ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9803

Internet Message Format | 1998-03-29 | 423KB

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  GOA alert 28 Feb 1998 -Forwarded
Date: 02 Mar 1998 14:25:34 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id LAA02080; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 11:54:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma002017; Sat Feb 28 11:51:55 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

"Seven Clones of Schumer" Bill Nearing Vote

 --And in the Senate, one more Senator could soon jump off
   Hatch's Horror Bill!

               by Gun Owners of America
   8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151,
       [phone], http://www.gunowners.org
              (Friday, February 27, 1998)


Sarah Brady and Chuck Schumer to gain with Puerto Rico
Statehood

The Washington Times reported today that unrest is brewing
in the Republican Party over Newt Gingrich's pushing of
H.R. 856, the Puerto Rico Statehood Act.  Nevertheless,
there are a surprising number of pro-gun Republicans that
either plan to vote for it or are still undecided on how
they will vote.

The Times article pointed to several problems with the bill,
in addition to GOA's gun rights concerns.  Taken together,
concerned citizens can present at least five reasons to
their Rep. for opposing H.R. 856:

  1.  Firearms are registered and many are banned in Puerto
Rico.  Assuredly, statehood for Puerto Rico means at least
six (or seven) more anti-gun Congressmen from the island --
which makes Puerto Rico statehood six (or seven) times worse
than D.C. statehood.

  2.  At least 50% of the island's population is on food
stamps.  Under statehood that number would increase, as
would the cost to the U.S. taxpayer ($3-4 billion annually
in food stamps alone).  Moreover, Puerto Rico will pay
little "into the system" thanks to low incomes and tax
credits.

  3.  The island's independence movement will still exist,
especially among the more extreme elements. Notice how
terrorist acts always seem to cause the rest of us to lose
more of our rights and freedoms.

  4.  Nine out of ten high school graduates in Puerto Rico
cannot speak English.  In regard to this point, pro-gun Rep.
Gerald Solomon said that Puerto Rico statehood "could create
a Quebec-style problem in the United States."

  5.  Bill Clinton, the most anti-gun President in U.S.
history, has endorsed H.R. 856 and demanded that Congress
pass it.  This reason alone should suggest that gun owners
oppose the bill!

  ACTION:  Urge your Representative to oppose H.R. 856
(Call the Capitol at 800-522-6721 or 202-225-3121; the GOA
website contains e-mail, fax numbers, and office numbers).
If your Rep. is a Republican, then you especially need to
contact him or her since their leadership is trying to "put
the squeeze" on them.  The vote was originally scheduled for
March 4, but there is talk of bringing up the bill earlier
-- perhaps to preclude the increasing opposition from the
grassroots.


One more Senator sends warning shot to Hatch on S. 10
Horror Bill

On Tuesday (2/24/98), Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) sent a
warning shot to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin
Hatch (R-UT).  Enzi fired off a letter to Hatch, charging
that several of the provisions in the bill "would unduly
restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners and dealers."

After detailing these provisions -- many of which have been
covered extensively in previous GOA fax/email alerts -- Sen.
Enzi bluntly stated that,

  I believe that the current version of S. 10 would unduly
  punish law-abiding citizens in its attempt to crack down
  on hardened criminals.  As such, unless changes are made
  to S.10 to ensure that it will not be another vehicle for
  increased federal gun control . . . I will have to
  withdraw my name as a cosponsor of this legislation.


Your Calls Matter:  U.S. News & World Report takes notice of
heat applied by GOA and its members

The current issue of U.S. News & World Report (3/2/98)
discloses that Hatch's anti-gun crime bill is running into
some stiff opposition.  In an article entitled, "Gunning for
Hatch," the magazine stated that:

  [S. 10], which the GOP touts as 1998's big anticrime
  measure, is running into trouble.  Gun Owners of America
  calls it "Hatch's Horror Bill," saying Utah's Sen. Orrin
  Hatch would allow "crippling" suits against gun makers
  under anti-racketeering laws and would penalize parents
  harshly if children practice shooting without written
  approval.  Conservative Sens. Wayne Allard, Conrad Burns,
  and Bob Smith have withdrawn support.

With a little noise from the grassroots, Senator Enzi could
become the fourth one to withdraw!

One final note:  GOA received a report today that yet
* another * Senator will be soon announcing his withdrawal
from S.10.  GOA has yet been unable to confirm this report
through the particular Senator's office, but we will keep
you posted.

***********************************************************
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: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Good pro-RKBA restaurant in Colorado Springs... -Forwarded
Date: 02 Mar 1998 14:46:03 -0700

Received: (qmail 8190 invoked by uid 516); 2 Mar 1998 18:44:27 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 8164 invoked from network); 2 Mar 1998 18:44:21 -0000
Received: from mail11.digital.com (192.208.46.10)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 1998 18:44:21 -0000
Received: from sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com (sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com [16.29.160.92])
    by mail11.digital.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/WV1.0c) with ESMTP id NAA03122
    for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:44:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Received: by sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
    id <FXKCDXA2>; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 13:44:20 -0500
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by Roger Oakey <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
Here's a recommendation for a good restaurant in Colorado Springs.

If you happen to be traveling through Colorado Springs and you want a
bite to eat, I'd recommend the Western Sizzlin at 8th and
Cimmeron/Highway 24. From I25 take exit 141 (Highway 24 West exit) 0.2
miles West and it'll be on the north side of the road.

So just why am I sending out a restaurant recommendation to RKBA-CO?
Because of a very heartening thing that happened last night there.

I'm part of a large group of instructors that once a month a teach the
NRA's "Personal Protection" class.  Yesterday (Sunday) was the range
session and afterwards we all went to the above Western Sizzlin for
dinner.  There were about 16 students and 12 instructors.  Because the
instructors feel that not exercising a right is the easiest was to
loose it, most were carrying exposed (we've been doing this for years
and the folks at the Western Sizzlin know us well).  This is perfectly
legal as there are no restrictions on carrying exposed in Colorado
Springs except for the places where the city council has imposed
complete bans on firearms (creating a number of "criminal protection
zones" like their city buildings and parks, but I digress).

Anyway, it seems that another patron called our waitress over and
*demanded* that she tell us all to go out to our cars, take off our
firearms and leave them in our cars.  When she responded "no" he
demanded to see the manager.  The manager's response was to refund the
patron's money and to tell him he was free to leave if he wished to do
so.

The only reason we heard what had happened was that a couple of
students weren't sitting with the main group and happened to be next
to the patron in question and heard the whole thing transpire and told
us at the main table.  The waitress didn't even mention it until we
asked her about it.

The waitress got one heck of a tip from us!

                         Roger Oakey

Ps.  This is yet another illustration of the dichotomy of thought that
an anti-gunner must maintain in order to remain an anti-gun.  On one
hand he thought we were dangerous and that his life was threatened,
which is why he didn't want us around.  On the other hand, he was
willing to confront (or more correctly, as a coward, was willing to
send the waitress to confront) these supposedly dangerous people and
ask them to leave, risking the anger of these supposedly dangerous
people.  It just doesn't make sense.

If we were a tenth as dangerous as the anti-gunners like to say we
are, they wouldn't risk harassing us all the time like they do!  They
KNOW we aren't a danger to them as is evidenced by their actions!


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


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC Board meeting
Date: 02 Mar 1998 15:57:36 -0700

Since several of you have expressed interest in attending a USSC Board
meeting ....

The next meeting is TONIGHT at 6:30 PM

The address is 7 N. Main St., in Kaysville, at the Crossroads of the West
offices.  The offices are on the SECOND floor.  The doorway is between the
two halves of a martial arts studio, just south of the movie theater.

Apologies for the short notice - it just occurred to me now that I should
post it.

Board meetings are open to any interested persons.

Sarah Thompson

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: HB 304 and NRA
Date: 03 Mar 1998 06:53:00 -0700


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

I spoke with Rob Bishop today re: HB304. He said the NRA asked him to
sponsor the bill. He said that they are worried about anti-gun people
passing anti-hunting initiatives. He said the final draft of the bill was
the lesser of the evils to choose from: (requiring more than 10% of the
voters and putting a deadline) He said this would make it so that urban
cities didn't have more power than rural...thus the change from 15 to 20
counties. I suggested to keep it to 15 but maybe just require a certain
percentage to be urban and a certain percentage to be rural. He said he'd
check in to it. I informed him that a lot of people are upset about this.

Janalee

----------
> From: FreeUtah <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: LPU: Romney Calls for Fusion
> Date: Monday, March 02, 1998 9:37 PM

> During Mills Crenshaw's Monday morning program, he pledged to call Utah
> GOP chair Rob Bishop to see if the Republican Party was pushing HB 304,
> which increases petitioning requirements from 15 to 20 of Utah's 29
> counties.

> Mills said if he got an affirmative response, he would urge his listeners
> and everyone he knows not to donate any money to the Republican Party.

> I don't know what Mills found out, but I do know that Speaker Mel Brown
> supports the bill, as does the Utah Shooting Sports Council, for which
> Rob Bishop is a lobbyist.

> Scooter!



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Rob Bishop re:  HB 304 -Forwarded
Date: 03 Mar 1998 08:48:27 -0700

Received: from shire.coloc.XMISSION.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id ta535983; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 07:37:58 -0700
Received: from slc305.modem.xmission.com (W7RCP.pengar.com) [166.70.2.121]
    by hobbiton.shire.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0y9spT-000473-00; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 07:38:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListMember: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]

> >> I spoke with Rob Bishop today re:  HB304.  He said the NRA asked him
to
> >> sponsor the bill.  He said that they are worried about anti-gun people
> >> passing anti-hunting initiatives.

Even the NRA wants to use government to force their ideas on others!
When one is afraid of the people, you restrict the people.  :-(

Oh, I forgot, it's ok to use governmental force because my ideas are
"right" and other people are "wrong".  It's only wrong to use
governmental force to enforce wrong ideas......

If the anti-hunters can get more people to sign petitions and to
vote, then they should get their ideas passed.  That's the way
freedom is, folks!

/Allen

--------
You're already a Libertarian in your heart, why not
at the voting booth?


-



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

From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rob Bishop re:  HB 304 -Forwarded
Date: 03 Mar 1998 10:57:45 -0500

>Even the NRA wants to use government to force their ideas on others!
>When one is afraid of the people, you restrict the people.  :-(
>
>Oh, I forgot, it's ok to use governmental force because my ideas are
>"right" and other people are "wrong".  It's only wrong to use
>governmental force to enforce wrong ideas......
>
>If the anti-hunters can get more people to sign petitions and to
>vote, then they should get their ideas passed.  That's the way
>freedom is, folks!
>
>/Allen
>
>--------
>You're already a Libertarian in your heart, why not
>at the voting booth?
>


That is NOT the way Freedom is.  Freedom is when the government CANNOT have
its ways, either good or bad.  Democracy is mob rule and not freedom.

Chad

Chad Leigh              Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net
[e-mail]         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites.
Low cost virtual servers.    DB integration. Tango.
Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rob Bishop re:  HB 304 -Forwarded
Date: 03 Mar 1998 09:57:36 -0700

>
>That is NOT the way Freedom is.  Freedom is when the government CANNOT have
>its ways, either good or bad.  Democracy is mob rule and not freedom.
>
>Chad
>

THANK YOU CHAD!!

Sarah

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC Legislative ALERT!
Date: 03 Mar 1998 10:54:52 -0700

Less than TWO DAYS LEFT!

HB 304 - Initiative Amendments was defeated in the Senate, 9-19-1.  There
is currently an effort to resurrect this bill.  (I don't know how that's
done - don't ask!)  The official position of USSC is to SUPPORT this bill.
Please contact your SENATOR and request that s/he support this legislation.
 This will probably be decided TODAY, so please act quickly.  (If you're
one of the people who wrote to say you oppose this bill, please ignore this
request! <g>)

HB 343 - Range Protection (Substitute) is in TROUBLE.  I can't get a recent
update off the Web, but according to Rob Bishop it is in the Senate, and
may not reach a vote.  PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATOR and request that s/he
SUPPORT this legislation - THIS SESSION.

SB 182 - Restriction on Government Collecting Monies for Groups is also in
trouble in the House.  Although this is not strictly a firearms bill, the
official position of USSC is to SUPPORT this bill.  Please contact your
REPRESENTATIVE and request that s/he support this bill.

HB 328 - Public Office Misconduct -   This is also not a firearms bill, but
the opinion of the Board of USSC is that elected officials should be
penalized for failing to take an oath of officeNo current status on this
one, but presumably still before the Senate.  Please contact your SENATOR
and request that s/he OPPOSE this bill.

Representatives may be contacted by calling 801-538-1029 or 800-662-3367.
Other contact info is at http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/html/members.htm

Senators may be contacted by calling 801-538-1035 or 800-953-8824
Other contact info is at http://www.senate.le.state.ut.us/roster.htm



GOOD NEWS!

SB 140, which provides that a concealed carry permit shall be good for FIVE
years instead of the current two, was passed, and has been sent to the
Governor.

SB 141, which allows a concealed carry permit to be used instead of a
background check when purchasing a firearm (thus saving the paperwork and
fee), was also passed and has been sent to the Governor.

Thanks to Sen. Michael Waddoups for successfully carrying both of these bills!

As always, thank you for your support!

More to follow on delegate training, contacting the governor, Federal S.
10,  the new provisions of Brady, etc.
Stay tuned!

Next Board meeting and legislative wrap-up, Monday, March 9 at 6:30 PM
7 N. Main Street, Kaysville

Sarah Thompson
for USSC

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


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rob Bishop re:  HB 304 -Forwarded
Date: 03 Mar 1998 12:27:02 -0700

DAVID SAGERS wrote:
>
> From: "Allen Leigh" <[e-mail]>
>
> If the anti-hunters can get more people to sign petitions and to
> vote, then they should get their ideas passed.  That's the way
> freedom is, folks!
>
> /Allen
>
> --------
> You're already a Libertarian in your heart, why not
> at the voting booth?
>

I thought "Libertarians" took the idea of constitutionality
and the idea that this is a representative republic (not
a mobocracy) seriously...

Looks like i'm still a _l_ibertarian as opposed to _L_ibertarian
if mob-rule is really what _L_ibertarianism's all about.

will

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Rob Bishop re:  HB 304 -Forwarded
Date: 03 Mar 1998 15:40:25 -0700


On Tue, 03 Mar 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>I thought "Libertarians" took the idea of constitutionality
>and the idea that this is a representative republic (not
>a mobocracy) seriously...
>
>Looks like i'm still a _l_ibertarian as opposed to _L_ibertarian
>if mob-rule is really what _L_ibertarianism's all about.
>
>will
>

I believe someone has already responded to Allen's post, but
"Libertarians" do take constitutionality and republicanism seriously.
Rights are not subject to majority vote.

--

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: [Fwd: Shortish op-ed on concealed carry]
Date: 04 Mar 1998 09:41:25 -0700

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA15858; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 20:41:13 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from ssiinc.com by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA0547851609; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 20:25:13 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07162; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 19:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com"
 via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa001jl; Tue Mar  3 19:33:56 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

    Reposted with permission.  I suspect those on this list already
know most of the facts chronicled here, but I thought it might
still be useful for those who like to forward these sorts of things.



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

Date sent:      Sun, 01 Mar 1998 20:56:47 -0500


           CENTER-RIGHT, a free weeklyish e-newsletter
        of centrist, conservative, and libertarian ideas
                     Issue 1, March 2, 1998
                      Over 1100 subscribers

                PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THIS
            to anyone you think might be interested.
   Subscription and unsubscription instructions at the bottom.

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



  No Smoking Guns: Answering Objections to Right-to-Carry Laws
                          [1100 words]

National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 246 (by
Morgan Reynolds & H. Sterling Burnett):


     Since 1986 the number of states in which it is legal to carry
concealed weapons has grown from nine to 31, representing 49
percent of the country's population.  Should we feel safer?

     Opponents of right-to-carry laws predicted a sharp decline in
public safety because minor incidents would escalate into killings
and more children would be victimized by more guns in irresponsible
hands.  Further, critics claimed that criminals would be undeterred
by any increase in armed citizens.  Indeed, they claimed that
right-to-carry laws would increase crime rather than deter it.
Experience has proven them wrong.

     What objections do the critics offer?


     Objection #1: Citizens are safe enough without handguns.

     Criminals commit 10 million violent and 30 million property
crimes a year.  Hospital emergency rooms treat an estimated 1.4
million people a year for injuries inflicted in violent attacks,
according to a recent Department of Justice study.

     Since the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have held that
the police are not obligated to protect individuals from crime,
citizens are ultimately responsible for their own defense.
Carrying a handgun allows millions to effectively provide for their
own protection.


     Objection #2: Concealed weapons do not deter crime.

     In choosing their crimes, criminals weigh the prospective
costs against the benefits.  If criminals suspect that the costs
will be too high, they are less likely to commit a crime.  The
possibility of a concealed weapon tilts the odds against the
criminal and in favor of the victim.  A survey of 1,847 felons in
10 states found them more concerned about meeting an armed victim
than running into the police.

     Their concern is well founded.  Victims use handguns an
estimated 1.9 million times each year in self-defense against an
attack by another person, according to a survey conducted by
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.  Studies have
found that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun cut the
risks of injury in half.

     Moreover, a study by economists John Lott and David Mustard of
the University of Chicago, published in the January 1997 Journal of
Legal Studies, examined the impact of concealed carry permits.
Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992, the
study found that:

     *  Concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5 percent, rape
by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.

     *  Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, 1,600
fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults
would have occurred during those 15 years.

     In addition, the deterrent effect of concealed handgun laws
proved highest in counties with high crime rates.  For example, FBI
statistics showed that in counties with populations of more than
200,000 (typically the counties with the highest rates of violent
crime), laws allowing concealed carry produced a 13 percent drop in
the murder rate and a 7 percent decline in rapes.

     Case Study: Vermont.  Vermont has long had the least
restrictive firearms carry laws, allowing citizens to carry guns
either openly or concealed without any permit.  Vermont also has
maintained one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country.
For example:

     *  In 1980, when murders and robberies in the U.S. had soared
to an average of 10 and 251 per 100,000 population, respectively,
Vermont's murder rate was 22 percent of the national rate and its
robbery rate was 15 percent.

     *  In 1996 Vermont's rates remained among the lowest in the
country at 25 percent of the national rate for homicide and 8
percent for robbery.


     Objection #3: Right-to-carry laws boost killings on impulse.

     Widespread gun availability was supposed to lead to a "wild-
west" mentality with more shootings and deaths as people vented
their anger with pistols instead of fists.  Yet FBI data show that,
as a share of all homicides, killings that resulted from arguments
declined.  In addition:

     *  Dade County, Fla., kept meticulous records for six years,
and of 21,000 permit holders, none was known to have injured an
innocent person.

     *  Since Virginia passed a right-to-carry law, more than
50,000 permits have been issued, not one permit holder has been
convicted of a crime and violent crime has dropped.


     Moreover, those who have broken the rules have lost their
privilege to carry a gun.

     *  Texas has revoked or suspended nearly 300 permits for minor
violations like failure to conceal or carrying a gun in a bar.

     *  Between 1987 and 1995, Florida issued nearly 300,000
permits, but revoked only 19 because the permit holder had
committed a crime.  That's one crime per 14,000 permit holders
during a nine-year period, an incredibly low rate compared to a
criminal arrest rate of one per 14 Americans age 15 and older each
year.


     Objection #4: Concealed carry puts guns in untrained hands.

     Before issuing a concealed carry permit, most states require
that the applicant prove he or she has been thoroughly trained,
with:

     *  10 to 15 hours emphasizing conflict resolution.

     *  A pre-test and a final test covering the laws of self-
defense and the consequences of misuse of deadly force.

     *  A stress on gun safety in the classroom and on the firing
range.

     *  A stringent shooting accuracy test which applicants must
pass each time they renew their permit.

     Of course, a person who has only a split second to decide
whether to use deadly force can make a mistake.  However, only
about 30 such mistaken civilian shootings occur nationwide each
year.  The police kill in error three times as often.


     Objection #5: Concealed carry increases accidental gun deaths.

     The Lott-Mustard study found no increase in accidental
shootings in counties with "shall issue" right-to-carry laws, where
authorities have to issue the permit to all who meet the criteria.
Nor have other studies.  Nationally, there are about 1,400
accidental firearms deaths each year -- far fewer than the number
of deaths attributable to medical errors or automobile accidents.
The national death rate from firearms has declined even while
firearm ownership has almost doubled in the last 20 years (figure
at http://www.ncpa.org/ba/gif/firearms.gif), and 22 more states
have liberalized right-to-carry laws:

     *  The fatal firearm accident rate has declined to about .5
per 100,000 people -- a decrease of more than 19 percent in the
last decade.

     *  The number of fatal firearms-related accidents among
children fell to an all-time low of 185 in 1994, a 64 percent
decline since 1975.


     Conclusion.

     Concealed carry laws have not contributed to a big increase in
gun ownership.  Nor has allowing citizens the right to carry
firearms for self-protection led to the negative consequences
claimed by critics.  In fact, these laws have lowered violent crime
rates and increased the general level of knowledge concerning the
rights, responsibilities and laws of firearm ownership.

     Putting unarmed citizens at the mercy of armed and violent
criminals was never a good idea.  Now that the evidence is in, we
know that concealed carry is a social good.



     This Brief Analysis was prepared by Morgan Reynolds,
     Director of the NCPA Criminal Justice Center, and H.
     Sterling Burnett, Policy Analyst with the NCPA.

     Original document is on the Web at
     http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba246.html

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

More on this topic:

     "Myths About Gun Control," also co-written by Morgan Reynolds
of the NCPA, http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176.html

     NRA Web site, http://www.nra.org

     Handgun Control, Inc. Web site, http://www.handguncontrol.org
(temporarily down when checked on Thursday, February 26).

     Second Amendment law library, http://www.2ndlawlib.org

     "The Commonplace Second Amendment," a law review article by
your humble editor, forthcoming in the NYU Law Review,
http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/common.htm

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

    This list is edited by Eugene Volokh, who teaches
constitutional law and copyright law at UCLA Law School
(http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh), and organized with the
help of Terry Wynn and the Federalist Society.

    To subscribe, send a message containing the text (NOT the
subject line)
    SUBSCRIBE CENTER-RIGHT
to [e-mail]

    To unsubscribe, send a message containing the text (NOT the
subject line)
    UNSUBSCRIBE CENTER-RIGHT
to [e-mail]




CENTER-RIGHT, a low-traffic, high-quality electronic newsletter of
centrist, conservative, and libertarian ideas.





Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, [phone]  fax -7010
               405 Hilgard Ave., L.A., CA 90095



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: CCW around UofU.
Date: 04 Mar 1998 10:30:47 -0700


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
----------


I should like to add that Jim requested that I check with the Sheriff to see if
it was possible to show the area around the UofU to be a dangerous area.  I
learned several things with this arcane drill.  First, that their GIS
capabilities are relatively new to their functions and they don't have much
available yet (I don't know that GIS is even able to benefit the cop on the
street in real time in a meaningful way at this time).  Secondly, as  is
understandable, they are leary of producing crime-related maps for the general
public (I wasn't asking for that anyway) because of the expense.  Thirdly, the
crime related maps they have produced are done for what are called "community
council areas" (city councilperson districts).  It turns out that they are not
responsible for reporting on crime in the area of the U anyway, the city is.
The city law enforcement GIS is still also in its infancy.  The officers are
actually kinda leary of it, especially if it is coupled w/ GPS (I don't see why
considering y2k; "And who will guard the guards?")  They use a grid system with
each cell of the grid a 4 block by 4 block area.  In the 16 grid cell area
surrounding and including the U grounds in 1996 there were (rough count):

2 drive bys
81 drug busts ("drug cases")
14 "gang related cases"
11 rapes
24 robberies
33 aggravated assaults (over twice the 1995 tally)
225 residential burglaries
46 business burglaries
4 arsons
no killings in 1996 but one in 1995
and a partridge in a pear tree

The area thus defined is the area from 800 east to 2400 east and from 400 north
to 1200 south.  The area is clearly the eastern marginal area of the inner city
high crime zone based on distribution of occurances.  Are there higher crime
areas? Definitely!  But the area around the U is definitely anomalous compared
to the areas north, south and east.  The west and south tiers of grid cells are
particularly rough (by East H. S.).  I can see no reason for not packing heat in
the U area.  It is perfectly reasonable.  Data available upon request for
review.

----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.

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: March 15 column - inconvenient reality]
Date: 04 Mar 1998 11:30:10 -0700


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MARCH 15, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    If reality is inconvenient ... ignore it

    Since last month's "Great Las Vegas Anthrax Caper" turned out to be a
false alarm, a combination of the FBI going off half-cocked and the press
happily lapping up any libel they're handed (so long as it supposedly
involves "white supremacist militia" types), the government couldn't
possibly use the now-discredited "threat" of an anthrax attack by a bunch
of Nevada Mormon bishops to justify, say, setting up a new police
paramilitary training academy, teaching cops how to dress up like Army
Special Forces and accustoming them to launching SWAT raids against
domestic "terrorist" targets INSIDE THE UNITED STATES ... could they?

  Brett Davis of the Newhouse News Service reported in early March:


  "WASHINGTON -- Justice Department officials could get the nod as early as
this week to begin setting up a domestic terrorism training center at Fort
McClellan in Anniston, Ala.

  "The $2 million in start-up funding for the National Center for Domestic
Preparedness, as it is called, has already been approved by Congress.

  "As soon as Attorney General Janet Reno decides which Justice Department
office will have jurisdiction over the school ... federal and local
officials will begin setting it up. It could begin its first classes by
June.

  " 'The timing could not be better,' said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., a
chief sponsor of the new school.

  "This new mission at Fort McClellan, which is closing as a military base
at the end of next year, is intended to train the 'first responders' at
sites of terrorist attacks, including incidents involving chemical or
biological weapons.

  "The recent arrest of two men in Las Vegas accused of planning an anthrax
attack on the New York subway system has heightened interest in defending
against such attacks. That case was a false alarm -- the anthrax in
question turned out to be a harmless anthrax vaccine.

  "Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who has oversight of the Justice Department
through his seat on the Judiciary Committee, said real attacks are probably
just a matter of time. ...

   "The base's tunnels and other structures can be used to simulate
subways, shopping malls or other urban settings, giving the training added
realism.

  "Firefighters, police and emergency medical technicians from around the
country are expected to enroll in the five-day training sessions. ...

     #  #  #

  Meantime, at the conclusion of the Steven Spielberg film "Amistad," the
African protagonist is seen aboard another ship, as land rises to the east.

  The irony of Cinque's return to Africa, the viewers are informed, is that
he learned upon his arrival that a civil war had been going on there for
some time, and that many of his countrymen had, themselves, been captured
and sold away.

  But just as Mr. Spielberg, for all his artistic brilliance, decided to
rewrite history to match the prejudices of today's urban liberal audience
in his "Schindler's List" (Oscar Schindler ARMED his Jewish employees when
he moved them to Czechoslovakia, so they could PROTECT THEMSELVES ...
though that politically significant fact was carefully deleted from the
film), it turns out that was not the real irony of Cinque's return to his
native land.

  As the distinguished American historian Samuel Eliot Morrison wrote in
his "Oxford History of the American People," (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1965), page 520:

  "The most famous case involving slavery, until eclipsed by Dred Scott's,
was that of the Amistad in 1839. She was a Spanish slave ship carrying 53
newly imported Negroes who were being moved from Havana to another Cuban
port. Under the leadership of an upstanding Negro named Cinque, they
mutinied and killed captain and crew. Then, ignorant of navigation, they
had to rely on a white man whom they had spared to sail the ship.

  "He stealthily steered north, the Amistad was picked up off Long Island
by a United States warship, taken into New Haven, and with her cargo placed
in charge of the federal marshal.

  "Then what a legal hassle! ... Lewis Tappan and Roger Sherman Baldwin, a
Connecticut abolitionist, undertook to free them by legal process, and the
case was appealed to the Supreme Court. John Quincy Adams, persuaded to act
as their attorney, argued that the Negroes be freed, on the ground that the
slave trade was illegal both by American and Spanish law, and that mankind
had a natural right to freedom.

  "The court with a majority of Southerners, was so impressed by the old
statesman's eloquence that it ordered Cinque and the other Negroes set
free, and they were returned to Africa.

  "The ironic epilogue is that Cinque, once home, set himself up as a slave
trader."


  If history is more interesting than fiction, perhaps it's because the
people now in charge of doctoring up our fiction have no real taste for the
delicious ironies of history, which are so often at odds with the pompous
simple-mindedness of propaganda.

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.

"...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: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  GSL> NEAL KNOX REPORT -Forwarded
Date: 04 Mar 1998 12:46:17 -0700

Received: (qmail 15036 invoked by uid 516); 4 Mar 1998 19:39:21 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 14768 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1998 19:39:01 -0000
Received: from in4.doitnow.com (207.98.156.13)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 1998 19:39:01 -0000
Received: from default (dialup5-1-36.doitnow.com [207.211.43.36])
    by in4.doitnow.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA09188;
    Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:38:45 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Cc: [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

NEAL KNOX REPORT

                         The Heston File
                          By NEAL KNOX

     WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 2) -- The Lyndon B. Johnson
Presidential Library in Austin today confirmed that NRA First
Vice President Charlton Heston actively worked with the Johnson
Administration in passing the 1968 Gun Control Act.

     Heston, who is in line to be elected NRA President in June
if elected to the Board in the election now underway, has served
as a public spokesman for NRA for several years.
     Heston's role in expanding the 1968 Safe Streets Act to
prohibit the interstate sale or transfer of rifles and shotguns
came to light about two weeks ago when the text of two LBJ
Library documents began circulating on the Internet.

     The documents were so historically accurate that they
refreshed memories of the fury of our battle against the Gun
Control Act, but I didn't recall the huge Hollywood effort having
included Heston.

     I worried that an enemy might have added Heston's name in an
effort to torpedo his NRA fundraising.

     But 13 pages documenting Heston's gun control efforts are in
the LBJ Library, White House Central Files "SP" and "LE," Boxes 5
and 80.

     On June 12, 1968, White House Deputy Special Counsel Larry
Levinson sent a memo to a speech writer:  "At the President's
suggestion, Jack Valenti has agreed to hold a luncheon in Los
Angeles ... June 17, at which a number of famous movie actors --
particularly those who play cowboys -- will speak out in favor of
the President's gun control legislation.

     "For this luncheon, we need two pithy, one-page statements
which will be read by two of the 'cowboys' (probably Charlton
Heston ...), supporting the President's Gun Control Bill."

     That same day Levinson sent a telegram to Heston at his
Beverly Hills home with a proposed statement that the Safe
Streets Act "is only a half-way measure.  It covers only handguns
-- but fails to include shotguns and rifles. ...  As you know, a
mail order rifle was used to assassinate President John F.
Kennedy, and a rifle was used to kill Dr. Martin Luther King."

     On June 18, 1968 Levinson sent a memo to President Johnson:
"Through Jack Valenti's good work, five movie actors will appear
tonight on the Joey Bishop show ... to strongly support your gun
control proposal.  The actors involved are Gregory Peck, Charlton
Heston, Hugh O'Brian [sic], James Stewart and Kirk Douglas.

     "They will read a very tough statement which we prepared
here applauding your action in calling for strict gun curbs."
     Two days later, on June 20, Special Assistant to the
President Joe Califano sent President Johnson a copy of a
statement "which Hugh O'Brien read on the Joey Bishop Show last
Tuesday.  This was a statement subscribed to by Kirk Douglas,
James Stewart, Gregory Peck and Charleton [sic] Heston 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."

     The statement reminded Joey Bishop's audience that "Two
weeks ago, Robert F. Kennedy became one of thousands of Americans
struck down by an assassin's bullet."

     It added: "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 sale of rifles and shotguns.

     "President John F. Kennedy was murdered by a rifle.
     "Martin Luther King was murdered by a rifle.
     "Medgar Evers was murdered by a rifle."

     On June 18 Hollywood public relations consultant Dick McKay
wrote Califano that "Charlton, Gregory [Peck] and Hugh personally
planted this statement with the bureau chiefs at AP and UPI.
They were greeted warmly and ... (t)he AP also photographed the
trio."

     Heston's gun control efforts are also found on Page 10 of
the October 1968 American Rifleman.  The head of a Hollywood
anti-gun group had praised Heston as one of "little more than a
handful" of "diehards" which included Warren Beatty, Candice
[sic] Bergen, Marlon Brando, O'Brien and Jill St. John.

     These events put fresh light on Heston's May 6, 1997
statements about some guns being "inappropriate for private
ownership."   We now have a better understanding of what he means
when he talks about bringing NRA into "the mainstream."

     And now I know why I've never seen a picture of him with
anything other than a flintlock rifle or a double-barrel shotgun.

     Voters now have a clear choice in the election -- Heston's
slate or the Second Amendment patriots he imperiously tells you
to "Vote Against."
                               ---
     For a list of the candidates Neal supports, see his "Knox
Report" in the ballot issue of the March NRA magazines.  Knox
also urges a "Yes" vote on the member-petitioned "Financial
Reporting and Officer Good Conduct" Bylaw amendment.
                               ##  #

    Dennis


--------------------------
GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List

This list is governed by an acceptable use
policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html
or available upon request.

To unsubscribe send a message to
[e-mail]

with the following line in the body:

unsubscribe gsl

GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST.
THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Phillips 66 jumps on the anti-self-defense bandwagon
Date: 04 Mar 1998 15:11:09 -0700

Received: (qmail 7651 invoked by uid 516); 4 Mar 1998 21:47:29 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 6403 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1998 21:46:23 -0000
Received: from mail13.digital.com (192.208.46.30)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 1998 21:46:23 -0000
Received: from sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com (sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com [16.29.160.92])
    by mail13.digital.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/WV1.0c) with ESMTP id QAA22764
    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:46:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Received: by sbuamazko2ae.zko.dec.com with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
    id <FXKC1AF5>; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:45:20 -0500
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by Roger Oakey <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
First Dennys, now Phillips 66.



Phillips Petroleum (Phillips 66 gas
stations) in a recent "sign

package" mailed out to retail gas outlets
nationwide included the

following sign to be posted in all their
stores:



                    NOTICE



            Weapons, Concealed


or otherwise

                are prohibited

             on these
premises



        Phillips Petroleum Company



Note that by posting this
sign Phillips Petroleum has decided that the

following three statements
*must* be true (otherwise why post it?):



1) A robber or murderer
willing to threaten or use deadly force

    against a station's
attendant and uncaring of the multitude of

    laws and harsh penalties
imposed for robbing and murdering will

    see this sign, obey it, and
rob someone else.



2) The people who will obey the sign and the honor
system it relies on

    are the real threat to the attendants.



3) There
is no difference between a law abiding concealed carry holder

    and a
murdering robber.



I especially find the last statement insulting to
me.



The reality of the situation is as follows:



1) By posting the
signs, a potential robber and/or murder will know

    that the attendant
and customers are unarmed, and therefore the

    station is a safe place
to attack (for him, that is).  This is the

    classic "criminal safe
zone" mentality that protects the criminal

    and endangers the law
abiding.



2) Law-abiding concealed carry holders, whose ultimate goal is
to

    avoid situations where they may need to deploy their firearm
will

    avoid Phillips 66 stations because of the increased risk posed
to

    themselves (because as stated above the stations now advertise
that

    they're safe places to rob).



3) Concealed carry holders and
others who believe in self-defense will

    avoid Phillips 66 because
they are insulted by being equated with

    murderers and robbers.



I
urge you to pick up the phone and call Phillips 66's CEO Wayne Allen

at
918-661-4467 and tell him what you think of his companies
"Criminal

protection and sacrificial attendant" policy as well as
writing him

at:



          CEO Wayne Allen

          18 Phillips
Building

          Bartlesville, OK 74004


Roger Oakey


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


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phillips 66 jumps on the anti-self-defense bandwagon
Date: 04 Mar 1998 15:31:19 -0700

At 03:11 PM 3/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>First Dennys, now Phillips 66.
>
>
>
>Phillips Petroleum (Phillips 66 gas
>stations) in a recent "sign
>
>package" mailed out to retail gas outlets
>nationwide included the
>
>following sign to be posted in all their
>stores:
>
>
>
>                    NOTICE
>
>
>
>            Weapons, Concealed
>
>
>or otherwise
>
>                are prohibited
>
>             on these
>premises
>
>
>
>        Phillips Petroleum Company


<snip>

I've been following up on this situation in Utah.  I spoke with a regional
or district manager (not sure of his exact title).  His name is Lamar
Hoskin, phone [phone].

Mr. Hoskin told me that the directive came from the national HQ in
Oklahoma.  He said he was unaware that posting such a sign was illegal in
Utah.  I briefly explained that our concealed carry law specifies "without
restriction".

Mr. Hoskin seemed concerned, receptive and interested.  He said he would
check with the national office and get back to me.  That was only Monday,
so it's a little too soon to expect a response.

I think we need to give Phillips 66 a chance to respond before making a
huge production out of it.  If they voluntarily take down the signs, great.
 If they don't, well, we already know how to deal with that. <g>

In the meantime, it certainly wouldn't hurt to politely let Mr. Hoskin, or
station managers, know that their policy is illegal and unacceptable to
law-abiding gun owners.

Sarah
(for myself)

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Anti-gunners and the 'lympics
Date: 04 Mar 1998 16:44:46 -0700


<<<RANT MODE ON>>>

OK, so now the 'lympics are going to be used as the excuse to restrict
CCW.  Un-friggggin-believable.  These people campaigned for the games
becuase Utah was such a great place and we wanted to show it off to
the world.  Only now that they have them, they are suddenly embarrased
by our liquar laws, our mormons, our history, and our guns.  Hell,
seems what they meant was the landscape is fine but there is
absolutely nothing about our culture worth showing off.  I admit we
aint perfect, but some of us like it here a whole lot more than other
places we've been.

Below is an article from today's DesNews wherein Beattie, Steiner, and
even our "allie" Bishop all agree that CCW will be limited prior to
2002 to accomodate the games and the international community.  My
attitude is if they don't like our mormons, history, or guns they can
stay the hell home.

<<<RANT MODE OFF>>>

DEEP BREATH....

In an unashamed attempt to pre-bias your view, I've included a letter
to the editor from a couple of weeks ago.  Seems to me that along with
freedom of religion, the U.S. is also known for our private ownership
of guns.  I think that should be shown off.  If legitimate security
concerns or simple politics demand that guns not be allowed in Olympic
venues, we need to make sure that everyplace guns are going to be
prohibited has controlled access, metal detectors, armed guards AND
secure storage facilities for legal gun carriers who do not wish to be
disarmed from point of departure.  Let the international community see
a few CCW permit holders and maybe even unlicensed open carriers
placing their guns into lockers and then retrieving them as they
leave.

The thought reminds me of a few years back when the USSR gymnastics
team came to what was then SUSC.  Their security people were freaked
at all the people driving trucks around Cedar City with guns in the
back window.  The Sherrif's response to them was, "Calm down and quit
worrrying.  These are good people."

 Deseret News Archives,
 [Image]
 Friday, February 20, 1998
  [Image]  [Image]

 S.L. has lots to offer Games
  [Image]
 [Image]

 [Image]
  [Image]  Deedee Corradini looked at the 1,350-year-old Zenkoji
 Temple and said in awe, ``This is something we just can't
 replicate. We've got to decide what will be the spirit of the Salt
 Lake Games.''
  [Image]  Look up, Deedee. The spirit is there, you just can't see
 it. The magnificent temple in your city may be comparatively young,
 but it took 40 years of backbreaking toil to build it. The story
 behind this state is wrought with blood, sweat and tears. Utah is
 all about what America is all about - religious freedom.
  [Image]  We have four years to give Utah a good housecleaning.
 Company's coming. But in so doing don't sweep our precious heritage
 under the rug. Someone is sure to find it and wonder why you are
 hiding it. I'm not suggesting we make it a Mormon program.
 Diversity is what makes this country great. But don't lean so far
 away from our culture that you fall on your face. I do not
 understand why it was necessary to hire a woman from California (at
 $60,000 a year) to coordinate Ogden's Olympics related activities.
 There is so much talent here in Utah. Did you see the spectacular
 24th of July celebration in Provo?
  [Image]  Our Tabernacle Choir is known and loved throughout the
 world. I can bear their voices singing, ``Glory, glory,
 hallelujah!'' Use them. Let everyone who will join in.
  [Image]  There are thousands of children all over the world who
 sing the song, ``I am a child of God.'' It isn't a song only for
 LDS. It is for anyone who believes in God. Let the African
 children, the Mexican children, the Jewish children, American
 children of all races sing. Let them sing in the beautiful Church
 of the Madeleine if you please.
  [Image]  In the opening ceremony a replica of the Statue of
 Liberty could rise from an elegantly wrapped gift box. That would
 make a great theme: ``America's gift to the world.'' There never
 has been a time when the world was more hungry for such a gift. Nor
 will there ever be a time when we will have a better opportunity to
 fill that need. A great package of liberty, freedom, love,
 compassion, service - God.
  [Image]  Anne Smart-Pearce
  [Image]  Salt Lake City
  [Image] [Image]

 [Image]

                                  ⌐ 1997 Deseret News Publishing Co.

                                   [Image]
[Image]                                                              [Image]

                              [Advertise here]

               [Image]

               Last updated 03/04/1998, 10:10:41 AM MT

               Pack guns to Games? Utah may alter law
[Image]        [Image]

[Front page]   By Jerry Spangler
               Deseret News staff writer
[World & Nation]
                     Salt Lake Olympic organizers certainly impressed an
[Utah]         international audience at the 1998 Winter Games in Nagano,
               Japan, with its display of cowboys and horses during closing
[Business]     ceremonies.
                     But there is one aspect of the mythical Wild West that
[Sports]       could cause 2002 Winter Games organizers some very real
               headaches: Guns. Some 15,000 of them to be exact.
[Life!]              That's how many Utah citizens, give or take a few
               hundred, have permits to legally carry weapons under Utah
[Opinion]      law. And there is absolutely nothing in current Utah law that
               would preclude those individuals from carrying their guns
[Image]        into Olympic venues.
                     "We are aware of the issue, and it is certainly a
               concern to us, as it is to all the federal and international
               security people, and to the International Olympic Committee,"
               said Department of Public Safety Commissioner Craig Dearden,
               who heads up Utah's security efforts for the 2002 Games.
               "There is no question it would be seen as a security breach
               to have people carrying guns (into Olympic venues)."
                     Republican leadership in the Legislature, as well as
               GOP Gov. Mike Leavitt, say changes will have to be made to
               Utah's liberal laws that allow virtually anyone who wants one
               to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon almost
               anywhere they want. Attempts this year to allow churches,
               schools and private businesses to prohibit guns on their
               premises have all been shot down by a powerful pro-gun lobby.
                     In fact, as the 1998 session draws to a close, it is
               likely that no substantial changes will be made to Utah's
               concealed weapons laws this year.
                     "No, I don't think it is appropriate that guns be
               carried into Olympic venues, and yes, there will be
               restrictions in place by 2002," promised Senate President
               Lane Beattie, R-West Bountiful. "We're talking an
               international situation during the Olympics, not a local
               situation."
                     Leavitt agrees, calling the issue "one of dozens that
               will have to be solved" before the 2002 Games.
                     "It all boils down to the issue of private property
               rights," he said. "Should private property owners have the
               right to restrict people from carrying weapons on their
               property? I believe there are times when private property
               owners should have the choice, and the Olympics would
               certainly be one of those times. It's a matter of principle."
            [Im      At the heart of the debate is whether the 15,000 Utahns
               who have the legal right to carry concealed weapons will
               relinquish their rights to carry guns Olympics or not. And
               given the fact that attempts to amend state law to impose
               such restrictions have met with repeated failure, will the
               international Olympic community tolerate the Games being held
               at venues where spectators may well be armed?
                     Current Utah law specifies that guns can be prohibited
               only from the airport and in designated secure areas, which
               are defined as governmental facilities like prisons and
               jails.
                     There has been considerable debate on Capitol Hill as
               to whether private property owners should have the right to
               ban weapons from their establishments. Many Olympic venues
               are private facilities, while those that are government
               buildings are not "secure facilities" as defined under
               current state law.
                     That leaves lawmakers with the prospect of amending the
               current law to allow private entities, businesses and
               governments to ban weapons ù something lawmakers have been
               reticent to do.
                     "By not acting on this issue, the Legislature has put
               private property rights into a precarious position of being
               secondary to the rights to carry concealed weapons," said
               Sen. Robert Steiner, a Salt Lake Democrat who has tried for
               years to limit where concealed weapons can be carried. "Maybe
               the Olympics situation will be the impetus for them to
               actually address the issue."
                     Rob Bishop, who represents the Utah Sports Shooting
               Council on Capitol Hill, agreed the Olympics present a unique
               situation that must be addressed through legislation. And he
               predicted a willingness on the part of gun rights advocates
               to negotiate reasonable limits on concealed weapons during
               the Olympics.
                     The issue of an armed citizenry is foreign to most
               nations participating in the Olympic Games. In Japan, for
               example, only a handful of people have permits to even own
               guns. Many European nations also have prohibited private
               ownership of guns except in very limited circumstances.
                     Olympic Games are typically characterized by heavy
               security, including metal detectors and mandatory screening
               for weapons.
                     "It will be very interesting to see how the world sees
               Utah if we allow anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon
               during the Games," Steiner said. "I would imagine the
               international governments will demand that Olympic venues be
               secure areas."
               [Image]

               [Image]

               [Image]
               Sports + World & Nat. + Business + Features + Opinion + Front
                                           Page



--

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

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

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Precedents -Forwarded
Date: 04 Mar 1998 17:06:21 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA08135; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:29:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma008037; Wed Mar  4 13:26:53 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

     As President Clinton urges Congress to transfer billions of dollars
from working-class smokers into government coffers and lawyers' wallets,
other government officials are taking aim at gun companies.
     "Politicians are frustrated by their failure to reduce violent crime,
so they're conspiring to commit a crime of their own --shaking down gun
manufacturers for millions of dollars," said Steve Dasbach, the Libertarian
Party's national chairman. "They want to extort money from honest companies
to pay for the crimes of street thugs."
     An anti-gun lawsuit -- patterned after the lucrative lawsuit against
tobacco companies -- is now being considered by Philadelphia Mayor Ed
Rendell, Miami Mayor Alex Penelas and Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer.
     Their novel legal strategy: Blaming gun manufacturers for violent
crime, on the grounds that guns are a "public nuisance" and that "rogue
companies" are deliberately marketing guns to criminals. The lawsuit, if
filed, would force gun makers to pay the costs of prosecuting criminals,
paying overtime for police and paramedics -- even cleaning up blood from
crime scenes.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: URGENT: SB57 WITHDRAWN! -Reply
Date: 04 Mar 1998 18:41:00 -0700


Posted to utah-firearms according to Jim Dexter's request.

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

I should like to add that Jim requested that I check with the Sheriff to
see if it was possible to show the area around the UofU to be a dangerous
area. I learned several things with this arcane drill. First, that their
GIS capabilities are relatively new to their functions and they don't
have much available yet (I don't know that GIS is even able to benefit
the cop on the street in real time in a meaningful way at this time).
Secondly, as is understandable, they are leary of producing crime-related
maps for the general public (I wasn't asking for that anyway) because of
the expense. Thirdly, the crime related maps they have produced are done
for what are called "community council areas" (city councilperson
districts). It turns out that they are not responsible for reporting on
crime in the area of the U anyway, the city is. The city law enforcement
GIS is still also in its infancy. The officers are actually kinda leary
of it, especially if it is coupled w/ GPS (I don't see why considering
y2k; "And who will guard the guards?") They use a grid system with each
cell of the grid a 4 block by 4 block area. In the 16 grid cell area
surrounding and including the U grounds in 1996 there were (rough count):

2 drive bys
81 drug busts ("drug cases")
14 "gang related cases"
11 rapes
24 robberies
33 aggravated assaults (over twice the 1995 tally)
225 residential burglaries
46 business burglaries
4 arsons
no killings in 1996 but one in 1995
and a partridge in a pear tree

The area thus defined is the area from 800 east to 2400 east and from
400 north to 1200 south. The area is clearly the eastern marginal area
of the inner city high crime zone based on distribution of occurrences.
Are there higher crime areas? Definitely! But the area around the U is
definitely anomalous compared to the areas north, south and east. The
west and south tiers of grid cells are particularly rough (by East H.S.).
I can see no reason for not packing heat in the U area. It is perfectly
reasonable. Data available upon request for review.



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  GSL> Fwd: Court Throws Out Part of Calif. Law -Forwarded
Date: 05 Mar 1998 09:13:19 -0700

Received: (qmail 21062 invoked by uid 516); 5 Mar 1998 12:32:07 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 21039 invoked from network); 5 Mar 1998 12:32:03 -0000
Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (198.81.19.148)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 1998 12:32:03 -0000
Received: from [e-mail]
    by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id AAAKa01471
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 07:31:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed;
    boundary="part0_889101091_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 120
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_889101091_boundary
Content-ID: <0_889101091@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

This appeared in my mailbox from AOL News. May be of interest to some of you.
REBarnes

--part0_889101091_boundary
Content-ID: <0_889101091@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Court Throws Out Part of Calif. Law

.c The Associated Press

 SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Supporters of gun control are calling for new bans
after a state appeals court dismissed part of California's assault weapons
restrictions as unconstitutional.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal on Wednesday struck down the heart of the
1989 law that banned 62 assault rifles, saying it violated the equal
protection provisions of the Constitution because many of the banned guns are
no different than guns sold legally.

``The listed guns are no more dangerous in the hands of criminals than the
functionally indistinguishable guns, nor than the identical clone guns. Nor do
they ... pose a greater danger of use to kill and injure human beings,'' wrote
Justice Fred Morrison, according to The San Diego Union Tribune.

The appeals court also suggested that the rest of the law may be
unconstitutional and asked a lower court to review it.

``This is the death knell'' for the state law, said Chuck Michel, a Los
Angeles attorney who represents gun maker Colt Manufacturers. ``This is a
victory for any citizen who doesn't like symbolic, feel-good laws that are
filled with technical flaws.''

The law was approved after a gunman armed with an assault rifle killed five
students at a Stockton elementary school. The law generally bans the sale,
manufacture, distribution and, in most cases, possession of a number of
military-style semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.

People who legally owned the guns before June 1989 were allowed to keep them
if they registered the weapons with the state.

Critics have argued that the law bans some guns while leaving more powerful
weapons on the market. And they also said the law could lead to a ban on
weapons without the knowledge of gun owners, making them unwitting felons.

The justices agreed, saying the law contained a gap in its notice provisions
and theoretically a person could be prosecuted before he knew that a gun he
owned was illegal.

Assemblyman Don Perata of Alameda said the decision underscores the need for
his bill seeking to replace the law with one that defines assault weapons
based on firepower and military characteristics.

AP-NY-03-05-98 0655EST

 Copyright 1997 The Associated Press.  The information  contained in the AP
news report may not be published,  broadcast, rewritten or otherwise
distributed without  prior written authority of The Associated Press.



To edit your profile, go to keyword <A HREF="aol://1722:NewsProfiles">
NewsProfiles</A>.
For all of today's news, go to keyword <A HREF="aol://1722:News">News</A>.

--part0_889101091_boundary--


--------------------------
GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List

This list is governed by an acceptable use
policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html
or available upon request.

To unsubscribe send a message to
[e-mail]

with the following line in the body:

unsubscribe gsl

GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST.
THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.


-



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

From: Thomas Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: (Fwd) Re: HB242
Date: 05 Mar 1998 10:59:00 +0700

I have taken the liberty of sending this message from our local
Senator to the group.  Keep up the fight.  Tom

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

I appreciated your recent e-mail.  Sen. Steiner who was going to make the
amendment talked to me and I convinced him that he was only wasting his time and
just creating very emotional feelings.  I can tell by all the contacts I get
about the C.P. law that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the law.  I
don't believe that the newspaper wants to correct the emotional misinformation.
I am concerned that someone with a concealed weapons permit will do something
stupid and make the pressure on us to change the law unbearable.

>>> Thomas Allen <[e-mail]> 03/02 4:21 PM >>>
Some people just will not give up a bad idea.

The proposed technical corrections to the Concealed Carry Weapon law
were ok until this last-minute, ill-conceived, unneccessary garbage was
tacked on restricting what objects one may or may not carry into a house
of worship.  If the Democrats want to pass a law gutting our "shall
issue" concealed carry law in Utah, let them work it through the
committee process in the full light of public scrutiny.

As I have observed to you before, the portion of this bill regulating
what persons may carry in and around houses of worship is clearly
unconstitutional.  The LDS Church has already spoken about the
appropriateness of carrying firearms into their churches and places of
worship.  All churches and synagogues can do likewise, if they feel this
is an issue of concern.  Members will obey, or choose not to attend.  We
certainly don't need the Utah legislature dictating behavior in
churches.

If the legislature can legislate this, they can decide to outlaw the
carrying of the Book of Mormon or the Methodist Book of Discipline into
a church.  They can forbid the wearing of yarmulkes or baptism by
sprinkling.  We have wasted enough time and energy on this unneccessary
and unwanted legislation for this session.

Please vote no if this measure comes to a vote.  Thanks for your
patience with those of us who are deeply concerned about the Second
Amendment.

Thomas L. Allen, 140 E, 200 N, Millville






















-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CA Gun Ban Overturned (Kasler v. Lungren)
Date: 05 Mar 1998 11:52:14 -0700

Different/additional information on the Cal. ugly gun ban
decision.  Way to go Don, et. al.

Dunno that I can agree with the "hope" bit though.  Seems
more like an aberration to me, but I'm a cynical cuss.

BTW - It's been months since I could bring myself to read
TPG...wasn't Peter once a regular contributor there?

from [e-mail] by way of [e-mail]
>
> I take this as good news and gives me hope that our judiciary actually
> does work. The lead plaintiff, Peter Alan Kasler, is a CA Deputy Sheriff
> and Attorney and firearms instructor and author and all-around-nice-guy.
> Way to go Peter!
>
> Peter can be e-mailed at [e-mail]. He also runs the Threat Management
> Institute. You may wish to read an interesting related web page at
> http://www.scimitar.com/revolution/firearms/crime/protect.html.
>
> Godspeed,
>
> J. R. Lynch
>
> ===========================
> MICHEL & ASSOCIATES
> ATTORNEYS AT LAW
> March 4, 1998
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Contact: Chuck Michel [phone]
>
> APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS
> ASSAULT WEAPON LAW
>
>         Sacramento- The Third District Court of Appeal today ruled that
> the 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act (the Act) is
> unconstitutional.  In its 51 page decision, the Court held that the list
> of firearms deemed "assault weapons" was vague and violated
> constitutional equal protection principals, and that other provisions of
> the Act which allowed guns to be added the prohibited list violated
> constitutional due process and separation of powers requirements.
>
>         The case was brought by a consortium of law professors, doctors,
> law enforcement officers, and Colt Manufacturing, a firearms maker
> effected by the law.
>
>         "This is a tremendous victory, not just for gun owners, but for
> any citizen that understands the dangers of ill-conceived symbolic laws
> based on emotion rather than fact," Chuck Michel, an attorney for the
> plaintiffs in the case said. "The law was so poorly written and so
> difficult to understand that thousands of people became felons
> accidentally."
>
>         Attorneys Don B. Kates and Stephen P. Halbrook were lead counsel
> on the case, which was filed in 1989 and was largely funded by the Second
> Amendment Foundation in Washington.
>
>         The Court pointed out that "assault weapons" are not fully
> automatic machine guns, which have been essentially outlawed since 1934.
> Historically, the semi-automatic firearms listed as "assault weapons"
> have almost never been used in crime, nor has any jurisdiction reduced
> their crime rate by banning "assault weapons."  Many of these firearms
> are used for competitive sport target shooting and actually ideal for law
> abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families when they face
> riots or natural disasters.
>
>         The text of the decision is available at
> http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 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]

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Trial of FBI Sharpshooter at Ruby Ridge -Forwarded
Date: 05 Mar 1998 15:27:37 -0700

Received: (qmail 17481 invoked by uid 516); 5 Mar 1998 18:50:38 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 17249 invoked from network); 5 Mar 1998 18:50:20 -0000
Received: from xroadstx.com (HELO mail2.xroadstx.com) (208.220.74.12)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 1998 18:50:20 -0000
Received: from walterjr (host45.analog.xroadstx.com [208.220.74.198])
    by mail2.xroadstx.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA03832
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:42:22 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Walter Daniels wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
>
>   My comments are further down (left for context).
>
> > By George Lardner Jr.
> >
> > A federal judge in Idaho yesterday postponed the manslaughter trial of FBI
> > sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi for killing Vicki Weaver in the 1992 siege at
> > Ruby Ridge and set a hearing to decide whether Horiuchi is immune from
> > prosecution.
> >
> > The trial had been scheduled to begin in Boise Monday.
> >
> > Chief U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge said in a two-page order that it
> > would be "a miscarriage of justice" to proceed to trial without first giving
> > full consideration to Horiuchi's motion to dismiss the charge and a
> > prosecution response contending that he is "not entitled to the immunity
> > defense at all."
>
> > Horiuchi's attorneys, who are being paid by the Justice Department, argue
> > that 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.
>
>   If anyone knows sniper experts, can they be contacted to show he was _not_
> acting in official capacity? Reasoning as follows. The shot was outside
> guidelines: 1)due to unknown background; 2)unarmed civilians in line of
> fire; 3)excessive distance to *moving* target; 4)no officer in direct
> danger. I am _not_ an expert, but these seem clear violations of both Human
> Rights and reasonable sniper regulations. Violating _any_ of these, should
> remove "immunity."
>
> >----- End Included Message -----

There is an even bigger issue that I think people are missing.  There
are justifications in law for taking human life.  There are no
justifications in law for accidents even if what you were trying to do
is legal.  While personally I believe that this is cold blooded murder,
Hourchi has said he didn't mean to kill Vicki Weaver.  As such, the
shooting becomes "accidental."  Manslaughter has to do with
unintentional actions which result in unlawful death.  How can any law
protect someone from actions which are un- or ill considered?  The issue
here is negligence.  Is the federal government saying that its laws
allow its agents and employees to be negligent in performing their
duties?  The Feds have not disciplined Hourchi.  That seems to indicate
that they believe he exercised proper caution.

    In Texas, there are laws that protect LEOs from civil suits for
negligence but not from gross negligence--an aggravated from of
negligence involving a willful disregard of proper precautions.
However, Texas law also says that criminal liability exists for those
who accidently kill or injure someone negligently as they are acting in
a justified manner against another party. Just how does Idaho law read?
What does Federal law say?  This gets curiouser and curiouser.

Walter Lee


--------------------------
GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List

This list is governed by an acceptable use
policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html
or available upon request.

To unsubscribe send a message to
[e-mail]

with the following line in the body:

unsubscribe gsl

GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST.
THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  CA AW legislation -Forwarded
Date: 05 Mar 1998 15:30:55 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA20811; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 15:27:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma020754; Thu Mar  5 15:27:32 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'm sure most of you know the a good chunk of the CA AW ban was struck down
yesterday by the CA Court of Appeals and the balance has been referred back
down to Superior Court for review. However, the anti's are spinning this
defeat as all the more reason CA should pass AB23, which would ban even more
guns based on description, rather than specific models.  AB23 is moving
right on through the State Senate and Assembly and is predicted to probably
end up on Gov. Wilson's desk fairly soon.  We need to get folks to contact
the Governor's office and request he veto AB23 should it reach him.

I've been trying to get the word out as much as I can on the wide range of
guns that will be covered under AB23 to get more people off their butts and
motivate them to contact their State legislators and the Governor.  Many
uninformed gun owners have no idea their gun may be defined as an AW under
AB23.

I've been telling my friends, folks up at the range, etc., that their gun or
a gun they may want may be defined as an AW and registration will be
required, possession/transport/usage will be limited, future sale banned.

Some examples are:
In addition to the currently banned AW's,  ALL AR15's including
Sporters/clones, AR10 variants, Stoner SR-25's, all HK-91/FN-FAL
sporters/clones, all thumbhole stock sporter versions of AW's (e.g.  AK's,
Daewoo, SIG 550, FN clones,  AUG USRs), Barrett's, M1A's, Mini-14's,
Mini-30's, DSA Stg 58 (US FN-FAL), Benelli M1 Super 90's and Remington
1100/11-87's  with +5 capacity, and much more.

All semi-auto pistols w/ detachable mag and +19 rd. capacity:  eg. Glock
17/19/22/23/26/27 (w/ 30-33 rd. mags), SIG 228/226's, Browning Hi-Power's,
and Beretta 92 (w/ 20 rd. mags)
All semi-auto pistols w/ mag external of the pistol grip: eg. Olympic grade
.22 target pistols like Hammerli's used in International bullseye matches.
All pistols w/ threaded barrels: any semi-auto pistol w/ aftermarket
threaded barrel (eg. IPSC race guns with compensators), HK Mk23 SOCCOM, and
HK USP Tacticals

After the cutoff date, folks from outside CA  will not be able to bring in
their banned target .22's nor 1911 variant competition guns with
compensators/threaded barrels (unregistered assault weapon), which will
effect the future of CA sponsoring national/international shooting events
(eg. International, IPSC, Steel Challenges, Action shooting, etc.)

So much for the idea of Olympic .22 pistol shooting in any proposed future
Olympics held in CA...

Anyway, fwiw, spread the word and get your friends to write/fax/call....

Governor Wilson
phone:  [phone]
fax:  [phone]

The latest amended version of AB 23 is available online at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_23_bill_980226_amende
d_sen.html

Thanks.
Steve Lew


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Everybody's SURFING now, let's go surfing now,...
Date: 06 Mar 1998 11:49:10 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id BAA12739; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 01:42:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma012701; Fri Mar  6 01:39:58 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


Whilst surfing the net I came across an interesting anti-gun site.  it's

http://www1.jointogether.org

It's a much better run site than most and it has a list of "non-profit" foundations that
FUND the anti-gunners.  Wouldn't it be interesting if WE ( meaning VA or TX groups, or
anyone else with the time to deal with the situation)
were to apply for some of this gravy to spout OUR MESSAGE!!  They detailed sources
of 10 BILLION in fund dollars that were waiting to be spent.

Is there anyone out there with experience in weasle wording fund requests?  I'd love to
set up an "ANTI-VIOLENCE" group to teach young people responsablity and self-worth
by learning to shoot responsably.

Check it out.

And the MacArthur fund that is listed (and linked) to them has in their "things we don't
fund" list a blurb about "we don't fund political organizations".  Look up their e-mail
address and remind them they ARE FUNDING A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION!!

Ain't e-mail grand?






-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shameful Inaction on Guns
Date: 06 Mar 1998 14:57:07 -0700

Hi all!

Bet you didn't know that "gun rights" were invented in 1995, when the Utah
legislature instituted PERMITS.
Bet you didn't know that self-defense is a "compulsion" and not a right,
either.

And it's funny - as far as I can tell, they don't think that overturning
Roberti-Roos in California is even NEWS.  I haven't seen a word about it
anywhere.

Responses may be sent to [e-mail]

Sarah


http://www.sltrib.com/03061998/opinion/26436.htm

>                                 [Image]
>  [Image] [Image]         Friday, March 6, 1998         [Image] [Image]
>
>                        Shameful Inaction on Guns
>
>
>      Utah's legislators
>  walked away from their responsibility on concealed weapons when they
>  walked out of the Capitol at the close of their session Wednesday.
>  Their failure once again to amend the state's flawed 1995 law
>  represents the most egregious example this year of lawmakers ignoring
>  the electorate.
>      In defending a concealed-weapon permit holder's right to carry a
>  gun anywhere, ``without restriction,'' Utah's gun-happy Republicans
>  seem to think the world began in 1995, when the Legislature loosened
>  the requirements for obtaining a permit. Before that, only a handful
>  of Utahns had permits -- those who had demonstrated they needed one
>  -- and there was little evidence the system was broken.
>      Now, with the rash passage of the 1995 law and the subsequent
>  permitting of more than 15,000 gun owners, it is as if any amending
>  of the carelessly crafted legislation -- like, say, keeping guns out
>  of schools and churches, as most Utahns would prefer -- would somehow
>  infringe on the sacred, 3-year-old rights of permit holders, who,
>  after all, haven't shot anybody yet.
>      That the Legislature failed again to modify this law represents a
>  collective abdication of duty. Ever since passage of the 1995 law,
>  complaint after complaint has arisen from entities that do not want
>  weapons carriers on their premises -- from businesses to schools to
>  churches to universities to, inevitably, operators of Olympic venues
>  in 2002. But legislators ignore these voices; they evidently are
>  waiting for one errant gunshot.
>      They miss the point completely. What must be balanced here is the
>  permit holder's overinflated compulsion for self-defense in these
>  aforementioned places against the general public's desire to feel
>  safe and gun-free in these environments. The math is simple, and so
>  is the logic: These new permit holders could not carry weapons into
>  churches and schools four years ago, so why treat it as some
>  unalterable right now?
>      Sen. Robert Steiner has tried to correct the 1995
>  concealed-weapon permit law the last two years. The Legislature
>  failed to consider his bill last year. This year, he came back with
>  S.B. 183, which would have covered all the right bases -- churches,
>  schools, colleges, private residences, and business and places of
>  employment that choose to ban firearms on the premises.
>      Given last year's experience, he needed the support of the
>  leadership. So he backed a piecemeal approach offered by Senate
>  President Lane Beattie. But Beattie withdrew his bill too late in the
>  session to move S.B. 183 -- not that it would have gotten anywhere in
>  this Legislature anyway.
>      Legislators must transport themselves back to 1994 and reconsider
>  what places they reasonably would have deemed off limits to permitted
>  weapons if they had it to do over again. Then they should amend the
>  law to keep guns out of churches, schools, universities and any place
>  of employment or private business or residence where the owner so
>  chooses. They must end their shameful negligence on this issue.
>
>
>
>                 [Image] [Friday 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: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: One more police force
Date: 06 Mar 1998 15:07:16 -0700


Do we really need one more police force in this State?  Especially
one that likes to wear khaki uniforms?

                                                                     [Image]
[Local]
                                                                     [Image]

                                      [Image]

                                      [Movies]

       [Image]

       UTA hires a security force to prowl for problems
       [Image]
       Bus cops to field questions, deal with unruly passengers
       [Image]
       Last updated 03/06/1998, 10:18 a.m. MT

       By Zack Van Eyck
       Deseret News staff writer

             The few, the proud, the . . . Utah Transit Authority public
       safety officers.
             OK, so maybe joining UTA's new security force doesn't carry
       the same prestige as enlisting in the fabled Marines.
             But UTA's latest hires are ready to be all they can be to bus
       passengers throughout the agency's six-county service area.
             That means helping them catch the right bus, read UTA route
       maps, locate bus stops, pay the correct fare and, in general, follow
       the rules and etiquette of responsible bus riding.
             Like their counterparts in the military, UTA's transit
       officers might have to get physical if any nation, er, passenger
       becomes unruly or breaks the law. Thanks in part to a law passed
       recently by the state Legislature, UTA's bus cops will have the
       authority to remove and detain hostile or uncooperative passengers.
             Beginning today, unarmed transit officers dressed in sharp
       khaki uniforms, shiny black shoes and black baseball caps will
       appear at bus stops, on buses and in UTA security vehicles from
       Ogden to Provo.
             Unlike Marines, UTA's transit officers aren't parachuting into
       a crisis situation. Agency officials say their 550 buses have not
       been besieged by crime. UTA entered a $406,800 annual contract with
       the Wackenhut Corp. to prepare for the future when its transit
       network will include a 15-mile light-rail mass transit system.
             "This is not being brought about because we have any security
       problems," UTA general manager John Inglish said Thursday during the
       public unveiling of the Transit Public Safety Officers group near a
       State Street bus stop.
             UTA board member Ron Whitehead said the agency is being
       proactive rather than reactive.
             "The whole thing is a deterrent to crime," said Coralie Alder,
       UTA community relations specialist. "We have a relatively safe
       system now. We're just trying to keep ahead of the situation."
             Twelve officers, earning an average of $10 per hour, are now
       employed by Wackenhut as UTA transit cops. Three more will be hired
       soon. At least four and as many as seven officers will be in the
       field at any given time between 8 a.m. and midnight, six days a
       week.
             "I think it'll take some time for people to get used to us,
       seeing us around," said Stacy Martinez, the only woman among the
       first 12 officers. "We're hoping it will be a good experience for
       everybody we come in contact with."
             UTA Security Administrator Mike Dorman said the officers will
       not carry weapons for now but could in the future, if necessary.
             Joe Dongvillo, one of two field supervisors, said he and three
       other transit officers are already certified as peace officers who
       can carry weapons.
             "We've trained our officers in crisis management and
       verbal-communication skills," said Dongvillo, 43, of Riverton.
       "They will be able to handle 98 percent of the situations they
       encounter" without having to use physical force.
             The officers, however, will be able to make arrests.
             Dongvillo said his troops will be on the lookout for loud and
       rowdy teens, passengers or bus-stop loiterers who may be
       intoxicated, patrons disturbing or arguing with other passengers and
       riders who hassle bus drivers.
             The officers will stand at bus stops and ride buses, but most
       often will cruise bus routes in their patrol cars, responding to
       dispatch requests or following certain buses to monitor potential
       problems.
             "Their instructions are to be flexible and friendly and treat
       people courteously and do everything they can to solve problems in
       an amicable fashion," said Bill Essex, projects manager for
       Wackenhut, which provides a similar service for transit agencies in
       seven other U.S. cities, including Denver and Miami.
             Dorman said UTA officers won't replace local law enforcement
       agencies, but will work with them to keep transit peace.
       [Image]

       [Image]

       [Image]
                                      [Image]
[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.

"It is better to die on one's feet, than to continue living on your knees."
    --Emiliano Zapata

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: Shameful Inaction on Guns]
Date: 06 Mar 1998 15:18:40 -0700


Forwarded from utah-firearms...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
Hi all!

Bet you didn't know that "gun rights" were invented in 1995, when the Utah
legislature instituted PERMITS.
Bet you didn't know that self-defense is a "compulsion" and not a right,
either.

And it's funny - as far as I can tell, they don't think that overturning
Roberti-Roos in California is even NEWS.  I haven't seen a word about it
anywhere.

Responses may be sent to [e-mail]

Sarah


http://www.sltrib.com/03061998/opinion/26436.htm

>                                 [Image]
>  [Image] [Image]         Friday, March 6, 1998         [Image] [Image]
>
>                        Shameful Inaction on Guns
>
>
>      Utah's legislators
>  walked away from their responsibility on concealed weapons when they
>  walked out of the Capitol at the close of their session Wednesday.
>  Their failure once again to amend the state's flawed 1995 law
>  represents the most egregious example this year of lawmakers ignoring
>  the electorate.
>      In defending a concealed-weapon permit holder's right to carry a
>  gun anywhere, ``without restriction,'' Utah's gun-happy Republicans
>  seem to think the world began in 1995, when the Legislature loosened
>  the requirements for obtaining a permit. Before that, only a handful
>  of Utahns had permits -- those who had demonstrated they needed one
>  -- and there was little evidence the system was broken.
>      Now, with the rash passage of the 1995 law and the subsequent
>  permitting of more than 15,000 gun owners, it is as if any amending
>  of the carelessly crafted legislation -- like, say, keeping guns out
>  of schools and churches, as most Utahns would prefer -- would somehow
>  infringe on the sacred, 3-year-old rights of permit holders, who,
>  after all, haven't shot anybody yet.
>      That the Legislature failed again to modify this law represents a
>  collective abdication of duty. Ever since passage of the 1995 law,
>  complaint after complaint has arisen from entities that do not want
>  weapons carriers on their premises -- from businesses to schools to
>  churches to universities to, inevitably, operators of Olympic venues
>  in 2002. But legislators ignore these voices; they evidently are
>  waiting for one errant gunshot.
>      They miss the point completely. What must be balanced here is the
>  permit holder's overinflated compulsion for self-defense in these
>  aforementioned places against the general public's desire to feel
>  safe and gun-free in these environments. The math is simple, and so
>  is the logic: These new permit holders could not carry weapons into
>  churches and schools four years ago, so why treat it as some
>  unalterable right now?
>      Sen. Robert Steiner has tried to correct the 1995
>  concealed-weapon permit law the last two years. The Legislature
>  failed to consider his bill last year. This year, he came back with
>  S.B. 183, which would have covered all the right bases -- churches,
>  schools, colleges, private residences, and business and places of
>  employment that choose to ban firearms on the premises.
>      Given last year's experience, he needed the support of the
>  leadership. So he backed a piecemeal approach offered by Senate
>  President Lane Beattie. But Beattie withdrew his bill too late in the
>  session to move S.B. 183 -- not that it would have gotten anywhere in
>  this Legislature anyway.
>      Legislators must transport themselves back to 1994 and reconsider
>  what places they reasonably would have deemed off limits to permitted
>  weapons if they had it to do over again. Then they should amend the
>  law to keep guns out of churches, schools, universities and any place
>  of employment or private business or residence where the owner so
>  chooses. They must end their shameful negligence on this issue.
>
>
>
>                 [Image] [Friday 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.



-


----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.

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and
 degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing
 is worth fighting for is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he
 is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal
 safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless
 made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- Seen
 on a poster at a gun show. No author was cited for this truly excellent
 statement.

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Is it time to call the Govenor to sign SB 140 and SB
Date: 06 Mar 1998 15:36:24 -0700

Received: (from uucp@localhost) by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id PAA02947 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:08:08 -0700
Received: from gw1.thiokol.com by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com via smap (3.2)
    id xma002823; Fri, 6 Mar 98 15:07:41 -0700
Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM
    with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 06 Mar 1998 15:08:16 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
    -Forwarded

Received: From [209.37.209.129] thiokol-bh.thiokol.com
      By THIOKOL.COM (GroupWise SMTP/MIME daemon 4.11)
      Fri,  6 Mar 98 15:05:21 MST
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id PAA01960 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:04:38 -0700
Received: from mars.aros.net by thiokol-bh.thiokol.com via smap (3.2)
    id xma001943; Fri, 6 Mar 98 15:04:35 -0700
Received: from shell.aros.net ([e-mail] [207.173.16.19])
          by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP
      id PAA14862 for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:01:06 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [207.173.25.144] (dm3-47.slc.aros.net [207.173.25.144])
    by shell.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA05290
    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:04:31 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <v01510100b125c380a2a9@[207.173.25.26]>

Hi Neil,

Thanks to gun rights activists like you, Utah gun owners came out a winner
this year!

As far as we can tell, there is NO OPPOSITION to SB140 & SB141; meaning DPS
doesn't have a problem with it, so the word is that the Gov. will SIGN them
BOTH.  Therefore, at this time, we are not asking for people to call
Leavitt.  But stay tuned.  You never know what that fickle Leavitt is going
to do.

Thanks for your support.

As always, yours in freedom,
Shirley





-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  FW: February/March Harris Poll OnLine -Forwarded
Date: 06 Mar 1998 15:54:58 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id RAA29717; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:46:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma029618; Fri Mar  6 17:41:22 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

Dear Fellow Culture Warriors:

I registered with Harris to be able to have some input into national
polls on politics.

I did and got to participate in the one below.  Perhaps you can too if
you want.  It has gun control and Monicagate relevance but of course
there is a lot of extra marketing crap to go through.  Takes about 15
minute sor so to do.

FYI,
John Posthill

> -----Original Message-----
> From:    [e-mail] [SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:    Friday, March 06, 1998 1:50 PM
> To:    '[e-mail]'
> Subject:    February/March Harris Poll OnLine
>
> Dear Harris Poll Online Member,
>
> As part of our promise to provide an ongoing forum for your opinions,
> we
> now invite you to participate in the first HARRIS POLL ONLINE of 1998,
>
> the World Wide Web equivalent of the prestigious Harris (telephone)
> Poll
> of February/March, 1998.
>
> The HARRIS POLL ONLINE is your opportunity to share your opinions with
>
> people who make decisions about your life, the laws that affect you
> and
> your community, and the products and services you buy to make your
> life
> easier.  But not all HARRIS POLL ONLINE questions explore "serious"
> matters--a few surprises are also included.
>
> To participate, visit http://hpol.harrispollonline.com/feb98a.htm on
> the
> World Wide Web today.  The survey will take about fifteen minutes to
> complete.
>
> We appreciate your participation and look forward to providing you
> with
> additional opportunities to express your opinion.


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One more police force
Date: 06 Mar 1998 17:10:50 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Do we really need one more police force in this State?  Especially
> one that likes to wear khaki uniforms?
>
>
>              "This is not being brought about because we have any security
>        problems," UTA general manager John Inglish said

Of course we do!  What's wrong with you?  Can't you see?  They don't
_have_ any problems, that's a crises that MUST be dealt with, NOW!

>     UTA entered a $406,800 annual contract with
>        the Wackenhut Corp. to prepare for the future when its transit
>        network will include a 15-mile light-rail mass transit system.

'Sides, you didn't need that $407k...per year...to do anything
like...oh,
maybe buy an air conditioner for a school, or lower taxes, or....

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: UTA's Wackenhut police
Date: 07 Mar 1998 06:34:00 -0700


Charles Hardy wrote re: One more police force

> UTA entered a $406,800 annual contract with the Wackenhut Corp.
> to prepare for the future when its transit network will include
> a 15-mile light-rail mass transit system.

Now that's the scary part. Have you seen the shady doings of
that spook outfit? How fascist is UTA trying to make Utah?


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Media Attacks on Richard Mack Have Begun -Forwarded
Date: 09 Mar 1998 14:14:26 -0700

PROVO  -- Richard Mack already has put his name on a piece of
American history  -- a 1997 Supreme Court verdict that overturned a key
provision of a gun-control bill.

 As the crusading, Constitution-quoting sheriff of Graham County, Ariz.,
he made a national name for himself, appearing on the ``Today Show,''
``Good Morning America,'' ``Donahue,'' CNN's ``Crossfire'' and National
Public Radio.

 Now, two years after publicity weary voters in southeastern Arizona
handed him a humiliating defeat, Richard Mack wants to be a sheriff
again: in his old college town of Provo.

 ``If your sheriff is not going to stand up for freedom, there's very little of
value he has to offer,'' said Mack, who is best known for his successful
lawsuit against the federal government, which did away with the
``Brady Bill'' requirement that police conduct background checks on gun
buyers.

 Mack is revving up a well-financed and ideologically charged campaign
to unseat longtime Utah County Sheriff David Bateman in the June
Republican primary.

 It promises to be one of the more colorful elections in recent Utah County
history  -- largely because Mack brought a roof-rack full of political
baggage with him when he moved here last year from Safford, Ariz.,
with the intention of running for sheriff.

 His many speaking engagements before right-wing groups earned him a
reputation as a friend to militias and patriot groups that advocate the
overthrow of the U.S. government.

 ``He is very much in the pantheon of heros in the anti-government
movement,'' said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center in
Montgomery, Ala., which monitors militias and hate groups. ``He goes
from gathering to gathering and is seen as a hero in the battle against the
tyrannical federal government.''

 Yet Mack, soft-spoken and unfailingly cordial, defies easy pigeonholing
as a one-note zealot.

 Indeed, he is a study in complexity: He professes contempt for federal
law enforcement, yet he is the son of an FBI agent and tried three times
to get into the FBI himself. He is the co-author of a book called From My
Cold Dead Fingers: Why America Needs Guns!, yet he doesn't hunt,
doesn't have a personal liking for guns and never even owned a firearm
until he was elected sheriff in 1988.

 ``I wouldn't know an Uzi from an AK-47 if I saw one,'' he said. ``I've
never been into guns. But when somebody takes them away from me,
then I've got a problem.''

 In person, Mack looks more like a New York investment banker than a
grizzled Western lawman.

 He is a graduate of Brigham Young University who spent 10 years as a
Provo police officer before making a calculated move back to his Arizona
hometown in 1988 to make a winning shot at the sheriff's job there.

 He is holding a job with American Institute for Research, a Provo
company that sells exercise trampolines, mineral-diet supplements and
investment portfolios.

 The company has an office on University Drive in a tony colonial-style
building with shiny brass chandeliers and paintings of fox hunts on the
cream-colored wall.

 Mack, 45, landed here after leaving Safford in August 1997 in the wake
of a crushing defeat in the 1996 Democratic primary. One of his deputies
trounced him by a 3-1 margin, even winning the precinct in Thatcher,
Ariz., where Mack lived.

 Many voters felt Sheriff Mack had let the Brady Bill crusade go to his
head.

 ``He spent too much time away from here. He wanted to get on TV,
waving his little copy of the Constitution like it was a Bible,'' said Billie
Horner, who led an unsuccessful recall drive against Mack. ``He's a
smart aleck. People look into his eyes and they're blank.''

 Delbert Householder, the former chairman of the Graham County Board
of Supervisors, said personally he liked Mack but felt the sheriff had
become too enmeshed in his quest against the government.

 ``When people vote for a local sheriff, they want him to take care of
local issues,'' he said. ``Richie liked the publicity.''

 $5,000 Reward: In the waning days of the campaign, Mack tried to
defuse the criticism by publishing an ad in the Eastern Arizona Courier
which gave a detailed accounting of the time he spent in office. He
offered a $5,000 reward to anyone who could prove differently. There
were no takers.

 Householder also said he fought with Mack over the issue of the
sheriff's office budget.

 ``He wanted more and more money and I was trying to keep spending
down,'' he said.

 In keeping with a rural Arizona tradition, Mack ran as a Democrat during
his Graham County days. He since has switched to the GOP, though he
said his core beliefs have never changed.

 If he becomes sheriff in Utah County, Mack said he would request a
budget increase  -- and even a tax hike  -- for only one thing: to increase
the pay of his deputies.

 ``It comes down to, do you want to have a responsible
law-enforcement department or don't you?'' he said. ``If you don't, the
same old problems are going to continue.''

 Pay Raises: The starting salary of a Utah County Sheriff's deputy is
between $23,000 and $28,000 per year; Mack said he would like to see
the average raised to $30,000.

 He first floated this idea in a mass-mailed campaign letter sent to the
homes of all deputies. He also promised a higher level of accountability,
proclaiming that ``the days of the doughnut shop cop will be over.''

 ``That offended me,'' said Sheriff Bateman. ``I have a very professional
and well-trained group of people and they don't work out of the coffee
shop.''

 The 57-year-old Bateman, who has been sheriff since 1985, is viewed
as vulnerable because of his longevity in office.

 He also has predicted publicly that the continuing urbanization of Utah
County will reduce the sheriff's office to becoming less of a
law-enforcement agency and more of a jail keeper and a process-server
in the next 10 to 15 years. A far-seeing statement, but a politically
dangerous one.

 Mack and the other Republican candidate, sheriff's Lt. Doug Witney, are
saying they will bring new blood and fresh energy to the 240-member
sheriff's office, which operates on an annual budget of $14.2 million.

 Avoiding Criticism: They are careful to avoid direct criticism of Bateman,
but say it is time for him ``to move on.''

 Witney, 48, said he would put more focus on consumer fraud and
white-collar crime. He also pledges to work in conjunction with federal
agents  -- a skill he says Mack may be philosophically incapable of.

 With 23 years of law-enforcement experience, Witney is a formidable
opponent to Bateman, but the incumbent sheriff says he is more afraid of
Mack, who he fears will draw financial backing from national right-wing
groups.

 This also could be Mack's greatest weakness. The questionable types
of people he rubbed shoulders with during his long period in the national
limelight already has become an issue in the sheriff's race.

 ``He's spent an awful lot of time in speaking engagements and
associating with groups that have an ideology that isn't mainstream
America by any manner or means,'' Bateman said.

 Mack was the subject of a lengthy and flattering front-page story in a
newspaper called The Jubilee, which has a high readership among
members of the white supremacist group Christian Identity.

 Potok called Jubilee ``the premiere Christian Identity publication in the
country.''
 ``Sheriff Richard Mack is now available full time to lecture and tell his
story,'' said the newspaper in 1996. ``The Christian patriot sheriff was
voted out of office in the Arizona primaries.''

 Mack strenuously denies that the racist or violent leanings of some of
his admirers have rubbed off on his personal feelings in any way. He
says he believes in unity among the races and has always been a
pacifist.

 ``I can't help who supported my cause,'' he said. ``I can't help who
honors me. . . . If a church group asks me to talk, I go talk. I don't refuse
interviews  -- I don't care who you are. If I can tell the truth, I'll tell it to Phil
Donahue or anybody else.''


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  One World Gun Control races ahead -Forwarded
Date: 09 Mar 1998 14:22:38 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id CAA00211; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:29:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma028449; Sun Mar  8 02:26:23 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

Browse this site <http://www.prepcom.org/>... then _act_.
Edgar A. Suter MD
National Chair
Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research Inc.



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Hearing in Fezell Case -Forwarded
Date: 09 Mar 1998 14:30:25 -0700

Received: (from daemon@localhost) by lists1.best.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id XAA05954 for [e-mail]; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 23:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

This is an unofficial transcript of a hearing held last week in the
Fezell case.  The only thing it lacks is the line numbers and the
paragraphing may be slightly different from the official version.

This hearing was prompted by the disregard that NRA management
showed for Judge Shainswit's original injunction against printing the
Nominating Committee report in the magazine.  The Bylaws clearly
state that candidates must not have the method of nomination in the
magazine.  The bylaw languished for some 16 years (including two
during which time Knox partisans controlled the Nominating
Committee.  Those Nominating Committees named some familiar names,
including Sue King, Marion Hammer, Susan Howard and others.

If it were possible for a judge to spank an attorney, Steve Shulman
would not be able to sit down for a week.  He is said to have left
the building red-faced and swearing.  People who know him reacted
with raised eyebrows at that.  Few have heard Mr. Shulman utter
profanity.

Chris Knox
http://www.NealKnox.com

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK                    1
COUNTY OF NEW YORK      -      PART 10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
HOWARD J. FEZELL, JOHN C. KRULL,
JERRY L. ALLEN, FRANK H. SAWBERGER,
LARRY R. RANKIN, JOHN GUEST, WILLIAM
DOMINGUEZ, JEFF KNOX, KIM STOLFER,               Index No.
JOHN H. TRENTES,                              600211/98

                    Plaintiffs,

     - against -

NATIONAL. RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA,

                    Defendant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
                    60 Centre Street
                    New York, New York
                    March 5, 1998

BEFORE:     HONORABLE BEATRIC SHAINSWIT, Justice

Appearances:

     WHITMAN, BREED, ABBOTT, MORGAN, LLP
          Attorneys for Plaintiffs
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, New York 10166
     BY . JOHN T. SHABAN, ESQ.

     CADWALADER WICKER SHAM TAFT, ESQS.
          Attorneys for Defendant
          100 Maidenlane
          New York, New York 10038
     BY:     GRANT B.  HERING, ESQ.

               -and-
     FREEDMAN, LEVY, KROLL, SIMONDS, ESQS.
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20036
     BY: STEPHEN N. SHULMAN, ESQ.

                              MAURICE J. SCHWARTZBERG
                              OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
2
Proceedings

     THE COURT Counsel, my attention has been called to a notice that
appeared in the NRA Magazine which I found very troubling, and since my
attention was called to it by a non-party to the proceeding, I would
like to have comments on it by the lawyers for the parties, please.
     MR. SHABAN: Your Honor, is this the notice in question?
     THE COURT: That is the notice in question. I'm sure you're familiar
with it.
     MR. SHABAN: Your Honor, I'm John Shaban, for the plaintiff.
     It's the plaintiffs' position and plaintiffs were in the process of
discussing if, what and how we should TO in dealing with this, that this
notice essentially flies in the face of all the work we've done to date.
     We received an injunction from your Honor to level the playing field,
force NRA to abide by its own bylaws.

3
Proceedings

     The Case Law supports your Honor's decision
     Your Honor put together a nine or ten page opinion clearly laying out
what  the rationale of the Court is and what's fair and what was to be
done, and what we believe the NRA has done with this notice was to
circumvent that order surreptitiously.
     They didn't say who was nominated by petition and who was nominated by
the nominating committee. But if your Honor will note, this notice
appeared on page P of the ballot issue directly behind the biographical
sketches of all the nominees
     So, essentially what they've done is blackball these ten candidates and
say, look, here's ten troublemakers, they put a monkeywrench in the
works.
     Until we get this thing figured out, we can't help you out here, but
here it is right in the middle of a ballot issue



4
Proceedings

     THE COURT: There's more, Counsel, little bit more than that.
     The statement at the bottom is: A preliminary injunction was issued by
Justice Shainswit.
     This injunction will be reviewed on appeal by the Appellate Division,
Until it is reversed, the injunction must be obeyed.
     I find that statement bordering very closely on contempt.
     Now, are you making a motion to this effect, sir?
     MR. SHABAN: Your Honor, we will make a motion for a contempt before the
Court.
     THE COURT: IS there anything you would like to say, counsel?
     MR. SHULMAN: First, your Honor, have not been informed until this
moment what the subject of this proceeding was going to be.
     THE COURT: That is not true, sir. You were informed by my law secretary

5
Proceedings

that the subject was the notice that appeared in your magazine.
     MR. SHULMAN: Your Honor, I accept what your Honor says, but I
personally have only been told that you received a letter, that your
Honor received a letter that included a page from a magazine, and we
would not be told what was on the page.
     THE COURT: No, sir.
     Would you like my secretary to testify that he referred you to this
particular notice?
     And, counsel, since I would be amazed to learn that you were not the
one who drew this notice, I find your innocence a little
disturbing, counsel.
     This is a notice drawn by lawyers, and you could not help but be aware
of it, sir.
     Now, what is it that you have to say in defense of letting this notice
appear in the Law Journal or drafting it, or whatever you had to do with
it,

6
Proceedings

sir?
     MR. SHULMAN: If your Honor would like, I would be happy to have the
secretary of the NRA who prepared this notice come before your Honor and
explain why it was prepared.
     I can tell you what I know about it, but I did not prepare this notice.
     THE COURT: You can tell me what  you know about it, sir.
     MR. SHULMAN: What I know about it is this, that the NRA has been
publishing the report of the nominating committee for 16 years
continuously. That it was not publishing the report of the nominating
committee in this issue because of your Honor's order.
     I have here the report of the nominating committee which was not
published. That's the page that it is on, the page that had to be
deleted.
     It can't be deleted because the magazine has all the pages
     The determination was made that

7
Proceedings
the membership had to be informed about why the nominating committee
report was not published.

     THE COURT: And the reason they had to do it this way by publishing the
caption so all the names were stated and with the statement that the
Appellate Division, of course, is going to reverse, was something that
just occurred to them out of the blue and had nothing to do with
anything.
     MR. SHULMAN: Your Honor, the plaintiff extensively reported your
Honor's decision on the Internet before this was ever done.
     Mr. Fezell had been on the Internet on a regular basis stating
everything that's taking place in this case. This has been largely
broadcast before the NRA published anything.
     This is not any piece of news whatsoever.
     Mr. Fezell himself has done it, and I can bring in, if your Honor

8
Proceedings
wants, a dozen Internet statements prior to this publication.
     THE COURT: The Internet statements have nothing whatever to do with
what appears to be contempt of Court in this statement, and, counsel, as
a distinguished lawyer, you must know that.
     Now, if you're going to tell me that everybody at the NRA acts without
legal advice, well, then, if counsel makes the motion, I will bring a
contempt proceeding against them.
     MR. SHULMAN: Your Honor, at the time that this was published, the
matter was on review in the Appellate Division.
     THE COURT: On review doesn't mean will be reversed, sir.
     MR. SHULMAN: It doesn't say it will be reversed.
      THE COURT: Sir, until it is reversed. That does not say it is on
review, and maybe it will and maybe it

9

Proceedings
won't, and you know that, sir, and I really would be very grateful if I
heard something by a lawyer saying something proper in this case.
     I think your organization is out of control.
     MR. SHULMAN Well, your Honor, I apologize to the Court that you are
taking it that way.
     Obviously, the NRA and myself in the arguments had a different feeling
than your Honor.
     My understanding is that all orders of trial courts are subject to
appeal; until they're reversed, they have to be obeyed.
     I don't see why that constitutes a statement that it is going to be
reversed, and judging the way things have been going so far, it doesn't
look very good for getting reversals.
     But, at the time that this statement was made, the matter had been
filed on appeal in the Appellate





10

Proceedings

Division.
     I had personally appeared in Justice Rubin's chambers to discuss
getting a stay of your Honor 's order.
     I was trying to work something out so that the matter could be heard in
a manner that might let the election go forward,
     And, as it turned out, the stay was denied, and that was it.
     We had asked originally for interim relief. He persuaded us not to go
for interim relief, but to wait and to have the stay heard and arrange
for an expedited - -
     THE COURT: By stating the names of the petitioners and by saying
''Until this is reversed. "
     Counsel, I don't think we really need much more on this.
     Counsel, submit your papers expeditiously. I mean expeditiously.
     MR. SHABAN: Yes, your Honor.
     THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

11

Proceedings

     Call the next matter.

(Proceedings concluded.)


****

     I hereby certify that the above is a
true and accurate transcription of the
proceedings.

                              /s/ M. J. Schwartzberg


                                   MAURICE J. SCHWARTZBERG
                                   OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER





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

iQCVAwUBNQJNKyGz4I2lBJDFAQFxSAP/b30LV8AAd23Wu/0OjsD8V0MGTqvCQEdW
Gd6qq/fMuJkDSduqi3Uxb8Bs5DyvnlbnEBlUEUhN4wDS3YXO7AWixuk2e/0bxQfT
5IJ/5S4ta2mvzKh9DOwMEJ+K4jCwzJCKUg5/z2Q2OZWZX4wR/dG2d0dGMadklw2A
yVWDsu3xM64=
=r9JQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:
Date: 09 Mar 1998 14:48:02 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id CAA00279; Sun, 8 Mar 1998 02:29:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma029438; Sun Mar  8 02:26:48 1998
Message-Id: <v01510100b1278381270d@[209.20.138.224]>
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

Hey, everybody:

        Want to read a scathing whack on gun control myths by three pretty
sharp pro-gun legal minds?

        It's long, and it's time consuming, and it would take the average
Hewlett Packard printer a long time to run it out... but here it is!

http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/tennmed.html




-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  CS: Pol-Armed men on the streets of London -Forwarded
Date: 09 Mar 1998 15:08:34 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA17721; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 15:37:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma017610; Mon Mar  9 15:37:14 1998
Message-Id: <v03110703b129e5f75e81@[204.182.72.70]>
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

    To all,

    A British perspecitive - a good read.
ET

>Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:30:43 -0500
>From: Steven Kendrick/UK <[e-mail]>
>Subject: CS: Pol-Armed men on the streets of London
>To: CyberShooters <[e-mail]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Precedence: bulk
>
>From: Sean Gabb <[e-mail]>
>
>Free Life Commentary
>Editor:  Sean Gabb
>Issue Number Fourteen
>Monday, 9 March 1998, 1:20am
>
>==========================
>"Over himself, over his own mind and body,
>the individual is sovereign"
>(J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859)
>==========================
>
>           Armed Men on the Streets of London
>                      by Sean Gabb
>
>Earlier this evening - or yesterday evening, to be precise - I went with
>my wife to see Titanic.  It was an impressive though much overrated
>film, not nearly so good as the older A Night to Remember, which in a
>number of scenes it appeared to copy.  I disliked it for the
>melodramatic tear-jerking that interfered with the much larger story,
>and for the implied attack on England - all that wailing Irish music and
>the suppressed glee at showing how a shining glory of the Liverpool
>shipyards went to the bottom.
>
>Even so, it contained an interesting portrayal of the Old Order as it
>existed just before the Great War.  There was much that was harsh in
>that Order - the rigid separation of classes, for a start, and the
>emptiness of many of the lives at the top.  But it was the choice fruits
>of the most wonderful and stable expansion of the productive forces that
>has ever happened.  The people who sailed on the Titanic in April 1914,
>and who went down with her, were - regardless of their social station,
>and regardless of how many of them met their fate - free citizens of
>free countries.  There were no passports to be carried and presented on
>demand, no intrusive body searches for prohibited vegetable substances,
>and no questions asked if passengers chose to carry firearms across
>national frontiers.
>
>We were invited to feel sorry for the thousand or so people who went
>down with the Titanic.  For myself, I would rather have died then than
>have lived to witness the avalanche of our free civilisation that began
>two years and two months later at Sarajevo, and that may before its
>centenary have carried away all the familiar landmarks of the England
>and America that existed in 1912.
>
>That was the message I carried away with me as Mrs Gabb and I stepped
>out into Leicester Square and walked down to where we had parked on the
>Embankment.  Any tears I might have been inclined to shed for Leonardo
>di Caprio and Kate Winslett were entirely obscured by thoughts of that
>far more awesome catastrophe.  And I was more sensitised than usual for
>what happened next.
>
>At 11:45 pm, as we came to the junction of Charing Cross Road and
>Trafalgar Square - between the National Portrait Gallery and St Martin's
>Church - we noticed a Police car stopped behind another car.  A black
>man had been stopped for something.  It hardly matters what - black
>drivers are often stopped at night on the streets of London:  sometimes
>for real crimes, sometimes for suspected infractions of laws that ought
>not to exist, sometimes simply because they are black.  There was
>nothing unusual in this scene until we were walking past.  Then I
>noticed that one of the Police officers was carrying a gun.  It was
>buttoned into a holster on his hip.  He was not using it for any
>purpose.  He just happened to have a firearm.  Had I stayed to look
>more, I might have seen that the other officers were also armed.
>
>I was shocked.  Ever since the Trafalgar Square riot of 1886, the Police
>in this country have been unarmed.  Certainly, guns are available for
>special purposes; and there are occasionally armed officers in places
>where Irish terrorist outrages are expected.  But I had never before
>seen an armed officer involved in a casual stop and search of a driver.
>There was plainly no call for the gun to be brandished - as I said, it
>was buttoned safely away in its holster.
>
>I wanted to stop and make a note of the Police car's registration
>number, but was unable.  Though she said nothing, there was something
>about Mrs Gabb's manner that told me:  "Keep moving.  Don't get
>involved.  This is nothing to do with you".  Since she grew up in a
>Communist police state, she knows exactly how to walk past on the other
>side when the authorities choose to be nasty to strangers.  And she was
>probably right to keep in practice earlier this evening.  Her love
>affair with England began five years ago with encomiums to British
>freedom, but has now matured into an escape into its history before 1914
>and a growing interest in the United States - a country which is cursed
>with a militarised bureaucracy and a legal profession that has perverted
>the plain English of the Constitution into something that none of its
>drafters would have recognised, but which is still somewhat behind us in
>its progress to being a satrapy of the New World Order.
>
>Of course, American Police officers are armed as a matter of routine,
>and my American readers may wonder what it is that has launched me on
>these melancholy reflections.  The answer is that the British public has
>just been comprehensively disarmed.  Any ordinary British citizen who is
>caught with so much as a Beretta .22 faces unlimited fines or up to ten
>years imprisonment, or both.  There are calls in the media for even
>tighter controls than now on rifles and shotguns.  And there is actually
>a Bill before Parliament to bring in a licensing scheme for airguns.
>
>We are the most comprehensively disarmed people in the "free" world.
>Even the Red Chinese are better trusted by their rulers with guns than
>we now are.  And Mrs Gabb regarded it as normal at her school in
>Czechoslovakia to be taken out of her lessons every now and again for
>some target practice with live ammunition.
>
>But our rulers have given up not a single gun of their own.  The Prime
>Minister remains so terrified of the people who elected him that he
>dares not visit his Constituency without 28 armed guards to protect him.
>The Police have taken to openly flaunting their firepower.
>
>The authorities keep their guns for two reasons.  The first is the
>obvious one.  The hundreds of thousands of guns that have been handed in
>during the past few months had been almost entirely in the hands of law-
>abiding people.  The number of licensed guns used for criminal purposes
>in this country has always been minuscule.  Even the Hungerford and
>Dunblane massacres hardly raise the figures to statistical significance.
>But the guns that are the proper object of concern - those in criminal
>hands - have not been handed in.  The number of armed crimes in this
>country has been rising smoothly since the 1960s.  The progressive
>tightening of gun control since 1968 has done nothing to moderate this
>trend.  Indeed, by disarming the prospective victims of crime, gun
>control has contributed to the trend.
>
>The two Firearms Acts that followed Dunblane gave immense pleasure to
>creeps like Anne "Yes I do [want to live in a slave state]" Pearston and
>to all the special interests that used her as a battering ram against
>our liberties, but did nothing at all to make the streets any safer.
>Therefore the continued need for having armed Policemen on the streets.
>
>The other reason is less obvious.  It is probably not even fully
>understood by the authorities.  But it seems to be that the
>proliferation of casually armed Police officers in the past few years is
>partly to tell us who are the masters and who are the slaves.  They have
>the power, and we must obey.  For the most part, naked force - or even
>its overt threat - is unnecessary.  We have long since been broken in to
>the new order of things.  Guns are displayed merely as a symbol - rather
>as top hats were worn on the first class decks of the Titanic not so
>much to protect the wearers from the wind and rain as to distinguish
>them from the other passengers.
>
>Why do I stay in this decadent police state that England has become?
>Why not give in to my wife's prompting that a good teaching job is just
>waiting for me across the Atlantic, in a country where we can keep more
>of what we earn and live in a decent house and still have the freedom -
>even if diminishing - to keep and bear arms?
>
>The answer is written on the pediment of the statue of Nurse Edith
>Cavell that overlooked that armed incident in London a few hours ago:
>"Patriotism is Not Enough".  I may go to America for holidays.  I may go
>there to earn a little money.  But I have a duty to the country that I
>still passionately love to keep my home here and to return to it and do
>what little I can to make it England again.
>
>==========================
>Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment, published on
>the Internet.  To receive regular issues, send
>e-mail to Sean Gabb at [e-mail]
>
>Issues are archived at
>
>        <http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/>
>
>Contact Address:        25 Chapter Chambers,
>                        Esterbrooke Street,
>                        London, SW1P 4NN;
>                        Telephone:  [phone]
>
>If you like Free Life Commentary, you may also care to subscribe to my
>longer, hard copy journal, Free Life, subscription details for which can
>be obtained by writing to me at the above address.
>
>==========================
>Legal Notice:  Though using the name Free Life, this journal is owned by
>me and not by the Libertarian Alliance, which in consequence bears no
>liability of whatever kind for the contents.
>--
>Sean Gabb                               | "Over himself, over his own  |
>E-mail:  [e-mail]            | mind and body, the individual|
><http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/> | is sovereign"                |
>Mobile Number: 0956 472199              | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859  |
>
>  ++++
>  We can't all sue the Government. But we can give money to
>  people who are making the attempt:
>
>  David Steed Fighting Fund, c/o Howell-Jones & Partners, 75
>  Surbiton Road, Kingston-upon-Thames.
>
>  NPA Fighting Fund, c/o BM NPA, London, WC1N 3XX.
>
>  Justice for Shooters, PO Box 705, Bourne End, Bucks, SL8 5FS.
>
>  "A pound a day keeps the gun-grabbers away"
>  ++++
>
>  To subscribe (or unsubscribe), send email to
>  [e-mail] with no subject and the text:
>
>  subscribe cybershooters (or unsubscribe cybershooters)
>
>  as the first and only line in the message body.  For further
>  information, please refer to the Cybershooters FAQ at
>  http://www.tsra.demon.co.uk/csfaq.htm
>




-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  GSL> Don't Buy Ruger -Forwarded
Date: 09 Mar 1998 15:54:44 -0700

Received: (qmail 27200 invoked by uid 516); 9 Mar 1998 22:36:35 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 27068 invoked from network); 9 Mar 1998 22:36:14 -0000
Received: from smtp3.erols.com (207.172.3.236)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 9 Mar 1998 22:36:13 -0000
Received: from omniscience ([141.161.144.30])
    by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA08058
    for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:36:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.guns,talk.politics.guns
CC: GSL <[e-mail]>
References: <6df15p$[e-mail]> <6dg8tk$[e-mail]> <6djp2f$[e-mail]> <6dmcof$[e-mail]> <6do3n5$[e-mail]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

(Opinions here are personal and not those of any organization.)

Several people responded to a rec.guns post where I suggested Ruger was
not a prudent choice in a firearm.  Some asked for substantiation. I
remember hearing the information in '89-'90 when it was happening.

Chris Knox was good enough to send along this article, which details how
Ruger pushed for magazine limits.  This started the ball rolling
seriously toward the current 10-round limit we now enjoy so much.

Why anybody who wants a gun would buy from Bill Ruger is beyond me.

Read for yourself. Evaluate objectively.



Larry Cipriani saved the original.  This is from the days that a guy
unknown to me was transcribing the Hard Corps Report to t.p.g and
rec.guns.  I don't know that it is bit-for-bit identical, however it is
substantially accurate.

cwk


Organization: Idaho City University
Lines: 82

This was written by Neal Knox.  It appeared in the 12/1/89 issue of
The New Gun Week.


          Knox Replies To Comment From Ruger Counsel's
               Gun Week, December 1, 1989

The following reply to Stephen Sanetti's letter from Neal Knox of the
Firearms Coalition was received by FAX.

"Steve Sanetti says 'I know better' than to ascribe Bill Ruger's
magazine
ban proposal to business considerations. Maybe so; I don't think Bill
is by any means 'anti-gun,' nor do I think he really _wants_ a ban on
either guns or magazines (after all, he got his start as a machine gun
designer). But I do think Bill Ruger is pushing a plan that would
protect
his business while affecting only his competitors, and I think he's
damaging the efforts of those of us attempting to stop all proposed
bans.
Further, I don't think his actions on this issue, and other issues in
the past, allows him to be described as 'the strongest supporter of our
Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.'

"What I _know_ is that about 9 p.m. the night before Bill sent a letter
to certain members of Congress calling for a ban on high-capacity
magazines he called me, wanting me to push such a ban. His opening
words,
after citing the many federal, state and local bills to ban detachable
magazine semi-autos, were 'I want to save our little gun' -- which he
later defined as the Mini-14 and the Mini-30. I'm not ascribing Bill's
motives as 'expedient from a business standpoint;' Bill did.

"While I agree that a ban on over-15 magazines would be 'indefinitely
[sic]
preferable' to a ban on the guns that use them, that's not the question.
Neither I, nor the other gun groups have ever believed that we were
faced
with such an either/or choice. Early last year the NRA legislative
Policy committee discussed various alternatives to the proposed 'assault
weapons' ban, and wisely decided that magazine restrictions wouldn't
satisfy our foes, but would make it more difficult to stop a gun ban.

"I was particularly shocked when I realized Bill was talking about a
ban on possession of over-15-round magazines, rather than a ban on
sales (which is bad enough). I told him that such a law would make me
a felon, for not only did I have standard over-15 magazines for my Glock
pistol (a high-capacity which has sharply cut into Ruger's police
business), I have many high-cap mags for guns I don't even own, and
don't
even know where they all are. As I told Bill, after a lifetime of
accumulating miscellaneous gun parts and accessories, there's no way I
could clean out all my old parts drawers and boxes, then swear --
subject
to a five or ten-year Federal prison term -- that I absolutely didn't
have a M3 grease gun mag or 30-round M-2 magazine lying in some
forgotten
drawer.

"Bill said (and all these direct quotes are approximate), 'No, there'd
be amnesty for people like you. We have to propose a ban on possession
before they could take us seriously.' He contended that the public's
problem was with 'firepower,' which could be resolved by eliminating
high capacity mags.

"I told him Metzenbaum and Co. would gladly use whatever he offered,
but they weren't about to willingly agree to eliminate high-cap
magazines as a substitute for banning guns; that their intention isn't
to eliminate 'firepower' but 'firearms.'

"Bill finally said, 'Neal, you're being very negative about it.' He
got angry, then said 'Well somebody's got to do it; by God I will.'
And the next day he sent his letter to the Hill; the evidence indicates
a few weeks later he talked SAAMI into supporting undefined 'regulation'
of magazines over-15-rounds -- a vote that might have gone a little
differently if any produced high-capacity magazines as standard for
either rifles or pistols.

"I suspect that Ruger and SAAMI's actions are responsible, directly or
indirectly, for the Bush Administration's proposal to ban high-cap
mags, but that proposal has been ignored -- except as evidence that 'the
Bush Administration and the American firearms industry recognize there's
a problem -- that Americans shouldn't be allowed to have such guns.'

"Of course, that isn't what Bill Ruger and SAAMI are saying, but that's
the message they're sending. Perhaps it isn't business expediency to
propose banning only that which they don't make, in an effort to protect
what they do make; but it sure can't be claimed to be in defense of the
Second Amendment."
--
Larry Cipriani, [e-mail]


--------------------------
GunsSaveLives Internet Discussion List

This list is governed by an acceptable use
policy: http://www.wizard.net/~kc/policy.html
or available upon request.

To unsubscribe send a message to
[e-mail]

with the following line in the body:

unsubscribe gsl

GUNSSAVELIVES (GSL) IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST.
THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Media Attacks on Richard Mack Have Begun -Forwarded
Date: 09 Mar 1998 16:20:12 -0700

At 02:14 PM 3/9/98 -0700, you wrote:
>PROVO  -- Richard Mack already has put his name on a piece of
>American history  -- a 1997 Supreme Court verdict that overturned a key
>provision of a gun-control bill.

    <snip>

> If he becomes sheriff in Utah County, Mack said he would request a
>budget increase  -- and even a tax hike  -- for only one thing: to increase
>the pay of his deputies.
>
> ``It comes down to, do you want to have a responsible
>law-enforcement department or don't you?'' he said. ``If you don't, the
>same old problems are going to continue.''


    Mack is definitely one of my heroes for what he did for our gun rights.
But I'd have a great deal of difficulty voting (not that I CAN vote in Utah
Co. <g>) for someone whose only public platform is raising taxes!

    Does anyone know what his OTHER platforms are?  Is he willing to insist -
as other sheriffs have done - that all Federal law enforcement officials
get his permission and cooperation to work in Utah county?  What are his
priorities in law enforcement?  Crime?  Drugs?  Asset forfeiture?  How does
he feel about Utah's firearms laws?

    Inquiring minds - and voters - would like to know!

Sarah

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GSL> Don't Buy Ruger -Forwarded
Date: 09 Mar 1998 16:26:08 -0700

At 03:54 PM 3/9/98 -0700, you wrote:
>----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
>(Opinions here are personal and not those of any organization.)
>
>Several people responded to a rec.guns post where I suggested Ruger was
>not a prudent choice in a firearm.  Some asked for substantiation. I
>remember hearing the information in '89-'90 when it was happening.
>
>Chris Knox was good enough to send along this article, which details how
>Ruger pushed for magazine limits.  This started the ball rolling
>seriously toward the current 10-round limit we now enjoy so much.
>
>Why anybody who wants a gun would buy from Bill Ruger is beyond me.
>
>Read for yourself. Evaluate objectively.


Why anyone would buy a gun from Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Colt, NAA, Glock or
any of the other traitorous companies who voluntarily agreed to FORCE us to
buy useless trigger locks is beyond ME.

I won't buy a NEW gun from ANY of these companies.  PERIOD.  I'll buy used
- or not at all.  (Or maybe from the few who refused.  The only one I know
of off-hand is Casull.)

Sarah

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC Delegate training
Date: 09 Mar 1998 18:08:24 -0700

    ***PLEASE CROSS POST IN UTAH ONLY!!***

USSC is sponsoring a "delegate training" session to:

Provide a legislative update
Provide members and others the "how-to's" to strengthen our firearm freedoms
Learn how to get PRO firearms folks on the ballot
Learn how to become a delegate - or a champion supporter of the delegate of
choice
Highlight steps to successfully defend our firearm freedoms by getting and
keeping the GOOD GUYS IN - and the WRONG GUYS OUT!

WHEN?  Saturday March 14, 11 AM to 1 PM
WHERE?  Whitmore Library, 2197 East 7000 South, SLC
NEED MORE INFO?  Call Shirley Spain, 801-963-0784 or [e-mail]

This short, two-hour session will BEGIN PROMPTLY!
Come out and join USSC's Chairman Woody Powell, NRA-ILA regional director
Brian Judy, and former legislator and lobbyist Lloyd Selleneit who will
share their expertise.

Handouts and a FREE delegate training video will be provided to members
unable to attend.  Contact Shirley (see above) for more info on this, if
you're unable to attend.

PARTY CAUCUSES are MARCH 24!!  This is an ELECTION YEAR!

NOW is the time to ACT if you don't want to see more GUN CONTROL
legislation next year.
NOW is the time to ACT if you're worried about what the Olympics will do to
our firearms laws.
NOW is the time to ACT if you're worried about S. 10 and other Federal Gun
Control.

If you'd like to have MORE SAY in Utah politics, USSC will give you the tools!

Sarah Thompson
for USSC

PS:  DO NOT contact ME about delegate training.  Shirley Spain is
coordinating the event.  I will be out of town, and likely won't even
receive your message until it's too late.  Thanks!


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:  Candidates Needed for UT State Legislature -Forwarded
Date: 12 Mar 1998 08:14:39 -0700


I'm trying to help recruit good conservative/libertarian candidates for =
the following state legislative districts.  Any leads?

House District #2 (Box Elder County, including Brigham City, Perry, =
Willard, Mantua, Corinne, and Honeyville).  Rep Peter Knudson is =
supposedly leaving the House in order to run for the Senate seat being =
opened by Sen Holmgren's retirement.
House District #19 (Davis County, including Bountiful as far south as =
1800 South).  I expect that Rep Sheryl Allen is running for re-election, =
but she is arguably the most socialistic, teachers' union-oriented =
Republican in the whole legislature, and she is a leader of the = so-called
"GOP Mainstream Caucus."  She needs strong opposition within = the
party.
House District #36 (SL County, approx 2000 East and farther east and =
between 3000 and 5000 South).  I haven't heard that Rep Lamont Tyler is
= retiring, but he scored 15% on the 1997 GR report card, tied for the =
worst Republican.  He needs strong opposition within the party.
House District #47 (SL County, West Jordan approx between 7400 and
9000 =
South and between 700 East and 4000 West).  I haven't heard that Rep =
Bryan Holladay is retiring, but he scored 20% on the 1997 GR report =
card, and needs strong opposition within the party.
House District #50 (SL County, South Jordan approx between 9000 and
=
12000 South and between 700 East and State Hwy 111).  I've heard that
=
Rep Lloyd Frandsen may retire.  Even if he doesn't retire on his own, he
= scored only 15% on the 1997 GR report card, and needs strong
opposition = within the party.
House District #54 (Duchesne and Wasatch Counties).  Rep Beverly
Evans = is supposedly running for the Senate seat that is opening up as
a result = of the retirement of Sen Alarik Myrin.
House District #63 (Utah County, Provo, north of 300 North and east of =
University Avenue).  I haven't heard that Rep Jordan Tanner is retiring, =
but he scored 22% on the 1997 GR report card, and needs strong =
opposition within the party.
House District #71 (San Juan and Grand Counties, part of Emery
County).
Supposedly, Rep Keele Johnson is retiring.

Senate District #24 (Box Elder County, small part of west Cache County).
=
 Sen John Holmgren is retiring.  Rep Peter Knudson is supposedly going =
to try to fill this seat.  With a 1997 GR rating of 21%, and with =
sponsorship of HB137 (Children's Health Insurance Program) on his
record = for 1998, the Republican Party should be able to do better.
Senate District #26 (Daggett, Uintah, Duchesne and Wasatch Counties,
and = parts of Carbon and Summit Counties including Park City).  Sen
Alarik =
Myrin is retiring, and Rep Beverly Evans is supposedly trying to fill = this
seat.  With a 1997 GR rating of 30%, the Republican Party should be =
able to do better.

Also we would like to see Republicans file for every seat now held by a
=
Democrat.  In some cases it may be hopeless because of the Democratic
= orientation of the district, but maybe even a candidate that sits at =
home and does nothing could convince the Democrats (and their UEA =
friends) to spend some of their money there.  One suggestion is that =
each GOP leg chair in these Demo districts should file if he has failed = to
recruit someone else.
There's my summary for now.  I may be able to provide more info on =
retirements soon.  Thank you for any help in finding good, principled =
candidates for the legislature.
Sincerely,
Steve



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Rep. Ron Paul to speak
Date: 12 Mar 1998 08:24:23 -0700

http://www.ut-ra.org/98_state_rally.htm

Utah Republican Assembly

INVITES YOU TO A STATEWIDE RALLY CELEBRATING THE RETURN TO
CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN UTAH POLITICS

Let The "Party" Begin!

Keynote Speaker

The distinguished Republican Congressman from Texas

The Honorable

Ron Paul

<Picture>

"We have not seen Ron Paul#s like in Washington since the days of the
Founding Fathers. He is the 20th Century#s Thomas Jefferson"
Lew Rockwell -Von Mises Institute

Featuring a special musical presentation by the award winning

"Rising Generation"

DATE: Friday, March 20, 1998 TIME: 7:00pm PLACE: UVSC Ballroom*

Hear about the incredible growth of nationwide Republican Assemblies

Learn how the Republican Assembly efforts are returning principles and
accountability to government

Discover that conservatism is the mainstream in American philosophy

Discover how you or your organization can have a greater influence on
government than you ever thought possible


Directions:

*University Parkway exit in Orem, drive East to stoplight. Turn left into
campus, then right onto College Drive. Follow signs to Student Center
and Parking.

For Information Call: Lori Roberts 771-0877 (Layton) or Vona Hunsaker
373-2743 (Provo) or Ruth Robinson 254-6932 (Salt Lake City)
Admission is free


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Volunteer to take photographs
Date: 12 Mar 1998 08:41:33 -0700

If you are interested in attending a reception-fund raiser for Rep. Ron
Paul, and can take good indoor pictures, I am looking for a volunteer to
take photographs, March 20 at 5:45pm.  If you are interested please
contact me at:
[e-mail]
or leave a message at 339-1499

Requirements: A good 35mm camera and ability to take good indoor
pictures.


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  RE: H.R. 424 -Forwarded
Date: 13 Mar 1998 08:21:22 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id UAA24623; Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:11:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma024491; Thu Mar 12 20:09:37 1998
Message-Id: <v01530501b12dbe493154@[206.163.4.149]>
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

Yup. Those Republicans are on _ our _ side, alright! By the way, I've yet
to receive any explanation as to just why an assault with a gun is so much
worse than the same crime carried out with a knife, ball bat, ball peen
hammer, etc. Anybody got any suggestions?
---------------------------
    The House recently voted to apply mandatory minimum
>sentences for certain gun crimes.  (The February 24 vote was 350
>- 59 in favor of H.R. 424.)  As stated in an earlier alert, there
>are serious problems with this bill.  First and foremost, there
>are too many "Bernie Goetz's" who already get prosecuted for
>using a gun in self-defense.  Now H.R. 424 gives federal
>prosecutors a powerful weapon that can send gun owners to jail
>from 15 to 35 years.
>
>     While Democrats were split on this vote, only four
>Republicans stood-up for gun rights and voted against the bill:
>Reps. Ron Paul (TX), Joe Scarborough (FL), Linda Smith (WA) and
>J.C. Watts (OK).  Three other Republicans did not vote:  Reps.
>Benjamin Gilman (NY), Steve Schiff (NM) and Don Young (AK).
>Every other Republican voted for the bill.
>
>     Pro-gun Democrat, Rep. Virgil Goode (VA), told GOA right
>after the vote that the leadership appeared to be "leaning" on
>the Republican members.  Goode noted that some Republican members
>even switched their votes to the "Yes" side during the actual
>vote after being "talked to" by other Members on the House floor.
>[Incidentally, Rep. Goode voted against H.R. 424 for the right
>reasons.]
>
>     Unfortunately, there was a lot of confusion on this vote.
>Many of the staffers that handled your calls on this issue were
>unfamiliar with the federal code which is being amended by H.R.
>424.  (We know because we have talked with these same staffers,
>too!)  H.R. 424 will increase the prison sentence for using a gun
>during the commission of -- what the federal code defines to be
>-- a "crime of violence."  While the layman might think that a
>"crime of violence" just refers to those bad guys who rape,
>murder and break into others homes, most people fail to realize
>this definition can cover a much broader array of persons.
>
>     The federal code defines a "crime of violence" as a federal
>felony which "has as an element the use, attempted use, or
>threatened use of physical force against the person or property
>of another."  Two observations can be made at this point.  First,
>prosecutors who harbor a narrow view of self-defense can use this
>language to prosecute gun owners within federal jurisdiction for
>using guns in self-defense.  (Remember, what is self-defense to
>you can be considered a "crime of violence" by an anti-gun
>prosecutor.  And under H.R. 424, this could mean anywhere from
>15-35 years in jail.)  Second, the definition of "crime of
>violence" can even include a joking or not so serious threat to
>damage someone else's property.
>
>     Hence, assume that while you are on vacation in a federal
>park, a drunk driver rams into the back of your car, seriously
>injuring your four-year-old daughter.  You get out of the car and
>threaten to shoot the drunk driver's [expletive deleted] tires
>out with an unloaded firearm which you are lawfully carrying in
>the glove compartment of your car.  You never make any effort to
>retrieve the firearm or open the compartment.  Under this
>scenario, the drunk driver could well get away with a suspended
>sentence.  But you WILL be sent to prison for a MANDATORY minimum
>prison sentence of TEN YEARS under H.R. 424.  This bill punishes
>with long mandatory prison sentences anyone who merely POSSESSES
>a firearm in connection with what is broadly defined as a federal
>"crime of violence."  As mentioned above, such a "crime" can
>include a simple threat to damage property, whether the threat is
>serious, non-serious, or even joking.  The firearm does not have
>to be anywhere in the vicinity of the "crime."

**************************************************
* If you think you have the answer, you probably *
* didn't understand the question!                *
**************************************************




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Hidden anti-gun agenda?
Date: 13 Mar 1998 07:48:00 -0700


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

This Tribune story is interesting because the plaintiff's attorney, Russ
Fericks, organized the annual Fordham debate at the UofU College of Law
a few years ago. The panel was rigged pro gun control until I lobbied
to add gun control opponent David Kopel to the panel. Don Kates was
also on the panel, but I didn't know he was an active gun control
opponent until the panel.

Scooter!

Smith & Wesson Not Liable in Shooting

BY SHEILA R. McCANN THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
Tanya Copier's ex-husband shot and paralyzed her with a .38 caliber
handgun. He went to prison and she sued Smith & Wesson, arguing the
manufacturing of handguns is ultrahazardous and the company should
be liable for injuries. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected
her lawsuit in a decision released Wednesday, finding Utah law does
not support her theory. ``Ms. Copier was harmed not by the manufacturing
of the Smith & Wesson .38, but by the use of it to shoot her,'' wrote
senior appeals Judge William J. Holloway. ``This distinction is
significant because Ms. Copier's argument essentially collapses all
uses of guns into one purpose, which she contends is to injure or kill
people,'' Holloway continued. ``However, Ms. Copier ignores a number
of legitimate uses, including self-defense, home protection, and use
by law enforcement officers.'' Copier, then 44, died of her injuries
three months after she filed her lawsuit in 1995. Her daughter, Bree
Renee Lindsey, added a wrongful death claim and continued the litigation
on her behalf. Her attorney, Russell C. Fericks, said no decision had
been made about pursuing a further appeal.


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Denver -Forwarded
Date: 16 Mar 1998 12:26:03 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA10137; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 17:13:28 -0700
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA29304; Sun, 15 Mar 1998 19:20:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma029270; Sun Mar 15 19:18:06 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]>
>To: Multiple recipients of list PRN <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>Errors-To: [e-mail]
>Sender: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] (Ric Duncan)
>Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:13:00 -0500
>Organization: AirPower Information Services [phone]
>Subject: Denver
>
>=01EID:214A FC6AB9A0
>
>http://cssa-co.org/fcc/news/outfitter_warn.html
>
>What Every Outfitter Should Know About Denver
>
>By Ron Phillips 02-18-98
>
>The City of Denver is the most dangerous place in the western states
>for the hunter who is unaware of what is poised for attack. It is not
>the criminals, but the city government that your clients need to fear.
>Under Denver Municipal Ordinance 37-50, et. seq., the City may seize
>your home, car or other property as a public nuisance if it has been
>used to "commit, conduct, promote, facilitate or aid in the commission
>of or flight from" any of several listed offenses.
>
>Possession of a firearm in a vehicle is a crime. There are no
>exceptions such as hunting, travel, or going to a range. To quote the
>ordinance it is a crime to "Unlawfully discharge, possession, carrying
>flourishing, concealment, use, storage, or sale of firearms, knives,
>and/or assault weapons, dangerous weapons, or defaced firearms=85." The
>Denver City Attorney's office has said they will confiscate cars and
>guns in all instances.
>
>Clients should be warned to be very prudent if they have to pass
>through Denver. Do not speed, stop at bars, eat at restaurants, or
>stay at hotels. If asked by an officer if he can look in the vehicle
>or if there are firearms in it, just politely reply that without
>advice of council, you are unable to answer any questions.
>
>There is an effort in the state legislature to fix the problem of
>municipalities going crazy with anti-gun regulations. There is a bill
>in this session of the General Assembly, House Bill-1260, that will
>prevent cities from enacting laws that are a greater restriction than
>state law. The bill needs your support, so call our legislators. Also,
>thanks should go to sponsor Rep. Mike Salaz.
>
>***********************************************************************
>Also:
>
>http://cssa-co.org/fcc/news/kmondrord.html
>
>Ordinance Lets City Take Your Property
>
>By Kevin C. Massaro
>Published in the Denver Post, Sunday, February 22, 1998, J1
>
>Worried about losing your property to theft in Denver? Since January
>17, 1997, the City of Denver has the power to take your home and car
>and unlike the criminals, it=92s perfectly legal.
>
>Under Denver Municipal Ordinance 37-50, et. seq., the City may seize
>your home, car or other property as a public nuisance if it has been
>used to =93commit, conduct, promote, facilitate or aid in the commission
>of or flight from=94 any of several listed offenses.
>
>What does Denver consider public nuisance offenses? Among other
>things, this ordinance is triggered by two disturbing the peace
>violations (i.e. loud parties or loud arguments) in a six month
>period, one stolen item (misdemeanor or felony theft by receiving),
>one marihuana plant (even if it belongs to your child or tenant), a
>gun in your car or possession, an assault rifle, solicitation of a
>prostitute or a syringe. It=92s no defense that your tenant or child did
>it without your knowledge or that someone borrowed your car. It=92s no
>defense that you=92ve taken steps to fix the problem once you=92ve been
>given notice.
>
>Worse, while the forfeiture action is triggered by criminal charges or
>municipal ordinance violations, it is filed in civil court, and
>because of the lower burden of proof in civil court you can lose your
>property even if you=92ve been acquitted in the criminal case. The City
>seizes your car or places notice on your home and dares you to fight
>to reclaim your own property. In civil court, since you face no
>possibility of jail, you have no constitutional right to counsel and
>hence must pay an attorney, fight it yourself, or default. If you
>can=92t afford a lawyer, too bad.
>
>The Denver City Attorney will likely tell you that this ordinance is
>necessary to stop gang crime, that they do not go after honest
>citizens and that we should place our faith in the benevolence of the
>bureaucracy. First, state law governs major crime and the other metro
>cities seem to keep the peace without this ordinance. Second, a simple
>reading of this law should make any civil libertarian break out in
>hives. Many of the offenses listed are simply not gang crime or gang
>related and many others often not. Further, the City Attorney has an
>active forfeiture department and the police budget includes
>forfeitures as a significant revenue source. The story of Bryan White,
>a client of mine, illustrates why this ordinance has no place in a
>society claiming to be free.
>
>Mr. White is a young man in his early twenties who works in a
>Westminster cafe. On September 20, 1997, Mr. White and some friends
>went cruising around Denver in a car belonging to his girlfriend,
>Linda Withers. The young men were riding around without incident when
>one or more needed to go to a restroom. Around 11:15 PM, they saw a
>Coastal station at 4th and Federal with the lights on and decided to
>use the restroom there. They did not notice that the station had
>closed, as they saw the lights were on. The bathroom at the side of
>the store was unlocked so they proceeded to use it without entering
>the convenience store. A Denver police officer arrived, allegedly
>suspecting a burglary. The officer asked Mr. White if there were any
>guns in the car. He honestly replied that it was his girlfriend=92s car
>and that she often kept a handgun in the glove compartment. The Denver
>police officer searched the car and cited Mr. White for trespass,
>unlawful carrying of a weapon and carrying of a concealed weapon. Ms.
>Withers car was seized as well.
>
>The City Attorney began forfeiture proceedings. Mr. White had
>committed no crime. We have all gone straight to the restroom without
>checking to see if the service station was open. If not for one of
>Denver county's finest judges, Ms. Withers would have lost her car and
>she certainly had committed no crime.
>
>The problems with Denver's Public Nuisance Ordinance go far beyond
>guns, gangs or drive-by shootings. It attacks one of our fundamental
>civil liberties, the right to own property. It was sold as a weapon
>against gangs but can and has been used to harass honest citizens.
>This law is so loosely written that more and more property will be
>seized for even the most minor of municipal ordinance violations.
>Colorado has adequate state laws to attack the serious crimes listed
>in this ordinance and Denver=92s district attorney applies them fairly
>and vigorously. Denver's Public Nuisance Ordinance is an offense
>against every good citizen who lives in, works in or passes through
>the community.
>
>It is ironic that the single biggest threat to our civil liberties in
>the city of Denver may very well be the city of Denver.
>
>---
> =FE OLX 2.2 =FE If guns cause crime then video cameras cause pornagraphy
>--- GOMail v1.1 [92-0793]
> * Origin: TEXAS PATRIOT - [phone] PRN Dallas TX (176:200/200)
>
>--
> (Ric Duncan)
>         AirPower Information Services BBS * 610-259-2193
>                     http://www.airpower.com
>FREE copy of 1st Reader! http://www.airpower.com/airpower.html
>
>
******************
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: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Lon's Lawyers.....We're made to pay 'em!! -Forwarded
Date: 16 Mar 1998 12:31:18 -0700

Received: from listbox.com by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id XAA09753; Sat, 14 Mar 1998 23:49:15 -0700
Received: (qmail 29044 invoked by uid 516); 15 Mar 1998 06:57:01 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 28839 invoked from network); 15 Mar 1998 06:56:44 -0000
Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg1.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.11)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 1998 06:56:43 -0000
Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14])
    by mg1.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA27315;
    Sat, 14 Mar 1998 23:55:51 -0700 (MST)
Received: from helmetfish (166-93-69-100.rmi.net [166.93.69.100])
    by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA15892;
    Sat, 14 Mar 1998 23:55:47 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Global Neighbourhood 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]>
-----------------------
8:46 PM 3/13/1998

Coalition supports FBI sniper

Top law officials fear `chill' of Ruby Ridge

By KIM MURPHY, Los Angeles Times

 BOISE, Idaho -- Top law enforcement officials stepped up in
defense of FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi, arguing Friday that
manslaughter charges he faces in connection with the siege at Ruby
Ridge threaten to undermine federal law enforcement efforts across
the country.

 "It is impossible to imagine a more chilling circumstance than the
one presented by the instant effort to prosecute," a coalition of
former U.S. attorneys general, joining the U.S. Department of Justice
and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, argued in
papers submitted to the federal court in Idaho where Horiuchi faces
trial.

 The prosecution, the first time an FBI agent has faced state criminal
charges stemming from a federal law enforcement operation, "could
well include endangering the life of the president of the United
States in the moment when sharpshooters responsible for
protecting that life hestitate to consider what state they are in when
evaluating a threat to the president," the officials said.

 U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge will rule in the next few weeks on
Horiuchi's argument that he is immune from state prosecution
because he was carrying out his federal law enforcement duties in
1992 when he fired the shot that killed Vicki Weaver, 42, wife of
anti-govern-ment activist Randy Weaver.

 In a hearing Friday, Horiuchi was surrounded by lawyers retained
by the Justice Department, which has said its own investigations
concluded that the FBI sniper acted properly acted properly when
he shot the woman as she stood holding her infant daughter just
inside the door of the Weaver cabin.

 Horiuchi has said he was aiming at Kevin Harris, a Weaver friend
who was believed to have shot at federal marshals in a firefight the
previous day that killed Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan. Harris,
he said, had pointed his gun at a law enforcement helicopter flying
overhead and was running back into the cabin to take a position
 Horiuchi believed would further threaten law enforcement agents
outside. The bullet he fired killed Vicki Weaver, then struck Harris,
wounding him.

 Denise Woodbury, the prosecutor in Boundary County, has
charged Horiuchi with involuntary manslaughter, arguing that the
sharpshooter was grossly negligent in firing without ascertaining
who else might be in the bullet's path.

 But lawyers for Horiuchi argued Friday that long-running legal
precedent grants federal law enforcement officers immunity from
state prosecution when they are carrying out a federal operation, as
long as they reasonably believe they are acting within the scope of
their duties.

 "There is no question that Vicki Weaver's death was a very tragic
and regrettable event which everyone wishes had not occurred, but
it is equally clear her death was an accident," said Deputy Assistant
Attorney General Donald Remy.

 Adam Hoffinger, the sharpshooter's counsel, said the FBI agent
should not be made to stand trial for the state of Idaho's grievances
against the federal government.

 "The prosecution effectively wants to try the federal government
but wants Lon Horiuchi to pay the penalty, and that, your honor, is
manifestly and profoundly unfair," Hoffinger said.

 Idaho prosecutors said the question of whether Horiuchi acted
reasonably should be up to a jury to decide. Stephen Yagman, a Los
Angeles civil rights lawyer who has been appointed a special
deputy prosecutor in the case, said the federal government should
not be allowed to rely on an immunity defense.

 "In their argument, the U.S. government is King John, (and)
somehow the FBI is the sheriff of Nottingham ... and because the
king is immune and the king is there by divine right, the king can't
be sued," Yagman said. "The government of the United States of
America ... supplanted the king of England with a democratically
elected government."
--
                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: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anti-gunners and the 'lympics
Date: 16 Mar 1998 13:48:27 -0700

At 04:44 PM 3/4/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
><<<RANT MODE ON>>>
>
>OK, so now the 'lympics are going to be used as the excuse to restrict
>CCW.  Un-friggggin-believable.  These people campaigned for the games
>becuase Utah was such a great place and we wanted to show it off to
>the world.  Only now that they have them, they are suddenly embarrased
>by our liquar laws, our mormons, our history, and our guns.  Hell,
>seems what they meant was the landscape is fine but there is
>absolutely nothing about our culture worth showing off.  I admit we
>aint perfect, but some of us like it here a whole lot more than other
>places we've been.
>
>Below is an article from today's DesNews wherein Beattie, Steiner, and
>even our "allie" Bishop all agree that CCW will be limited prior to
>2002 to accomodate the games and the international community.  My
>attitude is if they don't like our mormons, history, or guns they can
>stay the hell home.
>
><<<RANT MODE OFF>>>

Hi Charles,

Well, I personally think Utah's liquor laws, drug laws, pornography laws,
prostitution laws and medical laws (to name a few) stink.  I think our gun
laws could be better - i.e. Vermont carry.  That being said....

I agree.  If the Olympics don't like our culture or our laws, they can take
their stinking, UN style, media extravaganza and hold the Olympics in some
"enlightened" place.  I'm sure there's adequate snow in Murmansk.  It would
be good for the rest of the enslaved world (and that's EVERY place that has
gun control) to see that ordinary citizens can be trusted with guns.
Besides, I don't want to PAY for the show!

So, since you're far more in tune with the rest of Utah culture than I'll
ever be, how do you propose we register our objections - and get others to
do the same?

Sarah




-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Anti-gunners and the 'lympics
Date: 16 Mar 1998 14:11:46 -0700


On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>Hi Charles,
>
>Well, I personally think Utah's liquor laws, drug laws, pornography laws,
>prostitution laws and medical laws (to name a few) stink.  I think our gun
>laws could be better - i.e. Vermont carry.  That being said....

All agreed.

>
>I agree.  If the Olympics don't like our culture or our laws, they can take
>their stinking, UN style, media extravaganza and hold the Olympics in some
>"enlightened" place.  I'm sure there's adequate snow in Murmansk.  It would
>be good for the rest of the enslaved world (and that's EVERY place that has
>gun control) to see that ordinary citizens can be trusted with guns.
>Besides, I don't want to PAY for the show!

Agreed again.

>
>So, since you're far more in tune with the rest of Utah culture than I'll
>ever be, how do you propose we register our objections - and get others to
>do the same?

We have to decide what is really important to us and realize where we
can find friends and allies.  For example, while I think Utah's liquar
laws could use some drastic changes, I'm opposed to changing them just
to appease the 'lympics or to granting some kind of exemption (party
tent permit) to them.  I think if we are going to change a law it
should be done with deliberation and should be equally applied to
everyone.  If our laws on alcohol are good enough for the sheeple of
Utah, they are good enough for our "guests".

I also realize there are many people and groups, some of whom carry
significant political pull who are opposed to changing our alcohol
laws for the games.  The Eagle Forum springs to mind.  I think we
could gain strides by forming alliances with such groups under the
general banner of not changing ANY of our laws for the olympics.  They
knew our laws when they granted us the bid, they can live with them
now.  We lobby not just on guns, but that NO laws should be changed to
"accomodate" the olympics.  Let them see how we really live, what our
culture really is.  What are we embarrased about?  Didn't we campaign
to get the games based on what a great place SLC is?  If it is great
enough to get the games, why do we need to change it now that they are
coming?

We (you and I and other libertarian types) put asside our desire to
change alcohol laws and agree to support the Eagle Forum types if they
support us in keeping gun laws from being changed.  I think we can
also join with the enviro types and others opposed to converting
wasteland (ie wilderness) into olympic venues.  We oppose any kind of
rash, non-studied action (Olympic venues should suffer the same pain
any private developer would) if they support us in keeping gun laws
from being changed for the games.

And then we actively lobby for and support greater legislative
oversight of the SLOC.  We keep enough arrows headed their way they
don't have time to lobby to hard on the gun issue.

How's that for starters?

The question is, do we all care enough about our gun rights to put
asside other differences and work with those we would normally fight?

Finally, I think we have to be willing to concede at some point that
olympic venues may be able to be declared "secure" sites and prohibit
guns, BUT ONLY if they have secure storage facilities for legal 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.

"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.

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anti-gunners and the 'lympics
Date: 16 Mar 1998 15:50:41 -0700

At 02:11 PM 3/16/98 -0700, Charles Hardy wrote:
>We have to decide what is really important to us and realize where we
>can find friends and allies.  For example, while I think Utah's liquar
>laws could use some drastic changes, I'm opposed to changing them just
>to appease the 'lympics or to granting some kind of exemption (party
>tent permit) to them.  I think if we are going to change a law it
>should be done with deliberation and should be equally applied to
>everyone.  If our laws on alcohol are good enough for the sheeple of
>Utah, they are good enough for our "guests".
>
>I also realize there are many people and groups, some of whom carry
>significant political pull who are opposed to changing our alcohol
>laws for the games.  The Eagle Forum springs to mind.  I think we
>could gain strides by forming alliances with such groups under the
>general banner of not changing ANY of our laws for the olympics.  They
>knew our laws when they granted us the bid, they can live with them
>now.  We lobby not just on guns, but that NO laws should be changed to
>"accomodate" the olympics.  Let them see how we really live, what our
>culture really is.  What are we embarrased about?  Didn't we campaign
>to get the games based on what a great place SLC is?  If it is great
>enough to get the games, why do we need to change it now that they are
>coming?
>
>We (you and I and other libertarian types) put asside our desire to
>change alcohol laws and agree to support the Eagle Forum types if they
>support us in keeping gun laws from being changed.  I think we can
>also join with the enviro types and others opposed to converting
>wasteland (ie wilderness) into olympic venues.  We oppose any kind of
>rash, non-studied action (Olympic venues should suffer the same pain
>any private developer would) if they support us in keeping gun laws
>from being changed for the games.
>
>And then we actively lobby for and support greater legislative
>oversight of the SLOC.  We keep enough arrows headed their way they
>don't have time to lobby to hard on the gun issue.
>
>How's that for starters?
>
>The question is, do we all care enough about our gun rights to put
>asside other differences and work with those we would normally fight?
>
>Finally, I think we have to be willing to concede at some point that
>olympic venues may be able to be declared "secure" sites and prohibit
>guns, BUT ONLY if they have secure storage facilities for legal guns.

    - and ONLY IF they accept liability should one of us be killed or injured
by a criminal!

I agree with you.  The most important thing is to make the Olympics (and
all other international agencies) respect the sovreignty of the U.S. and
the State of Utah.  I'm certainly willing to work with anyone who thinks
the same way.  And besides, while I don't agree with the Eagle Forum on a
lot of things, they've been good firearms allies.

So, folks - start making your views known!  Recruit whomever you think will
be willing to help.  And let Rob Bishop, Brian Judy, the NRA, GOA, USSC and
our so-called "representatives" know what you think - and what you'd like
them to DO.

The following USSC 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 (w), 546-2275 (h)
Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, [e-mail]  (I prefer e-mail to phone
calls when possible).
Joe Venus, 571-2223

I assume Rob Bishop can be contacted through the Utah Republican Party, and
Brian Judy should be reachable through the NRA.

And BTW, Rob Bishop's comments reflected HIS views only.  To the best of my
knowledge, the Board of USSC has not yet taken an official position.

There's a USSC Board meeting this evening at 6:30 PM at Crossroads of the
West, 7 N. Main St., Kaysville.  Meetings are open to all interested parties.

Sarah (for myself)




Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://www.therighter.com

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

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anti-gunners and the 'lympics
Date: 16 Mar 1998 17:37:01 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> Finally, I think we have to be willing to concede at some point that
> olympic venues may be able to be declared "secure" sites and prohibit
> guns, BUT ONLY if they have secure storage facilities for legal guns.
>
An attempt at putting this into words, before going to the USSC meeting
and trying to say it....

Since NFA, maybe before, we have looked to the future and talked about
how we may have to concede, or how we may have to accept a "less than
perfect" deal, because we can't get a better one.

As a result of NFA we have had only _one_ significant improvement in
firearms that I'm aware of, that being the Glock.

GCA-68, CopKillerBullet ban, Plastic Gun ban, "assault weapon" ban,
Brady, CCW "permits", Instant Check, Lautenburg, etc. have each
been "give ups" of some sort or another, driven by those who _know_
more about the political realities involved.

Enough.

There has to be a better way.

From here on, I propose that gun owners tell the NRA, the paper
punchers,
the collectors, the animal killers and the rest of the mild mannered,
look nice to the newpapers bunch to set down and shut up, we've let them
give away our rights in the name of political expediency for long
enough.

No, I don't think we have to be willing to concede "Richard".  We should
go on the offensive.  Make them look at their choices.  All or nothing.
Maybe even gain something.

er....

well...?

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior
Date: 18 Mar 1998 08:05:00 -0700


Forward from Janalee Tobias. It is interesting that while the USSC
succeeded in increasing the difficulty of getting initiatives that
might encroach on hunting, it did nothing to stop greatly eased
referenda for medication of water supplies, including all of SL
County in one fell swoop. Aren't the people of Utah already too
docile? Better store water as well as ammunition.

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

----------
<[e-mail]>


Senate Letter on Testimony of Kenneth Goff on Use of Fluorides to Modify
Behavior

The following are reproductions of letters dealing with the use of
fluorides to modify behavior. This is an area that we are continually
investigating. Those who wish hard copies, send a SASE and we will be
glad to send you a copy of the original. This particular page deals
with the knowledge of behavioral modification by the US. Communist
Party in the mid 1950's, relative to this issue. Letter 1 is the
notarized statement of Kenneth Goff, who testified before the Special
Senate Committee on Un-American Activities, October 9, 1939. Letter 2
is a letter from the Congress of the United States, Juliette P. Joray,
Clerk, June 11, 1957, acknowledging the testimony of Kenneth Goff on
October 9, 1939. Note: This would seem to support frequent statements
that [1} the Soviets were using fluorides in the Gulag system in 1940.
It is also interesting that statements have been made indicating U.S.
shipments of fluorides to the Soviet Union of fluorides during the 1940's
and early 1950's.

LETTER 1: [We have capitalized the portion relative to fluorides]

To Whom It May Concern:

I, Oliver Kenneth Goff, was a member of the Communist Party and the
Young Communisty League, from May 2, 1936, to October 9, 1939. During
this period of time, I operated under the alias of John Keats. My
testimony before the Government is incorporated in Volume 9 of the
Un-American Activities Report for the year 1939.

While a member of the Communist Party, I attended a Communist underground
training school outside the city of New Yorkl in the Bues Hall, and 113
East Wells Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The East Wells Street School
operated under the name of the Eugene Debs School. Here, under the tutoring
of Eugene Dennis, M.Sparks, Morris Childs, Jack Kling and others, we were
schooled in the art of revolutionary overthrow of the established Government.

We were trained on how to dismantle and assemble mimeograph machines, to
use for propaganda purposes during the revilution; how to work on guide
wires and fuel lines of airplanes so that they would either burst into
flame or crash to the ground because of lack of control; how to work on
ties and rails to wreck trains; and also THE ART OF POISONING WATER SUPPLIES.

WE DISCUSSED QUITE THOROUGHLY THE FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES AND HOW
WE WERE USING IT IN RUSSIA AS A TRANQUILIZER IN THE PRISON CAMPS. THE
LEADERS OF OUR SCHOOL FELT THAT IF IT COULD BE INDUCED INTO THE AMERICAN
WATER SUPPLY, IT WOULD BRING ABOUT A SPIRIT OF LETHARGY IN THE NATION;
WHERE IT WOULD KEEP THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOCILE DURING A STEADY ENCROACHMENT
OF COMMUNISM. WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT KEEPING A STORE OF DEADLY
FLUORIDE NEAR THE WATER RESERVOIR WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS DURING THE TIME
OF THE REVOLUTION, AS IT WOULD GIVE US OPPORTUNITY TO DUMP THIS POISON
INTO THE WATER SUPPLY AND EITHER KILL OFF THE POPULATION OR THREATEN THEM
WITH LIQUIDATION, SO THAT THEY WOULD SURRENDER TO OBTAIN FRESH WATER.

We discussed in these schools, the complete art of revolution: the
seizure of the main utilities, such as light, power, gas and water;
but it was felt by the leadership, that if a program of FLUORIDATING
THE WATER COULD BE CARRIED OUT IN THE NATION, IT WOULD GO A LONG WAY
TOWARD THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE REVOLUTION.

The above statements are true.
[Signature] Oliver Kenneth Goff
[Notary Public Stamp and Affirmation, June 22, 1957, Arapahoe Country,
Colorado]

LETTER 2:

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Committee on Un-American Activities
WASHINGTON

June 11, 1957
Mr. C.A.Barden
215 Morgan St
Oberlin, Ohio

Dear Mr. Barden:
This will acknowledge receipt of your metters of April 29 and May 29,
1957, concerning a statement by Oliver Kenneth Goff.

On Monday, October 9, 1939, Oliver Kenneth Goff testified under oath
before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities. In his testimony,
Mr. Goff declared that he joined the Young Communist League in May of 1936
under the assumed name of John Keats. He also declared that he was a member
of the Communist Party/ He declared thast he planned to resign from the
Young Communist League and the Communist Party following his testimony
before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities.

Mr. Goff testified at length concerning his various activities within
the Communist Party. His testimony is contained in Volume 9 of the
Un-American Activities Committee Public Hearings. I regret that I am
unable to send you a copy inasmuch as the supply is completely exhausted.

I regret the delay in replying to your letters which has been due to the
press of Committee business and I hope that the information as given you
in this letter will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely Yours,
[Signature]
Juliette P. Joray
Clerk

Please visit http://www.prospectorsbanqueclub.com
         and http://www.eagleflt.com

To receive posts from this list send an E-MAIL to me with the word
"subscribe" in the subject box.
==================================================================
         EAGLEFLIGHT
       ///,       ///
      \  /,      /  >.             David E. Rydel
        \  /,   _/  /.                 *****
         \_  /_/   /.        uNITED STATES Theatre Command
          \__/_   <<               Voice-248-391-0798
         /<<<<<< \_\_                Fax-248-391-6785
         /,)^>>_._ \             Alt.Fax-248-391-3528
         (/   \\ /\\\           E-MAIL: [e-mail]
               // ````
==============((`=============================================
          A VOICE OF THE MILITIA IN NORTH AMERICA



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Kirby on guns
Date: 18 Mar 1998 13:11:04 -0700


                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]        Tuesday, March 17, 1998        [Image] [Image]

        Kirby: O.J. and Saddam Could Hit Games, So Pack That Gun

 By Robert Kirby
     Guns are back in
 Utah news again. Yeah,
 like they were ever out. If it isn't someone dispatching someone else
 in a blaze of glory, it's Karl Malone saying he is itching to go out
 in a blaze of glory himself.
     Before us now is the issue of guns at the Olympics. Specifically,
 who besides the FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, NSA, SLCPD, UHP and nine dozen
 other official and quasi-official law-enforcement organizations
 should be allowed to carry guns at the 2002 Games?
     Since this is Utah, the answer is ``anybody who even remotely
 wants to,'' including your fundamentalist Uncle Earl, who keeps a
 copy of the Constitution in his pants and a recoilless rifle in the
 trunk of his car.
     There is legal precedent for this behavior. If Utahns still
 haven't banned concealed heat in church, it stands to reason that we
 won't be able to figure out that we shouldn't carry them at the
 Olympics, either.
     After a recent trip to Los Angeles, I can understand why someone
 would want to bring a gun to the Olympics. Granted, there are lots of
 reasons you shouldn't. For example:
     -- Budweiser is also coming to town. And as it is with driving,
 voting, flying and operating on people's brains with a belt sander,
 some things just don't mix with alcohol.
     -- Nobody in his or her right mind wants an ammunition
 manufacturer handing out free sample packs of bullets.
     -- Long-winded and stupid debate over a bill proposing 30.06 as
 the Official Utah State Caliber would force next year's Legislature
 into overtime.
     -- It's tough to enforce insultingly high ticket prices on a
 low-paid populace that is both fed up and armed.
     -- Someone -- particularly anyone who makes eye contact with the
 Malone family -- might get shot dead repeatedly, continually and a
 lot.
     Conversely, reasons why allowing the public to carry concealed
 weapons to Olympic venues would be a good idea are . . . well, I
 really only have one. As I said, I got it in Los Angeles, a place
 where lucid thought could make the endangered-species list if someone
 would simply go to the trouble of sticking some feathers on it.
     Seriously, Tribune cartoonist Pat Bagley and I bumped into O.J.
 Simpson Saturday night in the lobby of the L.A. Airport Hilton.
 Trained professionals, all three of us reacted instinctively to the
 chance encounter.
     A cartoonist, Bagley instinctively reached for his sketch pad. An
 ex-cop, my hand went for the gun I no longer carry. A consummate
 survivor, O.J. immediately ducked into a side room where he was
 scheduled to speak for several thousand dollars, quite possibly on
 the subject of human rights.
     It was this encounter that made me realize the whole nature of
 the Olympics/gun issue. Namely that O.J. and I could meet up with
 each other again.
     The 2002 Winter Games will no doubt attract a lot of predatory
 characters like O.J. to Utah. A short list of possible (and
 disturbing) Olympic attendees includes rock drummer Tommy Lee, Ted
 Kennedy, Bill Gates, Maury Povitch, Barney, Paula Jones, Elvis
 Presley, Dan Rather, Big Foot, and Saddam Hussein. And what about Al
 Gore, Boris Yeltsin, Hillary Clinton and the entire cast of Melrose
 Place? Oh, and let's not forget tobacco lobbyists and whomever
 happens to be in charge of France at the time.
     See? If you put the Olympics into the proper perspective, namely
 just who all is going to be coming here and lurking around our
 children, automobiles and livestock, there really is only one
 conclusion: We need those guns.



               [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.


--

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: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Visit your cabin often
Date: 18 Mar 1998 13:13:42 -0700


Looks like if you have a cabin and don't visit frequently, others
are perfectly justified in taking your property.  Too bad we have
sworn peace officers behaving this way, however...

                                                                     [Image]
[Local]
                                                                     [Image]

                                      [Image]

                                      [Movies]

       [Image]

       Cedar brothers escape charges of possessing stolen property
       [Image]
       Judge cites lack of evidence for trial
       [Image]
       Last updated 03/18/1998, 11:04 a.m. MT

       Associated Press

             CEDAR CITY ù Stolen-property charges against two brothers, one
       a former police officer, were dismissed following a hearing before
       5th District Judge James L. Shumate.
             Former Cedar City police detective Ken Stapley, and his
       brother, Todd Stapley, were charged with possession of stolen
       property last May. Kane County sheriff's officials contended the men
       had taken property from a cabin in the county. However, the Stapleys
       said they thought the area was abandoned.
             According to court records, Todd Stapley came across the cabin
       while on a Boy Scout outing in 1992, then told his brother about the
       site. The articles taken were an antique sewing machine, a tent and
       an air rifle.
             In handing down his ruling Tuesday, Shumate declared testimony
       against the Stapleys by Ken's ex-wife, Dianne Jacobs Stapley, was
       inadmissible because she was Ken Stapley's wife at the time of the
       incidents.
             Shumate also said there was the question of whether the
       Stapleys knew they were taking property that belonged to others. The
       man who claimed the property as his had visited the site only three
       times from 1989 to 1994 and told the judge it appeared to be
       ransacked.
             "When you match that with the information from Ken Stapley ù
       he said the property was abandoned ù I find no adequate evidence to
       go to trial," Shumate said.
             "It was meant to be," Ken said following the ruling. "It
       should have never happened in the first place. Justice was done."
             Charges against two other Cedar City police officers, Dennis
       Anderson and Keith Millet, stemming from the incident were dropped
       in October. Anderson has retired from the police force. Millet
       remains and is working on the Iron-Garfield County Narcotics Task
       Force.
       [Image]

       [Image]

       [Image]
                                      [Image]
[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 American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation." --
 Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924).

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior
Date: 18 Mar 1998 13:48:55 -0700

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> Forward from Janalee Tobias. It is interesting that while the USSC
> succeeded in increasing the difficulty of getting initiatives that
> might encroach on hunting, it did nothing to stop greatly eased
> referenda for medication of water supplies, including all of SL
> County in one fell swoop. Aren't the people of Utah already too
> docile? Better store water as well as ammunition.

While I believe that USSC was wrong to support the initiative bill,
I think you give them too much credit.  It seems that there were
at least a few other interest groups involved.  Also, while I can
understand, if not agree with the reasons USSC would back a bill
relating to the "shooting sports", I really don't see what
organizational interest a gun interest group would have in medication
of water supplies.  That would seem to more properly fall under the
purview of the Libertarian Party of Utah, (from whom I heard or saw
nothing regarding this.) or some other umbrella civil rights or
political organization.  Unless that was just meant as a tweak to a
set of people involved with USSC....if so, it's a cheap shot and
you might also bear in mind that the only board member who is
likely to read this on this forum voted against supporting the
bill.

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior
Date: 18 Mar 1998 13:46:55 -0700

At 08:05 AM 3/18/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Forward from Janalee Tobias. It is interesting that while the USSC
>succeeded in increasing the difficulty of getting initiatives that
>might encroach on hunting, it did nothing to stop greatly eased
>referenda for medication of water supplies, including all of SL
>County in one fell swoop. Aren't the people of Utah already too
>docile? Better store water as well as ammunition.


What did USSC have to do with referenda regarding water fluoridation?  I
don't even know what the procedure is for such referenda.  It's clearly not
within the scope of a gun organization.

Further, while fluoride can be used to poison water (as can chlorine or
virtually anything else), I know of absolutely no evidence that fluoride in
the levels usually found in water has any tranquilizing or other
neuropsychiatric effects.  Anecdotally, I drank fluoridated water most of
life, took fluoride supplements as a child, and I haven't noticed any
change at all since I moved to Utah and started drinking unfluoridated
water.  And I doubt anyone would seriously accuse me of being dumbed-down
or docile! <g>

When you're evaluating information, it's always a good idea to consider the
sources.

And BTW, does LPUtah have a position on the right of property owners to
develop their property as they see fit?

Sarah

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior
Date: 19 Mar 1998 07:41:00 -0700


On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:46:55 -0700 S. Thompson wrote:

>What did USSC have to do with referenda regarding water fluoridation?  I
>don't even know what the procedure is for such referenda.  It's clearly not
>within the scope of a gun organization.

Rather little directly. Formerly the procedure had been the same as for
initiatives, requiring 15,000 signatures on a petition. My concern is
that "united we stand, divided we fall". When the statists succeed in
dividing their opposition between gunners, antifluoridationists, etc.,
they succeed in their totalitarian schemes. I should think if a gun
organization wants to make antihunting initiatives more difficult, it
ought not simultaneously accede to easing requirements for initiatives
and referenda for nongun statist schemes. Uniformity in such requirements
leaves all parties in the same position (level playing field). Special
privileges breed contempt, envy and overconfidence.

>Further, while fluoride can be used to poison water (as can chlorine or
>virtually anything else),

Though the presence of very high levels of chlorine in water would be
much more apparent than fluoride. I doubt many people would remain in
the shower long enough to inhale a lethal dose of chlorine, even if
the poisoners piped a near saturated solution into the water system,
but how many people would refrain from drinking water with a slightly
soapy taste?

>I know of absolutely no evidence that fluoride in the levels usually
>found in water has any tranquilizing or other neuropsychiatric effects.
>Anecdotally, I drank fluoridated water most of life, took fluoride
>supplements as a child, and I haven't noticed any change at all since
>I moved to Utah and started drinking unfluoridated water.  And I doubt
>anyone would seriously accuse me of being dumbed-down or docile! <g>

>When you're evaluating information, it's always a good idea to consider
>the sources.

I have been a lot less docile, and fwiw have had a LOT less cavities,
(1 compared to a dozen or so) since I quit drinking fluoridated water
or taking fluoride supplements. If fluoride is effective against caries,
it is only topically. Internally it causes mottling and misalignment of
haversian canals in bones and teeth by interfering with the piezoelectric
alignment process. I would think that any conspiracy capable of
implementing fluoridation for such purposes as passivating the population
would almost necessarily have to be capable of keeping reports of such
effects out of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This would be
necessary to reduce the incidence and credibility of opposition. I seem
to have heard that such journals can be swayed to block acceptance or
publication of articles on grounds of "National Security". And of course
any government funding would include controls on publication of results.
Don't you recall the official position that nuclear fallout was harmless
until contrary evidence became overwhelming? Even then, Dr. Lyons' study
was torpedoed. Let me tell you, amazing things can be found in the
classified literature with little hint in the open literature.

>And BTW, does LPUtah have a position on the right of property owners to
>develop their property as they see fit?

'LPUtah'? I don't think so, but this is a matter of episodic hot debate
on the LPUtah list. You might want to see what the national platform
says about it. I assume that by 'property' you refer to land, buildings
and real estate?


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: USSC BBS/listserver
Date: 19 Mar 1998 07:41:00 -0700


On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:48:55 -0700 Will Thompson wrote:
>Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior

>Unless that was just meant as a tweak to a set of people involved
>with USSC....if so, it's a cheap shot and you might also bear in
>mind that the only board member who is likely to read this on this
>forum voted against supporting the bill.

Didn't the USSC once have a BBS? What became of it?
If the USSC board, with one exception, isn't willing to
read utah-firearms, how about starting their own list?



-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC BBS/listserver
Date: 19 Mar 1998 09:50:48 -0700

SCOTT BERGESON wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:48:55 -0700 Will Thompson wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior
>
> >Unless that was just meant as a tweak to a set of people involved
> >with USSC....if so, it's a cheap shot and you might also bear in
> >mind that the only board member who is likely to read this on this
> >forum voted against supporting the bill.
>
> Didn't the USSC once have a BBS? What became of it?
> If the USSC board, with one exception, isn't willing to
> read utah-firearms, how about starting their own list?
>
> -
They may well have had a BBS in the past, they do not now.

As to starting their own list...they have one, or two.  Because
it takes considerable time and money to maintain, it is for
dues paying members only at this time.  If someone would
care to make a significant donation along with their membership
dues, perhaps the USSC could afford to distribute their
stuff to a wider audience.  For now, though, many of the
people who receive USSC correspondence are without access
or other requirement to have internet access, and prefer
to use newsletters, fax and telephone to correspond.  As
to how they spend their time, most of these folks have
non-desk jobs and have other things to do with their time
than to wade thru a bunch of flame wars and petty bickering
on the internet. While some may disagree with their
philosophy, or their political affiliations, they are doing
more than just being keyboard jockeys.  In the years that
I've been involved with socio/political/philosophical
people, I've really never known a set of people who work
harder at their "hobby" than this bunch...in the
face of support that's a "mile wide and an inch deep".
So maybe I can disagree with some of the board's personal
philosophy, and I can certainly believe that some of them
haven't come to agree with me yet, but I can't fault their
willingness to put their backs to the task and work like
dogs to accomplish what they do.

So, instead of wasting more time on this pettieness, I'm
going to go work

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USSC BBS/listserver
Date: 19 Mar 1998 12:24:11 -0700

At 07:41 AM 3/19/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 13:48:55 -0700 Will Thompson wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Use of Fluorides to Modify Behavior
>
>>Unless that was just meant as a tweak to a set of people involved
>>with USSC....if so, it's a cheap shot and you might also bear in
>>mind that the only board member who is likely to read this on this
>>forum voted against supporting the bill.
>
>Didn't the USSC once have a BBS? What became of it?
>If the USSC board, with one exception, isn't willing to
>read utah-firearms, how about starting their own list?

USSC does not currently have a BBS.  It does have a mail list, but that's
one-way.  I'm perfectly willing to set up a BBS, and have the ability to do
so.  However, I suspect a request for same from _members_ would be required
for the board to agree to such a plan.

The above is my opinion only and does not reflect the views of the USSC Board.

Sarah


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: Interesting letter to the ed
Date: 19 Mar 1998 15:14:42 -0700


Thursday, March 19, 1998


                       Our Olympic Facelift


      No one has been more excited
  about the prospect of the 2002
  Winter Olympics being held in Salt Lake City than I have been. I have been enthusiastic to the
  point of even supporting the notion of some tax dollars being used to support this event. The
  Olympics would be a wonderful way of showcasing Utah to the world. Some aspects of these
  Winter Games, however, are troubling me.
      There seems to be a disturbing trend of using the 2002 Games to shame Utahns into liberalizing
  liquor laws, further restricting firearms and going full steam ahead on every public works project
  imaginable.
      Organizers seem ashamed of our local history and heritage. They appear more concerned
  about fixing all of us ``yokels'' so we may be ``fit'' to display on the world stage than they are with
  respecting our rights and traditions. In my estimation, this is lousy public relations for an
  organization counting on the good will of locals to provide a first-class event.
      The ``world is welcome here,'' but Utah is our home. Not everyone has to sing in the local ward
  choir to be a welcome guest, but we shouldn't have to trash our home, deny our heritage or hide
  our customs to make our guests feel welcome. If SLOC feels we do, then they have lost my
  support.
      KEITH TAUFER
      Salt Lake City

--

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 tell us, Sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so
 formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the
 next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed,
 and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we
 gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means
 of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the
 delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and
 foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which
 the God of nature hath placed in our power." -- Patrick Henry (1736-
 1799) in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Core dump
Date: 19 Mar 1998 20:15:56 -0700

Hi all!

Well, just when you think it can't get any worse.....  my ISP core dumped
all my mail.  So - anything you sent to me after 12:30 to 1:00 PM MST today
(3/19) is probably forever lost in the ether.  If it was important, please
resend it.

Thanks!

Sarah Thompson

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Texas Concealed Carry--Violence Policy Center refuted]
Date: 20 Mar 1998 09:43:25 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------651F7EAA6379
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Of possible interest to some....
(personally, I think using stats to justify rights is a losing
battle, but...)(And yes, in advance, I realize that CCW permitting
is a priviledge, not a right, etc.)

--------------651F7EAA6379
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA09935; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:45:54 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from ssiinc.com by phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA2508436475; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:30:35 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA23892; Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com"
 via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa005p9; Thu Mar 19 13:32:29 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

Below is John Lott's reply to the Violence Policy Center "study" claiming
that Texans with concealed carry permits commit crime at a high rate.

License to Kill?:
Careful look at critical study actually
backs gun permit holders
By John R. Lott, Jr.
[Originally published in the Dallas Morning News, Feb. 8, 1998, p. 6J]
There has been some confusion over whether people who have permits to carry
concealed handguns are as law-abiding as other Texans. Using the provocative
title "License to Kill," the Violence Policy Center recently released a
report claiming that "those who do carry concealed handguns get into trouble
more often than other Texans."
While there is cause to wonder whether the Violence Policy Center
overreported the number of permit holders arrested, even its own numbers
don't justify that claim. During 1996 and 1997, the first two years that the
concealed handgun law was in effect, 163,096 people were licensed. During
that period, 263 license holders were arrested for felony offenses, and
another 683 were arrested for misdemeanor offenses. By comparison, if permit
holders had been arrested at the same rate as the average adult Texan, they
would have had 731 arrests for violence crimes and 2,202 for property
crimes. Thus, permit holders were about a third as likely to be arrested as
nonpermit holders and much less likely to commit serious crimes.
The public's ultimate concern is whether permit holders have used their
concealed handguns improperly. So let's look at some more statistics to
determine that.
During 1996 and 1997, five permit holders were arrested for felonies
involving the "deadly conduct/discharge of a firearm" and another two for
the "deadly conduct/display of a firearm." Those charges were brought in
connection with four deaths. If permit holders had been arrested for murder
at the same rate as other adult Texans, 56 would have been arrested.
Equally important, relying on arrest rates misses an important difference
between permit holders and others who are arrested for murder. While the
vast majority of murder arrests end in conviction, that hasn't been true for
permit holders.
Of the four deaths mentioned, none has resulted in a conviction. In fact,
two so far have been cleared and deemed to have acted in self-defense.
Thirty-five other permit holders were arrested for other felony
"weapon-related offenses," but those involved the unlawful carrying of a
weapon in places such as airports and schools. None of those cases
apparently involved threats but invariably resulted from people who forgot
they had a gun with them.
Overall, the experience in Texas is similar to that in other states. In
Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 through 1997. About
half, 204,700, currently are licensed. Eighty-four people lost their
licenses after using a firearm in the commission of a felony.
So far in Virginia, not a single Virginia permit holder has been involved in
a violent crime. Similar results have been observed in Kentucky, Nevada,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and other states for which
detailed records are available.
In December, Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, summed
up the typical reaction of those police officers who opposed the concealed
handgun law before its adoption: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995
because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't
happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen.
No bogeyman. I think it has worked out well, and that says good things about
the citizens who have permits. I am a convert."
Harris County District Attorney John Holmes admitted he is "eating a lot of
crow on this issue. It isn't something I necessarily like to do, but I am
doing it on this."
In a forthcoming book, I find evidence indicating that concealed handgun
laws save lives and reduce the threats that citizens face from rapes,
robberies and assaults. Criminals tend to attack victims whom they perceive
as weak, and guns can offset the differences in strength and serve as an
important deterrent.
People don't even have to carry a permit themselves to benefit. The fact
that criminals can't tell whether a potential victim has a concealed gun
makes them less likely to attack people in general.
Without a doubt, people do bad things with guns, but guns also protect
people when law enforcement officers aren't able to be there.
In the final analysis, one concern unites us all: Will allowing law-abiding
citizens to own guns save lives? Unfortunately, studies like those done by
the Violence Policy Center needlessly scare people and don't move us any
closer to answering that question.
John R. Lott Jr. is the author of More Guns, Less Crime, which will be
published by the University of Chicago Press in May

This article is available at
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/OpEdArcv/License%20to%20Kill.htm

"La circulation des idees est, des tous les genres de commerce, celui don
les avantages sont les plus certains." (Of all the types of trade, the
circulation of ideas is the one that results in the most certain benefits).
Mme. de Stael, "L'Esprit des traducions."



--------------651F7EAA6379--


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Rules of Engagement 1/2
Date: 21 Mar 1998 21:37:00 -0700


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

To All Second Amendment Associates,

It's time to have another serious discussion about a troubling pattern
that has been developing once again. I'm referring to these recent rash
of arrests across the country and a few other things...

It is very easy to take the knee-jerk approach, and say that they were all
"set up" by the government. Even I say that, and it's probably true. But we
should not have to spend valuable time giving everyone another crash course
about undercover agents, informants, provocateurs, etc. Perhaps it's time to
establish some common policies for the best interest of this institution.

1) Let's put it this way: If you can't have a meeting and avoid the
discussion of killing people, blowing things up, manufacturing ordnance, or
selecting targets, then STAND DOWN YOUR UNIT! You're really not helping the
rest of us, and you and your friends are a conspiracy charge waiting to happen.

2) If you find yourself in custody, and you are told to wear a wire for less
jail time, use some common sense-- tell your unit that you are wearing a
wire. Write a note if you have to. Your unit leader will be more than happy
to send false information back to your handlers.

3) As we all understand that it is everyone's responsibility to prevent
domestic terrorism, that doesn't mean that we have to make weekly reports
to law enforcement, induce crime just to make a case, or end up being a
material witness against one or more of our associates in court -- all for
thirty pieces of silver. To those who are practicing this behavior, keep in
mind that your handlers consider you expendable. They'll have no problem
tossing your buns in jail after they're done using you. You also lose
friends that way. One can simply read the penal codes to see that many
people spend less time in state jails for manslaughter than they do for
federal conspiracy or weapons charges. Think about it.

4) If you do not believe that all men are created equal, and are guaranteed
certain inalienable rights, then please do the rest of us a favor, and stop
using the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to hide behind your "ends
justify the means" ideology. Let me put this another way: In this country,
Freedom, Liberty and Justice must not be guaranteed to [only] a select few,
or determined by pigmentation, religion, or national origin. If you have
a problem with this, there are other continents you can live on populated
with people more suitable to your ethnic background. I only hope your
flight out of JFK airport makes it past Long Island.

Who am I referring to? Those who have knowingly justified every false and
negative stereotype given to this movement. Those whose rantings, actions,
and subsequent arrests have done more public relations damage than the
Oklahoma City Bombing itself. Those who claim to be "underground", but their
enemies always find ways to "dig them up". As usual, I expect to receive
reams of character assassinations, name callings, and false accusations for
those remarks. Go ahead. My delete key is armed and ready. But I digress...

5) Public Recruiting Breeds Informants! Maybe we were working under a
misconception in the first place. Why try to convince people to join
something that they're already a member of anyway? Why try to convince
people of a war that is already taking place? Face it, folks: Counter-
intelligence operatives are getting paid big bucks for what they do.
That's why there are so many of them.

Of course, we all feel our country and our rights slipping away. This
fustration naturally gives some of us a tendency to reach for the sword. To
some degree, our ability to remain civilized in the midst of an uncivilized
authority has ensured our survival to this point. I say with deep conviction
that there are enforcement agents who would love nothing more than to have
their photos taken while standing over dead patriots, just like Klansmen who
gleamed with pride standing over the burning corpses of dead negroes. Let's
not willingly give them the opportunity of that photo-op. There is no need
to declare war on them. They have already declared it on us.

***

Okay...I've spent enough time on my soap box saying what NOT to do.
Sorry, but like I said before, the leaders out there need to stop being
"cheerleaders". Stop preaching and start teaching. Queries have come this
way asking how could we deal with this problem. Here are my suggestions:

NOTE: many of you believe that the following information doesn't apply to
you since you're not "one of us". Unfortunately, you opposition doesn't
discriminate any longer. If you've got a problem with government, they've
got a problem with you. Deal with it. Even if you have taken the pledge not
to advocate the use of force to achieve political or social goals, you are
not exempt from government's "situational ethics". Most if not all of the
people who have been assaulted by the government never expected it to
happen, nor did they ever see it coming. Anticipation of this fateful
moment, along with subsequent prior planning is the first step to a sound
defense. Anything less is uncivilized. [End NOTE]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Rules of Engagement 2/2
Date: 21 Mar 1998 21:37:00 -0700


The "system" is designed to neutralize any group that plans anything or
anyway to counter the "system". The enemy has changed the Rules of
Engagement. Now, it's time to change ours.

We need to spend more time at Radio Shack and less time at the Gun Show
and Gun Stores.
We need to spend more time infiltrating and less time being infiltrated.
We need to spend more time scrambling communication gear and less time
scrambling to hide our gear.
We need to spend more time keeping ourselves out of court and less time
trying to build new courts.
We need to spend more time becoming fully informed jurors and less time
being convicted by them.
We need to spend more time making our own lists, and less time worrying
about who's on their list.
We need to spend more time becoming the deterrent of the next Waco, and
less time being the excuse for the next Waco.

I could go on and on...

Let's take working with communications, for instance. It has a three fold
benefit: 1) There's nothing illegal about that discussion 2) It will help
provided an early warning system and 3) Operations will be more secure. We
know the general protocol of our enemy when we are attacked or assaulted.
Communications are the first thing to go. Now is the time to improve our
networking skills. To put it simply: Our opposition fears a 50 watt FM
transmitter more than it does a .50 cal rifle. Just ask Arthur L. (Lonnie)
Kobres of Lutz County, Florida.

We are about 5 to 10 years behind the basic technology of audio, video,
photographic, and digital use in the field. Our associates in various states
have proven that these topics can be debated openly with no fear of a
conspiracy charge. Those states that have developed sound and effective
networks, have reaped rewards for their efforts by having no arrests to
date. Communication networking as our first line of defense must become our
top priority. This will take a major attitude adjustment at many meetings.

Sure, much of this equipment is expensive. But we are better off selling one
of our firearms and buying two-way gear than we are *donating* all of our
weapons to the other side due to lack of communications. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but back in the late 18th century, the Committees of Correspondence
were created long before Lexington and Concord ever happened. Think about it.

As far as folks *planning* hostile activities, FORGET IT. Your best friend
can rat you out. I've even seen the opposition use spouses, cousins and
brothers against one another. If you believe that now is the time to act,
you're on your own. If you think that now is the time to take action, then
you don't need me or anyone else to tell you. If you are wondering when do
we draw the line, well... the chalk is in your hand. If you're wondering who
your commanding officer is, get on your knees and pray - then go look in a
mirror. If you haven't found your commanding officer by then, you're in the
wrong business. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. It's called Unintended Consequences.
Go read it.

Whining and crying about the latest assault on someone's home is
counterproductive. Whenever a raid happens, if it can't be stopped, we
should at least gather enough information so we could learn from it. How
many were there? What tactics did they use? What type of equipment did they
use? Who was the informant? How did the media respond? What actions can we
take to prevent it next time? Go to any military war college or SWAT
briefing. The officers use past battles to learn future combat tactics. Not
just victories, but defeats as well. This means less time preparing for the
U.N. takeover or the next race war, and more time focusing on the immediate
threat: The person(s) who have the hand in your pocket, the foot in your
door, and the gun in your face.

Yes, working on these principles is a tall order. It means we don't have
time to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic when the iceberg is in
full view -- as we have been doing for too long.

Each of us should be prepared with basic the tools for battle. We should
all learn, how, where, when, and why we should use them, and how they should
be protected. We should all educate ourselves to be prepared for most
emergencies. When a time to respond to a given action occurs, each of us
should instinctively know what to. Items such as target acquisitions, times,
locations and firearms need not be discussed to formulate these polices.

TO RESTATE: There will come a day when people may have to respond to
aggression. At that point, group response must be spontaneous. Each person
willing to defend the sovereign must instinctively know what options are
available, and how to carry out the operations.

As it become more and more obvious that each of us are slowing becoming
targeted for termination solely on our political beliefs, now is the time
for a complete strategic overhaul. When a raid takes place, we lose another
sword. Another safe house. Another voice for freedom. Even if we don't agree
with their politics.

None of us are perfect. Nor do I have all the answers. When an event
happens, we must admit our errors, learn from our mistakes, make corrections,
and move forward. Covers-ups, unnecessary finger pointing, back-biting, and
screaming "revenge" must stop. Top priority must be given to protocols,
communications, and networking to provide better escape and evasion
techniques if and when necessary. This must be done for our own survival
before ensuring Liberty in any form.

The Second Amendment alone will not ensure Liberty and Justice, nor will it
be successful as the only line of defense. Take a good look at the First
Amendment. Consider its use as a first strike weapon -- a necessary
enhancement to our overall defense strategy. Discussions of these topics
at your next meetings will be much more productive...

...and much less incriminating.

J.J. Johnson -- And now, back to the battlefield.

[e-mail]



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Lawmakers Assail Clinton's "Back Door" Gun Ban (fwd)
Date: 23 Mar 1998 10:04:17 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id JAA27118; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 09:16:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026997; Mon Mar 23 09:12:11 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





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

--  Texas State Rifle Association Email  ---
March 22, 1998

The Senate Republican Policy Committee, which develops and
coordinates legislative policy making for the GOP in the Senate and
is chaired by NRA Director Sen. Larry Craig (ID), sharply criticized
the Clinton Administration's "back door" plan for a sweeping new
ban on firearms. At issue: thousands of foreign-made firearms -- guns
the Committee report accurately termed "legally importable under
President Clinton's 1994 Semi-Auto Gun Ban and the 1968 'sporting
purposes' import standard."

The President's goal: banning guns by circumventing Congress and
sing his power to halt imports. "While every firearm sold in the
United States meets or exceeds the exact standard set forth in
Clinton's Semi-Auto Gun Ban, the Administration is now attempting to
justify further restrictions -- only now ignoring the role
of Congress," the Committee report explained.

The next salvo in the battle over the Bigger Clinton Gun Ban will be
fired any day now, when the Treasury Department releases its review
of the 1968 "sporting purposes" standard. NRA-ILA predicts that the
Clinton Administration will misuse this unconstitutional standard and
ban as many imported semiautomatic firearms as possible -- all guns
legal under his own gun ban -- continuing the Clinton tradition of
hypocrisy, abuse of power and elimination of Second Amendment rights
by every means possible. Call the Senate Republican Policy Committee
at 202-224-2946, compliment them for their document titled "Clinton's
New Gun Ban" dated March 16, 1998, and request a copy so you can mail
one to your elected representatives. You may also download a copy from
the SRPC's website at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/pubindex98.htm

Please visit the Texas State Rifle Association website: http://www.tsra.com/
If you wish to no longer receive email from TSRA, please reply to this message.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: March 22 column - counties]
Date: 25 Mar 1998 10:31:03 -0700



A good read from Vin...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MARCH 22, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Counties join forces against 'green' steamroller

    Faced with what they see as another ploy by federal agencies and their
"environmental" allies to cut off productive use of vast tracts of Western
land, eight counties in four southwestern states have founded the
Quad-State County Government Coalition.

  As the federal government moved to put in place its West Mojave regional
management plan, designed to restrict human activities on millions more
acres via the fiction of declaring the desert tortoise, the Mojave ground
squirrel, and other species to be "endangered" or "threatened," the
counties -- including Lincoln in Nevada, Inyo in California, and Mojave in
Arizona -- "felt they didn't have enough say," and "decided their interests
would be served by attacking the listing itself rather than looking for
consensus," says an opponent of the group, wildlife biologist Jim Moore of
The Nature Conservancy of Nevada.

  The goal is to present a "united front," explains Kathy Davis, a
supervisor in San Bernardino County in California, another signatory. "In
the past we've hurt ourselves by fighting each battle as though we were in
it alone."

  Clark County (Las Vegas), which adopted its own desert tortoise habitat
plan several years ago (under typical blackmail pressure from the
federals), has not joined.

  The coalition will seek to overturn the desert tortoise "critical
habitat" designation and to stop enforcement of the tortoise recovery plan,
which the counties argue go too far and tie up too much otherwise usable
land.

  But most significantly, the counties now plan to seek redress -- monetary
compensation -- for damages caused by "overly restrictive and unsupported
decisions and actions of federal agencies" involved with the tortoise and
other wildlife habitat issues.

  "It's very transparent what their agenda is," carps Moore of The Nature
Conservancy. "Their justifications and their counter-arguments are not well
respected and not rooted in science."

  One thing they (start ital)are(end ital) rooted in is the Bill of Rights
-- the Fifth Amendment clearly states the federal government must pay for
any land it "takes," as it surely does "take" any land which it
high-handedly removes from productive human use (as the Supreme Court has
recently agreed, more than once.)

  But meantime, for the likes of Mr. Moore to contend that these endangered
and threatened species listings are "rooted in science" is the height of
hypocrisy.

  Everyone knows the West is positively acrawl with desert tortoises and
spotted owls. The question is whether the "Northern" spotted owl and the
"Mojave" desert tortoise are really separate species.

  In a double blind test, could Mr. Moore and his "wildlife biologists"
sort from a mixed batch the "endangered" subspecies from the other kind?
They know they cannot. Threatened "subspecies" are nothing but a legal
invention -- defined by arbitrary, human-set boundaries -- to "protect"
vast tracks of land from  productive human use ... never the intent of the
congressmen who passed the Endangered Species Act in the first place (even
if such a scheme is authorized under the Constitution ... a question for
another day, though a good one.)

  For that matter, where is the "science" to prove that tortoises do better
on land from which grazing cattle have been banished?

  In fact, there is at least anecdotal evidence of long standing that
tortoises fare better during droughts, on lands which (start ital)are(end
ital) grazed by cattle. The tortoises -- which cannot travel as far to
water -- acquire moisture from the cattle droppings, the cattle (in this
case) filling the ecological niche occupied in previous times by herds of
wild grazers.

  "Science," indeed!

  The eight counties deserve hearty congratulations for standing up to the
federal steamroller -- deluded Eastern collectivists in green suits waving
their magic wands and aiming to "restore" the entire West into a vast,
uninhabited buffalo plain.

  Other Nevada counties should strongly consider joining up.

  There is no evidence that these massive federal schemes are necessary to
keep the tortoise or the prairie dog from extinction, nor does anyone
believe that is their main purpose.

  But beyond that, if it ever does come down to mankind being able to
survive and prosper here, vs. the preservation of the tortoise, then let us
recall that millions of species went extinct on a regular basis, long
before mankind was present on this globe, only to have their ecological
niches promptly filled by a fresh biological "new try."

  Even if we have the hubris -- the chutzpah -- to believe we (start
ital)can(end ital) amend the harsh rules of survival by which Nature's God
chooses which creatures shall survive and which shall pass away ... who is
to say we (end ital)should(end ital)?

  That surely is a matter of religious conviction -- and as it turns out,
the federal government is specifically banned from any such establishment
of religion, by yet another of those pesky first 10 amendments.

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/.

***


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.

"Whenever people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular,
 standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will
 remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens..." -- "A
 Framer" in The Independent Gazetteer, 1791

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [ LPU: LP RELEASE: Arkansas Shooting]
Date: 25 Mar 1998 10:36:57 -0700


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Guns save lives, says Libertarian Party --
despite tragic shooting at Arkansas school

        WASHINGTON, DC -- Tuesday's tragic massacre in an Arkansas school yard
-- where a pair of schoolboys brutally shot and killed five unsuspecting
people -- won't cause the Libertarian Party to budge one inch on its 100%
pro-gun position, the party's chairman said today.

        "The Libertarian Party will continue to fight any attempts to disarm
law-abiding Americans -- despite efforts by political vultures to exploit this
tragedy to advance their anti-gun agenda," said Steve Dasbach, national
chairman of the Libertarian Party.

        "Guns not only save more lives than they cost, they are a fundamental
bulwark in our defense of liberty. Any effort to restrict that right is not
only unsafe, it's positively un-American," he said.

        "Of course, our hearts go out to the victims, survivors, and families
of this tragedy. And, like all Americans, we hope that the perpetrators are
punished appropriately for this horrific crime. But don't punish the Bill of
Rights for the actions of two mentally ill juvenile criminals."

        Dasbach's comments came 24 hours after two young boys, age 11 and 13,
opened fire on classmates and teachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Their barrage
left four students and one teacher dead, and 11 others wounded.

        But aren't Libertarians somewhat leery of speaking out in favor of
guns after such a tragedy?

        No, said Dasbach: "The time to defend the Second Amendment is not when
it is easy, but when it is most difficult. That is when the danger is greatest
that politicians -- perhaps well-meaning, but deluded -- will try to revoke
our Second Amendment rights.

        "In fact, failing to speak out now would be to surrender to the
demagogues. We know that numerous politicians will swoop in on the
blood-stained victims of this tragedy, and use their needless deaths as an
excuse to demand that Americans give up their rights in exchange for promised
security. But the criminal behavior of young psychopaths should not be the
basis of unconstitutional laws," he said.

        Besides, said Dasbach, the tragedy in Arkansas is an opportunity to
remind Americans that guns actually save lives.

        "For every one innocent victim murdered in Arkansas, there are dozens
of Americans who are alive today because of the defensive use of guns," he
pointed out.

        * Research by Peter Hart Associates in 1980 found that 4% of American
households reported defensive use of a handgun within the previous five years.


        * In 1991, Gary Kleck of Florida State University estimated defensive
handgun use at between 850,000 and 2.5 million incidents per year. Every year
an estimated 2,000-3,000 criminals are killed by armed citizens acting in
self-defense.

        * As many as 75 lives are protected by a gun for every life lost to a
gun, reported Kleck in "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" (New York:
Aldine de Gruyter Books, 1991).

        * And a Cato Institute study this year found that violent crime rates
dropped dramatically in the 24 states that have passed "concealed-carry" laws
-- with murders dropping by 7.7%, rapes falling by 5.2%, and aggravated
assaults reduced by 7.7%.

        "Libertarians know that guns are not the cause of America's rising
tide of violence. In fact, they're one of the solutions," said Dasbach. "We
believe the most effective way to stop human predators is by repealing the
laws prohibiting concealed weapons. We also know that guns are the best
defense an individual can have against crime, and that the laws banning guns
accomplish only one thing -- victim disarmament."

        But Libertarians don't support gun rights merely as a deterrent to
crime, said Dasbach.

        "We're also the only political party with the guts to publicly state,
and forcefully defend, the true purpose of the Second Amendment," he said.
"Ultimately, that purpose isn't about hunting, or collecting, or target
shooting. It's not even about stopping criminals. It's about defending freedom
against tyrants, be they foreign or domestic.

        "That's why the Founding Fathers enshrined the right to keep and bear
arms into the Bill of Rights, and why Libertarians will continue to support
that right," he said. "Yes, we mourn the victims in Arkansas whose lives were
needlessly lost because of the actions of deranged criminals -- but we will
never let criminals or opportunistic politicians blackmail us into
surrendering our fundamental rights."

        #       #       #




LPUtah
LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "[e-mail]"
LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender.
LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: [e-mail]
LPUtah

----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.

"Whenever people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular,
 standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will
 remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens..." -- "A
 Framer" in The Independent Gazetteer, 1791

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Citizens Section - Wed March 25, 1998
Date: 25 Mar 1998 15:01:44 -0700

The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News


#Gunowners endure bigotry from many sources


They should be lauded rather than criticized for taking personal
responsibility of their safety and the safety of others.


By Sarah Thompson
Sandy


The Salt Lake Tribune reported several months ago 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 Tribune editors 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.

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

Bishop is not battling statistics; rather statistics 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 result 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 6 to 8 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 government officials who seek to prohibit the
exercise of constitutional rights in public places.

Although some 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 Bishop is precisely correct in
calling anti-gun bigots by their proper name.

The real issue is trust. If elected officials do not trust their constituents
with firearms, why should the constituents trust the officials to spend
their money, uphold the Constitution or direct the national guard? 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 toward 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.


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [ LPU: LP RELEASE: Arkansas Shooting] -Forwarded
Date: 25 Mar 1998 15:11:54 -0700

Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0yHu5o-0000bY-00; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:36:00 -0700
Received: from (mail.xmission.com) [198.60.22.22]
    by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0yHu5m-0000bO-00; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:35:58 -0700
Received: from (yoda.corp.es.com) [130.187.95.61]
    by mail.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0yHu5j-0007as-00; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:35:55 -0700
Received: by yoda.corp.es.com (8.6.10/e&s/sunos/client/5.1)
     id KAA04349; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 10:36:57 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Bcc:
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Guns save lives, says Libertarian Party --
despite tragic shooting at Arkansas school

        WASHINGTON, DC -- Tuesday's tragic massacre in an Arkansas school yard
-- where a pair of schoolboys brutally shot and killed five unsuspecting
people -- won't cause the Libertarian Party to budge one inch on its 100%
pro-gun position, the party's chairman said today.

        "The Libertarian Party will continue to fight any attempts to disarm
law-abiding Americans -- despite efforts by political vultures to exploit this
tragedy to advance their anti-gun agenda," said Steve Dasbach, national
chairman of the Libertarian Party.

        "Guns not only save more lives than they cost, they are a fundamental
bulwark in our defense of liberty. Any effort to restrict that right is not
only unsafe, it's positively un-American," he said.

        "Of course, our hearts go out to the victims, survivors, and families
of this tragedy. And, like all Americans, we hope that the perpetrators are
punished appropriately for this horrific crime. But don't punish the Bill of
Rights for the actions of two mentally ill juvenile criminals."

        Dasbach's comments came 24 hours after two young boys, age 11 and 13,
opened fire on classmates and teachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Their barrage
left four students and one teacher dead, and 11 others wounded.

        But aren't Libertarians somewhat leery of speaking out in favor of
guns after such a tragedy?

        No, said Dasbach: "The time to defend the Second Amendment is not when
it is easy, but when it is most difficult. That is when the danger is greatest
that politicians -- perhaps well-meaning, but deluded -- will try to revoke
our Second Amendment rights.

        "In fact, failing to speak out now would be to surrender to the
demagogues. We know that numerous politicians will swoop in on the
blood-stained victims of this tragedy, and use their needless deaths as an
excuse to demand that Americans give up their rights in exchange for promised
security. But the criminal behavior of young psychopaths should not be the
basis of unconstitutional laws," he said.

        Besides, said Dasbach, the tragedy in Arkansas is an opportunity to
remind Americans that guns actually save lives.

        "For every one innocent victim murdered in Arkansas, there are dozens
of Americans who are alive today because of the defensive use of guns," he
pointed out.

        * Research by Peter Hart Associates in 1980 found that 4% of American
households reported defensive use of a handgun within the previous five years.


        * In 1991, Gary Kleck of Florida State University estimated defensive
handgun use at between 850,000 and 2.5 million incidents per year. Every year
an estimated 2,000-3,000 criminals are killed by armed citizens acting in
self-defense.

        * As many as 75 lives are protected by a gun for every life lost to a
gun, reported Kleck in "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" (New York:
Aldine de Gruyter Books, 1991).

        * And a Cato Institute study this year found that violent crime rates
dropped dramatically in the 24 states that have passed "concealed-carry" laws
-- with murders dropping by 7.7%, rapes falling by 5.2%, and aggravated
assaults reduced by 7.7%.

        "Libertarians know that guns are not the cause of America's rising
tide of violence. In fact, they're one of the solutions," said Dasbach. "We
believe the most effective way to stop human predators is by repealing the
laws prohibiting concealed weapons. We also know that guns are the best
defense an individual can have against crime, and that the laws banning guns
accomplish only one thing -- victim disarmament."

        But Libertarians don't support gun rights merely as a deterrent to
crime, said Dasbach.

        "We're also the only political party with the guts to publicly state,
and forcefully defend, the true purpose of the Second Amendment," he said.
"Ultimately, that purpose isn't about hunting, or collecting, or target
shooting. It's not even about stopping criminals. It's about defending freedom
against tyrants, be they foreign or domestic.

        "That's why the Founding Fathers enshrined the right to keep and bear
arms into the Bill of Rights, and why Libertarians will continue to support
that right," he said. "Yes, we mourn the victims in Arkansas whose lives were
needlessly lost because of the actions of deranged criminals -- but we will
never let criminals or opportunistic politicians blackmail us into
surrendering our fundamental rights."

        #       #       #




LPUtah
LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "[e-mail]"
LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender.
LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: [e-mail]
LPUtah

----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.

"Whenever people...entrust the defence of their country to a regular,
 standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will
 remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens..." -- "A
 Framer" in The Independent Gazetteer, 1791

-



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Citizen article
Date: 25 Mar 1998 15:19:35 -0700


Congrats to Sarah for a very nicely written pro-gun article in the
Citizens.

--

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.

"Disperse you Rebels - Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse." --
 Maj. John Pitcairn, Lexington, Massachusetts, April 19, 1775



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  VANGUARD: Fudging the Numbers -Forwarded
Date: 25 Mar 1998 15:48:55 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA12798; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 12:48:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma012729; Wed Mar 25 12:47:22 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


Some interesting statistics...

---------------------- Forwarded by Pete Ciancia/EastCoast/Mobil-Notes on
03/25/98 04:09 AM ---------------------------


[e-mail] on 03/24/98 02:52:13 AM

cc:    (bcc: Pete Ciancia/EastCoast/Mobil-Notes)









                        FUDGING THE NUMBERS
                          23 March 1998
                   Copyright 1998, Rod D. Martin
                   "Vanguard of the Revolution"
           http://members.aol.com/RodDMartin/vanguard.htm


"Creative statistics" is certainly nothing new, but is unquestionably an
area in which Bill Clinton and his friends excel.  Take for instance the
President's sky-high job approval numbers.  While the media marvels that,
despite everything, people are generally happy with a President who isn't
rocking the boat of prosperity, they completely fail to report the real
story:  U.S. News and World Report's latest poll reveals that fully 50
percent of Americans disapprove of the President as a person, with a mere
36 percent supporting him.  Even worse still, Mr. Clinton's support among
Democratic women has dropped a whopping 17 percent.
In an impeachment scenario the results of this are obvious:  Americans
might think their accountant or lawyer or nanny competent, but if they
caught her taking bribes from family enemies or sexually assaulting their
children, her job would evaporate.  No wonder the President hasn't given
an interview since January 21st.  A lack of proof is all that keeps the
pink slip away.
Twisted polling numbers of this sort will ultimately have little effect,
because the legal process will grind on relentlessly, without any regard
to them.  In other areas, though, Mr. Clinton's fudged numbers are
working magic, specifically a black sort of magic that erodes the Bill of
Rights and makes terrible public policy to boot.  One such area is gun
violence.  It bears looking into.
In 1994, Mr. Clinton's own Department of Justice commissioned a survey by
the anti-gun Police Foundation.  The study, "Guns in America:  National
Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," was completed last
year, and it's conclusion was astounding, though you have not heard a
word about it from the Administration.  The report's bombshell
conclusion: "Guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to
perpetrate crime."
Using statistical techniques expressly designed to minimize any pro-gun
conclusion, the study's findings were nevertheless profound.  In the year
studied, 1.5 million Americans used guns to defend their homes, families
or property.  In the words of the study, literally "millions of attempted
assaults, thefts and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the
12-month period."
Much of the rest of the study is devoted to trying to explain away the
surveyors' own results -- at one point it even claims that those
interviewed may have been insane or drug addicted! -- yet the study
itself admits that its conclusions are "directly comparable" to other
similar studies.  And in any case, it seems a tad difficult to imagine
that the surveyors would not have found better data (read:  more
favorable to their position) if it had been possible to do so.
No, the fact is that the Police Foundation's study was the fifteenth
national survey to reach this same conclusion in the past two decades.
Every one of them has discovered results in the same range, and every one
of them has concluded the same thing that this Administration of anti-gun
zealots refuses to accept:  guns save lives.  Lots of lives.  Every day.
The proof is all around us.  Take Florida:  violent crime has dropped
consistently ever since the state's concealed carry law was passed.  Or
take Kennesaw, Georgia:  having passed a city ordinance requiring every
household to own a gun, the town saw a 70% drop in violent crime within
twelve months, and has not had a single rape or murder since 1984.  In
the words of the study, citizen gun ownership makes "crime. . .a risky
business indeed!"  Or to put it another way, what idiot would try to rob
an armed man when there are so many disarmed targets all around?
The President's motivation?  Who can say?  Some explain it as just a
knee-jerk liberal hatred of people being able to control their own lives
without state intervention and "protection;" others point to Ruby Ridge
and Waco and see something significantly more sinister.  But whatever it
may be, Bill Clinton is willing to sacrifice the truth here, as
everywhere else, to suit his personal agenda.  If literally millions of
people are robbed, raped or killed as a result of his legislation, he
simply doesn't care.
Ever since Gennifer Flowers back in 1992, the left has told us that Bill
Clinton's betrayal of his wife was his own private matter, and that it
had no bearing on what kind of job he did as President.  They were wrong.
 A man who will lie to his wife will lie to anyone, about anything.  Make
a note of it.

Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 23 March 1998
     To receive Vanguard of the Revolution via email send a
         note to [e-mail] with the subject heading:
                    subscribe vanguard your name
     To unsubscribe, send a note to the same address with the
            subject heading:  remove vanguard your name
     WWW: http://members.aol.com/roddmartin/vanguard.htm
     For Syndication Information please contact:
         Email: [e-mail]
         FAX: [phone]
         Smail:
                  Rod D. Martin
               Vanguard of the Revolution
                  P. O. Box 55947
                  Little Rock, AR 72215-5947





-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Incumbent Protection Back Again -Forwarded
Date: 25 Mar 1998 17:47:27 -0700

Received: (qmail 3509 invoked by uid 516); 26 Mar 1998 00:24:14 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 3475 invoked from network); 26 Mar 1998 00:24:09 -0000
Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 1998 00:24:09 -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 TAA07030
    for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:24:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from 166-93-76-41.rmi.net (166-93-76-41.rmi.net [166.93.76.41])
    by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.5/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA11402;
    Wed, 25 Mar 1998 17:09:40 -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]>
>Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:55:41 -0500
>From: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Incumbent Protection Back Again
>
>          Republican Leaders Resurrect Problematic Bill
>
>                    by Gun Owners of America
>      8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA  22151,
>             [phone], http://www.gunowners.org
>                   (Wednesday, March 25, 1998)
>
>Incumbent Protection Bill revived in the House
>
>     Having died in the Senate, the Incumbent Protection Bill has
>now been resurrected in the House.  This new draft, like its
>predecessors in the House and the Senate, would severely regulate
>-- or "chill" -- the free speech of groups like GOA by limiting
>their ability to report on incumbents' records during the
>election season.  This, of course, would benefit the anti-gun
>media and incumbents, who would not be limited in their ability
>to publicize (and distort) their own records or viewpoints.
>
>     For example, on page 7 of this new bill (H.R. 3485), GOA
>"political activity" that would be heavily regulated (and
>prohibited in many cases) would be "any activity carried out for
>the purpose of influencing (in whole or in part) any election for
>Federal office, influencing the consideration or outcome of any
>Federal legislation or the issuance or outcome of any Federal
>regulation, or educating individuals about candidates . . . "
>
>     When debating the Senate bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
>summarized this issue quite well:
>
>          The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear . . .
>     [that] spending is speech and the first amendment applies
>     to individuals, groups, candidates and parties, as well as
>     applying to the press. . . . [The press doesn't] like it.
>     They would like to have more power, not less.  They would
>     like to control our campaigns, control the discourse in the
>     course of the campaign that goes on, and control the
>     outcome with their editorial endorsement.  But the first
>     amendment doesn't allow them to control the political
>     process.  It also doesn't allow the Government, through
>     some statute we passed here, to be put in charge of
>     regulating either the quality or the quantity of political
>     speech. (Source:  Congressional Record, 2/26/98.)
>
>     ACTION:  Gun owners should urge their Representatives to
>oppose any bill (like H.R. 3485) that would not only restrict
>your First Amendment rights, but the free speech rights of those
>groups (like GOA) that represent you.  A vote on the House bill
>is scheduled for this week.
>
>     To contact Capitol Hill, call 202-225-3121, or use the toll
>free number at 1-800-522-6721.  Individual office numbers, fax
>numbers, and e-mail addresses can be found at the GOA website.
>
>
>GOA spokesmen counter gun grabbers in aftermath of Jonesboro
>shooting
>
>     From Fox Cable Network to MSNBC and other media outlets,
>spokesmen from Gun Owners of America have been called on today to
>counter Chuck Schumer and his fellow gun grabbers in the
>aftermath of yesterday's tragic shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
>
>     Not surprisingly, the shooting has led to the familiar cries
>for more gun control on today's talk shows.  As if reading off
>the same page, many pundits have trotted out the same old,
>worn-out argument that the "availability of guns" is the problem.
>
>     Of course, what these gun grabbers miss is that the young
>thugs broke several laws already (murder, no guns allowed within
>1,000 feet of a school, possession with intent to commit a crime,
>etc.).  Moreover, the anti-gun zealots completely ignore the
>biggest evidence that their "availability of guns causes crime"
>mentality is pure myth.  Consider that in the 1950's, when there
>were far fewer gun control laws on the books, there was not a
>problem with illegal guns in schools.  There was no Brady law, no
>semi-auto ban, no Gun Free Zones Ban.  Guns were more "available"
>in the 1950's and yet there was no "gun problem" in the schools!
>
>     So what has changed?  Well, the lax punishment of criminal
>juveniles and the imitation of T.V. violence are just two of many
>reasons.  But clearly, guns are LESS AVAILABLE today than they
>were 40 years ago.  As you contact your elected officials, make
>sure they don't buy into this "availability of guns is the
>problem" myth.
>
>***********************************************************
>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]
********************


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:  Asset Forfeiture Legislation (fwd) -Forwarded
Date: 25 Mar 1998 18:09:12 -0700

Received: (qmail 2377 invoked by uid 516); 24 Mar 1998 00:50:31 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 2077 invoked from network); 24 Mar 1998 00:50:03 -0000
Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (206.214.98.4)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 24 Mar 1998 00:50:03 -0000
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
      id SAA14886 for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 23 Mar 1998 18:49:52 -0600 (CST)
Received: from den-co16-15.ix.netcom.com(205.184.147.143) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
    id rma014860; Mon Mar 23 18:49:33 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]>
-----------------------
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:27:06 -0600
>From: Gary Stocker <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Asset Forfeiture Legislation
>
>--  Texas State Rifle Association Email  ---
>March 22, 1998
>
>The House will soon consider asset forfeiture legislation. HR 1835
>provides much needed reforms of existing laws to ensure that the
>rights of individuals are protected from government abuse.
>
>Unfortunately, the Clinton Justice Department is pushing another bill,
>HR 1965, that would give the government far-reaching power to seize
>the property and businesses of individuals merely suspected of
>wrongdoing.
>
>Please call your Congressman at 202-225-3121, and urge him/her to
>support HR 1835, true asset seizure reform legislation, and OPPOSE the
>Clinton Administration's power grabbing bill, HR1965.
>
>Please visit the Texas State Rifle Association website: http://www.tsra.com/
>If you wish to no longer receive email from TSRA, please reply to this message.
>
>
>
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:  Rules of Engagement
Date: 25 Mar 1998 18:19:08 -0700


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

To All Second Amendment Associates,

It's time to have another serious discussion about a troubling pattern that
has been developing once again. I'm referring to these recent rash of
arrests across the country and a few other things...

It is very easy to take the knee-jerk approach, and say that they were all
"set up" by the government. Even I say that, and it's probably true. But
we should not have to spend valuable time giving everyone another
crash course about undercover agents, informants, provocateurs, etc.
Perhaps it's time to establish some common policies for the best interest
of this institution.

1) Let's put it this way: If you can't have a meeting and avoid the
discussion of killing people, blowing things up, manufacturing ordnance,
or selecting targets, then STAND DOWN YOUR UNIT! You're really not
helping the rest of us, and you and your friends are a conspiracy charge
waiting to happen.

2) If you find yourself in custody, and you are told to wear a wire for
less jail time, use some common sense--tell your unit that you are
wearing a wire. Write a note if you have to. Your unit leader will be more
than happy to send false information back to your handlers.

3) As we all understand that it is everyone's responsibility to prevent
domestic terrorism, that doesn't mean that we have to make weekly
reports to law enforcement, induce crime just to make a case, or end up
being a material witness against one or more of our associates in court
--all for thirty pieces of silver. To those who are practicing this behavior,
keep in mind that your handlers consider you expendable. They'll have no
problem tossing your buns in jail after they're done using you. You also
lose friends that way. One can simply read the penal codes to see that
many people spend less time in state jails for manslaughter than they do
for federal conspiracy or weapons charges. Think about it.

4) If you do not believe that all men are created equal, and are
guaranteed certain inalienable rights, then please do the rest of us a
favor, and stop using the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to hide behind
your "ends justify the means" ideology. Let me put this another way: In
this country,
Freedom, Liberty and Justice must not be guaranteed to [only] a select
few, or determined by pigmentation, religion, or national origin. If you
have a problem with this, there are other continents you can live on
populated with people more suitable to your ethnic background. I only
hope your flight out of JFK airport makes it past Long Island.

Who am I referring to? Those who have knowingly justified every false
and negative stereotype given to this movement. Those whose rantings,
actions, and subsequent arrests have done more public relations
damage than the
Oklahoma City Bombing itself. Those who claim to be "underground", but
their enemies always find ways to "dig them up". As usual, I expect to
receive reams of character assassinations, name callings, and false
accusations for those remarks. Go ahead. My delete key is armed and
ready. But I digress...

5) Public Recruiting Breeds Informants! Maybe we were working under a
misconception in the first place. Why try to convince people to join
something that they're already a member of anyway? Why try to
convince people of a war that is already taking place? Face it, folks:
Counter-intelligence operatives are getting paid big bucks for what they
do.
That's why there are so many of them.

Of course, we all feel our country and our rights slipping away. This
fustration naturally gives some of us a tendency to reach for the sword.
To some degree, our ability to remain civilized in the midst of an
uncivilized authority has ensured our survival to this point. I say with
deep conviction that there are enforcement agents who would love
nothing more than to have their photos taken while standing over dead
patriots, just like Klansmen who gleamed with pride standing over the
burning corpses of dead negroes. Let's not willingly give them the
opportunity of that photo-op. There is no need to declare war on them.
They have already declared it on us.

***

Okay...I've spent enough time on my soap box saying what NOT to do.
Sorry, but like I said before, the leaders out there need to stop being
"cheerleaders". Stop preaching and start teaching. Queries have come
this way asking how could we deal with this problem. Here are my
suggestions:

NOTE: many of you believe that the following information doesn't apply to
you since you're not "one of us". Unfortunately, you opposition doesn't
discriminate any longer. If you've got a problem with government, they've
got a problem with you. Deal with it. Even if you have taken the pledge
not to advocate the use of force to achieve political or social goals, you
are not exempt from government's "situational ethics". Most if not all of
the people who have been assaulted by the government never expected
it to happen, nor did they ever see it coming. Anticipation of this fateful
moment, along with subsequent prior planning is the first step to a sound
defense. Anything less is uncivilized. [End NOTE]

The "system" is designed to neutralize any group that plans anything or
anyway to counter the "system". The enemy has changed the Rules of
Engagement. Now, it's time to change ours.

We need to spend more time at Radio Shack and less time at the Gun
Show and Gun Stores.
We need to spend more time infiltrating and less time being infiltrated.
We need to spend more time scrambling communication gear and less
time scrambling to hide our gear.
We need to spend more time keeping ourselves out of court and less time
trying to build new courts.
We need to spend more time becoming fully informed jurors and less time
being convicted by them.
We need to spend more time making our own lists, and less time
worrying about who's on their list.
We need to spend more time becoming the deterrent of the next Waco,
and less time being the excuse for the next Waco.

I could go on and on...

Let's take working with communications, for instance. It has a three fold
benefit: 1) There's nothing illegal about that discussion 2) It will help
provided an early warning system and 3) Operations will be more
secure. We know the general protocol of our enemy when we are
attacked or assaulted.
Communications are the first thing to go. Now is the time to improve our
networking skills. To put it simply: Our opposition fears a 50 watt FM
transmitter more than it does a .50 cal rifle. Just ask Arthur L. (Lonnie)
Kobres of Lutz County, Florida.

We are about 5 to 10 years behind the basic technology of audio, video,
photographic, and digital use in the field. Our associates in various states
have proven that these topics can be debated openly with no fear of a
conspiracy charge. Those states that have developed sound and
effective networks, have reaped rewards for their efforts by having no
arrests to date. Communication networking as our first line of defense
must become our top priority. This will take a major attitude adjustment at
many meetings.

Sure, much of this equipment is expensive. But we are better off selling
one of our firearms and buying two-way gear than we are *donating* all
of our weapons to the other side due to lack of communications. Correct
me if I'm wrong, but back in the late 18th century, the Committees of
Correspondence were created long before Lexington and Concord ever
happened. Think about it.

As far as folks *planning* hostile activities, FORGET IT. Your best friend
can rat you out. I've even seen the opposition use spouses, cousins and
brothers against one another. If you believe that now is the time to act,
you're on your own. If you think that now is the time to take action, then
you don't need me or anyone else to tell you. If you are wondering when
do we draw the line, well... the chalk is in your hand. If you're wondering
who your commanding officer is, get on your knees and pray -then go
look in a mirror. If you haven't found your commanding officer by then,
you're in the wrong business. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. It's called
Unintended Consequences.
Go read it.

Whining and crying about the latest assault on someone's home is
counterproductive. Whenever a raid happens, if it can't be stopped, we
should at least gather enough information so we could learn from it. How
many were there? What tactics did they use? What type of equipment
did they use? Who was the informant? How did the media respond?
What actions can we take to prevent it next time? Go to any military war
college or SWAT briefing. The officers use past battles to learn future
combat tactics. Not just victories, but defeats as well. This means less
time preparing for the
U.N. takeover or the next race war, and more time focusing on the
immediate threat: The person(s) who have the hand in your pocket, the
foot in your door, and the gun in your face.

Yes, working on these principles is a tall order. It means we don't have
time to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic when the iceberg is in full
view --as we have been doing for too long.

Each of us should be prepared with basic the tools for battle. We should
all learn, how, where, when, and why we should use them, and how
they should be protected. We should all educate ourselves to be
prepared for most emergencies. When a time to respond to a given
action occurs, each of us should instinctively know what to. Items such
as target acquisitions, times, locations and firearms need not be
discussed to formulate these polices.

TO RESTATE: There will come a day when people may have to respond
to aggression. At that point, group response must be spontaneous. Each
person willing to defend the sovereign must instinctively know what
options are available, and how to carry out the operations.

As it become more and more obvious that each of us are slowing
becoming targeted for termination solely on our political beliefs, now is
the time for a complete strategic overhaul. When a raid takes place, we
lose another sword. Another safe house. Another voice for freedom.
Even if we don't agree with their politics.

None of us are perfect. Nor do I have all the answers. When an event
happens, we must admit our errors, learn from our mistakes, make
corrections, and move forward. Covers-ups, unnecessary finger
pointing, back-biting, and screaming "revenge" must stop. Top priority
must be given to protocols, communications, and networking to provide
better escape and evasion techniques if and when necessary. This must
be done for our own survival before ensuring Liberty in any form.

The Second Amendment alone will not ensure Liberty and Justice, nor
will it be successful as the only line of defense. Take a good look at the
First
Amendment. Consider its use as a first strike weapon --a necessary
enhancement to our overall defense strategy. Discussions of these
topics at your next meetings will be much more productive...

...and much less incriminating.

J.J. Johnson --And now, back to the battlefield.

[e-mail]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: LPU: Re: [Citizens Section - Wed March 25, 1998]]
Date: 26 Mar 1998 09:50:05 -0700


Forwarded from LPUtah in response to Sarah's citizen article...

Jim Dexter says:

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

X-Authentication-Warning: mail.qsicorp.com: majordomo set sender to [e-mail] using -f
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.0c (197)
Mime-version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Length: 259

Excellent article. My compliments to Dr.T.
----------


LPUtah
LPUtah -- This message sent via listserver "[e-mail]"
LPUtah -- All messages are the sole responsibility of the sender.
LPUtah -- Support: Jim Elwell, email: [e-mail]
LPUtah

----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.

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

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Gun Control Poll -Forwarded
Date: 26 Mar 1998 12:01:33 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA03330; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:25:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma003134; Thu Mar 26 13:19:25 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



On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, Steve Miner wrote:

> Abc news is running a poll whether more gun control would have prevented
> the shooting in Jonesboro. 58.4% No  41.5% yes Here's the link.
> http://www.abcnews.com/

As of 1:14pm EST
No 57.9%
Yes 42.0%
Total Votes 11,333

    Come on guys, we can do better than this

DVC

--
                Regards,
                >>Dick<<



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Guns in School
Date: 26 Mar 1998 12:17:54 -0700


According to Nancy Woodward in charge of pupil services for SL, if you
own guns and expose your children to them you are adding to the
potential for danger.

                                                                     [Image]
[Local]
                                                                     [Image]

                                      [Image]

       [Image]

       Utah schools not immune from a tragedy
       [Image]
       In year, Granite District tallied 28 gun incidents
       [Image]
       Last updated 03/26/1998, 10:14 a.m. MT

       Related content:
             Listening parents can avert incidents

       By Jennifer Toomer-Cook
       and Marjorie Cortez
       Deseret News staff writers

             An Arkansas middle school shooting that left four students and
       one teacher dead occurred more than 1,000 miles away. But Utah
       school officials say such a tragedy could happen here, too ù and
       without warning.
             "I don't think any of us are immune from
       those kinds of things," said Nancy Woodward,     [Image]
       supervisor of pupil services for the Salt Lake   Police arrested
       City School District. "There's always the        Andrew Golden, 11,
       danger of the copycat action."                   after Wednesday's
             While FBI statistics show school violence  slayings.
       nationwide decreased 12 percent from 1994 to     [Image]
       1996, according to a Scripps Howard News
       Service report, Utah schools are implementing safety nets where they
       can. School officials say they still need lower class sizes and more
       counselors and administrators to stem potential violence.
             In Jamesboro, Ark., Tuesday, students opened fire on
       classmates outside after another student pulled a fire alarm. Five
       were killed and 11 wounded. Two boys, ages 11 and 13, were arrested
       in the shooting and face charges in juvenile court. The older boy
       reportedly told friends "he had a lot of killing to do" after being
       jilted by a girl.
             In the Davis School District last month, a Syracuse Junior
       High student held classmates hostage at gunpoint in the school
       cafeteria. Police arrested a 14-year-old boy, later charged in
       juvenile court. No one was injured.
             Several other Utah students have been suspended for bringing
       guns to school, according to State Office of Education reports. The
       federal Safe Schools Act prohibits any weapons, even fakes, on
       school property.
             In 1996-97, Granite School District recorded 28 incidents
       involving guns, fake and real. Half involved middle school students;
       four involved elementary schoolchildren, the state office reported.
                                  Salt Lake City School District reported
        [Image]             17 incidents to the state, 10 in high school
        Mitchell Johnson    and five in middle school, during the same time
        reportedly had "a   period. Jordan School District reported four
        lot of killing to   incidents, three in high school and one at a
        do."                junior high.
        [Image]                   School violence usually results from
                            weapons brought from home "for protection," a
       common excuse students give when they're caught, Woodward said.
             "If parents have guns in their home and are exposing children
       to guns . . . they're adding to the potential for danger," Woodward
       said. "These weapons have been used for mass murders. The kid didn't
       go out and buy the gun."
             Like the Arkansas student, the Syracuse boy told friends
       something major would happen at lunchtime. Syracuse principal James
       Schmidt says students didn't report the threat due to
       "inaccessibility of someone they trusted" and out of fear a teacher
       would be harmed in intervention attempts.
             Schmidt hopes a new school resource officer and an extra
       full-time counselor can help stave off future violence. He also
       makes himself more accessible to students and urges teachers to do
       the same.
             "It's more important for me to be a friend to them and talk to
       them than be a strict disciplinarian," he said.
             Stress in middle schools is compounded by student numbers and
       relatively few administrators and counselors. More adults could be
       placed in middle schools under a $9 million legislative
       appropriation for class-size reduction.
             A team of Jordan School District educators recently asked the
       school board to place more assistant principals in middle schools,
       as policy allows for only one per school regardless of enrollment.
       "This is a safety issue. This is the most critical issue facing the
       middle school," said Mike Ernsteen, counselor at South Jordan Middle
       School. "They (administrators) can't do that job if they're being
       overloaded by work and responsibilities. It hurts the students, and
       it makes the faculty feel less safe."
             In the Salt Lake City School District, one counselor serves
       400 students due to funding shortfalls, Woodward said. With the high
       ratio, teachers and staff are urged to nurture relationships with
       students.
             But large class sizes can preclude teachers from doing so,
       said Bonnie Hansell, a teacher at Eastmont Middle School in the
       Jordan School District.
             "Some of our best students tell us they don't want to go to
       school. They don't feel like they belong. They don't feel connected.
       It's hard to feel connected in a classroom of 38-40 students," she
       said.
             Some districts seek additional law officers to help improve
       safety.
             Bountiful area junior high schools ù Mueller Park, Bountiful,
       South Davis and Millcreek ù have a grant to hire a school cop two
       hours daily and teach law-related education in Utah studies classes.
       Eleven of 13 district junior highs have police officers.
             Of the students taking officer-taught courses, 80 percent said
       they were more likely to ask for help from an officer and 70 percent
       reported they were less likely to participate in illegal acts.
             "I think students and parents and teachers are more willing to
       talk to the individual (police officer) because he's become a
       trusted friend," said Mueller Park principal Steve Mangel.
             Many Salt Lake elementary schools offer anger management
       classes patterned after a national model, Woodward said. Many school
       employees train to handle violent students.
             District officials are discussing implementing a comprehensive
       plan for major catastrophes, Woodward said.
             "We've concentrated on earthquakes and fire drills. These
       kinds of things are relatively new. We just don't have them yet."
       [Image]

       [Image]

       [Image]
                                      [Image]
[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.

"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: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Comments from BBC gun poll.
Date: 26 Mar 1998 13:06:45 -0700

Just looked at one of two gun polls being conducted now.  One at
ABCNEWS.com, and the other at http://news.bbc.co.uk.

From the bbc poll I found the following comment that I think some of you
will be interested in.


Of course handguns should be banned. How many more children need
to be sacrificed on the altar of a ridiculous piece of paper (the
Constitution) by the self-serving high-priests of firearm worship (the
NRA)?
John Rabone, Japan

Glad this "illuminated" individual is in Japan, lets hope he stays there!


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Comments from BBC gun poll.
Date: 26 Mar 1998 14:05:36 -0700


On Thu, 26 Mar 1998,  DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]> posted:

>Of course handguns should be banned. How many more children need
>to be sacrificed on the altar of a ridiculous piece of paper (the
>Constitution) by the self-serving high-priests of firearm worship (the
>NRA)?
>John Rabone, Japan

I'm wondering what it is going to take for people to look beyond the
tools used and start asking how to address the real problems.  If
these young, very disturbed people had chosen to burn 5 people to
death and injure scores more by throwing a few molatov cocktails into
(over) crowded classrooms, would anyone seriously be talking about the
easy availability of gasoline and Pepsi bottles?  Would we be asking
how to keep dangerous items like matches out of the hands of
teenagers?  Would we conduct polls about whether or not gasoline and
glass jars and rags should be banned?  Or would we finally have the
collective courage to look to the root problems?

>
>Glad this "illuminated" individual is in Japan, lets hope he stays there!
>
>
>-
>
>


--

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: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: LP RELEASE: Arkansas Shooting
Date: 25 Mar 1998 21:11:00 -0700


Guns save lives, says Libertarian Party --
despite tragic shooting at Arkansas school

WASHINGTON, DC -- Tuesday's tragic massacre in an Arkansas school yard
-- where a pair of schoolboys brutally shot and killed five unsuspecting
people -- won't cause the Libertarian Party to budge one inch on its 100%
pro-gun position, the party's chairman said today.

"The Libertarian Party will continue to fight any attempts to disarm
law-abiding Americans -- despite efforts by political vultures to exploit
this tragedy to advance their anti-gun agenda," said Steve Dasbach,
national chairman of the Libertarian Party.

"Guns not only save more lives than they cost, they are a fundamental
bulwark in our defense of liberty. Any effort to restrict that right
is not only unsafe, it's positively un-American," he said.

"Of course, our hearts go out to the victims, survivors, and families
of this tragedy. And, like all Americans, we hope that the perpetrators
are punished appropriately for this horrific crime. But don't punish the
Bill of Rights for the actions of two mentally ill juvenile criminals."

Dasbach's comments came 24 hours after two young boys, age 11 and 13,
opened fire on classmates and teachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Their
barrage left four students and one teacher dead, and 11 others wounded.

But aren't Libertarians somewhat leery of speaking out in favor of
guns after such a tragedy?

No, said Dasbach: "The time to defend the Second Amendment is not when
it is easy, but when it is most difficult. That is when the danger is
greatest that politicians -- perhaps well-meaning, but deluded -- will
try to revoke our Second Amendment rights.

"In fact, failing to speak out now would be to surrender to the demagogues.
We know that numerous politicians will swoop in on the blood-stained
victims of this tragedy, and use their needless deaths as an excuse to
demand that Americans give up their rights in exchange for promised
security. But the criminal behavior of young psychopaths should not be
the basis of unconstitutional laws," he said.

Besides, said Dasbach, the tragedy in Arkansas is an opportunity to
remind Americans that guns actually save lives.

"For every one innocent victim murdered in Arkansas, there are dozens
of Americans who are alive today because of the defensive use of guns,"
he pointed out.

* Research by Peter Hart Associates in 1980 found that 4% of American
households reported defensive use of a handgun within the previous five
years.

* In 1991, Gary Kleck of Florida State University estimated defensive
handgun use at between 850,000 and 2.5 million incidents per year.
Every year an estimated 2,000-3,000 criminals are killed by armed
citizens acting in self-defense.

* As many as 75 lives are protected by a gun for every life lost to
a gun, reported Kleck in "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America"
(New York: Aldine de Gruyter Books, 1991).

* And a Cato Institute study this year found that violent crime rates
dropped dramatically in the 24 states that have passed "concealed-carry"
laws -- with murders dropping by 7.7%, rapes falling by 5.2%, and
aggravated assaults reduced by 7.7%.

"Libertarians know that guns are not the cause of America's rising
tide of violence. In fact, they're one of the solutions," said Dasbach.
"We believe the most effective way to stop human predators is by
repealing the laws prohibiting concealed weapons. We also know that guns
are the best defense an individual can have against crime, and that the
laws banning guns accomplish only one thing -- victim disarmament."

But Libertarians don't support gun rights merely as a deterrent to
crime, said Dasbach.

"We're also the only political party with the guts to publicly state,
and forcefully defend, the true purpose of the Second Amendment," he said.
"Ultimately, that purpose isn't about hunting, or collecting, or target
shooting. It's not even about stopping criminals. It's about defending
freedom against tyrants, be they foreign or domestic.

"That's why the Founding Fathers enshrined the right to keep and bear
arms into the Bill of Rights, and why Libertarians will continue to
support  that right," he said. "Yes, we mourn the victims in Arkansas
whose lives were needlessly lost because of the actions of deranged
criminals -- but we will never let criminals or opportunistic politicians
blackmail us into surrendering our fundamental rights."




-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Arkansas: From a friend -Forwarded
Date: 26 Mar 1998 18:37:27 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id VAA18224; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 21:37:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma018027; Wed Mar 25 21:36:41 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 a friend....

-----
When I was in Germany, at a business lunch, I was asked about all the
gun violence, as all guns are banned in Germany except for the police
and the military. My response was something like this.

1). More people died from Aids than guns.

2). More people died from Smoking than from guns ( 3 out of 4 of the
people at the table were smoking).

3). More people died from automobile accidents than guns

4). More people were killed by drunk drivers than guns (4 out of 4
people at the table had a beer in front of them.)

5). More people died from old age than from guns.

6). Most of the gun related deaths are caused by drug dealings and
gangs.

7). More people died from riding bicycles than from guns.

2 out of 4 cigarettes at the table got snuffed out prematurely, and 3
out of 4 beers did not get finished.

Because our media has been sensationalizing firearm related deaths so
much, they didn't realize the number of gun related deaths are really
insignificant in proportion to the number of other causes of death,
I believe the number is 0.1% of the total deaths are caused by
firearms. If you listen to the media, firearms are the only cause of
deaths.



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  *Re: re the Arkansas situation -Forwarded
Date: 26 Mar 1998 18:38:02 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id VAA18228; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 21:37:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma018035; Wed Mar 25 21:36:46 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

On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Richard Hartman wrote:

> 2) Several of the news stories have pointed out that hunting and firearms
> are quite common in that part of the country, and generally involve children
> of that age. If ready access and familiarity with firearms is the "cause" of
> these incidents, they should be happening weekly, even daily. They're not -
> instead, they are incredibly rare.
>
> If you've thought of other discussion points, please share them. People
> knee-jerk emotionally to these incidents, and we need to be both sensitive
> and logical when helping them deal with that.

In an ABC News interview I heard while driving into work this (Wednesday)
morning, I heard an 11-year-old girl state (concerning the 13-year-old
shooter), "Sure, I used to date him, but I stopped seeing him after he
started using DRUGS!". (Query: what's an 11-year-old girl doing "dating" a
13-year-old boy, anyway?!)

Looks as though his persecution complex/paranoia *wasn't* the result of
"the gun-culture of the South" as much as it was induced by chemicals such
as PCP (an animal tranquilizer---is Jonesboro a farming town?) and certain
amphetamines.

David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte
Wheeling, Illinois

Replies/Abuse: [e-mail]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: BCC POLL: SHOULD GUNS BE BANNED IN AMERICA?
Date: 27 Mar 1998 05:21:00 -0700


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

You might want to pass this around the WAGC circuit..........
Nancy
------------

< Start of Forwarded message via Prodigy Mail >>

Time: 04:00 PM

Guys,

Just been to the BBC news page and they have a poll set up asking
the question "Should Handguns be banned in America". Votes so far
over two thirds "yes". Can we change this? Tell your pro-gun friends
on the net also.

The URL is
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_69000/69548.asp

Also leave a comment if you wish. What [gives] the BBC - a left
leaning foreign news organisation - the right to foist their anti-gun
agenda on the US?

I'm British and I'm boiling at the moment!

Jim

C&R FFL LIST
E-mail: "subscribe c-r-ffl" to [e-mail] to be ADDED
E-mail: "unsubscribe c-r-ffl" to [e-mail] to be REMOVED
------
Home Page: http://www.shelfspace.com/~c-r-ffl/
<NEWMailing List Archives: http://www.shelfspace.com/~c-r-ffl/archives/



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: More-on (Moron?) Arkansas shootings
Date: 27 Mar 1998 05:21:00 -0700


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

On NPR this mornin, I heard the principal of the Arkansas school where the
shootings occurred say that the school had a "zero tolerance" policy against
kids bringing weapons to school and that all the kids knew about it.

Lot of good that did!  ;-)

Governor Leavitt also said the Arkansas shootings pointed out the need
to have laws restricting weapons in schools, although when asked he
conceded that such laws would not have prevented the Arkansas shootings.

But at least we can say we did something! ;-)

Scooter!



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: re: Mikey doesn't like guns  (Was: FW: [Fwd: The Real Lesson of
Date: 27 Mar 1998 15:51:15 -0700


FYI, this article came from page A14 of today's (Friday, 27 March)
edition of the WSJ.

On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" <[e-mail]> posted:

>
>
>Maybe we need MIKEY to read this.
>
>
>We need to draw much attention to this article and point out Mikey's
>flaws!!!
>
>
>Make him eat crow!
>
>
>Chad
>
>
>
>
>>Envelope-to: [e-mail]
>
>>From: Dan Gosselin <<[e-mail]>
>
>>To: "'[e-mail]'" <<[e-mail]>
>
>>Subject: FW: [Fwd: The Real Lesson of the School Shootings - WSJ]
>
>>Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:06:17 -0500
>
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>Subject: The Real Lesson of the School Shootings - WSJ
>
>>Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:05:57 -0500
>
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>>Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=3D"----
>=3D_NextPart_001_01BD5991.E6F8B1B0"
>
>>
>
>>http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/SB89095813222556500.htm
>
>>
>
>>                        =20
>
>>=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/public/resources/media=
>/125Side.map>
> =3D0 )   { document.write("");   } //-->=20
><<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/interactive.wsj.com/tile125.htm;famil=3Dopi=
>nion;tile=3D1;ord=3D15429>
>
>
>> <bold>In this Section: =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/wwide.htm>World-Wide
> =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/asia.htm>Asia
> <<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summa=
>ries/europe.htm>Europe
> <<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summa=
>ries/americas.htm>The
>Americas=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/economy.htm>Economy
> <<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summa=
>ries/earnings.htm>Earnings
>=46ocus=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/politics.htm>Politics
>& Policy
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/weather.htm>Weather
></bold>   <bold>
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/editorl.htm>Editorial
>Page=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/leisure.htm>Leisure
>& Arts=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/voices.htm>Voices
></bold>  =20
><<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/interactive.wsj.com/tile125.htm;famil=3Dopi=
>nion;tile=3D2;ord=3D15429>
> <bold>
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/toc.htm>Table
>of Contents </bold>     <bold>Related Sites: =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/barrons.htm>Barron's
>Online    <<http://www.smartmoney.com/>SmartMoney Interactive  =20
><<http://careers.wsj.com/>Careers.wsj.com  =20
><<http://bd.dowjones.com/index.asp?From=3DWSJIE>Business Directory  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/Publib/>Publications
>Library  =20
><<http://play.rbn.com/?dowjones/wsj/demand/headlines.rm>WSJ.COM Radio
>
>>   Hear top news of the hour with
><<http://www.real.com/products/player/index.html>RealPlayer 5.0
>
>>   Search/Archives: =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/search.htm>Search
> =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/bbsearch.htm>Briefing
>Books  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/qsearch.htm>Quotes
> =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/past/summaries=
>/menu.html>Past
>Editions  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/articl=
>es/JournalLinks.htm>Journal
>Links  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/special.htm>Special
>Reports </bold>    <bold>Resources: =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/help.htm>Help
> =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/new.htm>New
>=46eatures  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/user-cgi-bin/userMenu.=
>html>Your
>Account  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/contact.htm>Contact
>Us  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/glossary.htm>Glossary
></bold>     <bold>Advertising: =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/ads/hosted/ad.=
>htm>Advertisers
> =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/archive/classifieds.ht=
>ml>E-Mart
> March 27, 1998</bold>  <<mailto:[e-mail]>=20
>
><bold><bigger>>
>
>>
>
>> The Real Lesson
>
>> Of the School Shootings
>
></bigger></bold>>
>
>>
>
><bold>>By JOHN R. LOTT JR.
>
></bold>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>This week's horrific shootings in Arkansas have, predictably, spurred
>calls for more gun control. But it's worth noting that the shootings
>occurred in one of the few places in Arkansas where possessing a gun is
>illegal. Arkansas, Kentucky and Mississippi--the three states that have
>had deadly shootings in public schools over the past half-year--all
>allow law-abiding adults to carry concealed handgun for
>self-protection, except in public schools. Indeed, federal law
>generally prohibits guns within 1,000 feet of a school.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Gun prohibitionists concede that banning guns around schools has not
>quite worked as intended--but their response has been to call for more
>regulations of guns. Yet what might appear to be the most obvious
>policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is
>law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them.
>Obviously the police cannot be everywhere, so these laws risk creating
>situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad
>ones.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Consider a fact hardly mentioned during the massive news coverage of
>the October 1997 shooting spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss.: An
>assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically
>immobilized the gunman for a full 41/2 minutes while waiting for the
>police to arrive. The gunman had already fatally shot two students
>(after earlier stabbing his mother to death). Who knows how many lives
>the assistant principal saved by his prompt response?
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Allowing teachers and other law-abiding adults to carry concealed
>handguns in schools would not only make it easier to stop shootings in
>progress. It could also help deter shootings from ever occurring.
>Twenty-five or more years ago in Israel, terrorists would pull out
>machine guns in malls and fire away at civilians. However, with
>expanded concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon
>found the ordinary people around them pulling pistols on them. Suffice
>it to say, terrorists in Israel no longer engage in such public
>shootings--they have switched to bombing, a tactic that doesn't allow
>the intended victims to respond.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>The one recent shooting of schoolchildren in Israel further
>illustrates these points. On March 13, 1997, seven seventh- and
>eighth-grade Israeli girls were shot to death by a Jordanian soldier
>while they visited Jordan's so-called Island of Peace. The Los Angeles
>Times reports that the Israelis had "complied with Jordanian requests
>to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave.
>Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several
>parents said."
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Together with my colleague William Landes, I have studied
>multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1995. These
>were incidents in which at least two people were killed or injured in a
>public place; to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas we
>excluded shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as
>robbery. The U.S. averaged 21 such shootings per year, with an average
>of 1.8 people killed and 2.7 wounded in each one.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>We examined a whole range of different gun laws as well as other
>methods of deterrence, such as the death penalty. However, only one
>policy succeeded in reducing deaths and injuries from these
>shootings--allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>The effect of "shall-issue" concealed handgun laws--which give adults
>the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal
>record or a history of significant mental illness--has been dramatic.
>Thirty-one states now have such laws. When states passed them during
>the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings
>declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by
>90%, injuries by 82%. Higher arrest rates and increased use of the
>death penalty slightly reduced the incidence of these events, but the
>effects were never statistically significant.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>With over 19,600 people murdered in 1996, those killed in multiple
>victim public shootings account for fewer than 0.2% of the total. Yet
>these are surely the murders that attract national as well as
>international attention, often for days after the attack. Victims
>recount their feelings of utter helplessness as a gunman methodically
>shoots his cowering prey.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Unfortunately, much of the public policy debate is driven by lopsided
>coverage of gun use. Tragic events like those in Arkansas receive
>massive news coverage, as they should, but discussions of the 2.5
>million times each year that people use guns defensively--including
>cases in which public shootings are stopped before they happen--are
>ignored. Dramatic stories of mothers who prevented their children from
>being kidnapped by carjackers seldom even make the local news.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Attempts to outlaw guns from schools, no matter how well meaning, have
>backfired. Instead of making schools safe for children, we have made
>them safe for those intent on harming our children. Current school
>policies fire teachers who even accidentally bring otherwise legal
>concealed handguns to school. We might consider reversing this policy
>and begin rewarding teachers who take on the responsibility to help
>protect children.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
><italic>>Mr. Lott, a fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law,
>is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime," forthcoming in early May from
>the University of Chicago Press.
>
></italic>>
>
>>=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/SB89095813222556500.ht=
>m#top>Return
>to top of page <bold>Copyright =A9 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All
>Rights Reserved.</bold>  =3D0 )   {  s +=3D "<<SC" + "RIPT ";  s +=3D
>'Language=3D"Javascript"=DD src=3D"/edition/resources/documents/ppath.js">';=
>=20
>s +=3D "";  document.write( s );  } //--> =20
>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Chad Leigh              Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net
>
>[e-mail]         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
>
>=46ull service WWW services from just space to complete sites.
>
>Low cost virtual servers.    DB integration. Tango.
>
>Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
>
>Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>-
>
>


--

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: re: Mikey doesn't like guns  (Was: FW: [Fwd: The Real Lesson of
Date: 27 Mar 1998 15:51:15 -0700


FYI, this article came from page A14 of today's (Friday, 27 March)
edition of the WSJ.

On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" <[e-mail]> posted:

>
>
>Maybe we need MIKEY to read this.
>
>
>We need to draw much attention to this article and point out Mikey's
>flaws!!!
>
>
>Make him eat crow!
>
>
>Chad
>
>
>
>
>>Envelope-to: [e-mail]
>
>>From: Dan Gosselin <<[e-mail]>
>
>>To: "'[e-mail]'" <<[e-mail]>
>
>>Subject: FW: [Fwd: The Real Lesson of the School Shootings - WSJ]
>
>>Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:06:17 -0500
>
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>Subject: The Real Lesson of the School Shootings - WSJ
>
>>Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:05:57 -0500
>
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>>Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=3D"----
>=3D_NextPart_001_01BD5991.E6F8B1B0"
>
>>
>
>>http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/SB89095813222556500.htm
>
>>
>
>>                        =20
>
>>=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/public/resources/media=
>/125Side.map>
> =3D0 )   { document.write("");   } //-->=20
><<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/interactive.wsj.com/tile125.htm;famil=3Dopi=
>nion;tile=3D1;ord=3D15429>
>
>
>> <bold>In this Section: =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/wwide.htm>World-Wide
> =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/asia.htm>Asia
> <<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summa=
>ries/europe.htm>Europe
> <<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summa=
>ries/americas.htm>The
>Americas=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/economy.htm>Economy
> <<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summa=
>ries/earnings.htm>Earnings
>=46ocus=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/politics.htm>Politics
>& Policy
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/weather.htm>Weather
></bold>   <bold>
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/editorl.htm>Editorial
>Page=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/leisure.htm>Leisure
>& Arts=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/voices.htm>Voices
></bold>  =20
><<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/interactive.wsj.com/tile125.htm;famil=3Dopi=
>nion;tile=3D2;ord=3D15429>
> <bold>
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/toc.htm>Table
>of Contents </bold>     <bold>Related Sites: =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/summar=
>ies/barrons.htm>Barron's
>Online    <<http://www.smartmoney.com/>SmartMoney Interactive  =20
><<http://careers.wsj.com/>Careers.wsj.com  =20
><<http://bd.dowjones.com/index.asp?From=3DWSJIE>Business Directory  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/Publib/>Publications
>Library  =20
><<http://play.rbn.com/?dowjones/wsj/demand/headlines.rm>WSJ.COM Radio
>
>>   Hear top news of the hour with
><<http://www.real.com/products/player/index.html>RealPlayer 5.0
>
>>   Search/Archives: =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/search.htm>Search
> =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/bbsearch.htm>Briefing
>Books  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/qsearch.htm>Quotes
> =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/past/summaries=
>/menu.html>Past
>Editions  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/current/articl=
>es/JournalLinks.htm>Journal
>Links  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/special.htm>Special
>Reports </bold>    <bold>Resources: =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/help.htm>Help
> =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/new.htm>New
>=46eatures  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/user-cgi-bin/userMenu.=
>html>Your
>Account  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/contact.htm>Contact
>Us  =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/resources/docu=
>ments/glossary.htm>Glossary
></bold>     <bold>Advertising: =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/edition/ads/hosted/ad.=
>htm>Advertisers
> =20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/archive/classifieds.ht=
>ml>E-Mart
> March 27, 1998</bold>  <<mailto:[e-mail]>=20
>
><bold><bigger>>
>
>>
>
>> The Real Lesson
>
>> Of the School Shootings
>
></bigger></bold>>
>
>>
>
><bold>>By JOHN R. LOTT JR.
>
></bold>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>This week's horrific shootings in Arkansas have, predictably, spurred
>calls for more gun control. But it's worth noting that the shootings
>occurred in one of the few places in Arkansas where possessing a gun is
>illegal. Arkansas, Kentucky and Mississippi--the three states that have
>had deadly shootings in public schools over the past half-year--all
>allow law-abiding adults to carry concealed handgun for
>self-protection, except in public schools. Indeed, federal law
>generally prohibits guns within 1,000 feet of a school.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Gun prohibitionists concede that banning guns around schools has not
>quite worked as intended--but their response has been to call for more
>regulations of guns. Yet what might appear to be the most obvious
>policy may actually cost lives. When gun-control laws are passed, it is
>law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who adhere to them.
>Obviously the police cannot be everywhere, so these laws risk creating
>situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad
>ones.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Consider a fact hardly mentioned during the massive news coverage of
>the October 1997 shooting spree at a high school in Pearl, Miss.: An
>assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically
>immobilized the gunman for a full 41/2 minutes while waiting for the
>police to arrive. The gunman had already fatally shot two students
>(after earlier stabbing his mother to death). Who knows how many lives
>the assistant principal saved by his prompt response?
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Allowing teachers and other law-abiding adults to carry concealed
>handguns in schools would not only make it easier to stop shootings in
>progress. It could also help deter shootings from ever occurring.
>Twenty-five or more years ago in Israel, terrorists would pull out
>machine guns in malls and fire away at civilians. However, with
>expanded concealed-handgun use by Israeli citizens, terrorists soon
>found the ordinary people around them pulling pistols on them. Suffice
>it to say, terrorists in Israel no longer engage in such public
>shootings--they have switched to bombing, a tactic that doesn't allow
>the intended victims to respond.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>The one recent shooting of schoolchildren in Israel further
>illustrates these points. On March 13, 1997, seven seventh- and
>eighth-grade Israeli girls were shot to death by a Jordanian soldier
>while they visited Jordan's so-called Island of Peace. The Los Angeles
>Times reports that the Israelis had "complied with Jordanian requests
>to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave.
>Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several
>parents said."
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Together with my colleague William Landes, I have studied
>multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1995. These
>were incidents in which at least two people were killed or injured in a
>public place; to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas we
>excluded shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as
>robbery. The U.S. averaged 21 such shootings per year, with an average
>of 1.8 people killed and 2.7 wounded in each one.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>We examined a whole range of different gun laws as well as other
>methods of deterrence, such as the death penalty. However, only one
>policy succeeded in reducing deaths and injuries from these
>shootings--allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>The effect of "shall-issue" concealed handgun laws--which give adults
>the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal
>record or a history of significant mental illness--has been dramatic.
>Thirty-one states now have such laws. When states passed them during
>the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings
>declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by
>90%, injuries by 82%. Higher arrest rates and increased use of the
>death penalty slightly reduced the incidence of these events, but the
>effects were never statistically significant.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>With over 19,600 people murdered in 1996, those killed in multiple
>victim public shootings account for fewer than 0.2% of the total. Yet
>these are surely the murders that attract national as well as
>international attention, often for days after the attack. Victims
>recount their feelings of utter helplessness as a gunman methodically
>shoots his cowering prey.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Unfortunately, much of the public policy debate is driven by lopsided
>coverage of gun use. Tragic events like those in Arkansas receive
>massive news coverage, as they should, but discussions of the 2.5
>million times each year that people use guns defensively--including
>cases in which public shootings are stopped before they happen--are
>ignored. Dramatic stories of mothers who prevented their children from
>being kidnapped by carjackers seldom even make the local news.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
>>Attempts to outlaw guns from schools, no matter how well meaning, have
>backfired. Instead of making schools safe for children, we have made
>them safe for those intent on harming our children. Current school
>policies fire teachers who even accidentally bring otherwise legal
>concealed handguns to school. We might consider reversing this policy
>and begin rewarding teachers who take on the responsibility to help
>protect children.
>
>>
>
>>=20
>
>>
>
><italic>>Mr. Lott, a fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law,
>is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime," forthcoming in early May from
>the University of Chicago Press.
>
></italic>>
>
>>=20
><<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/SB89095813222556500.ht=
>m#top>Return
>to top of page <bold>Copyright =A9 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All
>Rights Reserved.</bold>  =3D0 )   {  s +=3D "<<SC" + "RIPT ";  s +=3D
>'Language=3D"Javascript"=DD src=3D"/edition/resources/documents/ppath.js">';=
>=20
>s +=3D "";  document.write( s );  } //--> =20
>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Chad Leigh              Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net
>
>[e-mail]         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
>
>=46ull service WWW services from just space to complete sites.
>
>Low cost virtual servers.    DB integration. Tango.
>
>Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses.  POP3 and IMAP
>
>Email Accounts.  mailto:[e-mail] for any of these.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>-
>
>


--

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

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Courts Are Above the Constitution?
Date: 27 Mar 1998 19:42:00 -0700


Forward

by WILLIAM MICHAEL KEMP
[e-mail]
The Vigo Examiner

In December 1997, the Unites Stated Department of Justice
received a letter from a group which put forward the
position that the right to keep and bear arms was a right
held by individuals, predated the Constitution, and was
simply affirmed and guaranteed by the second Article of
the Bill of Rights, not granted by it.

Recently they got their reply, having waited only three months.
In a letter dated March 18, 1998, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), in the person of James S. Reynolds, Chief of the
Terrorism and Violent Crime Section, answered this assertion
with a listing of citations of case law, as handed down by
the Supreme Court and various U.S. Courts of Appeal over the
last sixty years. In these cites, it is asserted that the
Constitution does not grant a right to individuals to own
and use firearms.

All appeared well. The DOJ was in agreement. Not quite. The
DOJ went on to assert that because the Constitution is not
the source of rights, that at least one of the rights it
guarantees does not exist. Reynolds asserts that these court
decisions supercede the Constitution, and that the right does
not exist because the courts have said it does not exist,
regardless of what the Constitution says on the matter.

The reply concludes by quoting from a letter from Mary C. Lawton,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel,
to George Bush, Chairman, Republican National Committee (July
19, 1973): "...it must be considered as settled that there is
no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment,
to own or use a gun." Mr. Reynolds further confides that this
loyalty to the courts, not the Constitution, is the position
of the current Department of Justice, and that this position
has long been held by the Department under both Democratic and
Republican administrations.

Gun control activists have expressed their satisfaction over
this position, and state their intention to further press for
limits on individual freedom to and use of firearms. Several
have noted, however, that the blunt statement expressed in
this letter from the Department of Justice will likely
infuriate the legions of American gun rights activists, and
may well make the slow, steady elimination of firearms from
personal possession all the more difficult.

Gun rights activists also take the position that the Constitution
"grants" no rights whatsoever. They cite Thomas Jefferson's
Declaration of Independence, wherein Jefferson states that men
"...are endowed by their Creator" with rights, and that therefore,
the Constitution is only the government's solemn written contract
to preserve the preexisting rights. Some say this point is blatantly
contradicted in the Department of Justice letter, and by several
of the case law cites which are invoked to support their position.

These gun rights adherents further cite the wording of the Bill
of Rights itself, which states in part that "..the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They note
that where the phrase "the people" is used in all other parts
of the Constitution, it invariably and inarguably means, and is
universally accepted as "the collection of individual Americans."

Strict Constitutional constructionists, they attack the Justice
Department's reliance on case law, and claim that the Department
of Justice's reliance upon "the Courts'" opinions is akin to the
defendants at Nuremberg (war criminals trials after World War II)
claiming to be "following orders," and point out that each
Constitutional officer is required to swear an individual oath
to the Constitution, not the courts. They say that Article VI of
the Constitution requires strict adherence by all legislative,
executive, and judicial officers to the Constitution, not the
courts.

They further cite Jefferson's Declaration of Independence,
pointing out that this foundation of American government requires
that the people alter or abolish any government which fails to
support the premise of individual rights, subsequently guaranteed
by the Constitution. They allege that any judge (or any government
employee) who has taken the position that government is not
absolutely bound to support individual rights over the delegated
power of government is in violation of their oath of office,
and has thus vacated their office and their authority.

The Department of Justice's position is currently demonstrated
in several situations present in the news, most recently in the
arrest of several men in Michigan, accused of possessing what the
Department of Justice refers to as "illegal firearms." One of the
firearms in question is called, by government attorneys, a "sniper
rifle accurate to over a mile." At least one of the defendants
in that case is alleging in his defense that there is no such
thing as an "illegal firearm" when possessed by a free American.

A gun rights and citizens' militia activist was interviewed
at a shooting range, and prior to the interview, used a bolt
action rifle with telescopic sights to demonstrate the accuracy
of the firearm. From a sandbagged position, he fired several
shots in succession at targets not visible to the naked eye at
the considerable distance covered. Upon examination, several
soft drink bottle caps and brass shell casings were observed
with bullet holes through them. He referred to the firearm as
"a deer rifle."

The man, who spoke with the assurance of anonymity, scoffed at
the promised anonymity. "They know who I am," he stated. When
questioned who "they" were, he replied "the government-- or,
I should say, their secret police."

Pushed for an explanation, he pointed out that this reporter
had no difficulty in locating a spokesman for the gun activists'
viewpoint. He further pointed out that he was routinely
contacted at home by various representatives of the media.
He then asserted that government employees were indeed
anonymous, removed from the citizenry over whom they allege
control, and that they were following the same path embarked
upon by representatives of King George in colonial times in
the effort to further their unlawful control over the citizenry.

This gentleman asserted that the founders of the United States
pointedly affirmed the right of Americans to keep and bear arms,
ascribed the success of the revolution against England to the
armed citizenry, and trumpeted the American government as being
qualitatively different from all the other governments of the
world, in that the government not only trusted the citizenry
to be armed, but in fact depended upon the citizens' armament
to maintain their hard-won freedom.

"King George assumed the power to disarm Americans, and his
representatives attempted to exercise that power," he stated.
"That government was proven to be in error."

Not all gun rights activists, however, are so alienated by the
actions and attitude of the DOJ. The National Rifle Association,
a long time supporter of law enforcement, successfully lobbied
for passage of HR 666 in January of 1995. This law allows
warrantless search and seizure. Some have alleged that it has
completely compromised the Fourth Amendment. The Department of
Justice maintains the position stated in the referenced letter.

Copyright (c) 1998, The Vigo Examiner
http://www.Vigo-Examiner.com

Enjoy a 90 day free trial subscription to the email
version of The Vigo Examiner. To receive one or two
of the top stories or editorials by email each day,
send your request to [e-mail].



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: rights *granted* by CONstitution
Date: 27 Mar 1998 19:42:00 -0700


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

Scott Bergeson wrote:
> This is what your government thinks of your *rights* as *conferred*
> by the CONstitution.

> Mike Kemp

> Note: The New Jersey Militia received the following letter,
> dated 3/18/98, from the U.S. Department of Justice in
> response to our inquiry over their official position on the
> Second Amendment.

> Dear Mr. [Deleted]

> This responds to your letter from December 1997 in which you
> express your concern about the official position of the Department
> of Justice regarding the Second Amendment. You relate the argument
> of Professor Copperud, that the Second Amendment is simply the
> confirmation of a preexisting individual right to bear arms.

> Ultimately, however, it is the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower
> Federal courts that are the final arbiter of the meaning of the
> Constitution.

Yes but the Bill of Rights does guarantee the right to keep and
bear arms. Of course the Constitution doesn't it created the federal
government and assigned it 18 powers. The Bill of Rights has its own
preamble and stands alone. Don't be fooled by its being jammed up
"under" the Constitution and its preamble dropped to make you think
it an organic part of the Constitution. Your rights come from nature
and nature's God.

There is a maxim of law which says that a creation may not harm its
creator. Look at the sequence below and remember or learn the true
history of the united States.

People
state Constitutions
state governments
uS Constitution
uS government
14th Amendment
14th Amendment citizens.

We need a knowledge of how the country was set up in order to
reclaim our rights that were a condition placed on the Constitution.
They didn't get to have their constitution until they made a
contract not to do certain things.

Today people in ignorance of the true meaning of their acts
accept benefits from government that strip away their "rights".
The governments ultimate power is over paper. It is words on
paper that have put us in the position we find ourselves in now.
Words on paper can also free you to pursue your life freely
unencumbered but you need knowledge to make this work.

Here are some non sequiturs:

Governments have the right to print money but seem to prefer
to borrow it. Huh???

People trade their rights and freedoms for little pieces of paper
that aren't money but debt. Huh?

People created the constitutions and governments and are everywhere
acknowledged as the sovereigns here but believe bureaucrats who say
you must obey because we signed a contract on your behalf that
obligates you. Huh?

Jim


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Insider Info on Shooting
Date: 27 Mar 1998 22:37:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
    [e-mail]

Forwarded from another list...don't complain about the all-caps, that's
how I got it.

-------

AN EMPL0YEE HERE IN MY DEPT. ALSO IS A POLICE RESERVIST AND WORKS THE
JAIL.  BOTH THE BOYS WHO DID THE SHOOTING WERE LOCKED DOWN IN THEIR
CELLS ABOUT 9PM AND WENT IMMEDIATELY TO SLEEP, NO PROBLEM.  SLEPT ALL
NIGHT.  DIDN'T SEEM TO SHOW AN REMORSE OR ANGER OR ANYTHING.  JUST
SEEMED LIKE LITTLE KIDS WHO HAD A ROUGH DAY PLAYING ON THE PLAYGROUND.
THE 13 YEAR OLD'S MOTHER AND STEP FATHER CAME IN THE NEXT MORNING, AND
THIER FIRST QUESTION TO THE DESK SARGEANT WAS "WHEN CAN WE GET OUR VAN
BACK?"  THE NEXT QUESTION WAS, "WELL, CAN WE AT LEAST GET THE CAR SEAT
OUT OF THE VAN?  IT'S THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE."  NEITHER SEEMED TO
CONCERNED OR BOTHERED ABOUT THE EVENTS OF THE PREVIOUS DAY.  THE 11
YEAR OLDS PARENTS WERE HISTARICOL.

THE DAY MORNING THIS HAPPENED, THE TWO BOYS TOOK A TORCH TO THE 11 YEAR
OLD BOYS DAD'S GUN SAFE AND COULDN'T GET TO THEM.  SO THEY WENT TO THE
13 YEAR OLDS HOUSE AND BROKE A WINDOW OUT TO GET IN AND STOLE ALL HIS
WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION.  THE GRANDFATHER IS DOUG GOLDEN AND IS AN
ARKANSAS STATE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OFFICER AND IS ALSO A GUN COLLECTOR
LIKE THE BOYS FATHER.  IF THIS DOESN'T SHOW A THOUGHT PROCESS AND
PREMEDITATION THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD.

THE ENTIRE TOWN IS TURNED UPSIDE DOWN.  HILLCREST ELEMENTARY ACROSS
TOWN HAD A FIRE IN THE KITCHEN, AND THEY WERE TOO AFRAID TO PULL THE
FIRE ALARM, SO THEY RAN FROM ROOM TO ROOM ANNOUNCING AN EVAC.  THE
FIRE DEPT. SHOWED AND PUT IT OUT WITHOUT HARM.  ALL RADIO STATIONS AND
MEDIA ARE GATHERING MONEY DONATIONS FOR RELIEF FOR THE VICTIMS AND
THIER FAMILIES.  THE RED CROSS IS WORKING 24 HOURS A DAY TO TAKE BLOOD
DONATIONS AND MONEY DONATIONS.  THERE IS NOTHING ON ANYONES MIND AT
THIS TIME BUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND WHY.

-------

- Monte

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit."
               - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika"
 --------------------------------------------------------------------

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


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Preaching to someone other than the choir
Date: 29 Mar 1998 01:40:58 -0700


Thought y'all might be interested to know that I emailed a copy of the
WSJ article to several State Legislators and Governor Mikey
<[e-mail]> as well as several editors, etc at the Desnews
and Tribune.  I received the following response from one of the
legislators.  Identifiing info redacted.

If you haven't done so already, you should perhaps forward copies to
your State legislators, the governor, the papers, etc.  And keep a
copy handy to pass on to any newly elected legislators.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Mr. Hardy,
Thank you for this well reasoned response to the latest tragedy in Arkansas.  To
my astonishment, our "conservative" republican governor in Utah used this
deviant behavior as a call to prohibit weapons on school grounds by concealed
weapon permit holders.  HIs response was an emotional one, yours a practical and
responsible one.  I would like to get a copy of "More Guns, Less Crime" when it
is available.

----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.

 A camel is a horse designed by a committee and an elephant is a mouse
 built to military specifications." -- from page 321 of "Cryptoanalysis
 for Microcomputers" by Caxton C. Foster (University of Massachusetts),
 Hayden Book Co. Inc., 1982.



-



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

From: "larry larsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Preaching to someone other than the choir
Date: 29 Mar 1998 07:22:29 -0700

To freedom loving Uthans,
I believe it is time to stop, if you haven't already, supporting Mike
Leavett as governor of Utah.  Conditions should not be made favorable for
him to consider a third term in office. All freedom loving people should be
made aware of his anti constitutional stance, and no support should be given
him from any moral person. I see where his thoughts lie, and they are to
impress the big time government, and world leaders who are watching Utah
prepare for the up coming Olympics. The Governor wishes to stand out in all
his glory at the Olympics, and during this time of preparation,  as a future
candidate for high (perhaps president) government office. He will not be
able to achieve his lofty goal, if he fails to do away with the CCW law in
Utah as it exists. When he just wanted to be governor of Utah it was fine to
do and act as a freedom loving Utahan would act, but now he feels he must
meet the criteria of the big time government leaders. Perhaps no amount of
reason will sway him, but others will and have listened, so lets do as
Charles has suggested and pass the word.
Larry S. Larsen
http://larsenfamily.com/russian_stove/
[e-mail]

_=_____________________________!
 <|------==(______)--------              |____|
  |/////_____________45 ACP___|___|
   \       /|(    )/
   /      /) ___|
  /     o/
 /       /
/o___/


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



Thought y'all might be interested to know that I emailed a copy of the
WSJ article to several State Legislators and Governor Mikey
<[e-mail]> as well as several editors, etc at the Desnews
and Tribune.  I received the following response from one of the
legislators.  Identifiing info redacted.

If you haven't done so already, you should perhaps forward copies to
your State legislators, the governor, the papers, etc.  And keep a
copy handy to pass on to any newly elected legislators.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Mr. Hardy,
Thank you for this well reasoned response to the latest tragedy in Arkansas.
To
my astonishment, our "conservative" republican governor in Utah used this
deviant behavior as a call to prohibit weapons on school grounds by
concealed
weapon permit holders.  HIs response was an emotional one, yours a practical
and
responsible one.  I would like to get a copy of "More Guns, Less Crime" when
it
is available.

----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.

A camel is a horse designed by a committee and an elephant is a mouse
built to military specifications." -- from page 321 of "Cryptoanalysis
for Microcomputers" by Caxton C. Foster (University of Massachusetts),
Hayden Book Co. Inc., 1982.



-




-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: "Rifles and Magnums and Weapons" (Oh, my!)
Date: 29 Mar 1998 21:25:00 -0700


Good point about the hypocrisy of gun-grabbers, though the
same arguments that apply in support of RKBA apply to any
chemical entity as well.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Cc: PIML <[e-mail]>, NOBAN <[e-mail]>

On NBC's "Meet the Press" this morning, Tim Russert hyped Bill Moyers'
upcoming special, "Close to Home", in which he chronicles the drug
addiction of his own son.  Russert then introduced Moyers, who agonized
over the recent tragedy in Jonesboro, Arkansas asking, rhetorically, "what
makes kids commit heinous crimes like this?".

Moyers had the answer, of course: guns, millions of guns, and the easy
availability of these guns---so that kids who once settled their petty
differences with slingshots or fists now grab a convenient gun whenever
they become angry.  Despite his upcoming hand-wringer about his own son's
drug addiction, Moyers--in his hypocritical determination to demonize
firearms--very conveniently ignored the statement by a Jonesboro girl
when asked about the 13-year-old (alleged) shooter's declaration that he
would "kill the people (girls) who had dumped him"---she said "I used to
date him, but I dumped him after he began using drugs!".

In the later "roundtable" discussion, Rep.. Zoe Lofgren, liberal Democrat
from California's 16th CD (San Jose), kept hammering away at the easy
availability of those evil firearms and urging even stronger federal gun
control--aided and abetted by Russert, who observed in a flummoxed manner,
"...and these kids had rifles and Magnums and weapons!"--while she gave an
impressive impersonation of Eleanor Clift by interspersing half-hearted
apologies for our sophomoric president's boorish sexual predations.

Finally, Bill Moyers talked about his special on addiction---he talked
about drugs "hijacking the brain" and how people (including his own son)
will risk family, home, job--*everything*, in fact--to get just one more
chemical fix.  How their personalities will become distorted and their
judgement will fly out the window---but that this does not relieve the
addict of the responsibility for his actions or for the management of his
addiction.

How ironic---when Mr. Moyers' son became a drug addict and destroyed his
own life, he could identify the problem: drugs, and his son's addictive
personality.  But when a troubled teen in Arkansas (who had once boasted
of his supposed membership in "The Bloods" street gang) begins using
drugs, then destroys the lives of others (along with his own and that of
his 11-year-old cousin), all that Mr. Moyers--in a classic case of
bilateral locution--can discern is the old bugaboo firearms---and how
easily available they are.  How ironic---and how utterly disingenuous.

David M. Gonzalez, Troglodyte
Wheeling, Illinois

Replies/Abuse: [e-mail]



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: DNews political reporter says LDS Church supports gun ban legislation
Date: 29 Mar 1998 21:25:00 -0700



Seems like this one cries out for a response based on our earlier
discussion of what the LDS Church's statement meant.

Scooter!

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

Sentiment to restrict concealed arms grows

Lawmakers won't act despite poll numbers

Last updated 03/28/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT
⌐ 1998 Deseret News
By Bob Bernick Jr.
Deseret News political editor
It's rare that 90 percent of Utahns want something and legislators
refuse to comply. Especially if it doesn't cost money. Especially if the
LDS Church wants it, too.
But for two general legislative sessions now, lawmakers have refused to
act on restricting where legally permitted concealed weapons may be
carried. That refusal is despite overwhelming polling numbers, a
statement by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on keeping
all guns out of churches and Gov. Mike Leavitt's request that lawmakers
address the matter.
Now a new Deseret News poll shows that support for restricting concealed
weapons has even climbed a bit more. (See chart.) While previous polls
place support for restricting concealed weapons in churches and schools
in the high 80 percent range, support has reached 90 percent or above,
pollster Dan Jones & Associates found.
But Bryan Lindsey isn't surprised that legislators haven't acted.
The laboratory technician, husband and father of three considers himself
an average Utahn. When he isn't working in a private lab conducting
forensic tests, Lindsey is a citizen lobbyist on guns-rights issues.
"The legislators whom I talk to understand that there just isn't a
problem" with "good, honest citizens" abusing their right to carry a
concealed weapon, Lindsey says.
About 15,000 Utahns have been licensed by the state to carry concealed
weapons. They go through a background check and some training before
receiving the permit, which under state law must be issued unless there
is a valid reason not to issue it.
Guns-rights advocates say the permits give law-abiding citizens the
right to carry their handguns anywhere they wish, except for the
specifically exempted locations of the courts, the Salt Lake
International Airport, jails and other law enforcement-secure areas.
"Criminals will not obey any law we may pass," Lindsey said. Only the
law-abiding, concealed-weapons owners will. And that gives criminals the
"power over good citizens."
But House Minority Leader Dave Jones says legislators won't act, not
because of reason but because conservative GOP leaders, backed by the
gun lobby, are determined to thwart the public will.
"Why do we ignore 90 percent of the people?" Jones, D-Salt Lake, asked.
"It's because a few (legislators) have got the power, they are ardent
gun-rights advocates and outside the mainstream of Utahns on this
issue."
Bill Nash, a University of Utah professor who is chairman of Utahns
Against Gun Violence, says there are three reasons lawmakers refuse to
act: "Some are reluctant to disagree with the National Rifle
Association; some believe House Speaker Mel Brown and former Speaker Rob
Bishop (who lobbies for the Utah Shooting Sports Council) when they say
there's no problem; and some are unwilling to take on a tough issue in
an election year."
Jones points a finger at Brown. But Brown says to point somewhere else.
Browns maintains he never killed one concealed-weapons bill in the 1998
or 1997 session.
He said recent polls, including the Deseret News poll, don't adequately
explain to those interviewed that the permittees are law-abiding
citizens, not criminals, and that they have background checks and
training to secure the permits.
"There's no problem" with permittees taking guns into schools, churches
and grocery stores, the speaker says. Brown says churches, like all
private property owners, have the right to keep all guns out, if they so
wish.
The sticky question, he adds, is what to do with public facilities -
schools, government offices, parks, universities and businesses open to
the public.
"Before you point fingers, you must have proof that you need a change,"
especially when you're talking about restricting what many believe is a
basic constitutional right - the right to bear arms, Brown says.
"I don't see that proof," he added.
And apparently neither did the sponsors of two bills - Senate President
Lane Beattie and Rep. Robert Killpack - in the 1998 session aimed at
detailing where concealed weapons may be carried, Brown said. Both men
killed their bills after they were introduced, before any public
hearing.
Nash says his group is pleased that Beattie killed his own bill. "It's
better for us not to have it (Beattie's bill). For it would have left
unprotected universities and private businesses."
Brown added that while Leavitt says he wants something done about where
concealed weapons may be carried, "he just points (a finger) also, and
he has never put forward any recommended proposal" to solve any of the
discussed problems.
Leavitt said this week he's disappointed that lawmakers haven't acted on
concealed weapons. But he adds he believes they will at some point.


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: news]
Date: 30 Mar 1998 13:13:53 -0700

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA24158; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:09:11 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from ssiinc.com by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA0576256375; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:53:59 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA07222; Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com"
 via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa001kd; Mon Mar 30 10:02:27 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

>Gun company cleared in Brooklyn Bridge shooting

>NEW YORK (March 28, 1998 07:43 a.m. EST http://www.nando.net) -- In the
>first of its kind to reach trial, a federal jury cleared a gun
>manufacturer of any liability in the slaying of a Hasidic student shot
>with one of its weapons on the Brooklyn Bridge.

For full details click
http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/nation/032898/nation30_18969_noframes.html




-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court to decide Foster notes case
Date: 30 Mar 1998 13:24:13 -0700

Well, the last one has already expired, but I found this lurking
in the stack.  One more nail in the coffin....

Will Thompson wrote:
>
> http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/politics/033098/politicst_23515_body.html
>
>
> Supreme Court to decide Foster notes case
>
> Copyright ⌐ 1998 Nando.net
> Copyright ⌐ 1998 The Associated Press

> WASHINGTON (March 30, 1998 11:43 a.m. EST http://www.nando.net) -- The
> Supreme Court Monday delayed efforts
...
> In other action Monday, the court:
...
>
> * Rejected the appeal of a U.S. soldier facing a bad-conduct discharge
> for refusing to wear a United Nations shoulder patch and U.N. blue
> beret for a peace-keeping mission.
...
> By LAURIE ASSEO, The Associated Press
>
>

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Survey Query]
Date: 30 Mar 1998 13:52:57 -0700

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA20597; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 13:26:14 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from ssiinc.com by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA0062940320; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 13:11:44 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA17639; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:20:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com"
 via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa004JQ; Mon Feb 16 12:20:14 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

> Does anyone have a statistical comparison between the annual number of
> criminals killed by LEOs vs. criminals killed by citizens in the US or by
> state?

The classic study was done by Don Kates at the St. Louis School of
Law.  It was reported on in the 1/10/85 Wall Street Journal (Carol
Ruth Silver & Don B. Kates, Jr., "Gun Control and the Subway Class").
Some of the findings:

  o Police were successful in shooting or driving off criminals 68%
    of the time; citizens succeeded 83% of the time.

  o 11% of individuals involved in police shootings were later found
    to be innocents misidentified as criminals; In civilian shootings,
    the figure was 2%.

  o Private citizens in urban areas encounter and kill up to three
    times as many criminals as do law enforcement authorities.
--

[e-mail]      --If you presume that I speak for my company,
users.aol.com/Tavares/    write now for my special Investors' Packet!



-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fear Mongering on CCW permits
Date: 30 Mar 1998 13:50:19 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> >From today's tribune.  A letter with hard facts refuting the claim
> that Texas CCW permit holders are twice as likely to be arrested
> as a non CCW holder really needs to be written.  If anyone has
> good sources but doesn't want to write a letter for some reason,
> pass them along and I'll write one.
>

>      This is especially alarming because concealed-weapons permit
>  holders in Texas have been shown to have arrest rates as high as
>  twice that of the general population, according to health-research
>  specialist Sue Glick of the anti-gun Violence Policy Center in
>  Washington.
>
>
I have another story quoting the VPC's "study" with other quotes by
Sue Glick.  I will forward that to the list, along with a possible
couple of other things that might be helpful.  Although I don't
like the idea of using stats to justify rights, Lott seems to have
done quite a bit of good work again.  One of the next few forwards
should have a link to something of his.  They still wont' publish
anything from me, and you seem to be able to get stuff in, so go
for it!


Will

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Gun permit crime]
Date: 30 Mar 1998 13:51:23 -0700

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA12926; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:28:54 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from ssiinc.com by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA0236660792; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:27:04 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA00528; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com"
 via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa0007x; Wed Feb 11 10:21:50 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

Concealed handguns and the
crime rate


Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net
Copyright =A9 1998 Scripps Howard

    [Forwarded with permission]

(February 10, 1998 01:47 a.m. EST http://www.nando.net)
-- The wild old West might have been a tamer place
than the Texas of today. For one thing, there's the
number of Texans walking the streets now with legally
licensed concealed firearms. At last count it's
151,433.

So one in every 121 modern Texans is secretly
packing iron.

This is according to the Violence Policy Center, a
non-profit citizen watchdog group in Washington,
which has been keeping count of the number of
Texans licensed by the state to carry concealed
guns.

Of course, lots and lots of Texans in the olden days
kept guns up their sleeves and under their frock
coats -- and nobody bothered with permits or
keeping count. Another difference, though: Those
were two-shot derringers and single-action Colts,
and these days hidden pistols are more likely to be
semi-automatic Glock-9s.

The center also has been keeping tally, based on
data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, of
what Texans have been doing with the pistols in their
pockets.

More than 940 individuals with concealed handgun
licenses have been arrested in the past two years
since Texas' "shall-issue" law took effect.

Their offenses: 263 felony arrests, including six
charges of murder or attempted murder involving at
least four deaths; two charges of kidnapping; 18
charges of sexual assault; 66 charges of assault; 48
cases of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon;
and 42 other weapon-related charges, plus 683
misdemeanor arrests, including 215 instances of
driving while intoxicated.

"The National Rifle Association will be quick to argue
that the 940 arrested are less than 1 percent of those
with concealed weapons permits," says Josh
Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center.

His associate, Susan Glick, who did the study,
contends the more accurate way of gauging the
violence is by comparing arrest rates of those with
concealed carry permits and those without.

"We find the weapon-related offense rate among
concealed handgun license-holders is more than
twice as high as general population of Texans aged
21 and older," says Glick.

The center did a study last year on Florida, which has
been freely giving permits for 12 years, and found
200,241 Floridians had received licenses to carry
concealed firearms.

That was one in every 69 Floridians with a hidden
gun as of July 1995.

At the time of the study, 469 individuals had
committed crimes ranging from murder to
kidnapping, either before or after getting the Florida
permits. The study also found that hundreds of
criminals had applied for Florida licenses and many
had received them.

Currently, 31 states issue some form of permits for
concealed weapons: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi,
Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia
and Wyoming.

Exactly how many people have gotten the permits
nationwide is unknown. The center says each state
has various ways of keeping count, and many have
confidentiality laws that veil the records. No count is
being kept by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms because the permits fall under state law
and there is no federal issue at stake.

Yet by the most conservative reckoning, at least a
million Americans today are going about publicly with
handguns concealed in their clothes.

And with modern weaponry, every one is almost sure
to be packing more firepower than either Billy the Kid
or Sheriff Pat Garrett could imagine.

"It's a scary number of them," says Glick, "whatever it
is."


Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Professor of Law
University of Tennessee
37996-1810

"The ability to think rationally is pretty rare, even in prestigious
universities.  We're in the TV age now and people think by linking
images in their brains." -- Neal Stephenson


Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, [phone]  fax -7010
    Subscribe to CENTER-RIGHT, a free weeklyish mailing service for
    centrist, conservative, and libertarian op-eds.  Send the message
    SUBSCRIBE CENTER-RIGHT to [e-mail]



-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Shortish op-ed on concealed carry]
Date: 30 Mar 1998 13:53:25 -0700

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA15858; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 20:41:13 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from ssiinc.com by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA0547851609; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 20:25:13 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07162; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 19:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com"
 via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa001jl; Tue Mar  3 19:33:56 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

    Reposted with permission.  I suspect those on this list already
know most of the facts chronicled here, but I thought it might
still be useful for those who like to forward these sorts of things.



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

Date sent:      Sun, 01 Mar 1998 20:56:47 -0500


           CENTER-RIGHT, a free weeklyish e-newsletter
        of centrist, conservative, and libertarian ideas
                     Issue 1, March 2, 1998
                      Over 1100 subscribers

                PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THIS
            to anyone you think might be interested.
   Subscription and unsubscription instructions at the bottom.

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



  No Smoking Guns: Answering Objections to Right-to-Carry Laws
                          [1100 words]

National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 246 (by
Morgan Reynolds & H. Sterling Burnett):


     Since 1986 the number of states in which it is legal to carry
concealed weapons has grown from nine to 31, representing 49
percent of the country's population.  Should we feel safer?

     Opponents of right-to-carry laws predicted a sharp decline in
public safety because minor incidents would escalate into killings
and more children would be victimized by more guns in irresponsible
hands.  Further, critics claimed that criminals would be undeterred
by any increase in armed citizens.  Indeed, they claimed that
right-to-carry laws would increase crime rather than deter it.
Experience has proven them wrong.

     What objections do the critics offer?


     Objection #1: Citizens are safe enough without handguns.

     Criminals commit 10 million violent and 30 million property
crimes a year.  Hospital emergency rooms treat an estimated 1.4
million people a year for injuries inflicted in violent attacks,
according to a recent Department of Justice study.

     Since the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have held that
the police are not obligated to protect individuals from crime,
citizens are ultimately responsible for their own defense.
Carrying a handgun allows millions to effectively provide for their
own protection.


     Objection #2: Concealed weapons do not deter crime.

     In choosing their crimes, criminals weigh the prospective
costs against the benefits.  If criminals suspect that the costs
will be too high, they are less likely to commit a crime.  The
possibility of a concealed weapon tilts the odds against the
criminal and in favor of the victim.  A survey of 1,847 felons in
10 states found them more concerned about meeting an armed victim
than running into the police.

     Their concern is well founded.  Victims use handguns an
estimated 1.9 million times each year in self-defense against an
attack by another person, according to a survey conducted by
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.  Studies have
found that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun cut the
risks of injury in half.

     Moreover, a study by economists John Lott and David Mustard of
the University of Chicago, published in the January 1997 Journal of
Legal Studies, examined the impact of concealed carry permits.
Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992, the
study found that:

     *  Concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5 percent, rape
by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.

     *  Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, 1,600
fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults
would have occurred during those 15 years.

     In addition, the deterrent effect of concealed handgun laws
proved highest in counties with high crime rates.  For example, FBI
statistics showed that in counties with populations of more than
200,000 (typically the counties with the highest rates of violent
crime), laws allowing concealed carry produced a 13 percent drop in
the murder rate and a 7 percent decline in rapes.

     Case Study: Vermont.  Vermont has long had the least
restrictive firearms carry laws, allowing citizens to carry guns
either openly or concealed without any permit.  Vermont also has
maintained one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country.
For example:

     *  In 1980, when murders and robberies in the U.S. had soared
to an average of 10 and 251 per 100,000 population, respectively,
Vermont's murder rate was 22 percent of the national rate and its
robbery rate was 15 percent.

     *  In 1996 Vermont's rates remained among the lowest in the
country at 25 percent of the national rate for homicide and 8
percent for robbery.


     Objection #3: Right-to-carry laws boost killings on impulse.

     Widespread gun availability was supposed to lead to a "wild-
west" mentality with more shootings and deaths as people vented
their anger with pistols instead of fists.  Yet FBI data show that,
as a share of all homicides, killings that resulted from arguments
declined.  In addition:

     *  Dade County, Fla., kept meticulous records for six years,
and of 21,000 permit holders, none was known to have injured an
innocent person.

     *  Since Virginia passed a right-to-carry law, more than
50,000 permits have been issued, not one permit holder has been
convicted of a crime and violent crime has dropped.


     Moreover, those who have broken the rules have lost their
privilege to carry a gun.

     *  Texas has revoked or suspended nearly 300 permits for minor
violations like failure to conceal or carrying a gun in a bar.

     *  Between 1987 and 1995, Florida issued nearly 300,000
permits, but revoked only 19 because the permit holder had
committed a crime.  That's one crime per 14,000 permit holders
during a nine-year period, an incredibly low rate compared to a
criminal arrest rate of one per 14 Americans age 15 and older each
year.


     Objection #4: Concealed carry puts guns in untrained hands.

     Before issuing a concealed carry permit, most states require
that the applicant prove he or she has been thoroughly trained,
with:

     *  10 to 15 hours emphasizing conflict resolution.

     *  A pre-test and a final test covering the laws of self-
defense and the consequences of misuse of deadly force.

     *  A stress on gun safety in the classroom and on the firing
range.

     *  A stringent shooting accuracy test which applicants must
pass each time they renew their permit.

     Of course, a person who has only a split second to decide
whether to use deadly force can make a mistake.  However, only
about 30 such mistaken civilian shootings occur nationwide each
year.  The police kill in error three times as often.


     Objection #5: Concealed carry increases accidental gun deaths.

     The Lott-Mustard study found no increase in accidental
shootings in counties with "shall issue" right-to-carry laws, where
authorities have to issue the permit to all who meet the criteria.
Nor have other studies.  Nationally, there are about 1,400
accidental firearms deaths each year -- far fewer than the number
of deaths attributable to medical errors or automobile accidents.
The national death rate from firearms has declined even while
firearm ownership has almost doubled in the last 20 years (figure
at http://www.ncpa.org/ba/gif/firearms.gif), and 22 more states
have liberalized right-to-carry laws:

     *  The fatal firearm accident rate has declined to about .5
per 100,000 people -- a decrease of more than 19 percent in the
last decade.

     *  The number of fatal firearms-related accidents among
children fell to an all-time low of 185 in 1994, a 64 percent
decline since 1975.


     Conclusion.

     Concealed carry laws have not contributed to a big increase in
gun ownership.  Nor has allowing citizens the right to carry
firearms for self-protection led to the negative consequences
claimed by critics.  In fact, these laws have lowered violent crime
rates and increased the general level of knowledge concerning the
rights, responsibilities and laws of firearm ownership.

     Putting unarmed citizens at the mercy of armed and violent
criminals was never a good idea.  Now that the evidence is in, we
know that concealed carry is a social good.



     This Brief Analysis was prepared by Morgan Reynolds,
     Director of the NCPA Criminal Justice Center, and H.
     Sterling Burnett, Policy Analyst with the NCPA.

     Original document is on the Web at
     http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba246.html

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

More on this topic:

     "Myths About Gun Control," also co-written by Morgan Reynolds
of the NCPA, http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176.html

     NRA Web site, http://www.nra.org

     Handgun Control, Inc. Web site, http://www.handguncontrol.org
(temporarily down when checked on Thursday, February 26).

     Second Amendment law library, http://www.2ndlawlib.org

     "The Commonplace Second Amendment," a law review article by
your humble editor, forthcoming in the NYU Law Review,
http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/common.htm

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

    This list is edited by Eugene Volokh, who teaches
constitutional law and copyright law at UCLA Law School
(http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh), and organized with the
help of Terry Wynn and the Federalist Society.

    To subscribe, send a message containing the text (NOT the
subject line)
    SUBSCRIBE CENTER-RIGHT
to [e-mail]

    To unsubscribe, send a message containing the text (NOT the
subject line)
    UNSUBSCRIBE CENTER-RIGHT
to [e-mail]




CENTER-RIGHT, a low-traffic, high-quality electronic newsletter of
centrist, conservative, and libertarian ideas.





Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, [phone]  fax -7010
               405 Hilgard Ave., L.A., CA 90095



-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Gun permit crime]
Date: 30 Mar 1998 13:52:16 -0700

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA20398; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:03:05 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from ssiinc.com by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA0297815332; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:01:40 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA02947; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com"
 via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa000hX; Wed Feb 11 15:56:59 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

> This refers to Prof Reynolds' posting. I would be very grateful for
> details of the four deaths and six charges of murder or attempted
> murder by Texan concealed carry licensees. I know of only one case, a
> homicide regarded as justified by the grand jury.
> Dan Polsby

See http://www.tsra.com/Lott.htm for some of these answers.

The "four deaths and six charges of murder" are probably
double-counting the same incidents.  Lott remarks that:

   During 1996 and 1997, five permit holders were arrested for "deadly
   conduct/discharge of a firearm" and another two for the "deadly
   conduct/display of a firearm." Those charges were brought in
   connection with four deaths.

Other salient points:

   While the vast majority of murder arrests end in conviction, that
   hasn't been true for permit holders.  Of the four deaths mentioned,
   none has resulted in a conviction. In fact, two so far have been
   cleared and deemed to have acted in self-defense.

   These permit holders were about a third as likely to be arrested as
   nonpermit holders and much less likely to commit serious crimes.
--

[e-mail]      --If you presume that I speak for my company,
users.aol.com/Tavares/    write now for my special Investors' Packet!



-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Untitled
Date: 30 Mar 1998 14:01:58 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------43E860102B83
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.tsra.com/Lott.htm

--------------43E860102B83
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="Lott.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Lott.htm"

             Getting the Violence Policy Center in Proper Focus

                       [Image]by Professor John Lott*

There has been some confusion over whether people who have permits to carry
concealed handguns are as law-abiding as other Texans. Using the provocative
title "License to Kill," the Violence Policy Center recently released a
report claiming that "those who do carry concealed handguns get into trouble
more often than other Texans."

While there is cause to wonder whether the Violence Policy Center over
reported the number of permit holders arrested, even its own numbers don't
justify that claim.

During 1996 and 1997, the first two years that the concealed handgun law was
in effect, 163,096 people were licensed. During that period, 263 license
holders were arrested for felony offenses, and another 683 were arrested for
misdemeanor offenses.

By comparison, if permit holders had been arrested at the same rate as the
average adult Texan, they would have had 731 arrests for violence crimes and
2,202 for property crimes.

These permit holders were about a third as likely to be arrested as
nonpermit holders and much less likely to commit serious crimes.

The public's ultimate concern is whether permit holders have used their
concealed handguns improperly. So, let's look at some more statistics to
determine that.

During 1996 and 1997, five permit holders were arrested for "deadly
conduct/discharge of a firearm" and another two for the "deadly
conduct/display of a firearm." Those charges were brought in connection with
four deaths.

If permit holders had been arrested for murder at the same rate as other
adult Texans, 56 would have been arrested.

Equally important, relying on arrest rates misses an important difference
between permit holders and others who are arrested for murder. While the
vast majority of murder arrests end in conviction, that hasn't been true for
permit holders.

Of the four deaths mentioned, none has resulted in a conviction. In fact,
two so far have been cleared and deemed to have acted in self-defense.

Thirty-five other permit holders were arrested for other felony "weapon
-related offenses," but those involved the unlawful carrying of a weapon in
places such as airports and schools. None of those cases apparently involved
threats but invariably resulted from people who forgot they had a gun with
them.;

Overall, the experience in Texas is similar to that in other states. In
Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 through 1997. About
half, 204,700 currently are licensed. Eighty-four people lost their licenses
after using a firearm in the commission of a felony.

So far in Virginia, not a single Virginia permit holder has been involved in
a violent crime. Similar results have been observed in Kentucky, Nevada,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and other states for which
detailed records are available.

In December, Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, summed
up the typical reaction of those police officers who opposed the concealed
handgun law before its adoption: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995
because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't
happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen.
No bogeyman. I think it has worked out well, and that says good things about
the citizens who have permits. I am a convert."

Harris County District Attorney John Holmes admitted he is "eating a lot of
crow on ;this issue. It isn't something I necessarily like to do, but I am
doing it on this."

In a forthcoming book, I find evidence indicating that concealed handgun
laws save lives and reduce the threats that citizens face from rapes,
robberies and assaults.

Criminals tend to attack victims whom they perceive as weak, and guns can
offset the differences in strength and serve as an important deterrent.

People don't even have to carry a permit themselves to benefit. The fact
that criminals can't tell whether a potential victim has a concealed gun
makes them less likely to attack people in general.

Without a doubt, people do bad things with guns, but guns also protect
people when law enforcement officers aren't able to be there.

In the final analysis, one concern unites us all: Will allowing law abiding
citizens to own guns save lives? Unfortunately, studies like those done by
the Violence Policy Center needlessly scare people and don't move us any
closer to answering that question.

John R. Lott Jr. is the author of More Guns, Less Crime, which will be
published by the University of Chicago Press in May.

--------------43E860102B83--


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mikey doesn't like guns
Date: 30 Mar 1998 13:35:32 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> >From today's Tribune:
>
>      ``It's a combination of things,'' Leavitt said. ``No law will
>  ultimately prevent that. But we ought to have the laws because if it
>  can prevent one [tragedy], it's worth it.''
>

heh.

Lessee...if it prevents just one case of whirling disease....

How bout: "If it prevents just one rape, or murder on campus,
our policy of encouraging women to carry hi-cap Glocks will
have been worth it!"

Let's also ban public swimming pools, 'cos if it prevents
just one drowning it will have been worth it.

Oh, and let's ban pregnancy 'cos if it prevents just one
miscarriage it will have been worth it.

Don't forget Emergency Rooms: If it prevents just one
death due to mis-applied medication, it will have been
worth it.

Hurl.

And this guy's gonna get re-elected....

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Shortish op-ed on concealed carry]
Date: 30 Mar 1998 13:53:25 -0700

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA15858; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 20:41:13 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from ssiinc.com by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA0547851609; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 20:25:13 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by wanderer.ssi (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA07162; Tue, 3 Mar 1998 19:34:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "wanderer.ssiinc.com"
 via SMTP by localhost, id smtpdAAAa001jl; Tue Mar  3 19:33:56 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

    Reposted with permission.  I suspect those on this list already
know most of the facts chronicled here, but I thought it might
still be useful for those who like to forward these sorts of things.



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

Date sent:      Sun, 01 Mar 1998 20:56:47 -0500


           CENTER-RIGHT, a free weeklyish e-newsletter
        of centrist, conservative, and libertarian ideas
                     Issue 1, March 2, 1998
                      Over 1100 subscribers

                PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THIS
            to anyone you think might be interested.
   Subscription and unsubscription instructions at the bottom.

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



  No Smoking Guns: Answering Objections to Right-to-Carry Laws
                          [1100 words]

National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 246 (by
Morgan Reynolds & H. Sterling Burnett):


     Since 1986 the number of states in which it is legal to carry
concealed weapons has grown from nine to 31, representing 49
percent of the country's population.  Should we feel safer?

     Opponents of right-to-carry laws predicted a sharp decline in
public safety because minor incidents would escalate into killings
and more children would be victimized by more guns in irresponsible
hands.  Further, critics claimed that criminals would be undeterred
by any increase in armed citizens.  Indeed, they claimed that
right-to-carry laws would increase crime rather than deter it.
Experience has proven them wrong.

     What objections do the critics offer?


     Objection #1: Citizens are safe enough without handguns.

     Criminals commit 10 million violent and 30 million property
crimes a year.  Hospital emergency rooms treat an estimated 1.4
million people a year for injuries inflicted in violent attacks,
according to a recent Department of Justice study.

     Since the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have held that
the police are not obligated to protect individuals from crime,
citizens are ultimately responsible for their own defense.
Carrying a handgun allows millions to effectively provide for their
own protection.


     Objection #2: Concealed weapons do not deter crime.

     In choosing their crimes, criminals weigh the prospective
costs against the benefits.  If criminals suspect that the costs
will be too high, they are less likely to commit a crime.  The
possibility of a concealed weapon tilts the odds against the
criminal and in favor of the victim.  A survey of 1,847 felons in
10 states found them more concerned about meeting an armed victim
than running into the police.

     Their concern is well founded.  Victims use handguns an
estimated 1.9 million times each year in self-defense against an
attack by another person, according to a survey conducted by
Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.  Studies have
found that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun cut the
risks of injury in half.

     Moreover, a study by economists John Lott and David Mustard of
the University of Chicago, published in the January 1997 Journal of
Legal Studies, examined the impact of concealed carry permits.
Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992, the
study found that:

     *  Concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5 percent, rape
by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.

     *  Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, 1,600
fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults
would have occurred during those 15 years.

     In addition, the deterrent effect of concealed handgun laws
proved highest in counties with high crime rates.  For example, FBI
statistics showed that in counties with populations of more than
200,000 (typically the counties with the highest rates of violent
crime), laws allowing concealed carry produced a 13 percent drop in
the murder rate and a 7 percent decline in rapes.

     Case Study: Vermont.  Vermont has long had the least
restrictive firearms carry laws, allowing citizens to carry guns
either openly or concealed without any permit.  Vermont also has
maintained one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country.
For example:

     *  In 1980, when murders and robberies in the U.S. had soared
to an average of 10 and 251 per 100,000 population, respectively,
Vermont's murder rate was 22 percent of the national rate and its
robbery rate was 15 percent.

     *  In 1996 Vermont's rates remained among the lowest in the
country at 25 percent of the national rate for homicide and 8
percent for robbery.


     Objection #3: Right-to-carry laws boost killings on impulse.

     Widespread gun availability was supposed to lead to a "wild-
west" mentality with more shootings and deaths as people vented
their anger with pistols instead of fists.  Yet FBI data show that,
as a share of all homicides, killings that resulted from arguments
declined.  In addition:

     *  Dade County, Fla., kept meticulous records for six years,
and of 21,000 permit holders, none was known to have injured an
innocent person.

     *  Since Virginia passed a right-to-carry law, more than
50,000 permits have been issued, not one permit holder has been
convicted of a crime and violent crime has dropped.


     Moreover, those who have broken the rules have lost their
privilege to carry a gun.

     *  Texas has revoked or suspended nearly 300 permits for minor
violations like failure to conceal or carrying a gun in a bar.

     *  Between 1987 and 1995, Florida issued nearly 300,000
permits, but revoked only 19 because the permit holder had
committed a crime.  That's one crime per 14,000 permit holders
during a nine-year period, an incredibly low rate compared to a
criminal arrest rate of one per 14 Americans age 15 and older each
year.


     Objection #4: Concealed carry puts guns in untrained hands.

     Before issuing a concealed carry permit, most states require
that the applicant prove he or she has been thoroughly trained,
with:

     *  10 to 15 hours emphasizing conflict resolution.

     *  A pre-test and a final test covering the laws of self-
defense and the consequences of misuse of deadly force.

     *  A stress on gun safety in the classroom and on the firing
range.

     *  A stringent shooting accuracy test which applicants must
pass each time they renew their permit.

     Of course, a person who has only a split second to decide
whether to use deadly force can make a mistake.  However, only
about 30 such mistaken civilian shootings occur nationwide each
year.  The police kill in error three times as often.


     Objection #5: Concealed carry increases accidental gun deaths.

     The Lott-Mustard study found no increase in accidental
shootings in counties with "shall issue" right-to-carry laws, where
authorities have to issue the permit to all who meet the criteria.
Nor have other studies.  Nationally, there are about 1,400
accidental firearms deaths each year -- far fewer than the number
of deaths attributable to medical errors or automobile accidents.
The national death rate from firearms has declined even while
firearm ownership has almost doubled in the last 20 years (figure
at http://www.ncpa.org/ba/gif/firearms.gif), and 22 more states
have liberalized right-to-carry laws:

     *  The fatal firearm accident rate has declined to about .5
per 100,000 people -- a decrease of more than 19 percent in the
last decade.

     *  The number of fatal firearms-related accidents among
children fell to an all-time low of 185 in 1994, a 64 percent
decline since 1975.


     Conclusion.

     Concealed carry laws have not contributed to a big increase in
gun ownership.  Nor has allowing citizens the right to carry
firearms for self-protection led to the negative consequences
claimed by critics.  In fact, these laws have lowered violent crime
rates and increased the general level of knowledge concerning the
rights, responsibilities and laws of firearm ownership.

     Putting unarmed citizens at the mercy of armed and violent
criminals was never a good idea.  Now that the evidence is in, we
know that concealed carry is a social good.



     This Brief Analysis was prepared by Morgan Reynolds,
     Director of the NCPA Criminal Justice Center, and H.
     Sterling Burnett, Policy Analyst with the NCPA.

     Original document is on the Web at
     http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba246.html

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

More on this topic:

     "Myths About Gun Control," also co-written by Morgan Reynolds
of the NCPA, http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176.html

     NRA Web site, http://www.nra.org

     Handgun Control, Inc. Web site, http://www.handguncontrol.org
(temporarily down when checked on Thursday, February 26).

     Second Amendment law library, http://www.2ndlawlib.org

     "The Commonplace Second Amendment," a law review article by
your humble editor, forthcoming in the NYU Law Review,
http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/common.htm

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

    This list is edited by Eugene Volokh, who teaches
constitutional law and copyright law at UCLA Law School
(http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh), and organized with the
help of Terry Wynn and the Federalist Society.

    To subscribe, send a message containing the text (NOT the
subject line)
    SUBSCRIBE CENTER-RIGHT
to [e-mail]

    To unsubscribe, send a message containing the text (NOT the
subject line)
    UNSUBSCRIBE CENTER-RIGHT
to [e-mail]




CENTER-RIGHT, a low-traffic, high-quality electronic newsletter of
centrist, conservative, and libertarian ideas.





Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, [phone]  fax -7010
               405 Hilgard Ave., L.A., CA 90095



-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Violence Policy Center
Date: 30 Mar 1998 14:12:37 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------52727F7D35E5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/texaskey.htm

--------------52727F7D35E5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="texaskey.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="texaskey.htm"

    [Image]                                                     [Image]

    [Image][Image][Image][Image][Image][Image]
    [Image]
    License to Kill: Arrests Involving Texas Concealed Handgun License
    Holders

    Key Findings

       * According to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), from
         January 1, 1996 to October 9, 1997 Texas concealed handgun
         license holders were arrested for 946 crimes.

       * Of these crimes, 263 were felony offenses. Felony crimes for
         which license holders were arrested include: six charges of
         murder or attempted murder involving at least four deaths; two
         charges of kidnapping; 18 charges of sexual assault; 66
         charges of assault, including 48 cases of aggravated assault
         with a deadly weapon; and, 42 weapon-related charges.

       * During this same period, concealed handgun license holders
         were arrested for 683 misdemeanor crimes, including: 120
         charges of assault; 194 weapon-related charges; 215 charges of
         driving while intoxicated; and, 24 drug-related charges.

       * In 1996 Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested
         for weapon-related offenses at a rate 22 percent higher than
         that of the general population of Texas aged 21 years and
         older.

       * In the first six months of 1997 the weapon-related offense
         arrest rate among Texas concealed handgun license holders was
         more than twice as high as that of the general population of
         Texas aged 21 years and older.

       * While proponents of concealed handgun laws deny that licensees
         will attempt to take the law into their own hands, DPS data
         reveals that 236 concealed handgun license holders have been
         arrested on weapon-related offenses including deadly
         conduct/discharging a firearm, failure or refusal to display
         handgun license, failure to conceal a handgun, and unlawful
         carrying of a handgun.

       * According to the DPS, 42 arrests of concealed handgun license
         holders involved family violence, including: one alleged
         murder; one arrest for attempted murder; and, seven arrests
         for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

    For information on how to order a hard copy of the complete study
    License to Kill, follow this link to our Publications Page.

    All contents ⌐ 1998 Violence Policy Center

--------------52727F7D35E5--


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Mikey doesn't like guns
Date: 30 Mar 1998 14:10:30 -0700


On Mon, 30 Mar 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>And this guy's gonna get re-elected....

Depends on how many people opposed to his opposition happen to be
delegats at the State GOP convention in two years.  Hint hint.

--

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: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mikey doesn't like guns
Date: 30 Mar 1998 14:32:03 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Mar 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:
>
> >And this guy's gonna get re-elected....
>
> Depends on how many people opposed to his opposition happen to be
> delegats at the State GOP convention in two years.  Hint hint.
>

Let's go!
(Tho, it is a dang painful idea to register as a Republican...)

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Mikey doesn't like guns
Date: 30 Mar 1998 14:42:10 -0700


On Mon, 30 Mar 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>Let's go!
>(Tho, it is a dang painful idea to register as a Republican...)

I'll let you in on a dirty little secret: YOU DON'T HAVE TO.  :) :)
I'm not registered with any party.  I'm a dues paying member of the
Libertarian party.  I'm filed as a candidate in House District 50 as a
Republican/Libertarian.

But I went to the RP mass meeting last week.  There were 5 of us in
attendance--2 couples and myself.  My precint needed to elect 3 county
delegates and 4 State delegates.  I was elected both with unanomous
consent.  They would have gladly given me the precint chairmanship had
I wanted it.

Mass meetings will be better attended in two years, but if you and
your spouse took one or two other couples with you, you could just
about guarantee electing at least one of you to a delegate spot.

Think about it.  If you are a Republican, you ought to be involved in
deciding who you run.  If you are not, it is likely that it really
doesn't matter who your party runs and you might as well work to put
the weakest or at least most liberty minded Republican on the ballot.
Mikey won't likely lose to a Democrat or third party candidate in 2
years.  He has to be beaten in convention or primary.  If I were in
Chicago, I'd run as a democrat.  I'm in Utah.  Party
labels--especially between the repubs and demos--are meaningless.

--

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.

"It is better to die on one's feet, than to continue living on your knees."
    --Emiliano Zapata

-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mikey doesn't like guns
Date: 30 Mar 1998 16:23:23 -0700

Charles Hardy wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Mar 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:
>
> >Let's go!
> >(Tho, it is a dang painful idea to register as a Republican...)
>
> I'll let you in on a dirty little secret: YOU DON'T HAVE TO.  :) :)
Not with Sherry Swenson, but I do have a bit of a personal problem
(not much, but it's there) using the Republican's money and
organization,
etc. without being a registered, dues-paying member.  It's not a
matter of being forced by the Gvt to register, it's the morality
of the thing...representing the RPU at their convention without
being a member....and I _can't_ give them money.

> I'm not registered with any party.  I'm a dues paying member of the
> Libertarian party.  I'm filed as a candidate in House District 50 as a
> Republican/Libertarian.
>
> But I went to the RP mass meeting last week.
Yeah, I was set on going too but we had to go to Philly on family biz
last week....At the last ones we went to, Sarah got elected as a state
delegate without much problem.  Such candidates....Chris Cannon..this
year woulda been so much more fun...Cook(R)vs Lilly Eskelson(D)...seems
like there could be an opportunity for some real blackmail....er,
negotiating, or just plain dumping Cook...  Did they stop the "fusion"
candidacies yet?

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Mikey doesn't like guns
Date: 30 Mar 1998 16:42:03 -0700


On Mon, 30 Mar 1998,  Will Thompson <[e-mail]> posted:

>Not with Sherry Swenson, but I do have a bit of a personal problem
>(not much, but it's there) using the Republican's money and
>organization,
>etc. without being a registered, dues-paying member.  It's not a
>matter of being forced by the Gvt to register, it's the morality
>of the thing...representing the RPU at their convention without
>being a member....and I _can't_ give them money.

I guess that is a choice you will have to make.  I don't know that a
delegate uses any R money or organization.  She/He simply gets to know
the candidates, and casts a vote in Convention for them.  I would
guess the Rs are completely free to impose some dues requirment on
their delegates.  That they haven't, indicates they want the
participation worse than they want the money.

>negotiating, or just plain dumping Cook...  Did they stop the "fusion"
>candidacies yet?
>

I think most of them who looked like they may pose a threat have been
contacted and persuaded to drop the non-R filing.  I'm clearly a
complete unknown and haven't heard from anyone yet.

--

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.

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...
 in private self-defense..." -- John Adams, A Defense of the
 Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

-