ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utah-firearms/archive/utah-firearms.9804

Internet Message Format | 1998-04-29 | 418KB

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Feinstein & Co. at it again (fwd) -Forwarded
Date: 01 Apr 1998 09:28:37 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA27917; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:19:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma027821; Tue Mar 31 23:16:46 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

At 11:02 AM 3/31/98 -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:12:52 -0600
>From: John Wallace <[e-mail]>
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>To: "'[e-mail]'"
>     <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Feinstein & Co. at it again
>
>Posted to texas-gun-owners by John Wallace <[e-mail]>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
><Picture: Los Angeles Times>
>
><Picture>Tuesday, March 31, 1998
>
>
>Feinstein Seeks to Close Loophole in Gun Law
><Picture>Firearms: Legislators cite Jonesboro, Ark., schoolyard
>shootings in effort to ban high-capacity magazines.
>By STEVE BERRY, JEFF BRAZIL, Times Staff Writers
>
>
>
>
><Picture><Picture><Picture><Picture>
><Picture: R>esponding to concerns arising from the Jonesboro, Ark.,
>killings, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a group of
>Democratic and Republican legislators will file a bill today that would
>ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and plug a major
>loophole in the federal assault weapons law.
>     The U.S. Senate bill would prohibit the distribution, importation
>or manufacture of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Rep.
>Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) will file a companion bill in the House.
>     Such a law would outlaw the sale of the type of magazine used in
>last week's shootings in Arkansas, where four girls and a teacher died
>in a schoolyard ambush, Feinstein said Monday.
>     Feinstein and DeGette said local and state authorities in Arkansas
>have confirmed that most of the 24 bullets allegedly fired by two boys
>came from a 15-round magazine and a .30-caliber firearm based on the M-1
>carbine.

One wonders how many rounds a charged up 11 year old actually aimed.
One also wonders how many *hits* he achieved, and how many, if any, of the
fatalities came from carbine rounds.


>     Feinstein said the two suspects--ages 11 and 13--also had two
>30-round magazines, but did not use them.
>     "The tragic shooting in Jonesboro last week is a horrifying example
>of why high-capacity ammunition clips were designed for military combat,
>not for recognized sport," Feinstein said.


>     DeGette agreed, adding: "No one thinks this would have prevented
>Jonesboro . . . but it will stop people who are angry or emotionally
>disturbed from legally buying them."

Or anyone else either. And it will stop *no one* from illegally
buying/stealing them.


>     The bills are sure to face strong opposition from the gun lobby.
>     "Industrywide, we are not going to sit still for such a bill," said
>Jack Adkins, a spokesman for the American Shooting Sports Council in
>Atlanta.
>     If passed, proponents say, the legislation would close one of the
>biggest loopholes in the 1994 federal assault weapons law.
>     That landmark legislation, which Feinstein wrote, restricted
>possession of assault weapons, specifically those that accept a

Doesn't even know what her own bill provided. Possession was not
restricted, only manufacture and sale of newly manufactured ugly guns, and
>10 round magazines.

>detachable ammunition magazine and have at least two military features
>such as a pistol grip or bayonet mount.
>     One key provision banned manufacture and distribution of ammunition
>magazines that carry more than 10 rounds and were manufactured after
>September 1994. But the legislation did not apply to magazines made
>before that date or to foreign-made magazines.
>     In a series of stories last fall, The Times reported that
>manufacturers stockpiled millions of high-capacity magazines just before
>the law went into effect. At the same time, importers continued bringing
>thousands more into the country--including at least 160,000 between June
>1996 and April 1997.
>     As a result, gun makers have continued making thousands of weapons
>that are similar to illegal assault guns and can accept high-capacity
>magazines that were made before the 1994.
>* * *
>     The new bill would amend the existing law to ban further
>manufacture or importation of the magazines. People could keep what they
>already own, but owners would be forbidden to sell them or give them
>away.



>     DeGette said such a law might have prevented the death of a Denver
>police officer who was ambushed last year by a group of skinheads using
>a Chinese-made SKS assault rifle equipped with an American-made 30-round
>magazine.
>     "He was shot 15 times," she said.

Right, he'd be less dead if he'd only been shot 10 times, uh-huh, sure.



>     Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Assn., denounced
>Feinstein's timing.
>     "This should be a time for mourning and grieving, and not a time to
>make political hay out of this tragedy," he said.


>     Calling the bill unenforceable, LaPierre said: "She might as well
>ban sheet metal and springs because that's all a magazine is made of.
>     "What would make a bigger impact on problems like what happened in
>Jonesboro is for Sen. Feinstein to talk to the entertainment industry in
>her backyard about stopping the showing of gratuitous violence without
>consequences.
>     "That's what people in stores, gas stations and shopping malls all
>over the country are saying about Jonesboro," he said. "No one has said
>'Gee, we need another magazine ban.' "

So we need to gut the 1st amendment rather than the second?
(Voluntary restraint would be nice, though. However my TV has an OFF
button, along with the ability to change channels.)


>     The co-sponsors of the bill include Democratic Sens. Ted Kennedy of
>Massachusetts, Robert Toricelli and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, and
>Richard Durbin of Illinois.

The usual suspects.

>     In the House, co-sponsors include Democrats Joseph Kennedy of
>Massachusetts, Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, Ed Towns of New York,
>Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and
>Republicans Connie Morella of Maryland and Christopher Shays of
>Connecticut.

Wonder if Shays is related to Daniel Shays of Shays' Rebellion? If so 'ol
Daniel must be spinning in his grave, along with Jefferson.




              The Second Amendment is the RESET button
                   of the United States Constitution.
                          ---Doug McKay" <[e-mail]>


Joe Sylvester
Don't Tread On Me !







-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Yeltsin's "Red October II" (TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-10,
Date: 01 Apr 1998 09:49:19 -0700

Received: from bob-dj (slip129-37-235-253.ca.us.ibm.net [129.37.235.253]) by out1.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA19052; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 02:42:43 GMT
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by out1.ibm.net id CAA19052

FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA

        The Truth in Media Web page: http://www.beograd.com/truth

NOTE: If you do NOT wish to receive the e-mail editions of our reports,
please send us your e-mail address and write REMOVE or UNSUBSCRIBE.  We'l=
l
be happy to oblige.  Just be sure to specify the EXACT e-mail ID to which
this is being sent.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 98/3-10    31-Mar-98
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic: RUSSIAN AFFAIRS

Russian "Waco" and "Tiananmen Square" Massacres Combined

YELTSIN'S "RED OCTOBER II"

An Orwellian Plot: "Defending Democracy" by Killing Pro-Democracy=20
Demonstrators - and with Foreign Assistance?

PHOENIX - Remember the bloody images of "Red October II," the massacre at
the Russian White House (parliament) in October 1993, carried out by the
Boris Yeltsin government and recorded on live TV?  The New World Order's
Russian quislings killed scores of their own people who wanted real
democracy.  Yet they did it in the name of democracy, CNN and others in t=
he
establishment media would have us believe. =20

But you'd have to be brain-dead or stone-drunk to buy that.  Just as you'=
d
have to be brain-dead or stone-drunk to think that the U.S. officials act=
ed
properly at Waco or at Ruby Ridge.

Yet the western leaders, starting with Bill Clinton, declared their
immediate support for this Yeltsin government's crime against humanity.  =
In
doing so, Clinton acted more brazenly than did George Bush regarding the
Tiananmen Square massacre in June 1989.  At least Bush stayed silent for =
a
while before declaring that the U.S. needs to stay engaged in China.  Whi=
ch
only goes to show us how much more CRIMINAL our government has become in
the last decade or so.

What brought this on?  Well, we've recently received the following excerp=
ts
from interviews with the "Red October II" eyewitnesses and survivors
conducted by Natalia Raduga, a correspondent for the "Russian Cause," a
Russian patriots' publication.  Her story was translated by Yuri Kirienko.
As you read it, we suggest you keep thinking, could this happen in Americ=
a?

    "Our correspondent has accomplished a big job, the 'Russian Cause'" the=20
    editors wrote. "She has gathered an eyewitness testimony about the=20
    horrible events which took place in Moscow between September 21 and=20
    October 4, 1993.  Some of her witnesses took an active part in those=20
    events, and fearing prosecution, chose to stay anonymous. However,=20
    that anonymity does not in the least reduce the testimonial value of wha=
t=20
    they had said, since their statements were made at a time when both=20
    their fears and the events that caused them were still fresh in their
memory'."=20

And now, here's Ms. Raduga's story, edited only for English grammar and
spelling.  But we have to warn you: Some eyewitness stories are quite gor=
y,
as they describe scenes of shocking violence.  Reading them is not
recommended for the faint at heart.

A solemn memorial service was held for the fallen defenders of the White
House 40 days after the tragic events, according to Russian traditions.
That event took place on the November 13, 1993, in an open air ceremony i=
n
Drujinnikovskaya Street.  That place is near the Red Presnya stadium, not
far from the (Russian) White House (the parliament). About 50,000 people
gathered there to pay their respects to the murdered compatriots.

    [Where were the CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS cameras then?  TiM Ed.]

This stadium, near Drujinnikovskaya Street, was a home to many terrible
memories of mass executions of the Russian patriots in October 1993.  Man=
y
Cossacks, militiamen, officers of the Army - all taken prisoner by the
Yeltsin government for acting as defenders of the White House - were line=
d
up and executed in cold blood along the walls of this stadium.
Commemorating this tragic event, thousands of candles were lighted, and
many fires were lit along the wall of these martyrs for democracy on Nov.
13, 1993. =20

The wall of this stadium is a silent witness to a heroic act of a 75
year-old woman. Defying the bullets whistling over her head, Varvara
Petrovna, saved the lives of eight executed, but still alive Russian boys.
She moved them away from the Presnya Stadium's wall of death to her
apartment.  There she bandaged their wounds, treated them as best as she
could, and kept trying to help them find their friends and relatives.

            Story of Two Young Men

Other people at the "Stadium of Death" told me similar stories while
warming up their freezing hands over wood fires on a cold November-night.
Two young men approached me.  One was about 20.  The other, perhaps 19...=
 =20

"We were among those who lived in the tents near the White House to prote=
st
Yeltsin's closing of the Supreme Soviet.  During the night of October 4, =
we
quartered in a nearby sporting hall.  At approximately at 6:30 in the
morning, without a warning, snipers opened fire on the people manning the
barricades and the dwellers of our 'tent city'.=20

The fire came from the roofs of the nearby (four) buildings. They were th=
e
roofs of a residential building No. 11, along Drujinnikovskaya street, ne=
ar
the hotel Mir.  And from the high-rises in the Barricade Square and of th=
e
City Hall buildings, formerly occupied by SEV, the western-sponsored
Council on Economic Cooperation between the former socialist countries. G=
un
fire also came from the direction of the American Embassy.=20

At 6:45 a.m. (Oct. 3), all defenders of the White House were alerted, and
gathered in the Freedom Square in front of the building of the Supreme
Soviet. At 7:30 a.m. a large caliber machine gun opened fire from the
direction of Kalininskiy Prospect. Everybody on the perimeter of defense
outside the tent city, who was without weapons and could not escape on
time, was placed inside the building. A squall of sniper fire on the grou=
nd
level forced further evacuation into the underground passages. The evacue=
es
were moved to the third floor because all windows of the White House were
raked with bullets from 'Yeltsinoids.' Those who were armed took up
defenses from the sixth floor up."=20

At 7:15 a.m. BTRs (armored personnel carriers) pulled up at the City Hall
building and opened fire from a heavy machine gun.=20

At 10:00 a.m., helicopters started firing at the White House, and at 11:3=
0
a.m. tanks began shelling the building. Yeltsinoids announced to the worl=
d
that firing began at the deadline set in their ultimatum. This is a lie -
we were under fire long before that. At the time when the building was
shelled, somewhere around 12 o'clock, Cossacks caught two spies wearing
Spetznaz uniforms (Special Troops). They coordinated enemy fire by radio
and, it must be specifically pointed out, spoke Yiddish between themselve=
s.
Cossacks executed them. Then a word of warning was passed around on the
possibility of saboteurs being inside the building."=20

            Story of a Belgrade Writer

Your TiM editor needs to interrupt the young men's testimony at this poin=
t.
 Notice that the two spies who coordinated enemy fire by radio spoke
YIDDISH to each other?  Until now, Americans had no reason to believe tha=
t
the "Red October II" massacre was anything other than one Russian power
group (Yeltsin's) battling for against another faction (the deputies).  B=
ut
the above incident raises a possibility that FOREIGN elements were also
involved in the White House battle, evidently on Yeltsin's side. =20

This writer first became aware of such allegations in February 1997, duri=
ng
the pro-democracy protests in Belgrade, Serbia.  Dragos Kalajic, an
accomplished writer and editor of the DUGA magazine, gave a speech at the
Writers' Club in Belgrade in which he explained why he chose not to join
the demonstrators in the Belgrade streets.  Here is an excerpt from his
talk, which was also published in the DUGA magazine:

    "One of the important ethical reasons for not participating in the=20
    (Belgrade) protests is a sense of duty I feel toward my friends. =20
    During the night between October 3 and 4, 1993, the pro-American=20
    and Russophobic Kremlin government... used military force against=20
    democracy; against the representatives of the political will of the=20
    Russian people in the Russian parliament.

    The West, of course, had shown then how much its leaders and media=20
    care about 'democracy,' as they applauded this crime and atrocity.  A=20
    legion of foreign mercenaries, led by the CIA colonels, and with the hel=
p=20
    of the snipers from the Israeli division, 'Uerihon,' killed at least=20
    1,500 Russian defenders of freedom and state.  Among the killed were=20
    some of my friends.  I do not forget or betray my friends - not when=20
    they are alive, and especially not the dead ones."=20

So here we have again a reference from another source to the role foreign
mercenaries played in "Red October II."  Mr. Kalajic even names the Israe=
li
division from which some of the snipers were deployed.  This could help
explain why the two spies who were directing by radio the outside fire at
the White House were speaking Yiddish. =20

And now, back to the story of the two young Russians, as retold by Ms.
Raduga...

"One more episode. When the shooting began, we were still in the sports
hall. At approximately 6:45 a.m., a horrible-looking shell of unknown
nature burst into the room. The object looked like a fiery red ball the
size of a kitchen pot.  It bounced around the room noisely, sending spark=
s
in every direction.  Then the ball got into the box stuffed with socks an=
d
set them on fire.  I do not know what happened next because we ran out in=
 a
hurry."=20

            Story of a Russian Deputy

U.A Birukov, 62 years of age, a deputy from the Tagansk district of the
city of Moscow, testified that in early September 1993, a rumor had sprea=
d
among the deputies that they would be crushed militarily.=20

"The rumor had it that the President (Yeltsin) had already ordered
artillery to be deployed in September, and ground forces in October. We
were expecting extraordinary events every day and they finally came on
September 21.=20
=20
It was the Presidential Order No. 1400. Everyone was outraged and surpris=
ed
by that ease with which the President reneged on his solemn oath.  The oa=
th
bound him to abide by the Constitution he swore to uphold.=20
=20
Everyone was also stunned by the ease with which he violated the mandates
of the lawfully elected deputies and the statutes of the lawmaking body.
Functioning of the parliament is outside of his jurisdiction, and in doin=
g
so, the President crossed the boundary prescribed by law.  He broke the
law, exceeded his authority, and thus put himself in the position untenab=
le
with his staying in power much longer.=20
=20
A session of All Peoples Vetche (the Russian version of the House of
Representatives) was planned for October 3. Notice of this event was
dutifully filed a month and a half in advance.  The time and the place of
such a session was coordinated with the government authorities.
Nevertheless, this event was banned on October 2. =20

On that day, I happened to be among half a million demonstrators who were
moving from Kalujskaya Square toward the White House. The demonstration w=
as
lead by deputy G. Urajtsev.  Initially, we planned to hold a meeting near
the Kremlin wall. Yet instead of stopping the column on the approaches to
the Red Square, Urajtsev led it directly to the Krimskiy bridge.=20

OMON (Special Police Detachment) troops, positioned on the Krimskiy bridg=
e,
shot some tear gas into the crowd and retreated.  They yielded to people =
in
order to stir up their passions. Coordination between OMON and Urajtsev w=
as
obvious to an experienced eye. Demonstrators quietly proceeded to march
along Sadovoye Circle, passed Smolenskaya Square, Arbat, finally reaching
Kalininskiy prospect.  That's where they turned toward the White House. I=
t
was already nearly 4 p.m.. Looking through the windows of the White House=
,
deputies waved their hands welcoming us. =20

When we finally reached the White House, someone opened fire on the colum=
n
from the direction of City Hall, killing two policemen.  Such an audaciou=
s
provocation outraged everyone as it was clear that the death of the
policemen would be attributed to the defenders of the Supreme Soviet.=20

I climbed on the balcony of the White House where five military men and
several deputies had already gathered. They took turns checking out the
City Hall and the hotel Mir through binoculars. They were looking for the
place from which the fire had come.  Soon they located the scum hiding
behind a window pane on the upper floor of the hotel Mir.  His machine gu=
n
could be seen clearly through binoculars. =20

"We=92ve got to nail the bastard," I told the guys around me.  "How? We d=
o
not have a single sharp-shooting rifle," someone replied.  All our
submachine guns were fitted with shortened barrels effective only in the
shooting range from 20 to 30 meters. If we had had at least one real
Kalashnikov, we could have taken that sleaze bag out right then and there=
. =20
=20
That day, I returned home after midnight. A telephone message from my
District Council was waiting for me -- a new session was scheduled for
tomorrow at 9 a.m.  In the morning on the October 4, however, I discovere=
d
that the building of my District Council had been taken over by OMON.  On
what legal basis? It turned out that all other offices of the opposition
deputies had been also occupied during the night on orders from the
government.  Then I went to the White House to find out what was going on=
. =20

I arrived on the bridge around 11:00 a.m., and observed a large crowd of
peaceful citizens had already gathered there. A machine gun set on the ro=
of
of the building No. 19, along the New Arbat street, was firing at them. I
decided not to risk my life needlessl,y and turned back to Chaikovskaya
street. Around noon,a sniper began shooting at passersby from the rooftop
of the house located across the street from the American Embassy. Obvious=
ly
that spot was deliberately chosen to give the foreign gentlemen a better
view of the gory spectacle. It enabled them to see the bloody face of the
opposition close up.=20

Policemen swarmed around the building shooting from their short-barreled
machine guns.  Yet nobody surrounded the building, and nobody even tried =
to
capture the sniper. That means that the whole affair was again nothing bu=
t
a show played out on the real life stage of Moscow streets..." =20
=20
            Olga's Story

Olga P.: "We spent most of the night of October 4 sitting around a wood
fire.  By 6 a.m., only three of us still remained there: Yuriy, a 15
year-old boy from the Communist Youth League, and we, two women. The rest
of the group melted away.  Some had gone inside the building to warm up;
some to have a short nap. In the neighboring tents, there were several
other Communist Youth League girls from Kaluga.=20

A sudden pop broke the morning stillness. (I took it just for a snap as I
did not know yet what a sniper shot sounds like). In front of my eyes,
Zinaida, who sat next to me, began disintegrating into a bloody mess.
While my consciousness could not yet fully grasp what was happening so
close to me, the sight of so much blood caused animal fear in me.=20
=20
The boy, Yuriy, jumped to his feet and ran for cover toward a building.
Instinctively, I followed him. The pops began sounding in rapid successio=
n
from all directions. Suddenly, running ahead of me, Yuriy jerked and fell
flat on his face. I ran up to him and noticed a small bullet hole on the
back of his coat. The building was only 30 meters away, and I wanted to
lift him up and help him to carry on toward it. When I turned him around =
I
saw a huge gaping bloody wound in his chest. To be exact, there was
practically no chest left.  Indescribable horror overwhelmed me. I dashed
aside, fell, then ran to the White House again. I do not remember how I
reached it. The sniper was shooting from the residential building No.: 11
on the Drujinnikovskaya street."=20
=20
            An Old Man's Story

A 70 year-old witness, who lives close to the White House, across the
street from Krasnaya Presnya stadium, testified as to the following: =20
=20
"The night between October 3 and 4, 1993, we could not even think of
sleeping. Both I and my wife were looking through the window of our secon=
d
story apartment.  We saw a man trying to run away captured and executed i=
n
cold blood inside a personnel carrier. All night long, troops in uniforms
were chasing and shooting the people who attempted to escape from the Whi=
te
House.=20

In the morning of October 4, while walking out with my dog, I counted
eighteen (18) dead bodies in our yard. In the following 10 days,we observ=
ed
strange activities taking place inside the stadium.  By the morning of
October 4, authorities had closed the entrance gates to the stadium. On
that and all other days, tanks kept driving in circles, and water tank ca=
rs
were moving in and out. What that meant I can only guess. Ask those who
live on the upper floors." =20

            An "Alpha" Soldier's Story

Suddenly a soldier approached the fire around which we were sitting, Ms.
Raduga, the Russian journalist, said. He introduced himself as being from
the special forces group Alpha.  For a while he stayed silent, but by the
morning, he also joined the general conversation. =20

"I am telling you this because I am flying out today anyway. There was ve=
ry
extensive destruction within walls of the White House.  The tanks shot
fougasse shells, which means that their detonators were set to go off
inside the building. I counted 300 bodies in the parts of the White House
that I could see myself.=20

I figure that another 500 to 600 people were executed against the stadium
walls. In my position of a rank-and-file soldier, I estimate that the
overall number of people murdered is  between 1,500 and 2,000.=20

[Interesting, isn't it, how this jives with the figure which that Belgrad=
e
writer used?  TiM Ed.]

The morning of October 4, I saw the deputies and others captured with the=
m
in White House being arrested and crowded together. It should be noted
here, that they (Yeltsin's troops) did not execute just anyone captured i=
n
the White House, but separated them first into groups. At the stadium wal=
l
they executed only the officers of the Army, the Cossacks, and the office=
rs
and rank-and-file policemen who took the side of the people.  The same fa=
te
also befell those who took part in the fighting in Prednestrovye and othe=
r
hot points.=20

In such a tumult, without a master roll in the executioners' hands, it
would not have been possible to separate those people for immediate
execution so fast. That means that the list with the names of the White
House defenders, and generally of everyone inside the building, had been
passed outside long before the storming began. The White House leadership
betrayed the people who trusted them even before the actual events took
place. That treason doomed the best patriots of Russia to death! =20
=20
Also, various military detachments conducted themselves quite differently.
Memorize it and inform whoever you can that an exceptionally savage
behavior was displayed by the OMONs of cities of Vladimir, Omsk, and Toms=
k.
With similar savagery also acted Taman division and some other detachment
called PPS No.:2. I do not know how to spell it out but that unit is
quartered close to Lefortovo.=20

Sankt Peterburg and Moscow OMONs took a different stance and refused to
take part in the executions. I watched three members of the Tomsk OMON
execute two 17 year old girls on one of the White House floors.  My frien=
d
and I finished them off on the spot...=20

And in general, there were plenty of those who enjoyed the savagery. If i=
t
were not for our group Alpha, I doubt that, aside from the deputies, anyo=
ne
would have been left alive. The bandits feared us." =20

"I continue to gather evidence," is how Ms. Raduga signed off her report.
---------------

[TiM Ed]: So could something like this happen in America?  You bet. =20

Who was the first world leader to give Yeltsin his full and immediate
support for the "Red October II" massacre?  (Answer: Bill Clinton).  Didn=
't
the FBI assault at Waco follow less than six months later?  Hasn't our
government been trying to disarm Americans, the Second Amendment
notwithstanding?  Aren't they now using the Jonesboro, AK, juvenile
killings as another opportunity to put the guns on trial, rather than our
Hollywood-induced violent society?

Just as importantly - why has no western media outlet (as far as this
writer is aware) ever reported the full story of Moscow's "Red October II=
?"
 Such as the snipers' killing of two policemen so as to blame the peacefu=
l
pro-democracy demonstrators, and later justify a turkey shoot of civilian=
s
and occupants of the Russian White House?  Why didn't they tell us in thi=
s
land of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press, about the
presence of foreign mercenaries who took part in the massacre of the
Russian people?  Or about the summary, and later, mass executions at the
Red Presnya stadium? =20

And even if the media were too skittish or subservient to the NWO elite t=
o
tell us the full truth in the pitch of battle, where were the western
correspondents when 50,000 people gathered at this Moscow stadium 40 days
later for an all-night wake on Nov. 13, 1993?  Where have the famed weste=
rn
"investigative reporters" been since that time?

Did they withhold the full truth about the "Red October II" from us to ke=
ep
us, the American lambs, dumbed-down  and ignorant so when our turn for
slaughter comes we'd be just as unprepared as the Russian patriots were?
If so, now you know why we felt it was important for America and the worl=
d
to know what really happened in Moscow in October 1993.  And to realize
that the same people are still in charge of both the Russian and the
American governments.


----
Bob Djurdjevic=20
TRUTH IN MEDIA=20
Phoenix, Arizona=20
e-mail: [e-mail]=20

    Truth in Media Web page: http://www.beograd.com/truth


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  (Fwd) Yet another poll -Forwarded
Date: 01 Apr 1998 16:55:52 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id RAA26792; Wed, 1 Apr 1998 17:15:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma026630; Wed Apr  1 17:11:07 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


    Another one- vote early and vote often

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

--- Forwarded mail from [e-mail]

Go vote on this one. The question is whether congress should pass an all
out ban on the sales of hi-cap magazines, or not. I beleive that this
information is forwarded on to our elected officials.

http://www.netline-to-congress.com/index.htm

---End of forwarded mail from [e-mail]

--
Jon Franklin        AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, AZ
[e-mail]           http://www.agcs.com
x4064         S64



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  intellectualcapital poll -Forwarded
Date: 01 Apr 1998 17:00:30 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA27890; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:19:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma027795; Tue Mar 31 23:16:32 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

This one seems to require a cookie. I know this only because I always
reject cookies. This poll invites comparison of potential methods of
reducing crime.

Carl

---Forwarded Msg---
  Tuesday, 31 March
  Roger Oakey <[e-mail]>:

Posted to rkba-co by Roger Oakey <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/98/0326/icpoll.asp
---End Forwarded Msg---


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  letters, articles -Forwarded
Date: 02 Apr 1998 10:53:59 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA07884; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 12:28:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma007752; Thu Apr  2 12:26:05 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 have noticed a lot of gun guys are writing letters to the editor,
opinion pieces and letters to legislators and corporations.

When you do this, please work in the phrase "guns save lives."
Eventually, we will thoroughly permeate the psyche of Americans with a
term that reinforces the truth they already know.  Statements that
reinforce existing subconscious understanding are very powerful and
memorable.

If you write a letter about the subject, note something along the lines
of:

"Firearms help to protect much more often than they are used to harm.
Guns save lives."

If you are on talk radio or interviewed for any medium, work it into the
conversation.  If somebody asks why you are for or against a bill, say
"Guns save lives."  It is a good conversation opener and reiterates a
point that will aid our struggle long term.

THANKS
-Rick
--
Don't agonize.  Organize.
http://GunsSaveLives.com


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


-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Fear Mongering on CCW permits]]
Date: 02 Apr 1998 15:08:52 -0700

Received: from ns.phbtsus.com by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA15025; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:43:39 -0700
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from mars.aros.net by ns.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    ($Revision: 1.37.109.9 $/16.2) id AA01954584; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:25:28 -0700
Received: from sarahtho (xm1-16.slc.aros.net [207.173.24.161])
          by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP
      id OAA08859 for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 14:35:14 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 01:29 PM 4/2/98 -0700, you wrote:
>                Gun Law Lets Felons Slip Through Cracks
>
> BY TOM ZOELLNER
> THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
>
>
>     It happened only four times in 1997. In each case, the
> gun-carrier brandished a weapon during a traffic dispute, said
> Peterson. In 1996, one man lost his license for pointing his gun at
> somebody during an aggravated assault, and another man's license was
> revoked after he attemtped to commit suicide with his concealed
> weapon.

How do you commit suicide with a "concealed weapon"?  Hide it under your hat?
These idiots are just amazing!

Sarah



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Yet Another Poll (fwd)
Date: 03 Apr 1998 07:21:00 -0700


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

On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Scott Bergeson wrote:

> Go vote on this one. The question is whether congress should pass an all
> out ban on the sales of hi-cap magazines, or not. I believe that this
> information is forwarded on to our elected officials.

> http://www.netline-to-congress.com/index.htm

Unfortunately, there's a different question there today.  This was
yesterday's question.  However, the responses to the hi-cap mags question
was 98% against the ban and 2% in favor.  Would that the other polls use
the same sample!

"I kissed that girl's inner thighs when she was six days old -- I said,
`Look at those little polkas,'"

 -- Stinking Attorney William Ginsburg of his client, Monica
Lewinsky, in the March 2, 1998 issue of Time magazine




-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Roll Call (fwd) -Forwarded
Date: 03 Apr 1998 08:57:42 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id VAA08364; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 21:22:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma008301; Thu Apr  2 21:20:47 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 Apr 2, John Curtis wrote:

[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------]

http://www.rollcall.com/

   Roll Call magazine is offering an interesting service.

   Enter your zipcode and they'll tell you who your rep and
   Senators are (U.S., not state).

   They will also allow you to compose a letter to be printed,
   or send email, with some formatting.

   They have a full set of concise bios of the Congress and
   some other doo dads.

   If the urge strikes to write, and your browser is fired
   up, this looks like its worthwhile.

   ciao,

   jcurtis

[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------]

--
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand = Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus Christ
----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC News
Date: 03 Apr 1998 13:03:33 -0700

Just a reminder.....

The next meeting of the Board of Trustees of USSC will be held on Monday,
April 6 in Taylorsville.  It's at the Park Library, 4870 South, 2700 West,
and will start at 6 PM.  Meetings are OPEN to all interested persons.

Please try to attend this meeting!  Although I don't have the formal
agenda, we will probably be discussing the questionnaire which will be sent
to all legislators regarding firearms issues.  We will also begin planning
our strategies and determining positions and goals for both the upcoming
Interim sessions of the legislature and for next year's legislative
session.  If you would like your opinions heard, or have suggestions and/or
requests, we'd love to hear them!

If you are unable to attend, you may forward comments to the Board members
listed below, but there's no substitute for actually being there!  I hope
to see as many of you as possible!

Sarah Thompson


The following Board members have volunteered to have their contact info
made public.  Please feel free to contact them, but please do not abuse
their open-door policy.

Doug Henrichsen, 771-3196(h), [e-mail]
Elwood Powell,  426-8274 or 583-2882 (h), 364-0412 (w),
    [e-mail]
Shirley Spain, 963-0784, [e-mail]
Bob Templeton, 544-9125 (w), 546-2275 (h)
Sarah Thompson, 566-1067, [e-mail]  (I prefer e-mail to phone
calls when possible).
Joe Venus, 571-2223


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: NRA-ILA FAX ALERT
Date: 04 Apr 1998 07:47:00 -0700


NRA-ILA FAX ALERT
11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA  22030
Phone: [phone] * Fax: [phone] * [e-mail]

Vol. 5, No. 13
4/3/98

BIGGER CLINTON GUN BAN PREMIERS ON MONDAY

For the better part of the past five months, the Clinton
Administration has been hard at work searching for reasons why
countless foreign-made firearms should be permanently banned from
importation into the United States. Word is that we'll get our
first look at their recommendations on Monday, when their "study"
of the suitability of these guns for so-called sporting purposes
is scheduled to be released at a White House ceremony. You'll
recall that the President ordered this "study" back in November,
when, by Executive Order, he suspended all permits for the import
of certain semi-automatics. Now, after weeks of stalling, it
looks like the President and his anti-Second Amendment cohorts in
Congress plan to take full advantage of the Jonesboro tragedy in
this latest and most shameless attempt yet to advance their war
on America's law-abiding gun owners. We expect the president to
permanently prohibit countless foreign-made firearms from American
shores, despite the fact that they are all perfectly legal under
his own 1994 gun ban. Even more unbelievable, the Administration
is expected to cancel the permits already issued to importers to
bring shipments of these firearms into the U.S., even on those
firearms that are now on American soil but have yet to clear
customs. Businessmen who put up their own money, jumped through
all the legal hoops, and put up with all the government's red tape
to get these perfectly legal guns into the country, will never
be able to take possession of them, and will lose their entire
investment. This latest stunt is but another of the countless
examples of this President's complete disregard for the law and
for the rights of American citizens. And it demonstrates once
again that no matter what they say, the goal of Bill Clinton
and his minions in Congress is a complete and total gun ban.

CONGRESS ON BREAK, BUT THREATS STILL PENDING

Federal lawmakers have gone home for their Easter district work
period, which means that now is an excellent time for you to
schedule face to face meetings with your elected officials, and
voice your concerns regarding some developing issues. While the
citizens of Jonesboro are still mourning the losses to their
community, anti-freedom zealots have chosen to exploit this
horrible incident to promote their anti-Second Amendment agenda.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.) held a press conference on
Tuesday to promote her effort to further restrict certain
ammunition feeding devices because of their capacity. It is
anticipated that her proposal would call for prohibiting the sale
and transfer of "high capacity" magazines that were previously
grandfathered by the 1994 Crime Bill. Also, Senators Richard
Durbin (D-Ill.) and John Chafee (R-R.I.) have called for
mandatory "safe storage" laws for your personal firearms.
Mandatory "safe storage" might be better named "The Burglar
Protection Act of 1998," as it would mean that your personal
protection firearms would be useless to you if you ever faced a
violent criminal attacker. The only person that would be "safe"
would be the criminal. Furthermore, how would such a law be
enforced without violating the Fourth Amendment protections
against illegal searches of your home? While safety programs
like NRA's Eddie Eagle help to prevent firearm accidents, the
Durbin/Chaffee proposal could only be enforced after the fact,
when tragedy has already struck. Right now, however, no
legislation on these proposals has actually been introduced, as
these opponents of freedom and personal protection have focused
their efforts on grabbing the media spotlight created by
Jonesboro. If you meet with your lawmakers, or call them at
their district offices, please remind them that the nation needs
time to heal from deep wounds caused by the horrific events in
Arkansas. Remind them that we do not need half-baked "solutions,"
or to blame law-abiding gun owners. Urge them to support the
Constitution, and oppose all efforts to impose further
restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms.

FREE SPEECH UPDATE

Good news! The U.S. House of Representatives considered numerous
Campaign Finance "reforms" this week, but voted to pass two bills
that did not contain anything that would adversely affect NRA's
ability to communicate with our members. While there is still the
possibility that attacks on the First Amendment will be brought up
in the future, especially through the discharge petition mentioned
last week (Vol. 5, No. 12), it looks like the pressure NRA members
put on lawmakers really paid off.

=+=+=+=+
This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle
Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA.

This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is
available at: http://WWW.NRA.Org



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC Meeting CHANGE!!!
Date: 05 Apr 1998 18:41:14 -0600

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THE USSC MEETING!!
Apolgies for any inconvenience or confusion.

The next meeting of the Board of Trustees of USSC will be held on Monday,
April 6 in Taylorsville.  It's at the Calvin Smith Library, 810 E. 3300 S.,
and will start at 6 PM.  Meetings are OPEN to all interested persons.

Please try to attend this meeting!  Although I don't have the formal
agenda, we will probably be discussing the questionnaire which will be sent
to all legislators regarding firearms issues.  We will also begin planning
our strategies and determining positions and goals for both the upcoming
Interim sessions of the legislature and for next year's legislative
session.  If you would like your opinions heard, or have suggestions and/or
requests, we'd love to hear them!

If you are unable to attend, you may forward comments to the Board members
listed below, but there's no substitute for actually being there!  I hope
to see as many of you as possible!

Sarah Thompson



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan
Date: 05 Apr 1998 22:22:00 -0700


On Ed Wolfe's website, Nation In Distress:
http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/

06/08/14 StTN 12:35 FAX Sarah Brady

Dear Handgun Control Member,

I have marked this letter to you "confidential" because I am requesting
that you avoid discussing the contents publicly for the next several weeks.

This is because we are about to initiate action that, if successful,
will weaken the stranglehold that the gun industry, the NRA, and other
gun fanatics have over local and national gun laws.

And I am urgently requesting you to make an extraordinary gift to help
strengthen our cause.

Please let me quickly explain our plans; and then you will understand
why both your generosity and secrecy are required.

In brief, we believe there is a strong parallel between the gun industry
and the tobacco companies! As you know, citizens at the local and state
level rose up in anger and demanded clean air in restaurants and offices
when Congress failed to take action.

Here at Handgun Control Inc., it is our regrettable conclusion that this
current Congress is not going to take the initiative on gun safety for
America. Legislation is bogged down. The NRA and other gun industry lobbying
groups have multi-million dollar war chests set aside for this election year.

Consequently, it will be extremely difficult to pass any significant
legislation this year.

And so, even though we will not let up on our efforts in congress,
our focus is going to make a dramatic shift.

And we want to keep this shift as quiet as possible while we develop our plan.

In a few weeks, I will be announcing to the nation:

The Citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking

Even the title of this campaign will cause shockwaves to run through
the gun industry and the NRA at local and national levels.

We will be taking a page from the anti-smoking victories, where local
ordinances banned smoking in public facilities and eventually forced
state and national legislation to protest Americans' right to a
smoke-free environment.

And we'll remember the victories in the anti-drunk-driving movement, as well.

M.A.D.D. was formed by a small group of mothers whose children had been
killed by drunk drivers; they gathered supporters and strength at the
grassroots level around the country, and before long these mothers
started to be taken seriously everywhere, even on capitol Hill. Now,
most states have tougher penalties for drunk drivers and the liquor
industry is providing anti-drunk-driving messages in their advertising.

In much the same way, we're going to attack the gun industry and the gun
pushers at the most basic point; where money is exchanged for guns.

The Attack point: Local Gun Shows!

Local gun shows make it extremely easy to purchase a gun for private or
criminal use. And that's because most of the guns at the shows are sold
by private individuals, not by dealers; and, therefore, in most states
they are not covered by laws requiring background checks or paperwork!

So you can walk into a gun show, strike up a conversation with the guy
hawking the M-l carbine, admire its light kick, repetitive fire, and
ability to accept large magazine clips.

Then you talk to that strange man parading around in his military
fatigues, and later you meet him on the street, give him the necessary
cash and the firearm is yours.

All legal in most states, as long as that fellow is not a licensed gun dealer!

Loophole: The Second-Hand Market

Right now, federal laws focus primarily on purchases of handguns from
licensed dealers. And the Brady Handgun violence and prevention Act has
stopped many criminals from buying handguns from licensed dealers.

But most states have no laws preventing one individual from selling a
weapon to another, as long as the seller is not a licensed gun dealer.

"The individual purchasing the gun does not have to show identification,
does not have to submit to background checks. And the person selling
the gun does not need to keep a written record of the transaction or the
buyer's address and social Security number. Also, quite obviously,
there is no waiting period. All in all, this is the most outrageous
loophole in our federal gun laws.

And gun shows are where criminals do their shopping; where the
second-hand gun market really thrives.

And so, this is why one of our first goals in The Citizens Campaign Against
Community Gun Trafficking is going to be to close down the gun shows!

These gun shows are most often held on public property: civic centers,
school gymnasiums, fairgrounds, city and county convention centers.

And these giant weapons bazaars have developed considerable notoriety,
because of such high-profile cases as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy
Mcveigh, who was reported to have bought or sold weapons at gun shows.

A recent issue of "Shotgun News", the "bible" of the gun pushers,
advertised over 500 gun shows for the last three months of 1997 alone.
And this does not include many of the smaller shows and swap meets.

I believe that now you can see why our Citizens campaign Against
Community Gun Trafficking is going to result in tremendous controversy.

And I wish that we could keep it secret; 100% secret; until we are
ready to launch the campaign.

But, unlike the NRA and the right-wing, gun toting fanatics, we do not
have a multi-million dollar war chest. We depend upon grassroots support
from friends like you. And so I wanted to take the calculated risk and
share this plan with you, and hope that you will step forward and send
a significant gift to express your belief that citizens, with or without
Congress, can get things done!

In a few weeks, if you're interested, I will forward to you a 'Citizens
Action Kit," detailing exactly what can be done in your local community.

We intend to bring pressure upon mayors, city councils, school boards,
churches, and all property owners to ban the use of any facility for gun shows.

Already, we are working with Dade county, Florida, mounting an all-out
assault on gun shows in that area. I will be reporting to you about
that innovative and successful initiative before long. But, as of
now, we are not quite ready to go public with the results.

But I must quickly bring this letter to a close, after I warn you that
this is going to be a long, hard-fought campaign.

After all, it took many, many years before the tobacco industry felt the
heat of local citizens demanding a smoke-tree environment.

So we must be patient, firm, determined and uncompromising.

Our enemies will incorrectly and misleadingly scream about freedom of
speech and freedom of assembly. But in turn, we will quietly remind
them that America is involved in a gun war that is claiming 35,000
lives each year including 9,OOO murdered by handguns.

And we'll remind them that Americans must responsibly report transactions
involving cars, liquor and other products. Why should gun sales be exempt?

Every day 14 children, 19 years old and under, are killed by handguns. Much
of this mayhem is made possible by the use of public property for gun shows.

These statistics are tragic proof that a state of war exists.

And, as you know, in my case, the statistic became personal heartbreak
when my husband Jim was grievously wounded by a bullet intended for
President Reagan.

You and I must make America a safer place to live. Let's do it!

P.S. I urge you to turn to the enclosed reply slip and write out a check
in one of the amounts I've indicated. Or perhaps you can give more.
But please do the best you can.

I look forward to receiving your support, and I will trust in your silence
as we prepare our citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking.



-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: [[e-mail]: "Our Freedom"]]
Date: 06 Apr 1998 15:30:25 -0600


I sent this out last year about this time of year, but it seems
fitting to send it out again...

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

"Our Freedom"

Copyright (c) 1997, Michael Kielsky.  All Rights Reserved.
<[e-mail]>

A true story, as handed down to me:

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

It was a time of increasing conflict.  The British were becoming more
oppressive, the searches for guns more frequent, imprisonment and even
hangings of those who were caught opposing British rule by force, more
regular.

One evening, Father was still out and Mother was otherwise occupied, I
found something I should not have.  Ever the curious and restless 17
year old, I looked in father's private chest, and was quite astonished!

Our family had come to this promised land only 13 years earlier.  Back
in the old country, Father had been a successful practicioner in the
law.  He was well suited for it, he was a stern and severe man.  And oh
so intelligent.  But, when he sensed that oppression was looming, and
bad times were ahead, he decided to take his wife and 4 year old child
(that was me) to join his brother who had made some success for himself
over here.

Father's sacrifice was great.  A new language, law quite unfamiliar to
him, a pioneer country for a man who's upbringing and education had not
quite prepared him for these challenges.  Instead of his beloved law, he
became a store clerk during the day, while at night he studied the
language, and this law new to him, so that someday he could once again
put his mind to the law.

What I discovered, what so surprised me, is that Father, so severe, so
upright, so stern, he had secretly a become a member of one of the
forbidden patriot groups!

Yes, I had a times fantasized about joining, to do what I could to help
our cause, to give us our freedom apart from Britain, to prepare for a
war we all feared might come!  But I would not dare join in with these
outlaws, what if Father had found out!  But now, when even this man of
the law has secretly taken up arms, now I could not keep still.

I asked a friend of mine, one who I believed was a member of this
patriot group, to see if I too could join up, and only a few days later,
my friend sent me to a school house, not too far from my home.  There, I
could possibly join.

I entered the school, and saw a few people already sitting there,
waiting.  I knew none of them.  I sat and waited.  One by one, the
others were called into another room, each returning after a while had
passed.

At last, it was my turn.  I entered the room, it was almost completely
dark, but for one small candle.  As best as I could make out, the other
figures in this room had their faces concealed by scarves or hoods.  I
was asked a series of questions, about my background, my family, my
motivations for wanting to join, was I clear about the dangers, would I
give up my comrades were I captured by the British?  The questions
finally ended, and I was told to go back out and wait.

That day, I was given my first assignment.  In the evenings, I was to go
to the house of a very religious family, a family sympathetic to our
cause, and a house that just happened to overlook a British
installation.  There I was to take careful notes of everything that I
observed, and provide regular and detailed reports to my contacts.  I
continued this assignment, on a regular rotation, for over two months.
I told Father nothing, and he appeared not to know.  When I would be out
all night, I would tell him that I was with friends, as they would tell
of being with me when they were on an assignment.

Another time, after completing this assignment, a number of us went to a
remote farm, and received some training in the use of guns, as most of
us had no experience.

At other training exercises, we were taught how to disassemble, clean,
and reassemble, and load guns, especially in darkness.

Father knew nothing of my activities, as I really knew nothing of his.

War came, and I fought along with the rest, now no longer an outlaw
organization, but reformed into a regular army!  Father and I, no longer
members in secret, once talked of our experiences.  Yes, he had
suspected all along.

Father fought too, and while I saw little battle, Father had one
terrible experience.  He came through alive and in once piece, but in
this battle, his friend shot dead right next to him, and under siege for
3 days until liberated by more troops, left him unable to join combat
again.

Our War of Independence was won!  Soon, most of us returned to our
lives, with pride for our new country, with sadness for the price paid.

Not many years later, Father died, perhaps worn out too young by the
challenges of a new world, a new language, and a war his sense of
justice required him to fight.

Eventually, I became a teacher.  I married, had three children, and to
them and their children, I pass on this small story.

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

Now for some details:

The war was Israel's War of Independence, 1947-49.

The story teller was my mother, and related to me (again) this evening,
after our Passover meal.  She even has some photographs of herself with
a variety of firearms.  Yes, my mother wore army boots (once only one
boot, but that's another story).

I thought this was rather appropriate, as Passover is the holiday of
freedom and liberty!

Happy Passover.

Michael
<[e-mail]>

----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

Charles C. Hardy  <[e-mail]> | If my employer has an opinion on
          [phone]   | these topics, I'm sure I'm not
                                  | the one he would have express it.

In March of 1916, Pancho Villa deliberately murdered 19 Americans in a
cross-border raid. This became the cause for Woodrow Wilson, a
president with a notoriously long fuse, to send Gen. Pershing 400
miles into Mexico at the head of an army of 15,000. The next time an
American plane is blown from the sky and the president of the United
States attends yet another funeral or displays his Churchillian
fortitude in begging for the power to tap telephones, think of that
different America with a braver and clearer sense of its place in the
world"
    -Mark Helprin, "Mr. Clinton's Foreign Policy", WSJ, Aug 12, 96


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC Meeting CHANGE!  (correction)
Date: 06 Apr 1998 16:26:22 -0600

Yeesh!  Some days I just can't get ANYTHING right.  The address below is
correct, but it is in Salt Lake City, NOT in Taylorsville.  Sorry for all
the confusion.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THE USSC MEETING!!
Apolgies for any inconvenience or confusion.

The next meeting of the Board of Trustees of USSC will be held on Monday,
April 6 in Taylorsville.  It's at the Calvin Smith Library, 810 E. 3300 S.,
and will start at 6 PM.  Meetings are OPEN to all interested persons.

Sarah Thompson


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

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC Meeting CHANGE!  (correction)
Date: 06 Apr 1998 16:26:22 -0600

Yeesh!  Some days I just can't get ANYTHING right.  The address below is
correct, but it is in Salt Lake City, NOT in Taylorsville.  Sorry for all
the confusion.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THE USSC MEETING!!
Apolgies for any inconvenience or confusion.

The next meeting of the Board of Trustees of USSC will be held on Monday,
April 6 in Taylorsville.  It's at the Calvin Smith Library, 810 E. 3300 S.,
and will start at 6 PM.  Meetings are OPEN to all interested persons.

Sarah Thompson


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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: LPU: CNN's Talk Back Live Gun Poll -- DO IT NOW!]
Date: 06 Apr 1998 21:45:49 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

X-Authentication-Warning: mail.qsicorp.com: majordomo set sender to [e-mail] using -f
X-Sender: shb4391@cor
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 763

Charles, please forward this to utah-firearms. If I do it it
won't go out until after midnight, when the poll will have expired.

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

Hey gang!

CNN's talkback live has a poll going on the assualt weapon ban.  go to:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/TalkBack/index.html

Have fun!

-- Carl



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.

"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: NO AMENDMENT// AMEND THIS AND DIE AS A SOCIETY.
Date: 06 Apr 1998 21:01:00 -0700


Forward from Patty Neill's Australian friend ...


Greetings;
I do not know if Americans fully understand how fortunate they are to have a
bill of rights and a constitution that protects those rights if only in-part.

In Australia we are 'subjects' not citizens and the only 'rights' that we
are guaranteed under law are the rights of freedom of religious assembly
'in church', that is in a church building, we have no other rights and
recently the system tried to take that right away by saying that some
churches were Nazi fronts or supported pervesions not tollerated by the
rest of society. Well the Nazi-Christians countered that the Jews support
child-sex and that was a perversion and quoted the Talmud to that effect.
The issue was dropped.

Today we enjoy the protection of the 'UN Bill of human rights', no one is
openly tortured, although it does happen at times, no one is hungry (that's
more than the USA can say about their people), health care is free for the
most part, the most one pays for prescription drugs is $7.50 (around four
dollars US) and education is almost free and one of the best in the world.

BUT, and I say again 'BUT' we need government permission to own a .177
caliber air-rifle, all semi automatic weapons, pump-action weapons and
highpowered military style weapons (including the humble .303 rifle)
are banned. It is illegal to carry a knife, electric shock self defense
Zappers are unobtainable, and one woman was prosecuted for spraying
hairspray into the eyes of a very large black man who was about to rape
her and had already knocked her down, we can not do that.

I caught a thief on my property, I called the Police and 'I' faced charges
for 'deprivation of liberty and assult' with threatening words added just
to cap it all off. The criminal dropped the charges against me if I dropped
them against him and then the Police drove him home, via MacDonalds where
they brought him a meal because he complained he was hungry.

UN Bill of Rights, you certainly don't want it, doubt me, read it,
then imagine what your political leaders would do with it.

KEEP YOUR GUNS, KEEP YOUR FREEDOMS, KEEP YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS.

Chris J. Bartle
Australian Revolutionary Movement
PO Box 2047
Rockingham
WA  6168.



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USSC Meeting CHANGE!
Date: 06 Apr 1998 11:44:09 -0600

Apparently there was some difficulty sending this out yesterday, and I'm
not sure everyone on  the list received it.  Apologies if this is a
duplicate, and apologies again for such late notice of the change.

Sarah

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE IN THE LOCATION OF THE USSC MEETING!!
Apolgies for any inconvenience or confusion.

The next meeting of the Board of Trustees of USSC will be held on Monday,
April 6 in Taylorsville.  It's at the Calvin Smith Library, 810 E. 3300 S.,
and will start at 6 PM.  Meetings are OPEN to all interested persons.

Please try to attend this meeting!  Although I don't have the formal
agenda, we will probably be discussing the questionnaire which will be sent
to all legislators regarding firearms issues.  We will also begin planning
our strategies and determining positions and goals for both the upcoming
Interim sessions of the legislature and for next year's legislative
session.  If you would like your opinions heard, or have suggestions and/or
requests, we'd love to hear them!

If you are unable to attend, you may forward comments to the Board members
listed below, but there's no substitute for actually being there!  I hope
to see as many of you as possible!

Sarah Thompson


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



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan
Date: 07 Apr 1998 12:33:39 -0600

Hi all!

Thanks to Scott for posting this.  If anyone has an actual verifiable copy
of this fax, would you please let me know as I'd like to get a copy.  Thanks!

Sarah


At 10:22 PM 4/5/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>On Ed Wolfe's website, Nation In Distress:
>http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/
>
>06/08/14 StTN 12:35 FAX Sarah Brady
>
>Dear Handgun Control Member,
>
>I have marked this letter to you "confidential" because I am requesting
>that you avoid discussing the contents publicly for the next several weeks.
>
>This is because we are about to initiate action that, if successful,
>will weaken the stranglehold that the gun industry, the NRA, and other
>gun fanatics have over local and national gun laws.
>
>And I am urgently requesting you to make an extraordinary gift to help
>strengthen our cause.
>
>Please let me quickly explain our plans; and then you will understand
>why both your generosity and secrecy are required.
>
>In brief, we believe there is a strong parallel between the gun industry
>and the tobacco companies! As you know, citizens at the local and state
>level rose up in anger and demanded clean air in restaurants and offices
>when Congress failed to take action.
>
>Here at Handgun Control Inc., it is our regrettable conclusion that this
>current Congress is not going to take the initiative on gun safety for
>America. Legislation is bogged down. The NRA and other gun industry lobbying
>groups have multi-million dollar war chests set aside for this election year.
>
>Consequently, it will be extremely difficult to pass any significant
>legislation this year.
>
>And so, even though we will not let up on our efforts in congress,
>our focus is going to make a dramatic shift.
>
>And we want to keep this shift as quiet as possible while we develop our
plan.
>
>In a few weeks, I will be announcing to the nation:
>
>The Citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking
>
>Even the title of this campaign will cause shockwaves to run through
>the gun industry and the NRA at local and national levels.
>
>We will be taking a page from the anti-smoking victories, where local
>ordinances banned smoking in public facilities and eventually forced
>state and national legislation to protest Americans' right to a
>smoke-free environment.
>
>And we'll remember the victories in the anti-drunk-driving movement, as well.
>
>M.A.D.D. was formed by a small group of mothers whose children had been
>killed by drunk drivers; they gathered supporters and strength at the
>grassroots level around the country, and before long these mothers
>started to be taken seriously everywhere, even on capitol Hill. Now,
>most states have tougher penalties for drunk drivers and the liquor
>industry is providing anti-drunk-driving messages in their advertising.
>
>In much the same way, we're going to attack the gun industry and the gun
>pushers at the most basic point; where money is exchanged for guns.
>
>The Attack point: Local Gun Shows!
>
>Local gun shows make it extremely easy to purchase a gun for private or
>criminal use. And that's because most of the guns at the shows are sold
>by private individuals, not by dealers; and, therefore, in most states
>they are not covered by laws requiring background checks or paperwork!
>
>So you can walk into a gun show, strike up a conversation with the guy
>hawking the M-l carbine, admire its light kick, repetitive fire, and
>ability to accept large magazine clips.
>
>Then you talk to that strange man parading around in his military
>fatigues, and later you meet him on the street, give him the necessary
>cash and the firearm is yours.
>
>All legal in most states, as long as that fellow is not a licensed gun
dealer!
>
>Loophole: The Second-Hand Market
>
>Right now, federal laws focus primarily on purchases of handguns from
>licensed dealers. And the Brady Handgun violence and prevention Act has
>stopped many criminals from buying handguns from licensed dealers.
>
>But most states have no laws preventing one individual from selling a
>weapon to another, as long as the seller is not a licensed gun dealer.
>
>"The individual purchasing the gun does not have to show identification,
>does not have to submit to background checks. And the person selling
>the gun does not need to keep a written record of the transaction or the
>buyer's address and social Security number. Also, quite obviously,
>there is no waiting period. All in all, this is the most outrageous
>loophole in our federal gun laws.
>
>And gun shows are where criminals do their shopping; where the
>second-hand gun market really thrives.
>
>And so, this is why one of our first goals in The Citizens Campaign Against
>Community Gun Trafficking is going to be to close down the gun shows!
>
>These gun shows are most often held on public property: civic centers,
>school gymnasiums, fairgrounds, city and county convention centers.
>
>And these giant weapons bazaars have developed considerable notoriety,
>because of such high-profile cases as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy
>Mcveigh, who was reported to have bought or sold weapons at gun shows.
>
>A recent issue of "Shotgun News", the "bible" of the gun pushers,
>advertised over 500 gun shows for the last three months of 1997 alone.
>And this does not include many of the smaller shows and swap meets.
>
>I believe that now you can see why our Citizens campaign Against
>Community Gun Trafficking is going to result in tremendous controversy.
>
>And I wish that we could keep it secret; 100% secret; until we are
>ready to launch the campaign.
>
>But, unlike the NRA and the right-wing, gun toting fanatics, we do not
>have a multi-million dollar war chest. We depend upon grassroots support
>from friends like you. And so I wanted to take the calculated risk and
>share this plan with you, and hope that you will step forward and send
>a significant gift to express your belief that citizens, with or without
>Congress, can get things done!
>
>In a few weeks, if you're interested, I will forward to you a 'Citizens
>Action Kit," detailing exactly what can be done in your local community.
>
>We intend to bring pressure upon mayors, city councils, school boards,
>churches, and all property owners to ban the use of any facility for gun
shows.
>
>Already, we are working with Dade county, Florida, mounting an all-out
>assault on gun shows in that area. I will be reporting to you about
>that innovative and successful initiative before long. But, as of
>now, we are not quite ready to go public with the results.
>
>But I must quickly bring this letter to a close, after I warn you that
>this is going to be a long, hard-fought campaign.
>
>After all, it took many, many years before the tobacco industry felt the
>heat of local citizens demanding a smoke-tree environment.
>
>So we must be patient, firm, determined and uncompromising.
>
>Our enemies will incorrectly and misleadingly scream about freedom of
>speech and freedom of assembly. But in turn, we will quietly remind
>them that America is involved in a gun war that is claiming 35,000
>lives each year including 9,OOO murdered by handguns.
>
>And we'll remind them that Americans must responsibly report transactions
>involving cars, liquor and other products. Why should gun sales be exempt?
>
>Every day 14 children, 19 years old and under, are killed by handguns. Much
>of this mayhem is made possible by the use of public property for gun shows.
>
>These statistics are tragic proof that a state of war exists.
>
>And, as you know, in my case, the statistic became personal heartbreak
>when my husband Jim was grievously wounded by a bullet intended for
>President Reagan.
>
>You and I must make America a safer place to live. Let's do it!
>
>P.S. I urge you to turn to the enclosed reply slip and write out a check
>in one of the amounts I've indicated. Or perhaps you can give more.
>But please do the best you can.
>
>I look forward to receiving your support, and I will trust in your silence
>as we prepare our citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking.
>
>
>
>-
>
>

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another poll
Date: 07 Apr 1998 12:49:08 -0600

>A poll on MSNBC
>
>Asking about support for the Permanent ban on military assault style
>firearms.  Please VOTE
>
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/156278.asp


(I voted and it wouldn't show me the results.)

Sarah

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan
Date: 07 Apr 1998 18:24:57 -0600

I did a bit of checking into the alleged HCI Fax posted here previously.  I
wrote to Ed Wolfe who posted it on his site, and he referred me to Mike
Pietrantoni who sent me the following note.

>Hi Dr Thompson,
>    I am the one who originally put this up on the net the other day. It was
>faxed to me from John Statdmiller of the shortwave show "The Intelligence
>Report" with him and Mark Koernke. He personally called HCI and verified its
>authenticity.
>    If you would like you can reach him directly at 616 XXXX voice, or 616
>XXXX  fax.  (Phone numbers deleted by me - ST)
>    If I can be of any further assistence please let me know.
>    All the best.  Mike Pietrantoni
>

I also checked with Craig Fields at GOA.  His response follows.

GOA has received numerous questions regarding the validity
of a supposed communication from Sarah Brady to the
members of HCI, wherein it is mentioned that their next
target will be gun shows.

We don't doubt for a second that HCI would love to target
gun shows, but we are of the opinion that the "letter" is
in all likelihood a hoax.

There are quite a few reasons for us to conclude that,
although someone went to a considerable amount of trouble
to create something that looks genuine.

Let's just say that we are well aware of what HCI sends to
its members, and we haven't seen this one. The salutation
is different from what HCI uses nearly 100% of the time.
There are typos. The grammatical styling is both different
and of poorer quality than what HCI produces.

The hard copies we have seen lack a small but always
included graphical separator.

If this is indeed a hoax-- it is remotely possible that it
is genuine but that is quite a stretch-- the perpetrator
has done a disservice to our cause. The time you have spent
fretting over it could have been used to contact a
legislator or write a letter to the editor. The time we had
to spend checking this out could also have been spent in a
more productive manner. And of course, Internet hoaxes do
not die out easily.

Maybe some good can come out of this. If you aren't part of
the GOA E-Mail Alert Network, see below.

In liberty,

Craig.

--Craig Fields
Director of Electronic Communications, GOA

Looks to me like it's probably a hoax, but judge for yourself.

Sarah




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

April 19, 1775 - The Battles of Lexington and Concord
April 19, 1783 - Congress proclaims victory in the American War of
Independence
April 19, 1933 - The US abandons the gold standard
April 19, 1943 - The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
April 19, 1993 - The Branch Davidian Massacre at Waco
April 19, 1995 - The Oklahoma City bombing

What are YOU willing to do for freedom?

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: A GUN IS ONLY A TOOL
Date: 07 Apr 1998 20:06:00 -0700

Heads Up - A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia

April 5, 1998 #79

by: Doug Fiedor [e-mail]

Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html

A GUN IS ONLY A TOOL

I am getting very tired of the socialist-liberal viewpoint in this country,
and I am about to publicly tell a number of them (journalists, this time)
to come up with some hard evidence to back up what they are saying or shut
the hell up!

This week, they're starting on the danger of citizen-owned guns again.
These mush-mouthed hand-ringing buttinskys keep telling America that guns
are bad. Guns are making our country a very dangerous land, they say.
Guns kill people, they repeat. It's like the frontier days out there all
over again, one babble-breath said. Listening to these fugitives from fact,
one would think that the nefarious pistol in the drawer next to me is
actually lying in wait for me to open the drawer so it can jump out and
shoot me.

A few years back I published a well circulated paper detailing the difference
in violent crime between the United States and four European countries where
guns are closely regulated. No matter that I used "official" FBI statistics,
I was immediately chastised for being politically incorrect.

Regardless, here's the basic (offending) data from the 1992 FBI Uniform
Crime Report. The numbers are related in incidents per 100,000 population:

Country ---- Murder ---- Robbery
U.S.A. ------ 9.3 ------- 263.0
England ----- 7.4 -------- 62.6
France ------ 4.6 -------- 90.4
Germany ----- 4.2 -------- 47.4
Italy ------- 6.0 -------- 68.6

If these numbers are taken on their face value, the United States is truly
more dangerous than these four European countries. However, a great deal of
the crime in the United States is committed by street gang punks and other
riffraff in the inner-city. The FBI did not correct for that. However, we
still can get some idea of the source of the problem by using their figures
for the race of the perpetrators.

Color Murder Robbery
--------------------
White   5.1    126
Black  43.1  1,343

All I've got to say about these numbers is that my Black friends and
neighbors in Detroit intuitively knew them to be true. It was the liberal
press, and of course the politicians, who didn't want to hear this stuff.

The FBI defines justifiable homicide as being "limited to the killing of
a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, or the killing
by a private citizen of a felon during the commission of a felony." The
FBI reports that, in 1995, there were a total of 383 justifiable homicides
by police officers and another 286 by civilians. Most, of course, were
justifiable shootings by the use of a handgun.

The FBI identified 7,071 (31.5%) White and 8,285 (36.9%) Black murders
in 1995. Another 6,660 (29.7%) were of unknown race.

As politically incorrect as this information may be, these are the facts
as per the FBI, an organization currently under the control of liberals.
These data are posted on their web page for anyone to see. Yet, journalists
and politicians never bother to look.

The FBI report positively identifies 1,157 murders by juvenile gangs alone
-- and that is just the ones they know about. They identify another 1,010
murders as drug related. And so on, and so on.

The cold hard fact is that, in the States where people own and use guns
the most, there are fewest murders. And it is a natural result, not a
statistical anomaly, that as States begin issuing concealed carry weapons
permits violent crime immediately decreases significantly. These are easily
verifiable facts, available to anyone with a computer. Yet, the political
nincompoops in Washington and their clue-less journalist sycophants persist
in fabricating and disseminating inaccurate information to the American
people. Well folks, it's time we have at them -- politically speaking,
of course.

I, for one, do not relish carrying around an extra two pounds of tooled
steel when I go out. However, even in the beautiful foothills of Appalachia,
that can sometimes be a wise thing to do. Therefore, it must always remain
my option.

Towards that end, we (many of us) would like to thank the Kentucky General
Assembly, which recently passed HB-318 to help secure the right of all
Americans to protect themselves. That bill will allow any licensed person,
from any State which issues concealed carry permits, to carry a concealed
weapon in Kentucky. It also orders the Kentucky State Police to secure
reciprocity agreements with all States that currently issue CCW's so that
Kentucky permit holders may carry in their respective States.

Read it and weep liberals. Sometimes, things work as they should.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: April 15 column - wish list]
Date: 08 Apr 1998 11:30:35 -0600


Not directly related to Utah gun issues, but a good read that touches
on the topic of gun ownership and use.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED APRIL 15, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    Wish list

    Occasional correspondent Bob wrote to ask me: "If you could repeal 10
federal laws, dismantle 10 federal agencies, or reverse 10 supreme court
decisions, which laws, agencies or decisions would you choose? I guess that
what I'm asking for is the libertarian 'hit list'."

  I warned Bob from the outset "There are a lot of pitfalls here, and room
for (interesting, but perhaps counterproductive) debate."

  Experience proves that such exercises in fantasy can lead to
not-very-useful squabbling about tactics and priorities, among folks who in
fact haven't a ghost of a chance of closing (start ital)any(end ital)
government ant farms, as things stand today.

  This only distracts our focus from the real enemy, the Cult of the
Omnipotent State.

  But, that said, I attempted to answer Bob in good faith:

    #   #   #

  For starters, I strongly disagree with the "pragmatic Republican"
concept, that you start by "closing" the DOC, the DOE, and the other DOE,
since they're the most useless and thus the "easiest to trim."

  The implication is that these operations would be like Guadalcanal and
North Africa, good live-fire warm-ups from which we would soon mobilize the
forces of freedom to capture Manila and Rome.

  In fact, the current nature of our politics is that -- once the federal
Department of Education is finally re-absorbed into some other federal
bureaucracy (with no net loss of federal employment) and cheerfully
declared "closed" -- the boys will all pat each other on the back and
retire to the bar, with no incentive to do any more "government-trimming"
for at least another election cycle.

  Sort of like starting the Second World War with the exploratory raids at
Dieppe and Makin Island, and then declaring victory and sending everyone
home.

  Instead, in this fantasy, we might do better to start by reversing the
1895 Supreme Court decision in Sparf and Hansen vs. United States, which
acknowledged juries had the right and POWER to "judge the law as well as
the fact," but ruled judges have no obligation to TELL jurors that ... the
pragmatic effect being that judges now frequently LIE OUTRIGHT, telling
juries "You will judge only the facts, deciding whether the law has been
broken, as I explain it to you. You are not permitted to worry about
whether the law is right or wrong, or whether the likely punishment is
fair, or anything like that. The law is up to the Legislature, and the
Supreme Court. ..."

  Obviously, this is nonsense, or we would never have had the John Peter
Zenger verdict, let along the eventual abandonment of such evil laws as
those against witchcraft, harboring runaway slaves, and purchase of
alcohol, which no jury would enforce, no matter how thoroughly the
prosecution proved "she done it."

  Instead, the Sparf court SHOULD have ruled that "In every jury trial, the
judge shall painstakingly instruct the jurors that it is not merely their
right, but also their duty, to apply their judgment and their common sense
to the question not just of whether the letter of the law has been
violated, but also whether said law is constitutional, and has been
appropriately applied in this case, in the interest of justice.

  "Obviously, if they believe the law violates any of the Great Rights
guaranteed by the first 10 Amendments, or was passed in excess of the
Legislature's EXPRESS delegated authority, they must set the defendant free
without ever COMING to the question of whether he or she committed the act
charged, since (under the wise precedent of Marbury vs. Madison), any law
which is unconstitutional, is null and void, and is to be treated as though
it never was.

  "Constitutionality of the law in question is the FIRST question this and
every jury must answer, for which purpose they shall be provided in their
chambers with a copy of the appropriate statute book, and of their state
and federal Constitutions, including the Bill of Rights, which (they will
be reminded) is the Supreme Law of the Land."

  While actually freeing up courts and police to provide speedier justice
for real, violent felons, this step would also serve the purpose of a quick
vaccination, safeguarding the liberties of our fellow citizens during
whatever time it takes us to deconstruct the rest of the collectivist
police state.

    #   #   #

  After that, eliminating the IRS and its claimed authority, the 16th
Amendment, would be paramount, since that would starve the beast.

  The degree of slavery and invasion of privacy to which we have grown
accustomed under that regime is incalculable. Imagine being asked by a
federal agent, "What's your address? Show me some ID. What's your Social
Security number? How much did you earn last year?" and being able to reply:
"None of those things are any of your business. I have no 'number.' I won't
tell you whether I use any bank, or if so where. Yes, I happen to have
$400,000 in cash in this bag, with no record of where I got it, or what I
plan to do with it. And if you try to take a single dollar, I will shoot
you dead, and every man here will buy me a beer for my trouble. Any other
questions?"

  It would not generally be pragmatic to say such things today, so beaten
down and accustomed are our fellow sufferers (and prospective jurors) to
the role of docile, unquestioning beef cattle for our federal masters. With
the income-tax amendment repealed, however, it would become obvious to all
that this is the only proper response to any government attempt to invade
our financial privacy.

  Next, of course, would have to come the shutting down the DEA and the
repeal of all drug laws -- or overturning them for violating the Ninth
Amendment, which they all do. (A constitutional amendment was required to
authorize alcohol Prohibition, in 1919. When did we ratify the amendments
authorizing Prohibition of previously-legal opium, cocaine and marijuana?)

  Uptight, blue-blazer "nerf libertarians" will whimper that this sounds as
though our politics are merely a shield for permissiveness on drug use. In
fact, I see no sign that any drug law has ever REDUCED drug use, so that's
a red herring.

  (All such Prohibitions are merely failed bluffs. We bluff that if the
minority youths won't stop using their drugs of choice, we'll put them all
in prison ... hoping a few examples will convince them. Instead, they keep
using marijuana and cocaine, so we're well on the way to putting them all
in prison. But the original goal was not to build a huge prison industry,
but to bluff them out of using their drugs of choice ... remember? The
bluff has FAILED, long ago ... so badly that they're now even using their
drugs of choice, IN prison.)

    #   #   #

  I choose the drug laws because they're the ones most commonly used to
justify shredding and defecating all over the rest of the Bill of Rights,
though they're followed closely by ...

  All federal firearms laws, starting with the big Firearms Acts of 1934
and 1968, both of which blatantly violate and dishonor the Second
Amendment. Repeal or overturn them all, and disallow any future government
sinecures or paychecks for any past or present agents of the ATF (while
indicting a good many for fraud, coercion, treason, and depriving citizens
of their civil rights under color of law). We would then find ourselves
with an ARMED population of fully-informed jurors -- free men and women,
peaceable and polite, no longer afraid of their own government.

  If the source of all power is in the people, and government agents are
our servants, then it is only the ARMED CITIZEN who can ask the GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL to unload and hand over his or her firearm until our conversation
is concluded. Law-abiding citizens will peaceably submit to arrest by
unarmed officers, as the Brits have been proving for a century. But only if
they believe they will have a fair chance to explain their case to a
RANDOMLY-SELECTED and fully-informed jury of their peers, and in a hurry.

  Of course, we could just as well get rid of virtually any department,
program, or allocation dreamed up since 1912. But I think the above would
be a good morning's work, in terms of demonstrating how well America could
survive -- as it happily and prosperously did from 1781 to 1912 -- with
liberties restored, and the entire police state put out to pasture.

  You don't rediscover the Sleeping Beauty of liberty or the Constitution
by delicately pruning away dead twigs from the outside of the thicket. You
have to go in with bulldozers, hewing broad access corridors to the castle
on Day One, while you're at your strongest.


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

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768
"Commentaries on the Laws of England."




----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 do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --
 Santayana

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  vote in NBC poll -Forwarded
Date: 09 Apr 1998 08:40:17 -0700

Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id DAA10096; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 03:21:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma010038; Tue Apr  7 03:19:10 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 ----------
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Another poll on MSNBC

Asking about support for the Permanate ban on military assault style
firearms.  GO VOTE

http://www.msnbc.com/news/156278.asp

John Wilson
[e-mail]



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  NBC Boycott -Forwarded
Date: 09 Apr 1998 08:52:03 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 09 Apr 1998 08:04:09 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA09725; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma009649; Thu Apr  9 09:57:04 1998
Message-Id: <v01510103b151c046241c@[209.20.135.207]>
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

>Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 11:42:15 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
>        [e-mail]
>From: Mitch Rosen <[e-mail]>
>Subject: NBC Boycott
>
>   From: Robert P. Firriolo <[e-mail]>
>Subject: NBC BOYCOTT - LIRR "INCIDENT" TV MOVIE
>   Date: 04/07/98 07:59 PM
>
>NBC TV Movie Set to Attack RKBA and NRA
>
>Variety is reporting that the upcoming TV movie on the LIRR massacre
>entitled "The Incident on Long Island" will contain unrestrained attacks
>on the NRA and politicians (by name) who voted to repeal the "assault
>weapon" ban.  "Incident" is a fluff piece on notoriously anti-gun Rep.
>Carolyn McCarthy (D, NY) and is produced by Barbra Streisand.
>
>Consider the following quote from Amy Archerd's 4/7/98 Variety story:
>
>       [Director Joe] Sargent, now in final post on the
>        TriStar-NBC project, tells me the script explains
>        how the NRA errs in its claims of protection for
>        the Second Amendment. A lobbyist in the movie
>        states, "Did you know that former Chief Justice
>        Burger called the NRA's misrepresentation of the
>        Second Amendment one of the greatest pieces of fraud
>        on the American public by special interest groups
>        that he'd ever seen -- the Second Amendment has never
>        been about the right of an individual to bear arms!
>        It's about the right to arm a militia. A well-
>        regulated militia."
>
>This program is scheduled to be broadcast by NBC on May 3, during
>"sweeps week."  For those who do not know, that is the period when TV
>ratings are most carefully analyzed. Among other things, it allows
>broadcasters to set advertising rates based on the popularity of their
>shows.  It is a safe bet that NBC will rerun the program before the
>November election, too, as Rep. McCarthy is running for re-election for
>the first time.
>
>Let me be the first to suggest contacting NBC and informing them that
>not only will you and your family not watch the show, but you will
>boycott all sponsors who advertise on the program.  Tell them we will
>not stand for intentional distortions of fact and slander of the NRA,
>RKBA, and our political allies.
>
>If this promise of a boycott picks up steam, it may be hard for NBC to
>sell advertising for the program.  I doubt we can keep it off the air,
>but we can make these anti-freedom Hollywood elite's jobs tougher.  We
>may even get them to edit out the anti-gun content, but I wouldn't hold
>my breath waiting for that to happen.
>
>We have to try, though.  Start contacting NBC now.
>
>Send your comments to [e-mail].
>
>Please forward and cross-post.
>
>__________________
>Robert P. Firriolo
>
>*******************************************************************
>"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people
> at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped."
>
>                     - Alexander Hamilton
>                       The Federalist Papers - Number 29
>*******************************************************************
>




-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  I just called BATF re magazine ban (fwd) -Forwarded
Date: 09 Apr 1998 17:15:07 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 09 Apr 1998 16:51:41 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id SAA03491; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 18:48:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma003301; Thu Apr  9 18:47:25 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





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

Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Dan Day" <[e-mail]>
I was curious about the extent of the full ramifications of
Feinstein's "big magazine ban", so I called up the text of
the bill at the GPO site.  It's short and sweet, and just
does two simple things:
   1.  Outlaws importation of any large magazine, by anyone, period.
       (A "large magazine" is any magazine over 10 rounds which
       is not a tubular .22 magazine).
   2.  Makes it illegal to "transfer" any large magazine (except
       by the government elite, of course).

It would remain legal to continue to own any pre-1994 magazines
that you already have in your possession.

Note, however, the word "transfer" in #2 above.  What, exactly,
is legally considered a "transfer"?  Not knowing the finer points
of that myself, I decided to call the folks who would be in charge
of actually enforcing that law.  The local Houston BATF office
wasn't really sure, so they referred me to the ATF's Assistant
Chief Counsel office in Dallas.  There, an ATF lawyer answered the
phone, and was quite helpful.

"Transfer", as you would expect, includes sale, trade, pawn, or
giving as a gift, since clearly a transfer of legal ownership is
a "transfer".  However, I was surprised to learn that the courts
have also decreed that borrowing, using, or handling an item that
belongs to someone else is also considered a "transfer", even if
the owner is standing right there next to you.  The ATF attorney
mentioned a late-70's 5th Circuit Court case in which someone was
nailed for simply handling a machine gun long enough to shoot it
at a range while the owner was standing nearby.  The attorney
also opined that technically you could get busted for an illegal
"transfer" for simply handing a magazine to someone for them to
look at for ten seconds.

Yes, that's right -- if Feinstein's bill passes, you can become a
convicted felon under federal law if *anyone* besides you handles
your magazine, or however briefly shoots your firearm if it has a
large magazine in it (as many modern pistols do).

I also asked him what happens to your magazines when you die,
since there's no legal way they can be "transferred" from your
estate to a new owner.  He admitted that this was a good
question, and he had no idea as to what the answer would be.  Laws
concerning NFA weapons (e.g. machine guns) have an explicit
"death transfer" clause, but Feinstein's ban does not.  It seems
to me that technically even picking up your magazine (from your
cold dead fingers) to take it away to be destroyed would be
considered an illegal transfer.

Finally, I was amused that when I asked the ATF attorney if I
had his permission to mention his name in this article, he replied
"I'd really rather you didn't"...
--
For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to [e-mail]
with the word help in the message body.



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  NRA Alert -Forwarded
Date: 10 Apr 1998 16:34:12 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 14:20:37 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id QAA02968; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 16:18:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma002864; Fri Apr 10 16:17:08 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


Haven't seen this on the list yet:

Call your senators today (4/9/98).  Tell them to support Sen. Craig's
amendment (S.Amdt. 1604) to override Komrade Klinton's recent gun ban by
executive order.  All the guns he just banned are legal under the rules
he made in 1994.

Senate phone no.:  202-224-3121

also call your representative at 202-224-3121 and tell him to support
the companion bill, H.R. 2734.

CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND TELL THEM TO DO THIS TODAY!!!

L. Mahanay



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: MinuteMan Alert Network
Date: 10 Apr 1998 23:23:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
 IGNITION POINT <[e-mail]>

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

*** A Special Message From Larry Pratt, Executive Director
of Gun Owners of America ***

Dear Fellow American:

It happened in Nazi Germany about (60) years ago.

It is happening in England as of July 1, 1997.

It has even happened in New York City, New York.

First, gun registration. Then, gun confiscation.

In Congress anti-gunners are still on the offensive toward
their goal of a complete ban on private firearms ownership.

As you may know, Gun Owners of America is the
no-compromise gun rights lobby organization supported by
hundreds of thousands of pro-gun friends across America.

Our position on gun control is: It's not Constitutional.
And to make sure politicians get the message, we work with
grassroots pro-gunners.

Gun Owners of America and our members have no problem
saying to the legislators who want to sell-out our rights
"Don't tread on me and my gun rights."

In Washington, Gun Owners of America fights legislative
battles to protect your gun rights.

However, sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

In fact, in over a half a dozen states -- in 1997 alone --
Gun Owners of America staff and members have been working
with state legislatures to repeal laws that force gun owners
to get a permission slip in order to carry a gun concealed.

We are also on the offensive to push for a "Vermont-style"
concealed carry law that simply says every law abiding
citizen has the right to carry a gun concealed. There are
no government hoops, no fingerprints, no mandatory
training, no forms, no licenses, and no fees.

This is Gun Owners of America's position: NO GUN CONTROL ALLOWED.

Now it's time to take that aggressive offensive approach to
reclaiming our gun rights to legislative battles in
Washington D.C. and your state capital.

Will you join the effort?

I AM ASKING YOU TO JOIN OUR FREE LEGISLATIVE ALERT AND
ACTION NETWORK -- THE MINUTEMAN ALERT.

MinuteMan Alert participants receive timely communication
alerts (via e-mail) when there are bills or other actions
being made in Washington or your state capital.

As a participant, you'll get the facts you need to let the
politicians know just where you -- the pro-gun voter -- stand
and what the politician must do.

Your action will apply pressure to legislators when they need it
the most. Together with other gun rights supporters you and I can
make the legislator "feel the heat" until they "see the light."

As you know, petitioning an elected official is a powerful
legislative tool.

Elected officials fear angry voters. That is why grass-roots
action is so powerful. It reminds elected officials that
they are there to serve the people and will be held
accountable by the people.

But you know that when push comes to shove, politics is a numbers game.

Hundreds means more than tens, and thousands mean more than hundreds.

That is why I am asking you to subscribe, right now, to Gun
Owners of America's MinuteMan Alert. Every person counts.
You can make the difference.

ITS EASY TO SUBSCRIBE, HERE'S HOW:

1) SEND AN E-MAIL MESSAGE (OR FORWARD THIS MESSAGE) TO [e-mail]

2) BE SURE TO INDICATE WHICH STATE YOU LIVE IN AND LIST THAT
INFORMATION IN THE SUBJECT LINE OR BODY OF THE MESSAGE.

After you send Gun Owners of America a request to subscribe, you
should shortly thereafter receive a confirmation e-mail from our office.

After that, you will receive alerts as they become necessary.

I hope that you will subscribe to Gun Owners of America's
MinuteMan Alert Network. As you can tell, there is nothing
to lose -- it is a free service. All I ask is that you try
to take the requested action in the alerts you receive.

Also, please know that your e-mail address will remain confidential.

If you would like more information you may call our main phone
number [703-321-8585] and request an information pack on Gun Owners
of America or you may e-mail your request to: [e-mail]

You may also visit our Internet Web Site at http://www.gunowners.org

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Larry Pratt
Executive Director
Gun Owners of America, Inc.
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
E-Mail: [e-mail]


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Sarah's wants your AR-15s, M1As. and M1 Carbines.
Date: 13 Apr 1998 08:16:05 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:52:33 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA25938; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 14:50:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma025877; Sat Apr 11 14:48:45 1998
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list

"By banning the importation of assault rifles accepting large capacity
magazines holding more than ten rounds, today=92s ruling affects weapons =
like
the military-style carbine that was used in the Jonesboro shooting and
which had a 15-round magazine.

The same tests that are being applied to imported assault weapons should
also be applied to domestically manufactured weapons. While imports alway=
s
have been the major source of assault rifles in this country, today=92s
action still leaves the door open for domestic manufacturers to circumven=
t
the federal assault weapon ban. Congress should move to close this loopho=
le
by adopting standards for domestic weapons that mirror today=92s ruling."

Full statement available at:

http://www.handguncontrol.org/c-main.htm



              The Second Amendment is the RESET button
                   of the United States Constitution.=20
                          ---Doug McKay" <[e-mail]>=20


Joe Sylvester
Don't Tread On Me !







-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ARCHERD: Streisand Takes Aim At Guns
Date: 13 Apr 1998 14:34:55 -0600

>Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 13:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>To: "Sun Tzu's Firearms Advisory" <[e-mail]>
>From: "Sun Tzu's Firearms Newswire" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: More B.S. -- ARCHERD: Streisand Takes Aim At Guns
>
>Yahoo! News Entertainment Headlines
>
>Tuesday April 7, 1998 8:39 AM EDT
>
>ARCHERD: Streisand Takes Aim At Guns
>
>By Army Archerd, Daily Variety Senior Columnist
>Reuters/Variety ^REUTERS@
>
>HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - On the heels of this week's announcement by
>President Clinton banning the importation of assault weapons, comes
>a report that "The Incident on Long Island" will pull no punches.
>
>The NBC TV movie attacks the NRA and what the show calls the NRA's
>"fraudulent" claims of gun protection under the Second Amendment.
>Charlton Heston (who has an NRA "leadership position") loudly
>proclaims these assertions in his column in Guns & Ammo and in an
>NRA ad in the current Popular Mechanics in which he demands, "Why
>don't you demand the Second Amendment be taught at your kid's school?
>Fight back."
>
>The NBC telefilm is being switched into the sweeps, May 3. It is a
>Barwood production, exec produced by Barbra Streisand and Cis Corman
>and Jordan Davis, and directed by Joe Sargent. It is the story of
>Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D.-N.Y.) and tells her story "from
>housewife to gun-control advocate to congresswoman." Streisand's
>Barwood became involved in TV only to be able to produce important
>subjects, like this, that would not make it to the bigscreen.
>
>The "incident" was the murder of six and the injuring of 19 others on
>Dec. 7, 1993, on the Long Island Commuter train. One of those killed
>was McCarthy's husband, Dennis, while their son Kevin was critically
>wounded. Laurie Metcalf plays McCarthy. The script by Maria Nation
>calls the NRA by name repeatedly. Sargent, now in final post on the
>TriStar-NBC project, tells me the script explains how the NRA errs
>in its claims of protection for the Second Amendment.
>
>A lobbyist in the movie states, "Did you know that former Chief Justice
>Burger called the NRA's misrepresentation of the Second Amendment one
>of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special
>interest groups that he'd ever seen -- the Second Amendment has never
>been about the right of an individual to bear arms! It's about the
>right to arm a militia. A well-regulated militia." Sargent also says
>the show "names names of Congressman who tried to avoid the issue --
>and Congressmen (like Dan Frisa) who received funding from the NRA." And
>Bob Dole, who led the fight to repeal the ban on semi-automatic assault
>weapons which allowed 19 brands of assault weapons to once again be
>legally sold. Sargent says Streisand "went out of her way" to get this
>idea pitched to NBC with Corman. Rick Rosenberg and Bob Christiansen
>produce. Before the "incident," Congresswoman McCarthy was a Republican,
>by the way.
>
>Two days before Sargent started to direct the film, he reports, "My
>cousin got hold of a gun and blew his brains out."
>
>The director will have two shows airing during sweeps: the other is "The
>Wall" about the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in D.C. and the mementos left
>there; it airs on Showtime May 24. He is again talking to Showtime to film
>a story about pleas for peace in Ireland.
>
>As for "Incident," he says, "We hope a little of this common sense will
>rub off." Many in the biz are hoping it will and are committed to the
>end of violence via their Committee to End Violence, headed
>by Sy Gomberg, Lloyd Bochner and Allen Manning, who are joined by 197
>creative members of the biz in a pledge to cut down gratuitous,
>excessive and unpunished violence.
>---- @
>
>    Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.
>                   A. J. Liebling, The Wayward Press
>


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

April 19, 1775 - The Battles of Lexington and Concord
April 19, 1783 - Congress proclaims victory in the American War of
Independence
April 19, 1933 - The US abandons the gold standard
April 19, 1943 - The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
April 19, 1993 - The Branch Davidian Massacre at Waco
April 19, 1995 - The Oklahoma City bombing

What are YOU willing to do for freedom?

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Duane Cardal
Date: 13 Apr 1998 15:42:07 -0700

Please call Duane Cardall at 801-535-5555

Constitutional Rights are Not Trivial On April 10, 1998 Duane Cardall made
an editorial on KSL television and Radio where he criticized gun owners,
referred to as the *gun lobby* for their efforts to keep their rights to carry
concealed weapons.  He called such people who wanted to protect their
rights names such as calloused, and obstinate.  Mr. Cardall inferred that
criminal acts of two adolescent boys at Jonesboro were the fault of
law-abiding citizens who own firearms for personal protection and that
the founding fathers were wrong to include a constitutional right to keep
and bear arms.

He said that #unless they compromise a bit on issues without serious
constitutional bearing, they're likely to face a public backlash that
ultimately could result in what they fear most...a revocation of their
constitutional right to bear arms.#

I think it would be appropriate to remind Mr. Cardall that #the gun lobby# is
so powerful mostly because of the widespread participation of ordinary
people who are not involved in politics as a profession or enjoy access
to communication such as do journalists.

If people who protect their rights are called calloused and obstinate,
perhaps he should consider the virtues of a five-day waiting period for a
government review before he releases his next editorial opinion.  Or
perhaps his own threat is applicable here:  If the news media
#compromise a bit# on their right to bias reporting however they want,
they could lose their right to free speech.

We should remember that 60 years ago that there was a very
charismatic leader who promised the people safe streets if they would
register their firearms, wealth if government could regulate industry and
to make their country the greatest in the world if they surrender some
trivial freedoms.  Today we call that form of government fascism.

Today we have a very charismatic leader who promises safe streets if
we ban a list of firearms that grows longer every year, great economic
progress if we will submit to government regulation and to lead our
nation into a bright new millennium if we will only surrender some trivial
freedoms.  Today our leader is Bill Clinton, arguably the most corrupt
president in American history and the liberal news media is behind him all
the way.

 Neil Sagers

Duane Cardall can be reached for comment at 801-535-5555 or at
[e-mail].

The text if Mr. Cardall*s editorial appears below and can be found at
http://www.ksl.com/TV/opinion.htm

   GUNS AND LITTLE GIRLS

April 10, 1998
Before many more days dim the memory of the tragedy of Jonesboro,
let's  talk about guns.

The causes of that horrible scene run deep with blame being placed on
everything from violence in the media to the breakdown of the family.
Whatever the cause, the tool used to carry out the deed was a gun.

The arguments of the powerful gun lobby aside, can anyone who saw
the  graphic images from that rural Arkansas school yard honestly doubt
that  our nation is paying a terrible price for allowing such easy access
to guns?

Yes, the Bill of Rights certainly allows Americans to keep and bear
arms.

But this is 1998, not 1776, and something about four little girls and a
teacher, shot down in cold blood in a school yard causes us to wonder
if  the Founding Fathers would feel the same about the Second
Amendment if  they were here today.

KSL knows the issue is emotional and even as we speak, gun
advocates are heading to their keyboards to pound out responses to
what we've said.  It's a powerful lobby that once again this year
successfully shot down efforts in Utah to keep concealed weapons out
of places like schools and churches, even though 90-percent of Utahns
favor such restrictions.

KSL says its time for gun lobbyists to quit being so calloused, so
obstinate.

Unless they compromise a bit on issues without serious constitutional
bearing, they're likely to face a public backlash that ultimately could result
in what they fear most...a revocation of their constitutional right to bear
arms.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [chardy: [[The Real Lesson of the School Shootings - WSJ])]]]
Date: 13 Apr 1998 16:04:28 -0600


I accidently deleted David's messgae about the KSL editorial against
guns.  Would someone please forward this along to KSL and/or drop me
a copy of the message so I can.  Thanks.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

From the Friday 27 March 1998 edition of the Wall Street
Journal, page A14, lower, right-hand section.  Passed along
for educational purposes.

By JOHN R. LOTT JR.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/SB89095813222556500.htm>

----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.




----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

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

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [chardy: [[The Real Lesson of the School Shootings -
Date: 13 Apr 1998 16:49:16 -0700

Charles:

I e-mailed and faxed your WSJ article to Duane Cardall at KSL.  Thanks
for keeping that one on file, it hits the nail on the head.


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan -Forwarded
Date: 13 Apr 1998 16:59:09 -0700

Does anyone know if this is true or is it just another fund raising gimmick
from HCI?

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

Hi all!

Thanks to Scott for posting this.  If anyone has an actual verifiable copy
of this fax, would you please let me know as I'd like to get a copy.
Thanks!

Sarah


At 10:22 PM 4/5/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>On Ed Wolfe's website, Nation In Distress:
>http://www.involved.com/ewolfe/distress/
>
>06/08/14 StTN 12:35 FAX Sarah Brady
>
>Dear Handgun Control Member,
>
>I have marked this letter to you "confidential" because I am requesting
>that you avoid discussing the contents publicly for the next several
weeks.
>
>This is because we are about to initiate action that, if successful,
>will weaken the stranglehold that the gun industry, the NRA, and other
>gun fanatics have over local and national gun laws.
>
>And I am urgently requesting you to make an extraordinary gift to help
>strengthen our cause.
>
>Please let me quickly explain our plans; and then you will understand
>why both your generosity and secrecy are required.
>
>In brief, we believe there is a strong parallel between the gun industry
>and the tobacco companies! As you know, citizens at the local and
state
>level rose up in anger and demanded clean air in restaurants and
offices
>when Congress failed to take action.
>
>Here at Handgun Control Inc., it is our regrettable conclusion that this
>current Congress is not going to take the initiative on gun safety for
>America. Legislation is bogged down. The NRA and other gun industry
lobbying
>groups have multi-million dollar war chests set aside for this election
year.
>
>Consequently, it will be extremely difficult to pass any significant
>legislation this year.
>
>And so, even though we will not let up on our efforts in congress,
>our focus is going to make a dramatic shift.
>
>And we want to keep this shift as quiet as possible while we develop
our plan.
>
>In a few weeks, I will be announcing to the nation:
>
>The Citizens Campaign Against Community Gun Trafficking
>
>Even the title of this campaign will cause shockwaves to run through
>the gun industry and the NRA at local and national levels.
>
>We will be taking a page from the anti-smoking victories, where local
>ordinances banned smoking in public facilities and eventually forced
>state and national legislation to protest Americans' right to a
>smoke-free environment.
>
>And we'll remember the victories in the anti-drunk-driving movement, as
well.
>
>M.A.D.D. was formed by a small group of mothers whose children had
been
>killed by drunk drivers; they gathered supporters and strength at the
>grassroots level around the country, and before long these mothers
>started to be taken seriously everywhere, even on capitol Hill. Now,
>most states have tougher penalties for drunk drivers and the liquor
>industry is providing anti-drunk-driving messages in their advertising.
>
>In much the same way, we're going to attack the gun industry and the
gun
>pushers at the most basic point; where money is exchanged for guns.
>
>The Attack point: Local Gun Shows!
>
>Local gun shows make it extremely easy to purchase a gun for private
or
>criminal use. And that's because most of the guns at the shows are
sold
>by private individuals, not by dealers; and, therefore, in most states
>they are not covered by laws requiring background checks or
paperwork!
>
>So you can walk into a gun show, strike up a conversation with the guy
>hawking the M-l carbine, admire its light kick, repetitive fire, and
>ability to accept large magazine clips.
>
>Then you talk to that strange man parading around in his military
>fatigues, and later you meet him on the street, give him the necessary
>cash and the firearm is yours.
>
>All legal in most states, as long as that fellow is not a licensed gun
dealer!
>
>Loophole: The Second-Hand Market
>
>Right now, federal laws focus primarily on purchases of handguns
from
>licensed dealers. And the Brady Handgun violence and prevention Act
has
>stopped many criminals from buying handguns from licensed dealers.
>
>But most states have no laws preventing one individual from selling a
>weapon to another, as long as the seller is not a licensed gun dealer.
>
>"The individual purchasing the gun does not have to show identification,
>does not have to submit to background checks. And the person selling
>the gun does not need to keep a written record of the transaction or the
>buyer's address and social Security number. Also, quite obviously,
>there is no waiting period. All in all, this is the most outrageous
>loophole in our federal gun laws.
>
>And gun shows are where criminals do their shopping; where the
>second-hand gun market really thrives.
>
>And so, this is why one of our first goals in The Citizens Campaign
Against
>Community Gun Trafficking is going to be to close down the gun shows!
>
>These gun shows are most often held on public property: civic centers,
>school gymnasiums, fairgrounds, city and county convention centers.
>
>And these giant weapons bazaars have developed considerable
notoriety,
>because of such high-profile cases as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy
>Mcveigh, who was reported to have bought or sold weapons at gun
shows.
>
>A recent issue of "Shotgun News", the "bible" of the gun pushers,
>advertised over 500 gun shows for the last three months of 1997
alone.
>And this does not include many of the smaller shows and swap meets.
>
>I believe that now you can see why our Citizens campaign Against
>Community Gun Trafficking is going to result in tremendous controversy.
>
>And I wish that we could keep it secret; 100% secret; until we are
>ready to launch the campaign.
>
>But, unlike the NRA and the right-wing, gun toting fanatics, we do not
>have a multi-million dollar war chest. We depend upon grassroots
support
>from friends like you. And so I wanted to take the calculated risk and
>share this plan with you, and hope that you will step forward and send
>a significant gift to express your belief that citizens, with or without
>Congress, can get things done!
>
>In a few weeks, if you're interested, I will forward to you a 'Citizens
>Action Kit," detailing exactly what can be done in your local community.
>
>We intend to bring pressure upon mayors, city councils, school boards,
>churches, and all property owners to ban the use of any facility for gun
shows.
>
>Already, we are working with Dade county, Florida, mounting an all-out
>assault on gun shows in that area. I will be reporting to you about
>that innovative and successful initiative before long. But, as of
>now, we are not quite ready to go public with the results.
>
>But I must quickly bring this letter to a close, after I warn you that
>this is going to be a long, hard-fought campaign.
>
>After all, it took many, many years before the tobacco industry felt the
>heat of local citizens demanding a smoke-tree environment.
>
>So we must be patient, firm, determined and uncompromising.
>
>Our enemies will incorrectly and misleadingly scream about freedom of
>speech and freedom of assembly. But in turn, we will quietly remind
>them that America is involved in a gun war that is claiming 35,000
>lives each year including 9,OOO murdered by handguns.
>
>And we'll remind them that Americans must responsibly report
transactions
>involving cars, liquor and other products. Why should gun sales be
exempt?
>
>Every day 14 children, 19 years old and under, are killed by handguns.
Much
>of this mayhem is made possible by the use of public property for gun
shows.
>
>These statistics are tragic proof that a state of war exists.
>
>And, as you know, in my case, the statistic became personal
heartbreak
>when my husband Jim was grievously wounded by a bullet intended
for
>President Reagan.
>
>You and I must make America a safer place to live. Let's do it!
>
>P.S. I urge you to turn to the enclosed reply slip and write out a check
>in one of the amounts I've indicated. Or perhaps you can give more.
>But please do the best you can.
>
>I look forward to receiving your support, and I will trust in your silence
>as we prepare our citizens Campaign Against Community Gun
Trafficking.


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Hartley Anderson and Washington Co.Convention -Forwarded
Date: 14 Apr 1998 08:51:30 -0700

Received: from [e-mail]
    by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 3LHVa11820;
    Tue, 14 Apr 1998 02:16:09 -0500 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64

Thought you all might like to see this.
Could be very interesting.  I can not receive KWUN up here where I live.  If
any of you listen, please give me a report.

Thanks,
Lori

I received this from Richard Partridge who is a candidate in Box Elder for
Peter Knudsen's old seat.

I'll be sustitute host for Kay Henry from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM on Tuesday, April
14 on KWUN-1230 AM

My guests will be Hartley Anderson and Gerry Arthus, who are planning a press
conference that morning to expose and denounce the duplicity of Rob Bishop,
state chair of the Republican Party of Utah.

They will cite Bishop's serving as a paid lobbyist for 12 companies (check
"Lobbyists" on the Lt. Gov's website); refusal at two county conventions to
sign a pledge supporting the GOP's state party platform; blatant favortism
towards incumbents; denial of delegate lists despite Anderson's withdrawing
his Libertarian Party filing despite Bishop's insistence and promises; and
threatening to have Anderson arrested if he spoke for more than six minutes at
the Washington County convention.

According to Gerry, Republican county delegates who have learned about
Bishop's
capitalizing on his state chair's position to be a highly paid lobbyist for
companies,
like Envirocare and TCI, whose activities run contrary to the GOP platform,
are outraged. (I am considering proposing an "ethics amendment" to our
constitution to further assure voters and members that Libertarians are not
hypocrites.) It is estimated that Bishop earns $500,000 a year from lobbying
as the head of the state GOP.

And, as noted previously, I'll be a guest on Jim Kirkwood's show from 10:00 AM
to Noon on
Wednesday, April 15 on KTKK-630 AM


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Assault gun ban stalls in Assembly (fwd) -Forwarded
Date: 14 Apr 1998 08:52:43 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 19:38:42 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id VAA22679; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 21:36:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma022585; Mon Apr 13 21:35:48 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

One vote short. Just one.

---Forwarded Msg---
  Monday, 13 April
  Carolyn Hart <[e-mail]>:

Monday April 13 5:34 PM EDT

Assault gun ban stalls in Assembly

SACRAMENTO, Calif., April 13 (UPI) _ Legislation to strengthen and
expand California's prohibition of assault weapons has fallen one vote
short (Monday) of going to the governor. The bill failed on an
Assembly vote of concurrence in Senate amendments, but the author
received permission to try again on another day. It would replace the
current list of outlawed, military-style semiautomatic weapons with a
much broader, generic description of guns to be prohibited.
http://biz.yahoo.com/upi/98/04/13/general_news/usassault_1.html
---End Forwarded Msg---


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  KSL
Date: 14 Apr 1998 08:56:48 -0700

Charles:

Assuming KSL will allow an opposing view point, do you have anyone in
mind to give the rebuttal.  Are you interested?  Perhaps Janalee?

I am still working to get an answer from KSL.


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: KSL
Date: 14 Apr 1998 10:33:54 -0600


On Tue, 14 Apr 1998,  DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]> posted:

>Charles:
>
>Assuming KSL will allow an opposing view point, do you have anyone in
>mind to give the rebuttal.  Are you interested?  Perhaps Janalee?
>
>I am still working to get an answer from KSL.

I was hoping for someone better spoken and presented than myself.
Janalee might be a good choice although it was you that I had in mind.

--

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.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to
teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Duane Cardall - Anti-Gun Editorial
Date: 14 Apr 1998 15:51:09 -0700

Many of us are aware of the less than favorable editorial Duane Cardall
gave on KSL TV.  (See below)

I spoke with Duane Cardall this morning, he was cordial and receptive to
my comments.  Mr Cardall has received mountains of responses from his
anti-gun editorial.

The purpose of my call to Mr. Cardall is that KSL used to allow people the
chance to appear on TV with a different view point, unfortunately, KSL
has discontinued this program.

Mr. Cardall is reviewing the responses and will choose from among them
and present one or more of these letters sometime in the next couple of
weeks.

He said that if anyone else wants to respond to his editorial they should
get their letters to him quickly, as he wants to narrow down the pile to
two or three letters sometime in the next week.

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

   GUNS AND LITTLE GIRLS

April 10, 1998

Before many more days dim the memory of the tragedy of Jonesboro,
let's talk about guns.

The causes of that horrible scene run deep with blame being placed on
everything from violence in the media to the breakdown of the family.
Whatever the cause, the tool used to carry out the deed was a gun.

The arguments of the powerful gun lobby aside, can anyone who saw
the graphic images from that rural Arkansas school yard honestly doubt
that our nation is paying a terrible price for allowing such easy access to
guns?

Yes, the Bill of Rights certainly allows Americans to keep and bear
arms.

But this is 1998, not 1776, and something about four little girls and a
teacher, shot down in cold blood in a school yard causes us to wonder
if the Founding Fathers would feel the same about the Second
Amendment if they were here today.

KSL knows the issue is emotional and even as we speak, gun
advocates are heading to their keyboards to pound out responses to
what we've said.

It's a powerful lobby that once again this year successfully shot down
efforts in Utah to keep concealed weapons out of places like schools
and churches, even though 90-percent of Utahns favor such
restrictions.

KSL says its time for gun lobbyists to quit being so calloused, so
obstinate.

Unless they compromise a bit on issues without serious constitutional
bearing, they're likely to face a public backlash that ultimately could result
in what they fear most...a revocation of their constitutional right to bear
arms.

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

Please call Duane Cardall at 801-575-5555, Fax [phone]

Constitutional Rights are Not Trivial

On April 10, 1998 Duane Cardall made an editorial on KSL television and
Radio where he criticized gun owners, referred to as the *gun lobby* for
their efforts to keep their rights to carry concealed weapons.  He called
such people who wanted to protect their rights names such as
calloused, and obstinate.  Mr. Cardall inferred that criminal acts of two
adolescent boys at Jonesboro were the fault of law-abiding citizens
who own firearms for personal protection and that the founding fathers
were wrong to include a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

He said that *unless they compromise a bit on issues without serious
constitutional bearing, they're likely to face a public backlash that =
ultimately could result in what they fear most...a revocation of their
constitutional right to bear arms.*

I think it would be appropriate to remind Mr. Cardall that *the gun lobby* is
so powerful mostly because of the widespread participation of ordinary
people who are not involved in politics as a profession or enjoy access
to communication such as do journalists.

If people who protect their rights are called calloused and obstinate,
perhaps he should consider the virtues of a five-day waiting period for a
government review before he releases his next editorial opinion.  Or
perhaps his own threat is applicable here:  If the news media
*compromise a bit* on their right to bias reporting however they want,
they could lose their right to free speech.

We should remember that 60 years ago that there was a very
charismatic leader who promised the people safe streets if they would
register their firearms, wealth if government could regulate industry and
to make their country the greatest in the world if they surrender some
trivial freedoms.

Today we call that form of government fascism.

Today we have a very charismatic leader who promises safe streets if
we ban a list of firearms that grows longer every year, great economic
progress if we will submit to government regulation and to lead our
nation into a bright new millennium if we will only surrender some trivial
freedoms.  Today our leader is Bill Clinton, arguably the most corrupt
president in American history and the liberal news media is behind him all
the way.

Duane Cardall can be reached for comment at 801-535-5555 or at
[e-mail].

The text if Mr. Cardall*s editorial appears below and can be found at
http://www.ksl.com/TV/opinion.htm

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

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE----

From the Friday 27 March 1998 edition of the Wall Street Journal, page
A14, lower, right-hand section.  Passed along for educational purposes.

By JOHN R. LOTT JR.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 kidnaped by carjackers seldom even make the local news.

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.

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.


<http://interactive.wsj.com/edition/current/articles/SB89095813222556500.htm>

----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.




----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

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


-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: First Response to KSL Editorial
Date: 14 Apr 1998 16:17:54 -0600


Here is the first of two responses I plan to write to KSL.  If there
is a group out there who would like to use this one (it reads better
with the "we"s rather than with "I"s) let me know.  Otherwise I will
send it in under my own name.  I don't think it addresses everything
it should, but thinking minds (are there any left) may get the main
point.  Read the original editorial from KSL before reading my
rebuttal.

Presses And Presidents
April 14, 1998

Before many more days dim the memory of the tragedy of our nation's
highest elected official's privacy being invaded, let's talk about
the press.

The causes of these horribly, internationally embarassing scenes run
deep with blame being place on everything from lack of professionalism
to a drive for increased ratings.  Whatever the cause, the tools used
to carry out this depraved violation of privacy were high speed
presses, digital networks, and television cameras.

The arguments of the powerful media aside, can anyone who heard or
read of graphic descriptions of our president's most private and
intimate affairs honestly doubt that our nation is paying a terrible
price for allowing such easy access to and disemnination of
information?

Yes, the Bill of Rights certainly allows Americans freedom of the
Press.

But this is 1998, not 1776, and something about the President's most
intimate and private matters being sallied before the world like some
kind of cheap side show attraction causes us to wonder if the Founding
Fathers would feel the same about the First Amendment if they were
here today.

We know the issue is emotional and even as we speak, media advocates
are heading to their keyboards and microphones to pound out responses
to what we've said.  It's a powerful lobby that continually defeats
any effort to reign in their unbridled rumor-mongering, speculation,
and otherwising distressing of individuals both private and public,
even though 80-percent of Americans think the media goes too far.

We say it is time for the media to quit being so calloused, so
obstinate.

Unless they compromise a bit on issues without serious constitutional
bearing, they're likely to face a public backlash that ultimately could
result in what they fear most...a revocation of their constitutional
right to a free press.



--

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

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

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: KSL
Date: 14 Apr 1998 22:48:29 -0600

At 08:56 AM 4/14/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Charles:
>
>Assuming KSL will allow an opposing view point, do you have anyone in
>mind to give the rebuttal.  Are you interested?  Perhaps Janalee?
>
>I am still working to get an answer from KSL.
>

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect that any of the Board members of
USSC would be willing to rebut it as well.

Sarah

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan
Date: 14 Apr 1998 23:03:55 -0600

I received this response from Brian Judy, our local NRA-ILA representative,
in response to my question regarding the authenticity of the alleged HCI plan.

So the NRA says it's authentic and GOA says it's not.  Anyone else have any
more information?

Sarah


>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 20:15:40 -0400
>From: Brian Judy <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Sarah Brady's Secret Attack Plan
>Sender: Brian Judy <[e-mail]>
>To: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mars.aros.net id
SAA16802
>
>I heard from another gun rights activist that this letter has been
>confirmed with HCI headquarters as of 4/2.  It is no surprise that they
>would either go after gun shows or use the issue of gun shows as a
>fundraising tool (or both). The gun shows have been under attack and it
>will no doubt get worse before it gets better.
>
>Brian
>
>

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: KC Star Gun Ban Editorial
Date: 15 Apr 1998 08:28:00 -0700


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Needed" (attached).

Mr. Hood,

It is a measure of how far common sense and respect for the rule of law have
deteriorated in our constitutional republic during the present administration
that educated men such as yourself could write such dangerously silly and
unconstitutional drivel such as your editorial "Gun Ban Was Needed."

In the past, when I had illusions that legal, moral and historical arguments
could sway anti-freedom ideologues such as yourself and the President, I
would have mustered a formidable array of facts, cited legal opinions and
quoted from the Founders' own lips to refute your wrong-headed opinion that
law-abiding Americans need to be disarmed. (Oh, I know you do not say it
directly, but isn't that what you're endorsing when you urge "the President
should consider stricter prohibitions"?)

Forget that the Second Amendment is, like the First you cherish, both an
individual and collective right. Forget, indeed, that it is the Second
Amendment that secures all the others, including the First.

Forget that the Founders' didn't write the 2nd Amendment with "sporting
purposes" in mind. Forget that the very idea of codifying the right to "keep
and bear arms" for the purposes of shooting fuzzy animals would have been
laughable to men such as Thomas Jefferson.

Forget that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarantee the 18th Century
equivalent of "assault rifles" to the citizenry so that they might resist
tyrannical administrations. Forget that the Clinton Administration has from
the beginning used every means at its disposal to strip law-abiding Americans
from exactly these kind of previously legal arms of military utility. Forget
that this President has acted like he was King George III himself, not only
adopting His Late Majesty's firearms policy, but issuing imperial "Executive
Orders" in the middle of the night, when Congress is not in session, contrary
to law and Constitution.

Forget all that.

If the law and the Constitution mean nothing to you and your President,
let's explain this in terms you will understand. If you want my legal,
semiautomatic rifle then I suggest you come and get it. Yourself. Today.
Bring the President if he's suddenly caught a draught of courage. Have
the strength of your gun-grabbing convictions and come along with the
raiding party you are encouraging through your editorial page to confiscate
my weapons. Don't send someone else's son to do the job. Don't cry out for
the police or military to disarm me while you sit safely at home and cluck
your editorial tongue in approval. You want my rifle? Come and get it.
Call your gun-grabbing buddies at the BATF, they'll give you directions
to my house. You don't even have to call and tell me you're coming.

Of course, I'll bet you won't because you're a smart little editorial
writer and you know that you'll likely get killed if you try. And you
what? That's exactly what the Founders had in mind. That tyrants, or
their pissant editorial apologists such as yourself, would think twice
before trying to disarm the law-abiding citizenry, the final arbiter
and guarantor of American liberty.


Mike Vanderboegh
[e-mail] (Mo10Cav)
1st Alabama Cavalry Regiment, Constitutional Militia
P.O.Box 926
Pinson, AL  35126
[phone] pager

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

Gun ban was needed

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Gun ban

President Clinton has added a new, needed prohibition to the nation's gun
control regulations. His recent executive order would bar the importation
of military-style rifles that have been modified to evade a previous ban.
Law-abiding Americans who want to reduce gun violence should appreciate
the president's action.

Clinton's move followed a review by the Treasury Department of these types
of weapons. The examination was conducted in cooperation with state law
enforcement and game agencies, as well as shooting and hunting organizations.
It found that many of the rifles did not meet federal law for sporting use.

The United States prohibits assault weapons coming into the country. But it
permits the importation of some rifles for uses such as target practice and
trap shooting. Many foreign manufacturers circumvented the law by altering
the look of the weapons to provide a sportlike appearance.

The rapid-firing, assault-style weapons are designed for one main purpose.
That is to kill. Americans know that. The deadly proof has been found on
our streets.

Thus public safety will be well-served by Clinton's order. Fewer foreign
assault rifles means citizens of this nation are less likely to be slain.

Congress cannot be relied on to protect the public against the weapons.
Clinton and President Bush before him have attempted to protect the public
with bans.

If this order is not as effective as it should be, the president should
consider stricter prohibitions.

All content ⌐ 1998 The Kansas City Star



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  President Clinton's executive order on gun imports
Date: 15 Apr 1998 15:59:48 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 11:15:38 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA24010; Sat, 11 Apr 1998 13:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma023969; Sat Apr 11 13:09:17 1998
Message-Id: <v01510103b1552fba3c55@[209.20.133.159]>
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

>Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 09:33:20 -0500
>To:[e-mail], [e-mail],
>[e-mail],[e-mail]
>From:[e-mail] (Dave Workman)
>Subject:President Clinton's executive order on gun imports
>Cc:[e-mail] (Newt Gingrich)
>
>Hon. Jennifer Dunn,
>Hon. Rick White,
>Hon. Linda Smith,
>Hon. George Nethercutt:
>
>        I am writing to urge you all to join your colleague, Utah Rep.
>Chris Cannon, and some 40 others in a planned action to nullify President
>Clinton's recent "executive order" banning the import of several
>foreign-made firearms.
>
>        The firearms community is not simply alarmed at this move by the
>President to capitalize on the Jonesboro, Ark. tragedy. The firearms
>community is angry, and they are asking themselves why they should bother
>sending back a Republican majority this fall if that majority - which has
>enjoyed strong support from firearms owners since the sweeping
>Congressional sea change in 1994 - turns a deaf ear and blind eye to its
>concerns.
>
>        As a spokesman for over 80,000 members of the National Rifle
>Association here in Washington state (make that, 80,000 voters) I am
>obliged to tell you that the members I represent are demanding swift,
>decisive action when Congress returns April 22. They have had quite enough
>vilification from the Clinton Administration, and far too much neglect for
>their concerns from the Republican majority, of which you are all members.
>
>        One would think that if the ACLU can fight for the First Amendment
>rights of Nazis to parade through the streets of Skokie, Ill., than the
>Republican majority that gun owners sent to Congress in 1994, and kept
>there in 1996 - in response to Clinton's passage of the Brady Law, and the
>semi-auto and high-capacity magazine bans - should be able to find the
>courage to speak out and take action on behalf of the Second Amendment.
>
>        There's been considerable discussion lately in the media that
>Republicans may lose control of the House this fall. No more certain
>guarantee of that would be for this nation's firearms owners to "sit this
>one out" as they did in 1992 when they lost all confidence in President
>George Bush because of his import ban order.
>
>        I urge you to join your fellow congressional representatives and
>do the right thing, rather than the "politically correct" thing. Regain
>the spirit you showed in 1995, when the nation watched and waited to see
>whether your party really would change the direction of government.
>
>Sincerely,
>Dave Workman
>Board member
>National Rifle Association
>P.O. Box 1638
>North Bend, WA 98045
>




-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  resolution to nullify an EO
Date: 15 Apr 1998 16:06:08 -0700

Concerning repealing the recent executive order to ban some 50 foreign
made firearms, I have received several posts that claim that to repeal the
so called assault weapons ban,  "congress need only pass a resolution
to nullify an EO.  Congress does NOT need to get a bill in front of
WeeWillie and get him to sign it, otherwise, the EO would be
unconstitutional, as having the effect of law without originating in the
legislative branch."

Anyone know if this is true?


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10
Date: 15 Apr 1998 16:17:25 -0600

A fine response to KSL's Editorial "Guns and Little Girls",
http://www.ksl.com/TV/opinion.htm, written by John Spangler of the Utah
Shooting Sports Council Advisory Board.  Reposted with Mr. Spangler's
permission.

Sarah

>Response to KSL Editorial of April 10
>
> Utah gun owners share KSL-TV's distress at the carnage inflicted upon
>innocent children by guns. And automobiles. And drugs. And knives. And
>any other objects used in deliberate illegal acts by criminals of any
>age.
> We must look beyond the emotional images portrayed on the TV screen and
>seek a logical, factual and legal basis to prevent such problems.
> This audience must look beyond the emotional imagery and understand
>that the criminal misuse of guns is entirely unrelated to law abiding
>citizens being permitted to carry guns in schools (or any other place).
>The data from every state is absolutely clear on this point.  Increased
>numbers of concealed carry permits do not result in any increase in
>shootings  Those involved in illegal shootings are not the people
>licensed to carry guns, but the criminals who disregard laws from the
>Ten Commandments through the over 20,000 gun laws already on the books.
> The easy, but absolutely wrong, panacea is to advocate banning guns or
>further restrictions on law abiding citizens.  Instead, a civilized
>society must punish those who break existing laws.  Murder, assault with
>a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed firearms without a permit,
>possession of a handgun by a minor, and theft of a firearm are all
>serious crimes, too often plea-bargained down or overlooked.  Even
>"gateway" crimes of truancy, assault, car theft, and other juvenile
>offenses cannot be tolerated in a civilized society.
>We should not tolerate "entertainment" that glamorizes rather than
>chastises such behavior, especially by children.  Nor should KSL
>broadcast such material if it is truly committed to fighting against the
>breakdown of our society.
>We urge KSL to skip the attacks based on emotions, and join Utah gun
>owners in addressing the logical and factual roots of violence in
>society today.
>
>John Spangler
>Salt Lake City


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: Re: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10
Date: 16 Apr 1998 00:00:13 -0600


On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted the
follwoing from Mr. Spangler:

>>society must punish those who break existing laws.  Murder, assault with
>>a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed firearms without a permit,
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>possession of a handgun by a minor, and theft of a firearm are all
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                 ^^^^^^^
>>serious crimes, too often plea-bargained down or overlooked.  Even
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm afraid Mr Spangler hurts an otherwise excellent article, and does
a disservice to gun owners, by including subjective offenses like CCW
without a required permit or minor possession of a handgun.  In the
absense of criminal intent, neither of these acts poses any threat to
anyone and should not be illegal.  In fact, minor possession of a hand
gun was perfectly legal in Utah until just a couple of years ago.  I
routinely possessed a handgun, without formal permission from my
parents, well before my 21st birthday.  I purchased my first handgun,
a Colt Gold-Cup .45, --used so as to compy with inane federal
laws--prior to my 18th birthday.  Is Mr. Spangler suggesting the Utah
legislature let a "serious crime" go unnoticed and without recourse
for almost 150 years and that I'm guilty of said "serious crime?"

Laws limiting minor posession of guns virtually guarantee that the
rising generation will have even less proper, legal experience with
guns than the current generation.  Yes, training and supervision is
important in the beginning.  But there is absolutely no reason a 16,
15, or even 14 year old who has been shooting for several years should
not be able to go to a range or even the empty desert and do some
plinking without parental escort (A 12 year old male is deemed
responsible enough to exercise the priesthood of God in the LDS
religion and is considered a man in the Jewish faith if I'm not
mistaken.).

Furthermore, the Arkansas case did not involve CCW without a permit.
Pretty tough to CCW a rifle.  One should note that Vermont, which
requires no permit to CCW has yet to have such an incident.  Also,
even if the youth in Arkansas were in possession of any handguns, I
was under the impression the fatal shots came from long guns.

Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot (no pun intended) by heaping
praise upon laws that should not exist in the first place or
suggesting the enforcement of those laws is a good thing or would have
prevented such tragedies.

Once again, other than the, IMO, unfortunate inclusion of these two
subjective "crimes", it is an excellent piece.




--

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

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

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10
Date: 16 Apr 1998 00:52:28 -0600

At 12:00 AM 4/16/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted the
>follwoing from Mr. Spangler:
>
>>>society must punish those who break existing laws.  Murder, assault with
>>>a deadly weapon, carrying a concealed firearms without a permit,
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>possession of a handgun by a minor, and theft of a firearm are all
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                 ^^^^^^^
>>>serious crimes, too often plea-bargained down or overlooked.  Even
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I'm afraid Mr Spangler hurts an otherwise excellent article, and does
>a disservice to gun owners, by including subjective offenses like CCW
>without a required permit or minor possession of a handgun.  In the
>absense of criminal intent, neither of these acts poses any threat to
>anyone and should not be illegal.  In fact, minor possession of a hand
>gun was perfectly legal in Utah until just a couple of years ago.  I
>routinely possessed a handgun, without formal permission from my
>parents, well before my 21st birthday.  I purchased my first handgun,
>a Colt Gold-Cup .45, --used so as to compy with inane federal
>laws--prior to my 18th birthday.  Is Mr. Spangler suggesting the Utah
>legislature let a "serious crime" go unnoticed and without recourse
>for almost 150 years and that I'm guilty of said "serious crime?"
    I agree with you completely here.  There shouldn't be ANY laws restricting
the possession of any firearm by a responsible person, of any age.  And
there shouldn't BE permits, so it follows that there shouldn't be any
problem with carrying/possessing without one.  I would trust either of my
kids with firearms, and they're 16 and 18.
But I do agree with Mr. Spangler that _real_ serious crimes committed by
juveniles are often overlooked and/or plea-bargained.

>Laws limiting minor posession of guns virtually guarantee that the
>rising generation will have even less proper, legal experience with
>guns than the current generation.  Yes, training and supervision is
>important in the beginning.  But there is absolutely no reason a 16,
>15, or even 14 year old who has been shooting for several years should
>not be able to go to a range or even the empty desert and do some
>plinking without parental escort (A 12 year old male is deemed
>responsible enough to exercise the priesthood of God in the LDS
>religion and is considered a man in the Jewish faith if I'm not
>mistaken.).
    Actually it's 13 in Judaism, but that's still well younger than our
current laws allow.  And it's rather odd that a fourteen year old can get
married in Utah, but can't possess a rifle!

>Furthermore, the Arkansas case did not involve CCW without a permit.
>Pretty tough to CCW a rifle.  One should note that Vermont, which
>requires no permit to CCW has yet to have such an incident.  Also,
>even if the youth in Arkansas were in possession of any handguns, I
>was under the impression the fatal shots came from long guns.
>
>Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot (no pun intended) by heaping
>praise upon laws that should not exist in the first place or
>suggesting the enforcement of those laws is a good thing or would have
>prevented such tragedies.
>
>Once again, other than the, IMO, unfortunate inclusion of these two
>subjective "crimes", it is an excellent piece.
    Which is why I posted it.  I don't agree with every single idea, but I
thought it was well-written and effective.  I'm forwarding a copy of your
response to Mr. Spangler, since I don't think he subscribes to utah-firearms.

Sarah


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

April 19, 1775 - The Battles of Lexington and Concord
April 19, 1783 - Congress proclaims victory in the American War of
Independence
April 19, 1933 - The US abandons the gold standard
April 19, 1943 - The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
April 19, 1993 - The Branch Davidian Massacre at Waco
April 19, 1995 - The Oklahoma City bombing

What are YOU willing to do for freedom?

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Response to KSL Editorial of April 10
Date: 16 Apr 1998 01:41:12 -0600


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

>But I do agree with Mr. Spangler that _real_ serious crimes committed by
>juveniles are often overlooked and/or plea-bargained.

Agreed.

>    Which is why I posted it.  I don't agree with every single idea, but I
>thought it was well-written and effective.  I'm forwarding a copy of your
>response to Mr. Spangler, since I don't think he subscribes to utah-firearms.

Thank you.  I'd be interested in any response.

--

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: Violence in Japan
Date: 17 Apr 1998 16:11:30 -0600


From today's tribune.  Funny how when a child uses a weapon of choice
in the U.S. it is the "easy availability of guns" that gets the blame,
but when children slash each other with knives in Japan we start
talking about "breakdown of societal values," "stress," or whatnot.

                                [Image]
 [Image] [Image]         Friday, April 17, 1998        [Image] [Image]

         Japanese Students Fight Stress With Classroom Violence

 KNIGHTRIDDER
 NEWS SERVICE
     TOKYO -- No one
 talked much about the troubles in Japan's junior high schools until
 late January, when a 13-year-old boy killed his English teacher with
 a switchblade knife after she asked him why he was late for class.
     That was a big enough shock in ``crime-free'' Japan. Then another
 13-year-old stabbed a 14-year-old classmate to death in a suburban
 Tokyo classroom after the older boy teased him about his frizzy
 hairdo. The next day, a 14-year-old boy in Nagoya slashed another
 student who had taunted him. And a 16-year-old stabbed a 17-year-old
 classmate in Atsugi, another Tokyo suburb, because the older boy
 demanded money.
     Here in orderly and homogeneous Japan, where trains run on time
 and no one jaywalks, there have been three murders and 54
 knife-related incidents in schools since the end of January.
 Suddenly, mainstream Japan is learning what its teachers, child
 psychologists and sociologists have quietly suspected for a
 half-decade: As the nation's social fabric frays, student violence
 against other students and teachers has doubled in the past five
 years and juvenile crime has reached record levels.
     Japan's youth crime rate is almost three times higher than
 America's.
     According to Manabu Sato, an education professor at Tokyo
 University who studies youth and crime, 45 percent of those arrested
 for crimes in 1996 were younger than 20.
     In America, the overall crime rate is much higher, but only about
 18 percent of all crime is committed by people under 18, according to
 figures recently compiled by the FBI and the Department of
 Education's National Center for Education Statistics.
     ``Youth crime . . . is much more of a problem in Japan than in
 the U.S.,'' said Sato. ``And the quality of crime is getting more and
 more aggressive.'' Juvenile violence and crime are growing problems
 in Japan, he says, because ``all the social contradictions of society
 are being put on their shoulders. All students see in their future is
 pressure and more pressure. So that's why junior high school is the
 worst.''
     By American standards, the violence rocking Japan's middle
 schools seems as anachronistic as the leather-jacketed gang rumbles
 in ``West Side Story.'' In a nation where guns are strictly
 forbidden, switchblade ``butterfly'' knives, not handguns and hunting
 rifles, are the weapon of choice for young students.
     Nevertheless, the violent outbursts in Japan's schools have
 forced the Education Ministry and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party
 to respond. Education Minister Nobutaka Machimura has urged students
 to ``stop carrying knives around'' and lectured students that
 ``hurting people, or robbing people of their lives, is
 unforgivable.''
     Meanwhile, the ruling party has promised to offer changes to the
 nation's juvenile laws to allow 15-year-old offenders to be tried as
 adults.
     Under current Japanese law, a juvenile suspect must be at least
 17 to be tried as an adult.



                [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.


--

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] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: BATF Admissions Re: Instant Check]
Date: 18 Apr 1998 00:38:37 -0600


----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----

Reply-To: Gun Owners of America <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: Gun Owners of America's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 5330

Brady "Instant" Check to Spell Trouble
-- Possible three-day wait could cripple gun show sales

by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151,
703-321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org
(Friday, April 17, 1998)


Brady Instant Registration Check could take three days;
register gun owners

The BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) issued
regulations in February that should concern every gun owner.
The regulations involve the implementation of the so-called
instant check, which is supposed to go on-line in November of
this year.  It turns out, however, that the instant check may
not be so instant after all.  The BATF regulations make it
clear that the feds will have "up to three business days" to
respond to each background check request.

Read that again:  "three business days."  Following these
guidelines, could the feds decide to take the weekends off?  If
so, that would seriously impact all gun dealer sales at weekend
gun shows.  Moreover, since weekends are not typically
considered business days, the "three business days" can easily
impose a five day waiting period for weekend gun sales - or a
six day waiting period if there is a holiday on a Friday or
Monday.  Given the BATF's own verbiage, and given the
President's track record regarding his abuse of firearms
rights, gun owners should be very concerned about the
implications that these regulations carry for gun dealer sales
at weekend gun shows.

Gun Owners of America has strongly opposed the Instant
Registration Check from its inception. Such a check requires a
law-abiding citizen to prove his innocence to government
officials before exercising a right. Furthermore, GOA has
always argued that no matter how many prohibitions are written
into the law, the possibility of gun owner registration is
always present.

BATF wants your Social Security number

GOA's concerns were recently validated when the BATF made it
clear they want gun dealers to retrieve the Social Security
numbers of gun buyers. Providing the feds with the Social
Security number of gun owners enhances their ability to compile
a national gun registry.  (Gun owners should also note that the
feds will be conducting background checks on ALL guns -
shotguns and rifles included.)

It is imperative that your Representative and Senators
understand that gun owners do not want their names to be phoned
in and entered into a federal bureaucrat's computer.  We
repeat: honest gun owners should not have to prove their
innocence to the government before exercising a
constitutional right - any more than a preacher or journalist
should have to prove their worthiness before exercising their
First Amendment rights.

GOA members should have already received the latest GOA
newsletter and legislative alert in the mail. While the GOA
newsletter (dated April 24, 1998) quotes pertinent passages
from the BATF regs, one can also read them in their entirety by
going to http://www.gunowners.org/bitb.htm on the GOA website.

ACTION:

Urge your Representative (1-800-504-0031 or 202-225-3121) to
cosponsor Rep. Ron Paul's H.R. 2721 - a bill which would, among
other things, repeal the Brady "registration" law in its
entirety.   GOA has also posted on the Web a sample opposition
letter to the BATF.  Go to the above mentioned URL and use the
sample letter to compose your own - or copy it word for word if
you're short on time.  But make sure you sound-off to the BATF
before May 20 when the comment period ends. (Grassroots heat
can have a tremendous effect in getting regulatory agencies to
back off their gun control proposals - as we've seen in recent
years with the Forest Service, the EPA and the BLM.  As for the
BATF, go ahead and write them anonymously to protect your
privacy.)


-- Clip & Fax -- (see http://www.gunowners.org/h105th.htm for
fax numbers or call your Rep. and ask)


Dear Representative,

The proposed new BATF regulations calling for the use of Social
Security numbers as part of the information taken during the
purchase of a firearm is a clear invasion of my right to
privacy and another step toward national gun registration.

Even though Congress has passed laws to prevent a national gun
registry, this agency continues to ignore public law, the
Constitution and the express will of the Congress.

Moreover, the proposed BATF regulations will allow federal
bureaucrats up to "three business days" to complete the
background checks on gun buyers.  This "three day" period could
easily be used to cripple gun show sales, and could turn the
supposed "instant" check into a three to six day waiting
period.

The best way to prevent this from infringing upon my rights is
by passing H.R. 2721, a bill to repeal the Brady registration
law.  I urge you to become a sponsor of this important pro-gun
legislation.

***********************************************************
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.


----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: [[e-mail]: April 26 column -- Swiss militia]
Date: 18 Apr 1998 00:59:10 -0600


An excellent article, containing some incredible historical quotes that
I hope you find interesting and useful.

----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE----
    FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED APRIL 26, 1998
    THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
    'As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapon to use, he does
not yield'

    Those who would blithely abandon the greatest safeguard of liberty --
the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear military-style arms --
aren't real strong on consistency.

  Aiming to gradually erode the quality of arms we have "permission" to
bear -- back to the level of the muzzle-loading flintlock, if not the
slingshot -- they have been disingenuously mewing for 60 years that they
have no objection to arms "for which there is a legitimate sporting use."

  Of course, the Constitution says nothing about hunting or skeet shooting.
Rather, it says we must be allowed to keep our arms -- no "infringement"
whatsoever, no tax, no registration, no "application for permit" -- because
the citizens constitute the militia, the most powerful armed force in any
free state.

  The gun-grabbers sneer that this is an out-of-date notion, that a bunch
of farmers with deer rifles could hardly stand up to the 82nd Airborne ...
let along a Chinese invasion.

  But the logical conclusion of that argument is surely that we should
encourage law-abiding citizens to keep machine guns and rocket-launchers in
the closet ... not ban AK-47s, with or without pistol grips and bayonet
lugs.

  The victim disarmament extremists (those who would disarm law-abiding
rape victims, but not their assailants, who ignore all such laws) ridicule
this as the sheerest homicidal macho fantasy -- no modern nation has ever
thrown out a tyrant by the simple expedient of the common folk rising up
with their personal rifles, nor does any civilized nation today allow its
citizens to keep machine guns at home.

  Wrong and wrong. Try placing a long-distance call to the American
military governor of Vietnam, or the Soviet military governor of
Afghanistan, to ask them how easy it was to suppress a nation of armed
peasants.

  And as to the advisability of "allowing" citizen militias to keep modern
military arms with them at home -- yes, Sarah, the kind "designed for no
purpose but to kill large numbers of people" -- we turn to Virginia
attorney and Second Amendment expert Stephen P. Halbrook, author of the new
book "Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II," due this
spring from Sarpedon Press.

  Writing in the January 1998 edition of the excellent magazine
"Chronicles," Mr. Halbrook points out that "Since the origins of the Swiss
Confederation in 1291, it has been the duty of every male Swiss citizen to
be armed and to serve in the militia. Today, that arm is an 'assault
rifle,' which is issued to every Swiss male and which must be kept in the
home. During Germany's Third Reich (1933-1945), that arm was a bolt-action
repeating rifle, which was highly effective in the hands of Switzerland's
many sharpshooters.

  "Americans of the wartime generation were familiar with the fact that
brave and armed little Switzerland stood up to Hitler and made him blink.
As a map of Europe in 1942 shows, the Nazis had swallowed up most of
everything on the continent but this tiny speck that Hitler called 'a
pimple on the face of Europe.' The Fuhrer boasted that he would be 'the
butcher of the Swiss,' but the Wehrmacht was dissuaded by a fully armed
populace in the Alpine terrain. ...

    #   #   #

  "The Swiss federal shooting festival, which remains the largest rifle
competition in the world, was held in Luzern in June 1939. Hitler's
takeover of Austria and Czechoslovakia was complete, both countries had
been surrendered by tiny political elites who guaranteed that there would
be no resistance. Swiss President Philipp Etter spoke at the festival,
stressing that something far more serious than sport was the purpose of
their activity. His comments demonstrated the connection between national
defense and the armed citizen:

  " 'There is probably no other country that, like Switzerland, gives the
soldier his weapon to keep in the home. The Swiss always has his rifle at
hand. It belongs to the furnishings of his home. ... That corresponds to
ancient Swiss tradition. As the citizen with his sword steps into the ring
in the cantons which have the Landsgemeinde (government by public meeting),
so the Swiss soldier lives in constant companionship with his rifle. He
knows what that means. With this rifle, he is liable every hour, if the
country calls, to defend his hearth, his home, his family, his birthplace.
The weapon is to him a pledge and sign of honor and freedom. The Swiss does
not part with his rifle.'

  Mr. Halbrook continues: "On September 1, 1939, Hitler launched World War
II by attacking Poland. Within a day or two, Switzerland had about half a
million militiamen mobilized out of a population of just over four million.
General Henri Cuisan, commander in chief of the Swiss militia, responded
with Operations Order No. 2:

  " 'At the border and between the border and army position, the border
troops and advance guard persistently delay the advance of the enemy. The
garrisons at the border and between the border and the works and positions
making up the defensive front continue resistance up to the last cartridge,
even if they find themselves completely alone.'

  "This astonishing order was the opposite of the policies of the other
European countries, which either surrendered to Hitler without a fight or
surrendered after a brief resistance. For example, in April 1940, Denmark's
king surrendered the country after a meeting with the Nazis and instructed
his forces not to resist. Norway resisted, although 'unlike Switzerland' it
had no armed populace and was ill- prepared for combat.

  "In response to the invasions of small neutral countries, Switzerland
issued its 'directions concerning the conduct of the soldiers not under
arms in event of attack.' Intended as a warning to Germany, it was pasted
on walls all over the country. It prescribed the reaction against surprise
attack and against the fifth column as follows:

  " 'All soldiers and those with them are to attack with ruthlessness
parachutists, airborne infantry and saboteurs. Where no officers and
noncommissioned officers are present, each soldier acts under exertion of
all powers of his own initiative.'

  "This command for the individual to act on his own initiative was an
ancient Swiss tradition which reflected the political and military
leadership's staunch confidence in the ordinary man. This command was
possible, of course, only in a society where every man had his rifle at
home.

  " 'Under no condition,' the order continued, 'would any surrender be
forthcoming, and any pretense of a surrender must be ignored: If by radio,
leaflets or other media any information is transmitted doubting the will of
the Federal Council or of the Army High Command to resist an attacker. this
information must be regarded as the  lies of enemy propaganda. Our country
will resist aggression with all means in its power and to the death.' ...

    #   #   #

  "France collapsed in June, 1940 after only a few weeks of fighting. Paris
was taken without a shot being fired. The Nazis promptly proclaimed the
death penalty for possession of firearms in France and other occupied
countries.

  "In contrast, Cuisan recalled the high duty of the soldier to resist:

  " 'Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience
of each fighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his
assigned position. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their
position until no more ammunition exists. Then cold steel is next. ... The
machine gunners, the cannoneers of heavy weapons, the artillerymen, if in
the bunker or on the field, do not abandon or destroy their weapons, or
allow the enemy to seize them. Then the crews fight further like riflemen.
As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapons to use, he does not
yield. ..."

  Even old men and children were issued armbands, identifying them as
Ortswehren (local defense) so they could not be shot as partisans under
international law, when the time came for them to shoot any invader they
saw.

  Hitler never invaded Switzerland. Would you have?

  Nor has any dictator -- military or otherwise -- ever attempted to rule
the Swiss cantons by "executive order" ... like the one Bill Clinton
haughtily signed to outlaw the import of AK-47 variants which his own ATF
had found to be in full compliance with current law.

  "There was no holocaust on Swiss soil," Mr. Halbrook concludes. "Swiss
Jews served in the militia side by side with their fellow citizens, and
kept rifles in their homes just like everyone else. It is hard to believe
that there could have been a holocaust had the Jews of Germany, Poland, and
France had the same privilege."

  Folks ask me: "I'm just one person, what can I do?"

  Buy an M1-A, or an AR-10, at $1,100. These are better weapons than are
currently standard issue in the U.S. Army. If you can't afford those, buy a
surplus M-1 Garand at $500, or even a 1917 Enfield, at $250. For the
smaller women and teens, a surplus M-1 carbine apiece, at about $350. Six
magazines for each rifle and a couple thousand rounds of surplus ammunition
(in bulk) may set you back $800.

  Do it before autumn of 1998, when the Brady Bill allows national gun
registration, even for LONG GUNS.

  But only if you want America to remain a free country, of course.

  Freedom is always optional.

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

***


Vin Suprynowicz,   [e-mail]

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right
of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction." -- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768
"Commentaries on the Laws of England."




----END FORWARDED MESSAGE----

--

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

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Fox News reports on unintentional shooting
Date: 20 Apr 1998 09:29:27 -0600


Fox News reported Saturday evening (I think it was the 9:00 broadcast
but i could be wrong) on an "accidental" shooting here in SL County.
While I think many of us prefer the term "unintentional" rather than
"accidental", I was, nonetheless, quite impressed with their coverage.

First, they did not use the phrase "the gun went off" or anything
similar which in my mind always suggests the discharge was completely
spontaneous, an act of God, a cognizant act of the gun itself, or
otherwise did not involve somebody pulling the trigger.

Second, they had a fairly long clip (10 seconds +) of a police officer
explaining the shooter had broken all three of the most basic rules of
safe gun handling: 1--Always treat a gun as if it is loaded; 2--Never
point a gun at anyone; 3--Keep finger off trigger until you want to
shoot.

Third, I heard no mention or inuendo that the gun or even guns in
general were the problem in this case.  The overall tone and message,
IMO, was that a person was responsible for this "accident" which was
avoidable by following safe gun handling procedures.

FYI, at the time of the report, there had been no charges brought.

I intend to send a note to Fox thanking them for the manner in which
they coverred this story and encouraging htem to include these safe
handling procedures in future reports of unintentional shootings.
I encourage others here to do likewise.

If anyone has contact info for the local Fox News, I'd sure appreciate
it.  Otherwise, I'll try to track something down and pass it along.

--

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: Lott's Book soon to be released]
Date: 20 Apr 1998 11:40:58 -0600

Received: from [192.40.29.55] by toro.phbtsus.com with SMTP
    (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA23887; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 17:19:05 -0600
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from simba.safari.net by philipsdvs.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
    id RAA09414; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 17:18:49 -0600
Received: from rigby.safari.net (rigby.safari.net [206.96.248.7]) by simba.safari.net (8.8.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA02557; Sat, 18 Apr 1998 18:49:51 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: Bulk
X-Listserver: Macjordomo - A Macintosh Listserver by Michele Fuortes

More Guns, Less Crime:  Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws



John R. Lott, Jr.



University of Chicago Press

ISBN: 0226493636



(flap copy:)

$23.00
[advance order at a 30 percent discount ($16.10) from Amazon.com or

barnesandnoble.com]


    Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime?  Or

does it cause more citizens to harm each other?  Wherever people happen to

fall along the ideological spectrum, their answers are all too often

founded upon mere impressionistic and anecdotal evidence.  In this direct

challenge to conventional wisdom, legal scholar John Lott presents the most

rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime.  In this timely

and provocative work he comes to a startling conclusion:  more guns mean

less crime.

    Lott's sources are broad and inclusive, and his evidence the most

extensive yet assembled, taking full account of the FBI's massive yearly

crime figures for all 3,054 U.S. counties over eighteen years, the largest

national surveys on gun ownership, as well as state police documents on

illegal gun use. His unexpected findings reveal that many of the most

commonly held assumptions about gun control and its crime-fighting efficacy

are simply wrong.  Waiting periods, gun buybacks, and background checks

yield virtually no benefits in crime reduction. Instead, Lott argues,

allowing law-abiding citizens to legal concealed handguns currently

represents the most cost-effective methods available for reducing violent

crime.

    In what may be his most controversial conclusion, Lott finds that

mass public shootings, such as the infamous examples of the Long Island

Railroad by Colin Ferguson or the 1996 Empire State Building shooting, are

dramatically reduced once law-abiding citizens in a state are allowed to

carry concealed handguns.

    Lott maintains that criminals generally respond to deterrence: as

the risks and potential costs of criminal activity rise, criminals either

commit fewer crimes or move on to other areas. The possibility of getting

shot by somebody carrying a concealed weapon constitutes a substantial

risk, and discourages any sort of physical confrontation. Accordingly, the

states now experiencing the largest reductions in crime are also the ones

with the fastest-growing rates of gun ownership.  Evidence on accidental

gun deaths and suicides is also examined.

    Thorough and enlightening, More Guns, Less Crime is required

reading for anyone interested in the sometimes contentious, always critical

American debate over gun control.



John R. Lott, Jr. teaches criminal deterrence and law and economics at the

University of Chicago, where he is the John M. Olin Law and Economics

Fellow.  He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing

Commission during 1988 and 1989.  He has published over 70 articles in

academic journals.  This is his first book.



(back cover)



"John Lott documents how far 'politically correct' vested interests are

willing to go to denigrate anyone who dares diagree with them.  Lott has

done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful scholarly approach to a

highly controversial issue."-Milton Friedman



"Armed with reams of statistics, John Lott has documented many surprising

linkages between guns and crime.  More Guns, Less Crime demonstrates that

what is at stake is not just the right to carry arms but rather our

performance in controlling a diverse array of criminal behaviors.  Perhaps

most disturbing is Lott's documentation of the role of the media and

academic commentators in distorting research findings that they regard as

politically incorrect."-W. Kip Viscusi, Cogan Professor of Law and director

of the Program on Empirical Legal Studies, Harvard Law School



"John Lott has done the most extensive, thorough, and sophisticated study

we have on the effects of loosening gun control laws.  Regardless of

whether one agrees with his conclusions, his work is mandatory reading for

anyone who is open-minded and serious about the gun control issue.

Especially fascinating is his account of the often unscrupulous reactions

to his research by gun control advocates, academic critics, and the news

media."-Gary Kleck, professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida

State University



"Until John Lott came along, the standard research paper on firearms and

violence consisted of a longitudinal or cross-sectional study on a small

and artfully selected data set with few meaningful statistical controls.

Lott's work, embracing all of the data that are relevant to his analysis,

has created a new standard, which future scholarship in this area, in order

to be credible, will have to live up to."-Dan Polsby, Kirkland & Ellis

Professor of Law, Northwestern University.



"John Lott destroys the politically correct argument that arming law

abiding citizens will have a harmful effect on their safety.  There is no

doubt that criminals prefer to prey upon the unprepared.  This book will

arm those who read it with the important facts they need in order to decide

where they stand on the gun control issue."-Dale Gulbrantson, executive

director, Illinois Police Association, Inc.



"This book will - or should - cause those who almost reflexively support

the limitation of guns in the name of reducing crime to rethink their

positions."-Steve Shavell, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School







-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: http://www.standard.net....exe?local+16newsb9.htm
Date: 20 Apr 1998 18:26:18 -0600

>>>>

<excerpt>Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 22:02:18 -0700=20


Reply-To: [e-mail]=20

Organization: XMission=20

X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I)=20




In addition to supporting imposition of the smart card on us, it appears=20

that Sen. Bennett and Gov. Leavitt also agree on creating areas of=20

opportunity for criminals at schools, churches, and businesses.=20


http://www.standard.net/cgi-win/table.exe?local+16newsb9.htm=20

<<http://www.standard.net><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>
<color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>Home</color></fontfamily>=20


<<http://www.standard.net/se_news/utahnews.html><fontfamily><param>Helvetica=
</param><color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>News</color></fontfamily>=20

<<http://www.standard.net/sports/sportsnet.html><fontfamily><param>Helvetica=
</param><color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>SportsNET</color></fontfamily>=
=20

<<http://www.standard.net/search.html><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><c=
olor><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>Search</color></fontfamily>=20

<<http://www.standard.net/utah_central/forums.html>=
 <fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>Cha=
ts/Forums</color></fontfamily>=20

<<http://www.standard.net/~planner><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><colo=
r><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>Planner</color></fontfamily>=20

<<http://www.standard.net/newgifs/quickindex.html><fontfamily><param>Helveti=
ca</param><color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>Quick=
 Index</color></fontfamily>=20




<<http://www.zip2.com/standardnet/><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><colo=
r><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>Yellow Pages</color></fontfamily>=20

<<http://ads.standard.net><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><color><param>=
ffff,0000,0000</param>Classifieds</color></fontfamily>=20

<<http://www.newsworks.com>=
 <fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>New=
sWorks</color>=20

</fontfamily>




   =20


<bold><bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger>NEWS BEAT

=20

</bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></bold>

=20

<italic>April 16, 1998

</italic>

<bold><italic>=20

</italic>

=20

=20



</bold><bigger><bigger><bigger> Bennett sides with Leavitt on gun issue=20


</bigger></bigger></bigger>

=20


 SALT LAKE CITY -- Sen. Bob Bennett is allying himself with Republican Gov.=
 Mike Leavitt and going against state GOP Chairman Rob Bishop on the=
 concealed weapon issue.=20



 "I happen to disagree with Rob Bishop," Bennett, R-Utah, told University of=
 Utah political science students Wednesday.=20



<flushright> In addition to serving as state GOP chairman, Bishop also is=
 the chief lobbyist for a pro-firearms lobbying group.=20




<flushright> Leavitt has said public schools, churches and businesses should=
 be able to declare their property off limits to people carrying concealed=
 weapons. That is counter to a 1995 state law that basically says people=
 with concealed weapons permits can take their firearms just about anywhere.=
=20




<flushright> Bennett said, "The University of Utah ought to have the right=
 to make its own decision to ban or allow concealed firearms. And so should=
 churches."=20


<bold><bigger><bigger><bigger> Mom pleads guilty in death of fetus=20


</bigger></bigger></bigger></bold>

<flushright> ST. GEORGE -- A LaVerkin drug addict has pleaded no contest to=
 child-abuse homicide in the stillbirth of her child.=20




<flushright> Dayna Louise Pittman, 38, is the first mother in Utah who will=
 be punished for the death of her own fetus.=20




<flushright> Washington County used Utah's child-abuse statutes to charge=
 Pittman with a second-degree felony homicide count stemming from her=
 prenatal use of methamphetamine.=20




<flushright> Pittman's no-contest plea Wednesday will be treated the same as=
 a guilty plea by the 5th District Court. Judge James Shumate could impose a=
 one-to-15-year prison term.=20


<bold><bigger><bigger><bigger> May 12 magic day for Utah taxpayers=20


</bigger></bigger></bigger></bold>

<flushright> SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah residents may have been relieved to be=
 done with their tax headache, but the average taxpayer in the state will=
 toil until May 12 to earn the money they pay the government.=20




<flushright> That's the 11th latest Tax Freedom Day in the country,=
 according to an annual study by the Tax Foundation. The average American=
 will have earned the government's share by May 10.=20




<flushright> New Hampshire's Tax Freedom Day comes the earliest, arriving=
 April 30, while Connecticut's is the worst, coming May 26.=20


<bold><bigger><bigger><bigger> Elite fire-fighting team disbanded=20


</bigger></bigger></bigger></bold>

<flushright> BOISE, Idaho -- The Boise Hot Shots, an elite team of forest=
 firefighters, has been eliminated in the wake of an investigation into past=
 misconduct by crew members.=20




<flushright> The crack 20-member coed team that fought fires across the=
 country and in Canada came under investigation for incidents of=
 "intimidation and hazing" prior to the 1997 season, U.S. Forest Service=
 officials said.=20




<flushright> Wednesday's decision came directly from Washington, D.C.=20




<flushright> Mary Jo Lavin, Forest Service director of fire management, said=
 the decision was made "to send a very strong message that conduct in the=
 areas of intimidation or hazing, or anything that creates a hostile work=
 environment, won't be tolerated." <bold> --=20

Standard-Examiner staff

----------

 and wire services </bold>=20


<flushright>


<bold><italic>=A9 Ogden Publishing Corporation, 1998

</italic>




----------



----------

<center>| Poll question | Back |

</center>


<smaller><smaller>Other headlines:

</smaller></smaller>

<fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>Week=
end Entertainment

</color></fontfamily>

<flushright><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><color><param>ffff,0000,0000=
</param>Your Vote Counts Election '98

</color></fontfamily>


<fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>Twis=
ters rare around Utah

</color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>On=
 the edge: Draft day is here for Dyson

</color></fontfamily>

<center><<http://www.standard.net/mailer/mailer.cfm?story=3D=
 local\16newsb9.htm >StandardGRAM: Send this story to a friend

</center>

</flushright></bold></flushright></flushright></flushright></flushright></fl=
ushright></flushright></flushright></flushright></flushright></flushright></=
flushright></flushright></flushright></flushright></flushright></excerpt><fl=
ushright><flushright><flushright><flushright><flushright><flushright><flushr=
ight><flushright><flushright><flushright><flushright><flushright><flushright=
><flushright><flushright><bold><flushright><<<<<<<<


</flushright></bold></flushright></flushright></flushright></flushright></fl=
ushright></flushright></flushright></flushright></flushright></flushright></=
flushright>

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Colt President
Date: 20 Apr 1998 22:34:56 -0600

>Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
>X-Sender: [e-mail]
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>To: "Sun Tzu's Firearms Advisory" <[e-mail]>
>From: Danger77 <[e-mail]> (by way of Sun Tzu's Firearms Advisory
<[e-mail]>)
>Subject: Colt President
>
>To List:
>>From Danger 77 <[e-mail]>
>Forwarded without comment.
>_________________________________ Begin__________________
>
>FYI.
>
>In the last (current?) issue of the American Firearms Industry magazine, Colt
>President Ron Stewart suggests that we can regain the moral high ground by
>accepting a national handgun permit with mandatory training.
>
>With friends like this....
>
>"Formerly we suffered from crimes; now we suffer from laws." - Publius
>Cornelius Tacitus
>
>Larry
>Gun Owners of NJ
>http://www.users.nac.net/thelaw/gonj/gonj.htm
>
>
>

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  More on Waco, the story by "Pat"   -Forwarded
Date: 21 Apr 1998 09:26:38 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:13:34 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id LAA13245; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:11:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma013035; Tue Apr 21 11:09:01 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

4-21-97

You know the USA is full of people like us. I was at the same house party
Saturday as my earlier story. There was a real estate agent named "Pat" my
wife and her office said I had to meet. It turned out Pat had listened to
Chuck Harders "for the People" and Ron Englemans talk shows here in
Dallas. She started back in 1992 and knew all about the governments abuses
and their support of gun control and other anti-freedom laws. A month
after the death of the Branch Dividians Pat worked a booth at a charity
golf tournament down in Waco. Up walked 2 Waco sheriff deputies. She asked
them what they thought about the Branch Davidian thing? The big guy said
well, we had to stop him. Pat said you mean you guys had to kill 80 people
to stop David? They said no that was the Fed guys. Pat said oh, so in
America you don't get a trial by jury anymore?.  They got mad and left.
But, an hour later they came back. Pat said did you guys take an oath or
something for office? They said well yes, to protect and defend the
constitution of the United States. Pat said can you tell me what the 8th
amendment is? They said well, no. Pat said can you tell me what the 6th
amendment is? They said well, no. Pat said then how the hell can you
defend my rights if you don't even know what it says? They walked away
with their their faces lowered in shame. An hour later they came back
again. They said she was making them think. Pat said did you have to raid
the place or were you boys to chicken to arrest David? The big guy said
no, David played in a band every Saturday night in town we could have
arrested him anytime we wanted to. Pat said did you know that the Feds had
no jurisdiction and you guys are the highest legal authority in the
county? She said you could have stopped the Feds at anytime. The big guy
said do you remember when David kept asking them to send in officer
"so and so" to talk with him? That was me, I was one of David's friends.

So even an average American Woman real estate agent knows the Constitution
and about the terrible abuses by our government. For me this proves there
is still hope.
Paul Watson, Dallas




-



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

From: Will Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Join Together Online
Date: 21 Apr 1998 16:32:36 -0600

Garcetti just keeps finding new and inventive ways
to "tread on" the constitution...
(How does one define "gang activities" anyway?  My
kid wears baggy a**ed pants, I wave my hands when
I talk, and my wife has a blue bandanna....)

> http://www1.jointogether.org/gv/wire/news/reader.jtml?Object_ID=25838
>
>April 21,
>1998
>Calif. Judge Bans Gang Activities
> 4/14/98 Following an injunction from a
>Los Angeles, Calif., judge,
>certain members of the Mara
>Salvatrucha gang have been
>prohibited from associating in
>public together, UPI reported
>April 13.
>
>The injunction was issued as part
>of a public-nuisance lawsuit
>filed by City Attorney James Hahn
>and County District Attorney Gil
>Garcetti. In filing the lawsuit,
>Hahn and Garcetti said members of
>the Salvadoran street gang
>regularly commit crimes and sell
>drugs. The lawsuit aims to
>"restore the constitutional
>rights of a community under
>siege."
>
>The preliminary injunction also
>prohibits certain gang members
>from selling, possessing or using
>drugs or alcohol without a
>prescription; possessing drug
>paraphernalia; being within 10
>feet of an alcoholic container;
>blocking free passage in any
>public area; being in a public
>place between 8 p.m. and sunrise
>if they're under 18, or between
>10 p.m. and sunrise if over 18,
>unless they're going to a
>legitimate meeting, job or
>emergency; confronting,
>intimidating or harassing anyone;
>acting as a lookout; or
>possessing guns, ammunition, or
>illegal weapons.
>
>Source: Join Together Online
>

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Bennett / Bishop debacle
Date: 21 Apr 1998 18:10:00 -0700


Rob Bishop gave Senator Bennett a lot of power at the Salt Lake
County GOP convention with his antics, using Bill Quist and
Gary Utt as his foils by invoking new and imaginary SLCoGOP
rules different even that the proposed rules sent to delegates,
refusing to rent the URA a table, stealing literature from
Hartley Anderson, destroying delegates' copies of an approved
proposed amendment on Fair Election Practices (which could
have eliminated the need for all the multiple ballots had
preference voting been used), having several people arrested
on bogus charges, and having his henchmen state that the First
amendment and free speech and press do not apply to delegates
and candidates at the convention, which Sergeant Potter of
Aaron Kennard's Sheriff's Department compared to a family reunion.

Rob could easily and at any time have called off the dogs, but did
not do so. Senator Bennett came off looking like a saint in these
incidents. The USSC and NRA would be well advised to immediately
distance themselves from Rob Bishop, as his credibility is shot.
Gerry Arthus also points out that Rob Bishop has also failed to
condemn Mike Leavitt's distortion of the Arkansas schoolyard
shooting to call for further limits on RKBA and CCW permits.

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:26:18 -0600 S. Thompson <[e-mail]>
forwarded to [e-mail] the following: (html deleted)


In addition to supporting imposition of the smart card on us,
it appears that Sen. Bennett and Gov. Leavitt also agree on
creating areas of opportunity for criminals at schools, churches,
and businesses.

http://www.standard.net/cgi-win/table.exe?local+16newsb9.htm

NEWS BEAT

April 16, 1998

Bennett sides with Leavitt on gun issue

SALT LAKE CITY -- Sen. Bob Bennett is allying himself with
Republican Gov. Mike Leavitt and going against state GOP
Chairman Rob Bishop on the concealed weapon issue.

"I happen to disagree with Rob Bishop," Bennett, R-Utah,
told University of  Utah political science students Wednesday.

In addition to serving as state GOP chairman, Bishop also
is the chief lobbyist for a pro-firearms lobbying group.

Leavitt has said public schools, churches and businesses
should be able to declare their property off limits to people
carrying concealed weapons. That is counter to a 1995 state
law that basically says people with concealed weapons permits
can take their firearms just about anywhere.

Bennett said, "The University of Utah ought to have the right
to make its own decision to ban or allow concealed firearms.
And so should churches."



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bennett / Bishop debacle
Date: 22 Apr 1998 13:07:30 -0600

At 06:10 PM 4/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Rob Bishop gave Senator Bennett a lot of power at the Salt Lake
>County GOP convention with his antics, using Bill Quist and
>Gary Utt as his foils by invoking new and imaginary SLCoGOP
>rules different even that the proposed rules sent to delegates,
>refusing to rent the URA a table, stealing literature from
>Hartley Anderson, destroying delegates' copies of an approved
>proposed amendment on Fair Election Practices (which could
>have eliminated the need for all the multiple ballots had
>preference voting been used), having several people arrested
>on bogus charges, and having his henchmen state that the First
>amendment and free speech and press do not apply to delegates
>and candidates at the convention, which Sergeant Potter of
>Aaron Kennard's Sheriff's Department compared to a family reunion.
    What evidence do you have that this was Rob Bishop's doing, or even Sen.
Bennett's?  According to the admittedly unreliable SL Trib, Sen. Bennett
denounced the shenanigans, and I've heard no mention of Rob Bishop's name.
The only prominent elected state Repubs who have _not_ denounced it are
Mike Leavitt and Orrin Hatch.  (If you've got more accurate/up to date
info, pass it on.)

>Rob could easily and at any time have called off the dogs, but did
>not do so. Senator Bennett came off looking like a saint in these
>incidents. The USSC and NRA would be well advised to immediately
>distance themselves from Rob Bishop, as his credibility is shot.
>Gerry Arthus also points out that Rob Bishop has also failed to
>condemn Mike Leavitt's distortion of the Arkansas schoolyard
>shooting to call for further limits on RKBA and CCW permits.
    I would assume you're right that Rob Bishop could have intervened, but I
actually don't know, nor have I discussed this with him.  And it doesn't
seem to me that it's "USSC and the NRA" who need to "distance themselves"
from Rob Bishop.  I'm not even aware of a relationship between Rob Bishop
and the NRA.  It strikes me that it's a problem for the Republican Party to
handle - they're the ones who came off looking like tyrants.
    Nonetheless, I fail to see what business it is of yours.  To my knowledge
you are not a member of USSC, the NRA, nor the Republican Party.  Therefore
none of the above have any obligation to heed your admonitions.
    If you'd like to direct comments to the Board of USSC, you have the
contact information.  I assume contact info is also readily available for
the NRA and the Republican Party.
    And believe it or not, Rob Bishop has the same freedom of speech that
everyone else in this country has.  Whether or not he chooses to denounce
Mike Leavitt  (or Sen. Bennett) is _his_ decision.  Whether or not the
Board of USSC, or the NRA, or GOA, or JPFO choose to condemn Leavitt and/or
Bennett is the decision of each of their respective Boards.

    It seems clear that you have an extreme dislike for USSC and Rob Bishop.
That's fine.  But if you really want to do some _good_, why don't you
either find a pro-gun organization you can support, or direct your vitriol
at the true enemies, like HCI, CeaseFire, or VPC.  Or maybe at your elected
officials, like Leavitt, Bennett, Cook, Hatch, etc. who so flagrantly
disregard your wishes.

Sarah Thompson
(for myself only)

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Bennett / Bishop debacle
Date: 22 Apr 1998 13:48:03 -0600


On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>    What evidence do you have that this was Rob Bishop's doing, or even Sen.
>Bennett's?  According to the admittedly unreliable SL Trib, Sen. Bennett
>denounced the shenanigans, and I've heard no mention of Rob Bishop's name.
>The only prominent elected state Repubs who have _not_ denounced it are
>Mike Leavitt and Orrin Hatch.  (If you've got more accurate/up to date
>info, pass it on.)

I have no direct information on who did what and don't intend to jump
into the middle of any kind of argument here.  I offer this only as my
observations and for further info for all involved.

I saw the news clip where Bennett says he offered to pay the table
rental to allow lit to be passed out but the offer was refused.  I
think it was the county GOP that refused.

Interestingly, I also read in the Tribune that Bennett's campaign
manager, on Bennett's behalf, denounced the county GOP for not letting
all the filed candidates, including Arthus, address the convention.
However, as Arthus was asking to speak and then being escorted from
the stage by deputies, Bennett sat mute.

During his speech prior to the Arthus incident, Bennett apologized to
Anderson for what happened in Washington county and said he would be
pleased to have him speak for the same amount of time as Bennett was
given anywhere they spoke.  I'm guessing at the time it happened in
Washington county, Bennett was again mute.

It makes for good politics and photo-ops to play the good guy after
the fact.  But if he is going to denounce something like this, he
really should have done so when it may have made a difference, IMHO.


--

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:  Moore Wants Hunting Bill Rejected  -Forwarded
Date: 22 Apr 1998 13:51:00 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:44:08 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA06936; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:41:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma006738; Wed Apr 22 15:39:28 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

<gag>
 -----------------
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center_story.html?FRONTID=ARTS&STORYID=APIS6KUO7GG
0

APRIL. 22, 01:44 EST

Moore Wants Hunting Bill Rejected


ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Actress Mary Tyler Moore urged Gov. George Pataki and
leaders of the
state Legislature to reject a bill that would allow New Yorkers ages 14 and
15 to hunt for deer with
firearms.

The actress, a member of the anti-hunting group the Fund for Animals, said
in a letter Tuesday that
``our children and our wildlife deserve better'' than to have young hunters
eligible for big-game firearms
licenses.

Under the proposal, 14- and 15-year-olds could qualify for big-game licenses
if they complete a
10-hour firearms safety program. They would have to be accompanied during
their hunting forays by a
parent or guardian licensed to hunt in New York.

The current age limit to hunt deer and bear with rifles is 16 in New York.
Fourteen- and 15-year-olds
can already hunt for big game in New York with a bow and arrow.

Pataki spokesman Michael McKeon declined comment on the proposal.


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bennett / Bishop debacle
Date: 22 Apr 1998 14:48:27 -0600

At 01:48 PM 4/22/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:
>
>>    What evidence do you have that this was Rob Bishop's doing, or even Sen.
>>Bennett's?  According to the admittedly unreliable SL Trib, Sen. Bennett
>>denounced the shenanigans, and I've heard no mention of Rob Bishop's name.
>>The only prominent elected state Repubs who have _not_ denounced it are
>>Mike Leavitt and Orrin Hatch.  (If you've got more accurate/up to date
>>info, pass it on.)
>
>I have no direct information on who did what and don't intend to jump
>into the middle of any kind of argument here.  I offer this only as my
>observations and for further info for all involved.
>
>I saw the news clip where Bennett says he offered to pay the table
>rental to allow lit to be passed out but the offer was refused.  I
>think it was the county GOP that refused.
>
>Interestingly, I also read in the Tribune that Bennett's campaign
>manager, on Bennett's behalf, denounced the county GOP for not letting
>all the filed candidates, including Arthus, address the convention.
>However, as Arthus was asking to speak and then being escorted from
>the stage by deputies, Bennett sat mute.
>
>During his speech prior to the Arthus incident, Bennett apologized to
>Anderson for what happened in Washington county and said he would be
>pleased to have him speak for the same amount of time as Bennett was
>given anywhere they spoke.  I'm guessing at the time it happened in
>Washington county, Bennett was again mute.
>
>It makes for good politics and photo-ops to play the good guy after
>the fact.  But if he is going to denounce something like this, he
>really should have done so when it may have made a difference, IMHO.

Thanks for more complete info, Charles.  I don't watch TV news, and to be
honest, I don't usually pay much attention to the Republican Conventions
since I'm not a Republican.  But of course situations like this demand the
attention of all citizens of all political persuasions.

I agree that if your recounting of events is accurate (and I have no reason
to disbelieve you), Bennett should have spoken up and/or acted at the time
the abuse was occurring.  I suspect he carries enough clout in the party to
have had a good chance of successfully intervening.

If you can shed some light on the Arthus affair, I'd appreciate it.  My
very sketchy information is  that the Utah GOP decided not to allow fusion
candidates.  I think that decision is wrong and stupid, but it's also their
prerogative.  So if they did in fact "outlaw" fusion candidates, conveyed
that decision to Mr. Arthus, and gave him the opportunity to decide whether
to file only as a Republican, then it would appear they did have the right
to disqualify him as a candidate and prevent him from speaking.  (I suspect
I may be missing some vital piece of information here, so please be gentle
when you expose my woeful ignorance! <g>)

Of course I have no idea of whether the Utah GOP may legally reject fusion
candidates, whether they followed proper procedures in doing so, or whether
they dealt with Mr. Arthus in accordance with their own rules.  And if they
are going to insist that they're a "private" entity, then they certainly
shouldn't be using taxpayer-funded facilities.

The whole thing stinks worse than a kettle of fish!

Sarah




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

[e-mail]

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Bennett / Bishop debacle
Date: 22 Apr 1998 15:10:30 -0600


On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>If you can shed some light on the Arthus affair, I'd appreciate it.  My
>very sketchy information is  that the Utah GOP decided not to allow fusion
>candidates.  I think that decision is wrong and stupid, but it's also their
>prerogative.  So if they did in fact "outlaw" fusion candidates, conveyed
>that decision to Mr. Arthus, and gave him the opportunity to decide whether
>to file only as a Republican, then it would appear they did have the right
>to disqualify him as a candidate and prevent him from speaking.  (I suspect
>I may be missing some vital piece of information here, so please be gentle
>when you expose my woeful ignorance! <g>)

Actually, I think you have it pretty accurate.  Gerry contends the
bylaw prohibition on fusion candidates violates the GOP's own
constitution.  But ignoring that, my beef is with Bennett who sat idly
by when the county leadership, and the vast majority of delegates,
were opposed to Arthus speaking, and then later plays it up as the
white knight by denouncing through his people, the exclusion.  It is
hypocritical for him to play it both ways.  If he thought everyone
should be allowed to speak, he should have voiced it in convention
when his voice may have really mattered.  If he agreed with the
leadership and the vocal delegates, he shouldn't be two stepping now.

I too support the GOP's right to impose whatever requirments they deem
suitable in order to carry their banner.  Heck, I wish they impose a
few more requirments.  We have the worst of both worlds
currently--moral crusaders who also have no problem taxing and
spending.  At least true conservatives would leave my wallet alone
while they were peeking into my bedroom window.  :)

I am very opposed to the State telling parties and candidates that
even if the candidate and the parties all want a fusion candidate,
that they cannot do that.  If I want to associate with both the
libertarians and the independants and they both want to associate with
me, who is the State to limit that right over the trivial cost or
"confusion" of adding one line to a ballot?

--

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: Walter Williams in Today's Deseret News
Date: 22 Apr 1998 16:53:38 -0600

                                                                     [Image]
[Opinion]
                                       [Image]

                                      [Image]

                                      [Image]

       [Image]

       Government caused Holocaust
       [Image]
       Last updated 04/22/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT

       By Walter Williams

             Last Sunday, I watched CNN's "Perspective," titled "Survivors
       of the Shoah," a Steven Spielberg documentary about the Nazi
       Holocaust. It was a heart-wrenching story about the slaughter of
       millions of people simply because they were Jews. How could this
       tragic inhumanity occur? The Jewish survivors chalked it up to
       intolerance and bigotry, and urged us to judge people by "what's
       inside," and not race or religion. But there's a problem with such
       an explanation.
             Historically, Germany was the most hospitable country for Jews
       in all of Europe. This is not to say that Jews were not persecuted
       in Germany, but life was far superior to Jewish life elsewhere in
       Europe. On the eve of the collapse of the Weimar Republic, which
       brought the Nazis to power in 1933, Jews were a major part of the
       economic, scientific, social and cultural life of the country. While
       Jews were only 1 percent of the German population, they were 10
       percent of the country's doctors and dentists, 17 percent of its
       lawyers and a large percentage of its scientific community. Jews won
       27 percent of Nobel Prizes awarded to Germans.
             During the 1920s, nearly half of all Jewish marriages in
       Germany were to Gentiles. German Jews went to great lengths to
       "become" German, including adopting the language, dress and
       religion. Even Reform Judaism included features of Christianity,
       such as worship on Sunday instead of the Sabbath (after the
       Holocaust, they've gone back to the Sabbath). Many religiously
       Orthodox Jews considered themselves "German." Jews who immigrated to
       the United States carried their pro-German feelings, so much so that
       as late as World War I the U.S. government, at war with Germany,
       brought prosecutions against Jews for voicing support for the enemy.
             How did a relatively low level of hate and anti-Semitism
       become the Holocaust? The road to the Holocaust was paved by the
       centralization and consolidation of government power. When Hitler
       came to power, he immediately embarked upon that road. Passage of
       the Enabling Act (1933) and later the Law Concerning the
       Reconstruction of the Reich (1934) enabled Hitler to centralize
       power by dissolving all state diets, and county, city and town
       councils.
             Hitler then got control of Germany's labor unions and
       consolidated them into the new Nazi-dominated Labor Front. There was
       little distinction between the Labor Front's leadership and the Nazi
       Party. Hitler gained control over agriculture through the Ministry
       of Food and Agriculture. Through the Reich Food Estate, farm prices
       were controlled. In 1934, the government established the National
       Economic Chamber as head of an elaborate hierarchy of industrial and
       trade associations under the control of the Ministry of Economics.
             Whatever hate, violence and anti-Semitism experienced by the
       Weimar Republic Jews, while deeply offensive, could not have
       developed into the systematic brutality it did during the Third
       Reich without an all powerful, highly centralized national
       government.
             Powerful government tends to draw into it people with bloated
       egos, people who think they know better than everyone else and have
       little hesitance in coercing their fellow man. Or as Nobel Laureate
       Friedrich Hayek said, "In government, the scum rises to the top."
       Decent people have little desire, or see themselves fit, to order
       others around. In a collectivist state, there is nothing that
       collectivist leaders must not be prepared to do if it furthers their
       agenda.
             The Holocaust's true lesson is that there is no greater
       potential for evil than powerful centralized government. This
       century alone, not counting war, 170 million people have been
       murdered by their own government. Neither we in United States nor
       Jews in Israel have learned the lesson of the Holocaust.
       Creators Syndicate Inc.
       [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.

"There are no victims, only volunteers. You volunteer by appearing uncertain
and afraid. You volunteer by being (as grass-eaters invariably are)
unprepared to deal with the dangers of life." - Cooper's Corner

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Walter Williams in Today's Deseret News
Date: 22 Apr 1998 20:43:40 -0600

At 04:53 PM 4/22/98 -0600, you wrote:
>       Government caused Holocaust
>       [Image]
>       Last updated 04/22/1998, 12:01 a.m. MT
>
>       By Walter Williams
>
>             Last Sunday, I watched CNN's "Perspective," titled "Survivors
>       of the Shoah," a Steven Spielberg documentary about the Nazi
>       Holocaust. It was a heart-wrenching story about the slaughter of
>       millions of people simply because they were Jews. How could this
>       tragic inhumanity occur? The Jewish survivors chalked it up to
>       intolerance and bigotry, and urged us to judge people by "what's
>       inside," and not race or religion. But there's a problem with such
>       an explanation.

Thank you, Charles, for forwarding this interesting and informative article.

While I think Mr. Williams underestimates the extent and depth of
anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, including Germany, his essential point is
correct.  Most Germans were "sheeple", perfectly willing to agree to
anything the powerful, centralized government said was "good for them".
Even the German Jews went along with this nonsense, even after it became
clear that the Nazis most certainly did not have _their_ best interests at
heart.  And, of course, the Jews made the cardinal error of agreeing to
disarmament, without which it would have been far more difficult for the
Nazis to carry out their genocidal plans.

Mr. Williams is right.  Neither Jews nor Americans seem to have learned
much from history.  Simply saying "Never Again", without action and
responsibility, is not going to prevent future genocides.

Sarah


If a man riseth up to kill you, kill him first.

                    Talmud

-



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

From: "William Munny" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: Duane Cardahl's Editorial  April 22
Date: 22 Apr 1998 20:54:58 -0600

I can't write as well as most of you folks, but it's the thought that
counts.

----------
> From: William Munny <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Douglas R. Watts <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Duane Cardahl's Editorial  April 22
> Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:43 PM
>
> Dear Editorial Board Members,
>
> I watched Duane Cardahl's editorial this evening and I must say, it left
me
> very disgusted!  He talked about all the recent responses that KSL had
> recieved regarding a couple of his recent editorials.  Specifically, he
> made reference to his highly opinionated "Girls and Guns" piece from a
> couple of weeks ago.  He cited as examples (which would lead one to
believe
> that they were "typical" examples) one sensible example which supported
his
> position.  Then he read an example of a completely stupid response that
> someone had written which dissagreed with his position.  I would be
willing
> to bet that the example he used was at lease ONE of the poorest he could
> find.
>
> I must say, you would have a difficult time convincing me that his choice
> was totally deliberate.  And if that kind of deception isn't an attempt
to
> manipulate the KSL audience, I don't know what is.
>
> I had hoped that KSL would have gotten beyond that kind of deliberate
> misrepresentation of information when good old Don Gale left.
>
> Guess not...
>
> You folks make a very good case for repealing the First Amendment.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> D. Watts in Tooele
>

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Wal-Mart stores
Date: 22 Apr 1998 22:47:00 -0700


I have no idea where this happened. Does anyone know if this
is correct concerning Wal-Mart's alleged nationwide policy?

<[e-mail]>

Dave,

Would you please consider posting this?

This happened to me 4/21/1998

Let [me] state up front that I have a CCW permit.

I was in a local Wal-Mart store in my area, I was wearing my weapon
on my side in a high riding holster, my coat just about hid everything.
A security person (male) approached me and informed me that Wal-Mart
had a nationwide policy against anyone bringing firearms into their
stores. I did NOT see a sign warning me of this policy when I entered
the store. I informed him of this. He replied, "I'm tired of you gun
totin' rednecks trying to carry your guns everywhere you go, and we
are going to stop it." We had a few more words and I informed him of
the Second Amendment, which he laughed at. He ordered me out of the
store and informed me that if I ever set foot on the property again
he would have me charged with criminal trespassing. I left the store.

I urge all Militia and Freedom loving people to boycott all Wal-Mart
stores. Buy your products somewhere else.

I did NOT wear my weapon into the store to cause trouble. If I had
seen the sign I would have left my weapon in my truck. It was the
guy's attitude that really got to me. I vow to not ever buy anything
else from Wal-Mart, Inc.

For God and Freedom

Jim



-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Wal-Mart stores
Date: 22 Apr 1998 23:57:00 -0700


I hope this answers the question posed in my previous post,
but maybe John Howard Freeman merely has the good fortune
to patronize a Wal-Mart store whose manager has good sense.

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

Greetings All,

I wear my sidearm (Colt 45) in plain view (I don't need a CCW permit)
on my hip in Wal-Mart and have never been approached by anyone. I've
been doing it for years and will continue to do so, until properly
noticed by the manager. Not some five fifty an hour lackey. If their
nationwide policy prohibited "any one" (sic) from bringing firearms
into their store, how are they able to sell them in the sporting goods
section? So much for their nationwide policy. I believe [a] rambunctious
security guard was daydreaming. Furthermore, the Second Amendment
doesn't apply on someone else's property, only public property.

Steadfastly,

John Howard Freeman



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart stores
Date: 23 Apr 1998 00:55:49 -0600

At 11:57 PM 4/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I hope this answers the question posed in my previous post,
>but maybe John Howard Freeman merely has the good fortune
>to patronize a Wal-Mart store whose manager has good sense.
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:56:21 -0400
>From: John Howard Freeman <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [Fwd: Wal-mart stores]
>
>Greetings All,
>
>I wear my sidearm (Colt 45) in plain view (I don't need a CCW permit)
>on my hip in Wal-Mart and have never been approached by anyone. I've
>been doing it for years and will continue to do so, until properly
>noticed by the manager. Not some five fifty an hour lackey. If their
>nationwide policy prohibited "any one" (sic) from bringing firearms
>into their store, how are they able to sell them in the sporting goods
>section? So much for their nationwide policy. I believe [a] rambunctious
>security guard was daydreaming. Furthermore, the Second Amendment
>doesn't apply on someone else's property, only public property.
>
>Steadfastly,
>
>John Howard Freeman


Except that here in Utah, concealed carry is lawful "without restriction"
outside of "secure areas".

I don't know anything about a national policy.  I've never had any problems
in a Wal-Mart, but then I believe that concealed means "no one can tell
it's there unless they search me or use a metal detector".

Sarah

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Teen-agers w/guns?
Date: 23 Apr 1998 14:28:14 -0600

>Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 12:46:06 -0600 (MDT)
>To: [e-mail]
>From: [e-mail] (American Gun Review)
>Subject: Teen-agers w/guns?
>
>>From: JSFarnam <[e-mail]>
>>Subject: Teen-agers w/guns?
>>
>>Children with guns?
>>
>>
>>Kid with gun saves Mother's life
>>
>>Elko, Nevada, April 8, 1998
>>
>>On Tuesday April 7, 1998, a 15 year old boy tried to stop an intruder from
>>beating his mother, and being unable to stop the man, ran into her bedroom,
>>retrieved a .22 semiautomatic handgun, loaded several rounds into the clip,
>>inserted the clip, and came back and shoot the  assailant twice out of three
>>shots, killing him.
>>
>>He is credited with saving the life of his mother, and  possibly the 3 year
>>old child also present.
>>
>>The mother suffered a broken cheekbone, a broken nose, several bruises on
her
>>body, and a cut to her forehead from the attack.
>>
>>Elko County Sheriff Neil Harris said his office likely will recommend to
D.A.
>>Gary Woodbury a coroner's inquest to be held into the shooting.
>>
>>"It seems to me to be a fairly clear-cut case of  self-defense and if it
turns
>>out to be fairly clear, since it's involving a citizen and a child, as
opposed
>>to a police officer, who would be held more accountable in a shooting,
that an
>>inquest is not warranted," Woodbury said.
>>
>> -- Elko Daily Free Press
>
>

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

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns
away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't
want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns
are the police and the military.
William Burroughs (b. 1914), U.S. author.
"The War Universe," taped conversation

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  NJ STATE POLICE RAID GUNSITE LIST MODERATOR -Forwarded
Date: 23 Apr 1998 14:59:07 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 08:27:56 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA19650; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:26:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma019447; Thu Apr 23 10:23:22 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

Subj:    FWD: URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS

John Schaefer is the GUNSITE (API) Alumni List moderator.  While I have
never met John personally, all the folks who have met him and known him
for years speak well of him.  He is known as the "voice of reason and
moderation" in everything he does.  I have read his frequent posts ever
since my first GUNSITE class and cannot recall anything that would have
indicated to the contrary.  While it appears that that we do not have
the full story on this situation yet, I think that this matter cries out
for a closer examination.

Regards to all,

Mike Baker
**************************************************************************

Subj:    URGENT TO ALL LIST MEMBERS

All:

Welcome to Nazi Germany. And so it begins. Folks this is a REAL nightmare
come true.

At 7:15 this morning (4/22) over a dozen machinegun armed agents of the NJ
State Police broke down my front door and invaded my home screaming
obsenities.  We were rousted from our beds at gun point.  I  was ordered to
the floor and when I couldn't get down on my knees fast enough because of
my artificial knee and arthritis I was kicked to the floor, and my back and
neck repeatedly stomped.  When one trooper yanked on my arm that had been
injured several years ago and I yelled in pain I was Maced and then kicked
in the head at least twice resulting in a bloody lip and head pain.  Of
course none of the storm troopers were wearing name tags.  We were forced
into our living room, made to stand about in handcuffs for about four hours
in our pajamas while they trashed the house.

They took all of my firearms, MOST of the ammunition (go figure), my
cartridge collection of US military ammo, my lead ingots and a couple of
buckets of cast bullets, all of my business records, and get this, my
Gunsite 260 certificate (they left my 499 certificate), and my NRA
Instructors certificate.  They panicked at a dummy 60mm mortar round (the
kind you can pick up in surplus stores) and a blue dummy 100lb "practice
bomb" (empty sheet metal casing) yet left a couple of M79 practice grenade
rounds that were on display in my office.

My wife and stepson were verbally abused and my stepson was grabbed and
roughed up by one young punk agent and threatened when he asked for some
clothes.

All of the agents were pacing nervously about pointing their weapons all
over and were REALLY psyched up. They were really enjoying what they were
doing. I overheard several comments about "well we got another gun nut."
They joked about the fact that I was in excruciating pain from my shoulder
and knee. One storm trooper wanted to know what my "fucking problem was." I
was finally taken to the local PD where I was at least treated with a
little respect and compassion.

I was finally released on $7,500 bail and my wife took me to the hospital
were I was x-rayed, catscanned and given some serious pain medication and
released.  None of the hospital staff could believe what happened to me.

When I finally got back to our house I was amazed to find that they had
left ammunition in my vault, and a lot of reloading components in my basement.

We have retained a big time attorney (NRA member) but have no idea how we
are going to afford him and my retirement papers are in.

Your prayers for my family and I will be greatly appreciated in this
terrible time.

John Schaefer
--
__________________________________________________
John C. Schaefer               [e-mail]
Excalibur Associates              FAX:  [phone]
People's Republic of NJ      http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/frfrog

"He who goes about unarmed in paradise had better be sure that
            that is where he is." -- James Thurber
___________________________________________________


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Bennett / Bishop debacle
Date: 23 Apr 1998 18:17:00 -0700


On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 at 13:07:30 -0600 "S. Thompson" wrote,
for herself only:

>At 06:10 PM 4/21/98 -0700, you wrote:

>>Rob Bishop gave Senator Bennett a lot of power at the Salt Lake
>>County GOP convention with his antics, using Bill Quist and
>>Gary Utt as his foils by invoking new and imaginary SLCoGOP
>>rules different even than the proposed rules sent to delegates,
>>refusing to rent the URA a table, stealing literature from
>>Hartley Anderson, destroying delegates' copies of an approved
>>proposed amendment on Fair Election Practices (which could
>>have eliminated the need for all the multiple ballots had
>>preference voting been used), having several people arrested
>>on bogus charges, and having his henchmen state that the First
>>amendment and free speech and press do not apply to delegates
>>and candidates at the convention, which Sergeant Potter of
>>Aaron Kennard's Sheriff's Department compared to a family reunion.

>What evidence do you have that this was Rob Bishop's doing, or even
>Sen. Bennett's?  According to the admittedly unreliable SL Trib, Sen.
>Bennett denounced the shenanigans, and I've heard no mention of Rob
>Bishop's name.

As State GOP chair I suspect the Salt Lake County GOP officers
would listen were he to have objected to their shenanigans.
Regardless of his sincerity or insincerity, Sen. Bennett *did*
denounce them. This makes him look much better than otherwise,
and more likely to prevail in his antigun efforts.

>The only prominent elected state Repubs who have _not_ denounced
>it are Mike Leavitt and Orrin Hatch.  (If you've got more
>accurate/up to date info, pass it on.)

Note that Mike Leavitt is in league with Sen. Bennett in the
antigun campaign.

>>Rob could easily and at any time have called off the dogs, but did
>>not do so. Senator Bennett came off looking like a saint in these
>>incidents. The USSC and NRA would be well advised to immediately
>>distance themselves from Rob Bishop, as his credibility is shot.
>>Gerry Arthus also points out that Rob Bishop has also failed to
>>condemn Mike Leavitt's distortion of the Arkansas schoolyard
>>shooting to call for further limits on RKBA and CCW permits.

>I would assume you're right that Rob Bishop could have intervened,
>but I actually don't know, nor have I discussed this with him.
>And it doesn't seem to me that it's "USSC and the NRA" who need to
>"distance themselves" from Rob Bishop.

It was my understanding that the USSC had retained Rob Bishop as
its lobbyist with the Utah Legislature. If he doesn't object to
the GOP's tyrannical actions, the perception may rub off on gun
rights people as supporting tyranny. The newspapers already attempt
to make gun righters appear as special interests who have no concern
for the rights of private property owners, school children, or
government agencies such as schools and universities, as though
governments could *have* rights rather than mere raw power.

>I'm not even aware of a relationship between Rob Bishop and the NRA.

While perhaps incorrect, there is a perception that the USSC and
the NRA are closely allied.

>It strikes me that it's a problem for the Republican Party to handle
> - they're the ones who came off looking like tyrants.

Indeed. However, the USSC has a contract with its Chairman.

>Nonetheless, I fail to see what business it is of yours.  To my
>knowledge you are not a member of USSC, the NRA, nor the Republican
>Party.  Therefore none of the above have any obligation to heed your
>admonitions.

Even if I am not currently a member of the USSC, political fallout
from this can affect me as much as its members and officers. FYI
I am a Republican Party delegate to both the county and state
conventions. You may want to request updated delegate lists if
yours do not list my name. I submitted and was signatory to the
above-mentioned Fair Election Practices amendment that Gary Utt,
at Bill Quist's request, trashed.

>If you'd like to direct comments to the Board of USSC, you have the
>contact information.  I assume contact info is also readily available
>for the NRA and the Republican Party.

I'm sure the Republican Party has already heard far more than they'd
like from me.

>And believe it or not, Rob Bishop has the same freedom of speech
>that everyone else in this country has.

This does not extend to denying others freedom of speech, or
allowing the parliamentary processes of a political party he
chairs to be subverted. Didn't Voltaire say "I disagree with what
you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."?

>It seems clear that you have an extreme dislike for USSC and Rob Bishop.

Disappointment at apparently counterproductive efforts in pursuit
of goals largely overlapping my own. I send no such comments to
officers of HCI, CeaseFire, or VPC. (What is that last one?)


-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: WELCOME TO NAZI AMERICA
Date: 23 Apr 1998 18:18:00 -0700


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

Alert all persons and media in the New Jersey area.

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

ALL. . . .

I JUST RECEIVED THIS FROM A LONG TIME FRIEND OF ABOUT A QUARTER CENTURY.
HE IS AN UPSTANDING CITIZEN, FATHER AND FAMILY MAN. HE WORKS IN COMPUTERS
FOR A MAJOR PHONE COMPANY. HE'S A PART TIME GUNSMITH, SHOOTER AND
INSTRUCTOR. HE IS ALSO A DEACON IN THE EPISPOCAL CHURCH.

THIS IS NOT A JOKE.
THIS IS NOT A DRILL.

Cas Gadomski
Alaska

All:

Welcome to Nazi Germany. And so it begins. Folks this is a REAL
nightmare come true.

At 7:15 this morning (4/22) over a dozen machinegun armed agents of
the NJ State Police broke down my front door and invaded my home
screaming obsenities. We were rousted from our beds at gun point.
I was ordered to the floor and when I couldn't get down on my knees
fast enough because of my artificial knee and arthritis I was kicked
to the floor, and my back and neck repeatedly stomped. When one trooper
yanked on my arm that had been injured several years ago and I yelled
in pain I was Maced and then kicked in the head at least twice resulting
in a bloddy lip and head pain. Of course none of the storm troopers were
wearing name tags. We were forced into our living room, made to stand
about in handcuffs for about four hours in our pajamas while they trashed
the house.

They took all of my firearms, MOST of the ammunition (go figure), my
cartridge collection of US military ammo, my lead ingots and a couple
of buckets of cast bullets, all of my business records, and get this,
my Gunsite 260 certificate (they left my 499 certificate), and my NRA
Instructors certificate. They panicked at a dummy 60mm mortar round
(the kind you can pick up in surplus stores) and a blue dummy 100lb
"practice bomb" (empty sheet metal casing) yet left a couple of M79
practice grenade rounds that were on display in my office.

My wife and stepson were verbally abused and my stepson was grabbed
and roughed up by one young punk agent and threatened when he asked
for some clothes.

All of the agents were pacing nervously about pointing their weapons
all over and were REALLY psyched up. They were really enjoying what
they were doing. I overheard several comments about "well we got
another gun nut." They joked about the fact that I was in excruciating
pain from my shoulder and knee. One storm trooper wanted to know what
my "fucking problem was." I was finally taken to the local PD where I
was at least treated with a little respect and compassion.

I was finally released on $7,500 bail and my wife took me to the hospital
were I was x-rayed, catscanned and given some serious pain medication and
released. None of the hospital staff could believe what happened to me.

When I finally got back to our house I was amazed to find that they
had left ammunition in my vault, and a lot of reloading components
in my basement.

We have retained a big time attorney (NRA member) but have no idea how
we are going to afford him and my retirement papers are in.

Your prayers for my family and I will be greatly appreciated in this
terrible time.

John Schaefer

-
(Cas)

---------------End of Original Message-----------------

================================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM  Date: 04/23/98  Time: 08:16:20
http://www.constitution.org/  mailto:[e-mail]
================================================================



-



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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: NJ Raid: The Real Target
Date: 24 Apr 1998 07:59:50 -0700 (PDT)

    While the details continue to elude us, keep one thing in
mind: John Schaffer was not the ultimate target of the raid.  The true
target of the raid is you and me.  The purpose of terrorism is to
terrorize, and the purpose of intimidation is to intimidate.

    A raid of the magnitude visited upon Mr. Schaffer appears to
be totally unnecessary.  Given the fact that he was released on
$7,500. bail, the charges cannot have been too serious.  What
justifies a "dynamic arrest" in this case?

    Our masters are sending signals to the whole gun owning
community: cross any line, get out of step, fail to do exactly as we
say and we will respond with overwhelming force.  Resistance is
futile.  Just do what you're told and we won't do this to you... for
now.

    ALL OF US are the target.


Joe Waldron
USMC(ret)

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: NJ Raid: The Real Target -Forwarded
Date: 24 Apr 1998 09:23:35 -0700

Received: from lists.xmission.com
    ([198.60.22.7])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:00:59 -0600
Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0ySjxC-0006IS-00; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:59:54 -0600
Received: from (mail1.halcyon.com) [206.63.63.40]
    by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.82 #1)
    id 0ySjxA-0006IK-00; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 08:59:52 -0600
Received: from 206.63.32.171 (blv-pm105-ip21.halcyon.com [206.63.32.171])
    by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA07314
    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 07:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

    While the details continue to elude us, keep one thing in
mind: John Schaffer was not the ultimate target of the raid.  The true
target of the raid is you and me.  The purpose of terrorism is to
terrorize, and the purpose of intimidation is to intimidate.

    A raid of the magnitude visited upon Mr. Schaffer appears to
be totally unnecessary.  Given the fact that he was released on
$7,500. bail, the charges cannot have been too serious.  What
justifies a "dynamic arrest" in this case?

    Our masters are sending signals to the whole gun owning
community: cross any line, get out of step, fail to do exactly as we
say and we will respond with overwhelming force.  Resistance is
futile.  Just do what you're told and we won't do this to you... for
now.

    ALL OF US are the target.


Joe Waldron
USMC(ret)

-



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  details on the incident in New Jersey. (fwd) -Forwarded
Date: 24 Apr 1998 09:22:48 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 02:09:01 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id EAA24906; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 04:07:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma024847; Fri Apr 24 04:06:57 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 Apr 23, Charles Riggs wrote:

[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------]

To the recipients of this message on this list- please forward to other
lists -

  My apologies for forwarding the message this morning from John
Schaeffer about the raid on his house in New Jersey without providing
additional details, but I hadn't yet spoken with John at that time, and
am writing this now to fill in the background.
  John is 53 and a veteran of the U.S. Army, works in computers with one
of the largest phone companies in the country, holds an FFL, and is a
gunsmith and consultant on firearms and ammunition.  His clients have
included police departments in the past.
  He was present at the introduction of the Steyr Scout rifle this year
at Whittington center, and is a friend of Col. Cooper's, who is following
this affair with great interest.  He maintains information about the
Scout rifle on his web page with the active assistance of Steyr, who
provide the photos to him.
  He is a verger in the Episcopal church (assists with the liturgy) and
lives with his wife and stepson.  He is a decent man and well-regarded by
the alumni of the American Pistol Institute/Gunsite Training Center, of
whom I am one, and is NOT accused of ANYTHING to do with drugs or
anything of that sort.
  He applied to renew his FFL this year and met with several delays which
were not explained.  The charges against him at this time state that he
provided false information on the renewal for his FFL, and other charges
related to this alleged misinformation, info which John provided as
required by law and in good faith.
  He is also charged with resisting arrest after being knocked down and
kicked in the head by the New Jersey State Police, and while face-down
being sprayed directly in the face with capsicum by this same officer.
The charges against him were arranged by BATF, but the raid prosecuted by
the NJSP for reasons unknown.  The raid occurred in Tom's Point, New
Jersey in the early hours of 22 April 1998 as a no-knock dynamic entry
when they kicked down his door and entered the house, screaming
obscenities.
  They could have come and knocked on the door, and arrested John and
served the search warrant peacefully, but they didn't.  They came in
hyped up and fired up, and revelled in "getting us another gun nut" as
they ran amok in his home.  They knocked John down when he didn't kneel
on command, but John couldn't kneel because he has severe arthritis, has
had one knee replacement and is pending another.  He can't even kneel in
church for the services.  Apparently even if you can't bend your knee for
God, you'll have to do it for the NJSP!
  They screamed obscenities and threatened violence throughout the raid,
threatened his stepson, and physically abused him by grabbing him by the
throat when he asked to be allowed to get dressed- and this while
standing in front of his house in his underwear.
  I hope this is sufficient information for the members of this list
about John and this incident, and that you'll now contact the Governor of
New Jersey, the NJSP, and anyone else you can think of who may be able to
help us bring these thugs to task for their outrageous misconduct.  Write
to your representatives and ask how it is that every time BATF is around
this sort of madness follows.  Ask how it is that we no longer deal in a
civil fashion with peaceful citizens.  Demand an accounting for policemen
who treat a member of the Episcopal church like a common crackhead or
violent felon.
  If what I've told you in this message doesn't convince you to stand up
for John Schaeffer and take action, then I can't think of what else to
say to you, except that no citizen of this nation, no God-loving man born
of woman, should ever have to suffer at the hands of men who represent
the law in this way.  If you agree with me, please raise your voices and
speak for John, and for our common freedom.  Watch six- Charles Riggs.

            Charles Riggs- Gunsite 1991- DVC!
           "Stop Crime- Be Armed- Fight Back!"
          Ky. Coalition to Carry Concealed (KC3)
                   IDPA (Ky) - NRA - GOA
                 Visit  http://www.kc3.com

[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------]

--
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand = Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus Christ
----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  WORK PLACE Homicide -Forwarded
Date: 24 Apr 1998 11:32:50 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:13:04 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id NAA21422; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:09:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma021342; Fri Apr 24 13:08:55 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

This is from the CNN web page and can be found
at:http://cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/23/health.jobs/index.html.  What is
important to me is the statement toward the end of the article:

" The agency said homicides were the leading cause of work-related deaths
in California, the District of Columbia, Michigan and New York between
1980 and 1994. "

California, Washington D.C. and NY (most likely the highest percentage
form NY City) - all these places with high levels of gun control.  Are
any of us surprised?

The conclusions at the end are kind of a "duh?" response.

Don Loftus
Gainesville, FL


ATLANTA (CNN) -- Job-related
                            deaths in the United States dropped
                            sharply from 1980 to 1994, health
                            officials said Thursday. But
                            homicides have surpassed
                            machine-related injuries to become the
                            second-leading cause of on-the-job
                            deaths after motor vehicle accidents.

                            The Centers for Disease Control and
                            Prevention (CDC) said murders
                            accounted for 13.5 percent of the
                            occupational-related deaths between
                            1980 and 1994. Motor vehicle crashes
                            accounted for 23.1 percent of
                            job-related fatalities in the same
                            period.

                            Homicides surpassed machinery accidents
beginning in 1990. Machinery accidents
                            were third with 13.3 percent of the deaths
for the 15-year period.

                            The National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health said on-the-job deaths
                            from motor vehicle accidents, machine-related
injuries, falls and electrocutions have
                            gradually declined since 1980, while deaths
from homicide have remained relatively
                            constant.

                            "There is good news in that the overall
fatality rate is on the decline ... at the same
                            time there are still a remarkable number of
job-related deaths that we think are
                            inherently preventable. That's where the
focus needs to be," said NIOSH director
                            Dr. Linda Rosenstock.

                            The agency said homicides were the leading
cause of work-related deaths in
                            California, the District of Columbia,
Michigan and New York between 1980 and
                            1994.

                            The institute said 88,622 workers died from
job-related injuries between 1980 and
                            1994. There were 5,406 workplace fatalities
in 1994, down from the 7,405 deaths in
                            1980. The institute said 3.3 million workers
were treated in hospital emergency
                            rooms for occupational injuries in 1996.

                            The CDC has estimated that the cost of
work-related injuries and fatalities is more
                            than $121 billion per year.

                            An institute report in 1996 found that
workers were at greater risk of homicide or
                            assault if they were involved in the exchange
of money, had routine contact with the
                            public, worked alone or in small numbers,
worked late or very early hours, or
                            worked in high crime areas.

                            The Associated Press and Reuters contributed
to this report.#



-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Repost of garbeled cross post [Mall Murders]  -Forwarded
Date: 24 Apr 1998 16:05:09 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:03:55 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id TAA20597; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 19:02:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma020218; Wed Apr 22 18:57:22 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




Somehow the original I sent got garbeled.  Here's a clean version (I hope).

Brian



Bubba wrote:
>
> News Release: S.A.F.E. Merchant Awareness Project
> P.O. Box 56321
> Phoenix, AZ 85079-6321
>
> Date: 10 April 1998 - For immediate release
>
> For additional information:
> Frank Golubski, project co-ordinator
> Phone: [phone]
> E-Mail: [e-mail]
>
> Dangerous mall policy may have contributed to woman's murder
>
> PHOENIX, AZ - Had a Phoenix mall allowed its patrons to exercise the
> right to bear arms, the fatal stabbing of a Glendale mother Tuesday might
> have been prevented, the SAFE Merchant Awareness Project announced today.
>
>      "The thing that really strikes me is how this happened in broad
> daylight, in front of numerous bystanders," said Frank Golubski, project
co-ordinator.
> "Had just one of those witnesses been armed, he might have been able to come
> to Lisa Barnes' defense. But Metrocenter's 'no weapons' policy almost
> guaranteed that that wouldn't happen."
>
>      After leaving the Metrocenter Mall Tuesday afternoon, Jack and Lisa
> Barnes got into an argument in the Sears parking lot. Witnesses said that
> Jack Barnes began pounding his wife with his fists, then pulled a knife and
> stabbed her repeatedly.
>
>      Barnes fled in his pickup truck while witnesses tried to render aid to
> his wife, who died at the scene. Barnes returned to the couple's Glendale
> home and there committed suicide.
>
>      "The mall police showed up - as did the Phoenix police - but only after
> Mrs. Barnes was dead," Golubski noted. "There are only so many police in our
> communities, and they can't possibly be everywhere at the same time.
> Consequently, they are rarely present when somebody is being attacked. Ask a
> cop. He'll tell you that in most cases, all they can do is gather evidence
> AFTER the crime - AFTER you have become a victim - in hopes of bringing the
> attacker to justice."
>
>      Golubski says this is why many Arizonans exercise their right to
> carry a gun. "The Arizona Constitution says, 'The right of the individual
> citizen to bear arms in self defense shall not be impaired.' Arizona law
supports
> that right with no-permit-required 'open' carry, and with concealed carry by
> permit. Many Arizonans take personal responsibility for their safety in this
> manner, but what good is the right to bear arms when businesses or malls
> post signs prohibiting you from exercising it?"
>
>      This is why Golubski and other members of the Arizona State Rifle and
> Pistol Association, Brassroots, Inc. and Second Amendment is For Everyone
> (SAFE), launched the  SAFE Merchant Awareness Project. SAFE-MAP notifies
> Arizona gun owners which businesses are anti-self-defense. They also
> encourage Arizona merchants to support their patrons' right to bear arms.
>
>      "Some gun owners have always encouraged family and friends to avoid
> businesses which disarm their customers, but such efforts inherently have
> limited results," Golubski said. "The Merchant Awareness Project greatly
> multiplies the 'pass-it-on' effect by gathering info on anti-gun businesses
> from across Arizona and then distributing it statewide."
>
>      Golubski emphasized that the "boycott effect" of the Merchant Awareness
> Project, while desirable, is actually a secondary goal. "We want businesses
> who post against firearm possession to understand that they are placing
> themselves in a position of increased liability. It's a real double whammy."
>
>      "First, their 'no guns' signs make their customers more attractive
> targets in the eyes of criminals," he said. "Then, if a violent crime does
> occur in a posted establishment and a disarmed patron is injured or
> killed, he or his survivors can make the case that he may not have been
> harmed had the store not disarmed him."
>
>      "By posting 'no guns' signs, businesses mislead their customers into
> thinking their stores are safe, while actually endangering them. Then
> when an attack does occur there, they'll cry, 'The safety of our customers
> isn't OUR responsibility!'"
>
>      Golubski notes that the murder at Metrocenter is not typical of the
> kind of violence one might expect to occur on commercial property. "While
the
> Barnes murder was a case of domestic violence, the most common violent
crimes
> one anticipates in stores or parking lots are probably armed robbery,
> carjacking, and kidnaping leading to sexual assault. But regardless of the
> kind of crime one might encounter, people should be allowed to defend
> themselves - or others - if they choose. And 'no guns' policies like
> Metrocenter's deprive people of that ability."
>
>      The Merchant Awareness Project hopes that the recent tragedy at
> Metrocenter will cause the mall to rethink their policy. "Criminals aren't
> stupid," Golubski said. "They can read. And to a criminal, 'no guns' signs
> really say, 'Come on in. Our customers are defenseless.'"
>
> S.A.F.E. Merchant Awareness Project
> P.O. Box 56321
> Phoenix, AZ 85079-6321

--
Don't agonize.  Organize.
http://GunsSaveLives.com


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


--------------------------
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: Bennett / Bishop debacle
Date: 24 Apr 1998 16:26:27 -0600

At 06:17 PM 4/23/98 -0700, you wrote:

>As State GOP chair I suspect the Salt Lake County GOP officers
>would listen were he to have objected to their shenanigans.
>Regardless of his sincerity or insincerity, Sen. Bennett *did*
>denounce them. This makes him look much better than otherwise,
>and more likely to prevail in his antigun efforts.
    I already agreed that SL Co. GOP officers would likely have listened to
Rob Bishop.  However, I don't know whether or not Bishop _knew_ about
Quist's plans to have leafletters arrested, or whether he was present at
the time the arrests took place.
    Bennett appears to be a hypocrite of the first order, doing nothing while
abuses took place and then denouncing them afterwards.  Nonetheless he now
"looks" better - at least to those who don't look closely.  But I don't
quite get your point.  Should we now _oppose_ ethical (or even
quasi-ethical) behavior on the part of anti-gun candidates merely because
of their position on gun control?  Doesn't it make more sense to insist
that if they support the First Amendment, they must also support the Second?

>Note that Mike Leavitt is in league with Sen. Bennett in the
>antigun campaign.
    Of course I know that!  And then there's Cook, and Hatch, and most of our
other elected officials.  The main difference is that only Hatch and
Leavitt failed to denounce tyranny.

>It was my understanding that the USSC had retained Rob Bishop as
>its lobbyist with the Utah Legislature. If he doesn't object to
>the GOP's tyrannical actions, the perception may rub off on gun
>rights people as supporting tyranny. The newspapers already attempt
>to make gun righters appear as special interests who have no concern
>for the rights of private property owners, school children, or
>government agencies such as schools and universities, as though
>governments could *have* rights rather than mere raw power.
    Yeah, perceptions.  There's no law against stupidity.  If you're worried
about public perceptions, I'd suggest you direct your complaints to the
newspapers, TV stations and other media who work so hard to create those
perceptions.  If you perceive that Rob Bishop is a tyrant, that's _your_
perception.  I perceive otherwise.
If you'd like to validate your perception, why don't you talk to him?

>While perhaps incorrect, there is a perception that the USSC and
>the NRA are closely allied.
    More perceptions.  I've stated repeatedly that there is no formal
affiliation.  It is true that USSC and the NRA cooperate, often more than I
personally would like.  But if people choose to believe that USSC is "part"
of the NRA, or that aliens are running the UN, it's not my problem.  If
you're waiting for USSC to formally disavow and denounce the NRA, don't
hold your breath.

>Indeed. However, the USSC has a contract with its Chairman.
    One more time....  Rob Bishop is Chairman of the Utah GOP.  I have no idea
of whether he has a contract with them and it's none of my business.  Rob
Bishop is NOT Chairman of USSC.  That position is held by Elwood Powell who
serves without pay and whose duties are outlined in the bylaws.

>Even if I am not currently a member of the USSC, political fallout
>from this can affect me as much as its members and officers. FYI
>I am a Republican Party delegate to both the county and state
>conventions. You may want to request updated delegate lists if
>yours do not list my name. I submitted and was signatory to the
>above-mentioned Fair Election Practices amendment that Gary Utt,
>at Bill Quist's request, trashed.
    My apologies.  I didn't know you were a delegate, and I don't have a
delegate list.  I commend your support of the Fair Election Practices
amendment.  Since you are a delegate to the County Convention, I will take
the risk of assuming you were present when these abuses occurred.  So maybe
you know....  Was Rob Bishop in attendance?  If so, what was his reaction
to the SL Co. GOP actions?  For that matter, what did you do to oppose the
abuses?  I, for one, would appreciate some objective reporting from someone
who was there.  (I've already heard from Arnold Gaunt, who was threatened
with arrest.)
    If you feel USSC's actions have the potential to adversely affect you,
perhaps you should consider becoming a member so you have a say in those
actions.

>>And believe it or not, Rob Bishop has the same freedom of speech
>>that everyone else in this country has.
>
>This does not extend to denying others freedom of speech, or
>allowing the parliamentary processes of a political party he
>chairs to be subverted. Didn't Voltaire say "I disagree with what
>you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."?
    Well, the GOP seems somewhat confused as to whether it's a private entity
or a government agency. <g>
If it's a government agency, it may not deny freedom of speech.  If it's a
private entity, it may do so, providing there's nothing prohibiting it in
its bylaws.  For essentially the same reasons, USSC can place a "gag order"
on its Board members.  I don't condone such behavior, but I will defend the
right of private entities to make their own rules.  And my original point
was that Mr. Bishop is certainly free to _remain silent_ on an issue, and
is under no obligation to comment on it.

>>It seems clear that you have an extreme dislike for USSC and Rob Bishop.
>
>Disappointment at apparently counterproductive efforts in pursuit
>of goals largely overlapping my own. I send no such comments to
>officers of HCI, CeaseFire, or VPC. (What is that last one?)
    That's a common enough problem, and one most likely shared by all of us.
I get disappointed at the GOP for not pursuing goals that philosophically
we both claim to share.  I get disappointed at the Libertarian Party for
the same reason.  I've given up on the NRA for the most part.  At one time
or another I've been disgusted, disappointed, or disillusioned by the
actions of every single organization to which I've ever belonged.  No
person and no organization is _ever_ going to agree with me all the time.
So I support organizations and candidates who come closest to what I
support and/or organize my own when necessary.  Maybe those of us with
common goals need to get together to discuss how we can best accomplish
those goals, if we feel existing organizations and candidates are failing us.

    And VPC is the Violence Policy Center, Josh Sugarmann's lying think tank
in Washington.

Sarah
(again, for myself only)




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

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (SCOTT BERGESON)
Subject: Bennett / Bishop debacle
Date: 25 Apr 1998 19:26:00 -0700


On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 16:26:27 -0600 S. Thompson wrote:

> Should we now _oppose_ ethical (or even quasi-ethical) behavior
> on the part of anti-gun candidates merely because of their position
> on gun control?

We should insist that our pro-gun representatives exhibit ethical,
not merely quasi-ethical, behavior.

> Doesn't it make more sense to insist that if they support
> the First Amendment, they must also support the Second?

The hypocrites support neither, except in the breach.

> only Hatch and Leavitt failed to denounce tyranny.

Take 'em down from their elective offices.

> If you're waiting for USSC to formally disavow and denounce the NRA,
> don't hold your breath.

But don't let either endorse politicians opposed to the Second amendment,
or any part of the Bill of Rights. Those are my major differences with
the NRA and ACLU. As they say; 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 is counting
with the ACLU, while for the NRA it is 2, and then they consider any
form of permissive license compatible with "shall not be infringed."

> >the USSC has a contract with its Chairman.

> One more time....  Rob Bishop is Chairman of the Utah GOP. I have no
> idea of whether he has a contract with them and it's none of my business.
> Rob Bishop is NOT Chairman of USSC.

I meant as lobbyist.

> Since you are a delegate to the County Convention, I will take
> the risk of assuming you were present when these abuses occurred.

Only some. The arrests and trashing were around 7:30 am.
I got there at 10 am. I did hear Bill Quist explain and defend
his actions to the KUTV cameraman and interviewer.

> So maybe you know....  Was Rob Bishop in attendance?

Sorry, I don't know.

> For that matter, what did you do to oppose the abuses?

Asked Bill Quist and Gary Utt to replace our amendment flyers
they trashed. They refused, and claimed they were abandoned trash.
They also alleged there were rules against such distribution, but
no such rule appears on the proposed convention rules provided
delegates and candidates.

> (I've already heard from Arnold Gaunt, who was threatened with arrest.)

Him, too?

> Well, the GOP seems somewhat confused as to whether it's a private entity
> or a government agency. <g>

As the power behind the throne, perhaps they think they're above
both, as well as any rules, and that delegates only serve the purpose
of providing the appearance of lawful process.

> I've given up on the NRA for the most part.  At one time or another
> I've been disgusted, disappointed, or disillusioned by the actions of
> every single organization to which I've ever belonged.  No person and
> no organization is _ever_ going to agree with me all the time.  So I
> support organizations and candidates who come closest to what I support
> and/or organize my own when necessary.  Maybe those of us with common
> goals need to get together to discuss how we can best accomplish those
> goals, if we feel existing organizations and candidates are failing us.

Has JPFO disappointed you? (Other than maintaining a nearly invisible
profile) What would it take to organize a Utah affiliate? I suspect
a name change for the affiliate might be needed here in Utah, where
Gov. Bamberger, a Jew, was Utah's first Gentile Governor.

> And VPC is the Violence Policy Center, Josh Sugarmann's lying think
> tank in Washington.

Thank you.



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The John Schaefer Picture Clarifies
Date: 26 Apr 1998 21:46:14 -0600

More on the John Schaefer incident in NJ, to be followed by yet another
version.
Once again, it appears that the truth is rarely simple to ascertain.

Sarah


>   From: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: NJ Incident
>
>As you may or may not know, I run a radio station in Boston. I saw the
>original story on the NJ raid, thought it may make an interesting topic
>on our saturday morning talk show. I asked my News Director to check it
>out. He came up with the following, which seem to be missing from the
>original description of the incident.
>
>Shaefer is a convicted felon, taking a fall for endangering a child in
>1989 in Monmouth, NJ, court. He walked on two other charges.
>
>The Feds found out he was a disqualified person in possession of
>firearms and reported him to the NJ authorities. Both the state and Feds
>were on the scene since he was in violation of both fed and state
>statutes. A judge in NJ issued the warrant.
>
>He was peppered, not maced, when he continued to approach the entry team
>after being told to halt. Since he's a convicted felon and self-defense
>instructor believed to be in possession of firearms, what exactly did he
>expect. In the event, it turns out he had a loaded .45 in his dresser.
>
>He neglected to mention that what was confiscated included 27 firearms,
>CS and Smoke grenades, det cord, plus documents he used to falsify his
>FFL renewal form.
>
>The story about the dummy mortar round was a smokescreen. He is being
>charged with being a convicted felon in possession of firearms and
>destructive devices, so I guess not all that stuff was 'inert.'
>At the time, he only asked the police to change the position of his
>handcuffs (from back to front) when he said it hurt his back. They did.
>He never requested medical attention while with the police.
>
>When they start giving you the 'church going, family man, pillor of the
>community, loved by all' line instead of real facts, the warning flags
>should go up. All we need is bunch of pro-gunners, who continually
>mention, factually, that gun owners are the most law-abiding segment of
>the population, shooting off letters to the editor supporting this guy
>and then get hung out to dry by appearing to be supporting illegal
>activity (we may not agree with it, but it is still illegal.) I can well
>understand Shaefer's reluctance to relate all the little details, but he
>damages all of us by neglecting to mention all the pertinent
>information, especially the most important details.
>
>I'm still counting my blessings that I checked this out before putting
>it on the air. I have a pro-gun editorial policy here at the station,
>and the damage to our credibility would have been enormous. I would have
>had the 'anti' crowd beating me over the head with this for the next ten
>years.
>
>Regards,
>TSB
>
>

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: And Yet ANOTHER Shoe Drops in NJSP Story
Date: 26 Apr 1998 21:47:23 -0600

Another chaper in the John Schaefer story.

Sarah

>Subject: And Yet ANOTHER Shoe Drops in NJSP Story
>
>   From: #1 - Dave Workman  <[e-mail]>
>         #2 - Charles Riggs <[e-mail]>
>
>>Dear Mr. Shaefer:
>
>>     I was forwarded your e-mail posting on the internet, partly, I
>>preseume, because I am a working journalist. Upon receiving it, I
>>posted a message to Gov. Whitman's office, asking for an explanation
>>by Monday morning.
>
>>     Your tale got my immediate attention, as I have heard horror
>>stories coming out of New Jersey for some years about state police
>>treatment of law abiding firearms owners. This seemed like S.O.P.
>
>>     However, "Tale" seems to be an operative word, here, in your
>>case, sir. Would you care to comment on the posting, below?
>
>>     My thanks to my East Coast colleague, Mr. Bench, for having
>>had the time to check this story out beyond what I was able to do
>>at the late hour at which it arrived at my terminal.
>
>>- Dave Workman
>
>
>      John can't respond as he's been told by his attorney to withhold
>so I'll presume to speak in his defense in the interim.
>      Mr. Bench should go to work for the BATF, what with the job he's
>doing on John on this one. He took their statements at face value, and
>never batted an eye when they and the NJSP, hardly stalwarts of gun
>rights as you observed, slagged John's reputation. Didn't they do the
>same thing to Koresh and Weaver? Were they right then? Haven't they
>WRONG quite a lot?
>      John denies the charges. He's been without blemish in the 30 years
>he's had an FFL. And no matter what he may or may not have done, he
>didn't deserve to be physically abused and to have his family abused and
>threatened. I was raised around cops, and I know how they're SUPPOSED to
>do it, and this ain't it.
>      You want to see who John Schaeffer is? Go to his web page,
>
>          http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/frfrog/project.htm
>
>  ...and check out the people in the photos there. Go to the third one
>down, under "Those who dared to dream." That's John just to the right of
>Col. Cooper - real "gangsta"-type, huh?  I can see why those adrenaline-
>charged, body-armored, ranting, charging NJSP SWAT boys with their MP5s
>were all shook up over taking on ol' John, can't you?
>      Mr. Bench should go to work writing copy for the BATF "Book of
>Apologia" if this is how he "helps" those of us in the arms-bearing
>fraternity. Need I say more or is the picture clear enough for now,
>until John is cleared and can speak for himself?
>      Watch six - Charles Riggs.
>
>            Charles Riggs - Gunsite 1991 - DVC!
>           "Stop Crime - Be Armed - Fight Back!"
>        Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed (KC3)
>                   IDPA (Ky) - NRA - GOA
>                 Visit  http://www.kc3.com
>
>

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Local Media's View from NJ
Date: 27 Apr 1998 00:03:03 -0600

>From: [e-mail] ( DEAN SPEIR)
>Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 01:38:59, -0500
>Subject: The Local Media's (NJSP Spoon-fed) View
>
>           [Since the information in this story originated
>            with ATF and/or NJSP, I like Schaefer's version
>            of events more and more... Imagine that!...
>            buying guns by mail! - Dean Speir]
>
>
>>From Asbury Park Press ONLINE edition...  http://www.injersey.com
>
>    Raid on house of felon turns up a small arsenal
>
>    Published in the Asbury Park Press 4/25/98
>
>
>    By SHERI TABACHNIK
>    STAFF WRITER
>
>    TOMS RIVER -- A felon who maintains a Website about the
>    importance of bearing arms was paid a surprise visit by a team
>    of law enforcement officers, who confiscated a small arsenal of
>    weapons from his home, a state police spokesman said.
>
>    John C. Schaefer, 52, whose Internet home page states he lives
>   "behind the iron curtain in the People's Republic of New
>    Jersey," was arrested Wednesday and charged with possession of
>    firearms by a convicted felon, possession of assault firearms,
>    possession of high-capacity magazines and possession of
>    destructive devices, state police spokesman Sgt. Al Della Fave
>    said.
>
>    Police found 27 items, including a handgun and an assault rifle,
>    in Schaefer's North Bay Avenue home, Della Fave said.
>
>    The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the agency
>    that prompted the arrest, had begun investigating Schaefer after
>    he tried to buy a gun, said Steve Haskins, bureau spokesman.
>    Since 1994, when the Brady Law was enacted, law enforcement
>    agencies must check whether a would-be gun buyer has a felony
>    record.
>
>    In 1989, Schaefer was convicted of endangering the welfare od
>    a child, Della Fave said.
>
>    Della Fave said the bureau discovered he had the weapons, many
>    of which he had purchased through the mail. It in turn warned
>    the state police tactical response team that Schaefer was a
>    self-defense instructor certified with the National Rifle
>    Association, Della Fave said.
>
>    A team made up of about 10 officers went to Schaefer's house
>    at 7 a.m. Wednesday.
>
>   "They hit the door and he came out in the hallway," Della Fave
>    said.
>
>   "They told him to freeze and get down on the floor, but instead
>    he continued to move toward them," Della Fave said. "They
>    immediately sprayed him with pepper spray, grabbed him, put him
>    on the floor and handcuffed him.
>
>   "It was over within seconds," Della Fave said.
>
>    Armed with a search warrant, the state police firearms
>    investigation unit and arson bomb squad, a member of the
>    Ocean County prosecutor's office, Dover Township police
>    officers and members of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and
>    Firearms searched Schaefer's house.
>
>    They confiscated a loaded .45-caliber handgun, an assault
>    firearm, 10 large-capacity magazines, a high-explosive
>    detonation cord, three hand-grenade simulators, three smoke
>    grenades and a gas riot grenade, Della Fave said.
>
>    State police also charged Schaefer with violating regulatory
>    provisions of New Jersey law; sworn falsification on an official
>    document, the statement he signed at Dover Township police
>    station that he was never convicted of a crime punishable by more
>    than a year in jail, and resisting arrest, Della Fave said. It
>    could not be determined yesterday what sentence Schaefer received
>    on the child endangerment charge.
>
>    Schaefer, who was released from Ocean County Jail, Toms River,
>    after posting $7,500 bail, was back in his home Thursday sending
>    messages over the Internet claiming he had been brutalized by
>    state police and referring to New Jersey as Nazi Germany. Schaefer
>    could not be reached for comment.
>
>    Staff writer Rick Linsk contributed to this report.
>
>    Source: Asbury Park Press
>
>    Published: April 25, 1998
>
>                   Copyright C1997-1998 IN Jersey.
>  Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of
>  Service (updated 2/25/98). Site design by Neptune Interactive Designs.
>
>

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Update 4/26/98 -Forwarded
Date: 27 Apr 1998 09:59:06 -0700

Received: from legacy.lgcy.com
    ([209.63.171.101])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:57:45 -0600
Received: from mail.lgcy.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id na661505; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:44:28 -0600
Received: from [209.63.185.152] by mail.lgcy.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba464985 for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:44:28 -0600
Comments: Authenticated sender is <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com
X-ListMember: [e-mail] [[e-mail]]

I called the Salt Lake county party headquarters, Friday, and spoke
with Kathy Arenst. I was intent on knowing the true origin of the
"rule" banning distribution of "unauthorized" literature in the
hallways and from rented tables in the convention hall.

She answered that it was probably passed by the county central
committee. I conveyed my skepticism reminding her such a change in
the rules would have had to have occurred between the time the Utah
Republican Assembly approached the party about the rental of a table
and the time I attended the drawing for table placement held April
8th. It was at that meeting that the individual in charge announced
the party had been approached by several groups, among them the
Libertarian Party, and had made a decision that it would rent
tables to no groups.

I challenged her to produce any supporting documentation to show that
this rule was anything more than a last minute, back room ploy to
shut down the activists that they had reason to believe would be
present at the convention (since the same activists had appeared in
other county conventions in the previous weeks).

She refused to promise me any such information citing rumors that the
activist intend to sue the party over this incident.

During the course of the conversation, she accused Tom and
Ruth of doing what they did with the express intent of being
arrested, citing the presence of a video camera as proof.

When I challenged the party's authority to have individuals
arrested for being in position of printed political materials, she
countered with an assertion that I hadn't heard until then: That
the area the party had rented included not only the grand ballroom
and the adjoining meeting room but also the hallways leading into
those two rooms.

With regard to Jim Kirkwood's and Ken Olafson's calls for
resignations, I am beginning to concur. I would be inclined to give
suspected parties the benefit of the doubt but at every turn,
evidence of malicious intent and now, of a coverup grows weightier.

It seems to me, at this point that the burden of proof is now on all
those, such as Sheriff Kennard, to show that they had nothing to do
with Saturday's arrests, or that they tried to dissuade the party
from this outrageous line of attack.

This isn't a jury trial. And their taking the Fifth isn't grounds for
finding the "defendants" in this matter "not guilty."

This is about a scandal perpetrated in direct contravention of the
very principles that the Republican Party proclaims in it's
constitution, by-laws and platform. Those who were ultimately
responsible for this action should step down if the party is to
reclaim its good name. (All right, you guys. No snickering about the
'good name' part.)


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  [Fwd: Formal Objection to BATF] -Forwarded
Date: 27 Apr 1998 10:17:33 -0700

Received: (qmail 16699 invoked by uid 516); 23 Apr 1998 19:11:20 -0000
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 16328 invoked from network); 23 Apr 1998 19:10:39 -0000
Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg2.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.12)
  by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 1998 19:10:39 -0000
Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14])
    by mg2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10578
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:10:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from hlmtfish (166-93-57-94.rmi.net [166.93.57.94])
    by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA27952
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:10:32 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Global Neighbourhood Watch, (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Posted to rkba-co by "Charles 'Chuck' Inston" <[e-mail]>
-----------------------
Chris W. Stark wrote:
> =

>                     ****JPFO e-mail Alert!****
> =

>        Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
>                  Aaron Zelman - Executive Director
>                       2874 So. Wentworth Ave.
>                         Milwaukee, WI 53207
>               Ph. [phone]  Fax [phone]
>                         http://www.JPFO.org
>                      [e-mail]
> =

>                              04/23/98
>                              --------
> =

> On January 6, 1998, JPFO alerted its members and e-mail subscribers
> of the letter we sent to the BATF regarding Sporting Suitability of
> Modified Semi-Automatic Assault  Rifles. You can find this letter on
> the JPFO web site at:
> =

>                  http://www.jpfo.org/batf.htm
> =

> On April 6, 1998, the Clinton Adminstration announced a broader ban
> on the importation of certain semi-automatic rifles because they did
> not meet the requirements for "sporting use." These rifles weren't
> for "sporting use," according to the administration, because they
> could be fitted with "large" magazines or clips.
> =

> We pointed out in an alert dated April 7, 1998, and found on the
> JPFO web site at:
> =

>                  http://www.jpfo.org/nazirot.htm
> =

> .....that "sporting use" strategy was used before. The Nazi
> Weapons Law (18 March 1938) forbade importation of weapons under
> substantially the same test.
> =

> To understand how the "sporting use" definition led to the
> Holocaust, how the same language was imported into the U.S.
> Gun Control Act of 1968, and how that language is bearing
> its vicious fruit now, get and read "Gun Control:" Gateway
> to Tyranny, available from JPFO at:
> =

>             http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm
> =

> We now reply to the ""Comments Provided by Interest Groups" that
> BATF has published at:
> =

>      http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/assault_rifles/index.htm
> =

> We encourage our members to write a follow-up letter to the BATF,
> regarding the content of the letter below.
> =

> Our letter to Mr. John Magaw, Director of the BATF, follows:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> =

> April 17, 1998
> =

> Mr. John W. Magaw
> Director, BATF
> Room 8000
> 650 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
> Washington, D.C.  20226
> =

> Re:Formal Objection to Study on the Sporting Suitability of
>       Modified Semi-Automatic Assault  Rifles (April 1998)
> =

> Dear Director Magaw:
> =

> The Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semi-Automatic
> Assault  Rifles ("Study Report"), under "Comments Provided by Interest
> Groups",  mentions our January 5, 1998 Comment Letter by stating as
> follows, in full:
> =

>    (8) Identical comments were received from five members
>        of JPFO.  They are against any form of gun control
>        or restriction regardless of the type of firearm.
>        References are made comparing gun control to Nazi
>        Germany.
> =

> This brief response characterized but did not communicate our
> points.  As a result, the decision makers were not fully informed
> about the opposition to the proposed rulemaking.
> =

> We strongly object to our organization's being referred to
> by only its four-letter acronym.  JPFO stands for Jews for the
> Preservation of Firearms Ownership.  The name and emphasis of
> our organization is unique.  To reduce us to a largely unfamiliar
> acronym is to effectively dismiss our input.
> =

> For our organization and many of its members, "Nazi Germany"
> and "the Holocaust" are not mere clich=E9s or metaphors.  These terms
> vividly recall destruction, disappearance, and death to friends and
> family members.  Frankly, our organization takes offense at any
> casual reference to these subjects.
> =

> To dismiss our input into the decision process, the Study
> Report does treat the subject of Nazi Germany quite casually . By
> saying only that "References are made comparing gun control to Nazi
> Germany," the Report completely ignores the substance of our
> comment. Our comment did not compare "gun control" to Nazi Germany.
> Our comment was far more specific.
> =

> Our research shows that the statutory authority for BATF's
> regulation of the importation of semi-automatic firearms comes
> directly from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.  With this letter we
> are providing you with a copy of our book, Gateway to Tyranny,
> which proves this connection by showing:
> =

>    (1)Senator Thomas Dodd obtained a copy of the Nazi
>       Weapons Law of 1938 and had it translated into
>       English just before the U.S. Gun Control Act of
>       1968 was drafted (see pp. 130-132);
> =

>    (2)The 1968 Gun Control Act is structured and patterned
>       after the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 (see pp. 54-63);
> =

>    (3)The "sporting use" criteria for importing firearms,
>       as developed in the 1968 Gun Control Act, comes
>       directly from the Nazi Weapons Law and its implementing
>       regulations (see pp. 60, 61, 88, 89, 90, 91, 102);
>       and
> =

>    (4)The Nazi Weapons Law (augmenting the pre-existing
>       "gun control" laws) granted nearly unlimited power to
>       government agents to deny to Jews (and others) all
>       access to firearms, and once unarmed, the Jews were
>       helpless against the well-armed police and soldiers
>       (see pp. 7-11, 14, 52, 83, 113-121).
> =

> Our January 5 Comment Letter also pointed out the lack of
> constitutional authority for a federal agency to define and regulate
> "sports."  In fact, the language of the Second Amendment expressly
> forbids the federal government to enact regulations which would
> "infringe" on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms."  The
> Study Report should have squarely addressed these objections, because
> our government and your agency are subject to the Constitution, not
> above it.
> =

> Our organization's leaders and members ask that you review
> Gateway to Tyranny, and we would appreciate the favor of your reply
> to this letter.  We would be particularly interested in any facts
> you have that would refute the points made in our book.
> =

> Very truly yours,
> =

> Aaron Zelman
> =

> Enclosure
> =

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> =

> To become a JPFO member, go to: http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm
> There you will see a printable member application, along with info
> on membership. If you wish, you can become a member using our on-line
> application as well. Membership IS open to ALL Law abiding citizens.
> =

> ****************************************************************
> Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO)
> Chris W. Stark - Director of Electronic Communications
> 2874 So. Wentworth Ave.
> Milwaukee, WI  53207
> Ph. [phone]
> Fax [phone]
> [e-mail]
> =

> Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org
> =

> MEMBERSHIP IS OPEN TO ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
> =

> "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership."
> ****************************************************************
> Copyright (c) 1998, JPFO
> Republication permitted provided this article & attribution
> is left intact in its original state.
> ****************************************************************
> =

>      TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to:
> =

>                      [e-mail]
> =

> ...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe".
> ****************************************************************

-- =

                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: Walter Williams in Today's Deseret News
Date: 27 Apr 1998 17:50:04 -0600

I re-sent Walter Williams' article to quite a few of my friends.  I
received the following response from a woman who's been a friend since high
school, and whose in-laws are Holocaust survivors:

One of the central points that is overlooked is that the German Jews
considered themselves Germans first.  My husbands grandparents were prime
examples.  even after the war, Ivan's grandfather still insisted that "German
made" was ultimately the best.  The German Jews did not see themselves as
different or apart as the rest of the German population & that of, with very
few exceptions, eastern europe.  The long standing & deeply rooted anti-
semitism was always there & still exists.  German Jews could not believe that
the country they believed in & fought for would betray them.

A few years ago , my father-in-law went to Poland to see his home & go to the
camps.  He needed "closure."  My Mother-in-law, while she was alive would
never go with him, & he went after her death.  He went to the town where he
was born & where he lived until he was a teen & stood outside the address that
was his as a child.  There was a different house there, but he stood in front
of the street number to absorb his surroundings & remember what had been.   a
man can out of the house yelling & cursing him, "You Jews are all alike.  This
is not your home it is mine, get away, you can't have my home ."  My father-
in-law had not intention of trying to take this man's home.  He merely wanted
to stand & think but he was so angered by this Jew-hater that he went to a
lawyer to talk to him.  The Polish lawyer informed him that he could try to
recover the property but it would cost him a lot of money & time & there was
no guarantee he would get anything.  My father-in-law decided not to pursue
this action but he was so angered that he came home & told everyone.
Are you aware of how few Jews are left in Poland, a handful & many do not even
practice any form of Judaism.  Yet the Polish govt & political parties still
use us a scapegoats for their political agenda.  It is nauseating.

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

This is Sarah again.  In the late 1930's virtually no one in Germany
believed he was living in a fascist state.  The Germans were pleased with
their "good economy", the 1928 and 1938 Gun Control Acts were viewed as
largely irrelevant, and even the Jews thought that they were "good Germans"
no different from anyone else.  We now know they were wrong.

So here we are in 1998.  Virtually no American believes he is living in a
fascist state.  We're told our economy is booming (although I can't say
I've personally noticed any improvement in my standard of living).  The Gun
Control Acts of 1934 and 1968 are regarded as mostly irrelevant.  The later
Brady Act and weapons bans have attracted a bit more attention, but most
people still seem to believe they're either irrelevant, or somehow
"necessary to stop crime".  Most gun owners consider themselves "Good
Americans", believe they live in a free country, and that nothing "bad"
could possibly happen to them in the United States.

Will history prove _us_ wrong as well?

Sarah


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

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

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bennett / Bishop debacle
Date: 27 Apr 1998 19:17:20 -0600

At 07:26 PM 4/25/98 -0700, you wrote:

>We should insist that our pro-gun representatives exhibit ethical,
>not merely quasi-ethical, behavior.
    This _sounds_ good.  But if we recalled every representative who exhibited
less than perfectly ethical behavior, we'd have to recall all of them.  (I
can think of only one or two Congresspeople who meet _my_ standards of
ethical and even they're not perfect.)
    Lobbying is like advertising; you can only demand so much objective truth.
 You may be able to insist that tobacco companies warn people that
cigarettes are dangerous, but you can't stop Camel from insisting that its
products are better than Marlboro or vice versa.
    Further, one can only retain a lobbyist to advocate for or against a
certain issue.  You can't control which other issues he lobbies, nor can
you mandate that he resign from his full-time (non-legislative) job.
    Yes, I agree that lobbyists and representatives should remove themselves
from areas of obvious conflict of interest.  I would not personally support
someone whose behavior I considered unethical.  But I think what you're
suggesting amounts to restricting the right of freedom of association, and
I'm not willing to go that far.

>> Doesn't it make more sense to insist that if they support
>> the First Amendment, they must also support the Second?
>
>The hypocrites support neither, except in the breach.
    Agreed!

>> only Hatch and Leavitt failed to denounce tyranny.
>
>Take 'em down from their elective offices.
    Well neither of them (nor Bennett) will get my vote.  Somehow I doubt it
will make a difference.

>> If you're waiting for USSC to formally disavow and denounce the NRA,
>> don't hold your breath.
>
>But don't let either endorse politicians opposed to the Second amendment,
>or any part of the Bill of Rights. Those are my major differences with
>the NRA and ACLU. As they say; 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 is counting
>with the ACLU, while for the NRA it is 2, and then they consider any
>form of permissive license compatible with "shall not be infringed."
    I will have a vote (but certainly not _control_) of USSC candidate
endorsements.  I have no say whatever in what the NRA does.  So how exactly
should I "not let either" endorse bad candidates?

>I meant as lobbyist.
    I haven't seen Mr. Bishop's contract, nor do I know if one exists.
However, it is my opinion (and mine alone) that there is no more conflict
of interest because he is Chairman of the Utah GOP than there is a conflict
of interest because his non-legislative job is as a teacher and the UEA
endorses gun control.  If the Utah GOP doesn't want their chair working as
a lobbyist, that's _their_ problem.

>> For that matter, what did you do to oppose the abuses?
>
>Asked Bill Quist and Gary Utt to replace our amendment flyers
>they trashed. They refused, and claimed they were abandoned trash.
>They also alleged there were rules against such distribution, but
>no such rule appears on the proposed convention rules provided
>delegates and candidates.
    Have you pursued this either personally, as a group, or via an attorney?
Has anyone else?  I certainly hope this doesn't just fall thru the cracks.

>As the power behind the throne, perhaps they think they're above
>both, as well as any rules, and that delegates only serve the purpose
>of providing the appearance of lawful process.
    And isn't this pretty much true of _all_ levels of government?

>Has JPFO disappointed you? (Other than maintaining a nearly invisible
>profile) What would it take to organize a Utah affiliate? I suspect
>a name change for the affiliate might be needed here in Utah, where
>Gov. Bamberger, a Jew, was Utah's first Gentile Governor.
    Any disputes I have with organizations or individuals who are not part of
this list are private matters.  I don't believe in sniping behind peoples'
backs.
    I have no status in JPFO other than as a charter member.  I don't know
their position on local or state chapters.  I also don't know their
position on name changes, although my impression is that they'd oppose it.
But since the LDS majority consider themselves to be part of the Children
of Israel (at least according to my understanding of LDS doctrine), and
thus closely related to Jews, I don't really see why it should be an issue.
    I do know  that JPFO is incorporated under 501(c)4, which makes them an
educational organization and expressly prohibits them from lobbying.  That
might be a consideration if you're contemplating an organization other than
USSC that can lobby the legislature.

Sarah



-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Teens and Guns
Date: 27 Apr 1998 22:36:25 -0600

>Subject: Teens and Guns
>
>http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2553892292-501
>
>> [INFOBEAT | ][Profile | ][Feedback | ][About | ][Terms | ][Custom]
>>
>>  -----------------------------------------------------------
>>  [Image]
>>  -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 02:39 PM ET 04/26/98
>>
>> Police praise man in Pa. dance hall shooting
>>
>>
>>             EDINBORO, Pa. (Reuters) - Police praised a banquet hall
>> owner Sunday for apprehending the suspect in a school dance
>> shooting that killed a popular teacher and wounded another as
>> well as two students.
>>             Authorities said James Strand, armed with a shotgun and
>> worried about the safety of his family, confronted Andrew Wurst,
>> 14, in ``a grassy area'' after Friday night's shooting  and
>> ''coaxed'' him into dropping his gun and giving up peacefully.
>>             ``Mr. Strand used a great deal, I mean a great deal, of
>> judgment on his part at that time to bring the situation to a
>> close,'' Mark Zaleski, a state police spokesman, said at a news
>> conference.
>>             Strand owns Nick's Place restaurant where authorities allege
>> Wurst, an eigth-grader at Parker Middle School, opened fire with
>> a small caliber handgun at a graduation dance, killing John
>> Gillette, 46.
>>             Two students, both 14, were wounded and have since been
>> released from the hospital. Another teacher was grazed by a
>> bullet and did not require medical attention.
>>             Police said little else about the case Sunday, citing an
>> ongoing investigation.
>>             ``We're exploring a number of possible motives,'' said
>> Zaleski, who would not say what leads authorities were pursuing.
>>             Wurst remained at the Erie County prison charged as an adult
>> with murder, while the town of Edinboro tried to cope with the
>> violence, the loss of life and the unwanted attention as another
>> rural American community in the spotlight for a deadly
>> school-related shooting.
>>             Flags flew at half-staff in the town 100 miles north of
>> Pittsburgh and plans were on track to open Parker Middle School
>> for regular classes Monday.
>>             Gillette, 46, was remembered at a church service Sunday. The
>> science teacher, former football coach and father of three
>> children, was chaperoning the dance when he was shot.
>>             Parker school students have been instructed not to speak to
>> the media. But reports have said Wurst told students he would
>> make the dance ``memorable.'' Others said they did not know what
>> that meant, if anything.
>>             Zaleski would not confirm whether Wurst had made that
>> statement, and he said police would not ``get caught up in the
>> rumor mill.''
>>             The Edinboro tragedy was the fourth deadly school-related
>> shooting in the United States in the past six months. Four
>> students were killed at a middle school in Jonesboro, Ark., last
>> month; three students were killed at a high school in West
>> Paducah, Ky., in December, and last October, two students were
>> killed at a high school in Pearl, Miss.
>>          ^REUTERS@
>
>Interesting how in two of those cases the criminal student was stopped
>by a law-abiding adult with a firearm....  Kinda makes you wonder if
>more armed teachers or "gun free school zones" is the best solution!
>
>Sarah



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

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns
away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't
want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns
are the police and the military.
William Burroughs (b. 1914), U.S. author.
"The War Universe," taped conversation

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Salt Lake Tribune -- Nation/World
Date: 27 Apr 1998 23:52:46 -0600

Why isn't HCI out campaigning to disarm police?
Sarah

http://www.sltrib.com/04271998/nation_w/nation_w.htm

>                   Monday, April 27, 1998
>  ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>      Suicide by Cop: Two Victims, One Alive, One Dead

>  BY TODD LEWAN                         [PHOTO]
>  THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>                                      Henry Brown, 32, wields two
>                                       pistols in a January 1997
>      SYOSSET, N.Y. --             standoff with officers in
>  Only after pumping three       Shelby, N.C. ``Do your job!''
>  bullets into Moshe               a suicidal Brown screamed.
>  Pergament did Officer           ``It's gonna end today!'' An
>  Anthony Sica learn the          officer killed him after one
>  brutal truth: He had                of his guns discharged. (Lee
>  killed a college student          McLeod/The Shelby Star)
>  who had threatened him
>  with nothing more than a toy gun.
>      Sica stood over the bleeding body wondering what had
>  happened here.
>      A 19-year-old had raced his brand-new Honda Accord
>  up and down the Long Island Expressway in a rainstorm
>  for 40 minutes, sideswiping cars and trucks. He had
>  pulled over as soon as the police cruiser's lights
>  flashed and jumped out with a plastic replica of a
>  .38-caliber revolver in his hand.
>      Sica had screamed, practically begged, for him to
>  drop the gun. Why didn't he drop it? Why did he keep
>  coming closer? Twelve feet. Ten feet. Seven feet.
>      Until the semiautomatic Sig Saur barked in Sica's
>  hand.
>      It was only after an ambulance took the body away
>  that detectives found the envelope on the front seat of
>  the Honda. It was addressed ``To the officer who shot
>  me,'' and inside, on a Hallmark card, was a neatly
>  written note.
>      ``Officer,
>      ``It was a plan. I'm sorry to get you involved. I
>  just needed to die. Please remember that this was all my
>  doing. You had no way of knowing.
>      ``Moe Pergament.''
>      The coroner's report certified Pergament's death as
>  a homicide caused by ``gunshot wounds of torso with
>  perforations of lung, heart, liver, stomach and
>  intestine.'' The police report classified it a
>  justifiable homicide.
>      But what happened that stormy November night has
>  another name: Police-assisted suicide.
>      ``It's another form of euthanasia, like when people
>  reach out for Dr. Kevorkian,'' said Harvey Schlossberg,
>  retired director of psychological services for the New
>  York City police. ``Only here, people are in mental pain
>  and the doctor is the cop.''
>      No one knows how many people manipulate police into
>  killing them; no national studies have been done. But
>  two recent regional studies suggest that it is
>  surprisingly common.
>      Researchers who examined hundreds of police
>  shootings in British Columbia and in Los Angeles County
>  found that in at least 10 percent of the cases, the dead
>  and wounded had wanted to be killed.
>      Every time it happens, there are victims on both
>  sides of the gun. ``It's an officer's worst nightmare,''
>  said Clinton Van Zandt, an FBI supervisory special agent
>  who teaches hostage negotiation at the agency's
>  Quantico, Va., headquarters. Van Zandt is an expert on
>  the phenomenon. He also knows it firsthand.
>      On June 17, 1981, Van Zandt commanded police
>  officers and FBI during a 3 1/2-hour standoff with
>  William Griffin, who had taken hostages inside a
>  Rochester, N.Y., bank. Griffin's only demand: that
>  police execute him.
>      Van Zandt refused. So Griffin ordered teller
>  Margaret Moore, a single mother of a baby boy, to stand
>  by the front exit. With his shotgun, he blasted her
>  through the glass doors. Then he walked over and pressed
>  his face against the full-length window, allowing
>  sharpshooters to kill him.
>      In a diary entry dated 13 months earlier, a diary
>  filled with passages about a failing marriage and a lost
>  job, Griffin wrote: ``I'm going to make the sheriff take
>  my life.''
>      ``At night,'' Van Zandt said, ``I still picture the
>  teller being blown out the door of that bank.''
>      It's not just a big-city phenomenon: Police-assisted
>  suicide has stung communities across the United States,
>  from leafy, suburban towns to rural outbacks.
>      -- Shortly after 1 p.m. Feb. 6, Joseph Hoffman, 35,
>  held up a First Union Bank in Burlington, N.C., with a
>  pellet gun that resembled a semiautomatic pistol. Then
>  he strolled out the front door and through a mall next
>  door, carrying a red sack full of cash on his shoulder.
>  On the way to his car a quarter-mile from the bank, he
>  walked right past a marked police cruiser. When two
>  officers ordered him to drop his gun, Hoffman aimed it
>  at them and was shot 10 times. A note addressed ``Dear
>  Police'' was found in his apartment. It read: ``Please
>  make sure my sister in New York gets these books and no
>  one else.'' An entry in another notebook dated four days
>  earlier read: ``My only worry is that the caliber of
>  shot will not put me fully away.''
>      -- On Jan. 6, 1997, outside the Shelby, N.C., Police
>  Station, Sheriff Dan Crawford tried to talk Henry Brown,
>  a 32-year-old security guard, out of his suicide-by-cop
>  plan. With a .38-caliber Rossi in one hand and a .357
>  Magnum in the other, Brown screamed at the two dozen
>  officers surrounding him: ``Do your job! It's gonna end
>  today!'' Suddenly, one of Brown's pistols discharged.
>  Hearing the gunshot, a marksman put a shotgun slug
>  through his heart.
>      Freak tragedies?
>      ``Afraid not,'' said Van Zandt. ``These aren't
>  flukes. This is real. And we better start recognizing
>  that. This is not just going to disappear.''
>      Smarter Policing: Suicide by cop may have
>  implications for police-community relations across the
>  United States.
>      It ``raises a lot of questions about policing in
>  America,'' said Nicholas Pastore of the Criminal Justice
>  Policy Foundation in New Haven, Conn. ``It cries out for
>  `smarter' policing. We need cops who listen to
>  communities instead of telling them what they need; cops
>  who understand that mental illness is more than just
>  disruptive behavior; cops who are trained to think,
>  `Hey, is this a crook or a person crying out for help?'
>  ''
>      Experts suspect suicide by cop has gone on for
>  decades, but no one had studied it until 1996, when
>  Richard Parent, a Canadian constable, examined cases of
>  fatal police shootings in British Columbia from 1980 to
>  1994. His conclusion: 10 percent of the shootings were
>  suicides by cop.
>      The figure seemed hard to believe until a recent
>  study by H. Range Hutson, research director at Harvard
>  Medical School, found even higher numbers in California.
>  Hutson examined more than 425 fatal and nonfatal
>  officer-involved shootings in Los Angeles County from
>  1987 to 1997 and found that nearly 17 percent were
>  suicides by cop.
>      These cases were unambiguous: Those who had been
>  killed or wounded had left suicide notes, had told
>  friends or relatives about their plans or had pleaded
>  with police to kill them. Some had attempted suicide
>  before.
>      Many police departments prefer not to acknowledge
>  the phenomenon, said Vivian Lord, a criminal-justice
>  professor at the University of North Carolina who found
>  73 attempted suicides by cop in 30 North Carolina police
>  departments from 1993 to 1997.
>      ``It's a sensitive area,'' she said. ``Officers
>  don't like to be second-guessed by Monday morning
>  quarterbacks.''
>      They don't like to second-guess themselves, either.
>      ``You cannot second-guess yourself because if you
>  hesitate and you're wrong, it could cost a life -- your
>  life, or some innocent person's life,'' said Lt. Kevin
>  Kaslin, of the Nassau County Police Department in
>  Mineola, N.Y., which investigated the Pergament killing.
>
>      Post-Shooting Suits: Police also are wary of
>  wrongful-death lawsuits. On March 2, the U.S. Supreme
>  Court decided that cities can be sued for inadequate
>  police training that leads to death or injury -- even
>  when mentally ill or suicidal people threaten officers
>  with firearms. The ruling came in a case brought by the
>  wife of suicidal man who manipulated Muskogee, Okla.,
>  police into killing him in 1994.
>      Some police say better training and improved police
>  tactics might indeed help prevent some of these deaths.
>      Kevin Gilmartin, a former hostage negotiator who now
>  works as a police psychologist for the Tucson Police
>  Department, says some departments are too reliant on
>  high-tech weapons and ``surgical'' shooting techniques.
>  ``The skills of the negotiator have taken a back seat to
>  SWAT teams and techno-guns,'' he said.
>      David Klinger, a former Los Angeles police officer
>  who advises SWAT teams on training and tactical matters
>  around the country, says: ``It makes sense for police to
>  approach a case and ask: `Could it be that suicide by
>  cop is at work here?' '' With better tactical training,
>  he said, ``more times than not, the officers won't be in
>  a vulnerable position so that they have to fire.''
>      Guilt and Anger: Of all the questions that surround
>  these deaths, the most puzzling is why anyone would
>  choose this way to die.
>      Perhaps feelings of guilt or shame lead some people
>  to seek punishment from an authority figure, said
>  Parent, the Canadian constable. ``The police are perfect
>  for this. They play the role of surrogate parents in our
>  society.''
>      Or perhaps police-assisted suicide indicates anger
>  at authority. ``The person may be saying, `I'm so angry
>  at you that I'll have you kill me, and you'll have to
>  live with it,'' said Michael Welner, an assistant
>  professor at the New York University School of Medicine.
>
>      In some cases, a skewed interpretation of the
>  religious prohibition against suicide might be at work.
>  ``Suicide for most people is forbidden religiously, but
>  if you do it confronting the cops, somehow it's OK,''
>  said Schlossberg, the police psychiatrist.
>      Van Zandt thinks it may be simpler than all that.
>  Perhaps, he said, they are just looking for a foolproof,
>  dead-certain way to die. ``Police have the guns,'' he
>  said. ``They have the training to react to potentially
>  life-threatening situations with accurate and deadly
>  force, and they are as close as the telephone.'' That's
>  how Matthew Pyers saw it.
>      If he ran his car into a concrete wall, he said in a
>  recent interview, ``I might have lived through it and
>  been paralyzed. But with a gun at close range, it'd be
>  more likely to kill me.''
>      Failed Plan: Depressed, drunk and suicidal, the
>  19-year-old raced his 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass as fast as
>  it would go in the pre-dawn darkness of March 23, 1997,
>  from a college party in Hoboken, N.J., to his hometown
>  of Wallingford, Conn. His desperate hope: That a highway
>  officer would chase him, catch him, kill him. But no one
>  noticed.
>      So Pyres headed for the Wallingford Police
>  Department. He circled the station, honking the horn,
>  squealing the tires, and bolted off, squad cars in
>  pursuit.
>      Pyres led police on a chase through four towns. When
>  he noticed they had given up, he doubled back and rammed
>  his car into the rear of one of the cruisers. Then he
>  pulled over and jumped out with a champagne bottle in
>  his hand.
>      He banged the bottle on the car hood and taunted the
>  officers: ``You better kill me or I'm going to kill
>  you!'' He ignored their orders to drop the bottle and
>  fought off the pepper spray they shot at him. He waved
>  the bottle and shouted, ``Shoot me! Shoot me!''
>      Officer Mark Poisson fired once. Pyres crumpled, a
>  hollow-point bullet in his abdomen.
>      The bullet hit no bones or major organs. Today, he's
>  on a different regimen of medication for depression and
>  has resumed his college studies in engineering.
>      ``When I get into a depression,'' Pyres said, ``I
>  don't think of anyone but myself. But after he shot me,
>  I thought about the officer, what I could be doing to
>  him. Seeing his face, that horrible look, I realized how
>  the officer would probably regret this for the rest of
>  his life.''
>
>
>                   [Monday Navigation Bar]
>      --------------------------------------------------
> ) 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.


NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keep Big Tent Open
Date: 28 Apr 1998 00:15:29 -0600

Gee... now we're "oddballs" and a "fringe element" handing out
"propaganda".  I'm _so_ glad the Trib is around to defend our rights.....

Sarah


http://www.sltrib.com/1998/apr/04251998/opinion/29960.htm

>                                 [Image]
>  [Image] [Image]        Saturday, April 25, 1998       [Image] [Image]
>
>                            Keep Big Tent Open
>
>
>      It was
>  understandably frustrating for Utah Republican Party leaders to deal
>  with two fringe elements at their convention last week. But the party
>  looked silly using a heavy hand to silence them.
>      Convention organizers had two people arrested for refusing to
>  cease passing out propaganda and the other hauled off the stage by
>  armed deputies for refusing to leave until he had a chance to speak.
>  Convention organizers could have handled the matter better by
>  ignoring these folks.
>      People with nutty things to say are usually disregarded by the
>  mainstream. Tolerating these oddballs, albeit annoying and
>  frustrating, is the price everyone pays for the First Amendment. And
>  the First Amendment is particularly central to a political rally,
>  whether privately sponsored or convened on a street corner. In fact,
>  the First Amendment is the foundation of any political gathering.
>      So these two fringe groups, who are not truly representative of
>  Republican Party positions, should have been given the opportunity to
>  participate in the election process. Many party leaders pointed out
>  that reality after the arrests and removal occurred.
>      A hurdle for the Utah Republican Party is dealing with its
>  extreme factions. And, the left-leaning media tend to raise that bar
>  for the Republican Party. They delight in portraying all Republicans
>  with the same brush as these fringe folks. It is arguably more
>  tempting, then, for Republicans to silence its far-out element than
>  for Democrats to do the same.
>      But, in fact, extremist elements also have splintered the Utah
>  Democratic Party into shards of nearly nothing. Conventional
>  Democrats want nothing to do with new Democrats, and moderates tend
>  to opt out of the philosophical debate.
>      Tolerance and patience from the majority, mainstream, middle --
>  in short supply last weekend at the Republican state convention -- is
>  the only successful, long-term way to deal with fringe groups.
>
>
>
>                [Image] [Saturday 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: Libertarian Party of Utah's Response to KSL Editorial, "Guns and Little Girls"
Date: 28 Apr 1998 12:17:02 -0600


28 April, 1998

Dear Editor

The Libertarian Party of Utah takes strong exception to KSL's
editorial of April 10, 1998, "Guns And Little Girls."

The freedoms to own and carry weapons guaranteed by the second
amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I of the Utah
State Constitution are no less important or relevant today than they
have ever been.  They are no less important or relevant than the
guarantees of religious freedom, freedom of the press, the right to
free speech, security in one's person and papers, or any other freedom
guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  All are essential to the
preservation of a free society.

Those who hold their right to life, and the possession of tools
designed to defend that life, dear, are being no more callused or
obstinate in lobbying for the preservation of those rights than Rosa
Parks was in refusing to quietly sit in the back of the bus.  In fact,
lawful gun owners have yet to stage any of the acts of widespread
civil disobedience common to the civil rights movement.  Neither have
they turned to the courts to force their views onto society as many
other groups have done.  Rather, they have chosen and seem quite
content to work lawfully within our legislative process.  For this
they--the "gun lobby" as you disdainfully call them--deserve praise,
not chastisement.

Unlawful threats to life and limb do occur in schools, churches,
hospitals, universities, and grocery stores as well as on the street.
Peaceful, law-abiding adults should not forfeit their right to defend
themselves simply because of geography.  In fact, had a police
officer, armed teacher, or other law-abiding adult in possession of a
firearm been present at the school in Jonesboro, there may very well
not have been any children's graves for KSL to use for misguided
political purposes.  Limited resources prevent putting a peace officer
on every corner or in every school.  And Alabama State law guaranteed
no other law-abiding adult would be in possession of a weapon on any
Alabama school grounds.  Given the tragic results in Alabama, why
would Utah even want to consider duplicating the situation by
restricting our concealed weapons permit holders?

Will the gunphobes never learn that criminals don't obey any laws?

The Libertarian Party of Utah supports the right of private property
owners, including churches, to limit access to their
non-public-accommodation property in whatever manner suites them. We
do not believe current law impairs this right in any way with regard
to firearms or other weapons and are opposed to any governmental
attempts to decide what private property owners may do. While
supporting private property owners' right to exclude weapons, we do
question the wisdom of creating "Rob Me/Rape Me zones", aka "gun-free
zones".  We also maintain that ALL government and publicly owned
property, save courts, prisons, and airports, must fully honor the
rights of law-abiding adults--including the right to possess weapons
for self-defense.

We do congratulate KSL for being honest enough to admit they are
choosing to ignore and address the root causes of the most tragic and
heinous crime in Jonesboro in favor of focusing on the tools used to
commit the crime.  We can't help but wonder if this same (lack of)
logic will be used when forming editorial positions on drunk driving.
It will be interesting to see if the easy and ready availability of
cars will be blamed for DUI accidents.

Blaming guns for crime is like blaming flies for garbage. No law that
restricts law-abiding citizens will have any effect on those
individuals who would exploit a defenseless citizenry. Indeed, a
disarmed person is an open invitation for trouble. Criminals are not
thwarted by laws. Guns do not cause crime, people do. Punish the
wrongdoer. Do not seek to corrupt the power of government to weaken
the good people of Utah's right to an armed self-defense.

Charles Hardy
Treasurer
Libertarian Party of Utah
801.523.3817

--

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

"There are no victims, only volunteers. You volunteer by appearing uncertain
and afraid. You volunteer by being (as grass-eaters invariably are)
unprepared to deal with the dangers of life." - Cooper's Corner

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party of Utah's Response to KSL Editorial,
Date: 28 Apr 1998 14:01:43 -0600

Yay, Charles!  My thanks to you and the Utah Libertarian Party.

Sarah


At 12:17 PM 4/28/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>28 April, 1998
>
>Dear Editor
>
>The Libertarian Party of Utah takes strong exception to KSL's
>editorial of April 10, 1998, "Guns And Little Girls."

<snip>

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: KSL Editorial Position, The LDS Church, and the NRA
Date: 28 Apr 1998 15:02:05 -0600


I'd like to pass along a couple tidbits of info concerning KSL
Editorial Position, the LDS Church, and the NRA.

There is some perception that KSL Editorial policy is set by, endorsed
by, or otherwise reflects the views of the LDS church.  This is not an
outragous perception when one realizes KSL is owned by Bonneville
Communications which is owned by the LDS church.  For me it is a
daunting thought when KSL takes editorial positions contrary to my own
deeply held beliefs.  As an active LDS, I am naturally loathe to go
contrary to the views of LDS church leadership.  I suspect many other
LDS are in the same boat.  This puts us in the possible position of
battling the LDS church on the issue of CCW.

Fortunatly, we need not fear this--at least not at this point.  I
attend church with the CEO of KSL.  I asked him this last Sunday who
sets editorial policy at KSL.  He informed me editorial policy and
content is set and approved by the KSL board.  It is not set by the
LDS church in any way. Further, he said the church occasionally lets
the board know they didn't much appreciate some position that has been
taken.  Specifically he said KSL occasionally takes some lumps from
church leadership over some position KSL has taken.  I know of no case
where such postions have been reversed.  So while there may be some
level of influence from church leadership, KSL editorial positions are
not set by and do not necessarily reflect LDS church positions.

Now, I haven't taken time to write this to defend LDS church policy or
lack thereof on CCW.  I've written because I believe in politics you
should pick your battles carefully.  Battling the LDS church is a
loser in this State, IMO.  Avoid it whenever possible.  CCW is an area
where anyone who wants to can still avoid battling the LDS church
because to date the LDS church has issued no official position on CCW
laws.  They did issue a very general press release that guns in church
are "inappropriate".  BYU issued a statement saying they were
restricting guns on campus.  Certainly the anti-gunners--even the very
anti-LDS anti-gunners-- will latch onto these and to KSL's recent
editorial and try to say the LDS church has endorsed legislative
restrictions on CCW.  Pro-gunners need to be, IMHO, savvy enough to
not play ball by those rules.  We don't need to or want to take on the
LDS church or appear anti-LDS.  We can support the church's right to
limit access to their churches and temples.  We can support the right
of private property like BYU to limit access.  But we don't have to
ascede something that has not been said.  The LDS church has yet to
publicly endorse any legislation re CCW.  Until they do, there is no
need to pcik a fight with them.

As for the NRA, it became clear while talking with the KSL CEO that
KSL attributes a large number of responses received on their recent
editorial to "the NRA" organizing the internet, etc.  I can only think
of two ways to overcome this perception to any degree.

1.  Somehow make it clear you write as an individual and not part of
any organized effort.  If you are not a member of the NRA, say so in
your letter.  If you happen to be a school teacher, public employee,
etc, SAY so.  If you are a housewife, a cub scout leader, sunday
school teacher, etc, SAY so.  Make it clear that everyday, "normal"
people and not just "NRA gun nuts" care about this issue.  If you do
not have a CCW let them know.  Finally, make sure your letters are
calm, rational, intelligent sounding.  This doesn't mean don't write
if you aren't a literary expert.  But just don't go off half-cocked
about conspiracy theories, black helicopters, or "liberals".  I don't
know who "fun" is who sent the letter to KSL, but it would have been
better for our cause had s/he not written at all.

2.  More importantly, they need to hear from a lot of different
people.  It doesn't do any good for them to get 5 letters apiece from
USSC board members, Libertarian party officers, or anyone else they
can identify as an "NRA gun nut."  They discount those out of hand.
If you haven't written yet, do so--as an individual concerned about
your rights.  If you have, get a friend, a spouse, a lover, a
co-worker, a mature child, a parent, or anyone else you can to write a
letter.  I'm guesing that paper letters will carry more weight than
email at this point as KSL expects that the NRA has and will flood the
internet.  Help someone write their letter if they don't know where to
start.  If you want to write a long letter, consider breaking it into
two parts and getting someone else to sign one of them and send it in.
Print them on diffent machines or using different fonts and send in
different style envelopes on different days from different POs.

Anyway, enough rambling for now.  I hope some of this is of use to
somebody.

--

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

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party of Utah's Response to KSL Editorial,
Date: 28 Apr 1998 15:05:53 -0600


Our pleasure.  It was sent to KSL, DesNews,and Tribune.  If anyone
sees any portion of it in the media, I'd love to hear about it.

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]> posted:

>Yay, Charles!  My thanks to you and the Utah Libertarian Party.
>
>Sarah
>
>
--

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

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

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Weapon Ban at Hospital
Date: 29 Apr 1998 09:09:21 -0600


From today's front page Tribune.

I do not have a CCW.  However, I think those who do need to send a
letter to the hospital immediately challenging their adminstrative
ruling before it gains the force of law.  Certainly, the hospital
should have secure areas where guns are not allowed.  They have
facitlities to check weapons already.  But there is no way they should
be able to prohibit weapons from cars or anyplace on the grounds where
there is not security to protect the disarmed.  A letter to Sen
Waddoups would also be in order.  <[e-mail]> is his
email address.  If every piece of government owned property is allowed
to circumvent or ignore the CCW law with "adminstrative" rulings, it
won't be long before your CCW is invalid in about 90% of the State.


              Wednesday, April 29, 1998
Hospital To Ban Guns Starting Friday




            BY JUDY FAHYS
            THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE


                The state's largest mental institution -- the Utah State
            Hospital in Provo -- is about to become one of the few places in
            Utah where a concealed-weapons permit is not recognized.
                A gun ban is set to take effect Friday.
                Cameras are not permitted in the hospital. Nor are pocket knives
            or illegal drugs. And, although administrators have long carried out
            a policy barring firearms, they never have had the force of law
            behind them until now.
                But, even before it becomes effective, some gun-rights advocates
            contend the prohibition goes far beyond what state law allows.
                ``I don't think they have got the right to do that,'' said Sen.
            Mike Waddoups, a Taylorsville Republican and gun-rights advocate.
            ``If [weapons] are prohibited on the entire campus, they are going
            too far.''


                        Recent Tribune Coverage



                        Olympics May Unload On Gun Laws in Utah, (3-15-98)
                        Lawmakers Can't Hide From This Gun Fight, (1-11-98)
                        Utah Legislative Action on Guns 1998




                Waddoups sponsored the 1995 law that made concealed-weapons
            permits valid ``without restriction.''
                An ``administrative rule'' implementing the ban is set to go
            into effect Friday, as long as the hospital doesn't receive any
            objections. It would apply to state employees and visitors, as well
            as the hospital's 340 patients.
                Hospital officials have had the authority to keep weapons from
            parts of the facility since 1996. Aware of the risks inherent in
            some state-operated facilities, legislators built a few exceptions
            into the concealed-weapons law to permit ``secure areas'' in courts,
            jails and mental hospitals. Airports were added in 1997.
                Yet, officials at the state hospital never undertook the process
            necessary to implement the law at their facility. On April 1, they
            published a new rule that will give the hospital's longstanding
            practices some legal teeth.
                Until now, the hospital has relied on its ``no weapons'' policy,
            which is declared to all on a sign at the facility's entrance.
                ``Probably all these years we were doing it by policy [rather
            than law] and, frankly, we always have felt protected under the
            policy,'' said Janina Chilton, spokeswoman for the state's Division
            of Mental Health. ``This [new rule] raises the bar.''
                Dangerous weapons have been a problem at the hospital from time
            to time, according to Chilton.
                She recalled an incident in the early 1980s in which a hospital
            security officer was shot in the leg by a former patient who was
            being escorted off the grounds. In the early '90s, an employee was
            killed with a a knife a patient got from the kitchen.
                Most commonly, though, the hospital gets into hassles over the
            policy with law enforcement personnel who are directed to check
            their weapons in safe boxes outside patient units. And hospital
            staff sometimes bristle about being told they should not bring their
            concealed weapons to work.
                Chilton said some employees have complained about the policy,
            but she added, ``We don't even want them in the cars.''
                The new rule would make it clear no weapons are allowed anywhere
            on the 325-acre campus.
                ``Weapons, contraband, illegal substances, firearms, such as,
            but not limited to, pistols, sawed-off rifles, revolvers, or any
            device that could be used as a weapon are prohibited on the campus
            of the Utah State Hospital,'' the new rule says. ``Law enforcement
            personnel may bring their weapons onto the campus. However, they
            must secure their weapon in a secure weapon storage area before
            entering a treatment unit.''
                Peter Heinbecker, director of the state hospital's forensics
            unit, was surprised to learn that such a law was not already in
            place.
                ``We can't have people with guns on our unit,'' said the doctor,
            whose unit oversees many patients who have been referred to the
            hospital from the criminal justice system.
                Meanwhile, there is spotty enforcement of the current no-gun
            policy. A metal detector purchased for the entrance to the forensics
            ward has not been installed, and visitors sometimes enter the ward
            without a pat-down search, said Heinbecker.
                He called the campuswide gun ban ``a fantastic idea'' and
            pointed out many patients are free to wander the grounds where they
            might be able to get weapons that could be used against themselves
            or other people.
                ``I don't know why anyone needs to bring weapons onto the
            grounds,'' he said.
                Waddoups pointed out that a legal opinion issued earlier this
            year by the Legislature's General Counsel specifically said it is
            illegal for the University of Utah to ban weapons from its campus
            and facilities.
                It also said there was no legal basis for a Department of Human
            Resource Management rule that prohibited state employees from
            carrying firearms in state facilities, vehicles or while on state
            business.
                Waddoups agreed there is some justification for prohibiting
            certain people from having firearms -- ``particularly patients'' --
            in certain parts of the state hospital.
                ``It has to be addressed rationally like anyplace else,'' he
            said.









            ⌐ 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.

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are
 therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the
 aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they
 are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by
 the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human
 legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall
 himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." -- Sir William
 Blackstone

-



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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Hardy)
Subject: Email to Legislators
Date: 29 Apr 1998 11:15:55 -0600


FYI,

I've sent the following to a couple legislators.  Please take a moment
and send something to your State rep and senator.  Feel free to use
any ideas below you like, but please reword enough to make it
original.

(Scott should particularly interested in the part about mass transit
and bikes. :)



Dear,

I'm writing about the front page story in today's Tribune, included
below.  It seems the Utah State Hospital in Provo is attempting to
ignore State law with regard to concealed weapons permits by banning
all weapons from ALL hospital property, including inside private cars.

Undoubtedly, a mental health facility should be free to implement
secure areas where weapons are prohibited.  It seems the hospital has
long done so providing secure storage facilities for the weapons of
peace officers entering the area.  But by no stretch of the
imagination is the entire campus a secure area.  There is not adequate
security on the grounds or parking lots to declare these secure areas.
Neither are there storage facilities available for guests, employees,
or peace officers to secure their weapons in these areas.

No government agency should be able to declare ANY area or land a
"secure area" and thus prohibit the carry of legally permitted weapons
unless there is a compelling need to decare the area secure AND REAL
security measures (armed guards, metal detectors, controlled access)
are in place AND secure storage facilities are provided for legally
carried weapons.  Lacking secure storage, any rule or law prohibiting
weapons in one area effectively extends all the way to the nearest
area where the weapon may be safely stored.  For anyone using mass
transit, walking, or riding a bike, that area is their home and they
are effectively disarmed and defenseless from the time they leave home
to the time they return.  Forcing people to choose between being able
to defend themselves and using mass/alternate transportation is not
the way to encourage the use of mass/alternate transportation.

The State Hospital's ban of weapons even in cars is beyond belief.  If
the hospital can show some need to "secure" the entire building, so be
it.  But it must provide storage at the entrance.  And it must not be
allowed to prohibit legal items in automobiles.

I'm afraid Governor Leavitt's blatant ignoral of State law in the
matter of concealed weapons is spreading all too rapidly.  School
boards prevent teachers from providing for self defense while on
school grounds.  The UofU currently prevents students and faculty from
providing for self defense while on tax-payer funded property.  And
now the State hospital joins in.

I urge you to speak out publicly on this matter and to introduce and
push, at the earliest possible moment, legislation to force everyone
from our Governor on down to abide by the laws of this State and
respect the rights and privleges of her citizens.  You must do so
before every piece of government controlled property in this State is
declared off-limits to legally carried weapons of self defense and our
CCW law is rendered moot.  We are a nation of laws, not of men, and
the laws must be obeyed even by those who own phobias, bigotry, or
political agenda make it unpleasant to do so.

So you know, I have not yet chosen to obtain a State issued permit to
carry a concealed weapon.  But I am deeply troubled anytime I see
elected officials and government employees flagrantly disregarding the
same laws I, as common citizen, am expected to obey.

I appreciate your attentention and response to this mattter.

Sincerely

Charles Hardy

---Begin Tribune Article---


              Wednesday, April 29, 1998
Hospital To Ban Guns Starting Friday




            BY JUDY FAHYS
            THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE


                The state's largest mental institution -- the Utah State
            Hospital in Provo -- is about to become one of the few places in
            Utah where a concealed-weapons permit is not recognized.
                A gun ban is set to take effect Friday.
                Cameras are not permitted in the hospital. Nor are pocket knives
            or illegal drugs. And, although administrators have long carried out
            a policy barring firearms, they never have had the force of law
            behind them until now.
                But, even before it becomes effective, some gun-rights advocates
            contend the prohibition goes far beyond what state law allows.
                ``I don't think they have got the right to do that,'' said Sen.
            Mike Waddoups, a Taylorsville Republican and gun-rights advocate.
            ``If [weapons] are prohibited on the entire campus, they are going
            too far.''


                        Recent Tribune Coverage



                        Olympics May Unload On Gun Laws in Utah, (3-15-98)
                        Lawmakers Can't Hide From This Gun Fight, (1-11-98)
                        Utah Legislative Action on Guns 1998




                Waddoups sponsored the 1995 law that made concealed-weapons
            permits valid ``without restriction.''
                An ``administrative rule'' implementing the ban is set to go
            into effect Friday, as long as the hospital doesn't receive any
            objections. It would apply to state employees and visitors, as well
            as the hospital's 340 patients.
                Hospital officials have had the authority to keep weapons from
            parts of the facility since 1996. Aware of the risks inherent in
            some state-operated facilities, legislators built a few exceptions
            into the concealed-weapons law to permit ``secure areas'' in courts,
            jails and mental hospitals. Airports were added in 1997.
                Yet, officials at the state hospital never undertook the process
            necessary to implement the law at their facility. On April 1, they
            published a new rule that will give the hospital's longstanding
            practices some legal teeth.
                Until now, the hospital has relied on its ``no weapons'' policy,
            which is declared to all on a sign at the facility's entrance.
                ``Probably all these years we were doing it by policy [rather
            than law] and, frankly, we always have felt protected under the
            policy,'' said Janina Chilton, spokeswoman for the state's Division
            of Mental Health. ``This [new rule] raises the bar.''
                Dangerous weapons have been a problem at the hospital from time
            to time, according to Chilton.
                She recalled an incident in the early 1980s in which a hospital
            security officer was shot in the leg by a former patient who was
            being escorted off the grounds. In the early '90s, an employee was
            killed with a a knife a patient got from the kitchen.
                Most commonly, though, the hospital gets into hassles over the
            policy with law enforcement personnel who are directed to check
            their weapons in safe boxes outside patient units. And hospital
            staff sometimes bristle about being told they should not bring their
            concealed weapons to work.
                Chilton said some employees have complained about the policy,
            but she added, ``We don't even want them in the cars.''
                The new rule would make it clear no weapons are allowed anywhere
            on the 325-acre campus.
                ``Weapons, contraband, illegal substances, firearms, such as,
            but not limited to, pistols, sawed-off rifles, revolvers, or any
            device that could be used as a weapon are prohibited on the campus
            of the Utah State Hospital,'' the new rule says. ``Law enforcement
            personnel may bring their weapons onto the campus. However, they
            must secure their weapon in a secure weapon storage area before
            entering a treatment unit.''
                Peter Heinbecker, director of the state hospital's forensics
            unit, was surprised to learn that such a law was not already in
            place.
                ``We can't have people with guns on our unit,'' said the doctor,
            whose unit oversees many patients who have been referred to the
            hospital from the criminal justice system.
                Meanwhile, there is spotty enforcement of the current no-gun
            policy. A metal detector purchased for the entrance to the forensics
            ward has not been installed, and visitors sometimes enter the ward
            without a pat-down search, said Heinbecker.
                He called the campuswide gun ban ``a fantastic idea'' and
            pointed out many patients are free to wander the grounds where they
            might be able to get weapons that could be used against themselves
            or other people.
                ``I don't know why anyone needs to bring weapons onto the
            grounds,'' he said.
                Waddoups pointed out that a legal opinion issued earlier this
            year by the Legislature's General Counsel specifically said it is
            illegal for the University of Utah to ban weapons from its campus
            and facilities.
                It also said there was no legal basis for a Department of Human
            Resource Management rule that prohibited state employees from
            carrying firearms in state facilities, vehicles or while on state
            business.
                Waddoups agreed there is some justification for prohibiting
            certain people from having firearms -- ``particularly patients'' --
            in certain parts of the state hospital.
                ``It has to be addressed rationally like anyplace else,'' he
            said.









            ⌐ 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.

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are
 therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the
 aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they
 are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by
 the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human
 legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall
 himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." -- Sir William
 Blackstone


----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.

"To violate the spirit of the law, while pretending to respect the
letter of it, is a fraud no less criminal in character than an open
violation of the law would be; it is not less contrary to the intention
of the legislator, and indicates only a more cunning and deliberate
wickedness." The Law Of Nations Or The Principal Of Natural Law, Emer
 De Vettel, Book II, Chapter XVII, Section 291

-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Scott Engen's comments
Date: 29 Apr 1998 11:32:01 -0700

Wednesday, April 29, 1998




Mandela No Moral Authority






### The column by Michael Nakoryakov (Tribune, April 12) flatters
South Africa's Nelson Mandela as one of the world's foremost ``moral
authorities,'' and lauds his 27 years in prison for his ``anti-apartheid
convictions.'' Let's look at the unvarnished historic facts. Nelson Mandela
was and is a devoted Marxist revolutionary. He didn't spend decades
behind bars for speaking out against racial oppression, organizing a
legitimate political party or a labor union, or publishing unflattering
comments about the barbaric apartheid policies of South Africa.
### Nelson Mandela was convicted in a court of criminal law for helping
to build and detonate a bomb that was used to murder a half-dozen
police officers, and then remained a fugitive from justice for nearly two
years. He is not the Thomas Jefferson of South Africa. He's South
Africa's home-grown version of Timothy McVeigh.
### Through circumstance, fraud and the whims of political fate,
terrorists, murderers and other scoundrels sometimes emerge as victors
in the electoral process. Israel's Menachem Begin helped murder
hundreds of British officers at the King David Hotel with a truck bomb in
the late 1940s. Egypt's Anwar Sadat was part of a bloody coup attempt
in the 1950s. Both of these admitted terrorists ironically later went on to
win the Nobel Prize for Peace. Hitler was the lawfully elected chancellor
of Germany before embarking on a career of worldwide genocide.
Richard Nixon forever disgraced the office of the presidency by
attempting to steal a free election from the American people.
### Perhaps The Tribune's Nakoryakov has a weakness for the old
Soviet-state practice of rewriting history. His admiration of Mandela may
stem from some political kinship. Regardless of the cause, as a convicted
terrorist and murderer, Nelson Mandela has no ``moral authority.'' I
believe people like Desmond Tutu, Rosa Parks and a little girl from Topeka
named Brown have moral authority. Mandela forfeited any possible claim
to any form of morality when he lit the fuse of that bloody bomb decades
ago.
### SCOTT ENGEN
### Salt Lake City


-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weapon Ban at Utah State Hospital
Date: 29 Apr 1998 22:44:41 -0600

Address for comments follows article.

The next USSC Board meeting will be Monday May 4, at 6:30 PM at the
Crossroads of the West offices, 7 N. Main Street, Kaysville.  Meetings are
open to all interested persons.


>              Wednesday, April 29, 1998 =20
>Hospital To Ban Guns Starting Friday
           =20
>            BY JUDY FAHYS
>            THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
>               =20
>               =20
>                The state's largest mental institution -- the Utah State=20
>            Hospital in Provo -- is about to become one of the few places=
 in=20
>            Utah where a concealed-weapons permit is not recognized.=20
>                A gun ban is set to take effect Friday.=20
>                Cameras are not permitted in the hospital. Nor are pocket
knives=20
>            or illegal drugs. And, although administrators have long
carried out=20
>            a policy barring firearms, they never have had the force of law=
=20
>            behind them until now.=20
>                But, even before it becomes effective, some gun-rights
advocates=20
>            contend the prohibition goes far beyond what state law allows.=
=20
>                ``I don't think they have got the right to do that,'' said
Sen.=20
>            Mike Waddoups, a Taylorsville Republican and gun-rights
advocate.=20
>            ``If [weapons] are prohibited on the entire campus, they are
going=20
>            too far.''                   =20
>            =20
>                Waddoups sponsored the 1995 law that made concealed-weapons=
=20
>            permits valid ``without restriction.''=20
>                An ``administrative rule'' implementing the ban is set to=
 go=20
>            into effect Friday, as long as the hospital doesn't receive any=
=20
>            objections. It would apply to state employees and visitors, as
well=20
>            as the hospital's 340 patients.=20
>                Hospital officials have had the authority to keep weapons
from=20
>            parts of the facility since 1996. Aware of the risks inherent=
 in=20
>            some state-operated facilities, legislators built a few
exceptions=20
>            into the concealed-weapons law to permit ``secure areas'' in
courts,=20
>            jails and mental hospitals. Airports were added in 1997.=20
>                Yet, officials at the state hospital never undertook the
process=20
>            necessary to implement the law at their facility. On April 1,
they=20
>            published a new rule that will give the hospital's longstanding=
=20
>            practices some legal teeth.=20
>                Until now, the hospital has relied on its ``no weapons''
policy,=20
>            which is declared to all on a sign at the facility's entrance.=
=20
>                ``Probably all these years we were doing it by policy
[rather=20
>            than law] and, frankly, we always have felt protected under the=
=20
>            policy,'' said Janina Chilton, spokeswoman for the state's
Division=20
>            of Mental Health. ``This [new rule] raises the bar.''=20
>                Dangerous weapons have been a problem at the hospital from
time=20
>            to time, according to Chilton.=20
>                She recalled an incident in the early 1980s in which a
hospital=20
>            security officer was shot in the leg by a former patient who=
 was=20
>            being escorted off the grounds. In the early '90s, an employee
was=20
>            killed with a a knife a patient got from the kitchen.=20
>                Most commonly, though, the hospital gets into hassles over
the=20
>            policy with law enforcement personnel who are directed to check=
=20
>            their weapons in safe boxes outside patient units. And hospital=
=20
>            staff sometimes bristle about being told they should not bring
their=20
>            concealed weapons to work.=20
>                Chilton said some employees have complained about the
policy,=20
>            but she added, ``We don't even want them in the cars.''=20
>                The new rule would make it clear no weapons are allowed
anywhere=20
>            on the 325-acre campus.=20
>                ``Weapons, contraband, illegal substances, firearms, such
as,=20
>            but not limited to, pistols, sawed-off rifles, revolvers, or=
 any=20
>            device that could be used as a weapon are prohibited on the
campus=20
>            of the Utah State Hospital,'' the new rule says. ``Law
enforcement=20
>            personnel may bring their weapons onto the campus. However,=
 they=20
>            must secure their weapon in a secure weapon storage area before=
=20
>            entering a treatment unit.''=20
>                Peter Heinbecker, director of the state hospital's=
 forensics=20
>            unit, was surprised to learn that such a law was not already in=
=20
>            place.=20
>                ``We can't have people with guns on our unit,'' said the
doctor,=20
>            whose unit oversees many patients who have been referred to the=
=20
>            hospital from the criminal justice system.=20
>                Meanwhile, there is spotty enforcement of the current=
 no-gun=20
>            policy. A metal detector purchased for the entrance to the
forensics=20
>            ward has not been installed, and visitors sometimes enter the
ward=20
>            without a pat-down search, said Heinbecker.=20
>                He called the campuswide gun ban ``a fantastic idea'' and=
=20
>            pointed out many patients are free to wander the grounds where
they=20
>            might be able to get weapons that could be used against
themselves=20
>            or other people.=20
>                ``I don't know why anyone needs to bring weapons onto the=
=20
>            grounds,'' he said.=20
>                Waddoups pointed out that a legal opinion issued earlier
this=20
>            year by the Legislature's General Counsel specifically said it
is=20
>            illegal for the University of Utah to ban weapons from its
campus=20
>            and facilities.=20
>                It also said there was no legal basis for a Department of
Human=20
>            Resource Management rule that prohibited state employees from=
=20
>            carrying firearms in state facilities, vehicles or while on
state=20
>            business.=20
>                Waddoups agreed there is some justification for prohibiting=
=20
>            certain people from having firearms -- ``particularly
patients'' --=20
>            in certain parts of the state hospital.=20
>                ``It has to be addressed rationally like anyplace else,''=
 he=20
>            said.=20
>                           =20
>           =20
>            =A9 Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune
>           =20
>            All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake=
=20
>            Tribune and associated news services. No material may be
reproduced=20
>            or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake
Tribune.=20
>
>           =20
>            Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.
>
>
The address for comments is:

Danette Faretta-Brady (is that name a coincidence?)
Human Services
Mental Health, State Hospital
1300 East Center Street
PO Box 270
Provo, UT 84606
Phone: [phone]
email: [e-mail]

Deadline for comments is: 5PM, May 1, 1998

I've seen the administrative ruling, and while I'm not an attorney, it
seems clear to me that it violates Utah Code, Sec. 76-8-311.1, particularly
subsection (4) which requires provisions for safe storage of weapons in a
secure facility, and section (1)(e)(ii) which provides that "a secure area
may not include any area normally accessible to the public."

And as Sen. Waddoups stated, it clearly violates the "without restriction"
clause of the Utah Concealed Carry law.

Sarah Thompson

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. =20

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




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

-



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

From: "S. Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Please act - NBC
Date: 29 Apr 1998 23:35:59 -0600

Longtime firearms activist and writer David Kopel of the Independence
Institute in Colorado requested that I pass this along.  I have not
personally verified any of the information.

Sarah


BOYCOTT OF "LIRR INCIDENT" SPONSORS GAINING STEAM

Judging by copies of letters to NBC received to date, the initial
response is encouraging.  But we need to spread the word and get more
people to contact NBC and let them know you and your family will
boycott any sponsors of  "The Incident on Long Island" TV movie, set
to air May 3 on NBC.

You will recall that this Barbra Streisand production is little more
than a promotional piece for anti-gun zealot Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
(D-NY), who is up for re-election this year.  The TV movie reportedly
contains numerous mis-statements about guns and the Second Amendment,
as well as vicious attacks on the NRA and politicians who voted to
repeal the 1994 Clinton "assault weapon" ban.  The movie exploits the
tragic Long Island Railroad massacre, the ensuing trial of
mass-murderer Colin Ferguson, and McCarthy's campaign for Congress to
boost McCarthy and slam the NRA and gun rights.

A campaign is under way to fight this.  Many people have already
contacted NBC and informed them that they will boycott all
sponsors who advertise on the program, explaining that we will
not stand for intentional distortions of fact and slander of the NRA,
RKBA, and our political allies.

A list of sponsors will be circulated immediately after the May
3 broadcast.  Efforts to ascertain sponors in advance are still
being made.

Send your comments now to [e-mail].

and leave comments at their websites and landmail

http://www.nbc.com/

(you can go to your local affiliate stations homepage by searching
w/ zipcode from this page)

NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO INC.
Viewer Relations
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY
10112-0002

Phone Number:
[phone]  (ask for Viewer Relations, leave a recorded (likely) or
 live message)


http://www.nbc4la.com/   (LA's KNBC channel 4; click on feedback)
KNBC TV - Comments
3000 W Alameda Ave, Burbank, CA 91523
[phone]  (comments must be written)


Please continue to spread the word, and do your part!




-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Teen Forum:   Ethics, not guns, blamed for shootings (fwd)
Date: 30 Apr 1998 15:18:53 -0700

             -Forwarded

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:54:13 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA15873; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:50:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma015663; Thu Apr 30 14:48:16 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 Apr 30, Tom Cloyes wrote:

[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------]

>From the mouths of babes! This is encouraging.
Tom

>Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 21:45:40 -0400
>From: E Pluribus Unum <[e-mail]>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U)
>To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Teen Forum:   Ethics, not guns, blamed for shootings
>
>Teen Forum:   Ethics, not guns, blamed for shootings
>Wednesday, April 29, 1998
>By Bill Steigerwald, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
>
>Guns don't kill children on the school playgrounds of Jonesboro or at
>eighth grade dances in Edinboro, young people do.
>
>Or, in the case of the horror in Jonesboro, the killing is done by
>gun-happy boys with no consciences and clueless parents who don't stress
>responsibility.
>
>The above could be a bumper-sticker argument straight from National
>Rifle Association headquarters.
>
>But it is also an accurate summation of what Keith Bocian, Melyssa
>Jenkins, Tom Marvit, Aaron Reed, Jennifer Schaupp and James Ziegler
>think when it comes to placing blame for America's continuing scourge of
>gun-related violence.
>
>In their discussion of guns and how to control the damage they do at
>last week's Teen Forum, the six high school students made it clear that,
>as far as they are concerned, the Second Amendment still rules. For
>despite what happened in Jonesboro, Ark., and the death toll elsewhere
>from America's love affair with firearms, not one of them says they
>would want the Constitution changed to outlaw guns.
>
>Let's get one thing straight. The six are not, through some quirk of
>random selection, sons and daughters of wild game hunters or militia
>members. Far from it. Mostly city kids, they've hardly had any
>experience with shooting anything more lethal than a Super Soaker.
>
>Guns do not play an important part in their lives. Most of them don't
>like guns and wouldn't use one to kill any living thing. The boys -
>Keith, Tom, Aaron, James - say they could get their hands on a gun any
>time they wanted from someone they know. But they don't see guns openly
>displayed in their neighborhoods or schools.
>
>Only Tom, a sophomore at Taylor Allderdice, has seen a gun in school.
>
>Well, actually, he didn't see it himself but one of his friends saw it
>when it fell out of a student's backpack. The student pointed it at a
>substitute teacher, then threw it out the classroom window. He was a
>student who was often in trouble, but he got off without punishment, Tom
>says, because of "a technicality.""
>
>Aaron, a Brashear High School freshman from the Hill District, is the
>only one who says he's ever come close to shooting a gun in hot anger.
>
>It happened after he got jumped by four unarmed kids in his
>neighborhood. He went and got his 14-year-old friend's "heat," a
>.38-caliber pistol. He was going to "do" them with the pistol, Aaron
>says. He was going to make them show him respect. "I just wanted to
>shoot them. It was my mentality at the time." But Aaron cooled off and
>took the gun back to his friend. "I guess it's not in me to kill
>someone," he says.
>
>Now, none of the six would ever think of using a gun to even a score.
>"It doesn't even up the scales, it tips the balance," says Keith, a
>Perry Hilltop 18-year-old. Anyway, Tom says, there are lots of other
>ways to retaliate against your persecutors - from telling on them to
>getting a friend in the library to put fines on their library books.
>
>Keith is the only one who lives in a house that has guns. His father's
>pistol and his brother's hunting rifle hold no special appeal to him,
>yet he sounds like a natural-born spokesman for the NRA and others who
>uphold gun-owners' rights.
>
>"The problem's not with guns," he says confidently during a discussion
>of the Jonesboro massacre. "The problem was with the kids' ethics."
>
>Tom is less reluctant to blame guns for violence rather than our
>culture. He thinks it's the way Americans have been taught. He knows
>that in Israel, as in Switzerland, everyone has pistols, rifles or even
>machine guns in their house for purposes of national defense. But in
>Israel, he says, you never hear about anyone using their guns for crime.
>
>Tom thinks everyone should take responsibility for his own actions,
>including the Jonesboro boys, whom he says knew exactly what they were
>doing and "should be prosecuted as adults." But Aaron thinks adults are
>to blame.
>
>If those boys in Arkansas hadn't been introduced to guns so early by
>their parents, he argues, the slaughter would never have happened.
>
>Meanwhile, Aaron's Hill District neighbor James, a junior at
>Pittsburgh's High School for the Creative and Performing Arts, is the
>only one of the six who expresses a view that gun-control advocates
>could find encouraging.
>
>"I don't see why people have to have guns," he says. "Hunting and
>everything, that's pretty fun. But I don't see why there couldn't be
>some kind of renting process where you have the gun all day to go out
>into the woods or whatever. I just don't see why you absolutely need to
>have a gun in your house. For self-protection, that's OK, but..."
>
>"It's in the Constitution," argues Melyssa, who shows why she may become
>a lawyer some day..
>
>"Even if you do take away the guns," Keith says, "how do you enforce the
>law? How do say, 'Well, cops can have guns, but nobody else can'?""
>
>"Yeah," Melyssa says, "because the cops could take their guns home."
>
>But James thinks gun ownership should be more limited. For example, he
>says, "You shouldn't have guns or ammunition in the house if you have
>children."
>
>Melyssa doesn't buy it.
>
>"It's hard to single people with children out, or people with anything
>out, whenever the Constitution says you have the right to bear arms.
>
>"It doesn't say you have the right to bear arms if you don't have
>children or if you don't have a bad temper. And that's the Constitution.
>
>If we can't violate freedom of speech or freedom of the press, we
>shouldn't violate that one either.
>
>"It's all about being responsible."
>--
>******************************************************************
>      E Pluribus Unum            The Central Ohio Patriot Group
>      P.O. Box 791          Eventline/Voicemail: [phone]
>      Grove City, OH 43123
>
>Meetings:  Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse
>       3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.)
>
>http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib            [e-mail]
>******************************************************************

[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------]

--
           *****       Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel!        *****
----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------
An _EFFECTIVE_  | Insured  | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no
weapon in every | by COLT; |         --   Max Plank   | weapon sell his
hand = Freedom  |   DIAL   | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a
on every side!  | 1911-A1. | word.   --   The Bible   | sword.--Jesus Christ
----------------+----------+--------------------------+---------------------


-



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

From: DAVID SAGERS <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: GSL> Instant Checks -Forwarded
Date: 30 Apr 1998 15:28:46 -0700

Received: from fs1.mainstream.net
    ([206.97.102.4])
    by icarus.ci.west-valley.ut.us; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 08:42:00 -0600
Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id KAA27624; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:38:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3)
    id sma027531; Thu Apr 30 10:38:00 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

PERSONAL OPINION

I would like to throw out for thought and discussion some ideas about
"instant check" records. I will not address here the problem that the
checks will not be instant but will enshrine a waiting period, that the
system will quickly be turned into a basis for curtailing gun shows and
private sales, or a host of other problems with it.  This deals with the
destruction of records. If you have heard it, bear with me.

#1  NO instant check system run by the feds (and most states) can EVER
have the records destroyed legally.  Absorb this.  The Federal Records
Act and many court decisions following have repeatedly been upheld as
requiring that records be kept.  Federal records (including computer
transactions) are federal property.  They are governed by the Records
Act.  THEY MUST KEEP THEM.  Now, a simple principle of law that
everybody understands says that if a later law modifies an earlier one
in some way, the later law applies.  The federal courts have made an
exception to this for the Records Act.  The Records Act itself must be
explicitly and intentionally addressed and amended in the new law for
any new law's procedures to override those of the Records Act.  This
means the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady Act's requirement that background check
records NOT be kept is VOID.  The feds conducting the program could be
PROSECUTED if they destroy the records.

#2  The FBI is taking a very sneaky tack on the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady
permision-to-exercise-your-rights checks.  They are saying that the gun
check program is one thing, and the records of that might have to
disappear (this is questionable), but the access of FBI records is a
separate thing.  ANY TIME the FBI criminal databases or fingerprint
databases are checked, the person who is being checked and the reason
WILL BE KEPT.

#3  The NRA's fight to have states pass instant check systems was based
on their propaganda that the Metaksa/LaPierre/Brady invasions of privacy
would NOT be done by the feds if the state where the purchase was going
on had its own check.  Now it appears the feds are proposing they will
conduct the national check, regardless. There will be multiple layers of
checks.  In Fairfax County, VA, where the National Rifle Association,
Gun owners of America, and ironically, GunsSaveLives, are headquartered,
a handgun buyer at the end of this year will get the same check, through
the federal database, THREE time to buy a handgun.  The locals check for
handgun buys.  The state checks all firearms purchases from dealers.
The feds will now be checking ALSO, they are proposing, and the state
law has not been and will not be modified this year to stop the
repetitive checks of the same data.  Buying a handgun in a store there
will create THREE 99-year records in the FBI's files of the single
purchase.  If you go to the state police for a permit to buy more than
one handgun in 30 days, the single act of buying two handguns will
create FOUR computer checks and computer records, as the state police
will run your background AGAIN for this permit.  Just one example of how
the vaunted NRA instant check will not have any records kept.

#4  At each stage of all this, the local and state governments may or
may not be under any compunction or compulsion to keep or detroy
records.  It doesn't matter.  Which prosecutor (in most places) will
prosecute cops for NOT destroying government property?  Almost
everywhere there is a background check, somebody keeps a record. It is
the nature of government.

#5  The ironic thing about this is many of the pro-gun people around the
country who have fought and contributed and worked to prevent national
computer registration of gun owners in earlier years have EMBRACED this
insidious plan.  It is the demarcation line.  For years, federal
computer records of who has guns has been the big enchilada of the gun
movement.  The boogie man.  It's here.  Thanks to the NRA for joing with
HCI and the ATF, wittingly or unwittingly.

--Rick Vizachero
chairman, GunsSaveLives
(personal opinions, and not those of any organization)

walter lee wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------- http://GunsSaveLives.com
> Nancy, Jim and others:
>
>         I sent this to Tanya last week. When I say in the letter to her,  that
> instant checks are not bad in theory, I mean that.  If one could get
> clearance in one minute with no records of the call kept and no fee, I
> don't have are reason to be against it-- if it served a purpose.  It the
> feds would prosecute any violent felon or fugitive to the max for trying
> to buy a gun, then everyone would be safer.  However, the feds don't
> prosecute, the want fees, there is still a potential six day wait, and
> they are setting it up for registration.
>
>         By the way, under the proposed federal rules, the instant checks don't
> effect people with state CHLs that include background checks in the
> application.  My objection is on principle.  They already have my name,
> but they won't have a list of transactions.
>
> Walter LeeInstant check (walter lee , Sat 15:38)
> To:
>     [e-mail]
>
> Given the rules the rules posted concerning the "instant background
> check"  it is time for the NRA and ILA to reconsider its endorsement.
>
> The instant check is not instant.  Allow three business days for
> results, which translates up to six calendar days.  Call on Wednesday
> morning.  Currently, the day of the call does not count.  Maybe it will
> under the new ruling.  Wednesday, Thursday, Friday (three business days)
> , Saturday, Sunday, National Holiday.  They call you Tuesday and
> comply.  There is nothing instant about it.
>
> There are serious fees imposed;  13 to 16 dollars per transaction is the
> estimate.  On a two thousand dollar trap gun, its like nothing.  On a
> used, sixty dollar .22 rifle it comes to a 25% increase.
>
> They asked for SS#s.  Its volunteer, but...
>
> I have been told that because Federal computers are involved, the data
> will be retained "for audit purposes" "by law."  I have also been told
> that the record will be discarded when the applicant turns  99.
>
> Some of this comes directly from the BATF website--in terms of time and
> money.
>
> I can agree that an instant background check is not bad in theory but
> the devil is in the details and those details are what we have to live
> by.  Please, Please, Please oppose the rules submitted by the FBI and
> ATF before its too late.
>
> Demand that instant be instant.  Congress appropriated money to set up
> the system.  Don't try to make gun owners pay for it again.
>
> I have heard three dealers say they are going to quit when their FFLs
> expire.  We are running out of dealers in my neck of the woods.  The
> rules of the instant checks are one of the things that are driving them
> out.
>
> Please register an objection to these details.
>
> Walter Lee
> Life Member
>
> --------------------------
> 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.

--
Don't agonize.  Organize.
http://GunsSaveLives.com


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


-