.  Just
misinformed, as always.

FYI, the City Weekly called me today: IHC.  I have a letter from the NRA
announcing that Sarah Brady is behind those commercials.  I told the
reporter that.  They were very interested.

Regards,

----------
> From: Scott Bergeson <[e-mail]>
> To: Libertarian Party of Utah <[e-mail]>
> Subject: LPU: Antigun PSA from Barnes -Reply
> Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 8:50 AM

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> To: [e-mail]
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:25:43 -0700
> From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>

> I have a copy of Eddie Eagle to give to Barnes.  Maybe we'll be surprised
> and IHC will run a clip as a PSA.

> Who knows Barnes well enough to make an appointment?


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: RKBA, CA & Driver License
Date: 28 Feb 1998 07:58:00 -0700


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

This is just one more example of what I have been saying for years -
please note that this rant isn't directed at the writer or sender of the
original post.

All authoritarian control mechanisms require identification of the
controlees. The ROOT enabler of all of these mechanisms is the "DRIVER'S"
license...

YOUR PAPERS, PLEEZZZZZ...

It is the most pervasive of the control documents and until the state
PUBLICLY declares them to be your internal passport, we will continue
to see an ever expanding use of the "driver's" license as the DEFACTO
internal passport.

Remember, <bold><underline>NOTHING</underline></bold> in a dictatorship
happens without identification.

While I support the efforts of groups attempting to restrict the use of
fingerprints and other biometric identification methods on "driver's"
licenses and the NO NATIONAL ID movement, they are 30 or 90 years too
late and too many dollars short. <underline>They have missed the
point.</underline>

Your "driver's" license became your national ID 30 years ago when the
"driver's" licenses were computerized. The call should not be "NO
NATIONAL ID" - as if this is something new - <bold><underline>BECAUSE YOU
ALREADY HAVE ONE!</underline></bold> The call should be "<bold>ELIMINATE
THE NATIONAL ID - NO "DRIVER'S" LICENSE</bold>"

<underline>There would be no issue of biometric identification if there
wasn't an existing document to tie it to.</underline>

<bold><underline><bigger>WAKE UP,</underline> AMERICA!!!</bigger></bold>

An SSN is assigned to almost every "driver's" license - whether or not it
appears on the face of it. That is your sheople identification number.

When the state or Fedz want to find out where you live, where do they go?
The Dept. of Motor Vehicles.

When the state or Fedz want to enforce a protection payment or extortion
out of you, where do they go? The Dept. of Motor Vehicles.

When some litigation happy lawyer wants to sue you and needs to serve
process on you, where does he go? The Dept. of Motor Vehicles.

When the state or Fedz get around to requiring drug testing of EVERYONE,
where are they going to go? The Dept. of Motor Vehicles.

<underline>Where is your privacy when there is a cattle bell hanging
around your neck that can be heard around the world with 16 keystrokes?
HUH?</underline>

For those people out there that think that this is just some radical,
paranoid, solution to a non-existent problem, <underline>take your heads
out of your illusion long enough to examine the facts.</underline>

http://agitator.dynip.com/agitator/privacy.htm
http://agitator.dynip.com

At 03:16 PM 2/27/1998 -0500, you wrote:

>>Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:34:58 -0800
>>Subject: [HK-L] RKBA, CA and Driver's Licenses
>>From: "Paul McMenamin" <<[e-mail]>
>>To: "HK-List" <<[e-mail]>

>>One more bit of insanity from California. I have a friend who has an HK USP.

>>He recently bought a Sig 229 which was sent to a local FFL. When he
>>went to pick it up, the paperwork didn't clear because his Driver's
>>License had expired. He paid his renewal fee and received a valid temp
>>license. However, the CALIF DOJ says he can't get his gun until his
>>new CA ID card arrives in 60 days.

>>This may be off-topic, but I think this is outrageous. I understand why
>>a state needs to check a person's background (criminal record), but that
>>can be done with a Social Security number or his CA Driver's license
>>number, which is still on the books (and is currently valid though he
>>hasn't received his plastic card yet.)

>>But what is the larger issue here?!

>>When you think about this, what does a driver's license have to do with
>>firearms ownership? I don't mean to get political, but the Second
>>Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to all citizens, not just
>>those who have a current, valid driver's license. Nobody had a driver's
>>license when the Bill of Rights was written.

>>I can't believe that any jurisdiction deny firearms ownership to
>>persons who don't possess a driver's license. Imagine if CA said you
>>can't go to the church of your choice unless you are licensed to drive!
>>Wouldn't we hear some noice about that from our friendly liberals?

>>Amazing and deeply disturbing.

>>Paul McMenamin
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>To Unsubscribe : E-Mail "[e-mail]"
>>Put "UNSUBSCRIBE hk-l" in the body of the message
>>---------------------------------------------------------------

>SENT BY:

>Jay Shore

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

>Why be politically correct when you can be right?


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: GLOBAL GUN GRABBERS 2/2
Date: 28 Feb 1998 07:58:00 -0700


Simply put, the declaration is calling for global gun licensing and
registration. But this would only be the first step. International
gun-control advocacy groups that are advising the UN commission
want much more.

According to the NRA's Mason, the main supporters of the declaration
are Japan and Canada. "Japan is supplying the money and Canada is
supplying the brains," he said. The leading non-governmental
organization pushing the UN initiatives is a leftist arms-control
group, the British American security information council, based in
Washington and London. With the help of a generous grant from the
Ford Foundation, the council is expanding its old military
arms-control agenda with a new project on light weapons. They
define light weapons as including pistols, revolvers, rifles and
machine guns.

In a report for the group, deputy director Natalie Goldring
outlines its plans for domestic and international control of light
weapons. First, Goldring derides the NRA and other gun ownership
groups for being paranoid about global firearms initiatives:
"Unlike the NRA, which apparently sees the UN efforts as an
international conspiracy led by Japan and canada, GUN OWNERS OF
AMERICA SEES THE UNITED NATIONS AS A FRONT GROUP FOR DOMESTIC GUN
CONTROL IN THE UNITED STATES." BUT ONLY A FEW PARAGRAPHS LATER SHE
BLITHELY DECLARES: It will be difficult to control the
international light weapons trade without monitoring and
controlling domestic access to weapons."

Goldring goes on to suggest what measures would be needed to "make
the connections between domestic gun control and international gun
control. Subregional, regional, and global registers, greater
oversight of existing national control and enforcement mechanisms,
harmonizing national measures in bilateral, regional, and global
frameworks; and/or enhancing national policies." CAN THERE BE ANY
DOUBT THAT ENHANCING NATIONAL POLICIES IS TO GUN CONTROL WHAT
REVENUE ENHANCING IS TO TAX INCREASES?

Goldring singles out the US for opprobrium, declaring that "the
direct relationship between lax US gun laws and illicit trafficking
in US weapons suggests that to control light weapons internationally,
it would be necessary to control them nationally. It will be difficult,
if not impossible, to control the illicit market in light weapons
without monitoring and controlling domestic access to weapons," AS
THE OLD SAYING GOES, JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE PARANOID, IT DOESN'T MEAN
THEY'RE NOT OUGHT TO GET YOU.

Does it really matter what the UN decides about regulating firearms?
It may matter a great deal. Consider the recent UN treaty to ban
landmines. The US participated in all the landmine negotiations,
trying to make the point that while mines do cause considerable
harm to civilians, they are essential to protecting American
troops, especially along the DMZ in South Korea. The US asked for
an exemption in that case but was simply ignored. In the end,
President Clinton uncharacteristically resisted enormous political
pressure from arms-control groups and refused to sign the landmine
treaty.

The UN Commission On Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice plans to
submit its declaration of principles for the regulation of firearms
to the UN General Assembly later this year, where it will almost
certainly be hailed as an advance for civilization. It would then
be a short and predictable step for gun control activists to urge
turning the declaration into a UN convention on firearms regulations
-- in which the US politicians could be bludgeooned, as they have
been on landmines. This is why the NRA's Tom Mason insists, "We have
a good reason to make a big deal out of this UN gun control effort."

Nonetheless, gunowners and sportshooters are playing catch up.
Earlier this year, the NRA and more than 20 gunowner and sport
shooter organizations from 12 countries formed the world forum on
the future of sports shooting activities to counterbalance the UN
bureaucracies. Meantime, the US has sent official representatives
from the ATF, the Treasury Department, and Customs to UN negotiating
sessions on the Declaration of Principles. Their participation
simply lends credibility in a process that threatens to erode
the rights of American citizens. IT SHOULD STOP.



-